{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3681", "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": 3681, "subject": "sorry - relic from the hand of God", "messages": 4, "voices": 4, "first": "2002-12-17T14:02:05+00:00", "last": "2002-12-17T17:53:31+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "maa32", "address": "maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu" }, "date": "2002-12-17T14:02:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) sorry - relic from the hand of God", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry my previous message was so infuriating. There was no interview, there \nis nothing to cut and paste. On the back of the Christmas card that Mr. Wolfe \nsent me, he scrawled a few personal words that answered one of my questions. \nVery disturbing words that I feel it would be a betrayal to share with the \nonline community. \nI guess I bugged Wolfe too much for a year (or maybe I am one of his favorite \npeople - I don't know). The last thing I want to do is have a bunch of \nposters bothering Mr. Wolfe with the same question, so I am going to go back \nto the books and look for solid evidence to present and see if I can get \nsomeone else to come to the same conclusion. What would you do, if you feel \nthat saying something (and online even?!) would be betraying your only true \nhero in the world? I know he only told me what he did because I asked EXACTLY \nthe right question. It feels like one of those Catch 22 positions, and I'm \nnot sure I like it.\nI feel like an unworthy sot who has been given a relic like a whole skeleton \nof Christ. Give me a little time to look over the books over my Christmas \nvacation. I think Mr. Wolfe likes his privacy and his mystery, and I have no \nidea why he decided to answer me, except that I was getting close (but oh so \nfar). I will respond to a few posters individually. All I ask is that you \nplease, please, please don't bother Mr. Wolfe and make him mad at me. Please.\n I beg you. The letters I share with him are the most special part of my life \nnow, and I don't ever want him to be mad at me and stop writing.\nMarc Aramini" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at hotpop.com" }, "date": "2002-12-17T16:16:06+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) sorry - relic from the hand of God", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Marc explains:\nSorry my previous message was so infuriating. There was no interview, there\nis nothing to cut and paste. On the back of the Christmas card that Mr.\nWolfe\nsent me, he scrawled a few personal words that answered one of my questions.\nVery disturbing words that I feel it would be a betrayal to share with the\nonline community...so I am going to go back to the books and look for solid\nevidence to present and see if I can get someone else to come to the same\nconclusion.\n\nCrush weighs in:\nHmmm...so what are you going to do? Go back to the books and make your\nargument based on the text - all the while waving what you claim is a secret\ncommuniqué from Wolfe which we are supposed to credibly accept proves your\nposition (rather McCarthyish)? How is anyone supposed to argue with that?\nHow can we even know you have interpreted the information accurately?\n\nI'm NOT saying you are lying about your information from Wolfe-I don't\nbelieve you are. But surely you realize your decision to share/not share\nthis information did not come from your best motives. It certainly wasn't\nintended to enlighten anyone on this list.\n\nIf you did not feel it was right to pass on the information you should have\nkept its existence to yourself. Having done so, you could still ask Mr.\nWolfe for permission to share it, stipulating that you won't do so without\nhis leave.\n\n Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "matthew.malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-12-17T16:29:29+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) sorry - relic from the hand of God", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 17/12/2002 16:16:06 James Wynn wrote:\n Crush" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just for once: \"What He Said\".\n\nMatthew" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2002-12-17T17:53:31+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) sorry - relic from the hand of God", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 10:16 AM 12/17/2002, you wrote:\nCrush weighs in:\nHmmm...so what are you going to do? Go back to the books and make your\nargument based on the text - all the while waving what you claim is a secret\ncommuniqué from Wolfe which we are supposed to credibly accept proves your\nposition (rather McCarthyish)? How is anyone supposed to argue with that?\nHow can we even know you have interpreted the information accurately?\n\nI'm NOT saying you are lying about your information from Wolfe-I don't\nbelieve you are. But surely you realize your decision to share/not share\nthis information did not come from your best motives. It certainly wasn't\nintended to enlighten anyone on this list." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure that's fair. It does enlighten us. Marc says he was both right \nand wrong about Urth and Blue. Doesn't that tell us quite a bit? Blue is \nnot Urth. But Marc was also right -- about something.\n 1. Marc has argued about smart trees on Urth. He tells us he was \nright about that. So this is not the \"right\" information he is withholding.\n 2. Marc as argued that Blue is Ushas. Hypothesis: Marc was right \nthat Blue is in some sense Urth/Ushas. But he was also wrong.\n It seems to me that this is quite a lot of information.\n I've posted what seems to me to be a valid inference from it, and \nabout the only way I can think of for the Blue=Urth thesis to be both right \nand wrong.\n Of course, I may be wrong. There may be another solution. Or Marc \nmay have been writing about a different aspect of things.\n But no matter what, his post advances the discussion, even if he \nis not free to give us all the clues he now has.\n\nNutria" } ] } ] }