From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jan 13 11:38:30 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 LAA31694 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:38:29 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id KAA04259 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:53:19 -0600 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:53:19 -0600 Message-Id: <200001131653.KAA04259@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 #1492 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 Thursday, January 13 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1492 In this digest: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong IN> God and Atheists Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong IN> All hail Prince David! Re: IN> A question for you Re: IN> All hail Prince David! Re: IN> The Spammer of God Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong IN> Superiors 1 Question IN> Atheists in In Nomine IN> Atheists in In Nomine IN> The Spammer of God and Atheism Again Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine Re: IN> InNomine question Re: IN> Roles vs. Resonances Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong IN> Speculation on the Fall Re: IN> Journalist Soldiers Re: IN> Roles vs. Resonances Re: IN>Spam? (list question) and Opposite numbers Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1490 Re: IN> Superiors 1 Question IN> [ADMIN] Enough Already! (Re: The Spammer of God) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 00:04:14 -0600 From: "Greg Bilbruck" Subject: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong Most spammers miss the mark. This "Spammer of God" was wrong to spam us. I do not support the spammer's right to spam us. I agree with David in his belief that we should take the necessary precautions to prevent as much spam as possible from entering our list. David Edelstein wrote: > I'm gonna try to stay Elohite of Not Suffering Fools here I will patiently reply to your insults with facts but I shall continue shoot holes in that dead argument that you are riding. > I was attacking his > intelligence because his spam was silly, babbling drivel, not any kind > of coherent expression of spirituality, sent inappropriately, and > apparently directed at someone who hadn't even solicited it in any way, > shape, or form. Which is a stupid thing to do. > Reasons why your arguments about the spammer's intellect remain illogical: 1. ABOUT THE SPAMMER: You can't possibly know the identity of the Spammer. The original message was *forwarded* to us so we can only guess at the spammer's identity. Perhaps it was Paul (the person that the *original* message was addressed to). Perhaps it was the original author of the message. Perhaps it was another person. The only thing that we know about the spammer is that we do not know who he is... we can only make assumptions. The only thing that I would venture to assume about the spammer is that he was unaware of our rules of etiquette on this list (for obvious reasons: the message would have been viewed as bad form and we have rules against spam). 2. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: (read this carefully now... I don't want to have to repeat myself. I have stated this before. I will try to state it in simpler terms.) Since the message was forwarded, the original intended audience was a person named "Paul"... not us. If we knew Paul, we could determine if the message was "silly, babbling drivel, sent inappropriately, and apparently directed at someone who hadn't even solicited it in any way, shape, or form." (your words quoted) Since we do not know Paul, your assumption that the *original* author's message was inappropriate for his audience is illogical. The only thing that we know about the author is that we do not know who he is... we can only make assumptions. The only thing that we can assume about the author is that he is a Christian (probably a Trinitarian) and that he is fervent and zealous in his beliefs. 3. The spammer attached no message when he forwarded it to us so it is impossible to determine the IQ of the spammer or the original author because we do not know the key ingredients: the spammers identity, the author's identity, Paul's identity, the relationship between Paul and the original author, the spammer's relationship to Paul and the author, the spammer's relationship to our list, the original author's relationship to our list, the flavor and intent of the message, etc. We don't even have a confirmed writing sample from the spammer... just the little carrots that identify that the message was forwarded. One In Nomine list subscriber wrote the following message to me about this topic: "I just think that David may have made a hasty comment based on emotion and not wanted to retract it, which is different from a prejudice against Christians or all religions." David, you seem to be bright, so I must assume that your only reason for continuing to ride your illogical statement into its grave was identified by the author of that quote. The anonymous writer also stated, "The debate seems to have cooled, which is a good thing; although it was civil it seemed likely to devolve into name-calling et cetera. No one's fault, either, that's just the way such things tend to go." It would seem that this person wrote too soon... I grow weary of this simple lesson in logic but I am a patient tutor. Best wishes, Greg * not a spam advocate * just poking' holes in illogical arguments ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:37:33 +1100 From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong > > 1. ABOUT THE SPAMMER: > You can't possibly know the identity of the Spammer. The original message > was *forwarded* to us so we can only guess at the spammer's identity. > Perhaps it was Paul (the person that the *original* message was addressed > to). Perhaps it was the original author of the message. Perhaps it was > another person. > The only thing that we know about the spammer is that we do not know who he > is... we can only make assumptions. The only thing that I would venture to > assume about the spammer is that he was unaware of our rules of etiquette on > this list (for obvious reasons: the message would have been viewed as bad > form and we have rules against spam). Yep, that is right, it was forwarded to us, just like all the other SPAM advertising who-knows-what 's replies are "accidentally" "forwarded" to us. This is quite a normal format and process for the recieving of SPAM and doesn't neccesarily mean that it, was indeed forwarded, or in fact even if he knew that there was anything to do with religion disscussed in the list. This may well have been an attempt to SPAM many people to "spread the word", it is consistent with many of the Spamming patterns I have seen. Thus based on the similarites between this SPAM and other SPAMs that I have seen, I will offer another possibility, he could well have known that he was spamming, and Paul was simply a name chosen at random. Indeed I have no evidence to support this, but I have seen no evidence against this (of course Beth may know more...), so I do not believe this should be discounted either. In any case, if the writer was not a list spammer (i.e. he may have spammed "Paul", who then forwarded it to us), and the message was actually forwarded (not faked, or just jockeyed), we can actually make assumptions about the spammer, the person who actually forwarded the message to us, was no doubt not using the gray matter provided by whatever system of creation in which you believe, or was not intelligent enough to realisse that sending this to our mailing list, nay any mailing list, or any address would no doubt breach any ettiquette that any list has, or annoy whoever he thought he was forwarding too, and breach his personal ettiquette guidelines. Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 03:14:41 -0500 (EST) From: "J. Michael Smith" Subject: IN> God and Atheists >okay, to avoid getting Hypocrisy Dissonance; >In IN, it is taken for granted (or at least, taken for Cannon) that >the Aetheists are wrong. There is a God, et al. What happens to >aetheists who are confronted with proof? do they suddenly get >religon? rationlize away the experience? or take up arms in the war? >and if that last one, Which side? I had a friend who was (in real >life) an enthusiastic and evanglical aetheist (he actively and >seriously tried to win converts to his particular dogma. Yes, it was >as annoying as any other dogmatic evangilist (to me, anyway)); when >asked, what he would do if confronted by God, he said "kill him." Depends on what God you are talking about. I have known many people who believe in a God that I would attempt to destroy if I learned he actually existed. I know many other people who believed in a God that I would like to meet and become friends with if I learned he actually existed. A lot of people believe in a God that I would probably just ignore if I found out about his existence. I suppose it depends on the atheist too. A lot of atheists I know pride themselves on their open-mindedness. Many would react with, "Okay, God exists," and treat it as no big deal. The truth is, there are too many variables to truly answer your question. IMC there is an atheist PC (a mundane human). He's a psychiatrist and passes off anything strange as a delusion, attempting to share his pills with angels and demons alike. (I didn't say he was a good psychiatrist). But (and here's the catch) IMC, that mundane atheist human is right...at least to a certain degree. God, in my campaign, is simply that irresistable force of creation and destruction. He is the symphony, the Universe...whatever. I did that because it answers a lot of annoying metaphysical questions in a way that MIGHT be interesting in an adventure. The idea of giving a name to that force was first introduced by Yves. The idea of giving a face to that force was first introduced by Lucifer--as a lie to give the angels false hope, and the corporeals a number of rather destructive religions (whether or not that lie ultimately backfired is a matter of opinion). Most of the angels and archangels believe that God really is a sentient person; that was Lucifer's small victory when he fell. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:32:29 +1100 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong It is not my place to netcop - it's Elizabeth's, and I'm sure she will do so at some point in the near future. I just wanted to say something quickly. Greg Bilbruck wrote: > I will patiently reply to your insults with facts but I shall continue shoot > holes in that dead argument that you are riding. > > I grow weary of this simple lesson in logic but I am a patient tutor. Greg, many of us grow much _more_ weary of this little brouhaha between you and David. From past experience, I know David has as just as much patience (or stubbornness) to persist with this as you do. That's great for the pair of you. But some of us don't _want_ to have to read through a pile of religious pissing contests, or stick people in our killfiles. Let it go. If you can't let it go, take it to private email. But don't make the rest of us suffer for your ideals. (It's not about me thinking David's right. I don't _care_ if anyone's right. But this is worse than the original spam.) - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia "You see, Channon, it's the duty of journalists to strike fear into the hearts of criminals." "With your meat gun?" "Or your attack womb." "Or your illegal bowel disruptor." - - Spider Jerusalem & Channon Yarrow, TRANSMETROPOLITAN #4 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:36:48 +1100 From: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: IN> All hail Prince David! > > >I wish to put forward a motion for David to Now be recognised as a >Dual-Superior, you know like Beth, >Elohite Archangel Of Not Suffering Fools Easily and Hallabite Demon Prince >Of Biting Sarcasm (and possibly of Being Mean), Oh and Ethereal God of >Making Me Laugh So Hard My Stomach Hurts. Seconded, although it's rather strange that the Beth side of her personality is coming out a lot more recently rather than her Archangelic side (so I can't remember the name exactly... I don't think anyone's referred to her as anything but demonic for a long time) Is it just me, or does everyone start off on this list with some angelic .sig then switch sides after a couple of months? Eek! This list is a Fateian (well, I dunno, how would you describe it?) tether! Kris, who really should have a lot more sleep. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:02:15 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> A question for you In message , Whistling in the Dark writes > >Sarcasm is a major Word. He'd have enough Word Forces to have >several attunements. One of them is _Get It?_ That lets you commit >words to paper you mean utterly sarcastically, and people Believe It. > LOL! >It ties to his Habbalite Resonance, of course. He inflicts Belief >when he uses _Get It?_ I expect that if he becomes Demon Prince of >Sarcasm it will turn into his Habbalite Attunement. > I see. So we'll be *punished* for reading his books..! - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:15:30 +1100 From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> All hail Prince David! > Seconded, although it's rather strange that the Beth side of her personality is coming out a lot more recently rather than her Archangelic side (so I can't remember the name exactly... I don't think anyone's referred to her as anything but demonic for a long time) Is it just me, or does everyone start off on this list with some angelic .sig then switch sides after a couple of months? Eek! This list is a Fateian (well, I dunno, how would you describe it?) tether! Beth, Archangel Of The Archives, I believe was her original title, but she has lost the word (she no longer manages the archives, EDG does) which would explain why we haven't spoken to ArchBeth, now she May Be Archangel Of The List. A Tether To/Of Fate perhaps? Azrael "The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad -Salvador Dali" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:30:39 -0500 From: neelk@cswcasa.com Subject: Re: IN> The Spammer of God Douglas Muir wrote: > > [Snip story of Heisenberg's deathbed conversion] > This is a fun genre. I am reminded of the story of Voltaire's death. All his life he had been a notorious atheist, and finally when he was on his deathbed, his priest (back then even atheists had priests, I guess) asked him to at least renounce the Devil before he died. Voltaire's response was "Monsieur, this is no time for me to make enemies of that gentleman." - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswcasa.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:44:26 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Subject: Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong >Greg, many of us grow much _more_ weary of this little brouhaha between >you and >David. From past experience, I know David has as just as much patience (or >stubbornness) to persist with this as you do. That's great for the pair >of you. > >But some of us don't _want_ to have to read through a pile of religious >pissing >contests, or stick people in our killfiles. Hear, hear. This has no IN content, and it isn't interesting either. Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:02:50 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong At 12:04 AM -0600 1/13/00, Greg Bilbruck wrote: > >(read this carefully now... I don't want to have to repeat myself. I have >stated this before. I will try to state it in simpler terms.) >Since the message was forwarded, the original intended audience was a person >named "Paul"... not us. Actually, this is a common technique of spamming. Very common. It's supposed to make it seem like a "legitimate" message accidentially misdirected. It is also totally irrelevant. Spam is. > >3. The spammer attached no message when he forwarded it to us so it is >impossible to determine the IQ of the spammer or the original author because >we do not know the key ingredients: the spammers identity, the author's >identity, Paul's identity, the relationship between Paul and the original >author, the spammer's relationship to Paul and the author, the spammer's >relationship to our list, the original author's relationship to our list, >the flavor and intent of the message, etc. >We don't even have a confirmed writing sample from the spammer... just the >little carrots that identify that the message was forwarded. Um.... Greg -- I hate to do this, but... "read this carefully now... I don't want to have to repeat myself. Others have stated this before. I will try to state it in simpler terms." I can make an excellent judgement of the Author's IQ. He writes like a retarded pony. Whether he's the author or not, the spammer not only endorsed the poorly written message, he posted it in such a fashion as for it to be spam according to the worldwide standards of the Internet. Anywhere he went, this would be spam. It's unsolicited e-mail off the topic of the mailing list designed to convince others of a point of view. It's spam. It's also poorly written. Therefore, without caring about the religion of the writer, *I* can assume that he, the spammer or both are basically stupid and selfish, and I can consider them utterly beneath me. >One In Nomine list subscriber wrote the following message to me about this >topic: "I just think that David may have made a hasty comment based on >emotion and not wanted to retract it, which is different from a prejudice >against Christians or all religions." David hasn't written an antireligious message. He's written an antistupidity message and an antispam message. The religious background of the spam really doesn't matter. It's rude and poorly written, and deserves our contempt. >David, you seem to be bright, so I must assume that your only reason for >continuing to ride your illogical statement into its grave was identified by >the author of that quote. Ohhhh dear. >I grow weary of this simple lesson in logic but I am a patient tutor. Greg? Our lack of knowledge of the identity of the spammer or "Paul," whoever he may be assuming he exists, has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. Logically, your refutations are therefore irrelevant to it. So, if this is a lesson in logic, I fear you're teaching obfuscation instead of rhetoric. Logically, however: 1) The spam was ungrammatically written with a poor sense of style. This implies at least catastophic lack of schooling, if not an inability to grasp usage. 2) The spam was sent inappropriately, using time-worn techniques of distributing unsolicited e-mail, to a list where it is off topic -- a catastrophic violation of Internet etiquette anywhere on the net. 3) Regardless of identity of author, the spam was written stupidly. 4) Regardless of identity of poster, the spam was rude. THEREFORE: The spammer and/or author are stupid, selfish people. David is right to treat them as such. He doesn't have to be gentle about it. And if he isn't, the religous nature of the spam doesn't shield it from his contempt and shouldn't. Any questions? - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalah of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:33:13 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Superiors 1 Question >>>I was reading through Superiors 1 in more detail yesterday and came across a small bug.<<< That's not a bug, it's a feature. >>>In _Night Music_ , Laurence has an Attunement called Divine Silence. This Attunement is not printed in S1, but one called Divine Absolution is. Both are fairly similar in effect and I was wondering the new Attunement is a re-write of the first.<<< Yes. The original attunement, Divine Silence, didn't make a whole lot of sense as written (IMO, as the person who did the rewrite of Laurence), since Laurence is not the Archangel of Martyrs. Also, forcing the GM to monitor "pleading looks across the gaming table" can be rather awkward. I wanted to turn the dissonance-removing attunement into an action that ties into Laurence's Catholic leanings, as well as his origins as a Servitor of Purity. Fortunately, the editor and LE agreed with me. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:52:40 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Atheists in In Nomine >>>I am suffering from a mild cognative dissonance at that one.<<< Cognitive dissonance means you're perceiving something that does not fit your preconceived assumptions about the world, and which you're therefore having trouble coping with. (An atheist who witnessed evidence of God, for example, would likely suffer from cognitive dissonance.) What exactly about this thread is causing you cognitive dissonance? >>>And my beleifs on the subject of the existance of God are A) None of your business, and, more importantly B) NOT what this list is about.<<< As I've said before, some fruitful and interesting discussions (and a few flamewars) have developed as a result of people discussing their own beliefs, and how they apply them to In Nomine. >>>In IN, it is taken for granted (or at least, taken for Cannon) that the Aetheists are wrong. There is a God, et al.<<< Actually, not necessarily. See the GMG. Angels assume there is a God, most demons believe it too, but Lucifer says that God is basically a figment of Heaven's imagination, a being they created in their own image to suit their need to feel virtuous. And since God doesn't personally appear (canonically), it's possible to have a canonical campaign in which God doesn't really exist. God is CDaU. >>>What happens to aetheists who are confronted with proof? do they suddenly get religon? rationlize away the experience? or take up arms in the war? and if that last one, Which side?<<< That would depend on the atheist. But keep in mind, what is "proof"? God coming down from Heaven and saying "Sorry son, but you're Wrong!" That would probably be convincing. On the other hand, simply meeting an "angel" (i.e., a highly virtuous, superhuman being) wouldn't necessarily convince ME that God exists. It would convince me that highly virtuous, superhuman beings who believe in God exist. Learning of the War between angels and demons, a moral atheist would probably join the angels, perceiving them to be benevolent, while demons appear to be inimical to humanity....but he might continue to believe that they are just two races of superhuman beings, and that all the gabble about Heaven and Hell and God is just *their* religion. >>>I had a friend who was (in real life) an enthusiastic and evanglical aetheist (he actively and seriously tried to win converts to his particular dogma. Yes, it was as annoying as any other dogmatic evangilist (to me, anyway));<<< Yes, I find those atheists highly annoying as well. I am NOT a raving, anti-religion Madelyne Murray O'Haire atheist. >>>when asked, what he would do if confronted by God, he said "kill him." okay, so he had issues far beyond those of most aetheists<<< Obviously. Sounds like the sort of person who becomes an atheist to piss off his parents. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:59:17 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Atheists in In Nomine >>>I also like the idea of angels having to prevent a mortal from learng about God's existance.<<< There's an adventure seed in Superiors 3 (concerning Khalid, Archangel of Faith) in which his Servitors have to convert an atheist...but given Khalid's dissonance conditions, they have to do so *without* giving any proof. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:01:31 -0800 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The Spammer of God and Atheism Again >>>I wish to put forward a motion for David to Now be recognised as a Dual-Superior, you know like Beth, Elohite Archangel Of Not Suffering Fools Easily and Hallabite Demon Prince Of Biting Sarcasm (and possibly of Being Mean), Oh and Ethereal God of Making Me Laugh So Hard My Stomach Hurts.<<< I'll be happy to give you one of my Rites. It involves sending me money. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:18:58 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Atheists in In Nomine >From: David Edelstein > >>>In IN, it is taken for granted (or at least, taken for Cannon) that the >Aetheists are wrong. There is a God, et al.<<< > >Actually, not necessarily. See the GMG. Angels assume there is a God, >most demons believe it too, but Lucifer says that God is basically a >figment of Heaven's imagination, a being they created in their own image >to suit their need to feel virtuous. This is an area on which I disgree with the GMG then :) I think the distinctive flavour of IN comes from a game-universe in which Monotheistic theology is mainly right. And FWIW, I assume that the very oldest superiors have seen God and spoken to Him (and that does include Lucifer). David, how do you explain Dominic being told not to prosecute Michael if not by direct uncontradictable divine intervention? The main book says that God acquitted Michael (or something along those lines). That doesn't mean 'God speaking through a celestial prophet' -- to me at least. jo (Sure, you could run a game in which celestials were just another kind of being with their own religion, but you could just run Mage or Planescape for that.) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:24:34 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> InNomine question David Rodemaker wrote: > You're correct, a Role/6 even with this rule is nowhere as powerful as > Humanity. However my impression is that the expanded Res. rules from the APG > are considered "broken" and are to be "used at your own risk..." Am I > correct in this understanding or have I missed something somewhere? Some were, some weren't. I don't recall if the Mercurian ones were or not. But, as someone else mentioned, there are other ways of boosting the CD. ;) - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:27:12 -0500 From: John Karakash Subject: Re: IN> Roles vs. Resonances David Edelstein wrote: > I agree that a Contest is kludgy and adds more unnecessary rolls. I > disagree that it should be "meets or exceeds" -- I think we should leave > it at John's idea (which I think actually originated with me, who > presented it when this issue came up in our campaign, and this is the > house rule my GM settled on ;): the angel's CD must beat the Role level > or the information gained pertains to the Role. Heh. Similar minds... =) AFAIK, I thought it up independently; it might just be an Idea Whose Time Has Come. Amusingly, some inventions we know and love were independently invented by two (or more!) people at roughly the same time. Is the telephone an example of this, or did Jean decide that it was a good idea? - -- +============================================= + John Karakash - geek, writer, cook + Code mangler for EMC CLARiiON + mib2300 +============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:32:43 -0500 From: Adam Thomas Gieseler Subject: Re: IN> SPAM-a-lam-a-ding-dong Greg Bilbruck wrote: > I will patiently reply to your insults with facts but I shall continue shoot > holes in that dead argument that you are riding. > Okay. I wasn't going to get into this on-list, but now I'm going to. This message is certainly out of Seraph-mode, but I won't try to categorize it beyond that. First of all, no one has insulted anybody. Neither you, David, nor you, Greg, has perceived himself as doing anything but coming to the rescue of reality from false belief, or, in David's case, defending himself from a misrepresentation of his beliefs on Greg's part. No one has intended insult, and therefore no one has given one. If you disagree with this perfectly simple statement, there are millions of ways to settle it, most of which do not involve a yelling spree in public. I say yelling spree because neither of you, to the best of my knowledge, has made an effort to understand clearly the perspective of the other one. Debates like this are good; they clear the air -- until they become Malphan fiascos like this one. > One In Nomine list subscriber wrote the following message to me about this > topic: "I just think that David may have made a hasty comment based on > emotion and not wanted to retract it, which is different from a prejudice > against Christians or all religions." To clarify, I said this not to say that David ought to take back his utterly honest emotional reaction, not to say that David might be prejudiced against Christians, but to say that it is utterly ridiculous to confused the first for the second. No one on this list is prejudiced against anyone, to the best of my knowledge. And finger-pointing is utterly immature and simply adds fuel to the fire. Each of the main participants in this debate has tried to make clear his own perspective, and dig out the truth. In that order. And that is the problem. Sorry to speak so bluntly, and no one can expect everybody to be Elohite-perfect all the time. That was the original point of the above quote, which it seems I was utterly clumsy in trying to get accross. Sorry for any bruised egos, broken bones, but this just needed to be said. Flames should be directed to adamtg@widomaker.com. Thank you for your time and patience. Adam Gieseler ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:27:14 -0500 From: Adam Thomas Gieseler Subject: IN> Speculation on the Fall As aspirant Soldier of Blandine, it's my role (sometimes) to ask whether Uriel might have been to blame for the Fall. Now, I'm perfectly certain that the canon answer to this question is no, utterly no, no question about it, the Fall was a premeditated rebellion by Lucifer and what Uriel and Michael did served only to stop him. Not that any Archangel is likely to question this statement, or that Dominic wouldn't investigate and probably try for heresy any angel who questioned it. What if there was an alternative? What if Lucifer was utterly well-meaning in his speculations in the Groves, and didn't recognize Pride until it was too late? What if Uriel pushed this process along with his intolerance, Michael intervened too late to do anything but protect Heaven, and Yves, thorugh inaction, opened the possibility of Fate? And just what was Lilith's role in all this? I have my own pet theories, but I want to hear what you think, judging not from canon-as-canon but from canon-as-that-which-is-commonly-accepted. And no, I don't advocate treating In Nomine books like White Wolf books, except on special occasions. What do you all think? Adam Gieseler ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:55:57 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Journalist Soldiers At 4:22 AM -0800 1/12/00, Bruce Dykes wrote: >So what I'm asking is...any ideas for supporting cast >or adventure seeds? For _official_ supporting cast, check out the Liber Servitorum. (Ought to be convertable to GURPS via the conversion chapter of the playtest files (which are currently up for round-two playtesting); tell me if they don't convert sensibly!) For unofficial supporting cast, check out the In Nomine Collection (INC): www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles -- I think there's a link to a Rogues' Gallery there... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:16:27 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Roles vs. Resonances At 2:55 PM -0800 1/12/00, David Edelstein wrote: >Keep in mind, this _won't_ make Role/6s impregnable. An angel can beat a >CD of 6 (by touching the subject when applying his resonance, for >example). Or being within 1 yard, IIRC p. 57. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:14:02 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN>Spam? (list question) and Opposite numbers At 2:12 PM -0800 1/12/00, David Edelstein wrote: >>>>(Yeah, if I _can't_ get this "Perfectly simple if you have access >to the majordomo machine" fix, I'm going to have to do the restriction >thing. And I now predict several unhappy, "Oh don't do that!" messages >in my personal email box. O:p )<<< > >So what? So it's _my_ mailbox and I have enough blessed crap in it. (Every spam that comes to the list, I usually get 1-2 private copies of, for instance.) Look, I had an agreement for a way to get rid of the stuff _without_ getting all those pathetic messages, which will make _EVERYONE_ happy. I'm not going to deal with it till after Arisia, and if I haven't gotten email back from my contact, I'll go looking for another contact in the io.com admin staff. Then everyone can be happy, except the spammers. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:11:01 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #1490 At 1:14 PM -0500 1/12/00, J. Michael Smith wrote: >>Bad. Read the book, read the FAQ (available off the resources link of >>www.sjgames.com/in-nomine), _then_ ask the questions. Otherwise, Bad >>Things will happen to you. No, you don't want to know what. > >Oh, I've read the book. That doesn't mean I remember every single >nitpicking rule in it though, Uh-uh-uh -- that's not what you said. You said, "Of course, I am being lazy and not researching the core rules." (Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:20:04 -0500 (EST) -- you can look it up in the digests.) And we all know Sloth was the Word of a Demon Prince. Also, the invocation modifier thing is in a fairly obvious (especially for the main book; O:p ) spot, on p. 108. The Lilith invocation is more esoteric, since it's in her writeup, and her writeup is in the _Lilim Band_ section (though there is a pointer to her in the Prince Roll Call box at the beginning of the Prince section). >>The ones the GM decides upon. > >Sheesh. I was just looking for a second opinion. There are so _many_ (not to mention that the BalDom theory comes up aaaaallllllll the time and I've seen it popping up for about 2 years now), that you got the short version. >>> I understand that he's a seraphim, >> >>A _Seraph_. Note the singular. (Yes, this is a pet peeve of the Line >>Editor...) Seraph is singular, Seraphim is plural, and it's always >>capitalized. > >Oh, shut up. My seraphim's big brother can beat up your Seraph's big brother. Hey, I'm the Line Editor. If I don't keep the plurals straight, the line will look cruddy. If people around me don't keep the plurals straight, then I have a harder time of it. And as the Line Editor, I can beat up any In Nomine Archangel or Prince I want. And Lucifer. >>Go check out one version at the INC's Dark Victory, located somewhere >>on the INC. www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles . > >Read it. As I said, I was looking for a variety of opinions on the subject. Well, there's one -- don't get upset just because it happens to be _ONE_ opinion. There are more people out there and I can hardly read all their minds and type in what they would have said. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:02:34 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Superiors 1 Question At 3:17 PM +0000 1/12/00, Krowe _ wrote: >I was reading through Superiors 1 in more detail yesterday and came across a >small bug. It's not a bug, it's a feature. The bug is the printer-error that has the last couple of sentences in the book missing. But those sentences are at the errata site now! ( www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/errata ) >In _Night Music_ , Laurence has an Attunement called Divine >Silence. This Attunement is not printed in S1, but one called Divine >Absolution is. Both are fairly similar in effect and I was wondering the new >Attunement is a re-write of the first. I recall that yes, there was a change made to one of his attunements -- sounds like that one. Consider the S1 version to be the correct canon version. (Which doesn't mean that you can't use the other one if you really like it, etc.) >Other than that, S1 has been a wonderful addition to IN collection. I was >dissappointed with the LS (I expected a book of Servants, not a book of >NPC's) Servitors/servants -- translates about the same. And it does have a pretty large section on servants! (*sigh* I thought it was pretty good for a book that was hellacious to pull together... (*)) >and _You Are Here_ (Should have kept the Liber name going, the Book >of Locations should not have such a dumb title). Hey, gimme a book that abbreviates to WEH and we're golden! (Actually, it was "Liber Locorum" or something like that for a long time, but for some reason, the name got changed. I think it was either a marketing thing ("the Liber books aren't selling well enough! Change to new Coke!"), or a case where it broke the mold of the Liber books enough that it wasn't really quite one of them, thematically. I don't know which, and probably never shall -- those are just my best guesses. (* I'm posting before breakfast. When my blood sugar gets low, I get a little wierder.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:55:24 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] Enough Already! (Re: The Spammer of God) See the bottom of the message for the _real_ Admin stuff. Gods, I strain my back and get bedridden for a day, and people just get.... At 6:57 PM -0600 1/11/00, Greg Bilbruck wrote: >> Elizabeth wrote: >> Whether you think his views are right or wrong, it's pretty stupid to >> post them to a mailing list where the list admin takes a dim view of >> people being so far off-topic (trying to convert people is off-topic) >> Elizabeth >* Was the message spam? Yes Which is where you should stop. Spammers are vile. >* Was it authored by the person that posted the message to our list? maybe >(the message was forwarded with no forwarding comments and it was addressed >to a specific person) - ------ Return-Path: owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Received: from lists.io.com (root@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by hammurabi.nh.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with ESMTP id AAA26614 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:45:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id XAA07105 for in_nomine-l-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 23:00:49 -0600 Received: from ogopogo.flash.net (ogopogo.flash.net [209.30.2.14]) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07096 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 23:00:44 -0600 Received: from josh (p232.amax10.dialup.hou1.flash.net [209.30.66.232]) by ogopogo.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA22039 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:58:25 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3876C4E5.F3ED9213@flash.net> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 23:02:29 -0600 From: elloboys X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: IN> A question for you X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <200001080451.WAA25302@chupacabras.flash.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com X-UIDL: 5aad1241e0b43f283450fd167be1ba2d > Hey Paul! - ------- elloboys is not a subscriber to the list (and, if after Arisia I can't dig up somebody who can institute that "subscribe to a list of posters" plan which would make _EVERYONE_ happy, I'll see about the other problems). However, elloboys certainly didn't have a decent word-wrap, which certainly annoys _me_. It was also off-topic, which means it was rude, would have gotten him a stern warning from me if he _had_ been a subscriber, didn't mention the game at all (which means it was probably a mass email to many different people after a web-spider had crawled all over pages that had something to say about "angel" or "God" or some other set of keywords), and by definition, spammers are slime. And by definition, slime is unintelligent. Especially spammer-slime who spams from, apparently, his real ISP address. (And if you haven't realized that a common spammer tactic is to address (or "mis-address") a spam to someone so they can try to make it look like it was "just a foward of a private message" or "just misaddressed," then you don't get enough spam. Can I forward you some of the ones I get? This one didn't even stick "Fwd" in the Subject line, so they're clearly trying for the "mis-addressed" attempt. Now, how they can get "Paul" out of that when they had to type "in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com"... Remember, this isn't a subscriber, and therefore _doesn't_ have an alias address that he could plausibly claim he accidentally mistyped.) >Actually, one of the ironies of this whole discussion is that if the >"Spammer of God" were a Servitor of Laurence in an In Nomine campaign, he >would have received experience points for playing his role well. Mayhap, but one of the things forbidden on here is going off into _actual_ roleplaying -- i.e., chats in character. (It's okay to do in certain circumstances, but only when actually talking on a metalevel, and if it gets out of hand, I stomps it my precious.) Now, can we PLEASE stop beating this zombified horse? It was spam. It was inappropriate to the list. Those of us who deal with spam have a low opinion of the intelligence of _ANY_ spammer, no matter what they're spamming. (I flamed my sire for spamming _me_ once by sticking me on a mailing list for his home business and blessed near reported him to AOL for it.) A spammer who spams from his real ISP address is just begging to be kicked off it, and that's pretty stupid too. The matter should be settled. AND ANY PERSONAL FLAMAGE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OFF-LIST, OR I WILL U-N-S-U-B _EVERYONE_ INVOLVED, GOT ME? (The person flaming, the person attempting to "reasonably convince the flamer to change his ways" (this is also called, "trolling for flames"), people defending or attacking the flamer... It's a nice new trick I've thought up and I'm really interested to see if it cuts down on flaming. And if I see personal recriminations in my email box, I'll keep on u-n-s-u-b-ing people who do it; this policy is intended to nail everyone involved impartially.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1492 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.