> At 06:29 p.m. 19/04/2007, you wrote:
>
> > Oh? Do I gather that the list I'm now boycotting, the
> > one of Almighty Greg Worship, created so that He does
> > not have to mingle on a (spit) common or garden list,
> > where the customer and their needs are an
> > insignificant afterthought compared with the Artistic
> > Whim, has exploded again?
>
> A minor kerfuffle about Krarsht. I posted something
> which two losers tried to shout down. Particularly
> stupid was the question about whether Thed, Vivamort
> and Bagog were chaotic deities.
As one of the so-called "losers" I think this is rather unfair. The Thed, Vivamort and Bagog crack was sarcasm - sorry if you didn't notice.
For those not attending to World of Glorantha the argument started when
Peter made a bald statement
"Krarst isn't chaotic"
I can refer you to the message and line in the yahoo archive if you'd like.
The statement is not taken out of context and was presented with no
moderating "in my opinion" or "there is evdience suggesting perhaps". It
was simply stated to be so by Peter. Hence he appeared to be trying to
stop
our reading of Krarsht as chaotic. Intransigence on both sides.
Now some of us took a little exception to this, it seeming to be going against the published sources.
Peter has since backtracked a little, saying he is now presenting a "novel reading" and how unfair we are to argue against possible interpretations. Hence his quip about "not understanding the argument" I suppose.
Given that he started arguing one thing "Krarsht is not chaotic" and
is now
arguing another "Some sources can be read that Krarsht is not chaotic"
it's
no wonder I don't understand the argument. I seem to have missed the
class
on mind reading through email somewhere.... (more sarcasm, in case you
didn't pick it up).
I'm happy to concede that some of the sources can be read as ambiguous
as to
Krarsht's chaotic nature. People can read it how they like. Some can
take
it as she is chaotic, some that she is not, some that it is unknown.
I know what I think the majority interpretation will be.
Oh, and this is, to me, obviously related to one of the points I was
trying
to make in the gag/core debate - we are too careless about the difference
bewteen
"I believe X is this way"
"I believe it is possible to rad the source as saying X might be this way"
Two very different things.
> > In that case, without having any idea what it's about,
> > I'm rating Michael at 4:1 for rational argument and
> > presenting incontrovertible evidence in the face of
> > lunacy, and Peter at 5:1 for telling The
> > Self-Appointed Almighty some truths that he
> > desperately needs to know, in language that's entirely
> > appropriate for the purpose. Both will be ignored, of
> > course.
>
> Greg was silent in the entire exchange and Mike
> failed to recognize what sort of argument he was
> dealing with.
No surprise as you changed your position at the end and then claimed that was what you had been arguing all along.
Michael
Powered by hypermail