in_nomine-digest Monday, January 28 2002 Volume 01 : Number 2529 In this digest: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer Re: IN> Had to be done... Re: IN> Had to be done... Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer Re: IN> The Deluge Re: IN> The Deluge Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Re: IN> As we were talking about Voodoo and others... Re: IN> The EPG (was Re: the War) Re: IN> The EPG (was Re: the War) Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery Elizabeth Moon (was Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery) Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... Re: IN> Fairy Meat - ethereal playground? Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... Re: IN> Had to be done... Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer In article , cglasgow@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow) wrote: > "John Dallman" wrote: > > I suspect that Michael and Baal, with their staffs, have some > > capability to deduce each other's motives from their actions. ... > Goodness, I never suggested keeping Laurence out of the loop -- not > only for the reasons you listed but also because he's the > commander-in-chief, and therefore is *always* presumed to have the > need-to-know. I didn't make that clear enough, did I? The point was that while Michael will certainly not tell, he might not be able to keep the knowledge from affecting his actions and plans, and it is conceivable that Baal could deduce something from said actions and plans. It's harder for Hell to deduce anything from Laurence's actions and plans, since his thinking, as a Malakite, is more alien to them. He may also be more capable of keeping his knowledge from affecting them - thus reducing the chance that someone in Heaven will deduce something. With a secret of this size, you worry about your own side figuring things out too. - --- John Dallman jgd@cix.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 10:35:00 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Dallman" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 10:18 AM Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer > I didn't make that clear enough, did I? The point was that while Michael > will certainly not tell, he might not be able to keep the knowledge from > affecting his actions and plans, and it is conceivable that Baal could > deduce something from said actions and plans. It's not conceivable to me -- Baal might be able to figure out that Michael is hiding something, but the # of possible things he could be hiding is virtually infinite. Being able to figure out *which* one of those possibilities Michael is hiding, using pure deduction and psychology, would take an Arisian (1) and not a Balseraph. If the General of Hell really had that kind of insight into the Firstborn's head, Hell would have won the war before Uriel ever succeeded Michael. And actually, a Malakite would be *easier* to predict than a Seraph -- know their oaths, know their motivations. And it's canon in Sup1 that if Laurence has any flaws at all as a commander, they're in the "lack of flexibility" area. I think Sup1 even contains some mentions out of how it's only recently that Laurence has learned enough so that Hell *wasn't* winning on points againt him, because it was easier to 'read' his thinking than it was either of his predecessors'. - -- Chuckg (1) "Doc" Smith 'Galactic Patrol' reference ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 08:37:51 -0800 (PST) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Had to be done... - --- Cameron McCurry wrote: > Inspired by a game at Moe's house... > ===================== > Wishlat > Balseraph of The Media > Demon...of...over..ACTING > Good NPC, but one does hope that he wasn't a hint... ;) Moe ===== Liber Licentiae Moeticae: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Last updated 01/01/02(this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) Subject: Re: IN> Had to be done... In article <3C542249.4AF1B0C@earthlink.net>, cmccurry@earthlink.net (Cameron McCurry) wrote: > Wishlat > Balseraph of The Media > Demon...of...over..ACTING ROFL! And of course, it's excellent cover. No sensible demon would take on a role like this, would they? Hang on... We're dealing with The Media here, aren't we? You know, if there were a Malakite of Creation in service to Judgement around, I can see him being given the job of dealing with Wishlat. You want this guy's vessel to die in some creative and very public poetic-justice way. An accident while training stuntmen in evoking terror would be a good starting idea, but it needs elaboration. - --- John Dallman jgd@cix.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer In article , cglasgow@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow) wrote: > > I didn't make that clear enough, did I? The point was that while > > Michael will certainly not tell, he might not be able to keep the > > knowledge from affecting his actions and plans, and it is conceivable > > that Baal could deduce something from said actions and plans. > > It's not conceivable to me -- Baal might be able to figure out that > Michael is hiding something, but the # of possible things he could be > hiding is virtually infinite. True. > Being able to figure out *which* one of those possibilities Michael is > hiding, using pure deduction and psychology, would take an Arisian (1) > and not a Balseraph. He isn't limited to pure deduction and psychology - he can take actions, and see how Michael responds. They've both been doing that for a long time. It's like known plaintext attacks in cryptography. And Baal has a staff, as well as doing his own thinking, and some of those staff will have orders to think about unlikely ideas. > If the General of Hell really had that kind of insight into the > Firstborn's head, Hell would have won the war before Uriel ever > succeeded Michael. Almost certainly. But this isn't question of what might actually happen, it's a question of what you can't be *certain* won't happen, when considering how widely to distribute information that will clearly be very closely held - Moe's interesting explanation of what Eli's been up to. The question is if the losses consequent on the cosmically unlikely blowing of this idea, which gains a huge advantage if it succeeds, are bigger than those caused by Eli's likely small-scale and accidental interference in plans of Michael's - in a war where there are lots of accidents anyway, and where the fact that Eli is acting strange may well distract the other side. People making really important security decisions tend to err on the side of conservatism. - --- John Dallman jgd@cix.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:34:53 -0600 From: "DevilzOwn" Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer > > If the General of Hell really had that kind of insight into the > > Firstborn's head, Hell would have won the war before Uriel ever > > succeeded Michael. Are we even sure that the forces of Hell really want to win the war? As stated earlier, princes like Baal and Asmodeus have a vested interest in the war continuing. Baal is the prince of THE war, not war. Asmodeus is the prince of THE game, not games. Were the war ever actually won, their words would be meaningless. The next question is the mentality of the lightbringer. Lucifer rebelled against the tyranny of heaven. How would a world ruled by the forces of Hell be any different? Tyranny is tyranny. IMO, the dynamic environment of the war is exactly what Lucifer wanted all along. He actually strives to maintain the conflict through princely appointments and other various activities. Sure he says he wants to win, but he's a balseraph, and didn't earn the moniker "Prince of Lies" for being honest. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:15:36 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Burzelic Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer What I got from the story was that Eli's mission was solely espionage. Since there were no laid plans for Michael's war machine to step on, notifying him is unneeded. Telling as few Archangels as possible as to where Eli's gone creates genuine confusion among the host. Dominic being the only one to persue inquiry into his where-abouts, he doesn't seem to question Laurence that hard, thus doesn't find out. This info or lack there-of gets past down the ranks as piecemeal as it would be, eventually leaking it's way to Hell. The rumors are that Michael and Dominic, two of the biggest Truthtellers of the Symphony don't know where Eli is or what he's up to, and that it practically visibly irritates Dominic only adds to the statement's truth. So when Eli turns up to some demons, saying he's thinking of defecting and wanting a tour of the facilities so he can help out all previous information points to Eli as genuinely being on the lamb. The demons take him on his word and show him all their secrets. The Day comes, Eli says "Just kidding!",heads home and spills the beans. Jim Burzelic __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 15:13:21 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The Deluge At 10:47 PM -0500 1/25/02, William J. Keith wrote: >Mmm, "Escape From Hell." And... then what? Might Blandine be able to take >a repentant soul up her own Tower? An interesting question. What, you didn't think I was going to _answer_ the question, did you? Let the PCs figure out if it works when they get there. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 15:42:58 -0500 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> The Deluge >What, you didn't think I was going to _answer_ the question, did you? >Let the PCs figure out if it works when they get there. Oh, of course. It'd be no fun if you answered *that* one. :^) Me personally, I like the idea of the damned torturing themselves with ideas like that. >--emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor >RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ William ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:58:01 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery - --- CsHoneyman@aol.com wrote: > what is a prayer or Mass/whatever but an > attempted act of magic? A request for a miracle. The difference is between bending the universe to your own will and asking a higher power to work its will. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 Existential fast food slogan: "Why's the beef?" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:59:14 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> As we were talking about Voodoo and others... - --- CsHoneyman@aol.com wrote: > I thought I might as well post the link to the Yahoo! > Faiths and Practices > section so people could research stuff if they wanted to. Thank you! That was most thoughtful. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 Existential fast food slogan: "Why's the beef?" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:12:03 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> The EPG (was Re: the War) At 3:26 PM -0800 1/25/02, Sean McCarthy wrote: [Beth's Obligatory Pyramid Plug ($15 a year!) snipped] > > No EPG playtest yet. Should be relatively soonish, though. > I'm reading the In Anime designer's notes now, though. That I like. :) Check the archives, too... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:12:03 -0500 From: "Josh Moger" Subject: Re: IN> The EPG (was Re: the War) - -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth McCoy To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Sunday, January 27, 2002 6:33 PM Subject: Re: IN> The EPG (was Re: the War) >At 3:26 PM -0800 1/25/02, Sean McCarthy wrote: >[Beth's Obligatory Pyramid Plug ($15 a year!) snipped] >> >> No EPG playtest yet. > >Should be relatively soonish, though. > snip These words... they conjure in my mind the belief that such a book is, if not finished, in the works to be done so... or am I just getting the terminology mixed up in my starry-eyed newbish way? Josh Starry-eyed, but only for about five minutes right after waking up. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:54:29 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Dallman" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:13 AM Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer [snip] > He isn't limited to pure deduction and psychology - he can take actions, > and see how Michael responds. Which is about as likely to reveal the Eli secret as a known plaintext attack vs. a one-time pad... given how unlikely Baal is to hit on any action that requires Michael's response to safeguard this particular secret to be any other response than "Do nothing, say nothing." [snip] As far as the other gentleman's point of "no laid plans for Michael to step on", I submit that Eli's behavior falls within the realm of 'intelligence-gathering' -- and that Nisroch, Angel of Spies, is a Servitor of War. Also, Michael and Dominic are the two main candidates for who heads Heaven's spook shop... (with Marc a recent third) and given that Dominic genuinely doesn't know, who does that leave? The big dumb Seraph with the axe is big and Seraphic and with the axe, but he ain't dumb. And as the guy who does most of the sneaky underhanded stuff in Heaven, not keeping him in the loop on something this sneaky and underhanded is not, IMO, wise. Especially given that his experience and input would be invaluable in the *planning* stage as well... especially at the stage that's marked "Is this a good idea, or is the likely return too small for the angel-decades' worth of lost effort of that Eli's vanishing will create, in both his own Servitors' and in Judgement's.?" (War also being one of Heaven's two greatest /logistics/ departments as well... witness who the Angel of Supply Lines works for.) I personally see the likely info loop on Eli's disappearance being Eli, Laurence, Michael, possibly Marc (1) and whichever angel first thought it up (and it's not necessarily either of the four already mentioned.) - -- Chuckg (1) Even if you don't tell Marc *why* you suddenly need a mess of calculations as to whether or not it's a net gain for Heaven to lose the Archangel of Creation's services from the manpower picture for that length of time, with the concomitant disruption to every other department, the mere fact that you had to ask for them at all will tell him enough about what's going on for him to figure out the rest. And who else but Trade will have all those #'s? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:58:05 +0000 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery >--- CsHoneyman@aol.com wrote: > > what is a prayer or Mass/whatever but an > > attempted act of magic? > > A request for a miracle. The difference is between >bending the universe to your own will and asking a higher >power to work its will. Exactly. C. S. Lewis, in *The Silver Chair*, expressed it elegantly when he described magic as "trying to make God do things" and went on to explain that what you're supposed to do is *ask.* Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:04:26 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janet Anderson" To: Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 8:58 PM Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery > > A request for a miracle. The difference is between > >bending the universe to your own will and asking a higher > >power to work its will. > > Exactly. C. S. Lewis, in *The Silver Chair*, expressed it elegantly when he > described magic as "trying to make God do things" and went on to explain > that what you're supposed to do is *ask.* Also seen in Elizabeth Moon's "Paksenarrion" series "Who did you see in the fire? What powers did you name? Remember now, you're a paladin, not a mage. You don't command -- you ask." - -- Master Oakhallow speaking to paladin-candidate Paksenarrion, from Elizabeth Moon's _Oath Of Gold_ - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:11:16 +0000 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery >Also seen in Elizabeth Moon's "Paksenarrion" series > >"Who did you see in the fire? What powers did you name? Remember now, >you're a paladin, not a mage. You don't command -- you ask." > >-- Master Oakhallow speaking to paladin-candidate Paksenarrion, from >Elizabeth Moon's _Oath Of Gold_ A series which, incidentally, contains a superb description of what a "Detect Evil" ability feels like from the inside. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:17:59 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Elizabeth Moon (was Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janet Anderson" To: Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 9:11 PM Subject: Re: IN> Divine analogues of Sorcery > >-- Master Oakhallow speaking to paladin-candidate Paksenarrion, from > >Elizabeth Moon's _Oath Of Gold_ > A series which, incidentally, contains a superb description of what a > "Detect Evil" ability feels like from the inside. As well as some people that David and Laurence and Michael would all just *love*, and many many good characters from which to mine personality traits from and transplant into settings. If you really need a stoic-but-wise Instructor, for example, most DMs can generally do him generic -- but it might help as a mental visualization aid if you've read Amberion's best bits from the series first, and then contrasted those vs. Marshal Cedfer's, and used them both as inspiration... - -- Chuckg (And why am I suddenly gripped by this mental image of Arvid Semmenson, Outcast-and-sorta-Redeemable Impudite of Theft?) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:55:34 -0500 From: Mike Bruner Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer >As far as the other gentleman's point of "no laid plans for Michael to step >on", I submit that Eli's behavior falls within the realm of >'intelligence-gathering' -- and that Nisroch, Angel of Spies, is a Servitor >of War. Also, Michael and Dominic are the two main candidates for who >heads Heaven's spook shop... (with Marc a recent third) and given that >Dominic genuinely doesn't know, who does that leave? > >The big dumb Seraph with the axe is big and Seraphic and with the axe, but >he ain't dumb. And as the guy who does most of the sneaky underhanded >stuff in Heaven, not keeping him in the loop on something this sneaky and >underhanded is not, IMO, wise. Especially given that his experience and >input would be invaluable in the *planning* stage as well... especially at >the stage that's marked "Is this a good idea, or is the likely return too >small for the angel-decades' worth of lost effort of that Eli's vanishing >will create, in both his own Servitors' and in Judgement's.?" (War also >being one of Heaven's two greatest /logistics/ departments as well... >witness who the Angel of Supply Lines works for.) > >I personally see the likely info loop on Eli's disappearance being Eli, >Laurence, Michael, possibly Marc (1) and whichever angel first thought it up >(and it's not necessarily either of the four already mentioned.) About the only risk I can see with Michael is his problems with Dominic, who I think is someone who would HAVE to be kept out of the loop for this to work. Not only does it make his efforts to catch Eli realistic, he certainly is a potential leak risk (maybe Michael is sneaky enough to fool Baal, but I seriously doubt Judgement (which has to be fairly out in the open to be fair) could fool Asmodeus, Hell's chief of counterintelligence and second only to Lucifer in deviousness, with the ABSOLUTE perfection needed for this). Michael, however, would be very pleased at knowing something Dominic didn't, and since his defenses are probably somewhat less around one of Heaven's, he might accidently let slip something to Dominic as a "I know something you don't know" (if nothing else, even hinting to Dominic that Eli has a legitimate purpose for what he did is enough damaging info if Dominic leaks it later). Granted, it's a remote possibility, but it might be considered enough. Besides, Eli might want to sneak one past his big brother Mikey :). - -- Mike Bruner-- mbruner18@home.com Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day. Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:43:14 -0600 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Bruner" To: Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 9:55 PM Subject: Re: IN> 'What's Eli Doing?' - the low probability answer [snip] > Michael, however, would be very pleased at knowing something Dominic > didn't, and since his defenses are probably somewhat less around one > of Heaven's, he might accidently let slip something to Dominic > as a "I know something you don't know" a) Doesn't Michael's usual attitude towards Dominic contain a bit of smugness on top of the grudge? (Michael is "the one that got away", after all.) b) If there's any Archangel Michael would be double-sure to keep his defenses tight against, it's Dominic. The only Archangel who tries to get away with more stuff that would make Dominic frown is Janus. "Michael's hiding something from me" is a statement that Dominic most likely considers down there with other such things like "Novalis is smiling", "Jean isn't being very emotional today", and "David's being stubborn again." - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:15:27 -0500 From: Eric Eves Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... CsHoneyman@aol.com wrote: > > If only we could get xians to admit it... Heh. I've got a proposal. Any Christians (or other theists) here here use the terms "atheist" or "agnostic"* instead of "hellbound godless sinner," and you use the the term "Christian" instead of xian. Deal? (*or whatever is applicable to you and you prefer, within reason) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:24:58 -0600 From: toadpooka@juno.com Subject: Re: IN> Fairy Meat - ethereal playground? Fairy Meat could serve as a great example of what happens when once-benign Ethereals had to seek out refuge on Beleth's side of the Marches. Almost every "race" in the game used to be a happy-go-lucky bunch of beings until something happened to make them bad (except the gnomes, they were almost always bastards). On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 07:41:06 "Perry Lloyd" writes: > http://www.newwavegames.com/minis/kenzer/fairymeat/ >From Whom It May Concern, Rich Ranallo "Rock and Roll will be the new planetary culture, believe it or not." - -Prof. Michio Kaku ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:22:58 -0500 From: "Josh Moger" Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... >> If only we could get xians to admit it... Heh. > >I've got a proposal. > >Any Christians (or other theists) here here use the terms "atheist" or >"agnostic"* instead of "hellbound godless sinner," and you use the the >term "Christian" instead of xian. > >Deal? > snip HA! Can I still be a damn, penny-pinching, miserly, thrifty, self-righteous Jew? Josh A damn, penny-pinching, miserly, thrifty, self-righteous Jew... but only to his friends. p.s.: see the non-p.c. humor just ooze off of that post. And the inevitable IN catch- "Okay, who invited Malphas onto the list?!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:31:34 -0600 From: toadpooka@juno.com Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:22:58 -0500 "Josh Moger" writes: > > And the inevitable IN catch- > > "Okay, who invited Malphas onto the list?!" The Discordians--who else? >From Whom It May Concern, Rich Ranallo, who knows what's REALLY going on between Malphas and Eris... "Rock and Roll will be the new planetary culture, believe it or not." - -Prof. Michio Kaku ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:53:47 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Had to be done... - --- Cameron McCurry wrote: > Wishlat > Balseraph of The Media > Demon...of...over..ACTING I really need to game with you guys... ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 Existential fast food slogan: "Why's the beef?" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:20:55 +0000 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... >Any Christians (or other theists) here here use the terms "atheist" or >"agnostic"* instead of "hellbound godless sinner," and you use the the >term "Christian" instead of xian. > >Deal? What he said. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:48:59 -0600 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Is there an official bit in canon... Janet Anderson wrote: > > >Any Christians (or other theists) here here use the terms "atheist" or > >"agnostic"* instead of "hellbound godless sinner," and you use the the > >term "Christian" instead of xian. > > > >Deal? > > What he said. I'd like to point out that threatening to insult ALL atheists/agnostics because you don't like what ONE atheist/agnostic said hardly strikes me as "Christian" behavior. - -David (atheist, but I don't think I've ever used the term "xian") ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2529 ********************************