Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: SJ on Worlds
Next Message: Re: SJ on Worlds
Month Index: September, 1996


From:     ADEPT@???.com
Date:     Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:41:05 -0400
Subject:  Re: SJ on Worlds
In a message dated 96-09-22 09:28:04 EDT, you write:

<< Could be,  I suppose.  I think this is a matter of personal preference.  I
 prefer that SJ _not_ be that much more technically or magically advanced
 (if at all)then a groundling campaign.  You disagree.  Cool. >>

 I was not saying that the SJ is "that much more technically or magically
advanced
 (if at all)then a groundling campaign." what I was saying is that because
they needed to overcome the stress they did. " nessity is the mother of
invension" so to say thats why SJ ships are the way they are. If groundlings
need that know how they could have it in 8 to 10 years. But they dont so they
dont.


Sweet water and light laughter until next
Morereg Professor of Magic
Evereska College of Magic and Arms.


Previous Message: Re: SJ on Worlds
Next Message: Re: SJ on Worlds
Month Index: September, 1996

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Re: SJ on Worlds    ADEPT@???.com    22 Sep 1996 00:24:11
Re: SJ on Worlds    Paul Westermeyer    22 Sep 1996 13:18:34
Re: SJ on Worlds    ADEPT@???.com    22 Sep 1996 15:41:05
Re: SJ on Worlds    Eugene Shumu1insky    22 Sep 1996 06:22:07
Re: SJ on Worlds    Joe Kirby    01 Oct 1996 09:01:48
Re: SJ on Worlds    James Perry    01 Oct 1996 20:44:24

[ SPJ-L@Cornell.edu ] [ Spelljammer@Leicester.ac.uk ] [ Spelljammer@MPGN.com ] [ Spelljammer-L@Oracle.Wizards.com ]