From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Mar 22 16:34:37 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA31508 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:34:37 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id QAA20315 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:10:49 -0600 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:10:49 -0600 Message-Id: <199903222210.QAA20315@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1171 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, March 22 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1171 In this digest: Re: IN> The Purity Crusade Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Re: IN> French grammar Re: IN> The First Angels IN> In Principio Re: IN> The Purity Crusade Re: IN> Predestination and free will Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Re: IN> Malakim in chains RE: IN> The Purity Crusade Re: IN> The Purity Crusade RE: IN> The Purity Crusade Re: IN> The Purity Crusade RE: IN> The Purity Crusade RE: IN> The Purity Crusade Re: IN> The Purity Crusade RE: IN> The Purity Crusade RE: IN> The Purity Crusade RE: IN> The Purity Crusade RE: IN> The Purity Crusade RE: IN> The Purity Crusade IN> Fwd: Recent Superior posting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:06:56 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> The Purity Crusade > And I'm being somewhat more than facetious. Why do people never get tired > of revisiting _their_ favorite topics, but expect those they're tired of to > be off-limits? The 15-second short story is as follows: So I was on DALnet, and I was vaguely bored. So I popped into #startrek, and asked them about their opinions on the latest Voyager episode. I was told that they don't talk about Star Trek in that channel anymore because the subject had been "beaten to death". A lesson to be learned, methinks. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:13:01 -0500 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages David Edelstein wrote: > > That's not correct. It's not even correct professionally; different > styleguides sometimes differ on grammatical points (albeit usually over > very subtle points). But it's why the MLA styleguide is different from the > APA styleguide, which is different from the UPI styleguide. Some > grammatical rules are ambiguous, and there is no Department of American > English Grammar to dictate the "correct" grammar to all users of American > English. Well, there are self-appointed ones that are usually ignored except by academians... and not even all of them. I think their current hot topics involve splitting infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions. <---not joking! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:15:45 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 09:02:19AM -0800, Perry Lloyd wrote: > I've often wondered this myself. If every angel were a Malakite, Heaven > would probably we winning the war by now. Hardly. I find the idea that Malakim being incapable of Falling constitutes a massive strategic advantage rather simplistic. I simply don't believe that Falling, or even going Outcast, is very common. If I were to arbitrarily make up figures I'd say about: 10% of demons/demonlings go Renegade, everywhere (incl Hell) About 90-95% of these "betrayals" are the invention of the Game and local security forces, and constitute a major part of Asmodeus' revenue. .01% of demons on Earth redeem, and it usually takes centuries .1% of angels become Outcast (again, may take centuries) .05% of angels Fall. Those kind of figures seem right to me, though you could divide the bottom 3 by a couple of orders of magnitude without changing things too much. Increasing them would be bad. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "I have said that the Elohim are perilous. I have not said that they desire hurt to any life, or to the Earth. But in their own tales they are portrayed as the bastion of the last truth, and that truth they preserve in ways which baffle all that behold them." The One Tree, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:19:03 -0500 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Martin Arnold wrote: > > Why on earth can't Malakim fall? > > Seems to me that Heaven has an unbelievable advantage with incorruptible > (or so it seems) warriors. Why don't they just make all earthbound > angels Malakim. Train them up properly (i.e. so they don't screw > everything up by behaving like Malakim) and Bob's your uncle. 1) Malakim can't do EVERYTHING. Can they detect truth? Can they possess people? Nope. 2) God made those choirs for a reason, so there must be a point to all of them. And, usually, there is. 3) The corporeal ain't everything. Seraphim, for example, are usually the celestial powerhouses. "Bob" has been my uncle since six years before time began. Praise "Bob"! ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:22:11 -0500 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> French grammar Whistling in the Dark wrote: > It is an organized effort to eliminate linguistic drift from French > by eliminating outside influences of *any* sort. Sort of like what > would have happened if Dominic had been made Archangel of the French > Language instead of Judgement, except Dominic has more of a sense of > humor about infernal influences than the Academie has about > linguistic drift. I think the last time sometime tried something like this in that area of Europe was Hadrian. Somehow the barbarians got around his wall, though! -john 'proud to be a barbarian' karakash- - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:28:47 -0500 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> The First Angels David Edelstein wrote: > My personal take has always been that back in the early days, angels > weren't differentiated between "Choirs"....such differences between the > first angels didn't exist when they were created, they simply evolved over > time. > > -David (who's glad I don't have to use or tags on all > my posts ) With Great Power comes Great Responsibility. ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:31:55 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> In Principio [David, your creation story is nice, but deadly dull (IMHO)] Here is an alternate take :) jo - -- In the beginning... .... there was the void, a place without substance or form or meaning, not unlike the millenium dome. In and of the void was a spirit, and the spirit was restless, so it started to weave strands of chaos until it found an interesting pattern. And whilst it was doing this, one of the discarded patterns stirred, saying "My God!" And the spirit paused to consider, before answering "You know, that's not bad." The newly named God confided in His handiwork that he had a secret hobby of world-building, and was planning to indulge it. And the pattern begun to give God more names until He asked it nicely to try to think of a more interesting conversational topic. Then He called it Yves. And it came to pass that Yves complained that he had only one name whilst he had generously given God many, which wasn't fair, so God also named him Mi'ka'el for short. To encourage Yves to move towards learning witty and interesting conversational skills, and passing the Turing test, God split the first being into two parts. One for Yves, and a second one for Mi'ka'el (or Michael). And whilst they kept each other occupied with arguing, He returned to his weaving. Soon there were several patterns stirring around God, and Yves named them all. Then he asked God a question and God said "Good point -- you can't really learn to discuss the weather when there isn't any." So He sent one of the patterns to blow away the void from the waters and the pattern raced off excitedly. Then He picked out the most perfect of his patterns and sent it to turn on the lights so that he could survey what needed to be done. And Lucifer did so. With a tremendous effort, and the aid of the new patterns, God began to form the world. And at every evening, he gathered the patterns together to discuss what they had done in thatday, and to vote on whether it was good or not. But God ignored their votes because they couldn't get the hang of proportional representation, even after He had explained it several times. So He called on one of the patterns, which Yves had named Slartibartfast, and said "Yves is very well-meaning but his naming leaves a bit to be desired. I'm going to call you Dominic. And it is your job to explain the rules to these slackers and make sure that they understand them." And Dominic wove more patterns and told his creatures to form a working group to discuss these things. And Yves learned to make polite conversation about the weather. Finally, on the twilight of the 6th day, God gathered the patterns together and said to them grandly, "Let us make man, in our image." and then, because he knew what they were like, he added, "And here is one I made earlier that you can use as a template." And the patterns crowded round to look at this new beast which wasn't all that dissimilar to many of the others which had been made previously. Some of them liked it. And now they knew how to vote. Yves said 'I know its name.' and voted in favour. Michael said 'It will blaspheme and run to do evil' and voted against. Baal said 'It will be unbalancing. But at least we have the chance to say so in this playtest.' and voted against. Janus said 'It will change the world in unpredictable ways' and voted in favour. Gabriel said 'It will bring light into the world' and voted in favour. Lucifer said 'It would have been better looking if it had been made in my image' but voted in favour. Uriel said 'It is both the purest and most impure of all creations' and voted against. Jordi said 'It will destroy the animals wantonly, and make a desert of this beautiful earth' and voted against. Eli said nothing, because he was busy elsewhere. And Dominic, who was still smarting from an earlier experience, said 'It has to be better than the dinosaurs' and voted in favour. Then God nodded as if He had been listening and told them that He had already decided in any case. So it was time for the end-of-creation wrap party which He had told Eli to organise. Then was the first Sabbath, and everything in creation rested or partied. And God saw that it was very good. But Lucifer in all his glory came to Asmodeus and asked, "Might I make a suggestion... as your working party has been a bit quiet of late? Evidently, you need to illuminate the world via more documentation." And thus was born the concept of TQM which would later lead to the Fall. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:33:55 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> The Purity Crusade On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 09:06:56AM -0500, Emily Dresner wrote: > So I was on DALnet, and I was vaguely bored. So I popped into #startrek, > and asked them about their opinions on the latest Voyager episode. I was > told that they don't talk about Star Trek in that channel anymore because > the subject had been "beaten to death". > > A lesson to be learned, methinks. > Indeed. Some of us have been around for most of these debates, but others haven't, and I don't think we should intimidate them into not discussing it just because we're too tired to make our arguments again. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "I have said that the Elohim are perilous. I have not said that they desire hurt to any life, or to the Earth. But in their own tales they are portrayed as the bastion of the last truth, and that truth they preserve in ways which baffle all that behold them." The One Tree, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:48:31 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Predestination and free will On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 12:46:16AM -0600, Uncle Wolf wrote: > For my money, Predestination and Foreknowledge work like this: God made the > map and all the places on the map, but it is humans who choose which places > they are going to go to, and what route they are going to take to get > there. That is Free Will, and nothing about that contradicts the point that > God can see the whole map, all possible destinations, Of course, everyone is placed at a certain starting point, and some of the time people bump into each other and set them on different courses... Predestination has to do with the places people are started at, and which people are placed in the way of their routes. But IMC, God doesn't play the second part of the predestination game; Yves, Kronos, and Janus do. The reasons why Yves and Kronos do this kind of thing are obvious, but I pick Janus to be the third player because of his role as the personification of chaos. It's already clear from canon (specifically his Elohite attunement) that he can process massive amounts of information intuitively with an exceptionally high degree of accuracy. I don't think he can necessarily predict individual humans very well (though given that he leads the most bloody-minded individualists in Heaven...), but I doubt any other Superior can manipulate human society as well as he can, and I think he's willing to do it. > This help with reconciling this question any? Are there any AAs who think > like this? [I don't really care to examine the thoughts, ideas, and beliefs > of the DPs *g*]. > I'd like to note again that I don't think Celestials really have less free will than humans. In that they have a better idea of what they're getting into (or at least angels do), it's even arguable that they have more effective free will. (Some of this is to do with character beliefs. Mithredath would always deny vociferously that she takes orders from anyone. When her Superior tells her to do something, and she does it, she regards it as an act of trust and faith, rather than an act of obedience.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "I have said that the Elohim are perilous. I have not said that they desire hurt to any life, or to the Earth. But in their own tales they are portrayed as the bastion of the last truth, and that truth they preserve in ways which baffle all that behold them." The One Tree, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:56:33 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Why on earth can't Malakim fall? Perry Lloyd wrote: > I've often wondered this myself. If every angel were a Malakite, > Heaven would probably we winning the war by now. If every angel were a Malakite: - Heaven would be blind, because it would have no truth-seers. - Heaven would more often lose track of those it set to guard. - Heaven would be lame, because it would have no swift couriers. - Heaven would be headstrong, without balance and objectivity. - Heaven would have no access to mortal bodies or multiple vessels. - Heaven would have no insight into human hearts. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:59:02 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Malakim in chains Janet Anderson wrote: > However, I take issue with his statement that "the Malakim are without > humor, dark and deadly serious." Me, too. I've often said that I thought folk like the Three Musketeers, James Bond, and the Scarlet Pimpernel would make good templates for Malakim with light touches. And, in general, the self-centered *hate* to be laughed at. "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly. Satan fell through force of gravity." -- G. K. Chesterton Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:08:51 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade Having some extra server space available, I'm going to solicit "articles" on these frequently discussed topics and make them available on the INcyclopedia. I'm not necessarily asking for anything new--you can just tidy up your past postings if you want--but anyone who wants to take a stab at putting together an _answer_ for some of these recurring questions, I'll make them available. The goal is that if an existing Frequently Discussed Topic comes up, we could point the originator of the thread IN MAIL to the web page, and tell them that they're welcome to bring up any NEW POINTS they have. Restrictions: I'm looking for stuff that is purely canon, with no IMHO's or IMC's. If Beth has an opinion, honor it, and accept that if she contradicts your writing, you lose. I'd prefer evenhanded discourse addressing both sides of an issue, but strong opinion labelled as such is good, too. And you have to be willing to release your words to non-commercial use by me and by SJG, at least temporarily. You also have to accept minor editing for grammar and spelling only. I'll do the HTML--pure text is preferred. And I won't put up anything I feel violates SJG's IP, so we can't just restate the Geas rules, as wonderful as that sounds--and SJG folks, this means that if you don't like it, it's gone. If any of this overlaps the FAQ, Karakash, tell me and we'll work something out. (That's why I'm requiring permission for SJG to use it--some of this seems to me to be proto-FAQ material.) Suggested "articles", off the top of my head, although I'm open to others: 1) Who are the Tsayadim? 2) Seraphim And The Truth 3) The Meaning Of Words 4) Is Uriel a genocidal maniac? 5) Geas and Lilim You can reach me at steve@incyclopedia.org. steve - -----Original Message----- From: David Edelstein [mailto:AmadanSJG@compuserve.com] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 1999 3:39 PM To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com Subject: IN> The Purity Crusade >>>Could we please let this subject rest for at least a couple months more? I still haven't recovered from last time... :-/<<< Ain't nothing new under the sun. We've just been through "Seraphim And The Truth" (part III) and "The Meaning Of Words" (part V). And I don't think "How Do Geases Work?" has ever died, as a thread. And I'm being somewhat more than facetious. Why do people never get tired of revisiting _their_ favorite topics, but expect those they're tired of to be off-limits? - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:33:39 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> The Purity Crusade - -----Original Message----- From: Steven Feldon (Exchange) > >The goal is that if an existing Frequently Discussed Topic comes up, we >could point the originator of the thread IN MAIL to the web page, and tell >them that they're welcome to bring up any NEW POINTS they have. > >Restrictions: I'm looking for stuff that is purely canon, with no IMHO's or >IMC's. Steve, they are frequently discussed because there is no canon on whether Uriel was a genocidal lunatic or not, and so forth. How can you solicit opinion-type articles without allowing people to express opinions, unless you get canon-meisters to write them all? This would be a pig to do, but if anyone is crazy enough to try, it'd be great to have a summarised form of the arguments which have been put forwards so far, quoting from the 'best' (or most convincing) posts, and trying to keep track of all the main points. I actually think that if people want to discuss anything on-topic on the list, there shouldn't be a problem. jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:49:56 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade >Having some extra server space available, I'm going to solicit "articles" on >these frequently discussed topics and make them available on the >INcyclopedia. I'm not necessarily asking for anything new--you can just >tidy up your past postings if you want--but anyone who wants to take a stab >at putting together an _answer_ for some of these recurring questions, I'll >make them available. > >The goal is that if an existing Frequently Discussed Topic comes up, we >could point the originator of the thread IN MAIL to the web page, and tell >them that they're welcome to bring up any NEW POINTS they have. > Sigh. I don't care for this, actually. Frankly, it seems to me there's a difference between Frequently Asked Questions/Discussed Topics like "Casting Calls" and "Can Malakim Fall" and "Was Uriel a Genocidal Maniac?" Sooner or later, whenever someone new comes to the boards and starts chatting, he'll end up getting directed to these articles whenever he brings up anything or has some article suggest something new to him, and eventually people will be highly turned off of the list by this. When people say "gosh, we've done this to Death" to me, I politely try to move my conversations to e-mail, but I wonder just how far back in the archives I'm expected to have read to participate. I went back several months before I said my first word on the list, and don't particularly want to read the last several years' traffic just to feel I can be comfortable in discussing things. If I'm wrong in this, please let me know so I can evaluate the benefit-to-work ratio of e-mailing this list. But it should really be in the "Welcome to the In Nomine Mailing List" info file. To move to the next level -- in effect going past Frequently Asked Questions into Stuff We've Talked Over And Now Don't Ever Want To Hear About Again -- when it's legitimate IN fodder like the Canon history and game mechanics.... Well, as I said, I don't care for it. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:53:17 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> The Purity Crusade Jo Hart wrote on 22 March 1999: >-----Original Message----- >From: Steven Feldon (Exchange) >> >>The goal is that if an existing Frequently Discussed Topic comes up, we >>could point the originator of the thread IN MAIL to the web page, and tell >>them that they're welcome to bring up any NEW POINTS they have. >> >>Restrictions: I'm looking for stuff that is purely canon, with no IMHO's or >>IMC's. > >Steve, they are frequently discussed because there is no canon on whether >Uriel was a genocidal lunatic or not, and so forth. How can you solicit >opinion-type articles without allowing people to express opinions, unless >you get canon-meisters to write them all? Yeah, the coolest debates seem to be in areas of CDaU (infact if they weren't in CDaU there would be no room to debate.) >I actually think that if people want to discuss anything on-topic on the >list, there shouldn't be a problem. Yeah, but it would also be cool if the main arguments were stored as Steve is suggesting, sure they are already stored, but not as accessabily as this idea sounds. It would help debates progress rather than going over the same points over and over again. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:14:38 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade >>Restrictions: I'm looking for stuff that is purely canon, with no IMHO's or >>IMC's. > >Steve, they are frequently discussed because there is no canon on whether >Uriel was a genocidal lunatic or not, and so forth. How can you solicit >opinion-type articles without allowing people to express opinions, unless >you get canon-meisters to write them all? Easy. There's a huge difference between convincing opinion ("Uriel was a maniac, and here's why I believe so", with page references from canon) and campaign notes ("Uriel was a maniac, here's what he did in far greater detail than canon supports, and here's a diagram of where he hung the dragon skulls in his cathedral.") I believe that it's more than possible to make useful essays of the former type, and the latter type was what I was explicitly trying to avoid by saying "No IMC's". I recognize that perhaps banning IMHO's was a bit hasty, in retrospect, but you have to _support_ an opinion with canon, or at least common sense. An opinion does not support itself, nor does it generate facts in its wake. No, I'm not expecting the folks who make their living writing IN to stop doing what they're doing to submit, nor am I expecting that Beth will fact-check every page. This is a fan project. >This would be a pig to do, but if anyone is crazy enough to try, it'd be >great to have a summarised form of the arguments which have been put >forwards so far, quoting from the 'best' (or most convincing) posts, and >trying to keep track of all the main points. Hey, I know it's a pig: that's why I offered to edit and publish, not write. :) Be aware, however, that since this is _not_ the official SJG mailing list archive, I _can't_ accept any words you don't own. If someone else had a good idea, you have to at _least_ rephrase it, and hopefully get them on board as a credited co-writer, or something. >I actually think that if people want to discuss anything on-topic on the >list, there shouldn't be a problem. I don't mind people wanting to open old cans. I object to them not having the resources to _know_ that they're opening old cans, and I don't think that "read the entire archive, will you?" is a reasonable suggestion any longer. It's big. steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:24:00 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade Eric, please note that I'm _not_ suggesting that we stifle people from saying whatever they want on the list. That's Beth's perogative and hers _only_. I guess the underlying assumption I'm working from is that the archive _is_ now too big for people to reasonably be expected to read it, so people who didn't live those posts won't know what topics we've seen seven and eight times. While I applaud your lurkerhood, it's a rare quality, and many folks don't do that. As this list gets older and older, it's going to bifurcate even farther into charter members and late-comers. I'd simply like to have some reference for the late-comers, so that that can easily see what territory has been hashed out before. If they don't understand, if they have additions, if they want to see what the _current_ opinion is, or if they just thing the writer of the article is a total loon, well, _that's_ new material. It's _not_ the Demon of Spam argument. Again. :) (I realize now that "tell them that they're welcome to bring up any NEW POINTS they have" might have sounded a little muzzle-ish/stifle-ish. I retract any sliver of thought I may ever have had in that direction. It is not my place to make any decision like that at all, and I more than recognize that.) Does this sound more reasonable? steve - -----Original Message----- From: Whistling in the Dark [mailto:in-sabre@annotations.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 11:50 AM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade >Having some extra server space available, I'm going to solicit "articles" on >these frequently discussed topics and make them available on the >INcyclopedia. I'm not necessarily asking for anything new--you can just >tidy up your past postings if you want--but anyone who wants to take a stab >at putting together an _answer_ for some of these recurring questions, I'll >make them available. > >The goal is that if an existing Frequently Discussed Topic comes up, we >could point the originator of the thread IN MAIL to the web page, and tell >them that they're welcome to bring up any NEW POINTS they have. > Sigh. I don't care for this, actually. Frankly, it seems to me there's a difference between Frequently Asked Questions/Discussed Topics like "Casting Calls" and "Can Malakim Fall" and "Was Uriel a Genocidal Maniac?" Sooner or later, whenever someone new comes to the boards and starts chatting, he'll end up getting directed to these articles whenever he brings up anything or has some article suggest something new to him, and eventually people will be highly turned off of the list by this. When people say "gosh, we've done this to Death" to me, I politely try to move my conversations to e-mail, but I wonder just how far back in the archives I'm expected to have read to participate. I went back several months before I said my first word on the list, and don't particularly want to read the last several years' traffic just to feel I can be comfortable in discussing things. If I'm wrong in this, please let me know so I can evaluate the benefit-to-work ratio of e-mailing this list. But it should really be in the "Welcome to the In Nomine Mailing List" info file. To move to the next level -- in effect going past Frequently Asked Questions into Stuff We've Talked Over And Now Don't Ever Want To Hear About Again -- when it's legitimate IN fodder like the Canon history and game mechanics.... Well, as I said, I don't care for it. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:18:03 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> The Purity Crusade Whistling in the Dark wrote on 22 March 1999 >>Having some extra server space available, I'm going to solicit "articles" on >>these frequently discussed topics and make them available on the >>INcyclopedia. I'm not necessarily asking for anything new--you can just >>tidy up your past postings if you want--but anyone who wants to take a stab >>at putting together an _answer_ for some of these recurring questions, I'll >>make them available. >> >>The goal is that if an existing Frequently Discussed Topic comes up, we >>could point the originator of the thread IN MAIL to the web page, and tell >>them that they're welcome to bring up any NEW POINTS they have. >> > >Sigh. > >I don't care for this, actually. Frankly, it seems to me there's a >difference between Frequently Asked Questions/Discussed Topics like >"Casting Calls" and "Can Malakim Fall" and "Was Uriel a Genocidal Maniac?" >Sooner or later, whenever someone new comes to the boards and starts >chatting, he'll end up getting directed to these articles whenever he >brings up anything or has some article suggest something new to him, and >eventually people will be highly turned off of the list by this. Hmmm, I kinda see you're point. >When people say "gosh, we've done this to Death" to me, I politely try to >move my conversations to e-mail, but I wonder just how far back in the >archives I'm expected to have read to participate. I went back several >months before I said my first word on the list, and don't particularly want >to read the last several years' traffic just to feel I can be comfortable >in discussing things. I thought one of the points of Steve's (please correct me if I'm worong Steve) idea was that you wouldn't have to look in the archives. The "articles" would be more acessable than the archives, and you wouldn't have to back very long into the past. >If I'm wrong in this, please let me know so I can >evaluate the benefit-to-work ratio of e-mailing this list. But it should >really be in the "Welcome to the In Nomine Mailing List" info file. To >move to the next level -- in effect going past Frequently Asked Questions >into Stuff We've Talked Over And Now Don't Ever Want To Hear About Again -- >when it's legitimate IN fodder like the Canon history and game mechanics.... Sure, but if there was an place where the main arguments on an issue could easily be accessed then people wanting to discuss the issue could take that as a starting place, and add whatever they wanted to contribute to the arugument here. >Well, as I said, I don't care for it. I think it could be a good idea if it's handled right. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:27:31 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade > >This would be a pig to do, but if anyone is crazy enough to try, it'd be > >great to have a summarised form of the arguments which have been put > >forwards so far, quoting from the 'best' (or most convincing) posts, and > >trying to keep track of all the main points. > > Hey, I know it's a pig: that's why I offered to edit and publish, not write. > :) > > Be aware, however, that since this is _not_ the official SJG mailing list > archive, I _can't_ accept any words you don't own. If someone else had a > good idea, you have to at _least_ rephrase it, and hopefully get them on > board as a credited co-writer, or something. That was going to be my official next question: this is different from the INC how again? There are, the last time I indexed it and looked at the index, approximately 500+ articles in the INC and growing. I'm not sure how badly we all need another version. But hey. I'm not one to dictate other people's free time. :) Emily K. Dresner, M.S.Eng. Applications Programmer III Desktop Applications Team, Medical Center Information Technology Current Quote: "We must find out what words are and how they function. They become images when written down, but images of words repeated in the mind and not of the image of the thing itself." - - W.S. Burroughs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:43:54 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade >That was going to be my official next question: this is different from the >INC how again? There are, the last time I indexed it and looked at the >index, approximately 500+ articles in the INC and growing. I'm not sure >how badly we all need another version. > >But hey. I'm not one to dictate other people's free time. :) Now begins the bowing and scraping, the physical forms of apology. Em, you're quite right. I was blurring my website's mission into your website's mission, a sin I detest in others, and so must eliminate in myself. I can only say that I saw a need, and I've got 95% of the disk space I've rented for the INcyclopedia sitting free, and my mind made a connection it shouldn't have. INC over there, INcyclopedia over here, nice neat edges, happy world. I still see the need for these articles; I still think they're a good idea. Should you feel that you wish to attempt any of the essays I've mentioned, just submit them to Em when you're done, not me. As long as they're available, I don't care who hosts them. Everyone, sorry for wasting ten minutes of your morning. *sigh* steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:48:57 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade >Eric, please note that I'm _not_ suggesting that we stifle people from >saying whatever they want on the list. That's Beth's perogative and hers >_only_. > And all hail the Archangel. Give to the nice Archangel chocolates, yes? [...excellently said stuff...] >(I realize now that "tell them that they're welcome to bring up any NEW >POINTS they have" might have sounded a little muzzle-ish/stifle-ish. I >retract any sliver of thought I may ever have had in that direction. It is >not my place to make any decision like that at all, and I more than >recognize that.) > >Does this sound more reasonable? > Eminently. Of this, I have no problem whatsoever. Retracting please objections forthwith, yes? (Sorry. I've been in a slightly insane Archangel's head all day -- makes for odd syntax.) - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:06:52 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade > I still see the need for these articles; I still think they're a good idea. > Should you feel that you wish to attempt any of the essays I've mentioned, > just submit them to Em when you're done, not me. As long as they're > available, I don't care who hosts them. Erm, actually, please don't just send me stuff. That's an amazingly bad plan of biblical proportions. Stuff is selected from the list and submitted by Other Mysterious Personages. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:11:43 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade (Do you all know the difference between a shlemiel, a shlemazel, and a shmegege? A shlemiel is the kind of guy who spills hot soup, a shlemazel is the kind of guy he spills it on, and a shmegege is the kind of guy who gets stuck cleaning it up.) Yes, please don't send it to Em. Post it to the list, and let her OMP's find it. If it's good enough, it'll show up INC. *sigh* steve - -----Original Message----- From: Emily Dresner [mailto:zenith@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 1:07 PM To: 'in_nomine-l@lists.io.com' Subject: RE: IN> The Purity Crusade > I still see the need for these articles; I still think they're a good idea. > Should you feel that you wish to attempt any of the essays I've mentioned, > just submit them to Em when you're done, not me. As long as they're > available, I don't care who hosts them. Erm, actually, please don't just send me stuff. That's an amazingly bad plan of biblical proportions. Stuff is selected from the list and submitted by Other Mysterious Personages. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:08:50 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Fwd: Recent Superior posting The word "a-p-p-r-o-v-e" in the first 7 lines, starting a sentence, apparently makes things bounce. Yeesh. (I've edited it, just in case.) >>From in_nomine-l-owner Sun Mar 21 14:40:12 1999 >From: "Janet Anderson" >Subject: Recent Superior posting >Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 12:34:27 PST > >To the person who posted the Archangel of Waters, I believe the original >one was listed as being killed during the Rebellion (although I don't >remember where I saw this). However, I Do Not Care. It's extremely >well written and enjoyable and would fit into anyone's campaign. I >a-p-p-r-o-v-e of your reasoning as to why he and Jordi wouldn't get along. > >Incidentally, I see a lot of agitation on this list as to what a pain in >the wazoo Dominic is, or Uriel, but does anyone beside me think Jordi >should be added to this list? His political power is less than >Dominic's, but it says in the APG (I think) that if he'd had his way he >would have destroyed all humans, and had to be talked out of it. I get >the impression that if he had Dominic's political clout or Uriel's >charisma (a person who's still admired several centuries after an abrupt >end to his visible career under questionable circumstances has a LOT of >charisma), he would have gotten support for his plans and carried them >out (as Uriel did), and we might not be having this discussion ... > >Janet Anderson > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1171 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.