Re: [NetEpic ML] Epic 40K revision

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:18:52 -0400

Hi!

I gotta a problem with this. If we are already in the hole because of what we do here, then why bother? If this groups opinions are going to be measured by "who they came from" and not "how good they are", again why bother?

I'd rather still produce and send separately, if he chooses to ignore it so be it. Of course this does not preclude that IF the ball indeed is seen to roll we can then merge, but first I want to see that "being reasonable" works both ways.

I know it must be apparent I'm not crazy about this new epic thing, but quite frankly I'm dubious on how well meaning this "input attitude" is. I may be proven dead wrong, at least I hope to be, but that remains to be seen. At this point I sincerely hope that the optimistic attitude of others rubs on the me too.

Peter
 
> -->The E40K mechanics are here to stay, like it or not. Jervis is not
> going to surrender on this, no matter what. His rant proved that. So,
> it is my opinion that if we want to have any real input into this new
> edition, then we will probably have to work with the other list to do so.
> Ain't politics grand?
>
> Josh R
>
> "No matter where you go, there you are." B.Bonzai
Received on Mon Feb 11 2002 - 17:18:52 UTC