Woah - let's hang on here a bit before we all go overboard. In message 1631 (from the archive on yahoo of this group) Peter Metcalfe says
> Excuse me? I'm not dogmatically shooting down a novel
> interpretation of Krarsht with misleading source quotations.
> I'm just defending my interpretation which you and Micheal
> Hitchens seem to want to destroy at all possible costs.
Now let's go back to an earlier message of Peter's (message 1567 in the archive:
>>What about initiation to a more subtle
>>cult like that of Thanatar or Krarst. If you turn away from the cult
>>and try to redeem yourself, is it too late?
>
>Thanatar is hardly a subtle cult and Krarsht isn't chaotic.
Peter's are the singly quoted words, the double quoted are the orignal in this thread. Peter, there is no hedging in what you said there. Nothing to give an impression you are presenting an interpretation, such as
In my opinion Krarsht isn't chaotic In my Glorantha Krarsht isn't chaotic The sources can be interperted to mean that Krarsht isn't chaotic The sources are ambiguous about Krarsht being chaotic It is possible that Krarsht isn't chaoticbut a *dogmatic* "Krarsht isn't chaotic". My responses came from the tone of your initial post, which gave no hint of interpreations, but of definitive statement. That might not be what you meant, but it is how it read to me.
If what you arguing are arguing now is any or all of
The sources can be interperted to mean that Krarsht isn't chaotic The sources are ambiguous about Krarsht being chaotic It is possible that Krarsht isn't chaoticthen I happy to accept these as possibilities. Hopefully you will also accept the possibility that Krarsht *is* chaotic. My *opinion* (and that only, not presented as dogmatic truth) is that the balance of sources tilt to her being chaotic, but that doesn't mean it is conclusive. That means people are free to interpret how they like. Latter publications may of course add more information to this one way or the other.
Michael
Powered by hypermail