Re: [Epic] Infiltrators

From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+_at_...>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:54:43 -0400 (EDT)

Tyler Provick <bprovick_at_...> writes:
> At 01:27 PM 9/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >At 01:27 PM 9/5/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It sounds like Allen the Q & A Guy should step in on this one; ask the
> >>>Great Jervis and/or Andy what's up with this. It seems to me that only the
> >>>people who can't take advantage of this think it's cheese. If you think
> >>>it's cheese and you CAN do this super first turn move, then I'll pay more
> >>>attention to what you have to say. Otherwise...
> >>>
> >>If you talked about something you knew about, then I'd care whether or not
> >>you payed attention to me.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Whoa there, Tex. What on Earth makes you think I don't know what I'm
> >talking about? First off, what I did with the infiltrators was perfectly
> >legal; if you think that it was cheesy, that is your opinion and you are
> >welcome to it.

> I don't really see how your opinion of the way I choose to comment is part
> of public forum. I'm sure that some people like me fine, but I am not trying
> to start a civil war between listers. Nickles, you want to complain about my
> tone of type, then you have my E-mail.

        It's relevant to the public forum, IMHO, because I find the
tone of the statement somewhat offensive and accusatory. From what
I've seen, this sort of tone tends to degenerate into name-calling
and flame wars if it doesn't die out. I'd rather not see it on the
list.

> What we have here, is someone accusing someone of being cheesy, and the
> accused, or alledged cheeser. Hmm, all this cheese is making me hungry.
> Alright, what we have here is someone accusing someone of being a munchkin,
> and the accused, or alledged munchkin is offended. Offended enough to try to
> pass off the accusers opinion as another comment that the munchkin
> (alledged, mind you) is not impressed with.

        You're not the only voice in the argument. We were still
discussing the legality of it as well as the cheeziness. I remember a
statement earlier in the thread where I think you suggested that the
move wasn't legal. The response you flamed was in response to, IMHO,
a reasonable reply.

        Actually, that's not what I'm seeing. What I see is that
you're accusing someone of being uninformed and ignorant. The
following statement is what he's taking offense to, and I would too if
it was addressed to me. It has little to do with the Inflitrator issue.

> >>If you talked about something you knew about, then I'd care whether or not
> >>you payed attention to me.

Mark
Received on Mon Sep 08 1997 - 14:54:43 UTC