But that does not mean that all serial killers are humakt types, he gave one as an example, and I think that one was carefully chosen. Kaczinsky was not a sexual pervert, cannibal or torturer (although clearly he inflicted much suffering). He believed he was waging a war in the pursuit of a techno-political agenda, not dissimilar to the religious-political agenda of groups such as Al-Qaeda. He, like they, chose to use death as his sole vehicle for pursuing that agenda, to the point that the killings pretty much became an end in themselves.
> ...Fortunately, about half of this group is simply ignoring
> Greg's more extreme new idead about Humaktis.
I'm not ignoring them, and I don't think they're particularly new. We've had discussions similar to this one on the Digest for many years. It's becoming a tedious habit to criticize any expansion of Gloranthan material by Greg as being re-interpretation, or 'Gregging'. Sure some re-interpretation is occuring, and is necessery, but I think it's much more limited than many suppose.
The fact that some people have an overly romanticized view of what Humakti are like is their problem.
> And the bizarre idea that they are sleazy lawyer-types who weasel
> their way out of oaths never gained any support. That's good!
I don't think they weazel, but then I don't think their oaths mean to them precisely what some of us think they should mean. Heortling culture is very different from ours, and their concept of right and wrong is next to alien in many respects.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail