{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1524",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 1524,
    "subject": "Silk and Weer",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "1999-04-13T01:11:13+00:00",
    "last": "1999-04-13T01:11:13+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0025-0062@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Roy C. Lackey",
        "address": "rclackey at stic.net"
      },
      "date": "1999-04-13T01:11:13+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Silk and Weer",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:39:29 wombat wrote:\n   >Now _that_ is predestination, pure and simple. FWIW"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "That's not predestination. That's a statement about the unchanging and\nunending love which god has for its creations. The Outsider might not know\nwhat Silk will do--though he probably does, given his role in the\nstory--but no matter what Silk does, it cannot damage god's love for him.<<\n\n    I agree with you--and all the others--who said that Silk's thought is\ntantamount to \"unconditional love\". Wolfe very likely intended it that way.\nI should not have said \"pure and simple\"; it's a little more complicated\nthan that, but I didn't think this list was the forum for a religious\ndebate, so I didn't respond--at least not here. Poor Robert Borski--very\ngraciously--suffered my theological rant, which I will not repeat. <g> I\nthink Alex David Groce understood my reasoning (see his earlier post); I\njust don't agree with St. Augustine."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:09:17 Alex David Groce wrote:\nOn Apr 12,  7:36pm, Kevin J. Maroney wrote:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Considering the trail of dead bodies Weer leaves behind him, I'm not sure\nthat I *want* to identify with Weer. Wolfe's protagonists are not\nadmirable\nor likable people, for the most part (the \"Free\" quartet being a very\npleasant exception)."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": " Well, some of us aren't convinced that Weer is reponsible for anyone's\ndeath other than (A) the boy on the stairs, and that's not exactly murder\nand\n(B) maybe (there is someting sinister about it at any rate) the\nfrozen-freezer\nguy.  I think the \"Weer as mass murder\" hypothesis is most likely\nnonsense.<<\n\n    I agree with Alex on this one: In the case of (A), Weer was not of an\nage to be morally culpable, even if it wasn't an accident, and (B) was an\ninstance of youthful stupidity--if Weer was guilty at all--not malice. He\ndefinitely didn't kill Vi. I never understood where the \"mass murderer\"\ntheory came from.\n\nRoy"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}