Saints and Meta-issues

From: Peter Metcalfe (
Date: Wed 20 May 1998 - 07:31:45 EEST

Richard Develyn:

Me>> BTW I do have a first name. Use it.

>You were the one who started the rot, you know.

Really? Where?

Jose Ramos:

>According to my dictionary, weasel is either a small carnivore or a
>despicable, sneaky person (and no other meaning as a noun). As I doubt Peter
>expects small carnivores to have access to the internet I consider myself

Get a better dictionary and look up 'weasel words'. As for the
insult, I considered the description _apt_ considering the blatant
manner in which you pretended that a wholly unjustified accusation
of ignoring an argument was really an acknowlegement that I believed
in the converse. A better person would have IMO issued an apology,
but not Jose for some reason.

>I think there is nothing to be won while Peter runs in circles rejecting
>other people ideas.

Another slimey slur from Jose. Tell me, what is making you argue
in this manner?

>By the way, the reason we keep trying to make you change
>your mind it is because we value and respect your contributions to
>gloranthan lore.

Bollocks. I would have thought that telling lies about what I
said (ie Jose said I have denied the existance of living saints)
and casting slurs (ie 'ignoring other people's arguments') was a
good indication that Jose had little or no respect for me. When I
challenged him on the slurs, he accused me of 'intimidation',
thereby expecting that I should suffer his low blows in silence.

>But patience has a limit.

And I have reached it long ago in the face of your malicious smears
on my integrity. I am not a punching bag for you or for anyone
else. If you persist in saying that something that I know or feel
is wrong, then I will say so. If you do it politely then I respond
in kind: Nikk E. has disagreed with me yet he has not felt the need

to cast false aspersions, nor have I had heated words with him. But
if you feel the need to attack my integrity, then you should not be
surprised at the result.

> Two saints are accepted by all sects to have been taken to Solace.
>As I mentioned before, something exceptional happened then, that has not
>happened again since. For the rest, there are disagreement reigns.

Wrong. Rokar is also said to have been taken up into Solace and
Mardron is stated to have embraced Solace and Glory when he died.
You and Nils have not responded to this for some reason or another.
Unlike you, I have not seen fit to pepper my posts with: 'LOOK! JOSE

> Malkioni are humanists, and the blessings of the saints are
>transformations of the self (even in the case of St. Gerlant, it is the
>holder who makes the sword flame, and not the sword, which will not flame
>for another).

Wrong. The Saint has interceded. St Gerlant makes the Sword
flame. As well as the GoG snippet I quoted at you before, look
at the 'Malkioni Saints' in ToTRM#13. Only the Brithini and the
Vadeli are pure humanists.

>And I believe the henotheists know the saints are not in Solace
>because they can contact them, as they can contact some of their
>ancestors, who are still looking forward to reach Solace. Of course
>the Saints in Solace faction rejects their saints as false precisely
>because they can be contacted. All good and right.

Herin lies the crux. Despite at least _two_ requests, you still has
not provided any substance for your assertion that mortals in Solace
cannot be interacted with (despite claiming it as writ from Greg and
Sandy in one post, and a tenent of Malkioni faith in another). Once
this wholly unnecessary proposition goes, what possible _need_ for
the henotheists to deny that their ancestors are in Solace?

>And I expect this thread stops here, as the positions have not
>changed in the last exchange of mails.

I'm afraid so too. I'm not counting on any further thread
progress so long as Jose continues to debate what he thinks
I said rather than what I actually said.

- --Peter Metcalfe


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:17:33 EEST