> >The danger with that is it provides no place for
> those who are more than
> >beginners but less than hardcore fans of a decade
> plus to go.
>
> Naturally, I completely disagree. The sort of person
> you describe is
> entirely welcome on the Glorantha Digest, and is
> encouraged by the
> moderator of that fine forum to post as much as they
> like about any
> (gloranthan) thing they find interesting.
> Intelligent, reasonably informed,
> interesting posters who don't descend automatically
> into obscurity,
> philosophy and anthropology are the lifeblood of
> that list.
As a reader, not a moderator: please!
The content of the GD seems to go in phases. At present, it's being dominated by a discussion on Mysticism which is clearly fascinating to the many people involved, but is resulting in my deleting my Digests unread, because after a skim of the titles, I know I won't understand a word of it. No fault of the people who want to discuss that stuff, but some light relief would be nice.
But at other times, it's more stuff like where to find Kangaroos, which even us bears of little brain can follow. And yes, since that's usually done by reference to stuff long out of print, this list presumably *wouldn't* be the right place for it?
Powered by hypermail