Subject: (urth) sorry - relic from the hand of God

From: maa32 <maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:02:05 +0000

Sorry my previous message was so infuriating.  There was no interview, there 
is nothing to cut and paste.  On the back of the Christmas card that Mr. Wolfe 
sent me, he scrawled a few personal words that answered one of my questions.  
Very disturbing words that I feel it would be a betrayal to share with the 
online community.  
I guess I bugged Wolfe too much for a year (or maybe I am one of his favorite 
people - I don't know).  The last thing I want to do is have a bunch of 
posters bothering Mr. Wolfe with the same question, so I am going to go back 
to the books and look for solid evidence to present and see if I can get 
someone else to come to the same conclusion.  What would you do, if you feel 
that saying something (and online even?!) would be betraying your only true 
hero in the world?  I know he only told me what he did because I asked EXACTLY 
the right question.  It feels like one of those Catch 22 positions, and I'm 
not sure I like it.
I feel like an unworthy sot who has been given a relic like a whole skeleton 
of Christ.  Give me a little time to look over the books over my Christmas 
vacation.  I think Mr. Wolfe likes his privacy and his mystery, and I have no 
idea why he decided to answer me, except that I was getting close (but oh so 
far).  I will respond to a few posters individually. All I ask is that you 
please, please, please don't bother Mr. Wolfe and make him mad at me.  Please.
 I beg you.  The letters I share with him are the most special part of my life 
now, and I don't ever want him to be mad at me and stop writing.
Marc Aramini

--

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at hotpop.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:16:06 +0000

Marc explains:
Sorry my previous message was so infuriating.  There was no interview, there
is nothing to cut and paste.  On the back of the Christmas card that Mr.
Wolfe
sent me, he scrawled a few personal words that answered one of my questions.
Very disturbing words that I feel it would be a betrayal to share with the
online community...so I am going to go back to the books and look for solid
evidence to present and see if I can get someone else to come to the same
conclusion.

Crush weighs in:
Hmmm...so what are you going to do? Go back to the books and make your
argument based on the text - all the while waving what you claim is a secret
communiqué from Wolfe which we are supposed to credibly accept proves your
position (rather McCarthyish)? How is anyone supposed to argue with that?
How can we even know you have interpreted the information accurately?

I'm NOT saying you are lying about your information from Wolfe-I don't
believe you are. But surely you realize your decision to share/not share
this information did not come from your best motives. It certainly wasn't
intended to enlighten anyone on this list.

If you did not feel it was right to pass on the information you should have
kept its existence to yourself. Having done so, you could still ask Mr.
Wolfe for permission to share it, stipulating that you won't do so without
his leave.

<Mr. Ethicist> Crush

--

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:29:29 +0000

><Mr. Ethicist> Crush

Just for once:  "What He Said".

Matthew

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:53:31 +0000

>intended to enlighten anyone on this list.

I'm not sure that's fair. It does enlighten us. Marc says he was both right 
and wrong about Urth and Blue. Doesn't that tell us quite a bit? Blue is 
not Urth. But Marc was also right -- about something.
         1. Marc has argued about smart trees on Urth. He tells us he was 
right about that. So this is not the "right" information he is withholding.
         2. Marc as argued that Blue is Ushas. Hypothesis: Marc was right 
that Blue is in some sense Urth/Ushas. But he was also wrong.
         It seems to me that this is quite a lot of information.
         I've posted what seems to me to be a valid inference from it, and 
about the only way I can think of for the Blue=Urth thesis to be both right 
and wrong.
         Of course, I may be wrong. There may be another solution. Or Marc 
may have been writing about a different aspect of things.
         But no matter what, his post advances the discussion, even if he 
is not free to give us all the clues he now has.

Nutria

--