MR>>>The Laurie/ Metcalfe Shargash logorrhea is a perfect example of
Me>>Well, it was about a current place in Glorantha and thus is
>>perfectly on topic here. Or perhaps we're only allowed to
>>discuss only the Orlanthi and their RW parallels in such
>>detail?
>I didn't mind the Alkoth detail, which was perfectly on topic here. I did
>mind the annoying "Shargash is a part of Yelm/ Shargash is a separate
>deity" droning (who really cares?). When Good Stuff is buried in otherwise
>boring ramblings, it gets trashed with the rest, which is too bad.
IMO the definition of 'Good Stuff' lies largely in the eyes of the beholder. One can easily apply this logic and label 'various plurals of Godi found in and around the baltic' as 'boring ramblings' and use that to trash the debate on the nature of Orlanthi Society. The Shargash/Yelm connection is relevant because how various gloranthas view their cosmos is one of the key issues on glorantha. If it went on for longer than it did (and it was a _short_ debate), I would have taken it offline.
>People can discuss whatever Gloranthan stuff they want on the digest, but
>if the topics are speculative and largely irrelevant in play (what is
>illumination? what are the limits on divination? what is god? who was
>Arkat? how many Argraths?), the discussions will only serve to obscure the
>Good Stuff.
Oh so you don't like irrelevant topics? How sad. Examples of how these 'irrelevant in play' topics can be relevant to play have included:
'What is Illumination': Can an Illuminate be excommunicated? Can an illuminate lie to his god and excommunicate somebody else?
'how many argraths': Considerably important when he's due to take control of Sartar in the Near Future.
'who was Arkat': Also important for those playing in Ralios.
Just because you may find it boring is no reason for such debate *not* to occur on the glorantha list. I note in the same digest as your 'appeal to common sense' there's a query about how Gods view time? Am I supposed to take it to email considering that we just had a massive debate on this a while back?
>If people can't reach a consensus, then they should take the discussion
>off-Digest and slug it out privately, if they can't agree to disagree. I'm
>not trying to silence anyone, i'm just trying to summon some Common Sense.
Rather flawed methinks. We can't have a consensus or figured out that one can't be reached until we have slugged it out on the digest. After all that *is* one of the reasons what it's for, is it not? That's the reason I've elected not to reply to this by email as requested.
Powered by hypermail