Not an answer to anything

Well, I am blown away by mantis's quite amazing precis of TBOTNS for GURPS, as I expect the rest of you are. I've only read it once through, and I know there are a few points where I could quibble (as could we all, contentious group that we are) but I think it's beautifully done, and--sorry, mantis--rather a triumph of un-mantic exposition. A Great Job. Seriously. Back to Ron and the putative FAQ. Ron, since you have mentioned my doubts on this, could I ask you to please publish here Donn's original Mysteries posting? Plus mantis's (again, same as you emailed me). I think we need more input from others. I'd like to say that I think Donn struck an awfully good note or tone with his Mysteries (1992) and though we've gone far beyond these, of course, we might try to stick to that tone in expanding it. The mantis precis is a wonderful guide for a FAQ, actually. It shies from literal answers, just as I do--you who want the answers out flat need to deal with that. -alga

I have already published it here, on 2 December, under the subject line, "FAQ (Seeley's piece)". I still want answers in the FAQ. I fail to see how an InvisiClues/UHS, rot13, or HTML approach, as discussed here earlier, would not preserve the puzzles for those who don't want to see the posited answers, thereby satisfying both parties. In fact, if you are choosing to don the fuligin mantle of "official" Urth FAQ keeper, Alice, and the other Urthers agrees that you should, then I will publish an "unofficial" FAQ with answers to the same questions. (Call me Vodalus.) But I would far rather we have one FAQ, with the suggested answers (multiple suggested answers, if there be disagreement) concealed by some fiendish technological ruse such as rot13 or UHS. Technology such as UHS or "layered" HTML pages also makes possible the progressive unveiling of more and more explicit hints, which can't but be an advantage. Ron