Feather Falling and Belayed companions

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96686E8DDB3F3mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.135...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:QIednSP-3LSTagHfRVn-uA@comcast.com:
>
> > The whole reason why this thread got started in the first place
> > was because it is most definitely NOT clear what happens when a
> > spell fails mid-duration. Up until this point, NOBODY has quoted
> > a verifiable rule that describes the OFFICIAL rule for what
> > happens in that instance.
> >
> >
>
> If the spell fails, it means it fails, which means the spell no
> longer has effect. What do you find confusing about this?

Nothing is confusing about your interpretation. But you've got no rule that
says this is the case. You'd think they would have put something EXPLICITLY
in the rules about this.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 06:11:27 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:429cb2f2.35449292@news.telusplanet.net...
>> of range of it. And if a big dragon flys up and and "lands" on you,
>> your Flight spell doesn't disappear. You are just pushed downward
>> until and unless you fly out from under it.
>


>From what you said, it would make NO sense for a character with a ring of
>feather falling to belay himself at all.

Only if you automatically assume that if anyone falls off they'll pull
off the others. And if anyone falls off they'll pull off the others,
then in fact it does make no sense to belay. But of course that
isn't true. Usually what happens when someone falls while belayed, is
the other people hold them up until they can get a foothold again.

If someone else fell, and the ring
>activated, it would be instantly nullified by the other characters falling.

Once again, the ring is not "nullified". It works as per usual,
instantly as soon as the character starts to free fall.

>Personally, I don't like DISCOURAGING what I would consider intelligent
>play(the belaying of mountaineering characters). If a person knew that
>their feather fall would instantly fail,

And the ring does not "fail". It will save the ring wearer from
taking falling damage.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:15:43 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:xq2dncIZrKGfowHfRVn-3w@comcast.com:
>
>> So, I will submit to admitting to being
>> just such an idiot, as soon as you find the rule that applies to
>> what happens when spells are exceeded in mid-duration, rather than
>> before they are cast.
>>
>
> The fact that no such rules exist reinforces the idea that
>spells cannot have their limits exceeded while active, which
>reinforces the idea that an overloaded active spell dies.

I see no way you can overload a spell.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9668686494943mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:xq2dncIZrKGfowHfRVn-3w@comcast.com:
>
> > So, I will submit to admitting to being
> > just such an idiot, as soon as you find the rule that applies to
> > what happens when spells are exceeded in mid-duration, rather than
> > before they are cast.
> >
>
> The fact that no such rules exist reinforces the idea that
> spells cannot have their limits exceeded while active,

Yes.

> which
> reinforces the idea that an overloaded active spell dies.

No. The spell is not dispelled or terminated unless something happens that
meets conditions laid out in the general rules or specific spell
description if applicable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Loren Pechtel wrote:
>
> The creator obviously doesn't know how much the guy wearing the ring
> will weigh. Taking the results of caster level 1 produces a ring that
> won't work for most tanks and yet the ring does not note this limit.

Oh, really? In what way, exactly, will it not work for
"most tanks"?

> This would say that the weight limit of the ring is higher than a
> simple reading of the spell would suggest.

It might if your premise wasn't flawed.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:17:27 -0700, ~consul
<consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>>>When the spell ends, by either duration or weight limit, drop as a stone.
>> As I said, I see no reason for the spell to end because the weight
>> limit is exceed. Dump the extra weight before the spell's duration
>> runs out and you should once again see the spells effects.
>
>Ah, okay. As I see it, maybe the writers didn't build such an effect into the
>rule

They don't have to build such an effect into "the rule". There is no
rule saying that spells end when you "exceed their weight limit".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:17:27 -0700, ~consul
>>David Johnston wrote:
>>>>When the spell ends, by either duration or weight limit, drop as a stone.
>>>As I said, I see no reason for the spell to end because the weight
>>>limit is exceed. Dump the extra weight before the spell's duration
>>>runs out and you should once again see the spells effects.
>>Ah, okay. As I see it, maybe the writers didn't build such an effect into the
>>rule
> They don't have to build such an effect into "the rule". There is no
> rule saying that spells end when you "exceed their weight limit".

There is nothing in the description about what happens when someone Feather
Falls and then more weight is added. Yes. But given that the spell is only to do
one thing, slow down a fall, it either does it or it does. There are no
varaiations to a use of such a spell. Like Lightening, I can use it on a
creature, a PC, a door, a wall, a chest, an elemental, into another item, etc.
Different expectations, multiple uses. But I don't see that sort of variety with
Feather Fall, so I see it being on or off, you either go slow, or you don't.
--
"Thank goodness, that Amnesty International likened the US to only the Soviet
Gulag. If they had said we were like the Nazi's, then we would know that it was
just hyperbole. I mean, really now."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:15:56 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
>news:UZOdncg3sI1GKQDfRVnytw@pipex.net...
>> is. If there was proportional degradation it would appear in the rules.
>> Absence implies a boolean functionality. It really is just this simple and
>> disturbs me that so much conversation has been generated.
>
>Don't you think that something like this would at least warrant a one-liner
>in the rules somewhere, if only to confirm your interpretation?

No. There are very very few spells where this can mechanically even be an
issue, and the circumstances where it would become an issue are also rare.

2 things which don't happen often, but need to happen together to be
important = Why bother with a rule?

And there are enough similar-enough rules governing other effects to
extrapolate an outcome without going into some hugely overcomplicated
diminished capacity system for overloaded spells.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote in news:1117637654.925415.150520
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Marc L. wrote:
>> The fact that no such rules exist reinforces the idea
>> that
>> spells cannot have their limits exceeded while active,
>
> Assuming by 'active' you mean 'remaining just as effective', yes.

No, by "active" I mean "active."

> But I figure you mean 'remaining effective in any way' which is
> what I'd go with, although even that's not guaranteed to be right.

And you'd be wrong, I meant what I wrote.

>> which reinforces the idea that an overloaded active spell dies.
>
> How does it reinforce it? I don't see that it reinforces either
> the theory that the spell dies / ends or the theory that the spell
> is suppressed. >

Yes, it is quite evident you don't get it.


--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in news:429d76af.937398
@news.telusplanet.net:

> I see no way you can overload a spell.
>

And you mean what by this statement? That it is impossible to do
something to overload a spell? Obviously untrue.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1117644199.039528.16650@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Marc L. wrote:
>> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:QIednSP-3LSTagHfRVn-uA@comcast.com:
>>
>> > The whole reason why this thread got started in the first place
>> > was because it is most definitely NOT clear what happens when a
>> > spell fails mid-duration. Up until this point, NOBODY has
>> > quoted a verifiable rule that describes the OFFICIAL rule for
>> > what happens in that instance.
>>
>> If the spell fails, it means it fails, which means the
>> spell no
>> longer has effect. What do you find confusing about this?
>
> I think the fact that you've claimed it fails, whilst most (I
> believe) but not all the other people in this thread now seem to
> be in the 'it's only suppressed' camp indicates that the proper
> way to handle it is unknown (hence the confusion).
>

I quoted the whole post just for you. I responded to a post that
said, The whole reason why this thread got started in the first place
was because it is most definitely NOT clear what happens when a spell
fails mid-duration." See, no confusion, Jeff, who wrote that as
attributed above, said it himself, what happens when a spell FAILS
mid-duration.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JYqdnRztOPQxZgDfRVn-ow@comcast.com:

> Don't you think that something like this would at least warrant a
> one-liner in the rules somewhere, if only to confirm your
> interpretation?

No, which is more likely, a) they didn't feel the need to
emphasize that either a spell works or it doesn't, b) they didn't
feel the need to say that if a spell is overloaded while already
active that it degrades rather than ends? If you say "b" I can see
what the problem here is, you.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:30:51 -0700, ~consul
<consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:17:27 -0700, ~consul
>>>David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>When the spell ends, by either duration or weight limit, drop as a stone.
>>>>As I said, I see no reason for the spell to end because the weight
>>>>limit is exceed. Dump the extra weight before the spell's duration
>>>>runs out and you should once again see the spells effects.
>>>Ah, okay. As I see it, maybe the writers didn't build such an effect into the
>>>rule
>> They don't have to build such an effect into "the rule". There is no
>> rule saying that spells end when you "exceed their weight limit".
>
>There is nothing in the description about what happens when someone Feather
>Falls and then more weight is added.

Newtonian physics say that you fall at so many meters per second
squared. If you were using Aristotelian physics then the speed at
which you fall would be proportional to the mass of the extra weight.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Marc L. wrote:
> IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote in news:1117637654.925415.150520
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Marc L. wrote:
> >> The fact that no such rules exist reinforces the idea
> >> that
> >> spells cannot have their limits exceeded while active,
> >
> > Assuming by 'active' you mean 'remaining just as effective', yes.
>
> No, by "active" I mean "active."
>
> > But I figure you mean 'remaining effective in any way' which is
> > what I'd go with, although even that's not guaranteed to be right.
>
> And you'd be wrong, I meant what I wrote.
>
> >> which reinforces the idea that an overloaded active spell dies.
> >
> > How does it reinforce it? I don't see that it reinforces either
> > the theory that the spell dies / ends or the theory that the spell
> > is suppressed. >
>
> Yes, it is quite evident you don't get it.

Thanks for clearing that up then!?! 😱)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:aeds91th75t85rtdvgi5atk1m0rsj4q0md@4ax.com...
> >Don't you think that something like this would at least warrant a
one-liner
> >in the rules somewhere, if only to confirm your interpretation?
>
> No. There are very very few spells where this can mechanically even be an
> issue, and the circumstances where it would become an issue are also rare.

True, but ... one line... huge rule book... just one line?

Also, I'll wager that spell failure mid-duration happens more often than we
are actively recognizing right now, because we're focussing on one spell in
particular. But I don't think it would be hard to overload a spell
intentionally and need a rule to cover what happens. You'd think they would
have covered that one...

> And there are enough similar-enough rules governing other effects to
> extrapolate an outcome without going into some hugely overcomplicated
> diminished capacity system for overloaded spells.

If it's so rare that we don't even have a RULE to cover it, I HARDLY think a
few seconds of minor calculations would be much to contend with as compared
to the discussion the DM's arbitrary ruling will garner from his players,
especially if they happen to disagree with the ruling.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"~consul" <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
news:d7lggc$abd$1@gist.usc.edu...
> There is nothing in the description about what happens when someone
Feather
> Falls and then more weight is added. Yes. But given that the spell is only
to do
> one thing, slow down a fall, it either does it or it does. There are no
> varaiations to a use of such a spell. Like Lightening, I can use it on a
> creature, a PC, a door, a wall, a chest, an elemental, into another item,
etc.
> Different expectations, multiple uses. But I don't see that sort of
variety with
> Feather Fall, so I see it being on or off, you either go slow, or you
don't.

Maybe it's just me(wait, no, of course it's just me), but in the real world,
things that are designed to slow things down and START to work rarely
completely fail to slow them down. If your brakes START working on your
car, if your car suddenly weighed as much as a semi, the brakes wouldn't
STOP working, they'd just work really really poorly(ineffectively). But you
would come to a stop eventually, faster than if you simply took your foot
off the gas.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9668C6FF27FBEmastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.135...
> IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote in
> news:1117644199.039528.16650@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Marc L. wrote:
> >> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
> >> news:QIednSP-3LSTagHfRVn-uA@comcast.com:
> >>
> >> > The whole reason why this thread got started in the first place
> >> > was because it is most definitely NOT clear what happens when a
> >> > spell fails mid-duration. Up until this point, NOBODY has
> >> > quoted a verifiable rule that describes the OFFICIAL rule for
> >> > what happens in that instance.
> >>
> >> If the spell fails, it means it fails, which means the
> >> spell no
> >> longer has effect. What do you find confusing about this?
> >
> > I think the fact that you've claimed it fails, whilst most (I
> > believe) but not all the other people in this thread now seem to
> > be in the 'it's only suppressed' camp indicates that the proper
> > way to handle it is unknown (hence the confusion).
> >
>
> I quoted the whole post just for you. I responded to a post that
> said, The whole reason why this thread got started in the first place
> was because it is most definitely NOT clear what happens when a spell
> fails mid-duration." See, no confusion, Jeff, who wrote that as
> attributed above, said it himself, what happens when a spell FAILS
> mid-duration.

We thank the member of ARA(anal retentives anonymous) for their
contribution.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_sudneNBNch2fQPfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...

> There's cock judges, and cool judges. A cock judge sees you have an
ounce
> of weed and sentances you to life imprisonment because you broke the
law. A
> cool judge says, yes, it's against the law, but I'm not going to be a
cock
> about it, so I'll take the weed from you for my party this saturday and
fine
> you 25 bucks, you naughty naughty pothead.
>
> Same thing here. If you WANT to be a cock of a DM, when someone has a
spell
> that is supposed to fail in some manner, you can be a cock about it, and
> have it catastrophically fail. There is the other option, you can be
cool
> about it, and have he spell fail just SLIGHTLY more gracefully than a
cock
> of a DM would. As long as you are equally cockish or non-cockish to the
> NPCs in the game, it doesn't really matter which way you go, in the
grand
> scheme of things, except in the eyes of your players. In my game, since
I
> actually play with my FRIENDS(I've known them for almost 15 years), I
don't
> immediately opt for the "being a cock" method. And, since players are
more
> important to me than any PC or NPC, I take their feelings into
consideration
> when ruling on things, leading, more often than not, to a more
"charitable"
> ruling.

So you say to the player in question. "You know your character has a Ring
of Featherfall so you might not want to tether yourself to the rest of the
party because if you fall the Ring won't take the weight."

Problem solved, now stop being such a bloody drama queen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Z8-dnc8c26DDQAPfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> news:aeds91th75t85rtdvgi5atk1m0rsj4q0md@4ax.com...
> > >Don't you think that something like this would at least warrant a
> one-liner
> > >in the rules somewhere, if only to confirm your interpretation?
> >
> > No. There are very very few spells where this can mechanically even be
an
> > issue, and the circumstances where it would become an issue are also
rare.
>
> True, but ... one line... huge rule book... just one line?

If you add one redundancy you could add a thousand more. What's the point?
The game assumes intelligent gamers. If people can't cope they should take
up a less taxing hobby.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Loren Pechtel wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:01:20 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> Which is only relevant *if* you take move actions *while* a dragon is
>>hanging onto your ankle. However, if you are grappled by the dragon, you cannot *take* move
>>actions. CARRYING A DRAGON IS A *COMPLETELY* *VOLUNTARY* *EXERCISE*.
> In other words, you can stand there in space forever so long as you
> don't take move actions?

I would say that a dragon (or whomever is sufficiently heavy enough) decides to
drop on a wizard, is working on a Bull Rush, and has a bonus due to weight. As
such, there is movement.
--
"Thank goodness, that Amnesty International likened the US to only the Soviet
Gulag. If they had said we were like the Nazi's, then we would know that it was
just hyperbole. I mean, really now."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Andy wrote:
> I just have to ask, although I know I probably shouldn't, are you saying if
> two characters fall off a cliff they can grapple each other on the basis
> that they can't take a move action and therefore won't fall?

Relative to each other, they are falling at the same rate, and they are not
falling apart.

> I go with the Wizard starts carrying the weight theory - two birds grappling
> may well fall for a while as they can't take a move action to 'fly'. A
> grappling creature isn't gliding around either, although the existence of
> wings might break its fall slightly. A wizard with magic flight doesn't
> have that problem.

That depends, are they polymorphed into an african swallow?

> The question for me is whether the spell fails, or the spell is suppressed
> until the dragon lets go. Of course the dragon could hold the grapple and
> hit the floor with the wizard attached, hoping it has more hit points, but
> it would need to be pretty desperate to try that...

With the Flying Spell, I'm fine with suppressed (clock's running of duration though)
--
"Thank goodness, that Amnesty International likened the US to only the Soviet
Gulag. If they had said we were like the Nazi's, then we would know that it was
just hyperbole. I mean, really now."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:

> It is hard, for the first reason that I mention...spells which are even
> capable of being overloaded are nearly nonexistant in the first place.
>
> No DD spell qualifies.
> No Heal qualifies.
> 99.9% of Buffs do not qualify.
> Summon spells do not qualify, or have built-in rules for when they cease
> functioning.
> Ditto any form of mind control.
>
> Then there is part 2, where these overloaded conditions are unlikely.
> Dragon grabs onto your skivvies to try to cancel your spell? Ok, stop
> flying and free-fall. Just because you have fly active doesn't mean you
> need to be flying for it to stay active. Spell remains in effect because it
> isn't supporting any weight at all, and certainly not the dragon. Dragon
> can keep falling, or dragon can let go. My vote is that he'd let go.

The problem is a bit more general than "overload", I phrase it as
"target of a continuing spell becomes ineligable as a target for that
spell later becomes eligable again prior to the time the spell's
duration would expire normally".

It's still not common, but I think it may be more frequent than you
are suggesting.

Awhile back someone asked about permanent spells, death, and raise
dead in cases where the spell is castable only on creatures not on
objects (and the dead body is an object). If the spell remains
present but inactive/suppressed while the target it was cast on is
inelligable then that would make a noticable difference from the
fails entirely interpretation since each such spell costs hundreds
of EP.

What if I polymorph someone under a permanent enlarge person into
a non-humanoid?

I won't argue that this sort of thing is common. It's never come
up in my games (permanency is seen as less atractive than items),
but it is quite possible, if permanency is commonly used I would
argue it is almost inevitable.

I don't think a one line rule specifying suppresion or complete
failure when the target of an ongoing effect becomes inelligable
would be out of place.

Similarly in cases with a "graceful" failure mode, such as fly,
there is some question of whether suppression (or failure) activates
the "graceful" failure. In point of fact fly is the only "graceful"
failure spell I can think of, and since I tend to think of the
"graceful" failure as a free feather-fall I would hold that it is
also overloaded and thus the question is moot.

My own tendancy is simply to go with the spell is supressed until
the target is again legal.

DougL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Andy" <joininthechant660@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fNednZxMXu_mkALfRVnytA@pipex.net...

> Thanks [to Jeff I think] for posting the wording of the spell.

FYI you can find it here www.d20srd.org

> You can't 'cast' a spell on an
> invalid target, but if the original target was valid the only
stipulation is
> that you can't carry aloft a certain weight. That woud imply that the
spell
> is still running as the original target was valid, you just can't carry
the
> dragon whilst it is attached. You would therefore start falling
normally
> from that point until the weight was removed.

See. Easy isn't it?

> The question of whether a grappled creature counts as weight carried
surely
> requires common sense?

Yep. Sadly absent from most of this thread.

 

[Andy]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:QqadnVDxtfgNjALfRVnytQ@pipex.net...
>
> "Andy" <joininthechant660@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fNednZxMXu_mkALfRVnytA@pipex.net...
>
>> Thanks [to Jeff I think] for posting the wording of the spell.
>
> FYI you can find it here www.d20srd.org
>
>> You can't 'cast' a spell on an
>> invalid target, but if the original target was valid the only
> stipulation is
>> that you can't carry aloft a certain weight. That woud imply that the
> spell
>> is still running as the original target was valid, you just can't carry
> the
>> dragon whilst it is attached. You would therefore start falling
> normally
>> from that point until the weight was removed.
>
> See. Easy isn't it?
>
>> The question of whether a grappled creature counts as weight carried
> surely
>> requires common sense?
>
> Yep. Sadly absent from most of this thread.

I saw Willie's post at the very beginning:

> Wow! A well-thought out, polite flame war.... Gotta love it!

That didn't last long did it... 🙂

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Andy" <joininthechant660@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yv-dnQPruMpBigLfRVnytA@pipex.net...
> > Wow! A well-thought out, polite flame war.... Gotta love it!
>
> That didn't last long did it... 🙂

It's worth noting that, aside from a few interjected "moron" and "idiot"
statements by others(myself included), the only person who's really getting
insulting in this thread is MSB. Other than him, this has, for the most
part, been pretty innocuous.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right