4th age debate

From: Harald Smith (617) 724-9843 (SMITHH@A1.MGH.HARVARD.EDU)
Date: Wed 07 Feb 1996 - 01:25:00 EET


  Brian comments:
> When we get right down to brass tacks this entire argument is based on
  supposition and inference. Not one solid fact. So my conclusions are
  no more groundless than the ones reached by Nick. Just because you
  choose to agree or not to doens't kend either argument any more
  creedence.
  
  You have reached the core of the whole piece--it's all supposition and
  inference (including KoS) and all based on the perspective you want to
  bring to it. Since the argument seems to have reached the 'TIS/'TISNT
  stage, I suggest that those who want to continue on in that vein take
  the discussion offline.
  
  I will make one final comment on the matter though. King of Sartar is a
  nice reference, but it is a biased reference. It represents a knowledge
  base from the Sartar/Tarsh region (even the northern documents are no
  more northern than Tarshite in outlook). It's history is no more valid
  than any other history since it is shaped by the views of those who
  wrote it. The materials there present almost no knowledge of Dara
  Happa, yet we know from both GRoY and FS and the developing pieces of
  the Lunar works that there are tremendous amounts of territory still
  being charted by Greg alone, not to mention work being done by others
  such as myself which should add to our collective knowledge. These
  pieces may not answer the 4th Age questions, but may suggest that more
  occurred than meets the eye from the literal reading of KoS.
  
  Harald

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:29:18 EEST