From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 14:56:11 EST
Jona,
Thank you. As I thought, that matter is not a appropriate precedent to measure against or with in regards to our most recent incident.
-Morgan
Change of Alignment
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:00:51 EST
>>Thank you. As I thought, that matter is not a appropriate precedent to measure against or with in regards to our most recent incident.<<
Why not? Both incidents were attempts (one by the Baron one by a Loyal Baron and the challenger) to take the entire matter out of the Council's hands. In both cases the attempt to usurp the Council's decision should have been ignored and the challenge rescheduled. In the first, it was. In the second, it wasn't. Worse, we now have a precedent that future Councils, not so independent and self-thinking can use to support their political and/or
personal cronies. This Council may not be guided by precedent, but by setting one they give future Councils an excuse.
Duc Percial Marchand de Clermont
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:00:51 EST
>>Thank you. As I thought, that matter is not a appropriate precedent to measure against or with in regards to our most recent incident.<<
Why not? Both incidents were attempts (one by the Baron one by a Loyal Baron and the challenger) to take the entire matter out of the Council's hands. In both cases the attempt to usurp the Council's decision should have been ignored and the challenge rescheduled. In the first, it was. In the second, it wasn't. Worse, we now have a precedent that future Councils, not so independent and self-thinking can use to support their political and/or
personal cronies. This Council may not be guided by precedent, but by setting one they give future Councils an excuse.
Duc Percial Marchand de Clermont
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:19:27 EST
Duc Percial Marchand de Clermont
Yuir Grace,
The difference shouldst be verra plain, Percy. In the matter of Sartan and Darkness the question wast already in the hands of the council, was under discussion, and th' Council hae yet to rule 'pon the matter at the time th' Baron Darkness didst meet th' Warlord Sartan. Such wast nae the case betwixt Huma Oathbreaker and the Baron Jeffrey Oakenshield.
Jona.
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:19:27 EST
Duc Percial Marchand de Clermont
Yuir Grace,
The difference shouldst be verra plain, Percy. In the matter of Sartan and Darkness the question wast already in the hands of the council, was under discussion, and th' Council hae yet to rule 'pon the matter at the time th' Baron Darkness didst meet th' Warlord Sartan. Such wast nae the case betwixt Huma Oathbreaker and the Baron Jeffrey Oakenshield.
Jona.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:25:37 EST
Percival asks, "Why not [can the matter be used as appropriate precendent]?"
Here is one reason, for starters: one happened after the council had already convened for deliberations, the other (Huma/Jeff) happened before. As such, the incident that happened before the convening of council can be, and was, used as evidence to be considered.
"We now have a precedent that future Councils, not so independent and self-thinking can use to support their political and/or personal cronies."
You do not know the the personalities of the next council any more than I. For example, you could be a baron next time the council is needed. You would consider yourself to be independent and self-thinking, am I right?
"This Council may not be guided by precedent, but by setting one they give future Councils an excuse."
No more than any other past council precedent was brought up. Again, you could very well sit on a council in the near future yet are willing to paint with a broad brush your low expectations of future councils' ability to reason.
If this council was not convincingly swayed by precedent, it stands to reason that the next may not be swayed, either. Though, it might, I grant you the possibility. I do think each council strives to judge each incident on a case-by-case, or stand-alone, basis, that is, of course, only my opinion.
Despite your disallusionment of the current council's position, I hope that, eventually, your faith can be restored at least in the ideal of what the council should stand for, if not for what they did stand for, or who sat on the current council you so strongly objected to. I mean that most earnestly.
-Morgan
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:25:37 EST
Percival asks, "Why not [can the matter be used as appropriate precendent]?"
Here is one reason, for starters: one happened after the council had already convened for deliberations, the other (Huma/Jeff) happened before. As such, the incident that happened before the convening of council can be, and was, used as evidence to be considered.
"We now have a precedent that future Councils, not so independent and self-thinking can use to support their political and/or personal cronies."
You do not know the the personalities of the next council any more than I. For example, you could be a baron next time the council is needed. You would consider yourself to be independent and self-thinking, am I right?
"This Council may not be guided by precedent, but by setting one they give future Councils an excuse."
No more than any other past council precedent was brought up. Again, you could very well sit on a council in the near future yet are willing to paint with a broad brush your low expectations of future councils' ability to reason.
If this council was not convincingly swayed by precedent, it stands to reason that the next may not be swayed, either. Though, it might, I grant you the possibility. I do think each council strives to judge each incident on a case-by-case, or stand-alone, basis, that is, of course, only my opinion.
Despite your disallusionment of the current council's position, I hope that, eventually, your faith can be restored at least in the ideal of what the council should stand for, if not for what they did stand for, or who sat on the current council you so strongly objected to. I mean that most earnestly.
-Morgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:27:04 EST
>>The difference shouldst be verra plain, Percy. In the matter of Sartan and Darkness the question wast already in the hands of the council, was under discussion, and th' Council hae yet to rule 'pon the matter at the time th' Baron Darkness didst meet th' Warlord Sartan. Such wast nae the case betwixt Huma Oathbreaker and the Baron Jeffrey Oakenshield. <<
Jona,
The matter was in the hands of the Council the moment that Lady Helix declared the match to be a forfeit. As events proved, the duel between Huma and Jeffery, which they intended to take matters from the Council's hands, merely gave the Council one more matter to consider. What happened was an attempt by Huma to shut Jeff up, and an attempt by Jeff to avoid the necessity of a Council and any censure for Dalamar. When the match was ruled a
forfeit, everyone should have left at once. The continued arguing and bickering led to the duel, which was intended by Jeff to usurp, by himself, the prerogatives of the Council as a whole.
The White Duke
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:27:04 EST
>>The difference shouldst be verra plain, Percy. In the matter of Sartan and Darkness the question wast already in the hands of the council, was under discussion, and th' Council hae yet to rule 'pon the matter at the time th' Baron Darkness didst meet th' Warlord Sartan. Such wast nae the case betwixt Huma Oathbreaker and the Baron Jeffrey Oakenshield. <<
Jona,
The matter was in the hands of the Council the moment that Lady Helix declared the match to be a forfeit. As events proved, the duel between Huma and Jeffery, which they intended to take matters from the Council's hands, merely gave the Council one more matter to consider. What happened was an attempt by Huma to shut Jeff up, and an attempt by Jeff to avoid the necessity of a Council and any censure for Dalamar. When the match was ruled a
forfeit, everyone should have left at once. The continued arguing and bickering led to the duel, which was intended by Jeff to usurp, by himself, the prerogatives of the Council as a whole.
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:34:47 EST
>>Despite your disallusionment of the current council's position, I hope that, eventually, your faith can be restored at least in the ideal of what the council should stand for, if not for what they did stand for, or who sat on the current council you so strongly objected to. I mean that most earnestly.<<
How can you restore something that has never existed? I have seen two Council sessions this cycle, and others in the past. Using the two most recent as an example I have not seen any sort of "ideal" at work at all. Despite all claims to the contrary by Barons that they "voted their conscience" that fact remains that the votes (whatever their actual motivations) followed, exactly or very closely, "party lines" between Loyal and Renegade members.
There were some Loyal Barons, this time, who actually chose to consider the facts. However, the majority chose to support Dal this time, and to strip Clutch the last time. Both votes split along the politics of the voters. Even if the voting Barons DID vote their consciences, the fact remains that in both cases their consciences were colored by their politics, or vice versa.
Finally, as I said to Jona, the match was already in the hands of the Council when Helix declared a forfeit. As such, any events thereafter should not have been recognized, sanctioned, or even permitted to occur.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:34:47 EST
>>Despite your disallusionment of the current council's position, I hope that, eventually, your faith can be restored at least in the ideal of what the council should stand for, if not for what they did stand for, or who sat on the current council you so strongly objected to. I mean that most earnestly.<<
How can you restore something that has never existed? I have seen two Council sessions this cycle, and others in the past. Using the two most recent as an example I have not seen any sort of "ideal" at work at all. Despite all claims to the contrary by Barons that they "voted their conscience" that fact remains that the votes (whatever their actual motivations) followed, exactly or very closely, "party lines" between Loyal and Renegade members.
There were some Loyal Barons, this time, who actually chose to consider the facts. However, the majority chose to support Dal this time, and to strip Clutch the last time. Both votes split along the politics of the voters. Even if the voting Barons DID vote their consciences, the fact remains that in both cases their consciences were colored by their politics, or vice versa.
Finally, as I said to Jona, the match was already in the hands of the Council when Helix declared a forfeit. As such, any events thereafter should not have been recognized, sanctioned, or even permitted to occur.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 16:31:37 EST
Percy.
Thou statest "I have seen two Council sessions this cycle, and others in the past."
Thou mayest have perused the council's final decisions, for they were made known to the community, yet since this Council is the first to open its proceedings to the community, and, to the best of me knowledge, thou hast ne'er worn a baron's ring and canna ha' been privy to the council's deliberations prior to this, tis mayhap thou overstatest thineself.
Thou continue " Finally, as I said to Jona, the match was already in the hands of the Council when Helix declared a forfeit. As such, any events thereafter should not have been recognized, sanctioned, or even permitted to occur."
Percival, Madame Helix wast nae the official adjudicating that duel, therefore she canna ha' properly declared it forfeit. Tis for the official ta so rule. Tis for the warlord to place the matter before the council, Percival, shouldst he so wish; and wish he did. One must be careful e'er when rubbing a lamp and calling forth a Jhinni, neh?
Jona
Date: 02 Nov 1998 16:31:37 EST
Percy.
Thou statest "I have seen two Council sessions this cycle, and others in the past."
Thou mayest have perused the council's final decisions, for they were made known to the community, yet since this Council is the first to open its proceedings to the community, and, to the best of me knowledge, thou hast ne'er worn a baron's ring and canna ha' been privy to the council's deliberations prior to this, tis mayhap thou overstatest thineself.
Thou continue " Finally, as I said to Jona, the match was already in the hands of the Council when Helix declared a forfeit. As such, any events thereafter should not have been recognized, sanctioned, or even permitted to occur."
Percival, Madame Helix wast nae the official adjudicating that duel, therefore she canna ha' properly declared it forfeit. Tis for the official ta so rule. Tis for the warlord to place the matter before the council, Percival, shouldst he so wish; and wish he did. One must be careful e'er when rubbing a lamp and calling forth a Jhinni, neh?
Jona
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 16:35:12 EST
>> The matter was in the hands of the Council the moment that Lady Helix declared the match to be a forfeit.<<
I have to agree with Percy on this.. based on the fact that transactions in the Duel of Swords for challenges and such are time sensitive. A passage in the rules indicates that transactions via mailings and are recorded by the times they were sent not received. I believe the same applies to those trying to claim the last open spots in a tourney as well, ergo it should apply to all mailed transactions in the Duel of Swords.
((Author's note: This is the passage from the Universal Terms of Challenge: Where not specifically addressed all challenges are first come - first served. With the exception of challenges to Renegade & Neutral Barons (see below), only the first challenge is considered vital and all others are void based on Date/Time stamp of e-mails received by the Standings Keeper and the duelist challenged. This means there are no queues of challenges. ))
In doing a bit of research, I found in the public notice that Nycholas De Gyrlington placed on this cork regarding the matter. He wrote the notice on October 14, 1998 at 9PM as noted by keeper of records for these messages. His missive notes... "Thus it has been decided, the matter is hereby turned over for the council to decide the fate of the crown." One would assume that he sent the notices to the
council on or about the same time.
Baron AJ Bird, senior Baron of the Duel of Swords, responded in a public notice on October 14, 1998 at 11:50 of the eastern hour. One must assume that he read the message at that point.
Now.. if Huma and Jeff's duel took place after Nycholas sent his notification to the council then the matter was already in the Council's hands then they were in the wrong for it.
Colleen Lasher
::walks away muttering about Dallas, 1963, and Justice Warren in charge of an investigation of the death of a man that he hated::
Date: 02 Nov 1998 16:35:12 EST
>> The matter was in the hands of the Council the moment that Lady Helix declared the match to be a forfeit.<<
I have to agree with Percy on this.. based on the fact that transactions in the Duel of Swords for challenges and such are time sensitive. A passage in the rules indicates that transactions via mailings and are recorded by the times they were sent not received. I believe the same applies to those trying to claim the last open spots in a tourney as well, ergo it should apply to all mailed transactions in the Duel of Swords.
((Author's note: This is the passage from the Universal Terms of Challenge: Where not specifically addressed all challenges are first come - first served. With the exception of challenges to Renegade & Neutral Barons (see below), only the first challenge is considered vital and all others are void based on Date/Time stamp of e-mails received by the Standings Keeper and the duelist challenged. This means there are no queues of challenges. ))
In doing a bit of research, I found in the public notice that Nycholas De Gyrlington placed on this cork regarding the matter. He wrote the notice on October 14, 1998 at 9PM as noted by keeper of records for these messages. His missive notes... "Thus it has been decided, the matter is hereby turned over for the council to decide the fate of the crown." One would assume that he sent the notices to the
council on or about the same time.
Baron AJ Bird, senior Baron of the Duel of Swords, responded in a public notice on October 14, 1998 at 11:50 of the eastern hour. One must assume that he read the message at that point.
Now.. if Huma and Jeff's duel took place after Nycholas sent his notification to the council then the matter was already in the Council's hands then they were in the wrong for it.
Colleen Lasher
::walks away muttering about Dallas, 1963, and Justice Warren in charge of an investigation of the death of a man that he hated::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: waikrboh@aol.com (WaIkrBoh)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 16:40:21 EST
I believe that the more telling precedent set by the Darkness/Sartan case was the fact that the sport would not retroactively sanction challenge matches, nor would in any way consider a match that was fought under the pretense of being official when it was not.
In Huma's challenge to Dalamar, that precedence barely applies. The match was under no pretense of being official, as was Darkness'. The honor match offered by Huma to Jeff was specifically said to not be official. If the Council had voted to reschedule the challenge, their match would not even be under consideration to be sanctioned as the intercession match.
Additionally, I would like to back up what Morgan has said considering the legality of what the Council decided. Do not even attempt to show that the Council acted illegally unless you show exactly, using the letter of the law (or rules), and other precedence setting cases before the Council that caused rulings from the Coordinator that have not been more recently overturned, how the Council did so. The use of informal logic and "common sense" has
been shown to not have an effect on the Council's legal decisions.
-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th
Date: 02 Nov 1998 16:40:21 EST
I believe that the more telling precedent set by the Darkness/Sartan case was the fact that the sport would not retroactively sanction challenge matches, nor would in any way consider a match that was fought under the pretense of being official when it was not.
In Huma's challenge to Dalamar, that precedence barely applies. The match was under no pretense of being official, as was Darkness'. The honor match offered by Huma to Jeff was specifically said to not be official. If the Council had voted to reschedule the challenge, their match would not even be under consideration to be sanctioned as the intercession match.
Additionally, I would like to back up what Morgan has said considering the legality of what the Council decided. Do not even attempt to show that the Council acted illegally unless you show exactly, using the letter of the law (or rules), and other precedence setting cases before the Council that caused rulings from the Coordinator that have not been more recently overturned, how the Council did so. The use of informal logic and "common sense" has
been shown to not have an effect on the Council's legal decisions.
-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xgnortx@aol.com (X Gnort X)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 16:54:43 EST
You know what, I'll tell you about my ruling.
I ruled how -I- felt was right. -I- didn't need to look into any sort of precedence or past event or anything else that there have been rulings on. I judged -MY- way. Noone elses. Noone spoke with me or tried to make me see anything any other way than how -I- saw it.
I judged, 'nuff said. You don't like it, tough, I don't care what you think about my ideals. They're mine and mine alone. You think it was a wrong choice? Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with you on that. If you think words about this -way- stupid and -overly- played out event, don't hold your breath, cause I won't listen to it. You have your opinion and I have mine.
My suggestion?
End this stupid discussion because it's definately not going to solve anything.
Just my thoughts on this really old matter.
G'nort Espelande G'neesmacher Dragoon Talanador
Head of House Dragoon Talanador
Thrice Baron of the DoS
"When I left you, I was but the learner, now I am the master"
Date: 02 Nov 1998 16:54:43 EST
You know what, I'll tell you about my ruling.
I ruled how -I- felt was right. -I- didn't need to look into any sort of precedence or past event or anything else that there have been rulings on. I judged -MY- way. Noone elses. Noone spoke with me or tried to make me see anything any other way than how -I- saw it.
I judged, 'nuff said. You don't like it, tough, I don't care what you think about my ideals. They're mine and mine alone. You think it was a wrong choice? Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with you on that. If you think words about this -way- stupid and -overly- played out event, don't hold your breath, cause I won't listen to it. You have your opinion and I have mine.
My suggestion?
End this stupid discussion because it's definately not going to solve anything.
Just my thoughts on this really old matter.
G'nort Espelande G'neesmacher Dragoon Talanador
Head of House Dragoon Talanador
Thrice Baron of the DoS
"When I left you, I was but the learner, now I am the master"
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 17:10:04 EST
"Using the two most recent as an example I have not seen any sort of "ideal" at work at all."
The ideal (ultimate objective or goal) is plainly stated in the rules.
To wit: "a Baron's Council shall be convened in the occurrence of a Baron or the Overlord retiring while a challenge is pending or in the case of a forfeit."
Forgive my assumption that you had any support for the ideal of the Baronial Council in the first place.
"Despite all claims to the contrary by Barons that they "voted their conscience" that fact remains that the votes (whatever their actual motivations) followed, exactly or very closely, "party lines" between Loyal and Renegade members."
I noticed that the candle on my desk had burned down to the quick. Then I noticed my pen had run out of ink. Obviously, the candle burning down caused my pen to run out of ink.
Both instances, yours and mine, are examples of bad cause and effect reasoning. It does not matter that the votes coincidentally parallelled your suspicions of "partyline/cronyism." That is not a factual causal relationship, that is your opinion behind what you think the motivations are.
Date: 02 Nov 1998 17:10:04 EST
"Using the two most recent as an example I have not seen any sort of "ideal" at work at all."
The ideal (ultimate objective or goal) is plainly stated in the rules.
To wit: "a Baron's Council shall be convened in the occurrence of a Baron or the Overlord retiring while a challenge is pending or in the case of a forfeit."
Forgive my assumption that you had any support for the ideal of the Baronial Council in the first place.
"Despite all claims to the contrary by Barons that they "voted their conscience" that fact remains that the votes (whatever their actual motivations) followed, exactly or very closely, "party lines" between Loyal and Renegade members."
I noticed that the candle on my desk had burned down to the quick. Then I noticed my pen had run out of ink. Obviously, the candle burning down caused my pen to run out of ink.
Both instances, yours and mine, are examples of bad cause and effect reasoning. It does not matter that the votes coincidentally parallelled your suspicions of "partyline/cronyism." That is not a factual causal relationship, that is your opinion behind what you think the motivations are.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: blkfaether@aol.com (Blkfaether)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 17:16:32 EST
::peruses the posts::
Just when we've gone and hung most of Rhydin's solicitors I find need of the shysters! If any are left feel free to add your two bits ( I think it best if you do it anonymous, there's plenty of tall trees and rope about).
Black Feather
of the
Raven Clan
Wielder of the Midnight Orb
Servant of Truth
Date: 02 Nov 1998 17:16:32 EST
::peruses the posts::
Just when we've gone and hung most of Rhydin's solicitors I find need of the shysters! If any are left feel free to add your two bits ( I think it best if you do it anonymous, there's plenty of tall trees and rope about).
Black Feather
of the
Raven Clan
Wielder of the Midnight Orb
Servant of Truth
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 20:24:17 EST
>>Let us look at what Huma has lost and weigh it against the fine of ten thousand crowns.
1> Friends
2> Respect
3> A Place he Loved
4> Belief of Self Worth<<
None of these things did Huma lose by anything other than his own actions. I have no pity for him.
It was not the Council or the Overlord's fault that he lost these things.
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress-At-Arms
Date: 02 Nov 1998 20:24:17 EST
>>Let us look at what Huma has lost and weigh it against the fine of ten thousand crowns.
1> Friends
2> Respect
3> A Place he Loved
4> Belief of Self Worth<<
None of these things did Huma lose by anything other than his own actions. I have no pity for him.
It was not the Council or the Overlord's fault that he lost these things.
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress-At-Arms
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: falablah@aol.com (Falablah)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 21:34:14 EST
>3> A Place he Loved
>None of these things did Huma lose by anything other than his own actions. I
>have no pity for him.
Huma tried once again to be a part of this community and something like this happened. It was not his fault Dal did not show....If Dal showed up i highly doubt a "honour match" would have taken place. He felt violated once more by this community because of the unjust desicion by the council and could no longer stay in this place he loved. It is not solely his fault.....For you to have no pity for someone who has lost something they loved...let it be
a loved one or a sport....i feel pretty disturbed.
~Falablah Dalegate~
~Emerald, Mage,Grand Master~
~Former Opal, Pathfinder~
~Resident of the Outback~
~La de de da da....whowa whowa~
Date: 02 Nov 1998 21:34:14 EST
>3> A Place he Loved
>None of these things did Huma lose by anything other than his own actions. I
>have no pity for him.
Huma tried once again to be a part of this community and something like this happened. It was not his fault Dal did not show....If Dal showed up i highly doubt a "honour match" would have taken place. He felt violated once more by this community because of the unjust desicion by the council and could no longer stay in this place he loved. It is not solely his fault.....For you to have no pity for someone who has lost something they loved...let it be
a loved one or a sport....i feel pretty disturbed.
~Falablah Dalegate~
~Emerald, Mage,Grand Master~
~Former Opal, Pathfinder~
~Resident of the Outback~
~La de de da da....whowa whowa~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xgnortx@aol.com (X Gnort X)
Date: 02 Nov 1998 21:57:55 EST
Fala,
There also would have been ho Honor match had Huma not thought up the idea and challenge Jeff to one. Just so you know. I don't piy Huma either.
G'nort Espelande G'neesmacher Dragoon Talanador
Head of House Dragoon Talanador
Thrice Baron of the DoS
"When I left you, I was but the learner, now I am the master"
Date: 02 Nov 1998 21:57:55 EST
Fala,
There also would have been ho Honor match had Huma not thought up the idea and challenge Jeff to one. Just so you know. I don't piy Huma either.
G'nort Espelande G'neesmacher Dragoon Talanador
Head of House Dragoon Talanador
Thrice Baron of the DoS
"When I left you, I was but the learner, now I am the master"