From: oneil@husc10.harvard.edu (John O'Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.games.frp.live-action
Subject: Re: Looking for info/recommendations
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:36:03 GMT
 DU><ONEIL.93Jan22000456@husc10.harvard.edu><1993Jan22.082345.1625@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU's message of Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:23:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.082345.1625@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (TAYLOR JASON EDMOND) writes:
>
>I agree with you on at least one point...we're not going to agree.
>

So far, so good.  Unfortunately, it continues:

>I specifically avoided the Walt Frietag issue because this was a
>_discussion_, not a revelation of personal problems with members of an
>organization. 

Unless being punished for one's good deeds is a "personal problem", I
don't think that's a fair characterization of what happened.  However,
Walt deserves his privacy, doubly so since he's not on the net, so
I'll refrain from continuing.

>Truth is, I don't know much about the Frietag business.
>And I don't really care. I know that _I've_ never had a enough of a problem
>with anyone in the IFGS to quit the organization entirely, and God knows
>I haven't exactly "fallen in line" with mainstream opinion. 

Congratulations, but we weren't discussing you.

>If you want to
>make some grand revelation, fine. It is unfortunate that such a negative
>posting will probably not do justice to the thousands of people who
>HAVEN'T quit IFGS.

I shan't post anything concerning it (as I said, Walt deserves his
privacy).

>What angered me so much is, all throughout every posting you make little
>comments alluding to how much SIL is better than IFGS, 

This thread started when soneone asked about the SIL's rules versus
the IFGS/NERO rules.  I obliged with my honest and educated opinion on
the subject, which necessarily requires some comparative and
contrastive remarks.

However, AT NO TIME did I claim any blanket superiority for either
organization.  I do not know why you have chosen to interpret my
comments in such a knee-jerk, defensive way.

>without ever coming
>out and saying, "SIL is better than IFGS." 

I never did; that's the point.

>I don't mind if you want to give
>your group a positive image. But DON'T DO IT AT THE EXPENSE OF MINE. You
>have the right to say what you want. 

Gee, I extend my heartfelt appreciation for permission to speak my
mind on the Usenet (so long as it doesn't impact the IFGS.)

>But at least show a little courtesy.

I have shown courtesy, constantly, during this discussion (at least
until the sarcasm just above.)

>
>IFGS is a great organization, period. If I'm obviously biased in my
>opinion (which, unlike other SIL suppoters here, I am willing to admit).

Getting practice at the snide side-comment, are we?  Didn't you make a
comment about 'courtesy' just above?

>If someone in this newsgroup wants an honest opinion, ask someone like
>the gent back a few postings who said he did both and offered an honest
>critique of both systems.

So I'm lying?  This must be a further redefinition of the word
"courtesy".

>BTW, IFGS characters DON'T have an "intellegence" score. :)

Shows you what I get for trying to defuse the 'combat controversy' by
using another example.

>
>'nuff said.

Indeed.  You seem perfectly willing to turn this into a flame war, and
I'm not going to back down after being accused of dishonesty, bias,
and discourtesy, aside from being misquoted and misinterpreted.

It's up to you.  I hope that this is the end of it; I don't think that
anything more can usefully be said on this thread.  If you're not
satisfied, then go ahead with the napalm.
--
John O'Neil
"Occasionally I believed I had thoughts of my own --  who does not now
 and then become the victim of such delusions?"
						-- Paul Feyerabend