Re: (TFT) Experimental Injury and Healing rules - comments Examples

["Charles Gadda" <cgadda@earthlink.net>]

Fair enough. But let me ask you this: in all of the material you perused
were any of the points I raised ever once considered? Judging from the
thread you posted I'd say not. If true, than while you are not uncritical,
you are at least incomplete and have perhaps leaped to conclusions without
fully considering all.

It's not just that your assertion is counter-intuitive; it is also
counter-scientific. Basically, what you're telling me is that the human body
does NOT need blood for any reason, and a person who has lost gobs of the
stuff will still have a brain at "100%" (however one defines that)... that
each unit of the body is totally and completely compartmentalized from the
other, with absolutely zero interconnectivity, thus damage to one area in no
way shape or form affects anything else... well, you know, that all is just
silly.

Then again, perhaps it is totally correct!

Point is, Erol, that you (politely) flapped in, dropped a turd in the punch
bowl, and have now flapped away - this is remarkably frustrating to those of
us who really just want to understand this!

I'm not out to disprove/discredit you, nor to gain yours or anyone elses
"agreement" - what I am trying to do is come up with a rules set that I like
that has considered all of the information on the subject. It's frustrating
to have someone insist you are wrong, but not provide sufficient explanation
or evidence to back up their claims.

Like I said before I just want to understand how you came to this
anti-scientific :-) position. You don't need to cite sources - I accept at
face value that you read what you read. All I'm asking for is a summary or
outline of what led you to your conclusions, and also whether or not any of
my I think legitimate counterpoints/questions were ever addressed and
answered.

Know you're probably busy, but I'd really appreciate it if you would. Thanks
in advance for any further enlightenment!

> A point of order: I don't "uncritically accept claims that there is no
such
> thing as a
> 'death spiral'" since, as I posted earlier, I formerly held your position
and
> was convinced by arugment and evidence from many different places to
change
> my mind. Or more precisely: I've become convinced that, in the real world,
> partial impairment from injury of the sort best represented by a Dx
penalty is
> rare enough that leaving it out completely is a better first approximation
than
> almost any other rule - certainly better than BTB TFT (or BTB GURPS).
>
> Unfortunately I can't recall & present all the different bits of evidence
> that convinced me - it wasn't just the one thread I posted a reference to,
but
> many other postings, ancidotes, and reports besides. I'll also accept that
the
> idea is counterintuitive, contrary to common sense, and even something
that
> reasonable people can disagree about.
>
> But I have to deny that my take on the matter is *uncritical*
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"