[Rq-rules] Farewell to CON, thread drift

[Paul Cardwell]

--- Sven Lugar <vikingjarl at gmail.com> wrote:

> Your arguments are the same as those who beat me for
> supporting Plate 
> Tectonics back in 1960 & with the same attitude that
> did not allow for 
> any dissension. I knew a retired surgeon-doctor as a
> youth who still 
> wore his blood-stained black frock-coat (he was in
> his 90's at the time) 
> who refused to wash his hands or sterilize his
> equipment because he felt 
> Dr Semmelweis & Dr Lister weren't scientifically
> sound physicians. All 
> I'm saying is I keep an open mind because we don't
> know everything yet 
> or even close to it. I've seen too many changes in
> my lifetime. When I 
> was a kid the idea of pocket calculators let alone
> portable phones were 
> "Science Fiction" - which was considered a
> derogatory term & not fit for 
> anyone of scientific bent. Role-playing games hadn't
> even been 
> introduced yet & when they were, they were
> considered the province of 
> psychotics &  the delusional; & thus not fit for
> anyone of a scientific 
> mind. I was taught that no man could make it into
> LEO let alone space 
> because of the Van Allen belt & this was a "proven
> scientifc fact" & 
> thus JFK was foisting a boondoggle on the American
> people to merely make 
> his cronies rich. I've seen too much "proven
> scientific fact" fall as 
> more knowledge comes in. I for one am glad of it.
> 
> BTW, because of the limitations of the study you
> mentioned, the study 
> has been repeated with tighter controls & very
> similar results in 
> several cases & ambiguous results in other trials.
> And no it wouldn't 
> have qualified for the prize because the study that
> the doctors (who 
> told me about this) drew no conclusions about what
> caused the effect 
> (whether physical or not), but merely that there was
> an effect of 
> undetermined mechanism.
> 
> I will disagree with you in that this has nothing to
> do with RQ, because 
> I remember these things being discussed over the
> gaming tables when 
> Steve was writing the rules & we were playtesting.
> Also it belongs 
> because it so wonderfully illustrates a strength of
> RQ; it can encompass 
> a great number of world views & incorporate them
> into a campaign. Thank 
> you for helping to illustrate that.
> 
> Please do, tailor the rules to meet your vision. I
> don't devalue you for 
> it or think less of you in anyway. There needs to be
> a brake to balance 
> things out. Much as you do, I do prefer quantifiable
> scientific results 
> myself so there is no need to disdain me so. I wish
> you the best & may 
> your life always be about learning.
> Skal,
> Sven

I find much to appreciate in your comments. 
Mythworld, as I have mentioned before, was my
submission for RQ III and too detailed for Greg
Stafford's taste.  It is an example of your rules
modification.

I also resonated with your first paragraph.  I am
eternally grateful to my geology professor (1953) who
did not believe in plate tectonics, but considered it
an important enough theory that we should have a
grounding in it.

Likewise, Pasteur faced considerable opposition to
most of his breakthroughs because he was a chemist and
not a medical doctor.

By all means, keep an open mind, but on the other
hand, don't fall for every fad that comes down the
pike.

Paul Cardwell

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com