Actually I think Dave said he didn't want to read it for fear of getting it muddled with his own ideas of where things were going.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPad
> On May 5, 2014, at 6:23 AM, <> wrote:
>
> >> I haven't read where this discussion goes, but I'd like to put in my two cents here. Yes, 1248 is very good. It got me interested in Martin Dougherty and now I've read tons of his stuff. The man is a quality-making machine and a nice gentleman to speak to (he was nice enough to respond to a few emails I sent him).
>
> That said, I've very eager to learn where Dave saw the New Era going, because what Martin did is not what I envisioned. In the end, of course, what really matters is where the players and GM see it going...
>
> Scott<<
>
> I'm not sure that you'll get that answer. Dave has said something to the effect of not wanting to crap all over the good work that MJD did and create rifts and such. You could try reading his posts and gleaning from the bones what he intended.
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>
>
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPad
> On May 5, 2014, at 6:23 AM, <> wrote:
>
> >> I haven't read where this discussion goes, but I'd like to put in my two cents here. Yes, 1248 is very good. It got me interested in Martin Dougherty and now I've read tons of his stuff. The man is a quality-making machine and a nice gentleman to speak to (he was nice enough to respond to a few emails I sent him).
>
> That said, I've very eager to learn where Dave saw the New Era going, because what Martin did is not what I envisioned. In the end, of course, what really matters is where the players and GM see it going...
>
> Scott<<
>
> I'm not sure that you'll get that answer. Dave has said something to the effect of not wanting to crap all over the good work that MJD did and create rifts and such. You could try reading his posts and gleaning from the bones what he intended.
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>
>