I will say this again...and this is the last time.
I was merely pointing out that the rules in the book, as they apply
to the way PCGen implements them, are very clear. Thus, the debate
that was being made, on this PCGen oriented board which deals with
the way PCGen implements rules from sourcebooks, was pointless.
Hopefully this clears up any misconceptions about my opinions on
debates. Debates about relevant topics are good...I enjoy a good
Ah well, clear as mud, right?
and, the obligatory quote from Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to
say about that."
"Life's a hench." <HEE HAW> - Nodwick coffee mug
--- In pcgen@y..., Mynex <mynex3@c...> wrote:
> Haffhand, the very same question could be asked of you for this
> Regardless, debates on this group happen quite often, and many, MANY
> people play devil's advocate. Many people on this group are more
> willing to look at issues multiple times from different directions
> a consensus is reached on how to handle something. And sometimes
> have to repeat their arguments as the original message has been
> the shuffle or misunderstood through various replies. This is
> new here, and won't change, nor do we want it to change.
> As for 'traits' to be inferred, I _could_ make many of them from
> question, as I've seen many "questions" like this at the WotC
> but we're generally a bit more friendly here.
> - #1 Evil Assistant to the PCGen Code Monkeys
> - List files & Documentation Silverback
> - RPG Reviews Editor & Reviewer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: haffhand [mailto:bacchus@m...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 11:02 PM
> To: pcgen@y...
> Subject: [pcgen] Re: Level, Skills, Feats, and Summary Tab
> --- In pcgen@y..., "arknathd" <gemguard@h...> wrote:
> > --- In pcgen@y..., Scott Ellsworth <scott@a...> wrote:
> > >
> But I still say the debate is pointless.
> This is twice now you've engaged in a debate you believe to be
> pointless. Same debate, but done twice. What traits of you is one
> supposed to infer from that?