Of course I'm taking it personally, Rob (and no, I don't mind you saying). I'm not so arrogant or affecting that I don't mind admitting so. I wrote a piece which Jeff argues is based on false pretences. Jeff and I don't agree, and we've argued it through. I'm open to charges of stubborn self-interest; Jeff, in trying to assert a negative, of party-pooping. We both have to live with that.
But does that affect our basic position? Not particularly, because we're ultimately both arguing for a considered reason. The issue is how the Lunars react to the notion of Orlanth. Jeff and I differ - no problem.
What I don't like is how things like this can grow, and what is limited concept gets made into a piece for argument out of its context. I'm reminding people of this for Jeff's sake, as much as mine. Bear in mind that the whole discussion went off the rails from the off, regarding the 'inquisition' issue.
By nature, I'm always a bit funny of assertions to the negative. So in an Empire of a little under 10 million people and five dozen plus major denominations, I do wonder how/why such would be made. If you want to take that as my hubris, that's your prerogative.
Cheerio,
Stu.
Powered by hypermail