In article <465ebb80$0$9969$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
gleichman <fox1_217.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Russell Wallace" <russell.no.spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:kuj7i.19991$j7.373705@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> The reasoning, if one can dignify it with that term, seems to have
been:
>> extent to which it is a good idea to protect something depends on
cuteness
>> of said something, e.g. puppies and kittens are high priority things to
>> protect, nuclear weapons facility is not cute, therefore we need not
>> bother to protect it, ignoring argument of one PC who had his head
screwed
>> on the right way that said facility is vital strategic asset.
>
>Sadly not all that uncommon of a way of thinking today.
>
>Frankly I'd look for a different group while attempting to keep your one
>rational player.
Is implying that the others are 'irrational' fair? They apparently, from
later comments in the thread, didn't really clue in to the kind of
campaign
Russell was running.
Though, if it were a long-term campaign, they should have, I guess. Were
there
similar but less critical situations previously that might have taught
them
the appropriate lessons?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/
qucis->cs to reply (it's a long
story...)
|
