Re: [s-d] [s-b] oh come on

0x44 on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:43:00 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] oh come on

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] oh come on
From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:40:55 -0600
In-reply-to: <653283240901201540n6c7ebb35t675b33966ee2410b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <03B2B9F8-170C-45F3-B9B3-51F326F6BE18@xxxxxxxxx> <49761253.6080005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650901201518r84ccdc5r241a23a2452125e9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <653283240901201540n6c7ebb35t675b33966ee2410b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)

Geoffrey Spear wrote:

You're missing the fact that some players insist on interpreting the
rules in the way that means they're the most broken, even if this
interpretation isn't at all reasonable.

It's not that. I just chose to subscribe to the interpretation mostlikely to get me out of being drafted into rewriting rule 5e10.


--
--
0x44;

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

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] oh come on
  - From: 0x44
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] oh come on
  - From: Jamie Dallaire
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] oh come on
  - From: Geoffrey Spear

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] oh come on
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Excuse Me?!
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] oh come on
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] oh come on
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread