Kralori meta-issues (sorry)

From: Peter Metcalfe (metcalph@voyager.co.nz)
Date: Mon 02 Feb 1998 - 06:19:26 EET


Trotsky:

Me>>Of course Stephen Martin is quite welcome to ignore all this in favour
>>of a timeless Kralorela. But I will to insist that such a stasis means
>>that Kralorela becomes a two-dimensional caricature and not a vibrant
>>human culture.

>I think the problem here is that what you regard as a 'vibrant human
>culture' is - at least in this particular case - something that equates
>IMO to 'relatively uninteresting culture' as opposed to one which has
>remained comparatively unchanged since Golden Age times. The key word
>there is 'comparatively'; clearly there have been changes in Kralorela
>throughout history.

Hmm. I thought that was my position. I was arguing against the
position that it has been utterly unchanged. FWIW the quote that
sparked the exchange was:

Me>>Given that the current kralori system owes more to the FDR than
>>to Yanoor's system, I find such distinctions to be in the eye
>>of the beholder.

Now given the parallel of the culturally continous link between the
roman republic and the byzantine empire that I brought up, do you
find anything wrong with the statement above? If so, why?

>However, the sort of changes that Peter demands detract IMO from
>some of what makes Kralorela interesting as a setting.

And what changes have I been demanding that make it uninteresting?
Did you not like the Hell notes? Or how about the Heavenly Kingdoms?
Godunya the Senile? The Red Emperor at Kuchawn? This is your chance
to articulate what exactly you find wrong with my ideas. I would
normally have included the concept that the God Learners have wrought
change in Kralorela but that idea is not mine for it can be found in
the published literature.

>If Peter choses to take the option that I find less interesting, that's fine
>by me, I just wish he'd quit being so damn rude about people who see things a
>different way. (Mutter, fume...)

I would be much more polite in this debate if people decides to offer
something more constructive to my arguments than a 'Nope. YMMV' as one
poster (who shall remain anonymous) appeared to delight in doing.
Of course to be fair, I also wasn't very happy with 'This is not true
and Peter knows it' style comments.

But to give Trotsky something to really fume about, I have to say that
I'm disappointed that he only singles me out for rudeness and ignores
the use of strawmen and false allegations made by another person in
this debate. Perhaps this selectivity is due to a coprolithic brain?

Nils Weinander:

Me>>I suppose it goes something like:
>> My source quotations address the issues.
>> Your source quotations miss the point.
>> His source quotations are completely irrelevant and untrue.
>
>If you decide unilaterally that your quotes are valid
>while mine and others' are off the point there is no
>way to have a real debate.

It was a cynical joke. Whose source quotations got
dismissed as irrelevant and untrue? (Hint: the passage
was included in the same post as the above).

>From the way you summarily
>dismiss quotes and arguments this seems to be the
>case.

I have not dismissed your quotes. I have _never_ dismissed
your quotes. I have repeatedly said that other cultures with
some justice make the same claim as the Kralori in following
golden age customs and yet they have changed culturally over
the years. Therefore the statement that Kralori practice

golden age customs does not mean that they have not changed
over the years. At the most it means that the kralori golden
age customs have not changed over the years (but that several
other kralori customs have).

Stephen Martin:

>I am withdrawing from the Kralorela discussion at this point before it
>subjects the Digest to an all-out Flame War between me and Peter, which
>the readers need even less than I do. I have already responded to him
>privately.

Stepehn Martin has of course emailed me and I am pleased to announce
that the situation has been resolved. Due to his continued use of
his usual argumentative style (to wit: he wanted his abuse to be
considered 'constructive criticisms), his refusal to comment on
substantive issues in favour of a Knowing Nothing and Waiting For
Gweg plicy, the lack of any apology or even recognition of offense
caused, I have torn up his words, mixed it with the bucket of promised
abuse and flung it back at him.

Henceforth I shall not deign to respond to Stephen Martin either on
the digest or offline until he apologizes here for alleging that I
posted 'irrelevant' and 'untrue' statements.

- --Peter Metcalfe

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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:06:07 EEST