No, you don't speak for me, despite that some people would like to persuade themselves of the opposite.
But in this, you're right -- I have violated none of my principles in this, which stand fast.
I have likened SI to football, and in many ways it is a non-physical form of football, if such a thing can be imagined.
Or, if one prefers, it could be likened to the old Oxford style of debate, in which personal attack was very much part of the fun of the thing.
In the case of this game, the side judge tried to impose a special rule on me that wasn't part of the rule book. Sort of like telling the Bears middle linebacker that he was forbidden to rush the quarterback. I protested to the front office, and of course the improper rule was lifted, as it would have been in the football game too.
It was, indeed, a matter of principle to be permitted to play by the rules I had agreed to play by. What surprises me is that that should come as a shock to other posters here, or that they should see something evil in wanting the rules of the game properly enforced. |
