> > In order to get this info, you want me to wander
> up to Greg in a bar, ...
> I didn't specify anyone, dear, just "someone".
Yeah, I know, but I see no other answers, and I doubt if the identity of the questioner would make much difference to the problem.
> And you think he's any more
> coherent when he's had time to think about it?
Possibly. Under these circumstances even a normally coherent person wouldn't stand much of a chance. But no, that's why I don't bother asking the question in the first place - not for definitive answers. Interesting and creative answers, sure, but not definitive ones.
> Well, without knowing when he was illuminated, it
> makes a hash of saying
> that a hero gets illuminated (or is in danger of it)
> on the LBQ...
Agreed. So we'd better read some sources to find out what we'd be contradicting by going either way.
Hang on, we have a quick method of searching all possible Gloranthan sources, with every detail indexed. Peter Metcalfe, are you out there? We need your memory.
> > If I see him later today, I'll mention that the
> > question is being asked. Then he can have a few
> days
> > thinking time before coming up with an answer.
>
> Heck, the messages will probably make it moot by
> then :-).
Quite - so don't bother asking, have a coherent (or incoherent) discussion here, answer becomes GaG, problem solved.
> Remember that i'm used to picking up the phone and
> calling him if there's a question...
Doesn't he have a mobile? Fire up Skype and call him (well, not now, it's not quite 7am).
Powered by hypermail