Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Low Priority Offices, the Porter and Bleeding Eyes Aren't that Bad

2009-06-12 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > I retract (of if that fails remove from the proposal pool) the above > discussed proposal, and submit a new identical one, except with all > instances of "Porter" replaced with "Greetor". I'm treating this as ineffective in submitting a new p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Low Priority Offices, the Porter and Bleeding Eyes Aren't that Bad

2009-06-08 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Charles Walker wrote: >> The Porter > You misspelled Portor. :P > > Actually, I think this should be called something more obviously > descriptive of its function -- in particular, something that makes the > office's function clear to new pla

DIS: Re: BUS: Low Priority Offices, the Porter and Bleeding Eyes Aren't that Bad

2009-06-08 Thread Benjamin Caplan
Charles Walker wrote: > The Porter You misspelled Portor. :P Actually, I think this should be called something more obviously descriptive of its function -- in particular, something that makes the office's function clear to new players. Perhaps Greetor?