On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote:

> Not wanting round-table discussion *is* a broken feature of the
> culture, IMHO.

I think there are times that it's appropriate.

> See, now, Gamehawk will have the capability of saying "I want to subscribe
> to KarenCravens.  She's really cool."  And you'll get my posts, no matter
> where they are on the site.

Now what if I want to write some root-posts myself, but I don't want 
to take the time to enter into an unfruitful discussion with twenty 
people every time I do?

I guess my thing is that I don't want to limit discussion itself, so 
much as I (sometimes) want to limit discussion to a certain group of 
people.  It seems like there's often someone who wants to grab some 
nitpick and dominate the discussion with something that doesn't really 
matter, or doesn't matter to me, at least.

It's hard to discuss the best way to skin a cat when someone in the 
group keeps objecting to skinning cats.  Or thinks you should be 
skinning dogs instead.  Or keeps insisting that _his_ way is the best 
way and doesn't actually want to _discuss_ anything.

You know what I mean?

> Because they're heroes (well, Fastlane is anyhow).  How can it be any
> stronger than that?

The emphasis was on "together".  And Stalker sees the "fight crime" 
thing as a tool to help him reach his goal of revenge... he's not very 
heroic when you come at it from that angle.

The only reason you're together is because you call have "PC" stamped 
on your foreheads.  I'd like to develop something deeper.  It's not 
essential, but I think it would help me from the GM side of things.

-- 
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)                Gamers List Owner
     [  General RP Discussion -- http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/  ]
Hey! We're out of wine, women, and song! !@#$*!?% NO MERRIER
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/