Philip Hibbs writes:
>I never thought of Prax as a cactus place - does it have any? I proposed
>cactus elves should be a Pamaltelan phenomena during the last big elves
>subject, MOB made a Note from Notched out of it. Anyone still got it? I
>lost it.
And so, it appears, have I (my archive of GD's usually only goes back a hundred or so before I clear 'em out). I'd also appreciate it if someone could post the Note Phil Notched again, as I making a collection of them all and this one seems to have slipped through my fingers!
BTW, I just thought I'd better let everyone know that Stephen Martin has, after a couple of emails back and forth, apologised to me (privately) for his public accusation of plagiarism in V5 #384:
>OK, this is going to sound like I'm being petty, and maybe it is (though
>it is not intended to be), but the idea of multiple Moonsons goes back a
>wee bit farther than MOB or Nick could possibly be responsible for...
If Stephen had spent the time reading my post with the same alacrity with which he hastily responded to it, he would have understood that I was NOT referring to the 1976 notion of "multiple Moonsons", but the NEW concept that (post-Sheng) the Moonsons are actually different *individuals*, with personalities, appearances and policies of their own. This was the change in Greg's thinking that Nick, Chris and I helped foster a few years back, which has led to such fruitful additions to the Gloranthan corpus as Tales #16, the Red Emperor Cult, The Glamour Book, seminar transcripts, Greg's Lunar Book material, the "Life of Moonson" LARP, etc.
If you recall, my post - "Wellsprings of Inspiration" in V5 #377 - was all about how we (the fans) should feel free to make things up for Glorantha and that these ideas could even become part of Generally Accepted Glorantha. Why Stephen concluded I would use as my example of this a concept extant for over 20 years is beyond me, particularly when he of all people should know that there has recently been a radical rethink in the way Greg views the Red Emperor.
I don't take kindly to being wrongly accused of ripping off someone else's ideas, just as Stephen didn't take kindly to when I inaccurately identified him as a "non-gamer" in v5 #308. I guess the difference is I acknowledged I was wrong *in public* virtually straightaway (v5 #310), while Stephen's apology has eventually turned up in private email (and appeared to come as an afterthought following the usual screed of qualified justifications and tendentious reiterations that seems to be becoming his speciality).
Stephen might be pathologically fixated with preserving (ie. in aspic) Glorantha's past; I like to think I'm one of those actively contributing to the future, and making the lozenge a more interesting place to explore and game in. We all gratefully derive inspiration from Stafford, but I wish that Stephen could bring himself to admit that other people *are* sometimes capable of writing original material of their own which doesn't have as its basis some out-of-print tome or obscure scrap from Stafford's wastepaper basket that only he has read in the past 20 years.
Sorry to have taken up so much of everyone's time. While I think Stephen's accusation is fairly trivial (or shall we say "petty"), it nevertheless stands on the record, and I want his retraction to do so as well, even if he made it to me alone.
Since my clarification in V5 #388, Stephen has had;
to publically apologise for this slur. Shit, all he had to bring himself to say was something simple like, "Oh, sorry MOB, now understand the example you gave, sorry I misunderstood your initial post!".
*I* apologise in advance if something from Stephen along these lines appears contemporaneously with this message.
Back to the fun stuff, I say!
MOB
Powered by hypermail