Faust wrote: >>To put it politely: Bullshit. > >That is not polite at all.
Actually, it's a helluva lot more polite than what you deserve. >>I've noticed you have a penchant for accusing anyone who disagrees with >>you of being "uninformed" or "ignorant". > >Actually you're wrong. This is the first time in perhaps 18 months >that I >have made any such statement to anyone on these boards The list archives don't seem to believe you. So we'll chalk you up as a liar to boot. >The notions you are expressing - that products are flawed because they >don't meet YOUR standards of openness and clarity - are simply incorrect, >and they don't apply in the broad, sweeping, generalized way you are using >them. You seem to be confusing personal opinion with some sort of push for universal standards. In my opinion, presenting your "open" content in a way which doesn't allow other people to use it in a meaningful fashion is a bad thing. Operating within the letter of the law, but contrary to its spirit, is not something to be commended (again, in my opinion). >Moreover, they closely mirror a discussion that was happening on these >boards just two weeks ago, This dicussion happened a year and a half ago, too. I fail to see what relevance that has. >>I've been involved in the OGL movement since early 2000, >>reviewing OGL/D20 material since August 2000, and actively producing >>OGL/D20 material for nearly a year. > >The depths of ignorance, self importance, and simple uninformed vanity in >that statement is almost not worth commenting on. Almost. LOL. >Almost all of them have been here since the very beginning in 1999. Which is a fascinating claim, considering that the lists didn't exist in 1999. >If it is your goal to push 100% openness as an objective, I never claimed that was my goal. Quite the contrary, in fact. >The OGL is not going to change to suit your view of the world. It's a good thing I've never advocated changing the OGL, then. (Well, except once -- and the license actually *was* changed by Ryan and the WotC legal team in response to those comments. Feel free to check the list archives.) >>If you can't actually refute my points, please refrain from throwing >>around ad hominems as a last resort. > >You mean like "that is bullshit"? Grow up. Pointing out that your comments are bullshit is not an ad hominem. >>This would be a more convincing argument if it wasn't for the fact that >>the very *first* adopters (WotC, Green Ronin, and Atlas Games) all >>featured far more open content than Sword & Sorcery Studios. > >This is another example of your seemingly complete lack of information >concerning your subject. Sword and Sorcery was the first company to >release a D20 product containing open content. This is a blatant lie -- made all the more blatant by the fact that you chose to write it in reply to citations to the contrary. THREE DAYS TO KILL contains open content. The entire text of DEATH IN FREEPORT contains open content. Those were the two products released at GenCon 2000. They were the *only* D20 products released at GenCon 2000. Swords & Sorcery would not release a D20 product for at least another month. >How do I know this? I know this because I have on my desktop here a file >contain ALL of S&S's contributed content. I did not find the incredible >difficulties you are describing in extracting the PI. I never claimed that it was difficult to extract the PI from S&S's products. Let me know when you've decided to stop constructing these ludicrous strawmen. Justin Bacon [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
