Re: ring the bell (Was Re: Brothers and Sisters ... Ayh have THE ANSWER (Touch the screen with me))

[John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Steve Ames wrote:

> Well hey, I guess you just raised the bar on what we should be expecting
> from you.
>

Aw, c@$#! Now I've gotta start making SENSE! (pout)

 
> More desirable by whom? I recall expressing my opinion before they
> were moved to Type 2 fields. My opinion was "that change would open
> much abuse". The change was made anyway. *shrug*
> 
> No we move with the benefit of hearing out whole arguments. Your suggesting
> that something is more desirable just because it was done is a fallacy.
>

I'm saying the situation has changed.  Setting BF the way they are is/was
satisfactory to those evaluating the spells at the time (likely Dan).
Now, we have a setting where things may be evaluated along multiple
viewpoints.

> No one is suggesting a rule change just a clarification on what "immobile"
> means. 
> 
> 						-Steve
>

Working on a possible answer

John