General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
That's a non-argument, though. Who would purposefully hold opinions that they feel are not representative of the truth?
It's not clear to me what is being claimed, but someone is certainly welcome to claim they are speaking the truth. Whether that is "objective" of course depends on how convincing the evidence is. I would rather talk about their position than their right to claim to know the truth, which I believe is a right every person has.
Again, the poster was presenting his opinions as fact, and acting in a dismissive way toward the possibility that they are not, in fact, fact. And I continue to maintain that sophistry concerning the nature of truth has rather nothing to do with the issue...the issue being debate etiquette.
__________________ Formerly known as Dr. Awkward
When you get to be a certain age, everything that is cool seems to be a lot of nonsensical, idiotic jibberish. The music that blares from the pimp rides makes no sense; it all sounds like a man with severe autism halfheartedly explaining human sexuality to a parrot, while in the background a dangerously unqualified Caribbean contractor rhythmically installs an automatic garage door opener. Bollocks.
--Jeffery Rowland
wigu.com
The D20 NPC Wiki needs YOU to post your characters! Try my non-asian, non-hocus-pocus martial artist class, the bruiser! While you're at it, also try my vitality/wound point system, intended to eliminate the "15 minute adventuring day." Number of posters so far added to my ignore list due to the enormity of their spelling and grammar: 6
Ah, but what about the belief that objective reality doesn't exist, but that knowing even that, objectively, isn't possible?
Speaking for my own subjective view of reality, all reality is subjective, therefore there really isn't any reality at all. But since that's my subjective idea, it could very well not be real, which means that objective reality could exist, and I just don't see it. But I don't think so.
In your view, is it possible to objectively know that it is impossible to know that objective reality exists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwhs01
This is the kind of conversation which happens only when i'm not drunk, but it seems i should be
Philosophical ponderings happen when we're drunk, IMHO, because we let our guard down. Normally, when sober, we don't like admitting that we haven't much of a clue as to what life is all about.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Y
Special because they are the main characters and do the important things in the world yes. Special because the laws of the universe give them VIP treatment, no.
PC: " dont give me any lip guardsman Joe. I am a PC. I have healing surges!!"
Guardsman Joe: " Big deal so do I. Bring it on!"
PC: " Well I can activate mine!"
Guardsman Joe: " "
1st edition/2nd edition PC: Don't give me any lip, 0 level NPC. You don't even have hit dice, and I've got a name level!
3rd edition PC: Don't give me any lip, NPC. What do you have, Expert levels? I am a PC, and I have class abilities, good hit dice, higher wealth by level, and probably some bonus feats.
PCs have always been called out as special cases in the rules. 4th edition NPCs can be built using the rules for building PCs, including things like Second Wind. In most cases, they aren't, because it streamlines play.
__________________ Formerly known as Dr. Awkward
When you get to be a certain age, everything that is cool seems to be a lot of nonsensical, idiotic jibberish. The music that blares from the pimp rides makes no sense; it all sounds like a man with severe autism halfheartedly explaining human sexuality to a parrot, while in the background a dangerously unqualified Caribbean contractor rhythmically installs an automatic garage door opener. Bollocks.
--Jeffery Rowland
wigu.com
The D20 NPC Wiki needs YOU to post your characters! Try my non-asian, non-hocus-pocus martial artist class, the bruiser! While you're at it, also try my vitality/wound point system, intended to eliminate the "15 minute adventuring day." Number of posters so far added to my ignore list due to the enormity of their spelling and grammar: 6
In your view, is it possible to objectively know that it is impossible to know that objective reality exists?
It's possibly possible, sure, but probably not. It's possible, though, that it's certainly possible to be almost sure, but some or all of that just might be wrong. If wrongness exists.
__________________
"I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me."
- Simone de Beauvoir
It's possibly possible, sure, but probably not. It's possible, though, that it's certainly possible to be almost sure, but some or all of that just might be wrong. If wrongness exists.
"You have given out too many Experience Points in the last 24 hours. Try again later."
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Umm, using the word 'tank' to describe a heavily armored damage soaking melee machine has been in use as long as I've been gaming, which was the late 70s.
My fault for not being clear - - I'm glad that they didn't use the term 'tank' AT THE SAME TIME that they were introducing 'Strikers' and 'Controllers' into the terminology. I definitely see the parallels to MMORPGs, though I won't claim that it IS an MMORPG.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
[quote=ExploderWizard;4554800]You are right, my bad. The problem lies with the game interacting with the world.[/2uote]
However, it relies entirely on NPC design and how that interacts with the world.
The game makes assumptions about the world DURING FIGHTS.
The PC is going to be in just about every fight the player sees.
An NPC is going to rarely be in more than one fight the player sees.
Giving the NPC daily resources doesn't make sense in this concept ... nearly all their resources are thus encounter based. They don't get (many) healing surges, they get tons of HP instead. They don't get daily powers, they get non rechargable encounter powers. They also have the option of rechargeable encounter powers, "replacing" a PCs encounter powers. Elite or Solo monsters get action points, just like the PCs . They don't get feats and magic items and 1/2 level increases and masterwork quality, etc, etc, etc ... they just get a simplified system of tracking that, and leave it to the PCs to have to do extra math.
There are characters in the world that are just like the PCs ... if they get into the fight, the "protagonist" PCs and "antagonist" PCs would have the antagonists be played as NPCs. In some cases, the opposing NPCs may have some more power than the PCs, such as recharging their encounter powers and being willing to use up dailies. Also, there are NPC powers that aren't necessarily learnable by a PC ... so some NPCs are more special than the PCs. In fact with all the high level monsters to fight [which can be NPC characters built to have classes] the specialness of the PCs is relative to peasants for the most part in the early level.
Quote:
Special because they are the main characters and do the important things in the world yes. Special because the laws of the universe give them VIP treatment, no.
PC: " dont give me any lip guardsman Joe. I am a PC. I have healing surges!!"
Guardsman Joe: " Big deal so do I. Bring it on!"
PC: " Well I can activate mine!"
Guardsman Joe: " "
And yet the PCs have a lot lower HP than most NPCs ... precisely because the NPC's "healing surges" have been rolled into that HP. A PC may have more HP available "per day", but it is possible for them to die by massive damage.
Quote:
We are using the same definition with regard to hero. Being unique in the world is kind of a superheroic trait. If the PC's are adventurers who get to use different rules from everyone else, how were they trained? Were they sent to the planet like Superman or did the powers manifest overnight like on the TV series Heroes?
NPCs can have levels in the PC classes. They can be trained by other low level adventurers.
NPCs, especially ones comparable to PCs, may not have as many powers or healing surges, but they have more hit points, and the ability to recharge powers. Ultmately this is because they are only represting the monster/NPC as an "in combat" character. It is only dealing with how the character interacts within a fight. Giving an NPC tons of healing surges ... but no way to activate more than 1 of them during a fight ... is pointless. The GAME assumes they will die after 1 encounter... recurring villains are exceptions to the rule, and fighting them in back to back battles isn't a given.
Quote:
Being able to call any kind of an attack a "stun" IS superhero comics.
It was included in the 4E combat system because nothing can stand in the way of PC's unleashing the full fury of thier combat powers without being labeled as unfun.
Applying the "same rules to everyone" ... a PC can knock down an opponent. Unless the PC does so much damage that the opponent is at negative bloodied, the opponent is not dead. Considering the fact that monsters have TONS of HP this will happen only in extremely rare circumstances. Thus, it is possible to stabilize an enemy before it fails it's third death save. For the sake of brevity, the player has the narrative power to determine whether the enemy survived long enough to be "saved". Or maybe they did make 1 non-lethal attack, which on top of all the "lethal" attacks means they are unconcious but not dying. Or, maybe the fight does end with all the enemies dying, but not dead, and the rogue goes around Coup de Grasing all the enemies just to be sure. Depending on the type of campaign, there a number of narrative ways to justify the ability to "set phasers to stun". You choose to interpret it one way, that then supports your feelings of the game being a superhero one.
I've had this debate before, and always find myself unsatisfied by the responses, but here goes:
Does it not feel, even to those who are huge fans of 4e, that a lot more of this 'dance of the narrative' has to be performed with this new ruleset. Here I'm thinking not just of the elective non-lethal bits, but things like Come and Get It, and any other powers that, without constructing or reconstructing the narrative, come off as quite a bit more 'super' or 'mystical' than earlier editions. In 3rd edition, there is no power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character. You can build a story in which it MIGHT make sense (I still debate this -but that's a different thread), but it just seems as if the amount of narrative construction required to bring the disbelief to an acceptable level is much higher in this edition.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
I've had this debate before, and always find myself unsatisfied by the responses, but here goes:
Does it not feel, even to those who are huge fans of 4e, that a lot more of this 'dance of the narrative' has to be performed with this new ruleset. Here I'm thinking not just of the elective non-lethal bits, but things like Come and Get It, and any other powers that, without constructing or reconstructing the narrative, come off as quite a bit more 'super' or 'mystical' than earlier editions. In 3rd edition, there is no power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character. You can build a story in which it MIGHT make sense (I still debate this -but that's a different thread), but it just seems as if the amount of narrative construction required to bring the disbelief to an acceptable level is much higher in this edition.
Yeah, I can see this. I suppose the abilities of the purely "Martial" characters do seem somewhat more mystical or magical than before. I, personally, like that. But I can see how a lot of people wouldn't.
__________________
"I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me."
- Simone de Beauvoir
I've had this debate before, and always find myself unsatisfied by the responses, but here goes:
Does it not feel, even to those who are huge fans of 4e, that a lot more of this 'dance of the narrative' has to be performed with this new ruleset. Here I'm thinking not just of the elective non-lethal bits, but things like Come and Get It, and any other powers that, without constructing or reconstructing the narrative, come off as quite a bit more 'super' or 'mystical' than earlier editions. In 3rd edition, there is no power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character. You can build a story in which it MIGHT make sense (I still debate this -but that's a different thread), but it just seems as if the amount of narrative construction required to bring the disbelief to an acceptable level is much higher in this edition.
Well, to use the specific example of Come and Get It... I always invision a scene like Neo provoking Agent Smith to attack him. There is no doubt for me that this is what should happen. Did Neo really make a "taunt" skill check against Smith Will defense? (Which might be how some games resolve this) - does this make me feel "more immersed" - or am I just worrying to much about game mechanics instead of just having things happen because they seem to make sense?
I could see a 3E implementation of this power. Roll a Bluff check against 10 + opponents HD, then he rolls a Will Save DC 10 + 1/2 your level + CHA modifier. And I could do this every round. In some round, it will probably work, Why not just say that it works only once per encounter (which means you can't accidentally break it because the PC boosted the DC or the enemy has a sucky Will Save). It's like taking 20 - you do as if you happened to have rolled a 20, but you took 20 times as long for this as if you had really bothered to roll.
---
I am not sure if I am actually addressing your point. Probably not. I guess I just don't bother often enough to discuss why something happens and more what happens. Because I couldn't do this in the real world, either. If I call someone on the street an and he hits me in the face for it, did I overcome his Will Defense with my Taunt? Or did I fail my Diplomacy check? Did he really beat my Armor Class and did deal hit point damage? Did I take any wounds? Am I blooded? That's not terms or concepts the real world operates on...
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Yeah, I can see this. I suppose the abilities of the purely "Martial" characters do seem somewhat more mystical or magical than before. I, personally, like that. But I can see how a lot of people wouldn't.
Your response is a better expression of my issue than I put in the original post - - the issue IS for me probably limited to martial characters getting freakish stuff...anything you want to give a wizard can be handled with 'It's the World of Illusion!' (sorry, channelled Doug Henning there), but fighters being able to force a genius-level IQ, Supremely Willful wizard with no weapon to move next to him demands the huge narrative stuff.
So I don't know if it's superheroic or not, but the suspension of disbelief, or the narration required to reconcile the effect with a mundane cause, is a big problem for me. It makes 4e a LOT easier to integrate with your campaign if you tend toward the over-the-top stuff.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
I've had this debate before, and always find myself unsatisfied by the responses, but here goes:
Does it not feel, even to those who are huge fans of 4e, that a lot more of this 'dance of the narrative' has to be performed with this new ruleset. Here I'm thinking not just of the elective non-lethal bits, but things like Come and Get It, and any other powers that, without constructing or reconstructing the narrative, come off as quite a bit more 'super' or 'mystical' than earlier editions. In 3rd edition, there is no power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character. You can build a story in which it MIGHT make sense (I still debate this -but that's a different thread), but it just seems as if the amount of narrative construction required to bring the disbelief to an acceptable level is much higher in this edition.
No more 'dance of the narrative' then is required to explain people shooting fireballs out of their fingertips or raising people from the dead. The only difference is that in D&D, fireballs and resurrection have tenure.
We are talking about a fantasy world here, with fireballs and dragons and beholders and stuff. I don't see where mundane guy who owns a sword really fits in, or has any business looking for the trouble that exists in that world. Still, the guy with a sword is a fantasy mainstay, and people want to play them. How do we make this mundane guy with the sword logically fit into this world? By letting him do the sort of things action heroes do, thats how.
I actually find it made less sense before, when your special powers consisted solely of "owns a sword".
Well, to use the specific example of Come and Get It... I always invision a scene like Neo provoking Agent Smith to attack him. SNIP...
I think you and I have talked about this before. I remain fearful that this thread will turn into CAGI Discussion #286, but for a bit:
the problem I have is the admittedly corner-ISH case of villains that have a strong willpower, a great intellect, and no desire to move next to the hero.
The Neo thing doesn't work for me because as is obvious from the rest of the film, Smith is an absolute hothead - he doesn't have a great deal of control.
For me the only fitting resolution would be to say that the power doesn't work on certain people, or grants a save, which then possibly 'nerfs' it to less than useless....I don't know.
The problem is not that I'm obsessed with mechanics, but that the effect APPEARS to be far from mundane (no save, you become a completely insurmountable force drawing all into you) but is given to a class that for me has in all prior editions been the most mundane. As Firesnakearies pointed out, for a lot of campaigns this is no biggie...for mine it is.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
This whole experience points thing slightly (okay, a lot) confuses me. What does "Your Experience Points Power is 1 Points" mean, exactly?
I've seen it in play for a while on another forum. Basically, people can give you Xp if they agree with your post. Your post count (depending on the system) and your total xp determines how much xp you can give. The idea being the more "respect" someone has, the more their opinion counts in giving other people "respect". The basic idea is that, over time, someone who makes lots of good points would get lots of XP, and people they feel make good points would get lots of XP, etc ... and thus the various levels can give other users an indication of their post history.
The whole thing breaks down however when there are "rep fests", an equivalent of posting to up your post count which has taken place on other forums, where a group constantly rep each other to increase their reputations ... of course that really only served to undermine the whole system for the most part. It's still useful for the pseudo PM to let someone know you agree with their post without having to reply to it. [especially if it's an "I agree" or "Zing!" type comment.
No more 'dance of the narrative' then is required to explain people shooting fireballs out of their fingertips or raising people from the dead. The only difference is that in D&D, fireballs and resurrection have tenure.
We are talking about a fantasy world here, with fireballs and dragons and beholders and stuff. I don't see where mundane guy who owns a sword really fits in, or has any business looking for the trouble that exists in that world. Still, the guy with a sword is a fantasy mainstay, and people want to play them. How do we make this mundane guy with the sword logically fit into this world? By letting him do the sort of things action heroes do, thats how.
I actually find it made less sense before, when your special powers consisted solely of "owns a sword".
The difference actually is that in this world of magical powers, in MY campaign not everyone has them, and some have to get by just by their wits and weapons. The mundane guy fits in because he is the most common, and in fact is the Everyman essentially. I've always found fiction about more normal heroes far more interesting than reading about the angst of the poor teen wizard.
We obviously play a different type of campaign, since you can't see how a mundane guy with just a sword can fit into your campaign. I consider Aragorn, Conan, et al. to be fairly mundane, just with exceptional skills...but skills that while they might push the human limits, are non-magical and easily described in non-magical terms.
I let this character fit into my world by making sure that from a rules perspective and a storyline/attention perspective, he's on an even footing. I don't have to give him magical powers to make him 'fit in' - I have to make sure that his mundane talents keep him on par.
We also apparently read different action/fantasy stories, as I have no recollection of Conan or Kull mystically causing all around him to be drawn into striking range and hit.
You appear to have no narrative issues, because you feel free to assign magical/mystical abilities to ALL. Or did I read that wrong? (a possibility) If this is true, that is fine for your campaign, but it means you're okay with everyone having some form of mystical powers.
I don't list 'overrides all mental resistances of all targets to force them to move in and be attacked' among the things that typical 'action heroes do'
...and with respect to the fighters in my world having only the special power of 'owns a sword'...no...their special 'powers', if you must have powers for all creatures, are that they own a sword, know how to use it better than any other class, know various techniques and tactics, know how to exploit defenses, etc...all expressed in very graceful mechanics involving hit chances, damage, etc. No witchiepoo required.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
The problem is not that I'm obsessed with mechanics, but that the effect APPEARS to be far from mundane (no save, you become a completely insurmountable force drawing all into you) but is given to a class that for me has in all prior editions been the most mundane. As Firesnakearies pointed out, for a lot of campaigns this is no biggie...for mine it is.
At the same time though ... it's a matter of perspective. For a narrative ... the fighter is able to trick an opponent ONCE into falling for some sort of baiting. It's an encounter power in part because it isn't going to work on the same guy twice.
The main problem is that, in other editions, you have to explain "but why did it happen?" In this case it's just a matter of, whatever save would have been made ... wasn't. The fighter, because he trained in that power, has found ways to trick even the smartest and most willful of foes to temporarily lose their cool.
There is more narrative footwork in part because more people have demanded it ... and because 3.5 was very "this is how the world works" mechanics wise, explaining how everythng works the same for NPCs, monsters, PCs, etc ... 4e's exception based design doesn't fiddle with the internal stuff. It knows about point A and point B ... it doesn't talk about what happens in between.
Instead of having a taunt mechanic that explains how the concept of taunting an opponent works, etc, etc, etc, they just have it. Instead of having powers that work against most enemies, but not against all, they just have it work all the time.
The times where it makes sense should outway the times it doesn't. Also, if a fighter already has the magnet that is the mark ... he can use that same "power" for pulling people towards him.
The thing with the narrative footwork is ... that is all that can be used to explain "what happens during a power". It isn't a case of a number of mechanic effects combined to create a single effect. It's a power that is intentionally "make your own flavor text" and just gives you cause and effect, so to speak, so any flavor you want to put onto it can work.
You can come up with an action movie cliche, or a super hero genre explanation, etc. Ultimately though, the powers work because the PC is invoking plot control on the narrative game. "I want to taunt that guy and have him come at me". Instead of having to make some sort of check, he has a power he can only use once during a fight.
EDIT:
Ultimately, a figher/rogue/ranger (not going to get into warlord healing) doesn't have to be "mystical" or "magical". It is possible, using mundane explanations, to have someone, for example, draw their opponent in and attack them. It may not make sense that it works every time, but it is possible that an action hero starts hurling insults and challenges and the bad guys go for it. The game takes narrative shortcuts. Instead of having all the parts of the game built on simulationist framework where they explain how everything works, they just say what happens when you use the power. Unfortunately, if you just say "ths happens" it's probably going to seem like magic.
The thing is ... sure he can pull a smart guy that shouldn't fall for it towards him ... but then again, that smart guy was awfully close to him in the first place.
The sliding powers of the rogue and fighter involve a combat situation where a martial character is trained in leading the person he's fighing about the battlefield, forcing them to go where they want to go. Many of these powers are not at-will ... it means you CAN pull it off, but it only works once, and then the enemy learns from that mistake. Instead of having a whole system in place to figure out whether or not it works just as a means for explaining how it works in the first place seems like a lot of work just to justify giving them something they can concievably do, but seems odd they can do so frequently and reliably.
Last edited by WalterKovacs; 19th November 2008 at 08:14 PM..
This is why I never criticize people for liking 4e, and why I just can't reconcile it with my own campaign/style, and why 4e and I can just enjoy a cup of coffee, politely say farewell, and then I go off and play True20.
There's nothing wrong with how they're doing it, it just gets way too fiddly for me. Combat is always imagined as lots of moves and lots of swings summarized in one that hits, but now with all these little slides we've actually gotten a bit quantum. I know I saw a thread with Erwin Schroedinger mentioned, but I think that this shifting and such really invokes Heisenberg as well. The fighter collapses waveforms in his favor...the position of the wizard was not certain, but instead a quantum-like superposition of states, from which the fighter chooses one and locks it in. I'm not able personally (admittedly likely my own failing) to get into the rather skirmish minifigs game-like concepts - again, not saying it's a bad game, but based on the fact that we played True20 for ten hours last weekend, with multiple battles, and used improvised figures to represented the combats exactly ONCE, the rest done in the mind, you can see where I balk at a lot of these things. CAGI forces you to recognize space and position on some form of grid/board to adjudicate effect, and then immediately in the narrative explains that all those positions weren't actually as they seemed. Not at all a big deal, just not my style.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
"
Stupid message!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
