Should Gifts be Restricted? An outsider's perspective.

[zeus-online]

Massacre isn't there to just flat out beat you, its just there to slow you down, if you cannot end the game fast enough, you ARE going to loose. Almost regardless of the quantity/quality of disruption you pack.

/Zeus

[Zarathustra]

Oh lord... 

Ouch... step back there for a second.  Dave Feinstein is an avowed knight of the Null Rod.  Any concessions he makes here to Gifts apply exclusively to that (very popular) Null Rod sub-archetype of (UW) Fish.  I still maintain that AEther Vial is the best turn 1 play one could make against Gifts aside from Tormod's Crypt, which should be run maindeck in Vial Fish anyway.  The difference between Vial Fish and Null Rod Fish is even more pronounced than the differences among the various incarnations of Gifts.  Gifts may be one of the most powerful decks in the format right now.  But, if you're looking to beat Meandeck Gifts (which is the variant most players are aligning with these days even if there may be "better" optimizations), Vial Fish with maindeck Crypts and flexible Colossus answers (Bouncer, Drake, Proctor, or even Welder, Wayfarer -> Maze, and Stormscape) is the way to go.

 

If all your answers are so amazing against Gifts, why would you be calling for the banning of Tendrils and Tinker?  These are Gifts win conditions, you're hate towards these two can't be mere coincidence. 

-DShell

[Vegeta2711]

So the thread went from a stupid premise, to decent discussion on why Gifts might be restricted, to some unintelligible stuff for a page, then back to gifts, then to Tendrils and Tinker should be banned for some random reasons and finally we're talking about Fish vs. Gifts and finally brainpk going on another tirade about vial fish.

Did I catch about everything? How random this thread has become. I do suggest if anyone wants to argue the merits of Gifts vs. Fish they make a new thread in the newb forum.

EDIT:

Fish is a concept, not a stack of cards.

Actually this is pretty much wrong. Fish is a stack of cards, go check the Fish deck that made T2 at PT Rome. People then expanded the definition to cover all tempo-based blue aggro which made some amount of sense, because they were all base blue and ran many of the same support cards. At this point though, some people have bastardized the term to cover any and all tempo-based aggro decks; which is pretty much wrong. Much like every B/G deck is automatically called The Rock even though they look and play nothing like the builds the original name was coined for. It's heavily inaccurate, but people are lazy.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Fish is a concept, not a stack of cards.

Actually this is pretty much wrong. Fish is a stack of cards, go check the Fish deck that made T2 at PT Rome. People then expanded the definition to cover all tempo-based blue aggro which made some amount of sense, because they were all base blue and ran many of the same support cards. At this point though, some people have bastardized the term to cover any and all tempo-based aggro decks; which is pretty much wrong. Much like every B/G deck is automatically called The Rock even though they look and play nothing like the builds the original name was coined for. It's heavily inaccurate, but people are lazy.

Fish is most definitely a concept as the definition is popularly used.  No other deck has 16-20 metagame flexible slots, and that's if you stick to UW.  Slaver and Gifts builds tend to vary with 5-10 cards, at most.

[dicemanx]

Whether or not a person has performed well or even participated in a recent well-publicized event is independent of that person's acumen to understand the dynamics of the metagame and contribute accordingly.  Even if a member has never participated in a single tournament in his/her life, attempting to counter that person's analysis solely by reference to lack of experience fails to refute any claims or arguments raised.   

I will go out on a limb here and say that one learns a lot more while testing match-ups with friends, teammates, or relatives, either in person or online, than one does in the daze of a tournament experience.

If a certain strategy is just not getting appreciable results beyond your kitchen table or your local scene, it wouldn't matter if you're Einstein and have a flawless understanding of the dynamics of the metagame. Maybe you've stumbled on something missed by all of the Fish players before you and you are totally correct in your assessments, or maybe you're just testing and playing against incompetent Gifts players and are reaching errenous conclusions. Since we can't establish the truth either way due to insufficient evidence, we cannot use these arguments convincingly in any discussions about banning/restricting cards.

[Zarathustra]

Fish is most definitely a concept as the definition is popularly used.  No other deck has 16-20 metagame flexible slots, and that's if you stick to UW.  Slaver and Gifts builds tend to vary with 5-10 cards, at most.

Fish uses 16-20 metagame slots because it's not broken.  Therefore, it must use some form of hate in order to keep up with a competitive field.  How does this make Fish better than other Powered decks?

-DShell

[AmbivalentDuck]

It's only better when the environment focuses on a strategy and there's a brutal hoser available for that strategy.  In a more diffuse environment, metagaming hate is still quite effective.

The notion of not running answers to an opponent's threats (aside from Duress and counter magic) is very t1.  Arguably, both Duress and FoW are broken.

[brianpk80]

If a certain strategy is just not getting appreciable results beyond your kitchen table or your local scene, it wouldn't matter if you're Einstein and have a flawless understanding of the dynamics of the metagame.

Isn't this reasoning entirely contradictory to the discussion taking place on modern Dragon builds in the SCG forums?  For those who may not have read it, the gist of that thread is that Dragon is currently an amazing deck, both inherently and in the context of today's metagame, but it has not been putting up results not for any lacking strength of the deck, but rather because people simply aren't playing it.  

Maybe you've stumbled on something missed by all of the Fish players before you and you are totally correct in your assessments, or maybe you're just testing and playing against incompetent Gifts players and are reaching errenous conclusions.

"...so you should shut up until you win the next Gencon."  Is this what you are trying to say?

Massacre isn't there to just flat out beat you, its just there to slow you down, if you cannot end the game fast enough, you ARE going to loose. Almost regardless of the quantity/quality of disruption you pack.

No, ending the game "fast enough" is the role of the combo or combo-control player.  A game that lasts more than eight turns, Massacre or not, trends towards a Fish win.  This is common knowledge.

-BPK

[dicemanx]

Isn't this reasoning entirely contradictory to the discussion taking place on modern Dragon builds in the SCG forums?  For those who may not have read it, the gist of that thread is that Dragon is currently an amazing deck, both inherently and in the context of today's metagame, but it has not been putting up results not for any lacking strength of the deck, but rather because people simply aren't playing it. 

Actually, WGD has been putting up amazing results for those few willing to play it in major events. That seems like pretty compelling evidence in support of the contention that WGD is a powerful deck in T1, if not one of the top decks in the format. This isn't even something that just happened last month - it's been a repeating theme for the past 4(!) years. 

"...so you should shut up until you win the next Gencon."  Is this what you are trying to say?

If it was worth the time for us, I would addess far more of what you said, but the general gist is: you're interpreting a lot of things a little too liberally in this thread, especially in terms of what you perceive to be some sort of personal attack on you. 

Plus, you personally don't have to do any of the winning or the playing. Given that you have gone through graduate studies, I would assume you'd have a pretty good idea of the kind of evidence required to back your contentions, and the importance of reproducibility of results. If you want to toss around contentions you're welcome to do so, but for them to have merit they must be proven ultimately in tourney play and must be reproducible to some extent by others. That this hasn't happened isn't even a knock against you, which is how you're interpreting it - it either means that you are wrong, or you're right and the rest of us haven't seen the light yet. How do you expect others to discern between the two? Scrutinize and test every idea presented? Take people at their word?

 

[ELD]

Yesterday I went undefeated again at a Mox Tournament with my Gifts deck.  Up until the finals, I don't think I ever even cast tinker.  I was just killing people with Tendrils all day.  I think all this talk of DC is a clear indication that people do not understand why gifts decks win.  I won a few games on the first turn, with many games ending way before weaker decks could get their game plan going. 

IMO there are many viable decks in type 1.  Gifts variants, Staxs variants, Long and other tendrils based decks, Dragon, and Control Slaver are all powerhouses.  IMO If you're not picking one of those decks you're ice skating up hill.  I try to objectively figure out which cards are the best and play with those.   I play with Gifts because it is my belief it gives me the best chance win tournaments.  Other strong players make their choice based on what they believe gives them the best chance to win.  When other people decide to play with cards just because they want to, they shouldn't complain when they're losing to better decks.  I believe that playing with little creatures is not a broken game plan.  All that said, I think that because there are so many extremely strong decks that can be played right now, Gifts does not need to be restricted.  In all honesty, I believe that Gifts keeps Long in check right now.  If you removed Gifts, then Long would become extremely strong, and many of the better players who are winning with Gifts would just start playing Long. 

I think playing to win means playing with the best cards.  If you're crying for Gift's restriction, and not playing Gifts yourself, I question your motivation.  If Gift's is so obviously good in your eyes, doesn't that mean you should be playing with the card?  Isn't that like crying about Jaya in Timespiral Draft and not first picking her?  At no point in any Magic format has it been the winning plan to not use the strongest cards available.  When 3sphere was legal I was winning with CS.  I did not feel that 3sphere deserved restriction.  When it got restricted, my gut reaction was "Damn, maybe I was wrong.  Maybe I could have won a little more if I was running Staxs instead of CS.  Maybe 3sphere was that damn good that no playing it was a mistake." 

[Komatteru]

If Gift's is so obviously good in your eyes, doesn't that mean you should be playing with the card?

That right there is the definition of a format-warping card.  If a card is so good that it's really not worth playing with something else, then there's a problem.  If we're at that stage with Gifts (which I don't think we are yet), then we would have a problem to correct.

[The Atog Lord]

What ELD means is that if you are complaining about Gifts being too powerful, but you are not playing with Gifts, then you are behaving irrationally. If you truly believe that Gifts if format-warping, a belief required to call for its restriction, then it does not make sense that you are not playing with the card yourself.

[Methuselahn]

I agree.

In the end, Gifts is not dominating where I live, so I see no reason to restrict it.  And, there are LOTS of viable options out there.  This format is healthy.  Gifts is broken, but it is not degenerate.  Gifts can be hated out of a metagame.

It seems to me that restricting Gifts would just cut off it's use as a way to gain marginal advantage like how it's used in MDG but decks would still be able to use the card to set up the win.  This is because it only needs to resolve once to get Will & friends out of your library.  Any such deck that has 1 Gifts and can still do this can evolve with a restricted Gifts Ungiven.  Therefore, restricting the card seems foolish when coupled with the fact that there isn't a huge outcry from the masses demanding it's damnation.

Vote NO on proposition restrict Gifts Ungiven.

[brianpk80]

Actually, WGD has been putting up amazing results for those few willing to play it in major events. That seems like pretty compelling evidence in support of the contention that WGD is a powerful deck in T1, if not one of the top decks in the format. This isn't even something that just happened last month - it's been a repeating theme for the past 4(!) years. 

The reasoning there contemplates that Dragon has been ackowledged as a serious contender in this field despite being well under the radar compared to Gifts, Stax, Long, and Fish.  Vial Fish is out there as well and if you're willing to look back as far as its release (Darksteel) as you do for Dragon's, Vial has likewise put up many impressive results since then.  My point was simply to raise awareness of newer incarnations of Vial Fish that may or may not help to alleviate some of the concerns raised by players interested in combating Gifts throughout this thread.  I am unsure why my input strikes you as having so little value.  

If it was worth the time for us, I would addess far more of what you said, but the general gist is: you're interpreting a lot of things a little too liberally in this thread, especially in terms of what you perceive to be some sort of personal attack on you. 

Quite frankly, there have been several attacks on me and my views in this thread (both overt and otherwise), including more than a few from you, however unintended those may have been.  I'm fine with that, but when those critiques are unjustified or downright incorrect (assuming they come from an intelligent voice worth engaging), I'm going to respond and keep the debate flowing.  This type of back-and-forth exchange and the ideas they produce is the very reason we have forums like The Mana Drain.    

Given that you have gone through graduate studies, I would assume you'd have a pretty good idea of the kind of evidence required to back your contentions, and the importance of reproducibility of results.

There is a great misunderstanding among a lot of people here and elsewhere of the types of proof needed to substantiate a claim. Let's clear this up:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
Testimony is evidence.
Opinion testimony is evidence.
Community reputation is evidence.
Habit is evidence.
Hearsay is evidence (usually admissible by virtue of the hearsay prohibition's many exceptions).

All of the above regularly form the bases for determinations having a far more wide-reaching impact than modifying Magic's B/R list or deciding how to metagame for a 50 person tournament.  It doesn't take a 70-page dissertation with quantitative analysis from dozens of SCG/Myriad/Gencon tourneys to demonstrate that Mana Drain is a good card, that Slaver has a less than optimal Pitch Long match-up, or that Vial Fish is very different than its Null Rod peers.  

Perhaps even more significantly, the type of data you strive for here has no bearing on subjective factors like whether Trinisphere is "unfun" or whether a high level of noninteractivity is "good" for the health of the game.  Results are independent of at least two main criterions for restriction, namely "fun-factor" and "distortion." 

If you want to toss around contentions you're welcome to do so, but for them to have merit they must be proven ultimately in tourney play and must be reproducible to some extent by others.

Again, I disagree.  I think you've misconstrued my aims here in discussing Vial Fish as more ambitious than they actually are.  My point in this thread was to consider banning Tendrils of Agony and possibly Tinker.  Along the way, you made a few points about the archetype I play that were self-evidently incorrect.  That is the only reason I discussed Vial Fish in this thread.  That it may have a tenuous relationship to the thread's main thesis was simply icing on the cake.  
 

That this hasn't happened isn't even a knock against you, which is how you're interpreting it - it either means that you are wrong, or you're right and the rest of us haven't seen the light yet. How do you expect others to discern between the two? Scrutinize and test every idea presented?

No, I haven't asked anyone to assume the onus of testing any idea presented here.  I prepared a fairly short play-by-play scenario of a very typical and accurate hypothetical Gifts-Vial game.  It was openly prepared for educational purposes only because, as I acknowledged then, Vial Fish is so poorly understood here.  Results are not prerequisites for considering and analyzing new, novel, or under-utilized ideas.  In fact, it's quite diametrically the opposite.

In the end, Gifts is not dominating where I live, so I see no reason to restrict it.  And, there are LOTS of viable options out there.  This format is healthy.  Gifts is broken, but it is not degenerate.  Gifts can be hated out of a metagame.

Agreed: Gifts Ungiven does not need to be restricted.

-BPK

[Demonic Attorney]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
Testimony is evidence.
Opinion testimony is evidence.
Community reputation is evidence.
Habit is evidence.
Hearsay is evidence (usually admissible by virtue of the hearsay prohibition's many exceptions)

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Please try to keep further discussion relevant to the topic subject, and minimize personal tangents.  Thank you.

[dicemanx]

The reasoning there contemplates that Dragon has been ackowledged as a serious contender in this field despite being well under the radar compared to Gifts, Stax, Long, and Fish.  Vial Fish is out there as well and if you're willing to look back as far as its release (Darksteel) as you do for Dragon's, Vial has likewise put up many impressive results since then.  My point was simply to raise awareness of newer incarnations of Vial Fish that may or may not help to alleviate some of the concerns raised by players interested in combating Gifts throughout this thread.  I am unsure why my input strikes you as having so little value. 

The claim about WGD is well supported with evidence.

The claims which YOU are making aren't very well supported. You weren't trying to merely "raise awareness" of Vial Fish, nor was this argument about whether Vial Fish has enjoyed success in this format - there's plenty of evidence to back that already. Your claims instead were very specific:

The key to beating Gifts (as played/designed by most players today) is to cut off the graveyard and neutralize the Colossus.  This is where Vial Fish steps in to bridge the gap that Null Rod Fish may no longer be able to fill. 

Post-sideboard, Massacre and Pyroclasm are mere hiccups v. Vial Fish where they outright decimate their Null Rod kin.  A skilled Gifts player's arsenal of Pthing Needles or a transformational sideboard are the only real threats Vial Fish has to watch out for post-sideboard.  Granted, a more controlling Gifts build (one with maindeck Needles and Thirst for instance) is going to give Vial Fish some extra obstacles but as far as these "4 Scroll" Meandeck clones go, a well designed Vial Fish list only loses to its own bad draws, Gifts' God-draws, or unanticipated sideboard maneuvers.

The bolded parts are a reminder for you how contentious or extreme your arguments actually are. You make it sound like Vial Fish has the match-up in the bag against a straight up MDG with no "SB surprises" or so long as they don't bring in Pithing Needles/transformational SB, which any competent Gifts player will call you on (I seriously doubt that MDG would SB in Needles vs you even if they had them).  Decks that focus on stopping win conditions aren't exactly new, and don't represent a very successful strategy for rather obvious reasons. Like I said, you have little evidence to back your claims aside from personal experience/testing/local tourney results.

Given that you have gone through graduate studies, I would assume you'd have a pretty good idea of the kind of evidence required to back your contentions, and the importance of reproducibility of results.

There is a great misunderstanding among a lot of people here and elsewhere of the types of proof needed to substantiate a claim. Let's clear this up:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
Testimony is evidence.
Opinion testimony is evidence.
Community reputation is evidence.
Habit is evidence.
Hearsay is evidence (usually admissible by virtue of the hearsay prohibition's many exceptions).

All of the above regularly form the bases for determinations having a far more wide-reaching impact than modifying Magic's B/R list or deciding how to metagame for a 50 person tournament.  It doesn't take a 70-page dissertation with quantitative analysis from dozens of SCG/Myriad/Gencon tourneys to demonstrate that Mana Drain is a good card, that Slaver has a less than optimal Pitch Long match-up, or that Vial Fish is very different than its Null Rod peers. 

Perhaps even more significantly, the type of data you strive for here has no bearing on subjective factors like whether Trinisphere is "unfun" or whether a high level of noninteractivity is "good" for the health of the game.  Results are independent of at least two main criterions for restriction, namely "fun-factor" and "distortion." 

I wasn't referring to the B/R discussion, which by its nature is complicated by the fact that restriction criteria follow arbitrary cut offs, and that the relevance of certain criteria is arbitrary itself. I was referring specifically to the claims made about Vial Fish, which make a strong implication that Vial Fish will be a great way to control the power of Gifts Ungiven in this format. Given that your (extreme) claims are not very well supported, it weakens the impact on the B/R discussion of Gifts until tourney play proves you right.

In the end, Gifts is not dominating where I live, so I see no reason to restrict it.  And, there are LOTS of viable options out there.  This format is healthy.  Gifts is broken, but it is not degenerate.  Gifts can be hated out of a metagame.

Agreed: Gifts Ungiven does not need to be restricted.

-BPK

And incidentally, I agree with both of you here: there isn't sufficient evidence that Gifts is dominating, nor is there much indication that its distorting metas. At least not yet. As a result, there is no need to restrict pre-emptively; in fact, the popularity and frequency of archetypes tend to ebb and flow (as evidenced by the appearance and disappearance of decks like Long, CS, WGD, Stax), and for all we know the sudden recent surge in Gifts popularity and high finishes will diminish. Lets wait and see.

[Zarathustra]

Quite frankly, there have been several attacks on me and my views in this thread (both overt and otherwise), including more than a few from you, however unintended those may have been.  I'm fine with that, but when those critiques are unjustified or downright incorrect (assuming they come from an intelligent voice worth engaging), I'm going to respond and keep the debate flowing.  This type of back-and-forth exchange and the ideas they produce is the very reason we have forums like The Mana Drain.

This discussion is on a downward spiral.  First, it's your call to ban Tendrils and Tinker.  Then it's your tirade on how Vial Fish just downright beats Gifts.

This is the reason half of us don't believe what you say.  You call for the banning of Tendrils and Tinker.  Why would anyone do that?  Probably because they lose to combo decks with Tendrils and Tinker in them.  After which, you proceed to tell us that Vial Fish is the version of Fish that just decimates Gifts.  Furthermore, the hate that is aimed towards Fish(in Gifts), doesn't do much in the way to stop Vial Fish.

You insist that you want to keep this debate going.  What debate?  Read the thread title.  You're not exactly proving anything on this thread.  This is the reason why I doubt taking you seriously.  Not to mention the fact that you manage to devolve every thread you post on into why Vial Fish beats Gifts or Storm decks.

No one is attacking you.  I, and most of us here, find you claims rather bold and ostentatious.  This also shows with you wanting to turn nearly every thread into why "Vial Fish is insane and Null Rod Fish sux0rs!".  It is also this reason why you're so often singled out.

As far as Gifts being restricted.  It doesn't need to be.  Nearly everyone has come to that conclusion.  Why is this thread still going?

-DShell 

If you have an issue with specific posts or posters, contact the moderators. This post is inappropriate. Verbal warning.
-Jacob

[brianpk80]

And incidentally, I agree with both of you here: there isn't sufficient evidence that Gifts is dominating, nor is there much indication that its distorting metas. At least not yet. As a result, there is no need to restrict pre-emptively; in fact, the popularity and frequency of archetypes tend to ebb and flow (as evidenced by the appearance and disappearance of decks like Long, CS, WGD, Stax), and for all we know the sudden recent surge in Gifts popularity and high finishes will diminish. Lets wait and see.

Gifts Ungiven does not present the problems both you and I have identified as some criteria for restriction.  It doesn't preclude interaction (and couldn't possibly, when an opponent chooses the two cards, even if that choice is a Hobson's choice).  It doesn't end the game on turn 1 or turn 2 with any consistency so we're not looking at converting magic into a game of dice as we may be with more problematic Pitch Long openings.  And finally, it doesn't fit as an easy substitute for skill (like Trinisphere) because it's execution tends to be more sophisticated.

The question of banning Tinker and Tendrils of Agony is entirely distinct from restricting Gifts Ungiven.  I'm not going to elaborate on their merits any further until some ideas I have now percolate into something more solid.  Anyone wishing to discuss these is welcome to private message me.  Additionally, any further comments on AEther Vial or the Vial Fish/Gifts interplay would likewise be welcome by private message.  Within the next two months there is a good chance I will start a thread on the archetype so we can discuss it more there.  One caveat, if someone brings up AEther Vial or Vial Fish in an unrelated thread and says something... um "starkly stupid," don't be alarmed if I interject.   

@ Gandalf The White 1: I'm sorry I missed your post here until recently.  Since it relates to the Tinker/Tendrils question perhaps we can discuss it later.

Thanks to everyone who's made a positive contribution.

-BPK

[Evenpence]

No one is attacking you.  I, and most of us here, find you claims rather bold and ostentatious.  This also shows with you wanting to turn nearly every thread into why "Vial Fish is insane and Null Rod Fish sux0rs!".  It is also this reason why you're so often singled out.

I doubt any of this is true.

Also, you are obviously attacking Brian by calling his claims bold and ostentatious, then telling him he's "wanting to turn nearly every thread into why 'Vial Fish is insane and Null Rod Fish sux0rs!'"

If you believe there are reasons for people being singled out, you should look at yourself within our playgroup.

As far as Gifts being restricted.  It doesn't need to be.  Nearly everyone has come to that conclusion.  Why is this thread still going?

Why is this thread still going?  Are you serious?

There are people who feel that Gifts should be restricted.  They have a voice, just like you.  Even though they are in the minority, they deserve to be heard.  I can't believe you just tried to silence people based on a majority census.

Maybe Brian is more intelligent than I by simply not responding to you.

[Zarathustra]

I doubt any of this is true.

Also, you are obviously attacking Brian by calling his claims bold and ostentatious, then telling him he's "wanting to turn nearly every thread into why 'Vial Fish is insane and Null Rod Fish sux0rs!'"

If you believe there are reasons for people being singled out, you should look at yourself within our playgroup.

Post-sideboard, Massacre and Pyroclasm are mere hiccups v. Vial Fish where they outright decimate their Null Rod kin.  A skilled Gifts player's arsenal of Pthing Needles or a transformational sideboard are the only real threats Vial Fish has to watch out for post-sideboard.  Granted, a more controlling Gifts build (one with maindeck Needles and Thirst for instance) is going to give Vial Fish some extra obstacles but as far as these "4 Scroll" Meandeck clones go, a well designed Vial Fish list only loses to its own bad draws, Gifts' God-draws, or unanticipated sideboard maneuvers.

This was posted by dicemanX, which clearly shows many bold statements by bpk.  Also, as for his claims being ostentatious, they are notably excessive, which can be seen above.  I don't see how my statement is bold or ostentatious when it is truthful.  Look at this thread.  It's about Gifts.  Not about how Fish beats Gifts.

As me being singled out, I'm not gonna get into that on here Colby.

Why is this thread still going?  Are you serious?

There are people who feel that Gifts should be restricted.  They have a voice, just like you.  Even though they are in the minority, they deserve to be heard.  I can't believe you just tried to silence people based on a majority census.

Maybe Brian is more intelligent than I by simply not responding to you.

The premise of this thread is ridiculous.  After a while, it had turned into why certain cards should be banned.  Then it turned into a Fish discussion.  Am I missing anything?  This thread is devolving.  I see no more relevant discussion on a Gifts restriction.

-DShell

[Jacob Orlove]

This thread is indeed devolving, and your posts are responsible, especially since DA already had to ask people to avoid personal tangents. Warning to Zarathustra, and thread closed.