<div dir="ltr">We shall meet to decide.. only the wife corrects my incorect english</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:34 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sfbdrama-request@lists.mattnet.org" target="_blank">sfbdrama-request@lists.mattnet.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send SFBdrama mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:sfbdrama-request@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama-request@lists.<wbr>mattnet.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:sfbdrama-owner@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama-owner@lists.mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of SFBdrama digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 2 (Gregory Flusche)<br>
2. I don?t care much, but... (Pat Hogan)<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>----------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:26:22 -0400<br>
From: Gregory Flusche <<a href="mailto:shagrat1960@gmail.com">shagrat1960@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Gregory Flusche via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 2<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAEoCcB7F2HtrXTDYu_y0vuP_<wbr>8eLo254Zzq1=<a href="mailto:SFm3fNUcM4sH_A@mail.gmail.com">SFm3fNUcM4sH_A@<wbr>mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Ok My turn to answer Matts post<br>
<br>
I like the no map approch and do not really care how why we meet<br>
unhistorcal races. My only thoughts on this is closing a boarder hurts you<br>
unless you can replace it. Yes as the Jindo i did close a baorder that i<br>
was not happy playing against. That you have no choice other then when you<br>
get a boarder no boarder scenerio.<br>
<br>
<br>
I am all in favor for simple Econ. I am the Admriral I do not care were the<br>
money comes from just that i get so much and always want more.<br>
<br>
I like Scenario driven... :)<br>
<br>
Yes only EP rewards i think will be fine. I would however like a small base<br>
Income that every one gets. Note I think if you as defender do not send<br>
ships to a scenerio and neither does the other player there should still be<br>
a negative effect?<br>
<br>
I am all for buying my fleet for myself.<br>
<br>
ending condtions either or no real issue<br>
<br>
Exploration was somthing I suggested to help those who are not getting any<br>
new boarder scenarios. Some replied that everyone would do it and it would<br>
not help. I disagree if my fleet is not big enouph to cover new boarders I<br>
would not make a new boarder. As happened with one of the Jindo this game A<br>
small fleet to many boarders and getting a negative income.<br>
<br>
weapon status only hurt me badly once and weapon status 1 with plasma vs a<br>
disrupter and drones. Worse i had to kill the monster, he simply shoved me<br>
so far away from the monster that after my plasma was armed I was to far<br>
away to get to the monster and kill it. I will go with what ever is<br>
decieded.<br>
<br>
I like starting vs Histrorcal oppononts. When picking your starting race<br>
you can then say well I really do not want to face Photons so I will play<br>
Hydran are whatever. After that new boarder is new baorder if you do not<br>
want to fight it make a peace pact,<br>
<br>
Starting year,<br>
Any of the races i like to play It really does not matter to me. I really<br>
do not care for X ships however. Some races do have some really good refits<br>
and others really can get real good attrition type units latter<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:36 PM, <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama-request@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama-request@lists.<wbr>mattnet.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Send SFBdrama mailing list submissions to<br>
> <a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
><br>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
> <a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
> <a href="mailto:sfbdrama-request@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama-request@lists.<wbr>mattnet.org</a><br>
><br>
> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
> <a href="mailto:sfbdrama-owner@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama-owner@lists.mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
><br>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
> than "Re: Contents of SFBdrama digest..."<br>
><br>
><br>
> Today's Topics:<br>
><br>
> 1. Campaign Tweaks (Matthew)<br>
> 2. Long response (Daniel Crispin)<br>
> 3. Spreadsheet comparing Income and EP rewards (<a href="mailto:david@jannke.com">david@jannke.com</a>)<br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>----------<br>
><br>
> Message: 1<br>
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:59:38 -0400<br>
> From: Matthew <<a href="mailto:matt@mattnet.org">matt@mattnet.org</a>><br>
> To: Matthew via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>><br>
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Campaign Tweaks<br>
> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:266a3fec-02db-a566-337b-31802abe74b1@mattnet.org">266a3fec-02db-a566-337b-<wbr>31802abe74b1@mattnet.org</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"<br>
><br>
> I have a bit of an outline for the structure of the campaign I want.<br>
> This has driven the initial version and continues to guide me with this<br>
> campaign. Additionally, there are some tweaks that have been in the<br>
> planning for this iteration for the last [couple/several] months.<br>
> Finally, I cover some of the startup variations available, which really<br>
> drive the flavor of the new campaign when compared to the previous one.<br>
><br>
> *Structure first:*<br>
> - No Map<br>
> This means borders are an abstraction. Wonder how a Klingon can find a<br>
> border with the Gorn? They must have met in the middle while carving out<br>
> Fed turf or worked around the Feds.<br>
><br>
> It gives the players alot of flexibility on controlling their borders.<br>
> Don't worry that completely shutting down a border hurts you too. If<br>
> you're dealing from a position of strength, then you'll be opening up<br>
> larger borders on your other sides at the same time. The important thing<br>
> at that time is that you are shutting off a certain player from hitting<br>
> you hard. Don't want to fight against the Jindarians while playing Gorn?<br>
> Close down the Jindo border and make a larger border with the Romulans.<br>
><br>
> - Simple econ<br>
> That means we don't track what your econ is from colonies, we don't<br>
> track supply lines, no supply-tax, no bookkeeping. I know some of you<br>
> really prefer 4X campaigns. I do to. I have one in the works (I've had<br>
> it in the works for a couple years now. Don't hold your breath.) But<br>
> bookkeeping has to be a minimum here. Just point your fleet and shoot.<br>
><br>
> - Scenario Driven<br>
> Some campaigns are simply "Battle Generators". Others are "Chess with<br>
> SFB ships". This is the former. So scenarios drive all of the important<br>
> decisions.<br>
><br>
> *New Tweaks:*<br>
> - Remove the {NO}INCOME rewards:<br>
> All of the scenarios will give and take away some amount of EPs. Your<br>
> income won't ever be touched, but your stockpile will roller-coaster.<br>
><br>
> - Add fleet Limits<br>
> While editing the scenarios for their rewards, I'll be introducing fleet<br>
> limits on some scenarios. Particularly the common ones where it's<br>
> unreasonable to see large fleet elements. Since I am planning to keep<br>
> the CR system (I had floated the idea earlier to use the BPV cap system<br>
> and it was unpopular), My original intent was to limit the size class<br>
> (and thus limit the fleet size) allowed at certain scenarios. I might<br>
> instead limit it by Move Cost (which will have the same effect - No ship<br>
> with MC greater than 0.5 at such-and-such scenario) or by move-cost of<br>
> all ships on a side (so limit one to MC 3.0, which would be three<br>
> cruisers of six destroyers.) Other methods exist. Different scenarios<br>
> might have different methods.<br>
><br>
> *Possible Tweaks:*<br>
> - Buy your starting fleet<br>
> At the start of the campaign, players might be given a certain stockpile<br>
> and no ships. The first turn is spent buying ships and ignoring the<br>
> scenarios (much to the chagrin of the players who draw the huge-BPV<br>
> scenarios right off). Players who enter mid-stream will probably not be<br>
> able to do this because of the one-sided benefit it gives to the player<br>
> who shares borders with the unprotected new guy.<br>
><br>
> - Define ending conditions<br>
> I wasn't a big fan of this, but I got some push-back at the start of<br>
> last game about this. Basically, we define a set of circumstances where<br>
> someone is declared a winner. A certain income, fleet BPV, or we get to<br>
> a certain turn/year. I prefer the flexibility of saying "Player A is<br>
> unreachable, let's stop this" or "Half our player base is leaving next<br>
> week. Let's call it here and start fresh." If you guys want to set up<br>
> some certain goal (and accept that some people will set up their whole<br>
> tactics on reaching that first, regardless of the "realistic" way to<br>
> handle an empire), then I will go with that.<br>
><br>
> - Exploration<br>
> There is no programmed-in mechanic for setting aside ships and getting<br>
> income or borders for it. But if we can hash out the boundaries of such<br>
> a mechanic, I can manually perform this. By reaching into the player<br>
> settings, I can add/remove either part of the econ, and add/remove<br>
> ships. But it would require players share their orders with me (which<br>
> could be icky if I am also playing) in order to show what ships they are<br>
> deliberately not sending to a battle. It also requires more<br>
> behind-the-scenes administration from me.<br>
><br>
> - Weapon Status<br>
> I'm not married to the WS-Chart. But it was introduced in order to<br>
> increase variation in the scenarios and to provide the possibility for<br>
> reaching WS-III. I can roll things back to a defined-WS for each side in<br>
> each scenario, if you prefer more stability with WS.<br>
><br>
> *Campaign Startup:*<br>
> - Food Groups vs Historical<br>
> Traditionally I have been starting empires next to their historical<br>
> neighbors when possible, on the theory that their neighbors are better<br>
> balanced against eachother. This is a possible method to start things,<br>
> where Disruptor races only are in contact with other disruptor races.<br>
> Same with plasma races. "Strangers" (Andro, jindo, Tholian, etc) are in<br>
> their own group. Perhaps a fourth group for "core" empires with strange<br>
> weapons (Fed, Vudar, Hydran, etc). The only way to make contact outside<br>
> of your "Food Group" is to get lucky with a "NEWBORDER" reward.<br>
><br>
> - Starting Year<br>
> There are four main eras to start things in.<br>
> General War (GW) era: this starts in Y169 +/- 3 years.<br>
> Late-War era starts at the introduction of PFs: Y180 +/- 2 years. There<br>
> is spotty support in the ship-lists for X-ships. However, this does<br>
> allow more empires to join (as the Selts have ships, the Vudar have<br>
> something besides a few base hulls to pick from, and there is a<br>
> difference between the PF Feds and the 3rd-Way Feds.)<br>
> Early Year era (EY): this starts at Y120. I only have module Y1 in the<br>
> DB, though "recently" have gotten Y2 and Y3.<br>
> Dawn of Warp era: this starts at Y60 +/- 10 years. As with the EY,<br>
> support for this is currently spotty but will improve in future<br>
> iterations. if we push back the start of the next campaign, I may have<br>
> better support for this.<br>
><br>
><br>
> --Matt<br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL: <<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet</a>.<br>
> org/attachments/20171010/<wbr>18b305da/attachment-0001.html><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 2<br>
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:47:01 +0000<br>
> From: Daniel Crispin <<a href="mailto:calendyr@hotmail.com">calendyr@hotmail.com</a>><br>
> To: Matthew via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>><br>
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Long response<br>
> Message-ID:<br>
> <<wbr>SN1PR0701MB20808C6DDE999E3521E<wbr>A8E77C5750@SN1PR0701MB2080.<br>
> <a href="http://namprd07.prod.outlook.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">namprd07.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<br>
><br>
> I wrote a super long answer to Frank?s long message and Outlook crashed on<br>
> me 30 minutes in! ARG!!!!!!<br>
><br>
> So I will do the same with Matt?s message, this time using Microsoft Word<br>
> to protect my sanity from a potential crash.<br>
><br>
> I will answer inside each point, to make it clearer to everyone.<br>
><br>
> Structure first:<br>
> - No Map<br>
> This means borders are an abstraction. Wonder how a Klingon can find a<br>
> border with the Gorn? They must have met in the middle while carving out<br>
> Fed turf or worked around the Feds.<br>
><br>
> RE: To me it make so sense that two empires at the other end of the galaxy<br>
> can have a border. Your explanation for a single encounter makes sense,<br>
> but a border means actual contact between the two empire?s territories.<br>
> How about fixed borders set by historical maps and the possibility of<br>
> opening and closing fronts between the empires on your borders?<br>
><br>
> - Simple econ<br>
> That means we don't track what your econ is from colonies, we don't track<br>
> supply lines, no supply-tax, no bookkeeping. I know some of you really<br>
> prefer 4X campaigns. I do to. I have one in the works (I've had it in the<br>
> works for a couple years now. Don't hold your breath.) But bookkeeping has<br>
> to be a minimum here. Just point your fleet and shoot.<br>
><br>
> RE: Completelly agree with you on this.. Paperwork for tracking repairs<br>
> and such are boring and make no sense. In reality a galactic empire would<br>
> have hundreds of ships, several repair docks, several base stations,<br>
> starbases, and fleet construction yards. We only use a small fraction of<br>
> the empire?s actual navy. No need to add tedious paperwork.<br>
><br>
><br>
> New Tweaks:<br>
> - Remove the {NO}INCOME rewards:<br>
> All of the scenarios will give and take away some amount of EPs. Your<br>
> income won't ever be touched, but your stockpile will roller-coaster.<br>
><br>
> RE: Good idea!<br>
><br>
> - Add fleet Limits<br>
> While editing the scenarios for their rewards, I'll be introducing fleet<br>
> limits on some scenarios. Particularly the common ones where it's<br>
> unreasonable to see large fleet elements. Since I am planning to keep the<br>
> CR system (I had floated the idea earlier to use the BPV cap system and it<br>
> was unpopular), My original intent was to limit the size class (and thus<br>
> limit the fleet size) allowed at certain scenarios. I might instead limit<br>
> it by Move Cost (which will have the same effect - No ship with MC greater<br>
> than 0.5 at such-and-such scenario) or by move-cost of all ships on a side<br>
> (so limit one to MC 3.0, which would be three cruisers of six destroyers.)<br>
> Other methods exist. Different scenarios might have different methods.<br>
><br>
> RE: My suggestion would be to simply slash the command rating of ships by<br>
> half or even by three. Command variant could have a +1 command after the<br>
> slash. This would make to manageable battle fleets and not restrict<br>
> players in the choice of ships to use. It would also prevent endless<br>
> battles where a Carrier could be present with 6 or 7 other ships making the<br>
> battle take weeks.<br>
><br>
> Possible Tweaks:<br>
> - Buy your starting fleet<br>
> At the start of the campaign, players might be given a certain stockpile<br>
> and no ships. The first turn is spent buying ships and ignoring the<br>
> scenarios (much to the chagrin of the players who draw the huge-BPV<br>
> scenarios right off). Players who enter mid-stream will probably not be<br>
> able to do this because of the one-sided benefit it gives to the player who<br>
> shares borders with the unprotected new guy.<br>
><br>
> RE: This is a must! Getting handed a fleet is no fun. Each player has<br>
> preferences in ships they like to fly. Also on a strategic level people<br>
> should be able to decide the kind of fleet they want.<br>
><br>
> Starting with a fixed amount of BPV and knowledge of what will be your<br>
> initial borders would be ideal in my book.<br>
><br>
> Also, I think Frax should not be part of the available races. This is a<br>
> conjectural race designed to test ships. If each race cannot build the<br>
> conjectural units, why is an overpowered race that never existed be allowed<br>
> in the campaign?<br>
><br>
><br>
> - Define ending conditions<br>
> I wasn't a big fan of this, but I got some push-back at the start of last<br>
> game about this. Basically, we define a set of circumstances where someone<br>
> is declared a winner. A certain income, fleet BPV, or we get to a certain<br>
> turn/year. I prefer the flexibility of saying "Player A is unreachable,<br>
> let's stop this" or "Half our player base is leaving next week. Let's call<br>
> it here and start fresh." If you guys want to set up some certain goal (and<br>
> accept that some people will set up their whole tactics on reaching that<br>
> first, regardless of the "realistic" way to handle an empire), then I will<br>
> go with that.<br>
><br>
> RE: Great idea.<br>
><br>
> - Exploration<br>
> There is no programmed-in mechanic for setting aside ships and getting<br>
> income or borders for it. But if we can hash out the boundaries of such a<br>
> mechanic, I can manually perform this. By reaching into the player<br>
> settings, I can add/remove either part of the econ, and add/remove ships.<br>
> But it would require players share their orders with me (which could be<br>
> icky if I am also playing) in order to show what ships they are<br>
> deliberately not sending to a battle. It also requires more<br>
> behind-the-scenes administration from me.<br>
><br>
> RE: I feek Frank?s proposal to send scouts to do missions adds a lot of<br>
> randomness to a very strategic campaign. I would personally do without<br>
> exploration.<br>
><br>
><br>
> - Weapon Status<br>
> I'm not married to the WS-Chart. But it was introduced in order to<br>
> increase variation in the scenarios and to provide the possibility for<br>
> reaching WS-III. I can roll things back to a defined-WS for each side in<br>
> each scenario, if you prefer more stability with WS.<br>
><br>
> RE: WS is something very strange for this kind of campaign. Question: If<br>
> you are the captain of an attacking fleet headed to a planet, or enemy<br>
> convoy or something. Why would you not be at red alert and have your ship<br>
> ready for battle before arriving? This is not Star Wars where you make an<br>
> hyperspace jump and only see conditions when you get there. Even so, the<br>
> attacking captain would load everything before leaving hyperspace. In the<br>
> Star Trek universe, all ships have powerful sensors and know that ships are<br>
> approaching long before they enter weapon range. Only exception would be<br>
> with cloaking ships. So to me, this is a very stupid game mechanic we<br>
> should do without. In fact, I think only the defender should roll in the<br>
> case of cloaked ships attacking. The roll would indicate if the defender<br>
> managed to detect the ships before it?s too late.<br>
><br>
> - Starting Year<br>
> There are four main eras to start things in.<br>
> General War (GW) era: this starts in Y169 +/- 3 years.<br>
> Late-War era starts at the introduction of PFs: Y180 +/- 2 years. There is<br>
> spotty support in the ship-lists for X-ships. However, this does allow more<br>
> empires to join (as the Selts have ships, the Vudar have something besides<br>
> a few base hulls to pick from, and there is a difference between the PF<br>
> Feds and the 3rd-Way Feds.)<br>
> Early Year era (EY): this starts at Y120. I only have module Y1 in the DB,<br>
> though "recently" have gotten Y2 and Y3.<br>
> Dawn of Warp era: this starts at Y60 +/- 10 years. As with the EY, support<br>
> for this is currently spotty but will improve in future iterations. if we<br>
> push back the start of the next campaign, I may have better support for<br>
> this.<br>
><br>
> RE: Only thing I think we should try to avoid are X-Ships. They are on a<br>
> completely different level of capabilities and make regular ships<br>
> obsolete. I think the sweet spot is around Y174. You mentioned the idea<br>
> of having more turns per year. My suggestion, 12 turns per year, that way<br>
> each turn represents a month (Earth calendar) and it would be easy to track.<br>
><br>
> Can?t wait to get started!<br>
><br>
><br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL: <<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet</a>.<br>
> org/attachments/20171010/<wbr>02543753/attachment-0001.html><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 3<br>
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:05:11 -0700<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:david@jannke.com">david@jannke.com</a><br>
> To: <a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
> Subject: Dramatic SFB: Spreadsheet comparing Income and EP rewards<br>
> Message-ID:<br>
> <20171010120511.<wbr>0376b67e2c14a4d458d0fc4ba9edf8<br>
> <a href="mailto:c8.736166a340.mailapi@email04.godaddy.com">c8.736166a340.mailapi@email04.<wbr>godaddy.com</a>><br>
><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
><br>
> I was curious how INCOME compares with EP awards so I built a spreadsheet<br>
> to compare. Here's a copy to run your own tests on:<br>
> <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LA6mjxj-LzwV8GVZIn66O5iKL6yQ-" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr>spreadsheets/d/1LA6mjxj-<wbr>LzwV8GVZIn66O5iKL6yQ-</a><br>
> lPgCe9pPtwQXps/edit?usp=<wbr>sharing<br>
> It's google docs so free. Feel free to change all the stuff that is red.<br>
> If you fiddle with the spreadsheet outside of the red cells (and I<br>
> encourage that) please make your own copy first.<br>
><br>
> Assumptions: A fleet wins 50% + its %BPV advantage in engagements over a<br>
> generalized opponent. We are not fighting an INCOME empire vs. EP empire,<br>
> we are racing them.<br>
><br>
> Breakeven given what I saw in my engagements is about turn four. If you<br>
> can wait for nine turns you pick up a free cruiser for your patience. You<br>
> only get to use that for ~4 turns though (assuming a 14 turn game).<br>
><br>
> It seems to me this might be useful to determine what Income really means<br>
> for setting up campaigns.<br>
><br>
> Incidentally, I find maintenance can be used as a powerful balancing<br>
> force. If maintenance is 20% then losing a ship means the victorious empire<br>
> has an advantage for only 5 ish turns. Maintenance of 1% means you have the<br>
> same accounting complexity and an advantage for 100 turns, essentially<br>
> forever. It seems to me maintenance of much under 10% is more an accounting<br>
> exercise than a balancing one given the campaign sets the rewards as well<br>
> as the costs.<br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL: <<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet</a>.<br>
> org/attachments/20171010/<wbr>626769fe/attachment-0001.html><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Subject: Digest Footer<br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> <a href='<a href="http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">sfbdrama.mattnet.org</a>'><wbr>Dramatic SFB</a> campaign chatter list<br>
> <a href="mailto:SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org">SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> End of SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 2<br>
> ******************************<wbr>********<br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20171010/23d62ee5/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org/attachments/20171010/<wbr>23d62ee5/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:34:08 -0400<br>
From: Pat Hogan <<a href="mailto:hazelnut1968@yahoo.com">hazelnut1968@yahoo.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
Subject: Dramatic SFB: I don?t care much, but...<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:79323E26-AADA-42E9-A452-DFFAE3FDEC24@yahoo.com">79323E26-AADA-42E9-A452-<wbr>DFFAE3FDEC24@yahoo.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
....put me in a position where I can declare Holy War against the half of the galaxy who continue to confuse the words ?border? and ?boarder.? Makes for tedious reading. ?<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
<a href='<a href="http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">sfbdrama.mattnet.org</a>'><wbr>Dramatic SFB</a> campaign chatter list<br>
<a href="mailto:SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org">SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of SFBdrama Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3<br>
******************************<wbr>********<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>