re: Humakti mini-comment

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 22:19:40 +0800

At 6:38 PM +0000 3/7/02, morganconrad scribbled:
>Dave writes:
>
>(much good stuff deleted)
>
>"I know Greg was not using the term serial killer in this
>sense, but a more literal reading of the words, one that applies to
>hardened soldiers. But I wanted to make it clear that people like
>Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy etc are not the Humakti type."
>
>Alas, Greg did mean exactly that, as he used Ted Kazinsky as one
>prototype. Fortunately, about half of this group is simply ignoring
>Greg's more extreme new idead about Humaktis.

        Nope, Ted Kazinsky is a multiple murderer, but not THAT sort of serial killer, though he is a serial murderer. He killed for a cause, not for sexual pleasure and is not the same sort of killer as Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy,et al. I can see Kazinsky fitting into the extremes of Humakti behaviour, like suicide bombers. Though killing in such an impersonal and arbitrary way would be anathema to many Humakti, the idea of killing for a cause certainly would not be.

>And the bizarre idea that they are sleazy lawyer-types who weasel
>their way out of oaths never gained any support. That's good!

	Yes, not very keen on that.
	The Humakti code of honour is largely about their own sense 

of themselves as honourable, not just trying to live by an externally imposed code. The geases, for example, are chosen by the Humakti themselves, self-imposed.

	Cheers
		David