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


--