Vedr. Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portents

[John Pare']

I do not feel that this list specifies a version of RQ.  I play MRQ and RQ 
III with adaptations of both.





John






>From: Wayne Shaw <shaw at caprica.com>
>Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." <rq-rules at crashbox.com>
>To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." <rq-rules at crashbox.com>
>Subject: Re: Vedr. Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & 
>Portents
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:53:57 -0700
>
>At 12:13 PM 7/30/2007, you wrote:
>>You might be right as there is no clear description of the supposed 
>>content for this list. I think it should be about brilliance of the true 
>>RuneQuest though. I do enough MRQ bashing on the MRQ forum. ;-)
>
>I think you'll be frustrated then, because I've certainly seen people 
>discussing matters where they were apparently using MRQ here.
>
>_______________________________________________
>RQ-Rules mailing list
>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules

_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!  
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2