Alex:
> I have no idea what Sandy has in mind when he says this, but I can agree
> with the bald statement, at least. Even if one insists on having an
> Objectively Real Model of the gods, I don't think it follows that
> they're necessarily some sort of pseudo-Platonic finite domain, either
> of Ideals, or of Persons.
Erik:
> I'm not what the subjectivists consider the objectivists
> to be, and not what the objectivists consider the subjectivists to
> be.
I can see it now, these three guys are plotting to illuminate us Digest readers.
Kenth Eriksson:
>This is my first contribution to this digest. I've never before taken part of
>something like this, so bear with me. I'll try not to be boring.
>
>Please...If I do something wrong, offend anybody or things as such...please let
>me know. But I ask that you be polite and give me creative critisizm.
>
>I hope I can be of any sort of help to anybody. I also hope that I'm welcome
>here and would like to thank you in advance for not kicking me out.
Welcome aboard! I can see that the descriptions of this weird place that Michael, Erik and I fed you on the way to Germany have sunk in. Don't worry, the Digest is even stranger than we represented it as.
>Niels Weinander continued:
Hrm, that's Nils, without an e.
>>What else? I played A Wealth of Riches, GMed by MOB,
>>MGF style.
>
>If memory serves me right it was called: Embarrasment Riches.
Oops, of course, and embarrassment is naturally the only word applicable to the actions of the terminally confused and incompetent characters.
>Did you get home alright Niels?
No, this is written by the shaman who summoned my spirit and questioned it.
Sorry about the excessive quoting and lack of content
Dazedly yours,
Powered by hypermail