This attitude is bullshit and does not belong here

From: Greg Stafford <glorantha1_at_2FAOop1ba7A8sNkOjsMnBYswWc2B7YxZy1PwHrt0WLK747-FhX-5JYfWMICY3pkhW>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:02:40 -0800


YGWV On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:41 AM, julianlord <julian.lord_at_nxiuIAU0vL3XyZcZtu23QXuga9ivct_QPbBONdNfy6oqV5b9TGXVQISUhfIK3xq2-jE8f8AAn6hqW6RaZsBM.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> Peter :
> > I think you'll find that it was three otherworlds and four magical
> > worldviews.
>
> You are actually mistaken,

Bullshit.
A flat definitive statement like about Glorantha made like this is arrogant and offensive.

 but this is only because you are practically hindered from personally
> attending various convention discussions/rants about the cosmology...
>

Bullshit again.

> Technically, the current "4" worlds model (Inner World + 3 Other Worlds +
> Borderlands Worlds) exists following the failure of the GL monomyth -- the
> God Learners were positing a theory of a single divided state of
> otherworldliness along with a model whereby the physical world was the
> result of the collision of the Five Elemental Worlds of Darkness, Water,
> Earth, Sky, and Storm -- plus Outer Chaos. They viewed the entities of the
> God World and those of the Spirit World as being damaged or otherwise flawed
> manifestations of the Ultimate Essence World, perhaps incorporating some
> matter from the 5 Elements or their derived Forms etc.
>

How often have I suggested that some discussions ought to be phrased in the Gloranthan context? Such a statement as made by Julian wold have some validity as an in-Glorantha statement/philosophy/belief. Made in this manner is really offensive to me, as if membership on this (or any) forum gives the speaker some kind of authority that the poor benighted folk unable to attend conventions will never have. Bullshit I say. this is PRECISELY the elitist attitude that drives people AWAY from this forum.
Make it a Gloranthan theory, then discuss it to death as such.

There are many other theories about this. This on proposed by Julian may be curent in some time and place (certainly not all through history) but it is not of any status where someone can tell another that this or that is "the current theory."
"A theory--fine."

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]            

Powered by hypermail