From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Jul 31 20:41:41 2000 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 UAA07632 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:41:40 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id UAA14583 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:40:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:40:42 -0500 Message-Id: <200008010140.UAA14583@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 #1749 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, July 31 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1749 In this digest: Re: IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) IN> Novalis/Michael short leash Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> Novalis/Michael short leash Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) IN> [Semi-SPAM] (Was Re: And good night all.) Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> What's up? IN> [ADMIN] ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Re: IN> [ADMIN] ENOUGH ALREADY! IN> [ADMIN] And there's one kicked off. Re: IN> What's up? Re: IN> Romance: A fresh take on an old affair. Re: IN> What's up? Re: IN> What's up? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:32:56 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Five Words: Seraph of Flowers Peace Aura. Who thinks Novalis _doesn't_ > have it, suitably Superior-boosted? > > (Would it work against Baal? Why, it just might! That falls into the > "GM Decision on ranking Superiors" as found in the GMG...) That would be FUNNY. Scene: A war-torn battlefield. BAAL is waiting for Michael to arrive. Novalis: [enters from the side, clearly upset by the carnage] Baal: [sneering] This is not your place. Armageddon will not by swayed by your honeyed words or your flowers. Novalis: [shaking her head] This is neither the time nor place. Michael will not be arriving today. Leave now and let the living tend to the dead here. Baal: [laughs loudly] Oh, and who will stop me? You? [laughs] Novalis: [face still sad, nods] Baal: [hefts his weapon] I was going to save you for last, perhaps even keep you around as a pet. But I guess now is as good as any. [attempts to swing at Novalis, but cannot raise weapon, tries again, fails again] Novalis: Please don't force my hand. There has been enough bloodshed today. Baal: [tries to attack again, fails, slowly gets a look of fear on his face as he realizes he cannot attack at all] Novalis: [with the barest hint of steel in her voice] GO. Baal: [leaves] - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:41:51 -0400 From: John Karakash Subject: IN> Novalis/Michael short leash I had a bizarre little thought: What if Michael's annoyance at Novalis is because she has been blocking his requests to take out certain Demon Princes. Perhaps for a long, long time? (This is assumes that Flowers is VERY powerful.) Though all the plans are tactically sound, she always says 'They can still be Redeemed.' What if she gives up on a Demon Prince and lets Michael have free reign to take one down? =) - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:45:11 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Edelstein" To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 4:33 PM Subject: Re: IN> This Novalis Thing (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) > Charles Glasgow wrote: > > Re: how long the thread is going -- yes, we are starting to repeat ourselves > > at wearying length. Admitted. Of course, it doesn't help that some of the > > advocates on the other side of the debate (*not* including you) have been so > > passionately arguing against what they thought I was saying that they > > haven't addressed what I've been saying. > > Actually, while I agree with your position, I think you're the one being > the most annoying and dogmatic. It's fine to say "I don't think Novalis > would be a total pacifist," but don't tell other people who might like > to interpret her that way that they're objectively wrong. I'm sorry, but did the person who just criticized me for being "annoying and dogmatic" give me a *direct order* as to how I should conduct myself on this list? This feels somewhat incongruous. As to telling people who "might like to interpret her that way" that "they're objectively wrong" -- so long as we are speaking about Novalis's in-canon writeup, they *are* objectively wrong, as their position is specifically and explicitly contradicted by the language of the book. As far as *non*-canon writeups go, I have specifically acknowledged on at least two separate occasions that people are free to run their own campaigns' Superiors however they please -- just as I'm equally free to do the same to mine. OTOH, we were arguing -- or so I thought -- about what Novalis' *general* writeup was, not campaign-specific ones. So again, I'm getting criticized for allegedly being what I'm not, and allegedly doing what I'm not. > This whole thing reminds me of your David Brin/Star Wars/Star Trek rant > on the Pyramid boards, and the reason why I mostly ignore your posts > during playtests. And to sign off, you bring in two thinly disguised personal flames -- to wit, 'you rant', and 'your posts are not worth the time it takes to read them'. Mr. Edelstein, in your attempt to criticize me for my alleged shortcomings, the pot just called the kettle black here. This is not good, folks. Note -- as to people who wonder what the heck is going on inside my head, go and read Michael's Superiors 1 writeup re: approaches to debate. It's almost an exact statement of how *I* approach things too. I state my conclusions as objective fact because I sincerely believe that to the best of my ability to research facts and draw conclusions, I have *found* the objective facts. Then I post them. Then I read the responses. If, in fact, it turns out that I did not have the objective facts, then I am proven wrong. If I did find them, then I am proven right. Contrary to what seems to be a really popular meme among Internet discussion forums, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with stating a debate opinion as an objective fact. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:45:46 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Karakash" To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 4:32 PM Subject: Re: IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) > > > Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > > Five Words: Seraph of Flowers Peace Aura. Who thinks Novalis _doesn't_ > > have it, suitably Superior-boosted? > > > > (Would it work against Baal? Why, it just might! That falls into the > > "GM Decision on ranking Superiors" as found in the GMG...) > > That would be FUNNY. > > Scene: A war-torn battlefield. BAAL is waiting for Michael to > arrive. > > Novalis: [enters from the side, clearly upset by the carnage] > > Baal: [sneering] This is not your place. Armageddon will not > by swayed by your honeyed words or your flowers. > > Novalis: [shaking her head] This is neither the time nor place. > Michael will not be arriving today. Leave now and let the living > tend to the dead here. > > Baal: [laughs loudly] Oh, and who will stop me? You? [laughs] > > Novalis: [face still sad, nods] > > Baal: [hefts his weapon] I was going to save you for last, perhaps > even keep you around as a pet. But I guess now is as good as any. > [attempts to swing at Novalis, but cannot raise weapon, tries again, > fails again] > > Novalis: Please don't force my hand. There has been enough bloodshed > today. > > Baal: [tries to attack again, fails, slowly gets a look of fear on > his face as he realizes he cannot attack at all] > > Novalis: [with the barest hint of steel in her voice] GO. > > Baal: [leaves] That would be funny. I don't think it'd ever happen, but it would be funny. And inspiring. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:49:23 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Novalis/Michael short leash - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Karakash" To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 4:41 PM Subject: IN> Novalis/Michael short leash > > I had a bizarre little thought: What if Michael's > annoyance at Novalis is because she has been blocking his > requests to take out certain Demon Princes. Perhaps for > a long, long time? (This is assumes that Flowers is VERY > powerful.) Though all the plans are tactically sound, she > always says 'They can still be Redeemed.' > What if she gives up on a Demon Prince and lets > Michael have free reign to take one down? =) Then I hope Belial goes first, so that Gabriel can hopefully find a little more peace. At that point, one of the main causes of friction between Michael and Dominic (and Michael and Yves) will hopefully begin to ease off a little, as Gabriel is All Better Now. At *that* point, the glaring back-and-forth across the table at the Seraphim Council eases back a little. At *that* point, inter-Superior cooperation hopefully ratches up a notch or two. And at *that* point, Hell starts *really* sweating... Which is, of course, a reason as to why Novy would let him do it -- when it's shown that it would lead to more overall peace, understanding, love, cooperation, fellow-feeling, and humans saved from diabolicals. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:57:15 -0700 From: "Sean McCarthy" Subject: Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) This was originally a really long message that layed waste to Mr. Glasgow's position. I have decided not to send that message, because it occurs to me I was missing the point. Even if multiple fractures resulting from a 10 story drop onto 'ground' of some description isn't fact, that isn't the point at all. The point of all this, I believe, is that someone who contributions I value highly just left because the list environment was essentially too hostile. There is nothing wrong with debate, but way too high of an emotional investment is being displayed when you start replying to a person's departing message in the second person. I used to have a lot of fun here, I still do sometimes, but some of these threads have become more pathos-intensive than theology debates I had in college. What am I saying? Someone just left because of the environment no longer being fun. The tasteful response isn't to shout some more and give them the finger on the way out. Poor form. Poor form. You argue splendidly against your position with your conduct. Sean _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______ http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:05:20 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Charles Glasgow wrote: > And one of those definite things is -- in the presence of an entity ready, > able, and willing to put a permanent end to your existence, you have only > three choices -- fight back, run, or die. Simplistic. And wrong, particularly when talking about supernatural beings, unless you have a very broad definition of "fight back." > This is *not* subject to debate, Yes it is. > You find dogmatism annoying. I find people who don't listen annoying. Allow me to annoy you, then. It's about time for me to actually start a killfile, and I thought I never would. Does anyone know how to do that with Netscape? - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:09:47 -0700 From: Rolland Therrien Subject: Re: IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) - -----Original Message----- From: Charles Glasgow To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Monday, July 31, 2000 2:50 PM Subject: Re: IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Karakash" >To: >Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 4:32 PM >Subject: Re: IN> Novalis Thing Addendum (Re: IN Romance -- Opposites >Attract) > > >> >> >> Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> >> > Five Words: Seraph of Flowers Peace Aura. Who thinks Novalis _doesn't_ >> > have it, suitably Superior-boosted? >> > >> > (Would it work against Baal? Why, it just might! That falls into the >> > "GM Decision on ranking Superiors" as found in the GMG...) >> >> That would be FUNNY. >> >> Scene: A war-torn battlefield. BAAL is waiting for Michael to >> arrive. >> >> Novalis: [enters from the side, clearly upset by the carnage] >> >> Baal: [sneering] This is not your place. Armageddon will not >> by swayed by your honeyed words or your flowers. >> >> Novalis: [shaking her head] This is neither the time nor place. >> Michael will not be arriving today. Leave now and let the living >> tend to the dead here. >> >> Baal: [laughs loudly] Oh, and who will stop me? You? [laughs] >> >> Novalis: [face still sad, nods] >> >> Baal: [hefts his weapon] I was going to save you for last, perhaps >> even keep you around as a pet. But I guess now is as good as any. >> [attempts to swing at Novalis, but cannot raise weapon, tries again, >> fails again] >> >> Novalis: Please don't force my hand. There has been enough bloodshed >> today. >> >> Baal: [tries to attack again, fails, slowly gets a look of fear on >> his face as he realizes he cannot attack at all] >> >> Novalis: [with the barest hint of steel in her voice] GO. >> >> Baal: [leaves] > >That would be funny. I don't think it'd ever happen, but it would be >funny. And inspiring. Actually, I see this as being exactly how Novalis would "fight" a personal battle against the likes of Baal. Not by using direct force, but by using indirect force to deflect her enemy's attacks, or by disarming her opponents. Please check my "Novalis and Violence" post, please. In this case, the "Aura of Peace" would be used to disarm her opponent's very aggression, effectivly disarming him completly. And since Baal is The War, then the longer he spends not feeling aggressive, the more dissonance he gathers... So he leaves before he starts feeling the discord building up. She would use alternate tactics against the other princes, using indirect techniques on different princes: She could just use the Song of Shields to outlast Belial's fire attacks, until he build up so much dissonance from not being able to damage her, he just gives up and finds something else to burn before turning to ashes himself. Against Beleth, she would just stand her ground, face the nightmares, and keep telling Beleth she and Blandine still love her, and are ready to forgive her, until Beleth just gave up in disgust. And that's how she'd deal with the war faction of Hell. The Princes of Shal-Mari would be more or less incapable of fighting Novalis, as her word actually MINGLES with theirs: Roses are symbols of lust, fruits feed Gluttoney, the Media just eats up peace demonstrations (like John Lennon's "Bed-In"), and so on. I think Novalis is actually holding herself back, because she's hoping for the best: that the Demon Princes themselves will redeem, and that the war will just end. - -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:14:46 -0500 (CDT) From: edg@pyramid.sjgames.com Subject: IN> [Semi-SPAM] (Was Re: And good night all.) Do Not Reply To This. It borders on spam to begin with. On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, David Edelstein wrote: > Does anyone know how to do that with Netscape? Yep. Sent privately. - -EDG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:14:33 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Edelstein" To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 5:05 PM Subject: Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) > Charles Glasgow wrote: > > And one of those definite things is -- in the presence of an entity ready, > > able, and willing to put a permanent end to your existence, you have only > > three choices -- fight back, run, or die. > > Simplistic. "Simplistic" does not automatically imply "false". > And wrong, particularly when talking about supernatural > beings, unless you have a very broad definition of "fight back." To phrase it absolutely pedantically, the three options are "avoid the conflict", "win the conflict", "lose the conflict". However, when the one party is bound and determined to initiate the conflict on the violent level, then that usually determines exactly what the conflict is going to be -- regardless of which method of resolution the other party would have preferred. The Seraph of Flowers attunement notwithstanding. That does not resolve the conflict, it merely postpones it -- thus falling under the option "avoid". > > This is *not* subject to debate, > > Yes it is. It is subject to debate exactly which one of the three categories a given course of action might fall under. OTOH, the existence of those three categories is not, as far as I am aware, a matter in any kind of doubt. Statement of fact -- in the presence of imminent conflict -- in a context which allows repeated attempts to win by the loser, provided that he is still alive -- all possible response fall into one of the three categories of "resolve the conflict in your favor, resolve the conflict in his favor, avoid the conflict". If you wish to assert the contrary position -- that there is a fourth category of response to imminent conflict besides "win, lose, or avoid" -- then could you please tell me what it is? > > You find dogmatism annoying. I find people who don't listen annoying. > > Allow me to annoy you, then. It's about time for me to actually start a > killfile, and I thought I never would. Does anyone know how to do that > with Netscape? Am I missing something, or is who is correct and who is incorrect being defined by which party has the power to ignore the other one the most? That's *not* how I thought it worked. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:15:12 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) > Charles Glasgow wrote: > > And one of those definite things is -- in the presence of an entity ready, > > able, and willing to put a permanent end to your existence, you have only > > three choices -- fight back, run, or die. > > Simplistic. And wrong, particularly when talking about supernatural > beings, unless you have a very broad definition of "fight back." I concur. Compromise. Teleport your enemy away. Redeem your enemy. Surrender. Song of Shields and stick out your tongue. Into which category would you place these choices? As David E. said, you'd need a really broad definition of "fight back" to sustain your argument. (Broad? Novalis? That's what I've been sayin', man. She *does* have a broad('s) definition of "fight back." ;-)) > killfile, and I thought I never would. Does anyone know how to do that > with Netscape? I know how, with Netscape Communicator 4.0+ (and will tell you via e-mail if you wanna know), but I'll dogmatically and irritatingly express my opinion/fact that killfiles should apply to spammers and not opinions that are irritating or wrong. Otherwise I'da killfiled Phillplas ages ago. ;-) > -David Ben ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:19:39 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> What's up? In a message dated 7/31/00 1:06:59 PM, BillionSix@aol.com writes: >Here's something I'm curious about. What the hell has Eli been up to? Does >he have a secret plan? Or is he just out having fun? > I'd like to hear all your suggestions and ideas. Even the SJ people (I >won't mistake your ideas for canon, don't worry.) > >Reverend Brian A. Rogers > In my case, Eli's spent the past fifty years working out some way of restoring Raphael from her mind-blown state. (Legion dropped her to 0 Etherial forces, you see). He's pulled everything together and just last session restored her to full working order (After the PC's distracted the Game agents who had been keeping tabs on her). Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:36:07 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] ENOUGH ALREADY! Okay, I just saw at least two posts which are edging BLOODY close to outright flames. Now, as those are forbidden on the list, as anyone who's read the welcome messages know, I am hereby serving notice that the discussion provoking them -- namely, the Novalis one, is CLOSED for the next week. If people _must_ post something, then they may, WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANYONE ELSE'S POST, make ONE assertion-with-proof post no more than 5K long, on their position. (An assertion with proof paper starts, "I believe X because of reasons 1, 2, and 3 (maybe 4 and 5, etc.)." In each additional paragraph, the reasons are elaborated upon. In the final paragraph, you sum up what you said with something along the lines of "Therefore, this is my conclusion.") Then the discussion DIES. Ya wanna comment on someone's assertion with proof stance? Do it in email. In PRIVATE EMAIL. If any flames continue on the list, ALL CONCERNED IN THAT THREAD, no matter who started it, no matter who is responding flamily and who is being calm and reasoned, will be u n s u b s c r i b e d until I, as list admin, feel they should be allowed back on. Yes, I'll yank your posters-l s u b b ies too. Do I make myself clear? - --Beth, List Admin. (Do not mess with me. I am fed up and my baby is cranky. You will not get a nice reaction if you try to argue with me in private email, and you WILL get u n s u b s c r i b e d if you do it on the list.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:23:47 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "ben" To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 5:15 PM Subject: Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) > > Charles Glasgow wrote: > > > And one of those definite things is -- in the presence of an entity > > > ready, able, and willing to put a permanent end to your existence, you have > > > only three choices -- fight back, run, or die. Or, to phrase them pedantically instead of colloquially (as I should have done in the first place, but I am not the perfect Elohite regardless of attempts to be) -- resolve the conflict in your favor, resolve the conflict in his favor, avoid the conflict. > > Simplistic. And wrong, particularly when talking about supernatural > > beings, unless you have a very broad definition of "fight back." > > I concur. > > Compromise. Not allowable by the initial stated conditions. I said "ready, able, and willing to put a permanent end to your existence" -- IOW, his goal is your head on a stick. If he achieves it, he wins. If you convince him to settle for something else that you can afford to give instead, then *you* win. If you both come out ahead, then you *both* win. All of which still falls under the three main categories -- "in your favor (in this context, 'both come out ahead' is also 'in your favor'), in his favor, avoid". > Teleport your enemy away. "Avoid the conflict." > Redeem your enemy. "Resolve the conflict in your favor". > Surrender. "Resolve the conflict in his favor." (And given that the initial conditions stipulated "ready, willing, and able to permanently end your existence", "surrender" = "die".) > Song of Shields and stick out your tongue. "Avoid the conflict." > Into which category would you place these choices? See above. > As David E. said, you'd need a really broad definition of "fight back" to > sustain your argument. (Broad? Novalis? That's what I've been sayin', > man. She *does* have a broad('s) definition of "fight back." ;-)) True -- and while it has been shown quite amply now that Novalis can defend herself adequately enough vs. most comers even if she never lifts a finger... how does she propose to defend *other people*? (The trouble with Seraph of Flowers is right after you leave, he goes right back to burning down the neighborhood.) > > killfile, and I thought I never would. Does anyone know how to do that > > with Netscape? > > I know how, with Netscape Communicator 4.0+ (and will tell you via e-mail if > you wanna know), but I'll dogmatically and irritatingly express my > opinion/fact that killfiles should apply to spammers and not opinions that > are irritating or wrong. Agreed. > Otherwise I'da killfiled Phillplas ages ago. ;-) - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:22:12 -0700 From: "David Rodemaker" Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract > >True, but your *Archangel* does not have the luxury of spending weeks > >staring at her Heart over and over again... > > > Look, it's entirely possible that Novalis can direct an achingly warm smile > at a demon prince ... and he'll put down his sword and walk away, weeping. > (Like her seraph attunement, but moreso -- she might be just as good at > getting people to stop fighting at Baal is at getting them to start.) > > She's a superior. Give her and her word some credit. What if Flowers really > is as powerful a Word as War? That's how I would see it. And if a human > being can be a pacifist, how much more can an archangel? FWIW: I would say that in has to be as powerful a Word as War because it encompasess just as much... That and the fact that the entire world ahsn't gone up in flames (or whatever)... Hey, Armeggedeon could occur over the fate of the last human soul on earth (... or in Hell??? Hey, Lilith finally chooses Heaven and all the souls are brought back into the Light and the Celestials duke it out....) just as easy as it could be for 7 billion. There are lots of forces devoted to making earth really, really violent and nowhere near as many devoted to the opposite. The Other David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:50:26 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: And good night all. (Was Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract) Private response, due to the thread shutdown: > What am I saying? Someone just left because of the environment no longer > being fun. The tasteful response isn't to shout some more and give them the > finger on the way out. I regret that Beth's shutdown of the thread has denied me of the opportunity to defend myself vs. this false accusation in public -- because you cannot hope to quote one single line from my post where I gave him the finger, either literally or metaphorically. Unless, of course, you characterize all disagreement as "giving the finger". > Poor form. Poor form. Poor form? I'm not the one who bore false witness, Mr. McCarthy. > You argue splendidly against your position with your conduct. This statement of yours is positively Balseraphic in scope. Unless, of course, you were speaking to Eric. If you were, my apologies. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:55:30 -0700 From: Ryan Elias Subject: Re: IN> IN Romance -- Opposites Attract Charles Glasgow wrote: > I mean, what's Baal's or Beliai's response going to be to a non-violent > Gandhi-style protest? They won't even *hear* what the opposition is trying > to tell them -- they'll see a stationary *object*, whack it with a sword or > a flamethrower, and step over the pile of meat on their way to their next > object-to-be-whacked. Belial, granted. Remember, though, that Baal used to be the Angel of Valour, and maintains some sense of honour (even if it's an Asmodean convoluted whatever I do is right type of honour). While I'd think Baal would rather have, say, suicide bombers rather than people burning themselves to death in the streets as a response to opposition, I can see him respecting both. Not that this in and of itself is germaine to the argument, really, since there's plenty of demon princes out there who would view a peaceful protest exactly as you state (Haagenti Furfur Belial Magog...), but the point is that not all of Hell is completely inhuman unsympathetic babyeating monsters (at least in a sort of middling contrast campaign). Novalis' tactics won't work against all the DPs, but she makes good opposition to the more peaceful ones (I would imagine her servitors are far more effective countering demons of Lust or Dark Humour than Michael's people, for instance) and isn't completely helpless against the violent types (because, among other things, a demon attacking her, or her servitors, risks retaliation from big scary War or Sword Angels). And being peaceful doesn't preclude having dedication or guts by any means. Just my thoughts for now (reads sort of like a train of thought writing anyhow...). Apologies if someone has made an equivalent point, but I haven't read the rest of the thread yet. Cheers, -Ryan, just getting home and too bloody tired to read the 100 new messages this list has to offer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:59:06 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> [ADMIN] ENOUGH ALREADY! - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth McCoy" To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 5:36 PM Subject: IN> [ADMIN] ENOUGH ALREADY! > If people _must_ post something, then they may, WITHOUT REFERRING TO > ANYONE ELSE'S POST, make ONE assertion-with-proof post no more than > 5K long, on their position. Sorry it had to come to this. Very well. My one last post is this: Since explaining it in my own words has somehow miserably failed to work, I will try another method to outline my position, my own mental visions of how Novalis is, how her Servitors are, how War and Flowers could interact to the significant mutual benefit of both with neither one having to abandon their Words a single iota, the necessity of both to the War effort, and even (in part) how Michael and Novalis could hope to sustain a personal relationship despite their greatly dissimilar duties. It's all in that short story that Beth posted a link to earlier today. http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/maher2.html Although I'd never even heard of it before today, *this* was my vision of the two. Or at least it's 95% correspondent with what I had in mind. That having been said, I hope that now -- at the end -- people finally understand. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:20:56 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] And there's one kicked off. At 5:50 PM -0500 7/31/00, Charles Glasgow wrote: >Private response, due to the thread shutdown: Not so private, and kicked off. Now is _not_ the time to screw up private vs. public. I will accept a _very polite_ request to rejoin the list after a week. Whowever it was he was "privately" replying to, don't make the same mistake, or you're toasted too. - --Beth, List Admin who is _not_ letting mistakes get by, because that only opens the door to "mistakes." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:13:22 -0500 From: "James Bearse & Brandy Badenoch" Subject: Re: IN> What's up? > > What I'm thinking that Eli was thinking... > > And that's why I've got to find the last of the Grigori. > > And find some humanity for myself. > > Catch you later, guys." > ------ Oh, I like. Much better than some secret scheme or something. A real long range behavior change. And it puts a much better face on _why_ he went AWOL in this manner - he's not just covering up a special project of some sort. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:38:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> Romance: A fresh take on an old affair. Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:58:57 -0600From: "ben" Subject: IN> Romance: A fresh take on an old affair. http://www.phargle.com/beleth.html >With all this talk of odd romances and the usual >Laurence/pickyourchick trysts, I figured I'd >resurrect an old reversal. >Ben Congratulations, Ben. You just stopped me from u n s u b s c r i b i n g for a while. Moe __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:08:34 -0700 From: Ryan Elias Subject: Re: IN> What's up? BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > > Here's something I'm curious about. What the hell has Eli been up to? Does > he have a secret plan? Or is he just out having fun? Well, the vast majority seems to have a pretty positive view of Eli's little vacation, and although I'm inclined to agree, I'm going to take a stab at (what will hopefully be) a bit of a darker view. See, Eli's looking to Jump. Or at least go seriously outcast. Shortly after World War II (possibly because of some event therein, or possibly for entirely unrelated reasons) Eli got to wondering about God's exact plans for, well, everything. He did some reading, asked questions, spoke to Yves, sifted through some of his older memories and generally got down to some serious contemplation. And then, while speaking to Michael, it hit home. It wasn't that he hadn't known it before, but he suddenly came to realize it in a very real fashion. God meant to destroy the Earth. I mean really destroy it. Blammo. Game Over. Armageddon. Not just sort of rough it up in armageddon to usher in a new utopian existance afterwards but actually, physically blow the whole damn thing up. And reasonably soon too. He couldn't pinpoint a date, of course, but he knew that it would happen within the next thousand years or so. And afterwards (presuming Heaven won the war, and Eli has no reason to believe that anything else could be the case) everlasting Heaven. And Eli realized another thing. Lucifer didn't want this to happen. Not necessarily because Lucifer was especially fond of Earth, but simply because whatever God wants to happen, Lucifer wants not to happen. So Eli made his choice. He left Heaven on unspecified business and began the first steps of a carefully controlled, deliberate fall from grace. He had decided early on that the anguished screaming, burning feathers and path of destruction wasn't the method he wanted to pursue. He had ideals, and didn't want to lose them in the heat of the moment. When he got down to Hell, it would be on his own terms, and with any luck Lucifer would quick enough to welcome one of the most powerful beings in existance without too many caveats. Eli plans to become the Demon Prince of Creation, and plans to thwart God's plans for Armageddon in favour of a more moderate course. And if he has to abandon his comrades in Heaven (who he bears no ill will to) than that's a sacrifice he'll have to make. So Eli gradually opens up relations with Hell, unmonitered on Earth. Dominic has his suspicions, of course, but so far has no proof (Eli acts alone: not even his servitors have any idea what's going on). And by the time Judgement has enough evidence to call the Archangel of Creation to court, Eli will be beyond their grasp. Of course, he knows it'll be one hell of a struggle down in Hell. He may have to destroy Belial outright (and wouldn't mind doing so if possible) and possibly other Princes as well if things go badly (although he already has tentative allies in Andrealphus and Vapula...). But he's confidant that he can hold them off, and besides, when the alternative is the destruction of everything that's ever been created... well... there's no choice at all, really. Cheers, Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:39:01 -0700 From: Rolland Therrien Subject: Re: IN> What's up? - -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Elias To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: Monday, July 31, 2000 6:13 PM Subject: Re: IN> What's up? >BillionSix@aol.com wrote: >> >> Here's something I'm curious about. What the hell has Eli been up to? Does >> he have a secret plan? Or is he just out having fun? > >Well, the vast majority seems to have a pretty positive view of Eli's >little vacation, and although I'm inclined to agree, I'm going to take a >stab at (what will hopefully be) a bit of a darker view. > >See, Eli's looking to Jump. Or at least go seriously outcast. Doubtful, IMO. >Shortly after World War II (possibly because of some event therein, or >possibly for entirely unrelated reasons) Eli got to wondering about >God's exact plans for, well, everything. He did some reading, asked >questions, spoke to Yves, sifted through some of his older memories and >generally got down to some serious contemplation. > >And then, while speaking to Michael, it hit home. It wasn't that he >hadn't known it before, but he suddenly came to realize it in a very >real fashion. > >God meant to destroy the Earth. I mean really destroy it. Blammo. Game >Over. Armageddon. Not just sort of rough it up in armageddon to usher in >a new utopian existance afterwards but actually, physically blow the >whole damn thing up. And reasonably soon too. He couldn't pinpoint a >date, of course, but he knew that it would happen within the next >thousand years or so. And afterwards (presuming Heaven won the war, and >Eli has no reason to believe that anything else could be the case) >everlasting Heaven. That doesn't make any sense... God MADE the Earth. He made the Archangels, who are all tied to the Earth in very real ways. Destroying the Earth would litterally drive the entire Host insane, since their words would become meaningless almost overnight. >And Eli realized another thing. Lucifer didn't want this to happen. Not >necessarily because Lucifer was especially fond of Earth, but simply >because whatever God wants to happen, Lucifer wants not to happen. Considering the number of princes on Lucifer's side who advocate all out extermination of mankind (Beleth, Baal, Belial, Saminga, etc...), I doubt Lucifer wants to save the Earth. Even the Princes of Shal-Mari are mostly interested in draining Humanity of every Forces they're worth. >So Eli made his choice. He left Heaven on unspecified business and began >the first steps of a carefully controlled, deliberate fall from grace. > >He had decided early on that the anguished screaming, burning feathers >and path of destruction wasn't the method he wanted to pursue. He had >ideals, and didn't want to lose them in the heat of the moment. When he >got down to Hell, it would be on his own terms, and with any luck >Lucifer would quick enough to welcome one of the most powerful beings in >existance without too many caveats. Lucifer, perhaps... Mind you, that doesn't mean that the Princes would agree... Anyone remember Furfur, Prince of Hardcore? Half the Princes in Hell wanted to kill the upstart before he gained his princedom, and the other half wanted him to have it. And that was a word that had potential for destruction. Creation is too strong a word for any one prince in Hell to have, without the rest of Hell to look at him with envy and hatred. The destructive Princes would see him as anathema to their Words, and the Takers would want to steal his links to creation (Sex, art, food) for themselves. >Eli plans to become the Demon Prince of Creation, and plans to thwart >God's plans for Armageddon in favour of a more moderate course. And if >he has to abandon his comrades in Heaven (who he bears no ill will to) >than that's a sacrifice he'll have to make. Eli would never become a Demon Prince, mostly because half the Princes in Hell are opposed to his word, and the other half want to steal everything linked to his word. >So Eli gradually opens up relations with Hell, unmonitered on Earth. >Dominic has his suspicions, of course, but so far has no proof (Eli acts >alone: not even his servitors have any idea what's going on). And by the >time Judgement has enough evidence to call the Archangel of Creation to >court, Eli will be beyond their grasp. You mean to say that Dominic's suspicions concerning Eli aren't just his usual Paranoia, but that he's right? Imagine... >Of course, he knows it'll be one hell of a struggle down in Hell. He may >have to destroy Belial outright (and wouldn't mind doing so if possible) >and possibly other Princes as well if things go badly (although he >already has tentative allies in Andrealphus and Vapula...). But he's >confidant that he can hold them off, and besides, when the alternative >is the destruction of everything that's ever been created... well... >there's no choice at all, really. Like I said... Eli would never survive as a Demon Prince, because half the Princes would kill him outright, and others would stand back, watch the chaos, then argue on what left-overs of Creation they'd keep for themselves. Hell is Hell for a reason. - -Exit the LoneWolf ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1749 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.