Review on the Stygia sourcebook ?

[Dpetroc]

I don't see what your quotes bring to the discussion.

Thoth-Amon was an occasional slave because he lost his ring. Moreover tt is not because slavery can be forbidden in Aquilonia, that some won't keep slaves.

Murder is forbidden in the US and most countries inthe world but there still are crimes. Slavery is also forbidden in industrialized countries but there is reported cases in Europe of individual keeping clandestine immigrants as slaves for domestic labour (i.e. people for the Eastern Europe or Africa or Asia).

You should know that it is not because a law is in force that it is rightfully applied everywhere.

You are being anachronistic. In an age where slavery is accepted in most countries -- Zamora, Nemedia, Argos, Zingara... the presence of a slave is evidence of institutionalized slavery if there is no evidence to counter it. You are trying to prove something not supported by Howards text.

 

[The King]

absolutely not; I just point out that it's not because something is forbidden that it doesn't exist.

It is also good to read through the lines (or extrapolate) to understand the if you really want to understand some meanings.

But it is no use to continue the debate because you won't persuade me with your examples and it doesn't seem your follow where I want to lead.

 

[Dpetroc]

absolutely not; I just point out that it's not because something is forbidden that it doesn't exist.

It is also good to read through the lines (or extrapolate) to understand the if you really want to understand some meanings.

But it is no use to continue the debate because you won't persuade me with your examples and it doesn't seem your follow where I want to lead.

Agreed on both points: it IS good to read through the lines -- except where the author is explicit.

And it is no longer a useful debate in that you remain contumacious.
I'd be happy to renew this debate should you go back to the texts and present some evidence to counter the arguments presented. Until then we can agree to disagree.

 

[kintire]

I don't see what your quotes bring to the discussion

The first demonstrates that a Lord of Aquilonia was casually aware that Thoth Amon was a slave, and that there is no indication that he thought this in any sense odd, or out of the ordinary. The second shows that Conan was contemptuous of the oppression of ordinary people, to the point of overthrowing the monarch responsible and refusing to support those he considered likely to do the same, despite the fact that the vast majority of these people were not slaves.

It is also good to read through the lines (or extrapolate) to understand the if you really want to understand some meanings.

That's true, but "extroplate" does not mean "make up anything you like". Taking "Only in the province of Gunderland, where the people keep no slaves, is the pure Hyborian stock found unblemished" to mean that since Gunderland is especially singled out as keeping no slaves, the rest of the Hyborian world does is extrapolation. Taking the fact that Thoth Amon was a slave in Aquilonia and declaring this was illegal is not.

 

[The King]

And it is no longer a useful debate in that you remain contumacious.

If I understand well this word means rebellious or refractory. If that is the case, there is a smell of fachism somewhere around. Perhaps it's your ID which detains on your IQ.
Perhaps you just should keep your beach.

 

[The King]

Taking the fact that Thoth Amon was a slave in Aquilonia and declaring this was illegal is not.

Taking this fact to extrapolate that if there is one (very uncommon) slave, then there must be many seems to make up everything you like.

 

[Dpetroc]

And it is no longer a useful debate in that you remain contumacious.

If I understand well this word means rebellious or refractory. If that is the case, there is a smell of fachism somewhere around. Perhaps it's your ID which detains on your IQ.
Perhaps you just should keep your beach.

No, no... it means "proceeding in error in the face of correction". So, you may interpret that as a criticism that you have provided no evidence from the texts to support your argument. Your comment regarding "not following where you lead" -- in which you suggest that the opposed parties are stupid -- is like two kids arguing back and forth saying "Because!" You have a contrary opinion. I just want you to back it up. With TONS of quotes and situations from the text saying Conan had no inherent problem with slavery, you just keep saying "Because". Clearly, by presenting a cogent argument, I've established my IQ which you are disparaging. I would challenge you to do the same, but you are sliding into ad hominim attacks.

 

[The King]

And it is no longer a useful debate in that you remain contumacious.

If I understand well this word means rebellious or refractory. If that is the case, there is a smell of fachism somewhere around. Perhaps it's your ID which detains on your IQ.
Perhaps you just should keep your beach.

No, no... it means "proceeding in error in the face of correction". So, you may interpret that as a criticism that you have provided no evidence from the texts to support your argument.

We probably don't have the same definition:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contumacious

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2003/10/27.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/contumacious

http://www.onelook.com/?w=contumacious

 

[Dpetroc]

If I understand well this word means rebellious or refractory. If that is the case, there is a smell of fachism somewhere around. Perhaps it's your ID which detains on your IQ.
Perhaps you just should keep your beach.

No, no... it means "proceeding in error in the face of correction". So, you may interpret that as a criticism that you have provided no evidence from the texts to support your argument.

We probably don't have the same definition:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contumacious

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2003/10/27.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/contumacious

http://www.onelook.com/?w=contumacious

This term was often used during the inquisition for those who, facing correction, slipped back into heresy. You can choose rebellious -- which frankly, is much the same thing. Contextually, when faced with evidence, you are 'rebelling' against said evidence. I prefer "willfully obstinate" though.

Let's just end this -- frankly, i don't want to get into flame war over this. You have an opinion--- many posters think you are misinterpreting Conan. You won't be convinced by the text (which is the only source we can argue from), so, what else is there to say? We're at the point where you've started name calling. So let's drop this while we can.

 

[The King]

Let's just end this -- frankly, i don't want to get into flame war over this. You have an opinion--- many posters think you are misinterpreting Conan. You won't be convinced by the text (which is the only source we can argue from), so, what else is there to say? We're at the point where you've started name calling. So let's drop this while we can.

What name-calling? MA is located on the eastern coast, isn't it? I don't know, flood may also be a factor when the ocean becomes contumacious.

 

[Dpetroc]

Let's just end this -- frankly, i don't want to get into flame war over this. You have an opinion--- many posters think you are misinterpreting Conan. You won't be convinced by the text (which is the only source we can argue from), so, what else is there to say? We're at the point where you've started name calling. So let's drop this while we can.

What name-calling? MA is located on the eastern coast, isn't it? I don't know, flood may also be a factor when the ocean becomes contumacious.

Perhaps it's your ID which detains on your IQ.

That qualifies -- Can we be grown ups now?

 

[The King]

Perhaps it's your ID which detains on your IQ.

That qualifies

Then don't misuse the words you write if you want to qualify/treat someone and you won't be retaliated at.
If you don't leave a butt in a forest it won't start a fire.

 

[Dpetroc]

Perhaps it's your ID which detains on your IQ.

That qualifies

Then don't misuse the words you write if you want to qualify/treat someone and you won't be retaliated at.
If you don't leave a butt in a forest it won't start a fire.

Willfully obstinate fits though. I did use it correctly. You just went by a web based dictionary. My usage may have been archaic, but it wasn't incorrect.

If you were offended by someone saying that you continued in error, being willfully obstinate without providing any argument to support your position, than I offer my sincere and unstinting apology.

So -- again, if I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry.

 

[The King]

Willfully obstinate fits though. I did use it correctly. You just went by a web based dictionary. My usage may have been archaic, but it wasn't incorrect.

If you were offended by someone saying that you continued in error, being willfully obstinate without providing any argument to support your position, than I offer my sincere and unstinting apology.

So -- again, if I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry.

I didn't feel hurt but insulted. In an argument, one should present one's ideas, not critic the other's or the opponent.

I accept your apology though and thank you for this.

 

[The King]

Let's just end this -- frankly, i don't want to get into flame war over this. You have an opinion--- many posters think you are misinterpreting Conan. You won't be convinced by the text (which is the only source we can argue from), so, what else is there to say? We're at the point where you've started name calling. So let's drop this while we can.

What name-calling? MA is located on the eastern coast, isn't it? I don't know, flood may also be a factor when the ocean becomes contumacious.

isn't it in Conan that might makes rights?

 

[Dpetroc]

Let's just end this -- frankly, i don't want to get into flame war over this. You have an opinion--- many posters think you are misinterpreting Conan. You won't be convinced by the text (which is the only source we can argue from), so, what else is there to say? We're at the point where you've started name calling. So let's drop this while we can.

What name-calling? MA is located on the eastern coast, isn't it? I don't know, flood may also be a factor when the ocean becomes contumacious.

isn't it in Conan that might makes rights?

Any PARTICULAR reason you are dredging up this thread again? Or did the thread about the gods have you looking for another arguement?

 

[The King]

Any PARTICULAR reason you are dredging up this thread again? Or did the thread about the gods have you looking for another arguement?

I do not understand your meaning.

 

[Dpetroc]

Any PARTICULAR reason you are dredging up this thread again? Or did the thread about the gods have you looking for another arguement?

I do not understand your meaning.

You reopen a hostile thread while you are engaged in a flame war on another thread. Seems to me like you are looking for an additional argument. Does that clarify my meaning?

 

[The King]

You reopen a hostile thread while you are engaged in a flame war on another thread. Seems to me like you are looking for an additional argument. Does that clarify my meaning?

Non sense and propaganda.
I only bumped the thread refering to my previous warning concerning a possible storm alert. In fact, you should have been grateful. Truly, you have no respect for the ancients.

 

[VincentDarlage]

Non sense and propaganda.
I only bumped the thread refering to my previous warning concerning a possible storm alert. In fact, you should have been grateful. Truly, you have no respect for the ancients.

The King, I saw this thread had been resurrected and thought someone had something to say about the book I wrote.

Then I read what resurrected it - and to be honest, I have no clue what you are talking about or why you resurrected a long dead argument.

I am very disappointed that it wasn't resurrected by an actual comment, good or bad, about Stygia, the topic of the thread.