> Of course I'm taking it personally, Rob (and no, I don't mind you
> saying). I'm not so arrogant or affecting that I don't mind
admitting
> so. I wrote a piece which Jeff argues is based on false pretences.
> Jeff and I don't agree, and we've argued it through. I'm open to
> charges of stubborn self-interest; Jeff, in trying to assert a
> negative, of party-pooping. We both have to live with that.
Yep, I agree with Stu here. Hopefully we can live with it.:)
> What I don't like is how things like this can grow, and what is
> limited concept gets made into a piece for argument out of its
> context. I'm reminding people of this for Jeff's sake, as much as
> mine. Bear in mind that the whole discussion went off the rails
from
> the off, regarding the 'inquisition' issue.
My bad. Again, I really did not mean to get the discussion "off the rails" but I guess these things happen.
> By nature, I'm always a bit funny of assertions to the negative.
So in
> an Empire of a little under 10 million people and five dozen plus
> major denominations, I do wonder how/why such would be made. If
you
> want to take that as my hubris, that's your prerogative.
I don't think that is hubris - I do think there is a tendency for folk to want to fit every story that they've ever thought of into their campaigns and into Glorantha. Which is cool and probably makes great campaigns. But collectively, it often results in a mess.
Jeff
Powered by hypermail