First, I want to depersonalize it.
This is not about Julian or what he said, and I apologize for any hint that
it seemed that way. Julian's a smart, well-informed guy and I value his
opinions even if I disagree.
It is about the method of presentation.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:53 AM, julianlord <julian.lord_at_cWTeg6roxzP1uv3sgt7bg9-Urp-_H4XN6GFvEON5Nh6g4-Q31Jl5Fdu3yL4-tSpYMB9s3mFlJjbyEF8Litk.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> but this is only because you are practically hindered from personally
> > > attending various convention discussions/rants about the cosmology...
> > >
> >
> > Bullshit again.
>
> ah well, I think you've mistaken my intent, which means that I wrote
> poorly, for which I apologise.
>
> I mean that there are some extra sources of information that Peter can very
> unfortunately not easily avail himself of, and that I would suggest that he
> try and research some of them as best he can. I did not wish to belittle
> Peter (and clearly NOT his reknowned knowledge of Glorantha !!), or anyone
> else, but I am recovering from an extended bout of illness and what I wanted
> to write came out a bit sideways.
>
>
I accept for myself, if such be needed. I'm confident Peter can speak for
himself.
> > 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?
>
> erm, OK but that kind of *was* in a Gloranthan context ? I mean that I was
> describing how I think that the God Learners viewed the nature of the cosmos
> ?
>
As such was the intent, as you have said, I concur that it was poorly done and did not come across that way at all.
If it is Gloranthan content, it would say: "The discussion that is found in Lord's so-called *iulJus*, which was widely quoted to support the "4" worlds model (Inner World + 3 Other Worlds + Borderlands Worlds) exists following the failure of the GL monomyt."
I encourage this. I encourage you great thinkers to identify your gloranthan sources, whether one prolific scholar or a battery of liturgical scribes brainstorming on praxpuff in the dormitories of Nochet.
> I'm sorry if you get angry about these sorts of things.
>
I am not, at least about "these things" that I am talking about.
I get angry when I see statements of the kind that drive people away. How do
I know what they are? Because for 20+ years people who are not on this list
tell m why, and the biggest single reason is "the grognard attitude" is
unfriendly.
When I saw this statement, a precise example of what is most disliked about
it, I spoke.
I have spoken this way before. Some of our best supporters and contributors
have learned the correct attitude.
If people can't stand my "correct attitude," there must be some place where
whiner and wingers can meet to waste their own bandwidth.
> Bullshit I say. this is PRECISELY the elitist attitude that drives people
> > AWAY from this forum.
>
> Sigh -- what is it about these cosmology discussions that gets people so
> excited about them ?
>
Cosmology is a key to mythology.
> > Make it a Gloranthan theory, then discuss it to death as such.
>
> But it *is* a Gloranthan theory that I wrote there, my take on what the God
> Learners made of these things.
Yes, OK.
Sorry to be so rabid on such a small thing.
Really.
> I am genuinely sorry that you find my posting style to be irksome.
>
I apologize for flying off the handle.
It is not your posting style.
It was was about apparent attitude: condesending, inside knowledge, and exclusionary flat statements of the type that drive off outsiders.
It occurs to me that if this had been done in a Gloranthan larp everything would be fine, and the attitude would be especially amusing. Maybe we ought to have a Lunar Forum, "Masks Only" :-D
--
Greg Stafford
Game Designer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail