RE: [ImmoderateHeroQuest] Winter Spirits

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_JQ9HQ79cCl7LeM1XVHw15f-8DLSaZscNFE-YbyEv9SZOf_RZMM74Wovbt35_I>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:31:51 +0100


> You are never going to turn up strong
> evidence for everything in glorantha so you should
> just learn to be satisfied with what's come up.

Hush. Do not question. Be satisfied with what Peter tells you, because you are a Lesser Being. Yeah, right....  

> Bab-U-Ladra isn't canonical either. More material has
> come out since Drastic Prax was published.

You see? Someone has carried out a HQ to prove that facts in Drastic Prax are no longer true, and have never been true. Only, it only had localised effects. It convinced Peter. Everyone who'd been doing their own HQs that strengthened Drastic (i.e. taking those facts and gaming with them) will need a lot more convincing.

> > > Why the need to invalidate the prosopeadia then?

Of course, no-one could ever publish anything after the Prosopaedia came out that would invalidate that the way Drastic has apparently been invalidated. There's no need to even check.  

> >But it is wise to attempt to identify potential
> >sources of a Gregging, in order to assess how strong
> >any piece of evidence about Glorantha is.
>
> No, it isn't.

Of course not. To do so would be to Question the Great, and we mustn't do that. Also, it weakens the HQs people have been carrying out to retrospectively alter Glorantha fact and history, and naturally people who've done that won't like it.  

> She doesn't have a place on the God Plane any more
> than Kolat does.

But, if we continue the "latest publication trumps others" logic, the latest out on Inora is that she is a goddess, she has initiates, she has affinities and feats, there's no misapplied worship involved, and the whole lot had significant effects during the Fimbulwinter.

HQ carried out by Darren, with much community support, including the "official Issaries demo team" badge.

This may possibly be proof that WP is a separate being from Inora.  

> >So, now we have to question the quality of those
> >references as evidence,
>
> Who is we? Do you have multiple personalities?

Am I missing something, or is this a mailing list with more than two people on it?  

> > > Who was "you" meant to refer to then?

Er.. The list? That's what's in the "to" box of the email?  

> >It was a hypothetical: "you could" not "you did".

Or in pompous/dated English, perhaps, "One could"? The use of "you" above is standard and obvious in meaning to all (but one), though.            

Powered by hypermail