# sorry - relic from the hand of God *The Urth list — 4 messages, 4 voices, 17 Dec 2002* > 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. --- ### maa32 *17 Dec 2002, 14:02* 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 --- ### James Wynn *17 Dec 2002, 16:16 · follows maa32* 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. Crush --- ### matthew.malthouse *17 Dec 2002, 16:29 · follows James Wynn* > On 17/12/2002 16:16:06 James Wynn wrote: > Crush Just for once: "What He Said". Matthew --- ### James Jordan *17 Dec 2002, 17:53 · follows matthew.malthouse* > At 10:16 AM 12/17/2002, you wrote: > 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. 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 ---