Post originally by Sérgio Mascarenhas at 2003-08-14 00:38:20
Converted from Phorums BB System

(Unfortunatelly this comes much latter than it should for reasons only RPGnet can explain.)

"Please Sergio, let the matter rest now. Before you really show yourself up"

In other words, I have all the shortcomings you point, I don't accept criticism (I suppose as graciously as you do), but I don't have the right to let the matter to rest when I want because that's in your hands? And I am the righteous bastard?

At least I discussed this matter in good faith without any pre-made assumptions about you. If you thought everything you said about me, why start it?

Why start a conversation with someone that you consider is only capable of "drawn-out, fractious, self-justifying, pseudo-academic return posting"? You consider to "have difficulty accepting criticism of [his] own criticisms"?

"Got You!"

Besides, it seems you were discussing in really bad faith. You were not interested in the argument. As your Subject shows, all you wanted was to prove to yourself the idea you had about me. Nice. Really nice. After all, "Who is showing himself up?" in all of this, me or you?

"Please accept that there are different intepretations and that Strength can be just as applicable a base as Dexterity for skills like Jumping and Swimming"

I accept that. What I don't accept is *that* in the context of a game I was reviewing and where it does not hold true. Let me refer you to my answer to Simon Hibbs. There you can find the quotations from the game book. I should have presented these in answer to your thread but I didn't have the book with me at the time.

Yes, there are different interpretations of Strengh, but SWtRPG is based on one of these. And in that context the distribution of skills is flawed. At least there is base to think so. But you decided to consider that it was all a matter of bad faith on the part of the reviewer.

"I don't wish to provoke or prolong arguments with you, and I hope that this reply, whilst seeming to do precisely what I've just said I DON'T want to do, brings an end to it"

How convenient. You qualify in a lot less than flatering terms the person that you're interacting with, a person that was discussing with you in good faith and never did this to you, and next want the other side to stop where you want? How nice.

Let me just give you one advice: Next time you address someone about something that person wrote, and you have a strong point of view about that person, make it clear from the start. Say from the start what you said in this post that you wanted to be terminal. That will save a lot useless arguments. Or else, just don't post.

For your information this is what the author of the gamebook had to say about my review in a couple of mails he sent me: "Thank you for an awesome review" and "thank you for your time and your review. Yes it was painful to read, but in the long run it will help to mold and shape Spiritual Warfare the RPG into the game that it is meant to be."
Who do you think I should listen too, you or him?

Sergio