In a message dated 1/16/02 1:38:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< OKay so now a non-smart ass reply.>> Those are much easier to reply to. Thanks. << The reason I think it is in bad taste, is because people over there are risking life and limb. >> And I am not trying to discount or minimize that fact. As someone who has, himself, risked life and limb both as a soldier (in the Gulf War and other "actons") and as a 15-year law enforcement professional, I fully appreciate the rigors and risks of such a deployment. But by the same token, the same must also be said about the soldiers (as well as the "non-combatants") who were in harm's way--not to mention those who made the ultimate sacrifice--in time's past, such as WWII, the Korean War, the Battle of Sekigahara or any other conflict. Do people blast Avalon Hill or other board game makers for their war games? How about the multitude of Panzerblitz, Squad Leader, Gettysburg or others. Are these games any more or less "distasteful?" Are the publishers of these games any more or less "tacky" for publishing them? Mark Arsenault President, Gold Rush Games | http://www.goldrushgames.com Executive Director, Game Publishers Association | http://www.thegpa.org ------------------------------------------------------- Action! System Beta rules! - http://www.action-system.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
