[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Fwd: Re: Dan's involvement with the Fantasy Club]
In the words of Saturday night live: "Lyle, you filthy ignorant slut"
If your goal was to rally us around Dan, you succeeded. If not, your a
bigger idiot than even I thought.
Dan got upset, as happens, not a reason to give up on a dialogue.
The game is OURS. Not Dan's, Not mine, and not anyone else's.
Your arguments for everything other than Dan producing the game are not
valid, and included yet more inuendo. Breaking appart could produce no
good outcome.
Dan got upset, as I am now, and discussed of breaking our group. It is
part of our lives
and defines part of our relationship. Every week for up to 20+ years
will do that to people.
There is a difference between discussion & arguement and bickering, and
to the best of my knowledge no on has crossed it till now. Although
others will disagree, I would like to continue to hear discussion AND
arguement on this list.
I agree with Steve's, Preston's and Wright's posts. (On this, and most
things, which is why I don't post that often. By the time I get home
from work, Steve, Kris or Greg has already stated my opinion.)
I talked with Dan last night, and although we don't agree on everything,
we can agree to disagree and talk about things. I will be in town this
weekend and look foward to doing just that.
Joe
---- Begin included message ----
Steve and Preston said it best I think. I fully agree with them both.
Wright
>
> Well said Preston. I sent a lengthy response privately to Lyle stating
> that I also thought this vote was a silly idea. I don't know why Dan
> flew off the handle over any of this (just a game remember) and I
> certainly don't want any schism because of it.
>
> > I have a hard time believing that people are actually considering taking
> > a vote on this. Dan has been part of this organization for 22 years and
> > he is the reason it is what it is.
> >
> > Dan is not saying that he will not implement rule changes. He wants a
> > formal writeup (to avoid arguments) and wants us to test out the rule
> > changes (to avoid unintended results). Dan has never said, "No rules for
> > you!" he simply stated that because he is running the campaign that he
> > wants a say on rule changes and he doesn't want us to come up with new
> > rules behind his back.
>
> That is an excellent way of expressing this. That was my original
> belief as well. That's why I ask for clarification after his statements
> saturday and he blew up on me.
>
> > Dan does have the final say and I think that if enough people think a rule
> > change will add a new and exciting angle to the game that Dan will gladly
> > agree with it. Dan is not the bad guy, he is just trying to make sure that
> > he has a say in rule changes. Don't make him the bad guy.
>
> You da man.
>
> -Steve
>
---- End included message ----