On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 01:23:30PM -0400, Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:04:34 +0100, Jan van Steenbergen
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >Without indulging in the same eternal discussion about the pros and
> >the contras of IB, I must object against the term hijacked.
> Aw, crap. Is there no subject about which we will not argue?

Apparently not.  Though you must admit that "hijacked" is rather an
emotionally loaded word, implying some disapproval.

But since when is there an "eternal discussion" about the pros and cons of
IB?  I've been here a while now - nowhere near as long as some of you
old fogeys, of course - and have never seen such discussion.  The few
discussions of IB I've seen have all been factual in nature.  And I was
invited to participate, but my concultures are alien and thus don't fit
well into the IB world, nor am I able to dedicate what I consider the
requisite time to be a useful contributor to the project,

Anyway, my problem is an obsession with rules. I can't be happy with
a statement like "the Dankarans play a chesslike game", or "a
football-like sport", or such.  I'd have to work out in detail exactly
how each game works.  Which is, of course, painstaking and
time-consuming (not to say tedious, since I personally find it fun) and
distracts one from the actual business of language-creation. :)

So I have, in fact, been pondering what a Dankaran chess-like game might
be like, since battles of old featured gravity-controlling wizards as
well as the usual assortment of archers, footsoldiers, cavalry (mounted
or vehicular, not sure yet), etc.  So far I'm envisioning a second board
above the main, accessible only to wizards, who can immobilize foes
below them, or perhaps aid in the movement of allies . . .