>From: "Martin L. Shoemaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>It's not the "most" that bugged me; it's the "correct". Fair enough. It felt wrong as I wrote it. "Correctness" wasn't the actual point I was trying to make, and I'm generally too verbose, so took the shortcut to expanding the concept. It's funny how easy it is to give and take offense on this list (read it as my fault in this instance). Every now and then I see a couple of posts that look as though it could lead to some beneficial OGL outcome, that soon seems to get lost in a verbal barrage as we "rabble". I guess it's a bit naive to expect more from communication structured this way. It's sort of unfortunate that this list is the only real venue I know of where the OGL consumers get a chance to perhaps present a case for change, or at least influence, OGL directions - yet we really struggle to get it together. I've personally tried several times to subtly draw comment from Ryan Dancey, regarding the possibility that WotC would somehow welcome the opportunity to legally, fully build on use of the MM expansions of the SRD, if the right licensing framework could be found to still protect the IP/saleability of the MM (afer all, if you want to keep the IP on certain creatures, why include stripped down versions in the SRD?). All I've actually managed to achieve, is being drawn towards the "flames"... _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
