Charles Gilman wrote:

'...you use poor graphics...' That's a matter of opinion. If you want truly awful graphics I can point you to the 'icon' graphics here - which try to represent 5 kinds of penguin, 2 kinds of other bird, and 2 kinds of seal on images tiny enough to fit a vast array of them on a web page.

No, I don't want truly awful graphics. I want good graphics. You're still using poor graphics, and as long as you do, I'll still remain more inclined to ignore your pages. I have explained why I ignore your pages in the hope that this knowledge will help you improve your pages. Kicking dirt on my advice won't improve my opinion of your pages. Heeding my advice will. It is up to you whether you care more about pride or quality.

If there's a good way of doing the graphics for a 3-player in the Fiancé Chess/Kennet/Triple Crown style I'd be delighted to be told of it.

The Alfaerie set has the Chess pieces available in four colors: red, green, blue, and white. You can use three colors together in a Game Courier preset with the 'Alfaerie: Four Colors' set, which is part of the 'Double' group. However, for the extra pieces in these games, you would have to recolor some pieces, and to use these boards with Game Courier, you would need to provide custom coordinates for the spaces in the Positions field that shows up when the Custom shape is selected in edit mode. I could take care of uploading the graphic files for you if you provided me with them. Or you could just piece things together in a graphics program and then shrink the image.

'With you, I think you are just spinning off ideas without any quality control... the main thing I've seen from you is quantity, quantity, quantity.' Well of course what you see is what doesn't get through my first line of quality control. Not only do you not see the ones that I've rejected outright, it also means you don't often see any record of early drafts that I've realised won't work and I have to rethink.

I still maintain that playtesting is a critical step in quality control, and I see no evidence that you playtest your games. This is the main reason why I dismiss them. I would be much more interested in your games if you could say that you have played them yourself and know from firsthand experience that they are worth playing. If you're ever interested, I will playtest some of your games with you. Just pick a few you think would be particularly enjoyable to play, and I'll set things up so that we will be able to play them.

'It does not require any knowledge of context to understand what it was illustrating.' Well it would be nice to know what it does require knowledge of, because I'm at something of a loss. My first thought was that you were sending up the literary and operatic references in my articles, but then I realised that if it were that then, far from not mattering my ignorance would be the whole point. Are you boasting that you can make god in your own image, or accusing me of trying to make god in mine, or just spouting some mumbo-jumbo to make me feel ignorant when there's nothing behind it to be ignorant of?

Understanding what I wrote should require only knowledge of the English language. Your problem is that you are trying to bring extraneous and irrelevant knowledge to your understanding of what I wrote, and it is getting in your way. First of all, a simple point of grammar. What appeared between quotation marks is a quotation. They are not my words but those of a comic book character. This is a critical thing to understand in making sense of what I wrote. Second, what I wrote in my own words gives the context for using the quotation. It is an example of something that comes closer than anything I said to the height of arrogance. My point was that you were using hyperbole when you accused me of the height of arrogance, and I was making that point by providing an example that comes much closer to the true meaning of that expression.