From: Arkat@aol.com
Date: Thu 01 Aug 1996 - 18:57:10 EEST
It seems as I have ended up doing something that I really didn't want to do
when I wrote this:
>Who the hell made this up? If it ain't in an official (by official I mean
>Chaosium-approved) published source, it ain't so for the rest of us (unless
>some of you other guys buy into this load of crap).
Judging from Mike Raaterova's reply,
>When i 'commented' on John Brown's defensive post, i wrote:
>>I actually feel insulted by your dogmatic attitude to non-canonical ideas.
>Please 'arrogant' and 'patronising' after dogmatic. I was very tired and
>couldn't find the right words.
it seems as though I flamed him and maybe a few others.
I am sorry.
It just really bugs me when people replace objective sources like Cults of
Prax with other less reliable subjective sources. Maybe this shows some
limited thinking on my part or maybe it shows other's limited access to
objective source material. I don't know. But I assure everyone that I am not
here to insult anyone. Challenge their points of view? Definitely. But
resorting to character assassination and the like to make myself feel better?
Hopefully not.
Mr. Raaterova, please accept my humblest apologies for calling your ideas
crap. I still don't agree with them and I invite you to keep defending them
on the Digest if you still believe in them and if you're not tired of hearing
from jerks like me ;-)
Thanks.
BTW...I never saw this comment
>I actually feel insulted by your dogmatic attitude to non-canonical ideas.
until you posted it in V3 #091 in the Digest. Could you send me the original
so that I can update my archive?
John Brown
Arkat@aol.com
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:51:56 EEST