>If you are agreeing that a yurt can be quickly packed up, with its whole
>contents, making running away a viable option, then I apologise for my
>mistake. However, this is not the impression I got of your position.
My position was that there are two types of yurts, one easily packable in a hurry and one not. I only ever denied that yurts could be simply tossed onto the back of a horse and I meant just that, and I have never expressed anything that could give rise to the following statement of yours: "Peter keeps stating that Yurts take hours to pack up".
> >I even stated my position by pointing out that
> >the Pentans would have two types of tents like the Praxians
> >do. Your response: "so what?". But since you believe that Yurts
> >can be easily tossed onto the back of a horse amongst other
> >silly things, your inability to understand what was written
> >is really of no surprise.
>Nope - you described Praxians two tents to which I said "So what?"
You wrote "so what?" in the middle of a paragraph of mine _after_ I described how the Praxians would have two types of tents and _before_ I explained its relevance to the Pentans. The obvious conclusion was that you were playing cheap word games for no understandable reason. You didn't even bother to explain what it was that you found objectionable until asked.
>The
>fact that a different culture is described as being relatively settled is
>irrelevant to the culture under discussion.
Wrong. I described a mounted nomadic culture's living arrangements in a harsh environment and then drew an analogy with the Pentans, something which I am perfectly entitled to do.
>You then went on to say that the Pentans are similar.
Wrong. I said the Pentans would have similar living arrangements and from the context of the Praxians, it would have been apparent that I was meaning they had two types of Yurts, a travel yurt and a house yurt.
>To which I have said :
>1. Not in my Glorantha
Excuse me, but you _were_ criticizing my interpretation. I am perfectly entitled to justify it.
>2. In which case they don't live in yurts.
They do. Your contention that they do not live in yurts relies on an unsupported premise that _all_ yurts must be easily packed up.
>If you are going to accuse me of not reading, try getting your own facts
>straight.
I have got my facts straight. I actually accused you of not having understood what was written, not "not reading". If the accusation was untrue, then you wouldn't be accusing me of having accused you of "not reading".
>As for "my silly belief" that yurts can be easily thrown on the back
>of a horse...
Which is simply what you wrote.
>Well, bar the obvious dismantling that needs done, they are
>DESIGNED to be exactly that.
But you didn't say anything about the dismantling until a while later and then proceeded to criticize me for my loose terminology, without recognizing that you were casting motes while unaware of the a beam in your ocular cavity.
>Every source from tribes that still live in
>yurts to historical documents confirms this.
Given your documented reading comprehension in this thread, I strongly doubt that "Every source" states that yurts are defined as being those nomadic tents that can be quickly dismantled within an hour or so and that no other tent can possibly be so described.
>Anyway, now that this is getting unneccessarily personal, I will not
>respond to any further flame bait.
Well then you shouldn't have started flame baiting then.
>But given that all I have ever disagreed with was your
>terminology, I fail to see why I should put up with your abuse.
You consider an unadorned "so what?" to be conducive to normal rational dialogue? You think it helpful to criticize people's terminology without actually specifying what it is that they were doing wrong? You think it nice to lie about what people believe?
Powered by hypermail