From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Dec 7 19:17:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA17730 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:17:17 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id SAA00731 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 18:50:06 -0600 Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 18:50:06 -0600 Message-Id: <199712080050.SAA00731@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 #502 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, December 7 1997 Volume 01 : Number 502 In this digest: IN> [DV Fluff!] Scrunch & Archie IN> Kyriotates and Vessels IN> Youth Groups Re: IN> 12 Will Shedite / Cristmas Cheer Re: IN> Youth Groups Re: IN> Youth Groups Re: IN> Youth Groups Re: IN> Math, WOD and (was IN> Combat, Strength, and Damage) Re: IN> 12 Will Shedite / Cristmas Cheer. Re: IN> Superiors' Notes Re: IN> Superiors' Notes Re: IN> [DV Fluff!] Scrunch & Archie Re: IN> Youth Groups Re: IN> Superiors' Notes Re: IN> Superiors' Notes Re: IN> Superiors' Notes Re: IN> Superiors' Notes IN> Red Dwarf IN> A few stories... Re: IN> Red Dwarf Re: IN> Superiors' Notes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 18:19:06 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> [DV Fluff!] Scrunch & Archie >>>Archie, Balseraph of That Movie "Mimic"<<< Gee, I take it you didn't like "Mimic"? I think he should be a Servitor of the Demon Prince of Really Stupid Sci-Fi Movies, actually...he'd have so much company. Then again, even if it was the Demon Prince of Really Stupid Sci-Fi Movies with Bugs, he'd still have plenty of company. - -David (who must have fallen victim to the Balseraph of "Starship Troopers", 'cause I liked that movie despite it's gaping holes...I'm still having problems with "Aliens IV", OTOH.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 18:19:09 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Kyriotates and Vessels >>>Okay, so I'm having a hard time seeing why he can possess ONE Vessel owned by his friend, but still can't form one of his own.<<< Because Kyriotates don't have vessels naturally. >>>For one, it's a cheap way around Kyrio's not having Vessels...all he needs is a pal with a spare, and he can use that. It's not like it even inconveniences their pal much, since he just pops back from the Marches and uses his other one.<<< With the exception of certain tricks like the Body Bag, a celestial _can't_ manifest more than one vessel at a time. >>>More importantly, though, it just doesn't make -SENSE-. If Kyriotates can inhabit Vessels, there's no logical reason given why only a couple of Superiors let them form limited types of their own. It's only rational if, like the Shedim, Kyrios are just fundamentally Celestial creatures who DO, as it's presented in the book, have to be specially empowered for that sort of thing.<<< Bingo. Kyriotates are inherently non-corporeal -- unlike other celestials, it is not in their nature to anchor themselves to and identify with one form at a time for an indefinite period. This is true of Shedim also, but even more so for Kyriotates. >>>There's also the problem that having the Vessel's Forces be determined by the owning Celestial, who may or may not even be around or care (especially if there's a Body Bag involved, though that scenario still amuses me), doesn't make much sense in the game worldview. For a Human to gain Forces is a rather fundamental thing; a 6-Force Human rarely occurs naturally, and however it happens, it makes them something- -different-. They suddenly have the potential to learn Songs and perceive the Symphony, whether they're a Soldier, Sorceror, Dream Warrior, or just weird. Celestials, on the other hand, gain Forces as a matter of course, without any intrinsic change of nature, let alone having to trade in all their Vessels for new ones that can support their new level of Forces.<<< Humans and celestials are fundamentally different. Just like a Superior is more than just a celestial with lots and lots of Forces, they exist on a higher plane altogether and play by different rules. You could consider 7 Forces to be the "border" between humans and celestials, but even if by some miracle a human somehow acquired 8 or 9 Forces, he still wouldn't be a celestial -- he would still operate as a human who happens to have a lot of Forces. As for why possessing a vessel is based on the owner's Forces, mostly it's a game balance thing, but it does make sense. Remember that Forces -- at least Corporeal Forces -- do affect vessels. The vessel of a celestial with more Corporeal Forces is much tougher. And it seems logical that it would be much more difficult to possess a Baron's vessel (knocking his consciousness out of said vessel) than to take Bleep the Frotling's vessel. So the owner's Forces is not merely a measure of how many Forces it takes to inhabit his vessel, but how many Forces it takes to take his vessel AWAY from him... >>>AND, I've yet to see any rationale given for -WHY- a Kyrio can do it and a Shedim can't. For animals, it makes sense..among other things, you can probably only compact -down- so far, and only Kyrios can split off the pieces for it. But for Vessels...why? So long as they've got the Forces, what's the big difference? All anyone's given on this is those couple of obscure sentences out of the book, which explains where, not why.<<< Part of a Shedite's fundamental nature is to corrupt its host. How does a Shedite corrupt its own vessel? And only a few Kyriotates can have a vessel -- Superiors' attunements can break nearly any rule. But Kyriotates of David and Laurence still aren't *creating* a new vessel as other celestials do -- they are taking existing matter and making it permanently their own, something they are able to do only because of the affinity their Superior's Word gives them. In other words, they are still not really forming a vessel, they just get to possess a certain kind of host permanently. >>>On balance, I like the idea as a potential Superior empowerment. (For example, I'd very much encourage changing Asmodeus's to saying his Shedim can attempt to possess Celestials, rather than waiving their basic nature...but then, I'm in favor of revamping Asmodeus almost completely.)<<< It's always possible that some future Demon Prince will give that Band attunement to his Shedim. It's even possible that another Demon Prince might be able to give his Shedim the power to form vessels (most likely it would operate like the Kyrio attunements above, allowing them to effectively possess a certain kind of host permanently). - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 19:07:08 -0800 From: "Clinton J. Lutz" Subject: IN> Youth Groups Hi I'm a youth pastor and I love role fantasy and rp games. I am interested in finding a game suitable for a college age group I lead. I've come across In Nomine but have not been able to preview it since my local gaming store won't let me preview the material (it's shrink wrapped). Tell me, is In Nomine appropriate for a church group of college age kids? The conflict between good and evil, God and Satan does not offend us. We believe this conflict really exists. However, I'm not interested in a game with offensive language, pornographic art, or black magic. I would appreciate an honest response to my questions. Thanks a lot. Clinton Lutz Santa Rosa, CA PastorC@STLUKE-LCMS.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:16:26 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> 12 Will Shedite / Cristmas Cheer On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>If you want to make that a house rule, fine, but Canon is that he does > *not* make any disturbance when he hops.<<< > > Nope, canon is that Shedim have to assume celestial form between hosts, > which causes a normal disturbance. Though as Elizabeth mentioned, there > will be a trick they can pull to get around that in the Infernal Player's > Guide. Beth announced that rules change after I sent this message. Note that John Karakash was very clear that the above is not the case when he answered this question earlier. Frankly, I liked that answer a lot better...it might have made Shedim a little hard to handle, but the new ruling makes them practically useless. > >>>In fact, if he did, I can't see why anyone would want to play a Shedim! > THey'd be the only Celestials in the game with resonance that causes a > disturbance automatically!<<< > > Calabim, usually. Only if they damage something Symphonic. > Also note that if all of a Kyriotate's Forces are invested in hosts, then > taking some out to manifest a celestial form creates a disturbance too. So? *Any* celestial manifesting like that causes a disturbance. Like I said, I hope this new ruling isn't going to be the case; it drastically cuts down on Shedim (and Kyriotate--I assume that this change *does* apply to Kyriotates?) usefulness. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Married to Rev. Unibomber on 11/15/96 - be jealous ;) Meow! - -= Windows 95 =- A 32-bit patch for a 16-bit GUI shell running on top of an 8-bit operating system written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company who cannot stand 1 bit of competition. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:32:45 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Youth Groups On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Clinton J. Lutz wrote: > Hi > > I'm a youth pastor and I love role fantasy and rp games. I am interested in finding a game suitable for a college age group I lead. I've come across In Nomine but have not been able to preview it since my local gaming store won't let me preview the material (it's shrink wrapped). Tell me, is In Nomine appropriate for a church group of college age kids? The conflict between good and evil, God and Satan does not offend us. We believe this conflict really exists. However, I'm not interested in a game with offensive language, pornographic art, or black magic. I would appreciate an honest response to my questions. Thanks a lot. > IN is appropriate for any reasonably mature roleplayers who don't mind dealing with the themes presented. There is no pornography or black magic, though rules for making Sorceror characters (humans) appear in a later supplement. The most offensive language seen is in a few stories where "goddamn" can be seen quite a bit (used by the demons, mainly). You may find that not everything agrees with the view of the after life as presented by your religion. Of course, hardly any religions present the afterlife the same way anyways...mine believe that we are to be taken up on the Saucers of the Pleasure Goddesses on July 5th, 1998...but I digress. In this game, players take the part of mundane humans, angels, or demons. The humans can be totally mundane or (more commonly) Soldiers of God, who know what's going on and have a bit more usefulness than normal humans. Most of the game assumes that you're going to be playing angels (or demons) instead of mundanes...mainly because it's more fun that way (in my opinion). I don't know if that concept offends you or not; some people may think it's blasphemous to play an angel. You never get to play God, though. :) Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Married to Rev. Unibomber on 11/15/96 - be jealous ;) Meow! - -= Windows 95 =- A 32-bit patch for a 16-bit GUI shell running on top of an 8-bit operating system written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company who cannot stand 1 bit of competition. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 02:53:48 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Youth Groups [Clinton Lutz] >I'm a youth pastor and I love role fantasy and rp games. I am interested >in finding a game suitable for a college age group I lead. I've come >across In Nomine but have not been able to preview it since my local >gaming store won't let me preview the material (it's shrink wrapped). >Tell me, is In Nomine appropriate for a church group of college age kids? >The conflict between good and evil, God and Satan does not offend us. We >believe this conflict really exists. However, I'm not interested in a >game with offensive language, pornographic art, or black magic. I would >appreciate an honest response to my questions. Thanks a lot. [Pee Kitty] >IN is appropriate for any reasonably mature roleplayers who don't mind >dealing with the themes presented. There is no pornography or black magic, >though rules for making Sorceror characters (humans) appear in a later >supplement. The most offensive language seen is in a few stories where >"goddamn" can be seen quite a bit (used by the demons, mainly). You may >find that not everything agrees with the view of the after life as >presented by your religion. Of course, hardly any religions present the >afterlife the same way anyways...mine believe that we are to be taken up >on the Saucers of the Pleasure Goddesses on July 5th, 1998...but I >digress. > >In this game, players take the part of mundane humans, angels, or demons. >The humans can be totally mundane or (more commonly) Soldiers of God, who >know what's going on and have a bit more usefulness than normal humans. >Most of the game assumes that you're going to be playing angels (or >demons) instead of mundanes...mainly because it's more fun that way (in my >opinion). I don't know if that concept offends you or not; some people >may think it's blasphemous to play an angel. You never get to play God, >though. :) Sorry for the small portion of Spam, maybe I didn't need to quote all of both of you, but... I did. I second Pee Kitty. I've never really been the religious type, but this game has, well, made me wonder. It's been an avenue into a little eschatological studying of my own. What I mean to say, it that In Nomine has sparked within me the drive to learn more about religion, especially the Christian faith. It's been a door to examining religion more seriously. I would imagine that if played right, it could be used to strengthen the faith of your students. Played wrong, well... just don't play the game backwards. But, all in all, I'd suggest buying the book and seeing for yourself. It's a good read if you like gaming and as a theological item of study... well, it's worth it if you know your religion. Besides, the only way to really know is to read it, and if you like role-playing, it's what I'd recommend anyway. Read it, read it! There's also many webpages to brouse through. In the end, it'll be the GM who sets the scenes, creates the mood and fuels the logic behind the game. And I've had gaming sessions that have really made an impact on my life. Okay, now here the Other side of Perry. Why I can't stand this game. This is all my opinion, and I'm in love with this game, but this is what bugs me about it. O:::( First off, it takes the mystery out of Angels and Demons, at least for me. When playing an angel or demon, I feel, well, too human. I prefer playing In Nomine from the view point of a human who has been drawn up into the war. I'd highly suggest doing this with your collegee group when you play. The personification of angels bugs me. I mean, if we can play angels, what makes them so great (on the other hand, the GM always plays God, so... what the hey) What I mean is, if we can describe angels using human characteristics... I don't know. On the other hand, we aren't talking about Michael or Gabriel here, where talking about Joe-angel, who isn't sent down to earth to reveal the birth of Jesus, no, where talking about piddily angels who get put in charge of actually dealing with human on a daily basis, living amoung the throngs of humanity, heaing the sick as doctors and saving the lives of soldiers, and making buildings safer as architects (Hey, David's angels are Cool like that) and being weather-men on the side. Basically, people that you might consider and angel. You get to play that person. But, you also get to battle with the Fall - the eternal danger of becoming too wrapped up in your own selfishness, falling from grace and descending down into the Pit. Of course, usually this isn't much of an issue unless the character is seriously messing around, disobeying orders, and not acting according to their place as a proper instrument in the grand symphony of the Lord. Oh, if you like music, you'll love this book. :) That's much more than my 2 cents. O:::) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd "I saw a monster come with speed, Its face of grimmest green. On human beings it used to feed, Most dreadful to be seen. -Lewis Carroll (from "Horrors"-1850) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 03:18:59 EST From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: IN> Youth Groups In a message dated 12/6/97 7:36:01 PM, you wrote: >Hi > >I'm a youth pastor and I love role fantasy and rp games. I am interested in finding >a game suitable for a college age group I lead. I've come across In Nomine but >have not been able to preview it since my local gaming store won't let me preview >the material (it's shrink wrapped). Tell me, is In Nomine appropriate for a church >group of college age kids? The conflict between good and evil, God and Satan does >not offend us. We believe this conflict really exists. However, I'm not interested >in a game with offensive language, pornographic art, or black magic. I would appreciate >an honest response to my questions. Thanks a lot. > >Clinton Lutz >Santa Rosa, CA >PastorC@STLUKE-LCMS.ORG Actually, I've suggested doing just this. And gotten flamed for the suggestion. As an Episcopalian, I'd have to say the game's angelography is quite unlike standard theology. Angels tend to be ministers of grace with heavy artillery when run as the game seems to be designed. Also, politics between various of the Archangels gets quite intense. The forces of Heaven are almost as divided among themselves as the forces of Hell are, and God is mostly offstage. The only thing I see as potentially offensive in the In Nomine system is the assumption that people will want to play demons as Player Characters. Some of the art could be a bit over the top for highschoolers, but for college kids, I don't see a real problem. One of the supplements (The Marches, I believe) includes rules for traditional-style commanding demons and spirits of the dream-realm sorcery, but then turns around and points out that this is one of the temptations that has a good chance of landing the sorcerer in hell. All in all, I would say that In Nomine, played with angelic players and the right plots, is the best role-playing game that I have seen for use in a Christian setting (*especially* Youth Ministry...) Also, you should visit the In Nomine section of Steve Jackson Games' website (I think it's http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/) Mark (the friendly local pastoral candidate...) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:53:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Math, WOD and (was IN> Combat, Strength, and Damage) > Steve Jessop > > >On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > > >> As a WOD player, and as a result of a half-attempt to do In Nomine-WOD > >> system conversion, I reckoned that 2 In Nomine Strength equalled 1 WOD > >> Strength (rounded up). > > > >WOD: 'Average' difficulty (6), 1 die: probability of success 1/2 > > > >IN: 'Average' difficulty (no mods), Strength 2, probability of success > >1/36. > > > >WOD: 'Very Difficult' (10), 1 die: probability of success 1/10. > > > >IN: Strength 6, probability of success 15/36. Still less than 1/2. > > > > > >The systems don't really compare at all. > > I agree that the systems don't really compare. Although, in WOD terms, for a any roll, 1 success is usually nothing, or next to it. It inflicts one Health Level of damage if the target fails to soak, which is unlikely. I was merely stating that in conceptual terms, 2 In Nomine Strength is equivalent to 1 WOD Strength, ie a poor amount, even for mundanes. The real discontinuities occur in terms of Health Levels (and lack of wound penalties), especially with the Night Music Toughness rules. Before, I could say that my Habbalah had only 20 health levels (more or less what the WOD equivalent of a Word-bound Celestial could expect to have), now it's 40. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 18:06:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> 12 Will Shedite / Cristmas Cheer. > What? He possessed a Malakite? > > I hate to break this to you, but Shedim CANNOT POSSESS CELESTIALS. Unless > that demon knew the Song of Possession, the GM screwed up. No celestials, > no animals. Humans ONLY. > I just looked at my copy of the FAQ, and that's right. But Kyriotates can... what's the rationale behind that? (Other than the unbalancing effects of having angels being easily corruptible.) It'd cause continuity problems if we changed it now in any event. > > With the scenario given, it's really beyond personal. I expect much > > better enemy backup (I think it's only four Angels we've encountered so > > far) now. Which is kind of bad, because my character is severely injured > > and two out of four of us are almost out of Essence. > > That's a problem with any group, and it's how things always end up coming > under control anyways...eventually, you're gonna run out of Essence, and > then go up against a team fresh from the celestial plane with a full tank. > > Or it could get escalated further, if Baal is generous enough to send us reinforcements. (Which of course won't happen unless the GM is feeling nice.) And I have no confidence in his ability to be nice to us. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:09:55 +0100 From: "cd skogsberg" Subject: Re: IN> Superiors' Notes Redneck Gaijin wrote: > Intellectual comedy doesn't seem to do that well in the States, at > least not commercially. I tend to look overseas for that sort of > thing. > > Redneck (Asmodeus is -such- a smeghead) You consider Red Dwarf intellectual? Not that it's not funny, but intellectual? ObSheesh: Sheesh. cd Who likes Red Dwarf anyway, thank you very much. - -- I feel myself riveted by the fleshy ("Mmmm... fleshy") meat ("Mmmm... meat") attached so succulently ("Mmmm... succulent") to my roommate's arm ("Mmmm....roommate. Arm.")..... -Angela Furry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 13:29:32 -0600 (CST) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Superiors' Notes >Redneck Gaijin wrote: > >> Intellectual comedy doesn't seem to do that well in the States, at >> least not commercially. I tend to look overseas for that sort of >> thing. >> >> Redneck (Asmodeus is -such- a smeghead) > >You consider Red Dwarf intellectual? It's more intellectual than 9/10ths of what we -do- get over here... Redneck Kris Overstreet, will write for food... | "It's Christmas in Heaven, http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck | there's great shows on TV; c/o White Lightning Productions | the Sound of Music twice an hour http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ | and Jaws I, II and III." Webmaster for Antarctic Press | --- A Nybbas Christmas http://www.antarctic-press.com/ | ***QUESTION EVERYTHING*** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 14:38:23 -0500 From: Jesse Rooney Subject: Re: IN> [DV Fluff!] Scrunch & Archie >-David (who must have fallen victim to the Balseraph of "Starship >Troopers", 'cause I liked that movie despite it's gaping holes...I'm still >having problems with "Aliens IV", OTOH.) I don't know anybody who has seen Alien 4 and liked it. I know I didn't like it at all. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 14:50:14 -0500 From: Jesse Rooney Subject: Re: IN> Youth Groups >Hi > >I'm a youth pastor and I love role fantasy and rp games. I am interested in finding a game suitable for a college age group I lead. I've come across In Nomine but have not been able to preview it since my local gaming store won't let me preview the material (it's shrink wrapped). Tell me, is In Nomine appropriate for a church group of college age kids? The conflict between good and evil, God and Satan does not offend us. We believe this conflict really exists. However, I'm not interested in a game with offensive language, pornographic art, or black magic. I would appreciate an honest response to my questions. Thanks a lot. I do not think this game has any more offensivness than Dante Chaucer or St. Augustine. There is a bit on soccerors in _Night Music_, though. Check with the store, maybe someone there has read it or they may have a return policy. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 15:05:22 -0500 From: Jesse Rooney Subject: Re: IN> Superiors' Notes >Redneck Gaijin wrote: > >> Intellectual comedy doesn't seem to do that well in the States, at >> least not commercially. I tend to look overseas for that sort of >> thing. >> >> Redneck (Asmodeus is -such- a smeghead) > >You consider Red Dwarf intellectual? > >Not that it's not funny, but intellectual? No way is Red Dwarf intellectual. Mad Max is more intellectually funny given that it was dubbed from Aussie to American for the States. Who came up with that bright idea? - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 15:15:01 -0500 From: Jesse Rooney Subject: Re: IN> Superiors' Notes At 01:29 PM 12/7/97 -0600, you wrote: >>Redneck Gaijin wrote: >> >>> Intellectual comedy doesn't seem to do that well in the States, at >>> least not commercially. I tend to look overseas for that sort of >>> thing. >>> >>> Redneck (Asmodeus is -such- a smeghead) >> >>You consider Red Dwarf intellectual? > >It's more intellectual than 9/10ths of what we -do- get over here... >Redneck I kind of take offenense to this. That is a -very- xenocentrist (ohh! big word!) view you have there. Compare Red Drawf to Gary Larson's work, compare to Bill Waterson's compare to Camile Paglia, compare to Roger Mapplethrope, compare to the State, compare to Captial Steps, compare to Madonna, compare to Bob Dylan, compare to Dan Smith's art. All of these are American examples of great intellectualism and, with the expection of Paglia and Mappletrope, come from popular cluture. It takes brians to lauggh at "The Far Side" and "Calvin and Hobbes" and to understand Madonna and Dylan but it does -not- take brians to laugh at that stupid computer on Red Dwarf. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 14:36:34 -0600 (CST) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Superiors' Notes >>>You consider Red Dwarf intellectual? >> >>It's more intellectual than 9/10ths of what we -do- get over here... >>Redneck > >I kind of take offenense to this. That is a -very- xenocentrist (ohh! big >word!) view you have there. Compare Red Drawf to Gary Larson's work, >compare to Bill Waterson's compare to Camile Paglia, compare to Roger >Mapplethrope, compare to the State, compare to Captial Steps, compare to >Madonna, compare to Bob Dylan, compare to Dan Smith's art. All of these >are American examples of great intellectualism and, with the expection of >Paglia and Mappletrope, come from popular cluture. It takes brians to >lauggh at "The Far Side" and "Calvin and Hobbes" and to understand Madonna >and Dylan but it does -not- take brians to laugh at that stupid computer on Ahem. TELEVISION, Jesse. Redneck (Madonna intellectual? That's a bigger stretch than Red Dwarf by a mile) Kris Overstreet, will write for food... | "It's Christmas in Heaven, http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck | there's great shows on TV; c/o White Lightning Productions | the Sound of Music twice an hour http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ | and Jaws I, II and III." Webmaster for Antarctic Press | --- A Nybbas Christmas http://www.antarctic-press.com/ | ***QUESTION EVERYTHING*** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 17:47:49 -0500 From: Jesse Rooney Subject: Re: IN> Superiors' Notes >>>>You consider Red Dwarf intellectual? >>> >>>It's more intellectual than 9/10ths of what we -do- get over here... >>>Redneck <> >Ahem. > >TELEVISION, Jesse. > >Redneck (Madonna intellectual? That's a bigger stretch than Red Dwarf by a mile) It is very hard to compare Red Dwarf to American TV. You have to look at what is on at the same time as Red Dwarf. Prime-Time TV is, in general, crap all over the world, but Red Dwarf is rarly played durring prime time. More likly you can see it at about 11 at night on Saturday on public tv. What is competing with it? SNL, evening news, Xena:Warrior princess, pledge drives, phone sex comericals and Monster Vision (which is -way- more intellectual than most stuff including Red Dwarf). In general people are doing something other than watching TV when Red Dwarf is on so I felt justified in comparring it to things other than TV. Madonna: Madonna is most definatly intellectual. Madonna has done what Flint and Mappletrope have failed at: makking pornography mainstream. American cluture has made most things acceptable to most people. We see straving children on TV and do not blink. We see wars on CNN and cheer them on. One of the few things that cannot be discussed is pornography. The nature of the artist is to be avant-grade and do things which society frowns upon by breaking socail taboos. If the only thing unaccepted by our WASP American society is pornography then only pornographers are true artists. Madonna really has the artist's soul in that once her urban hip-hop tunes from 84 were accepted by pop cluture she moved on and moved on. Folks like Madonna will always be in a society, trying to urge it past its constricating taboos. - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 18:10:54 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: IN> Red Dwarf On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Jesse Rooney wrote: > I kind of take offenense to this. That is a -very- xenocentrist (ohh! big > word!) view you have there. At the risk of dragging us off into the deepest, darkest off-list territory, I have to respond to you. > Compare Red Drawf to Gary Larson's work, compare to Bill Waterson's Okay, I will give you these two. I love Red Dwarf, but The Far Side and (especially) Calvin and Hobbes are funnier. > compare to Camile Paglia, Who? I've never heard of her, so I can't comment. > compare to Roger Mapplethrope, Okay, lets...humm...which is better? Comedy, or human waste and bullwhips up the anus? Humm...hummm...uuhh...comedy! > compare to the State, compare to Captial Steps, Never seen either. Can't comment. > compare to Madonna, compare to Bob Dylan, Both are boring and predictable. Madonna has no talent, just the ability to be depraved on stage. Bob Dylan is elevator music. Both should be handed over to Nybbas' Demon of Musicians Who Should Have Retired Many Many Years Ago. > compare to Dan Smith's art. Who? Don't recognize the name. > All of these are American examples of great intellectualism and, with > the expection of Paglia and Mappletrope, come from popular cluture. Well, I think that was the _point_ of the original post. All of the things you cited are from American popular culture. I think that almost sums it up. > It takes brians to lauggh at "The Far Side" and "Calvin and Hobbes" Yes it does. I agree with you there. > and to understand Madonna and Dylan Be honest here. How many brain cells of processing power does it take to understand Madonna? Her message is simple: "I am a tramp who has to depend on simulated sex acts to get famous because I have no real talent." It doesn't take any brainpower to understand her. And Dylan is two-legged Sominex. > but it does -not- take brians to laugh at that stupid computer on ^^^^^^ > Red Dwarf. Nope. But it does take Edwards and Richards and Carols and other people. Just because all the Brians don't get it, and you don't get the show along with them, doesn't make the show stupid. Richard Gant ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 00:27:27 +0100 (MET) From: David Skogsberg Subject: IN> A few stories... ...can be found at http://wavespace.waverider.co.uk/~surfbaud/ Check out Bone Weapons, The Word, and As Above, So Below for some philosophical ideas. Not IN specific, but I like them. cd - -- cd skogsberg | d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se Starving Freshthing at Chalmers University, Dept. of Computer Science and Technology ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 18:33:12 -0500 From: Jesse Rooney Subject: Re: IN> Red Dwarf >On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Jesse Rooney wrote: > >> I kind of take offenense to this. That is a -very- xenocentrist (ohh! big >> word!) view you have there. > >At the risk of dragging us off into the deepest, darkest off-list >territory, I have to respond to you. <> Mr. Gant, I think you miss the point of the postings. I was not debating over the humor value of Dylan and Madonna, I was saying that they are more intellecual than Red Dwarf. I agree with you that Mapplethrope's images are not "funny" but they are visionary, cretainaly moreso than Red Dwarf. >Richard Gant - -Jesse ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 19:35:43 -0800 From: The Saint of Killers Subject: Re: IN> Superiors' Notes Jesse Rooney wrote: > What is competing with it? SNL, evening news, Xena:Warrior princess, pledge Let's not slam Xena. sok ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #502 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.