Re: [Epic] Infiltrators

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:58:44 +0200 (MET DST)

At 12:02 PM 8/9/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Oh, dear. Here I'm going to say stuff and hope I don't
>sound self-righteous.
>We've always been a bit smug around here about not being a
>flame-fest such as the WH40K lists. We've disagreed about
>a bunch of things in the past, and yes, we've had a few
>flamewars. (I think the 2nd Ed. Doomweaver one was much worse
>than 2nd Ed vs Net Epic vs Epic 40K one that caused so many
>to leave. I was very pleased to see the mature way people
>got over it and deciding to agree to disagree about it. I
>think the number of people leaving after the latter feud was
>partly because the Net Epic work wasn't fully welcomed to take
>place on this list, and because of people feeling outnumbered.)
>Lately I've seen some responses on this list that have been
>really caustic compared to the statements that provoked them.
>I'm not saying old-timers on the list have any special priveleges,
>but a couple of times I've seen lately someone relatively new
>flame someone else that has been around for years contributing
>in a friendly and helpful way. The more experienced aren't
>above being corrected, but the flaming seems awfully rude.
>(Very often the flamer has been a contributor to the list,
>though new. We welcome the contributions, but ask for some
>self-control in the phrasings. Always remember that the
>issues just look different to the guy on the other side of
>the argument. Your position just isn't as obvious to them.)
>In the discussion at hand, we didn't need the assumption that
>people that disagree must be unable to take advantage of what
>the assumer was supporting. On the other hand, nor did we need
>cries of cheese being thrown around. (By the way, Tyler, or whoever
>switched to "munchkin" because "cheese" made them hungry, did you
>know "munchkins" are the name for Dunkin' Donuts' doughnut holes?
>That makes me much hungrier than "cheese" did. :-) If someone's
>assumptions of what something in the game represents are different
>than what yours are, things that look like misuse to you may seem
>like the appropriate response from the other side. I agree with
>Mark in not appreciating a comment made about someone else, but
>I thought the comment that provoked it was sorta annoying too.
>I wouldn't say it was wrong to believe that a suggested tactic
>was not in the spirit of the rules. Go ahead and let your opinions
>be known. Just don't get personal, and try not to be intentionally
>(Just thought of an old disagreement on the list. Hey, Agro, what
>was it that you supported on the list vs the opinion of just about
>every other member? I can't remember what it was, though you caused
>quite a few of us to think over some basic part of the game.)

EPIC 2nd Edition?

(Just kidding - but I did get one heck of a good flaming over that one!)

But, realistically, what HAVEN'T I supported against the opinion of just
about every other contributer?

(More kidding...)

The topic you're probably thinking of is Titans and Close Combat...

And, to remain on thread, I totally agree that responding to reasoned
opinions with flames is reprehensible (and I aught to know - my "reasoned"
opinions draw more flames than just about anyone else...), but might I
suggest that nothing pisses off someone flaming you faster than a reasoned
response to their flame...


>In summary, let's not let this list turn into what seems typical
>of most GW discussion groups. I know we've had a lot of turnover.
>But let's stay civil. Be yourself, but don't be a slave to yourself.
>I'm not intending to preach, and I have no authoritative position
>in this newsgroup.

BUT, a voice of reason is often respected for its own sake...

> I have been around for a while, however, and
>have enjoyed the list, and don't want to see this sort of change.
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:51 UTC