AW: Re: Magical contraception

From: Goihl & Fahey <goihlk_at_sCl7YTNO8c1iNZi_5OKmN5mcr69utfhIaUmiDzoGa8BmljDj15qVKQvpcTAzM7e-TWI3B>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 22:11:04 +0200


>I don't doubt that I am (and I'm happy to find out).
 

Then listen to those who know, instead of disregarding us.  

>I still think there is a certain slightly crap aspect to the idea, though.
 

Either way, but you could think about it awhile and see where it may fit your understanding.

>It could reduce things to being just an alternative explanation of the
mundane.  

Other way round. It could explain the mundane as magic. Remember in the Lord of the Rings where Galadriel (or was it another elf?) said something about sort-of understanding what the hobbits meant by 'magic'? To the elves it's all magic, or all mundane. In any case they use it all the time and don't think anything particular of it.  

>The way you laid things out - the comparison with how people believed
things work, how many still believe it in fact - I love all that, that's just grand.  

Great. That's why I wrote that. It's rather frustrating to then read "By you. Not by me or I suspect by lots of others."  

>My personal preference is just a bit bigger and brighter, perhaps. (Flying
elephants and so on to one side...)  

There're things about Glorantha, partly as learned in talks with Greg, that I don't care for. I use my preferences where I can.

>If it is just an alternative way to explain the same level of stuff, I
think that's a bit dull is all.  

Think about it awhile and see if you can color up your vision of it.

>That make sense?
 

Yes. But the other way makes sense to me too.

>Daniel - I have you down as a mint-flavoured condom. Spearmint! Yech!
 

I like spearmint, but I don't use condoms.

Daniel

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]            

Powered by hypermail