30 Jan, 2009, Skol wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Um, yeah, anyway I already installed asbestos armor and posted a nice reply.
http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/mud-co...
30 Jan, 2009, The_Fury wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Who cares about lokke. Ignore it and it goes away.
30 Jan, 2009, Skol wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
You sure it doesn't fester and turn into a Staph infection? I couldn't remember. Heh.
30 Jan, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
The guy is a little bit psycho, but who isn't.
31 Jan, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
It's kindof nice, actually, to see nimud still surviving. I remember tinkering with a version of that code about 9 years ago. :)
02 Feb, 2009, Guest wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Ugh. Not him again.
02 Feb, 2009, Sharmair wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Psycho? I would say more delusional and egotistical. Though I might call the code somewhat
advanced and it has a few nice features, it is for sure not "The most powerful MUD codebase in
existence!" or really all that revolutionary. I took a look at the feature list on the download
site. It turns out the SMAUG derivative I work with has or can simulate with OLC most of his
features, and could for a few years now. A statement like this is also very subjective and even
if you can get past that, two powerful codebases might be advanced over each other in different
areas. So, making a statement like this is nothing short of idiotic.
03 Feb, 2009, Kjwah wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
It's kindof nice, actually, to see nimud still surviving. I remember tinkering with a version of that code about 9 years ago. :)


It used to be my favorite codebase. lol
0.0/8