Quote:
Originally Posted by Mith
No it was just the coffee was kicking in and having read through to make sure it made some kind of sense I realised that is what it boiled down to.I was trying ot make it clear having been queried on my mention that it is suspicious not to know the rules theory which seemed quite obvious to me.
I was thinking about the significance of the Ranger issue yesterday as I mentioned in one of the posts. I was up to the rather simple task of relating actual events to previously considered hypostheses on the game structure in my fragile state. What I wasn't up to but am going to try is to try and sort out the far more complex webs of interactions and analyses thereof .
|
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Still, you must admit it has often been the case that a wolf jumps on the bandwaggon.
|
Yes, I admit it. But the only one who "jumped on a bandwagon" yesterDay was
Nogrod,
Legate and I both thought we were posting the second vote and I don't call that bandwagoning. In my opinion that's not much against
Nog yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim
Looks like Lommy hasn't responded to this, but:
Kitanna, I think you misunderstood Lommy's original post about Loslote (the thing where she mentions 'innocence stock'). She never at any stage had an innocent view of Loslote.
|
I did reply it in my long post up there - and indeed I did not say
Lottie is innocent at any point...