From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Aug 13 19:01:09 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 TAA19916 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:01:08 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id SAA07659 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:58:52 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:58:52 -0500 Message-Id: <200008132358.SAA07659@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 #1776 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 Sunday, August 13 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1776 In this digest: Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? IN> Free Will Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? IN> The Superior Dinner Party Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? Re: IN> Lilith? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:31:56 -0700 From: Ryan Elias Subject: Re: IN> Lilith Glenn Brown wrote: > By contrast, there is no Archangel of Freedom. Or of any > related concept, like Liberation, Free Will, Choice, or Independence. > Doesn't that show, Lilith might argue, that the Seraphim Council doesn't > think such Words would benefit the cause of Heaven? If Heaven wanted to have > an Archangel of Free Will, what's stopping them from appointing one? The > fact that no angel can fully comprehend the concept of Free Will? What's stopping Heaven primarily, IMHO, from having an Archangel of Free Will, is a suitable candidate (of course, it all depneds on the brightness of the campaign as well, but in a fairly moderate campaign). If the Seraphim Council could just fire off Archangels as they wished, In Nomine would be a much higher powered game. Besides, Free Will is embodied in other Archangels (Creation, certainly, and Destiny, and probably to a lesser extent in Fire). And since this is the only post I'll make in this discussion (too long. Attention span too short ^_^) I'll say right out that I think there are two reasons Lilith stays with Hell, both reasonably selfish: A) Her welcome in Heaven would probably be lukewarm and attempting to stay neutrel in the war invites reprisal from Hell without any protection from Heaven and B) Changing sides would be admitting that she was wrong in her original choice, and possibly even when she first exercised free will and walked out on Adam. Anyways, -Ryan "I don't believe in Heaven or Hell No saints no sinners no Devil as well, No pearly gates no thorny crown, You're always letting us humans down, The wars you start, the babes you drown Those lost at sea and never found... If there's one thing I don't believe in, God, It's you." -XTC, Dear God ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:26:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, David Edelstein wrote: > "Rev. Pee Kitty" wrote: > > The nature of Lilith, even in CANON, is still a subjective matter. > > That's not in dispute. We're discussing personal views on Lilith. Not really... you're DEBATING, not discussing, arguing about each other's views as being 'right' or 'wrong'. Debating opinions is rather a waste of time, isn't it? > > Lilith's writeup and extended writeup support the view of Lilith as > > somewhat more sympathic and 'less evil' than the other DPs (for > > encouraging freedom, etc.) Lilith's writeup and extended writeup ALSO > > support the view of Lilith as less sympathic and 'more evil' than the > > other DPs (for having more free will and choosing Hell, etc.) > > The original writeup was more ambivalent in tone than the > oozing-with-barely-disguised-admiration extended writeup. I prefer the ambivalence, myself. Gives one more options. Personally, I play Lilith very dark, and very hypocritical. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian, Q4B4L! Meow! "It is very difficult to say anything serious or seriously truthful when the image of an erect penis hangs above the words." -- The Creator's Rights Party ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:05:14 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? From: "Charles Glasgow" > > Every time you repeat this "destroy her at a moment's notice" stuff, you are > saying something that Just Ain't So. No, Charles, YOU are saying something that just ain't so, possibly because it's easier for you to argue against an oversimplification of what I write than to deal with my actual words. > > Would you please TRY to stop putting words in my mouth, Charles? > > I am not putting words in your mouth -- I am simply pointing out the God's > honest truth. No, you're making strawman arguments. Unless you can actually provide a direct quote from me where I wrote any "destroy her at a moment's notice stuff"? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:09:21 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? From: "David Edelstein" > Prodigal wrote: > > Every version of the Lilith legend I have yet read has stated that it was > > Adam's demands that she be subservient to him that led to her walking out on > > him. So it would seem not to be just her version after all. > > Who knows how accurate the legends are? Maybe the legends are just > repetitions of the stories that were originally spread by _Lilith_. Which, in the game world, may or may not make them different from the ones in the real world. > > > > > So? She succumbed to immediate gratification. > > > > > > > > No, she refused to be a slave. > > > > > > > > It's at least as legitimate an interpretation as yours. > > > > > > Only if you're playing a very dark game, > > > > Or are willing to entertain any shades of gray whatsoever. > > No, portraying God as a tyrant who wanted to enslave Lilith, leaving her > only one option if she wanted to be free, isn't "gray," it's explicitly > choosing a very dark tone. True, but one can state that Adam was the one who wanted to make her a slave without portraying God as a tyrant. Your portrayal of Lilith's motives has simply been too black-and white for me to agree with. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:11:34 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prodigal" To: Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 5:05 PM Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > From: "Charles Glasgow" > > > > Every time you repeat this "destroy her at a moment's notice" stuff, you > > are saying something that Just Ain't So. > > No, Charles, YOU are saying something that just ain't so, possibly because > it's easier for you to argue against an oversimplification of what I write > than to deal with my actual words. Your actual words were that Lilith remains in Hell because either side would destroy her at a moment's notice if she tried to change sides. This is simply not true. Heaven does not destroy out of hand those who approach them as Redemption candidates, and Hell does not have the capacity to destroy Lilith in an instant. (Hell has the capacity to destroy Lilith, but they'd have to *catch* her first... and catching Freedom when she don't want to be caught is one of the hardest things in Creation, that was made clear in GMG.) > No, you're making strawman arguments. Unless you can actually provide a > direct quote from me where I wrote any "destroy her at a moment's notice > stuff"? My pleasure. http://www.sjgames.com/ftp/sjgames/in-nomine/digests/2000/8/1-1774.txt - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 01:05:20 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? From: "Charles Glasgow" > From: "Prodigal" > > > > She may have. Or she may have been fast-talked into it by a being who > > was able to convince an entire third of the forces of Heaven into following > > him.* > > That explains why she initially joined. It doesn't explain why she's > still there. Enough of both Heaven and Hell is ready to destroy her at a moment's notice if she leaves the security of her position behind to explain that. [snip] - ------------------------------ Next time you want to accuse me of making a straw man argument, make sure I'm actually using one first. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:16:29 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glenn Brown" To: Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 3:36 PM Subject: IN> Lilith > The discussion regarding why Lilith continues to serve Hell over Heaven > seems to me to be missing a basic point. Some people have argued that > Lilith's moral culpability might be reduced if she is bound in some way, as > in the "Lucifer has an invisible chain around my neck' argument. Others find > it implausible that a being as smart and fast as Lilith could be bound or > enslaved. Even if her original decision to support Hell could be justified, > they ask, what's kept her from changing her mind in the 20,000 years since > then? > But Lilith has been Bound, in a way no other Human is Bound. For the last > 20,000 years, she has been Wordbound to the Word of Freedom. [snip] Freedom is not necessarily a diabolic Word -- it can be applied from the POV of either side. I think this is where the confusion lies. Lilith's *Word* is ambiguous in nature, it can potentially be interpreted either for the good guys or the bad guys. Some people have apparently leapt from this conclusion to think that this means that Lilith is ambiguous in nature too. Going on what I've read in the record, that don't at all seem to be so. Lilith *could* apply her Word in the beneficial sense as well as the diabolic sense -- she may even do so, on occasion, when it's no skin off her back. But Lilith herself has her history and current behavior written so as to make her out to be one of the most selfish beings in all creation. What Lilith's word *could* mean is up in the air. What Lilith has been doing with her Word and her self up to now, OTOH, is not quite as up in the air. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:22:37 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? Prodigal wrote: > Your portrayal of Lilith's motives has simply been too black-and white for > me to agree with. I don't think I'm portraying her motives as any more "black and white" than Baal's or Beleth's or Kobal's. She is no more evil, and no less, than any other Demon Prince. She's more personable than most, maybe even nicer than most, when it's convenient, but she's just as much a willing minion of Hell as all the others. I just don't see why so many people want to assume she must be more sympathetic because (allegedly) Adam mistreated her and she didn't like God's plan. You could say much the same thing about all the other Demon Princes -- they all thought they had good reasons for rejecting God and joining Lucifer. As I said before, most of the DPs probably don't think of themselves as "evil" in the sense of being _wrong_ or acting in an unjustifiable manner. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:20:36 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, David Edelstein wrote: > I just don't see why so many people want to assume she must be more > sympathetic because (allegedly) Adam mistreated her and she didn't like > God's plan. You could say much the same thing about all the other Demon > Princes -- they all thought they had good reasons for rejecting God and > joining Lucifer. As I said before, most of the DPs probably don't think > of themselves as "evil" in the sense of being _wrong_ or acting in an > unjustifiable manner. Exactly. Nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guy! Watch _Falling Down_; at the end, see how Michael Douglas' character reacts when the cops finally corner him... "I... I'm the bad guy here?" He didn't realize it until he was ready to die. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian, Q4B4L! Meow! "People love to be told what to do. They love not doing what they've been told even more. They love it the most when they are made to do it anyway." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:53:35 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? From: "Charles Glasgow" > > From: "Prodigal" > > > From: "Charles Glasgow" > > > > > > Every time you repeat this "destroy her at a moment's notice" stuff, you > > > are saying something that Just Ain't So. > > > > No, Charles, YOU are saying something that just ain't so, possibly because > > it's easier for you to argue against an oversimplification of what I write > > than to deal with my actual words. > > Your actual words were that Lilith remains in Hell because either side would > destroy her at a moment's notice if she tried to change sides. No, they are not. Try paying attention when you read them this time. > > No, you're making strawman arguments. Unless you can actually provide a > > direct quote from me where I wrote any "destroy her at a moment's notice > > stuff"? > > My pleasure. > > http://www.sjgames.com/ftp/sjgames/in-nomine/digests/2000/8/1-1774.txt > > ------------------------------ > > Enough of both Heaven and Hell is ready to destroy her at a moment's notice > if she leaves the security of her position behind to explain that. > > [snip] > ------------------------------ > > Next time you want to accuse me of making a straw man argument, make sure > I'm actually using one first. Next time you want to say that you are not making a strawman argument, you need to avoid misrepresenting what I have written. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:00:47 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: IN> Free Will >What's stopping Heaven primarily, IMHO, from having an Archangel of Free >Will, is a suitable candidate (of course, it all depneds on the >brightness of the campaign as well, but in a fairly moderate campaign). >If the Seraphim Council could just fire off Archangels as they wished, >In Nomine would be a much higher powered game. Besides, Free Will is >embodied in other Archangels (Creation, certainly, and Destiny, and >probably to a lesser extent in Fire). Free will is embodied in Humanity. It is not in the domain of Heaven, or untimately of Hell. The word bound to not have free will, they have their word and service to it, nothing else matters. Free will has no place in Heaven and it's place in Hell is pretty questionable. Ashley Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:19:45 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > > Seems to me that you're defining a 'just society' and a 'totalitarian > > society' as polar opposites. > >Pretty much. > > > In a totalitarian society, provided the> groundrules are transparent > and applied even-handedly, justice is perfectly> possible. > >If you define "Anyone caught expressing opinions the government doesn't >like will be executed" as justice because it's "transparent and applied >even-handedly," I guess so. > > > I> think it's possible to imagine a totalitarian society where > perpetrators of > > 'crimes against the state' or whatever get a fair trial. > >Theoretically, perhaps. Just like theoretically, a communist society >could be benevolent and prosperous. It's not something we've ever seen >on Earth, though, and I suspect it's pretty unlikely to occur. > > > Freedom, in an important sense, is preserved when the > > individual knows the potential consequences of his actions and chooses > > freely to face those consequences rather than refrain from that > > action. > >I still disagree. That would make a society like the above, in which >speaking against the government is a capital offense, "free." Again, >EVERYONE has that much "freedom" in _any_ society. In a vague hope of keeping this related to IN rather than political diatribe and to avoid flame wars.... Perhaps we shold ask Khalid and the Faithful for their opinions on the following:- The perceived correlation between Satan/Hell and the Great Satan The free market, capitalism etc, and why Jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple, linked to the morality of a currency trader destroying the livelihood of the population of a country just to make a quick buck. The failure so far of any state regulation to enforce capitalists into ethical practice and the preponderence of sweat shops to cater for western consumerism linked to the continual criticism of Arab nations for manipulating the price of oil. The demonisation of spiritual and political leaders who have tried to promote the ways of the faithful over those of the capitalist world. Khomeni, Gadaffi, Arafat.... Need I go on. Ashley. Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:40:22 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? >If you define "Anyone caught expressing opinions the government doesn't >like will be executed" as justice because it's "transparent and applied >even-handedly," I guess so. I can't, off the top of my head, think of ANY society which has ever done that. Disappearance and detention without trial I can believe, execution - no. Taking actions based on one's opinions is a different matter. > > I> think it's possible to imagine a totalitarian society where > perpetrators of 'crimes against the state' or whatever get a fair trial. > >Theoretically, perhaps. Just like theoretically, a communist society >could be benevolent and prosperous. It's not something we've ever seen >on Earth, though, and I suspect it's pretty unlikely to occur. We ain't seen communism yet. Not on a grand scale. Kibbutzniks, after all, are pretty prosperous on a small scale. David, you know that you and I are about five million light years apart when it comes to politics. Let's at least make some attempt to keep on topic? Hilary Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:50:24 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: IN> The Superior Dinner Party >I've always used it to mean that whichever side is winning (or more >often both sides of the War) is generally evil, disgusting and not >someone you'd invite over for dinner. Superiors I would definitely like to come over for dinner (and maybe a spot of roleplaying) include: Lilith, Eli, Novalis, Janus, Yves, David (provided he doesn't expect me to cook kosher), Andrealphus, Novalis, Lucifer and Kobal (provided he doesn't bring his pet along). That's more than would fit around my kitchen table but twelve is an excellent number for a party. Course, there's a shortage of females (assuming they all use their favourite vessels) but that's In Nomine for you. Apart from which, an excess of male company has never bothered me so I'd notice.. Hilary Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:49:34 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... >Not really... you're DEBATING, not discussing, arguing about each other's >views as being 'right' or 'wrong'. Debating opinions is rather a waste of >time, isn't it? Actually, I reckon we're arguing and winding each other up. You see, secretly, most of us are in service to Malphas. Or, in some cases (where we retain a sense of humour, albeit somewhat dark), Kobal. Hilary Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:55:41 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... >Now, let's all go back to discussing what music is most appropriate when >running an In Nomine game, okay? 'Sympathy for the Devil', Rolling Stones. Ashley Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:59:09 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? From: "David Edelstein" > > I just don't see why so many people want to assume she must be more > sympathetic because (allegedly) Adam mistreated her and she didn't like > God's plan. In my case, at least, it's because villains with at least a few sympathetic qualities make for more satisfying villains. This would, I expect, be why Haagenti is a great deal more liked by players and GMs than Saminga. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:58:25 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > Next time you want to say that you are not making a strawman argument, you > need to avoid misrepresenting what I have written. Oh! I have 60+ "Re: IN> Lilith?" posts in my inbox because you guys are *flaming* each other! I was wondering why there was so much Sunday activity. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:59:27 -0600 From: "ben" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > David, you know that you and I are about five million light years apart > when it comes to politics. Let's at least make some attempt to keep on topic? Hey, how come you told David to "keep on topic" in an post that was manifestly off-topic? Ben ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:04:23 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Omentide" To: Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 5:40 PM Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > > >If you define "Anyone caught expressing opinions the government doesn't > >like will be executed" as justice because it's "transparent and applied > >even-handedly," I guess so. > > I can't, off the top of my head, think of ANY society which has ever done > that. Stalinist Russia. > Disappearance and detention without trial I can believe, execution - > no. Taking actions based on one's opinions is a different matter. Tell that one to old Uncle Joe. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:07:25 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prodigal" To: Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 5:53 PM Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > From: "Charles Glasgow" > > > > From: "Prodigal" > > > > > From: "Charles Glasgow" > > > > > > > > Every time you repeat this "destroy her at a moment's notice" stuff, > > > > you are saying something that Just Ain't So. > > > No, Charles, YOU are saying something that just ain't so, possibly > > > becauseit's easier for you to argue against an oversimplification of > > > what I write than to deal with my actual words. > > Your actual words were that Lilith remains in Hell because either side > > would destroy her at a moment's notice if she tried to change sides. > No, they are not. Try paying attention when you read them this time. What is this? You are *quoted*, below, as having *explicitly* said that the explanation for Lilith's not leaving Hell is too many people on both sides "ready to destroy her at a moment's notice if she leaves the security of her position behind.". > > > No, you're making strawman arguments. Unless you can actually provide a > > > direct quote from me where I wrote any "destroy her at a moment's notice > > > stuff"? > > > > My pleasure. > > > > http://www.sjgames.com/ftp/sjgames/in-nomine/digests/2000/8/1-1774.txt > > > > ------------------------------ You a few word *out* here, and then failed to put in a snip marker. [Chuckg reinserts what you'd snipped out here] > > > That explains why she initially joined. It doesn't explain why she's > > > till there. [note -- here's his own words, folks, not a single thing added or changed or deleted from this sentence] > > Enough of both Heaven and Hell is ready to destroy her at a moment's > > notice if she leaves the security of her position behind to explain that. > > > > [snip] > > ------------------------------ > > > > Next time you want to accuse me of making a straw man argument, make sure > > I'm actually using one first. > > Next time you want to say that you are not making a strawman argument, you > need to avoid misrepresenting what I have written. Misrepresenting? Tell that one to the marines, the old sailors won't buy it. I quoted you, word for word, and provided a link to the digest archives besides so as to verify the accuracy of the quote. I did not misrepresent anything, as can be plainly seen above, and claiming that I did buys you nothing except the death of your own credibility. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:05:31 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? Omentide wrote: > Need I go on. If you're actually trying to "keep this related to IN rather than political diatribe and to avoid flame wars" you will have to, since nothing you posted seemed even remotely relevant. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:10:52 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? ben wrote: > Oh! I have 60+ "Re: IN> Lilith?" posts in my inbox because you guys are > *flaming* each other! Yup. And not even very interesting flames. Though taking bets on how soon we'll see the first instance of someone being kicked off the list twice in a row might be entertaining. - -David (who hasn't flamed anyone this time -- aren't I nice? :)) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 00:16:08 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? >I just don't see why so many people want to assume she must be more >sympathetic because (allegedly) Adam mistreated her and she didn't like >God's plan. You could say much the same thing about all the other Demon >Princes -- they all thought they had good reasons for rejecting God and >joining Lucifer. As I said before, most of the DPs probably don't think >of themselves as "evil" in the sense of being _wrong_ or acting in an >unjustifiable manner. Oh, we can justify ourselves most perfectly. After all, we used to live in this totalitarian society where expressing opinions that our great and ever-so-absent dictator disapproved of was punished by exile. God set his heavy, Michael, on us. We were kicked out with more-than-reasonable force and do you think we were allowed to take our belongings with us? Are you joking? We set up home in this refugee camp you call 'Hell' and we're doing our best to get by there, despite forceful opposition from our one-time oppressors. Sure, things in Hell aren't too pleasant right now - few things in refugee camps ever are. Apart from which, things are always bad when there's a war on. You know there's a war on. The war wasn't our idea - - we didn't ASK to be kicked out of Heaven. We only asked for the right to disagree with the Oppressor. Is that any reason to demonise us - just because we plan, one day, to take back the homeland that was once ours. And, sure, we try to bring humanity round to our way of thinking. Our cause is just and we need every bit of help we can get. Apart from which, our erstwhile oppressors have a large proportion of humanity fooled. These humans believe not only believe the Oppressor to be omnipotent (which might be correct), they also believe him to be morally correct. It saddens us to know there are mortals who lack the moral fibre to stand up for themselves and their soveriegn right to go their own way, do their own thing, fight for their individually determined objects of desire. We will do our utmost to show them the Light. Hilary Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 20:01:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> Yeeeeesh... On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Omentide wrote: > > >Now, let's all go back to discussing what music is most appropriate when > >running an In Nomine game, okay? > > 'Sympathy for the Devil', Rolling Stones. Uh.... NO. That was a joke. Joke joke joke. See, you DON'T reply to that line. Trust me. Dead topic. Very dead. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian, Q4B4L! Meow! Q. What's the best thing that humans do for the planet? A. Die. (Dr. DynaSoar Iridium) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:21:34 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Edelstein" To: Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 6:10 PM Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > ben wrote: > > Oh! I have 60+ "Re: IN> Lilith?" posts in my inbox because you guys are > > *flaming* each other! > > Yup. And not even very interesting flames. > > Though taking bets on how soon we'll see the first instance of someone > being kicked off the list twice in a row might be entertaining. > > -David (who hasn't flamed anyone this time -- aren't I nice? :)) I haven't flamed anyone this time either... aren't I nice as well? :-) (We've both *been* flamed, OTOH...) - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 00:28:07 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > > >If you define "Anyone caught expressing opinions the government doesn't > > >like will be executed" as justice because it's "transparent and applied > > >even-handedly," I guess so. > > > > I can't, off the top of my head, think of ANY society which has ever done > > that. > >Stalinist Russia. > > > Disappearance and detention without trial I can believe, execution - > > no. Taking actions based on one's opinions is a different matter. > >Tell that one to old Uncle Joe. Charles OK, enough. First this is way off topic, it has nothing to do with IN. I have at least tried to keep some IN content, hence my Khalid and the Faithful comments. If you want to talk (or argue politics) we can do this off list. I am be more than happy to talk politics and history with anyone, even those who have quite clearly been indoctrinated by their own state machinery, but not here, not on list. E-mail address in sig. Ashley. Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:34:23 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Omentide" To: Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 6:28 PM Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > > > > >If you define "Anyone caught expressing opinions the government doesn't > > > >like will be executed" as justice because it's "transparent and applied > > > >even-handedly," I guess so. > > > > > > I can't, off the top of my head, think of ANY society which has ever done > > > that. > > > >Stalinist Russia. > > > > > Disappearance and detention without trial I can believe, execution - > > > no. Taking actions based on one's opinions is a different matter. > > > >Tell that one to old Uncle Joe. > > Charles > > OK, enough. First this is way off topic, it has nothing to do with IN. I > have at least tried to keep some IN content, hence my Khalid and the > Faithful comments. > > If you want to talk (or argue politics) we can do this off list. I am be > more than happy to talk politics and history with anyone, even those who > have quite clearly been indoctrinated by their own state machinery, but not > here, not on list. > > E-mail address in sig. *This* reply of yours should more properly have been sent via e-mail. Especially with the tone of that last paragraph. My reply to it has been sent via e-mail. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:36:26 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? From: "Charles Glasgow" > > > > Your actual words were that Lilith remains in Hell because either side > > > would destroy her at a moment's notice if she tried to change sides. > > > No, they are not. Try paying attention when you read them this time. > > What is this? You are *quoted*, below, as having *explicitly* said that > the explanation for Lilith's not leaving Hell is too many people on both > sides "ready to destroy her at a moment's notice if she leaves the security > of her position behind.". There is a difference between claiming that they are ready to do so and claiming that they could. You have been arguing that they could not, and claiming that I said they could. That is why I have, so far, correctly described you as using strawman arguments. You have yet to disprove that there are significant factions on both sides that would not have the desire to destroy her should she leave Hell, only that it is very unlikely that they could succeed. > > Next time you want to say that you are not making a strawman argument, you > > need to avoid misrepresenting what I have written. > > Misrepresenting? Yes. > Tell that one to the marines, the old sailors won't buy it. Unless they pay close enough attention to the differences between what you claim I wrote and what I actually wrote, of course. > I quoted you, word for word, and provided a link to the digest archives > besides so as to verify the accuracy of the quote. You then continued to argue how difficult (if not impossible) it would be for either Heaven of Hell to destroy Lilith. Either you were posting an argument that had nothing to do with what you were responding to, or you were trying to portray me as claiming that I was arguing that it would not be difficult for them to do so. And since that is an argument which I have never made... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:45:17 -0500 From: "Charles Glasgow" Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prodigal" To: Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 6:36 PM Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? > From: "Charles Glasgow" > > > > > > Your actual words were that Lilith remains in Hell because either side > > > > would destroy her at a moment's notice if she tried to change sides. > > > > > No, they are not. Try paying attention when you read them this time. > > > > What is this? You are *quoted*, below, as having *explicitly* said that > > the explanation for Lilith's not leaving Hell is too many people on both > > sides "ready to destroy her at a moment's notice if she leaves the > > security of her position behind.". > > There is a difference between claiming that they are ready to do so and > claiming that they could. And you claimed that they were ready to do so. That is what the words are inside the quotation marks -- "ready to destroy her at a moment's notice". [snip] > You have yet to disprove that there are significant factions on both sides > that would not have the desire to destroy her should she leave Hell, only > that it is very unlikely that they could succeed. If it's very unlikely that they could succeed, then their standing ready to destroy her is no effective deterrent to Lilith. If she knows they have very little hope of catching her, then she has very little to stop her from running. > > > Next time you want to say that you are not making a strawman argument, > > > you need to avoid misrepresenting what I have written. > > > > Misrepresenting? > > Yes. > > > Tell that one to the marines, the old sailors won't buy it. > > Unless they pay close enough attention to the differences between what you > claim I wrote and what I actually wrote, of course. I simply don't see what you're trying to do here, given that what I wrote and what you wrote are exactly the same. Those quotes are accurate, and you cannot show otherwise. > > I quoted you, word for word, and provided a link to the digest archives > > besides so as to verify the accuracy of the quote. > > You then continued to argue how difficult (if not impossible) it would be > for either Heaven of Hell to destroy Lilith. Now *this* is a strawman argument. I argued that Hell would find it very hard to catch Lilith before she could be safely in Heaven -- and I argued that Heaven would be very unlikely to destroy a Lilith that said she wanted to change sides without first verifying the sincerity of her claims. Heaven does not destroy demons who approach them wanting to redeem out of hand -- especially not if you pick the right archangel to approach, and Lilith knows who every Archangel is and what they do. > Either you were posting an > argument that had nothing to do with what you were responding to, or you > were trying to portray me as claiming that I was arguing that it would not > be difficult for them to do so. And since that is an argument which I have > never made... No, the argument you made is that Lilith doesn't leave Hell because of fear of being destroyed by either Heaven or Hell. But if Lilith makes a run for the border and Redemption... Hell can't catch her, and Heaven won't kill her. Heaven would kill Lilith if she approached them as a hostile, yes. Heaven would not kill Lilith if she approached them as a defector. Not even the most warlike Superiors would, check Superiors 1 for how the war faction handles Redemption candidates. - -- Chuckg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 00:42:54 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? David > > Need I go on. > >If you're actually trying to "keep this related to IN rather than >political diatribe and to avoid flame wars" you will have to No. We've been over this before. Opinions (yours and mine) will differ no matter what. IN related topics (or material hidden in IN related topics) will not alter that. As I have said to Charles, happy to talk politics, but not on list, e-mail address in sig. As of now I am out of this one on here. Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 00:47:48 +0100 From: Omentide Subject: Re: IN> Lilith? >Hey, how come you told David to "keep on topic" in an post that was >manifestly off-topic? Because I am HAL, Elohite of making sure people say what they mean on list. Official Omentide policy is now to take the political argument off-list. It's been off topic for quite a lot of today. Hilary Ashley and Hilary omentide.omentide@virgin.net http://freespace.virgin.net/omentide.omentide ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1776 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.