Re: RE: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Line-jumping

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

20/07/2003 01:45:31, "Craig" <ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> >>Award Anything McGee the title "Knight of the
>>>> Failure Scam."
>>>> >
>>>> >I would say that Anything McGee may be deserving of
>>>> the 'Unwitting Architect' status, as it was his prop
>>>> that bought all this to notice originally
>>>> >
>>>> -I should add "Unwitting Architect" into the Scams
>>>> prop... I'll do it tomorrow. I knew I was forgetting
>>>> something.-
>>>
>>>May I suggest instead you do like we did in our scam
>>>for Mr. in a Spacesuit?  "Pawn of the XXXX Scam".
>>>
>>>More in keeping with the pattern.  And funnier.
>>>
>>-"Pawn" is already in that proposal, and you're right, it does sort of fit
>better... I should change the definition of who gets to be a
>>Pawn, though. I don't think that the person who wrote the rules used gets
>anything yet, or if they do, they get Knight, when they should
>>really get Pawn.-
>
>There's always "Rook" for the most architectural piece involved...
>

Rook is a more valuable piece than the Knight in chess, being rated at 5 pawns to the knights 3 pawn value

SkArcher

> -- Teucer
>
>"Best case scenario: free ice cream for all. Worst case scenario: World War
>3-27"
> -carbon
>
>ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx
>teucer@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>_______________________________________________
>spoon-discuss mailing list
>spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
>
 


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss