At 01:16 a.m. 20/04/2007, you wrote:
>In message <20070418222255.21784.qmail_at_QQqMS8u0l6bJMVNyCH-qolZnA6tuvKHHCadBkBWm_bWPfpolHMPKxOvDjdIEhpZlTynpYW62QaTrMx0v2prs-9vc5p_iOX7w3QJ4gwF5yBzt2quu7DBo.yahoo.invalid> Peter
>Metcalfe writes:
> >Saying that the borders are blurred does not imply there
> >is no objective test for chaos in glorantha. By the same
> >reasoning, one could argue that because some cancers
> >are hard to detect, cancer is not an objective concept.
>
>Doctors in the RW have a clear definition of cancer which,
>with training, anyone can apply. If we, or more importantly
>Gloranthans, haven't a definition of what a chaos feature is
>then that isn't an objective test for chaos.
But we do have an objective definition of chaos - a chaotic feature is pretty much definitive. Chaos is not a subjective phenomenon (and heaven help us if the sobjectivist debate breaks out again).
> >Except that this issue [of Chaos spreading] has been
> >addressed in the Cults of Terror.
>
>Which is of course a completely objective document, like
>everything else published about Glorantha.
And the problem with the Cults of Terror treatment is what?
--Peter Metcalfe Received on Thu 19 Apr 2007 - 05:55:13 EEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri 04 Jan 2008 - 22:48:52 EET