FIND in
<--prev V212 next-->
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:53:31 -0600
From: James Jordan 
Subject: RE: (urth) sorry - relic from the hand of God

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=
>communiqu=E9 from Wolfe which we are supposed to credibly accept proves=
>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=20
not Urth. But Marc was also right -- about something.
         1. Marc has argued about smart trees on Urth. He tells us he was=20
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=20
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=3DUrth thesis to be both=
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=20
is not free to give us all the clues he now has.



<--prev V212 next-->