From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Dec 8 20:20:29 1998 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 UAA08505 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 20:20:29 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id TAA27414 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 19:37:34 -0600 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 19:37:34 -0600 Message-Id: <199812090137.TAA27414@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1044 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 Tuesday, December 8 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1044 In this digest: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation RE: IN> Liber Servitorum Contest Rules (Addendums!) Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Dominic/DominqueRe: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) IN> Jeans word IN> Reincarnation\afterlife IN> Concealing the War Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:49:02 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > It's possible that their origin is "unnatural" enough to separate them > more from humanity than their appearance suggests. But that's decidedly > hand-waving.... It's possible that the listing is from most infernal (Balseraph) to least infernal (Impudite) and that closeness to humanity usually correlates but doesn't always. However, I have a hard time seeing the Shedim as less infernal than the Lilim; I find it easier to think of Shedim as more human than Lilim than less demonic than Lilim. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 18:49:15 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > >Since their mother is human (sort of) I tend to see Lilim as > >potentially the 'most human' demons (see above). > > In my own campaign, I've been working it this way, but canon suggests > (admittedly not very strongly) that they belong opposite the Malakim, so > when I'm doing canon stuff, I try to think of them that way. Hm. Well, Malakim can see if you're honorable, and Lilim can make you do dishonorable things. OTOH, Shedim are much more about that than are Lilim. OTTH (not letting myself be limited by mere anatomy), Lilim are all about doing things for the wrong reason - because you get something back other than the satisfaction of doing good - instead of because it's the Right Thing To Do. Hmmm... Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 18:32:58 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim At 12:19 08/12/98 EST, you wrote: > > >It's possible that their origin is "unnatural" enough to separate them >more from humanity than their appearance suggests. But that's decidedly >hand-waving.... > > I think appearance is really misleading here. After all, Calabim are a lot more human looking in celestial form than Ofanim are, but they are exactly as far from humanity as each other. jo Also, not to put too fine a point on it, (non-gangrenous) humans are not GREEN. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 18:42:40 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim At 18:49 08/12/98 +0100, you wrote: > >Hm. Well, Malakim can see if you're honorable, and Lilim can make you do >dishonorable things. OTOH, Shedim are much more about that than are Lilim. >OTTH (not letting myself be limited by mere anatomy) Not sure. I mean yes, Shedim can make people do dishonorable things but that's not what I think they are about (probably most have no concept of honour in the first place so actively being dishonourable is an alien concept). They're more about pushing people towards their worst sides; getting them to do the things they secretly wanted to do anyway but would normally be too restrained either by personal morality or by society. A Shedite doesn't care about anyone's personal morality -- it just isn't very interested. It cares about having fun and seeing how far someone can be pushed (and how easily). You have to get very deep down and personal inside someone's head to be able to whisper to them with the voice of their own evil inclination... Technology ones are probably great at testing things (or people) to destruction. jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 10:54:15 -0800 From: "Kelly St.Clair" Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality >> Indeed. See, for example, the various appearances of Dominique in Emily >> Dresner's game logs. :) > >*wave hands* Don't do that! You'll poke your eye out! > >In Holy War, Dominic never appeared as female. Never once. He did appear >as a nasty serpent wrapped in thick coarse black robes a few times, mind >you. *drip drip* Oops! I think I must have meant "Fiat Justitia". Sorry! - -------------- Kelly St.Clair kellys@efn.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:38:05 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation At 8:20 PM -0500 12/7/98, Perestroika wrote: >My question is this, and I'm sure it's been answered before: Does a >Shedite who abandons its host as it's headed toward certain death - >plunging out of an airplane at 20,000 feet without a parachute, for >example, and then leaving the body - take dissonance? :) Depends on if he can get a new host before the ex-host goes kersplat, I'd think.... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:56:36 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: RE: IN> Liber Servitorum Contest Rules (Addendums!) At 11:51 PM -0800 12/7/98, Steven Feldon (Exchange) wrote: >#4: All Submissions Must Be No More Than 625 Words. Total. This is >going to include a short vignette (maybe), the character stats (yes, >those count as words), and descriptive text. If I want you to make a >submission longer, I'll ask. First, I want to know if you can write >that tightly. If you can't, then I don't read it. I was going to have something about inches of art, yadda. That's not the data I wound up with, so ignore that bit. 625 words, that's the data you need to brand upon your brain. >-------- >General Character format: >The rest of the character sheet should be in this format: > >@Normal:Vignette, if any. [Vignette is commonly placed here >in Cyclebooks; for the Liber Servitorum, it may be elsewhere in the >description.] >@IN Stats:Corporeal Forces - # Strength # Agility # >Ethereal Forces - # Intelligence # Precision # >Celestial Forces - # Will # Perception # >@Normal:Vessel(s): Vessel1/# (gender/description [e.g., "female" or >"old >lady"]), Charisma +/-#, Sex Appeal +# [if any charisma/Sex Appeal]; >Vessel2/# (gender/description), Charisma +/-#, Sex Appeal +#; [etc.] >Role(s): Role Name1/#, Status/#; Role Name2/#, Status/#; [etc., >making sure that if Roles are attached to a vessel, this is obvious.] >Skills: [etc.] >Songs: [etc.] Add: Servant(s): if any, delete the (s) if it's only one. >Attunements: CHOIR/BAND SINGULAR of WORD, [etc], any distinctions [etc.] - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 14:59:16 -0500 From: Perestroika Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim Elizabeth Bartley wrote: > It's possible that the listing is from most infernal (Balseraph) to least > infernal (Impudite) and that closeness to humanity usually correlates but > doesn't always. However, I have a hard time seeing the Shedim as less > infernal than the Lilim; I find it easier to think of Shedim as more human > than Lilim than less demonic than Lilim. A thought that popped into my head at lunch today: How about the demons being ranked by how much they need humans? :) - -EDG, Mercurian of Jean? Short post, I know, but it was mainly meant to toss the idea out while I gathered more support in my head. :) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:04:15 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality > > > >In Holy War, Dominic never appeared as female. Never once. He did appear > >as a nasty serpent wrapped in thick coarse black robes a few times, mind > >you. *drip drip* > > Oops! I think I must have meant "Fiat Justitia". Sorry! Understandable. One I run, the other one I'm a PC. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:24:24 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) At 9:13 AM +0100 12/8/98, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> At 9:30 AM +0100 12/5/98, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > >>>Not quite. The janitor et al are selling the work their bodies perform, >>>which isn't the same thing. >> >>Massage? (And I don't mean the euphamistic kind.) Gynocologists? The >>cute guy who posed nude for the drawing class? Hairdressers? (And >>if you don't think I enjoy the 'getting the hair washed' scalp >>massage...) > >There's a sliding scale, sure. But gynocologists? You pay them to perform intimate services, no? (For that matter, how does one allow such intimate services to be performed upon one without falling into the "intimate made casual" model, hm?) >>Frankly, I could see a society where friendly sex was a performance >>art. It's not *this* one, but I could barely grasp at it. > >Maybe. It might be possible for some people, but not everyone. Well, *EVERYONE* shouldn't be in that business! Just like someone who can't deal with blood should *not* be a surgeon! I wouldn't want to be in that business, I think. I'm too much loving my spouse. O;> >>Now, to drag the topic kicking and screaming back to IN -- think about >>Creationers. Consensual sex is a Rite, a joy, a sacrament. It's sharing >>of pleasure, giving and receiving the gift of your lover. Love made motion. > >Absolutely. As it should be for us. Also remember that part of being an angel is the ability to love, selflessly. Creationers probably Love a lot... >> Now, why should an artist of the act of sex not get paid for this, >> like a masseuse, a dancer, or a painter? (According to Creationers, >> at least.) > >Because of what you said - it's an exchange of gifts. I comissioned a piece of art from Dan Smith (SMIF). It is beautiful, it is a work of art. It's really really cool. And I paid him for it. He started on it, didn't like how it came out, and did a new one. I gave a few general outlines of what I'd like to see, and then trusted him to do something I'd like. I think this falls into the catagory of "gift you pay for." >Do you require >payment for your Christmas presents? When you give someone a hug? After an >important discussion with a dear friend? If one gets a Christmas gift, one is expected to send a gift in return (not to mention a thank-you card). Hugs for pay? Depending on the hug, maybe. A discussion with a friend? I might buy them dinner. (Heck, we *DO* tend to buy dinner for our friends who travel an hour to game with us, from time to time!) Sometimes it's not money, but there's still payment. >If you do it -solely- for money, >with no emotional ties, it's not sex, in a way. No, it's not making love. And I'm not advocating that the people with the temperment to do such things should do it with people they don't *like*. >And I think it hurts the ones who do it, Anything done solely for the money, without enjoyment, hurts the one who does it. *ANYTHING*. >I'm sure some can do it without being ruined by it, but many >are forced into it and are very badly hurt by it. Now *that* is bad. That is at least as bad as being forced to do ballet, become a doctor/lawyer/gynocologist/whatever. It's even worse because of the societial cruft that likes to make sex "dirty," so one gets the self-esteem problems. Removing free will is always bad, no matter what form it takes. Some forms are worse than others. Separate slavery from sex-for-pay, though. Consensual sex-for-pay, for those who *choose* such activities, that would be one thing. (And it may not be a reality on Earth in 1998-1999, but we play RPGs; we can think of angels and demons and spaceships, we can mock up other notions too.) Being forced to do something one doesn't want to do, that's entirely a different thing. That's slavery. That's potentially even a form of rape, or at least *coerced* sex. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:10:09 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Dominic/DominqueRe: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 11:36 PM -0800 12/7/98, Kelly St.Clair wrote: >>BTW, Dommie him/herself apparently has no preference, according to the >>basic write-up, though the male pronoun is used in the description. :P > >Indeed. See, for example, the various appearances of Dominique in Emily >Dresner's game logs. :) Maya's, with Em as a PC. http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~maya/nomine/fiat.html Also see the appearance of the NPC Jordan, my favorite angsty Seraph. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 15:55:16 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality "B.H." wrote: > >Right. Michael is is extremely masculine, but I wouldn't put it past >him to appear female if he thought it would help the War. Celestials >may be genderless, but they do associate with certain genders. In one of the earlier drafts of IN, Michael did not have a sex; the Archangel of War predated humanity and did not make any attempt to conform to human expectations. That electric-blue shimmer next to the writeup of the Song of Motion in the IN rulebook apparently was an illustration of Michael before it became an illustration of a teleport. :) I rather prefer the older version myself -- since I like the idea that it's possible to have compassion and affection for beings very different from oneself, I like having vast gulfs of nature and personality between different forms of intelligence. In my campaign, when Michael shows up in celestial form, he's a column of unbearably blazing white fire that shields viewers from being blinded by its glory with three pairs of wings. This was a bit loosely inspired by Isaiah 6:2-4's description of the seraphim, of course. (In fact all angels, when seen celestially, glow with reflected divine light -- Michael is just at the far end of the bell curve.) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 20:55:18 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) At 15:24 08/12/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Separate slavery from sex-for-pay, though. Consensual sex-for-pay, >for those who *choose* such activities, that would be one thing. Have you been reading 'Brave New World' or something? :) jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 16:02:03 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > In my campaign, when Michael shows up in celestial form, he's a > column of unbearably blazing white fire that shields viewers from > being blinded by its glory with three pairs of wings. This was a bit > loosely inspired by Isaiah 6:2-4's description of the seraphim, of > course. (In fact all angels, when seen celestially, glow with > reflected divine light -- Michael is just at the far end of the > bell curve.) Compare this with the habitual appearance of a major celestial in C. S. Lewis's Space Trilogy: It appears as a faint column of colored light, not truly visible except in a darkened room. But when you *do* see it, you can't help but notice that it is of a color you have never seen before and cannot name. And it's perfectly vertical. No matter what angle it makes with the floor. This is because to be in its presence is to be forced into its reference frame, which is a cosmic one; you are MADE to feel the ground you are on as the surface of a tilting, spinning sphere, hurtling through space. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 22:09:31 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 9:13 AM +0100 12/8/98, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > >On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >> At 9:30 AM +0100 12/5/98, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > >>>Not quite. The janitor et al are selling the work their bodies perform, > >>>which isn't the same thing. > >> > >>Massage? (And I don't mean the euphamistic kind.) Gynocologists? The > >>cute guy who posed nude for the drawing class? Hairdressers? (And > >>if you don't think I enjoy the 'getting the hair washed' scalp > >>massage...) > > > >There's a sliding scale, sure. But gynocologists? > > You pay them to perform intimate services, no? (For that matter, > how does one allow such intimate services to be performed upon one > without falling into the "intimate made casual" model, hm?) When it doesn't happen very often, it's much easier to keep it from becoming casual. I don't think many women go to the gynecologist several times a day. > Also remember that part of being an angel is the ability to love, > selflessly. Creationers probably Love a lot... I think they all do, to varying degrees, and in their own ways. Being loved by a Malakite can be a terrible thing... > >> Now, why should an artist of the act of sex not get paid for this, > >> like a masseuse, a dancer, or a painter? (According to Creationers, > >> at least.) > > > >Because of what you said - it's an exchange of gifts. > > I comissioned a piece of art from Dan Smith (SMIF). It is beautiful, > it is a work of art. It's really really cool. And I paid him for it. > He started on it, didn't like how it came out, and did a new one. I > gave a few general outlines of what I'd like to see, and then trusted > him to do something I'd like. I think this falls into the catagory of > "gift you pay for." *shrugs* I don't share your view of that. You comissioned it, you decided what it should be like, you payed for it. Business transactions can be friendly too. > >Do you require > >payment for your Christmas presents? When you give someone a hug? After an > >important discussion with a dear friend? > > If one gets a Christmas gift, one is expected to send a gift in return > (not to mention a thank-you card). Hugs for pay? Depending on the hug, > maybe. A discussion with a friend? I might buy them dinner. (Heck, > we *DO* tend to buy dinner for our friends who travel an hour to game > with us, from time to time!) > > Sometimes it's not money, but there's still payment. I don't share your view in this case, but I see your point. I think there's a big difference between a social exchange of gifts and a formal business transaction. > >If you do it -solely- for money, > >with no emotional ties, it's not sex, in a way. > > No, it's not making love. Depends on how you define sex. ;) Seriously, I'm with you on this one. > >And I think it hurts the ones who do it, > > Anything done solely for the money, without enjoyment, hurts the one > who does it. *ANYTHING*. So you agree that prostitution is harmful for those who do it? Just trying to see what we agree on - which seems to be most things. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:26:32 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Hrm. This is sliding off-topic, I think, except for the general notions that Creationers, Flowers and maybe Judgment could make a lot of these arguements. We'd better wrap things up soon, or drag them on topic more. At 10:09 PM +0100 12/8/98, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> >There's a sliding scale, sure. But gynocologists? >> >> You pay them to perform intimate services, no? (For that matter, >> how does one allow such intimate services to be performed upon one >> without falling into the "intimate made casual" model, hm?) > >When it doesn't happen very often, it's much easier to keep it from >becoming casual. I don't think many women go to the gynecologist several >times a day. How about childbirth? Have to check the dilation -- several times during labor in some/many cases. (Seriously, there's a lot of "intimate" stuff that, to be an adult in the world, you *have* to not think of as "intimate" anymore. Gynocological exams, mammograms, fitting for a chainmail bikini... When I was 15 or 16, I'd have been shocked and horrified at the sort of intimacies that one simply has to deal with at a mild distance.) >>>Because of what you said - it's an exchange of gifts. >> >>I comissioned a piece of art from Dan Smith (SMIF). It is beautiful, >>it is a work of art. It's really really cool. And I paid him for it. >>He started on it, didn't like how it came out, and did a new one. I >>gave a few general outlines of what I'd like to see, and then trusted >>him to do something I'd like. I think this falls into the catagory of >>"gift you pay for." > >*shrugs* I don't share your view of that. You comissioned it, you decided >what it should be like, you payed for it. Business transactions can be >friendly too. (Like my wedding dress, yup. Hand painted silk by a friend of ours.) They can even be loving. Being artistic is a gift and a talent and a skill, and why should any artist be denied the right to make their living off what they do, just because other artists might give it away for free, as a gift? (For that matter, if the artist chooses to gift someone with something, why should that detract from their right to make money from it later?) >>>Do you require >>>payment for your Christmas presents? When you give someone a hug? After an >>>important discussion with a dear friend? >> >>If one gets a Christmas gift, one is expected to send a gift in return >>(not to mention a thank-you card). Hugs for pay? Depending on the hug, >>maybe. A discussion with a friend? I might buy them dinner. (Heck, >>we *DO* tend to buy dinner for our friends who travel an hour to game >>with us, from time to time!) >> >>Sometimes it's not money, but there's still payment. > >I don't share your view in this case, but I see your point. I think >there's a big difference between a social exchange of gifts and a formal >business transaction. It's still Trade (to drag Marc in on this one...). It's just that one has the price clearly stated. (C'mon, don't you hate to get presents from relatives you don't like, 'cause you know you have to get them something in return?) >>>And I think it hurts the ones who do it, >> >>Anything done solely for the money, without enjoyment, hurts the one >>who does it. *ANYTHING*. > >So you agree that prostitution is harmful for those who do it? Just trying >to see what we agree on - which seems to be most things. :) I agree that prositution, like any job, is harmful for those who who do it for reasons other than because they enjoy the work. It may well be *more* harmful, at this point in time, because of society's tendency to think of sex as "bad." Adding injury to insult and all that. But it's not sex-for-pay that's necessarily bad, it's the surrounding environment that makes it bad. And for all I know, there are high-class escorts who *enjoy* what they do, and aren't harmed by it at all. After all, I tend to think of myself as very nearly a product of non- consensual relations, for all that my parents were married and had already had a kid before me. (Did I mention I'm very much pro-the- right-to-get-a-divorce?) If someone chooses to be a professional courtesan, and they like the work, and they aren't forced into it against their will (and if they can drop-kick a prospective client they don't want to touch with a ten-foot barge pole), then I'd say that no, prositution *isn't* bad. Lack of choice, being forced into something one doesn't want to do, *THAT'S* the evil. But just because someone's tacked sex onto slavery doesn't mean that sex-for-pay is bad. It means that coercian is bad. You realize here, I'm female, and I'm arguing that I could see a culture and a personality where it could be just another job? And, yes, I took a minor in Womens' Studies. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 16:43:26 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > When it doesn't happen very often, it's much easier to keep it from > becoming casual. I don't think many women go to the gynecologist several > times a day. No, but the gynecologist probably sees several women each day. As the payee, the doctor is the prostitute in the analogy. And I have an aunt who's an OB/GYN. It is pretty casual for her. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 17:42:41 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds >> I comissioned a piece of art from Dan Smith (SMIF). It is beautiful, >> it is a work of art. It's really really cool. And I paid him for it. >> He started on it, didn't like how it came out, and did a new one. I >> gave a few general outlines of what I'd like to see, and then trusted >> him to do something I'd like. I think this falls into the catagory of >> "gift you pay for." > >*shrugs* I don't share your view of that. You comissioned it, you decided >what it should be like, you payed for it. Business transactions can be >friendly too. > >> >Do you require >> >payment for your Christmas presents? When you give someone a hug? After an >> >important discussion with a dear friend? >> >> If one gets a Christmas gift, one is expected to send a gift in return >> (not to mention a thank-you card). Hugs for pay? Depending on the hug, >> maybe. A discussion with a friend? I might buy them dinner. (Heck, >> we *DO* tend to buy dinner for our friends who travel an hour to game >> with us, from time to time!) >> >> Sometimes it's not money, but there's still payment. > I would definitely not call it payment but there is definitely an exchange involved in friendship related acts. When I feel down and someone gives me a hug it is assumed qithout pressure that if they are feeling down I will give them a hug. Friendship is not a trade per se but is instead a mutual agreement involving two people. Also her paying Dan Smit, who I assume is a friend for art work is just fine as a friend thing. If she asked for it for free she would be the same as everyone who goes up to doctors and lawyers at parties for free legal and medical advice. It's innocent enough but it's still a bit annoying. I had a very important friendship break up because there was far too much give and far too little take. I weened her back from the edge of suicide and gave her self confidence and she ignored me and wouldn't spend 3 dollars to help me eat for a week. That is someone I no longer consider a friend. So remember friendship is not a fiscal trade or a specific quid pro quo but is instead a dance of mutual needs. Sorry for rambling Ben Cherub of Destiny ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:04:26 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Eeyore wrote: > No, but the gynecologist probably sees several women each day. As the > payee, the doctor is the prostitute in the analogy. And I have an > aunt who's an OB/GYN. It is pretty casual for her. I didn't want to get involved in this argument, but let me point out what's already been been said. One of the distinctions people have made in that thread is whether you're selling skills you perform with your body or selling the right to use your body. A gynecologist is *certainly* selling their skills. The appropriate analogy is a model, which has also been made. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 00:24:02 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Jeans word This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_015A_01BE230A.390C38E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jean's word is Lightning and he is very much associated with science and = I guess the=20 connection is that Lightning is electricity. However it is implied he = held this responsibility=20 before the discovery of electricity (APG p6 - Creation - last paragraph = "Jean and Raphael=20 joined Yves in transcribing all knowledge and in orchestrating the will = of God." & IPG p15=20 - - Legion - last paragraph "Heaven bitterly mourned Raphael's loss. Many = of her duties=20 were assumed by her fellow Elohite, Jean, the Archangel of Lightning, = but Raphael=20 herself was irreplaceable."). I may be missing something completely = obvious, but=20 what's the connection between science and Lightning. Ramesh - ------=_NextPart_000_015A_01BE230A.390C38E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jean's word is = Lightning and he is=20 very much associated with science and I guess the
connection is that = Lightning is=20 electricity. However it is implied he held this responsibility =
before the discovery = of=20 electricity (APG p6 - Creation - last paragraph "Jean and Raphael=20
joined Yves in = transcribing all=20 knowledge and in orchestrating the will of God." & IPG p15=20
- Legion - last = paragraph=20 "Heaven bitterly mourned Raphael's loss. Many of her duties
were assumed by her = fellow=20 Elohite, Jean, the Archangel of Lightning, but Raphael
herself was = irreplaceable.").=20 I may be missing something completely obvious, but
what's the = connection between science and = Lightning.
 
Ramesh
- ------=_NextPart_000_015A_01BE230A.390C38E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 00:38:57 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Reincarnation\afterlife This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_01A4_01BE230C.4E518E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In the last paragraph of Heaven and Hell (page 50), it is suggested that = when someone=20 dies they will probably go to heaven or hell, and are quite unlikely to = be re-incarnated.=20 But in In Nomine - Predestination: Fate and Destiny (page 67) it=92s = suggested only people=20 who achieve their Destiny will go to heaven, and only those who achieve = their Fate go to Hell=20 and most people will be re-incarnated. Which is right? =20 Ramesh - ------=_NextPart_000_01A4_01BE230C.4E518E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In the last = paragraph of Heaven=20 and Hell (page 50), it is suggested that when someone
dies they will = probably go to=20 heaven or hell, and are quite unlikely to be re-incarnated. =
But in In Nomine - = Predestination:=20 Fate and Destiny (page 67) it’s suggested only people
who achieve their = Destiny will go=20 to heaven, and only those who achieve their Fate go to Hell =
and most people will = be=20 re-incarnated. Which is right?
 
Ramesh

- ------=_NextPart_000_01A4_01BE230C.4E518E60-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 00:38:39 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: IN> Concealing the War This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0197_01BE230C.43725A60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What exactly do the hosts of Shedim (& Kyriotates of Zadkiel) remember? = (Why don=92t=20 lots of people remember committing a number of supernatural acts when = their dominator=20 used songs/attunements). =20 Ramesh - ------=_NextPart_000_0197_01BE230C.43725A60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What exactly do the = hosts of=20 Shedim (& Kyriotates of Zadkiel) remember? (Why = don’t
lots of people = remember committing=20 a number of supernatural acts when their dominator
used=20 songs/attunements).
 
Ramesh

- ------=_NextPart_000_0197_01BE230C.43725A60-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 01:32:14 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0219_01BE2313.C03370A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/12/98 Elizabeth McCoy wrote >>At 10:46 PM +0000 12/7/98, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: /Causation/ >>=20 >>If causing a disturbance to the symphony is caused by changing the=20 >>way things were "supposed to be", then why doesn't saving someone's=20 >>life cause as much disturbance to the symphony as killing someone. > > >Interesting question -- probably has to do with predetermination, >which there isn't that much of in IN. The place I got the idea of disturbance being caused by a Celestial = changing the way=20 "things are supposed to be" (rather than due to a Celestial bending = reality to their will=20 which is how most people seem to interpret it) is from how Nicole = descibes it A Bright=20 Dream. =20 What do mean there's not must predestination in IN, Predestination vs = Free Will is one of the main things angels argue about! Isn't i? >>Also *what exactly does it mean to cause some thing to happen*?=20 > >It means to *directly* cause it. Cut the brake lines yourself, push the >button, etc. If you can sucker a human into doing it, then *any = disturbance >that the act causes is too small for anyone to hear.* (My emphasis) =20 Is it just me or you suggesting that there is some imperceptible = distubance caused, in=20 the same way that an an imperceptible disturbance is caused by air = molecule bouncing off Nicole's vessel (which they shouldn't have because the vessel = shouldn't have been=20 there). =20 PS sorry about using bold and italics, I just got connected on Saturday = so I'm not entirely sure what I'm doing yet. Ramesh - ------=_NextPart_000_0219_01BE2313.C03370A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 08/12/98 Elizabeth McCoy = wrote
 
>>At 10:46 PM +0000 12/7/98, Ramesh Satkurunath=20 wrote:
/Causation/
>>
>>If causing a disturbance = to the=20 symphony is caused by changing the
>>way things were = "supposed to=20 be", then why doesn't saving someone's
>>life cause as = much=20 disturbance to the symphony as killing someone. =20 >
>
>Interesting question -- probably has to do with=20 predetermination,
>which there isn't that much of in IN.
 
The place I got the idea of = disturbance being=20 caused by a Celestial changing the way
"things = are supposed to=20 be" (rather than due to a Celestial bending reality to their will=20
which is how most people seem to interpret it) = is from how Nicole descibes it A Bright
Dream. 
 
What do mean there's not must = predestination in=20 IN, Predestination vs Free Will is one
of the main = things angels=20 argue about! Isn't i?
 
>>Also *what exactly does it mean to cause some thing to = happen*?=20
>
>It means to *directly* cause it. Cut the brake lines = yourself,=20 push the
>button, etc. If you can sucker a human into doing it, = then *any=20 disturbance
>that the act causes is too small for anyone to = hear.*
(My emphasis)
 
Is it just me or you suggesting that there is some=20 imperceptible distubance caused, in
the same way that an an = imperceptible=20 disturbance is caused by air molecule bouncing
off Nicole's vessel (which they shouldn't have = because the=20 vessel shouldn't have been
there).
 
PS sorry about using bold and = italics, I just=20 got connected on Saturday so I'm not entirely
sure what I'm = doing=20 yet.
 
Ramesh
 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0219_01BE2313.C03370A0-- ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1044 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.