Why are priests of your alignment hostile on Astral plane?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Other than gameplay reasons, is there any rational explanation for this?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"BishopGruffneck" <aswebzq@j.com> wrote in news:JSxae.16582$Jg7.8251
@fe03.lga:

> Other than gameplay reasons, is there any rational explanation for this?
>

Check your fingers, are you wearing any unidentified rings?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Haakon Studebaker" <heptapod@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9641A0808B844heptapodyahoocom@216.196.97.131...
> "BishopGruffneck" <aswebzq@j.com> wrote in news:JSxae.16582$Jg7.8251
> @fe03.lga:
>
> > Other than gameplay reasons, is there any rational explanation for this?
> >
>
> Check your fingers, are you wearing any unidentified rings?

















































are they all hostile?

rational explanation?: how about "mwha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"BishopGruffneck" <aswebzq@j.com> writes:
[hostile co-aligned priests on Astral]
> Other than gameplay reasons, is there any rational explanation for this?

Only one in each pair is renegade, the other being peaceful. But
there he is, been serving all his life to the glory of the Most High,
never receives a word of recognition, then you waltz by with the
Amulet, confidently expecting to become a demigod... you can't blame
him for succumbing to jealousy.

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Peek-a-boo, I can't see you, everything must be grand; :
: Boo-ka-pee, you can't see me, as long as I've got me head in t'sand..." :
: -- Michael Flanders, "The Ostrich" :

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"BishopGruffneck" <aswebzq@j.com> writes:

> Other than gameplay reasons, is there any rational explanation for this?

For WHAT?

--
Jukka Lahtinen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Jukka Lahtinen wrote:

> "BishopGruffneck" <aswebzq@j.com> writes:
>
>> Other than gameplay reasons, is there any rational explanation for
>> this?
>
> For WHAT?
>
He put a question in his subject line.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Duncan Booth wrote:

> Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
>
>> "BishopGruffneck" <aswebzq@j.com> writes:
>>
>>> Other than gameplay reasons, is there any rational explanation for
>>> this?
>>
>> For WHAT?
>>
> He put a question in his subject line.

Yes, and he should also put it in the message body. Never mind that anyone
can look up a subject line; it's common courtesy, and if people are
arrogant or rude enough to think that it doesn't apply to them, it's not
wrong to bring it to their attention.

Raisse, killed by a system shock

--
irina@valdyas.org LegoHack: http://www.valdyas.org/irina/nethack/
Status of Raisse (piously neutral): Level 8 HP 63(67) AC -3, fast.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Dylan O'Donnell" <psmithnews@spod-central.org> wrote:
> "BishopGruffneck" <aswebzq@j.com> writes:
>
> [hostile co-aligned priests on Astral]
>> Other than gameplay reasons, is there any rational
>> explanation for this?
>
> Only one in each pair is renegade, the other being
> peaceful. But there he is, been serving all his life
> to the glory of the Most High, never receives a word
> of recognition, then you waltz by with the Amulet,
> confidently expecting to become a demigod... you
> can't blame him for succumbing to jealousy.

Probably the best example that NetHack's alignment system
doesn't include the axis of good and evil.


crichmon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Raisse the Thaumaturge" <raisse@valdyas.org> wrote in message
news:426bfa4b$0$157$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Duncan Booth wrote:
>
>> Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
>>
>>> "BishopGruffneck" <aswebzq@j.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Other than gameplay reasons, is there any rational explanation for
>>>> this?
>>>
>>> For WHAT?
>>>
>> He put a question in his subject line.
>
> Yes, and he should also put it in the message body. Never mind that anyone
> can look up a subject line; it's common courtesy, and if people are
> arrogant or rude enough to think that it doesn't apply to them, it's not
> wrong to bring it to their attention.

Actually it's arrogant and rude to assume that arrogance or rudeness would
be the only reasons someone might use the subject line to impart necessary
information in a Usenet post. If someone is arrogant or rude enough to make
such arrogant and rude judgements, then it's not wrong to bring it to their
attention.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Richard Bos wrote:

> "BishopGruffneck" <ebuwpoa@dielgle.com> wrote:
>
>> "Raisse the Thaumaturge" <raisse@valdyas.org> wrote in message
>> news:426bfa4b$0$157$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>> Yes, and he should also put it in the message body. Never mind that
>>> anyone can look up a subject line; it's common courtesy, and if people
>>> are arrogant or rude enough to think that it doesn't apply to them,
>>> it's not wrong to bring it to their attention.
>>
>> Actually it's arrogant and rude to assume that arrogance or rudeness
>> would be the only reasons someone might use the subject line to impart
>> necessary information in a Usenet post. If someone is arrogant or rude
>> enough to make such arrogant and rude judgements, then it's not wrong to
>> bring it to their attention.
>
> The alternatives are that someone who puts his question in the subject
> line only is stupid, or ignorant; or that Raisse is correct. Or a
> combination of these. Which of these are we to think of you?

I usually give the benefit of the doubt, and assume ignorance, possibly
encouraged from bad habits developed in other forums where this style is
common.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Evelyn the dog, having undergone further modification, pondered the
significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic
resonance and other highly ambient domains... "Arf", she said.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"BishopGruffneck" <ebuwpoa@dielgle.com> wrote:

> "Raisse the Thaumaturge" <raisse@valdyas.org> wrote in message
> news:426bfa4b$0$157$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> > Yes, and he should also put it in the message body. Never mind that anyone
> > can look up a subject line; it's common courtesy, and if people are
> > arrogant or rude enough to think that it doesn't apply to them, it's not
> > wrong to bring it to their attention.
>
> Actually it's arrogant and rude to assume that arrogance or rudeness would
> be the only reasons someone might use the subject line to impart necessary
> information in a Usenet post. If someone is arrogant or rude enough to make
> such arrogant and rude judgements, then it's not wrong to bring it to their
> attention.

The alternatives are that someone who puts his question in the subject
line only is stupid, or ignorant; or that Raisse is correct. Or a
combination of these. Which of these are we to think of you?

Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Richard Bos" <rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
news:426eb172.17891062@news.xs4all.nl...
> "BishopGruffneck" <ebuwpoa@dielgle.com> wrote:
>
>> "Raisse the Thaumaturge" <raisse@valdyas.org> wrote in message
>> news:426bfa4b$0$157$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> > Yes, and he should also put it in the message body. Never mind that
>> > anyone
>> > can look up a subject line; it's common courtesy, and if people are
>> > arrogant or rude enough to think that it doesn't apply to them, it's
>> > not
>> > wrong to bring it to their attention.
>>
>> Actually it's arrogant and rude to assume that arrogance or rudeness
>> would
>> be the only reasons someone might use the subject line to impart
>> necessary
>> information in a Usenet post. If someone is arrogant or rude enough to
>> make
>> such arrogant and rude judgements, then it's not wrong to bring it to
>> their
>> attention.
>
> The alternatives are that someone who puts his question in the subject
> line only is stupid, or ignorant; or that Raisse is correct. Or a
> combination of these. Which of these are we to think of you?

Actually the most obvious alternative is that some people are way too anal
about their own personal versions of posting etiquette, which are in fact
non-standard and nothing but matters of taste. I'll refrain about
commenting on the intelligence of those who leap to conclusions about
intelligence of others based on whether those others conform to some
arbitrary and ill-defined rules of posting.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <O2Cbe.22899$Gq6.10528@fe02.lga>,
"BishopGruffneck" <aswebzq@j.com> wrote:

> "Richard Bos" <rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
> news:426eb172.17891062@news.xs4all.nl...
> > "BishopGruffneck" <ebuwpoa@dielgle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Raisse the Thaumaturge" <raisse@valdyas.org> wrote in message
> >> news:426bfa4b$0$157$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> >> > Yes, and he should also put it in the message body. Never mind that
> >> > anyone
> >> > can look up a subject line; it's common courtesy, and if people are
> >> > arrogant or rude enough to think that it doesn't apply to them, it's
> >> > not
> >> > wrong to bring it to their attention.
> >>
> >> Actually it's arrogant and rude to assume that arrogance or rudeness
> >> would
> >> be the only reasons someone might use the subject line to impart
> >> necessary
> >> information in a Usenet post. If someone is arrogant or rude enough to
> >> make
> >> such arrogant and rude judgements, then it's not wrong to bring it to
> >> their
> >> attention.
> >
> > The alternatives are that someone who puts his question in the subject
> > line only is stupid, or ignorant; or that Raisse is correct. Or a
> > combination of these. Which of these are we to think of you?
>
> Actually the most obvious alternative is that some people are way too anal
> about their own personal versions of posting etiquette, which are in fact
> non-standard and nothing but matters of taste.

The subject line is metadata. While it's unlikely there there are news
readers that don't show it while also showing the message content, it's
certainly possible. I've seen weirder design decisions, and I've seen
users wedded to products that feature fairly weird design decisions.

I always love the posts where not only is critical information only in
the subject, but obscure and/or non-standard abbreviations are used:

Subject: "GT"
Body: "Anyone know when this will ship?"

G

--
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

 

[Nathan]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

BishopGruffneck defended the practice of putting a question in
just the subject line, by writing:

> Actually the most obvious alternative is that some people are way too
> anal about their own personal versions of posting etiquette, which
> are in fact non-standard and nothing but matters of taste. I'll
> refrain about commenting on the intelligence of those who leap to
> conclusions about intelligence of others based on whether those
> others conform to some arbitrary and ill-defined rules of posting.

I will make no assumptions about you. It is a fact that you wrote a
question in your subject line only. I have seen this done many times
on Usenet, many times on rgrn in particular. I have never seen such a
post that didn't get flamed. To my mind, this leaves 2 possibilities:

1. You didn't know that this practice would get you flamed. (i.e., you
didn't lurk long enough before posting)

2. You knew, but didn't care.

Either way, it's your fault.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Nathan" <ntspam2@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1114614953.916522.97010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> BishopGruffneck defended the practice of putting a question in
> just the subject line, by writing:
>
>> Actually the most obvious alternative is that some people are way too
>> anal about their own personal versions of posting etiquette, which
>> are in fact non-standard and nothing but matters of taste. I'll
>> refrain about commenting on the intelligence of those who leap to
>> conclusions about intelligence of others based on whether those
>> others conform to some arbitrary and ill-defined rules of posting.
>
> I will make no assumptions about you. It is a fact that you wrote a
> question in your subject line only. I have seen this done many times
> on Usenet, many times on rgrn in particular. I have never seen such a
> post that didn't get flamed.

It happens all the time on Usenet and almost always goes without notice or
comment.

> To my mind, this leaves 2 possibilities:
>
> 1. You didn't know that this practice would get you flamed. (i.e., you
> didn't lurk long enough before posting)

My first post to this group was in 1996 (under a different name). I seem to
have found other uses for my time during the interrim, but I've been reading
and posting to various groups for over a decade.

> 2. You knew, but didn't care.
>
> Either way, it's your fault.

Define how it was a "fault". Try to keep away from ridiculous
rationalizations such as "it's feasible to write a newsreader that doesn't
display the topic along with the body of the message".

On the other hand, there is great fault with those who insult others based
on something completely benign and reasonable that those others do. Some
posters here could use a lesson in general interpersonal etiquette and not
get so caught up on posting etiquette. If anybody wants to inform others of
a supposed breach of posting decorum then they are free to do so, but if
they call the other person arrogant and rude for simply using a different
posting style then they don't get to claim the etiquette high ground, ok?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Gregory Weston wrote:
> The subject line is metadata. While it's unlikely there there
> are news readers that don't show it while also showing the
> message content, it's certainly possible. I've seen weirder
> design decisions

When I read a message in google groups, the subject isn't displayed
unless I scroll all the way to the top of the thread. Well, I can see
"Why are priests of you" in the left pane--which isn't very
informative, and reading a long subject in a narrow horizontal
scrollbox isn't something I'm likely to do.

Anyway, to the original poster, it's not only about whether or not
you're violating net etiquette. Presumably if you're posting a
question it's because you're interested in getting an answer. If I
read a post asking "Why can't I do a, b, and c?" I'm a lot more likely
to respond than if I read a post that says "???" and I have to go back
and look up the subject.

(That aside, the subject line in question is longer than the maximum
recommended length, according to the standard, well-defined rules of
posting etiquette--for anyone who missed those guidelines,
news.announce.newusers contains them. Any good newsreader will point
you to that group the first time you run it, so that you have a chance
to see what the accepted standards are.

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/news/answers/news-newusers-intro
and
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/usenet/primer/part1
are good starting points)

 

[Nathan]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

BishopGruffneck wrote:
> "Nathan" <ntspam2@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1114614953.916522.97010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > I will make no assumptions about you. It is a fact that you wrote a
> > question in your subject line only. I have seen this done many
> > times on Usenet, many times on rgrn in particular. I have never
> > seen such a post that didn't get flamed.
>
> It happens all the time on Usenet and almost always goes without
> notice or comment.

Could you actually point to such a post, particularly on this group?

> > To my mind, this leaves 2 possibilities:
> >
> > 1. You didn't know that this practice would get you flamed. (i.e.,
> > you didn't lurk long enough before posting)
>
> My first post to this group was in 1996 (under a different name). I
> seem to have found other uses for my time during the interrim, but
> I've been reading and posting to various groups for over a decade.

Sounds like you're admitting the first possibility.

> > 2. You knew, but didn't care.
> >
> > Either way, it's your fault.
>
> Define how it was a "fault". Try to keep away from ridiculous
> rationalizations such as "it's feasible to write a newsreader that
> doesn't display the topic along with the body of the message".

By "it's your fault", I mean that you have no one to blame but yourself
for this off-topic flamewar. This is what always happens here when
someone does what you did. Regardless of the merits of the issue, you
brought this on yourself, so don't whine.

Actually, I'm not so sure you didn't do this on purpose, like the guy
who deliberately triggers a bug in a newsreader he doesn't like.
Your replies read too much like someone who had an agenda to start
with.

> On the other hand, there is great fault with those who insult others
> based on something completely benign and reasonable that those others
> do. Some posters here could use a lesson in general interpersonal
> etiquette and not get so caught up on posting etiquette. If anybody
> wants to inform others of a supposed breach of posting decorum then
> they are free to do so, but if they call the other person arrogant
> and rude for simply using a different posting style then they don't
> get to claim the etiquette high ground, ok?

Okay, now you're sounding like a defensive top-poster.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <d4odlo$4jd$1@domitilla.aioe.org>,
"BishopGruffneck" <ebuwpoa@dielgle.com> wrote:

> Define how it was a "fault". Try to keep away from ridiculous
> rationalizations such as "it's feasible to write a newsreader that doesn't
> display the topic along with the body of the message".

It's funny how you consider my notion a "ridiculous rationalization"
when just over a day later someone points out that my "weird design
decision" exists.

<1114714424.031672.97550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

G

--
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

<sjdevnull@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114714424.031672.97550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Gregory Weston wrote:
>> The subject line is metadata. While it's unlikely there there
>> are news readers that don't show it while also showing the
>> message content, it's certainly possible. I've seen weirder
>> design decisions
>
> When I read a message in google groups, the subject isn't displayed
> unless I scroll all the way to the top of the thread. Well, I can see
> "Why are priests of you" in the left pane--which isn't very
> informative, and reading a long subject in a narrow horizontal
> scrollbox isn't something I'm likely to do.

But you will have long arguments over it. A jealous defender of your
valuable time you are. Gotchya.

> Anyway, to the original poster, it's not only about whether or not
> you're violating net etiquette. Presumably if you're posting a
> question it's because you're interested in getting an answer. If I
> read a post asking "Why can't I do a, b, and c?" I'm a lot more likely
> to respond than if I read a post that says "???" and I have to go back
> and look up the subject.

I got all the informational responses I needed form my ill-formed and
netiquette breaching post. That's the practical reality. And I got a flame
war out of it too apparently, one in which group regulars are polluting
their own group with meaningless vomit and "blaming" it on someone else.
There's a lot of irony value here.

> (That aside, the subject line in question is longer than the maximum
> recommended length, according to the standard, well-defined rules of
> posting etiquette--for anyone who missed those guidelines,
> news.announce.newusers contains them. Any good newsreader will point
> you to that group the first time you run it, so that you have a chance
> to see what the accepted standards are.

Look around you at subject lines from the past few days and see if any of
the several posts with subjects longer than mine got net-copped.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Gregory Weston" <uce@splook.com> wrote in message
news:uce-CF525A.17514928042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <d4odlo$4jd$1@domitilla.aioe.org>,
> "BishopGruffneck" <ebuwpoa@dielgle.com> wrote:
>
>> Define how it was a "fault". Try to keep away from ridiculous
>> rationalizations such as "it's feasible to write a newsreader that
>> doesn't
>> display the topic along with the body of the message".
>
> It's funny how you consider my notion a "ridiculous rationalization"
> when just over a day later someone points out that my "weird design
> decision" exists.
>
> <1114714424.031672.97550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

Did you try it? You can either scroll the thread pane or resize it. It
does not conform to your hypothetical and absurd newreader design.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <kaece.11520$f6.3042@fe04.lga>,
"BishopGruffneck" <bielgs@gioooo.com> wrote:

> "Gregory Weston" <uce@splook.com> wrote in message
> news:uce-CF525A.17514928042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <d4odlo$4jd$1@domitilla.aioe.org>,
> > "BishopGruffneck" <ebuwpoa@dielgle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Define how it was a "fault". Try to keep away from ridiculous
> >> rationalizations such as "it's feasible to write a newsreader that
> >> doesn't
> >> display the topic along with the body of the message".
> >
> > It's funny how you consider my notion a "ridiculous rationalization"
> > when just over a day later someone points out that my "weird design
> > decision" exists.
> >
> > <1114714424.031672.97550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>
> Did you try it?

I did. In fact I use Google's groups feature fairly often (although just
as a reader).

> You can either scroll the thread pane or resize it.

You can even get rid of it entirely. I've discovered recently that the
tree view doesn't even seem to be the default. And so...

> It
> does not conform to your hypothetical and absurd newreader design.

....yes, actually it does. Absurd, yes. Hypothetical, no. But even if it
didn't the point still stands. You have _absolutely_no_guarantee_ that
someone reading your post can see the subject. The recommendation to not
include critical information solely in the subject is intended to
benefit the questioner by enhancing the ability of other people to
answer. If you don't want to improve your odds of getting a timely and
correct answer that's fine, but you do yourself no service by getting
huffy with people trying to help.

--
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Gregory Weston" <uce@splook.com> wrote in message
news:uce-BBF825.21121028042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <kaece.11520$f6.3042@fe04.lga>,
> "BishopGruffneck" <bielgs@gioooo.com> wrote:

>> You can either scroll the thread pane or resize it.
>
> You can even get rid of it entirely. I've discovered recently that the
> tree view doesn't even seem to be the default.

Yes, it is. If you're viewing a threaded post then the thread pane appears
by default.

> If you don't want to improve your odds of getting a timely and
> correct answer that's fine, but you do yourself no service by getting
> huffy with people trying to help.

The level of my posting "offense" (which is debatable in itself) compared to
being called rude and arrogant out of the blue warranted exactly the
response it got.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Ken Cuvelier" <kvcflameNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173ja4j9cmd77e@corp.supernews.com...
> BishopGruffneck wrote:
>> "Kevin Wayne" <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:B6jce.2619$5I5.309770@newshog.newsread.com...

>> Is there anybody who's been arguing with me in this thread who has the
>> maturity to step up to the plate and admit the original attack on me was
>> explicitely against this group's FAQ about etiquette, making it ironic
>> indeed?
>
> Could you please direct us to the section of the FAQ where it says that
> retaliation for personal attacks within the newsgroup is warranted? I
> will grant you your point that a remark was made which could only be
> construed as a personal attack towards you, but two wrongs do not make a
> right.

My original post could be construed as a simple mistake, as indeed it was.
The subsequent attack was transparently hypocritical on two levels - the
judgement that I was arrogant and rude was itself arrogant and rude, and
said attack was founded on an etiquette that itself explicitely forbade such
attacks from being made in this forum. Do you really expect such hypocrisy
to go unrecognized? My response was appropriate. Several posters then
decided to attack me. How'd that work out for you? I got one guy to scour
google for four links to archived posts, one guy to give me a couple links
to the FAQ along with carefully extracted experpts, and gotten lots of
carefully postured responses (along with the requisite "plonks") meant to
pretend that I'm definitely and wholly in the wrong when it's obvious to
everybody that there's a huge grey area here. This is *hillarious*. Get it
yet, champ?

> You really don't get it, do you?

My guess is that the vast (vast) majority of the people who've been arguing
with me are almost totally unfamiliar with the concept of "getting it". And
that's the whole problem. (Let's stop pretending that well-adjusted people
care this deeply about intricacies of posting etiquette, ok?)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Adam Lawson wrote:

> You could have just apologized for it, let those who "attacked" you
> know you felt offended, and let it drop.

Agreed completely.

One of the golden rules of communication in general, not necessarily in
newsgroups, in my opinion is that you should always try not to offend
others.

If you accidentally still do so, apologise and don't make that mistake
again.

> I've been watching this thread... before I get back to lurking, since
> you've embraced your joy at troll-hood: *PLONK*

I cannot agree more.

--
Boudewijn Waijers (kroisos at home.nl).

The garden of happiness is surrounded by a wall so low only children
can look over it. - "the Orphanage of Hits", former Dutch radio show.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Boudewijn Waijers" <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote in message
news:d4s4u4$rq3$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> Adam Lawson wrote:
>
>> You could have just apologized for it, let those who "attacked" you
>> know you felt offended, and let it drop.
>
> Agreed completely.

Funny then that my post in which I merely responded in kind to the original
attack was not allowed to "drop".

> One of the golden rules of communication in general, not necessarily in
> newsgroups, in my opinion is that you should always try not to offend
> others.

And the post in which I was called rude and arrogant, do you think it
followed this golden rule? Do you consider it a greater or lesser offense
than my original post?