From: Nick Brooke (email@example.com)
Date: Wed 29 Jan 1997 - 15:34:51 EET
I am just back from RQ-Con Chicago, only to find myself traduced in my
absence by an irritatingly persistent and self-important dweeb.
Stephen P Martin writes:
> One of Nick's other comments in that message (that no new material
> is being published anymore) is absolutely untrue, as Greg continues
> to work, put out books, and the work which is planned for the future
I actually wrote:
: there's no mass-market commercial/"official" published material
: coming out any more.
Now, call me odd, but Greg's recent expensive (though cheaply produced)
draft "work in progress" manuscripts, which he openly states to be
inaccurate, as yet unsuitable for publication (except to hard-core
Glorantha fans), and subject to ongoing changes and revisions, and which
have little or no connection to our games and are available only through
specialist mail order or at Gloranthan conventions, don't look like
mass-market commercial publications to me.
Maybe the words "mass-market commercial publication" mean something
different in Californian? Something different enough to warrant calling my
comment "absolutely untrue", perhaps? I doubt it, and feel rather put out
at Stephen P Martin for calling me a liar. I look forward to an apology.
Further to that, Stephen P Martin's claim that "work planned for the
future" is in fact coming out now is rather an unfounded leap of faith: by
this token, none of us should be working on HeroQuest rule systems for
ourselves, as the "official" ones will be coming out Next Year, at about
the same time we'll be getting a Gloranthan edition of RQ4, it seems...
> Maybe if Nick would stop taking any disagreement I have with him
> (or anyone else) as an attack, this type of discussion wouldn't
> need to go on so long.
As Stephen P Martin considers use of the popular and affectionate nickname
"Stevie" to be "an attack", it is perhaps understandable that I have no
idea which "attacks" (on himself or others) he is referring to here. (If
anyone does know, please could you tell me?). For the record, my potential
"attacks" on Stephen P Martin since his all-too-recent entry to the
Glorantha Daily (a mere month and a half ago) have amounted to:
1. Politely quibbling about Stevie's claim to have made one of
my own astronomical discoveries relating to Argrath's Ring
(politely, because "plagiarism" is such an ugly word...);
2. Demurring from Stevie's uninformed newbie statement that
all of us think everything we post to the Daily is "True"
(how would *he* know, after just a week or two on-line?);
3. Offering to cancel my event at RQ-Con Chicago so that the
50-player feature-event LARP which Stevie did not finish
writing would be able to go ahead (it didn't, alas!);
4. Pointing out the existence of native Praxian dog species and
spirits (contra Stevie) in "official" sources (including one
which he rewrote/edited himself!);
5. Derailing Stevie's crackpot theory about pigs coming from
Balazar by reference to named, cited, "official" sources;
6. Exploding Stevie's silly comparison of Heler and Elmal by
reference to named, cited, "official" sources;
7. Remonstrating with Stevie about his attempts to "speak for
me" by speculating about my personal reasons for dropping
a project which he was only peripherally involved with;
8. Suggesting to Stevie that, with a strong Telmori presence in
Ralios, it might be confusing to give Ralian Humakti wolfish
allied spirits (which it would be);
9. Worrying that if the main tool of the EWF in Peloria had
been five pre-existing Yelmic cults (as posited by Stevie),
it might appear less Draconic than Boringly Old Hat;
10. Using the popular and affectionate nickname "Stevie" to
refer to Mr Stephen P Martin Esq. throughout this list.
Now, other than the tenth (which I now know to be classed as an "attack",
in Stephen P Martin's own peculiar mindset), I can't see which of these is
a particularly hostile, destructive or unjustified post, by the standards
either of the Glorantha Daily or of normal civilised debate (although
Stephen P Martin appears to be unfamiliar with both of these).
My posts waver between constructive criticism and source-citations of the
type Stephen P Martin himself has championed. Most aren't "disagreements" -
they are speedy refutations of theories posted by Stephen P Martin which
run counter to our published sources and our collective gaming experience.
They certainly aren't anything like the great flame-wars of bygone days,
though as Stephen P Martin never saw any of these, his confusion is perhaps
understandable. (If you want to see hostility on the Daily, Stevie, just
you try calling me a liar again).
To sum up, if Stephen P Martin is upset to learn that among his writings
are copious quantities of non-Gloranthan rubbish which won't stand up to a
moment's inspection, I'm very sorry to be among the first to point it out.
But why on earth should I let him get away with it, just because he has
free access to Greg Stafford's waste-paper basket, and an overweening sense
of his own ability and importance?
My RQ-Con Chicago report will follow by the next post; I'm off to stick
pins into a Stephen P Martin-shaped voodoo doll... (Yep, I'm still fuming
about that "absolutely untrue" line: God, what a prat the man can be!)
==== | New Uses |
Nick | for |
==== | Old Toads! |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:56:44 EEST