From: rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo)
Subject: Re: Screaming at the Sun
Followup-To: rec.games.netrek
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:18:57 GMT

ZZnew guy writes:
>[I, Felix, write:]

>> >	Randy said, simply, that if you continued to flame him, that he would
>> >not play you.  You have said the same of TOFW.
>
>> Again, wrong.  Randy and others said that our getting a rematch was
>> contingent on us shutting up.
>
>	This is probably the biggest problem with what you're saying.  Randy
>very quickly agreed to a re-match with the 12AM captain.  He posted this
>to RGN.  Several people continued to flame him (probably due to slow
>news-feeds).  He said that if people continued, he would cancel the
>match.  You responded with a very deliberate flame (not a slow news feed
>-- it mentioned his post).

No, sorry, that was Ged.

>	You state repeatedly that you don't speak for HB, and that we TOFW
>should ignore what you say.  As last I heard, you were team captain, and
>minister of truth.  Who else should we listen to?

First off, I'm not "team captain."  Secondly, you can listen to whomever
you want (though I'm really not sure why you keep up with these dumb articles,
seeing as you're not involved) -- just don't take me saying "I won't be there"
as "plain, eggplant, paranoid, aramis, no clue, spam, Vampyre, King Crimson,
King Solomon, and others won't be there."  It's an exceedingly simple matter
of reading comprehension.

>> >	I'm not trying to say that TOFW or CrackPot were *ALL* right.  I'm just
>> >trying to say that there are some interesting parallels.  There are.
>
>> Well, sure.  Hey, both games were also INL netrek games.  And all players
>> were male.  And we all used keyboards at the same time.  Wow.
>
>	Fine.  Keep your eyes shut.  
>	The biggest parallel between HB (you) and CP (Randy) is that you both
>refused to play a game to prove that your team is better, to make up for
>a lagged out game thus calling your wins into question.  In both cases,
>I was sure that the team that refused to play would win.  I don't
>understand the attitude.

You seem to persist in deleting the relevant bits of my post.  For the third
time, I've sent numerous queries to Exodus and have as of this date received
none (zero).  If Exodus were seriously interested in a rematch, he might take
the time to mail me, the scheduling guy.  If he were even vaguely interested
in a rematch, he might even answer the mail from me, the scheduling guy.

And that's where your post falls into the realm of complete bullshit.  I 
haven't "refused to play a game", because there hasn't even been a moment's
worth of discussion on the topic.  I have said that I personally don't feel
like playing against Exodus.  Maybe you're having trouble with that
reading comprehension thing again.

>ZZnew guy

I know you must be disappointed that your analogy doesn't work out, but do
us both a favor and stop removing the facts from my posts before you respond
to them, if you feel you've got to try to save face or whatever.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Sebastian Gallo                              rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA