RE: [ImmoderateHeroQuest] Winter Spirits

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_Qg16IMLyTDPoosY4Jcmec3TB0kqwBIL0-U9rXtpjVxmVXzLZj643WrziKwsiGB7jAXt>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:11:23 +1200


At 07:31 AM 6/24/2005 +0100, Jane Williams wrote:

> > 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....

Piss off, Jane. If you had actually taken the trouble to read properly what other people wrote instead of sprouting ignorant bullshit (rewriting history by heroquest) and dump the condescensiom at least once, the debate about Inora would have been over more smoothly.

> > 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.

It wasn't an argument about Drastic: Prax not being true, you stupid cow, it was an argument about canon.

>Only, it only had localised effects.

In the same way that you were seriously suggesting that that Inora might be worshipped as a god and as a spirit by two different people on the basis of belief alone, thus overturning gloranthan metaphysics and demonstrating that you didn't know what you were talking about.

>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.

In other words, you don't know shit about the Doraddi (in the same way that you admitted that you didn't know shit about the Inora) but were still compelled to make a big fuss over the issue.

> > > > 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.

What part of "Nothing has been published to invalidate the Prosopaedia in the case of Inora" did you not understand? Given that Storm Tribe bent over backwards to remain true to Cults of Prax, I fail to see why the Prosopaedia must be dismissed as a source of absolute untrustworthiness. Why is it still up at fucking glorantha.com if that were so?

> > >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.

Except the only heroquests that people have carried out to alter history are the imaginary ones that exist in cluefree vacuum that is Jane's head.

> > 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.

What latest publication would this be? And who adheres to this latest publication trumps others? More evidence that the Jane posts despite wearing a straitjacket.

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

An HQ demo by Darren under the aegis of an Issaries demo team is not canonical evidence by anybody's standards except for the deranged.

> > >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?

So Chris speaks for the entire mailing list now?

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

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

Read the context thoroughly and stop pissing about. The "you" was clearly addressed to me as Chris acknowledged.

> > >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.

You could go and fuck yourself.

I guess I should apologize to regular readers of this forum but after a thread in which I get patronized by Jane for daring to correct her imbecility, personally attacked by Tony Davis for not doing more for glorantha, as well as have my statements pointlessly nit-picked by Chris Lemens (who doesn't bother to do the rudimentary research first), I refrained from responding in kind of the forum (and on a followup thread on the glorantha.digest) only to be criticized off the list for being snarky. Well I have responded as I did to show those three fuckwits where their fucking stupid tactics ultimately gets them. I hope they are satisfied with the semi-public explosion of rage but if not, they can simply fuck off and die.

--Peter Metcalfe            

Powered by hypermail