> > 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.
Watch me give a shit. I responded offline to your original self-justification with far more politeness than this post and never even got an answer.
> The Thed,
>Vivamort and Bagog crack was sarcasm - sorry if you didn't notice.
It was fucking stupid to idiotic questions that read as actual questions but were intended as sarcasm. In case you hadn't noticed the debate was already heated - how is posting an extra flamebait going to help?
>For those not attending to World of Glorantha the argument started when
>Peter made a bald statement
>"Krarst isn't chaotic"
To which I said offline that one statement was in a single post of opinions and I did not have the time and the patience to attach IMO to each and every statement. That Micheal Hitchens was too self-obsessed with being right to even spot this obvious fact only shows why the debate turned out as it did.
Moreover I do find it odd that if the original message was so glaring, Michael didn't even see it until he was forced to dig through the archives in order to justify his own bad faith arguments.
>I can refer you to the message and line in the yahoo archive if you'd
>like.
Why bother? You made the same claim in tedious and self-fellating detail on another flamebaiting post while completely oblivious to the fact that the world doesn't really care.
>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 reading of Krarsht as chaotic. Intransigence on both sides.
So you admit you were intransigent in trying to shout me down? Funny that's not what you claimed in your original self-justification.
>Now some of us took a little exception to this, it seeming to be going
>against the published sources.
And is going against published sources such a crime that you have to repeatedly shriek, howl and gibber "But Krarsht is Chaotic!" whenever I suggest reasons that she isn't? What a fucking hypocrite.
>Peter has since backtracked a little, saying he is now presenting a "novel
>reading" and how unfair we are to argue against possible interpretations.
Hitchens is bullshitting through his teeth. In many of the subsequent posts and before I pointed out to Jeff and Michael that they were shouting down a novel interpretation, I was making statements like:
"Which means that she could be from distant Pamaltela as
far as anybody knows."
Or:
"But I think she seeks to bring Chaos under her control
rather a Chaotic Goddess."
Or:
"As I said before, he may have stomped too hard and tore a
hole in the cosmos."
Or:
"And you don't accept Gods of Glorantha and Cults of Terror either.
So why do you complain about my interpretations?"
But because you were so blinded by your sig file of Michael Hitchens, Ph.D. (tell me, do you have it tattooed on your arse?), you somehow failed to read the OPINIONS in each and every one of these statements. It is only when I decided state explicitly what you two were doing that that you finally got a FUCKING CLUE.
>Hence his quip about "not understanding the argument" I suppose.
You failed to understand a lot more than that.
>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.
Wrong. I gave a clear and concise summary of my position. Read, mark, learn, inwardly digest and quit being a fuckwit.
>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.
What's the fucking difference? You were saying that my X was impossible because the sources said Y. I pointed out that the sources weren't so definitive on Y so my X could still be possible. To which you two pretended that Y was no longer canonical, quoted a truncated quotation from Y to make it more definitive, boasted about how you had written Z (which for all your care still got Dendara wrong) amonmg other things.
> > 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 at the end and then claimed
>that was what you had been arguing all along.
You can quit lying now. I have never changed my position.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail