I apologize if my using a Mask (I love topics=Ilav Topix) offended some of you (I hope not the whole of you). I don't know if I would use this trick again, in the same circumstances, but I know that I am ready to quit my posting _and_ subscription to the digest again.
Someone, who is crytical about what I did, wrote me:
<<The Glorantha Digest is a *community*. It has a few, simple, written
rules -- and you are deliberately breaking one of these. It also has a few,
simple unwritten rules -- and the list owner informed you when your request
for personal abuse stepped over the line. The purpose of all these rules is
to preserve the community. The purpose of the list owner's intervention was
to preserve the community. Your actions are foolish, short-sighted and
wrong.
They are also damaging to the Digest as a community.>>
I have an opinion about this. Not that you are forced to read it, you can simply skip the following lines. I am not the owner myself or Greg or anyone of the Gloranthan gurus. I am also told I don't deserve to be a guru. Not because I don't know or love Glorantha, but because of the way I choose to express my love and knowledge.
I say this simply because I think it, because I want you to know what I think, even if it could be proved to be wrong or stupid.
My last (non-Ilav) posting was the Nuts message. It was full of my anger and I wanted you to know that I was angry. Is this childish? If it is, then I am childish, but I still have a point of view. My POV is exactly what I wrote then, apart from the anger: this Digest (and Glorantha as it is officially published now and as someone, wiser than me, made me notice) is not the World's Glorantha-Digest. It is managed and ruled according to many written and unwritten rules, as that person, who wrote me the not-friendly message pasted above, so clearly points.
The unwritten rules are the most dangerous of all. Except for the instance in which anyone, i.e. the whole community, is well aware of their existence and _accepts_ them. And in this instance, it is not, IMO.
I don't think that breaking a written rule means always that you are a criminal. I don't think that I broke the written rule of not using pseudonyms because I want to damage you or this Digest or Glorantha. I did because I wanted to say you: beware.
All of your efforts in enforcing rules (both written and unwritten ones) can damage this Digest _and_ Glorantha, in the same time. Because the majority, IMO, of the unwritten rules concern human relationship, the way of expressing ideas and emotions and the cultural and linguistical references which back and convey these concepts.
This kind of things are not the same in Iceland and in Sicily, in Tibet or
on the Appalachians (sp?).
Are you aware of this? From the tone of the Digesters and from their
identity and manifest english-speaking (or Anglo-Saxon) belonging, I say no.
Or not in the right degree, at least.
This is my challenge: prove to me that I am wrong and I will be the first to rejoice because then the "community" of the Glorantha Digest will become (or will have ever been) a real and decent community. Do not prove and I will not consider the Digest deserves me and my efforts. So if you don't want me to post to this Digest again, you need just to ignore this posting or to attack my PoV and myself. If you like me to be here, at your side, criticize my ideas. "Stand by your ideas", is that not the first rule? So don't break it, citizens. Else, you could become like me.
Gianfranco Geroldi, Cremona, Italy
BTW What's a wanker or a prat? I have been called both, but I don't know the exact meaning of these words, even if I am aware of the tone behind them.
Powered by hypermail