Re: Blue Pill Time

From: Michael Hitchens <michaelh_at_81kAxootkCox0VgckZQ1rHQGc2zX9o8zOriYtjrDXZ8uPIUZoktdsfNBsKIcPmz3egi>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:59:31 +1000 (EST)


On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Peter Metcalfe wrote:

> At 06:29 p.m. 19/04/2007, you wrote:
>
>> Oh? Do I gather that the list I'm now boycotting, the
>> one of Almighty Greg Worship, created so that He does
>> not have to mingle on a (spit) common or garden list,
>> where the customer and their needs are an
>> insignificant afterthought compared with the Artistic
>> Whim, has exploded again?
>
> A minor kerfuffle about Krarsht. I posted something
> which two losers tried to shout down. Particularly
> stupid was the question about whether Thed, Vivamort
> and Bagog were chaotic deities.

As one of the so-called "losers" I think this is rather unfair. The Thed, Vivamort and Bagog crack was sarcasm - sorry if you didn't notice.

For those not attending to World of Glorantha the argument started when Peter made a bald statement
"Krarst isn't chaotic"

I can refer you to the message and line in the yahoo archive if you'd like.

The statement is not taken out of context and was presented with no moderating "in my opinion" or "there is evdience suggesting perhaps". It was simply stated to be so by Peter. Hence he appeared to be trying to stop our rading of Krarsht as chaotic. Intransigence on both sides.

Now some of us took a little exception to this, it seeming to be going against the published sources.

Peter has since backtracked a little, saying he is now presenting a "novel reading" and how unfair we are to argue against possible interpretations. Hence his quip about "not understanding the argument" I suppose.

Given that he started arguing one thing "Krarsht is not chaotic" and is now arguing another "Some sources can be read that Krarsht is not chaotic" it's no wonder I don't understand the argument. I seem to have missed the class on mind reading through email somewhere.... (more sarcasm, in case you didn't pick it up).

I'm happy to concede that some of the sources can be read as ambiguous as to Krarsht's chaotic nature. People can read it how they like. Some can take it as she is chaotic, some that she is not, some that it is unknown.

I know what I think the majority interpreation will be.

Oh, and this is, to me, obviously related to one of the points I was trying to make in the gag/core debate - we are too careless about the difference bewteen
"I believe X is this way"
"I believe it is possible to rad the source as saying X might be this way" Two very different things.

>> In that case, without having any idea what it's about,
>> I'm rating Michael at 4:1 for rational argument and
>> presenting incontrovertible evidence in the face of
>> lunacy, and Peter at 5:1 for telling The
>> Self-Appointed Almighty some truths that he
>> desperately needs to know, in language that's entirely
>> appropriate for the purpose. Both will be ignored, of
>> course.
>
> Greg was silent in the entire exchange and Mike
> failed to recognize what sort of argument he was
> dealing with.

No surprise as you changed your position half way through.

Michael



Dr. Michael Hitchens
Senior Lecturer, Department of Computing Macquarie University
michaelh_at_ygg1W6_71sOxk2KaSwkbOHqFCZTct1VeSDCmEhN-aFrljUf7cdf20sBizv8JpEszyl5lpMgERIS9FMPvzM4.yahoo.invalid            

Powered by hypermail