Re: Fortunate Succession

From: Nick Brooke <Nick_Brooke_at_btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:08:23 +0100

I think we can all now see how Martin Laurie has carelessly "broken" some of Greg's most prized and carefully explained concepts. I therefore withdraw the unwarranted aspersion I cast in V7#581 ("Martin's One Rule").

It is unusual for me to find myself *defending* Dara Happan orthodoxy
(extracted from the works-in-progress) *against* the Issaries Inc party
line. I don't enjoy doing this as much as I enjoy my real creative work, however, and I for one will be delighted when Wes and Martin post their humble apologies and withdraw. It can't be long now...

For the record, I think Dave Cake and Peter Metcalfe's posts in V7#603 re: the Parts of the Emperor cannot and need not be improved upon. And I agree 100% with Peter's second (parenthesised) paragraph.

BTW, I note that in the course of this discussion I have whole-heartedly and publicly agreed with a great number of other posters (Donald Oddy, Alex Ferguson, Michael O'Brien, Trotsky, Peter Metcalfe, Dave Cake). Perhaps the "consensus" Martin says he's looking for has been visible all along -- only it's the *wrong* consensus?

(Always remember, though: "The opponents of Laurie were a conspiracy of wild
rebels who sought to resurrect Gbaji." Who controls the present, controls the past...)

:::: Email: <mailto:Nick_Brooke_at_btinternet.com> Nick
:::: Website: <http://www.btinternet.com/~Nick_Brooke/>

---