Subject: RE: (urth) re: King Jesus Defense Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:20:59 -0700 From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes"
> You are cruel Blattid, cruel. . . but you're right. =20 If I expressed myself in a cruel manner, I apologize. I did not intend it. I may seek truth and clarity, but not penance (except in myself).=20 > It seems I've ridden this horse too hard and to fast with > too little water and now it's dead. Gaaah. No. It seems rather thirsty, but hardly dead ... I hoped, not to get you to drop your comparison, but to seek that "smoking gun" - to prop it up with solider props, if you can find such.=20 We play the game that way ... certainly the other residents of this list have challenged some of my wonky ideas in a similar manner, and I've had to back off some, holding others in reserve until I find more, better evidence ...=20 I suspect your idea here should reside in the latter class. > By the way, I only just now understood your=20 > reference to the bene gesserit in your original reply (slow,=20 > slow). That is intriguing. Yeah ... it really took me by surprise, but Herbert strikes me as the sort of person who almost certainly would use=20 Graves as a resource (much as, say, Delany did in THE JEWELS OF APTOR). But then, the Bene Gesserit manipulation of=20 bloodlines has long stood as a basic pillar of my theory of=20 DUNE as a fascist novel... --Blattid --