From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Fri 15 Sep 2000 - 01:53:01 EEST
robert darvall on the Ernaldan weapontaking requirement:
> Alex again;
>
> >(Maybe with some sort of 'cooling off period', or complexifications
> > to the 'qualifying' rule. "Yes, you have a cooking pot, but when
> > was it last used to feed a member of _this_ clan, sister!")
>
> This could also be used as a ploy to keep your interfering sister
> (married to one of those goat botherers over the hill) from finding her
> "other way".
Exactly. "There is always another, yet more tellingly obscure legal
precedent", as the unofficial Lawspeaker motto has it (allegedly).
> More nasty politics/MGF. Any ideas on how this
> complexification might be codified? IIR at all, KoS has a stipulation
> about how many feeds the cutlery must have produced.
Indeed it does, though it might just be one; I can't recall, alas.
Counter-arguments to such quibbles would perhaps run along the lines of
Given the soundness of the research methods of the (Gloranthan) author
of RotO, and the G:G section, the exact formula might in any case vary
widely. If it were something like 'fed a child for a winter', you could
get into all sorts of arguments about which winter (not to mention,
which child!) 'counted' for such purposes.
how her actions have profitted the clan, in the long run, and would
Ernalda herself not have shown such foresight, as exemplified by [insert
foresighted Ernalda myth here]. I completely forget the plot (though
I wouldn't go so far as to said I'd lost it...) of the Ernalda Feeds
the Tribe myth, but I'm sure that's prime fodder for such arguments
-- one way or the other.
Slán libh,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 17:17:24 EEST