I think the line about "crimes existing only so long as men are deceived" is a very big tell, particularly in relation to the nature of damnation and the Hundred's relationship to existence. To put it simply, damnation (existential punishment for "crimes") only exists because the Outside is a distorted reflection of mankind's (obviously anthropomorphized) set of subconscious standards for right/wrong, which as we know are largely bullshit -- ... . But, replace the dominant intellect on Earwa with something closer to you own sensibilities -- as the Consult intends to do -- and all those "crimes" are different. Or better yet, non-existent.

So you think the outside is a "law-mirror" and that if you change the one reflected in it, than you changed the...consequences?
But how then is Earwa the problem and not the ones reflected? And why then should anyone not-human be especially fucked?

I for one don't think that any translation can ever be better than the original. It is named Original for a reason! The author knows best what he wants to say and, hopefully, choses his words accordingly. A translator always has to interpret...so the only thing he can hope for is that he exactly matches what the author intended. Probability being what it is, there is a lot of margin for not matching it exactly. So a translation can only be less precise as a result.

That a reader of a translated book can be absolutely happy with the interpretation of said translator is possible, but is kind of beside the point. I for one want to read what the author intended, not what the translator thinks the author intended. Unfortunately, i am only fluent enough in english to really do that for a non-native language...fortunately for me, english is THE fantasy-language...so i guess i can't complain

Edit: and i just now see that i totally missed the second page of this thread and that the discussion has moved on Oh well...

Well i also look at views of other people But i am not sure one has to borrow them to not be a fundamentalist

I am not sure that science and religion are on the same level of "belief". Religion is nothing but belief. Science is more substantial than that. Sure, depending on which field you look at, a lot of it is not something you can touch for real, so to speak. But it has real world applications that are reproducable and demonstrably true.
And the thing with the truth...well we talked about that at great length in another thread, didn't we As long as there is no real difference for almost everyone on this planet if it is "real truth" (TM) or just "something like truth", it doesn't matter...and we can just call it truth. Even if technical definitions of quantum physics or neuroscience seem to have theories for the contrary, usefull is what finds an application in our lives, be they real or imaginative dreams of...whatever

Those are my thoughts, Kellais. I'm kind of like Theliopa/Hitchhiker's Guide to Earwa, I have little creative value . Though, I might bend my mind to learning some rule-sets a la Wilshire.

Hey klarakos,

Why don't you give it a try and lay it out for us? I am sure you are just being modest with the "little creative value" I'd like to see your reasons in more detail for your thoughts in that other thread. As it were i got the general view you seem to have, but it'd be much more interesting and, i hope, fruitful if you go into the details of what you think makes a rulesset tick in contrast to the shotgun-blasts in the dark. How would you tailor the rules to specific needs...show it to us on an example. If you read and played that many games i am sure you have some interesting anecdotes where you can showcase your view.

If you want hardcover, you have to go with the Overlook version though. The canadian version was "only" in Tradepaperback, iirc. At least for the PoN. Not sure how it went down with the AE.

Oh and first edition is in relation to one publisher. So Overlook is perfectly within its rights to print "first edition" in their first book...even if the canadian books came before theirs (although i am not sure that this is even the case...maybe they published simultaniously).

Well, if you have to publish your data, you can't cheat. So i guess one could avert that problem. But i admit, it's not without work. And yes, if you just can say "yes, we were able to reproduce our results" without giving proof, it will be easy to do so.
But in the end, if you are deep into real science, you can't hide for long that you faked your results...because you will just not get anywhere. Or the people who come after you to work on the same or similar stuff will uncover your lie.

It's kind of sad that there are branches of science/research where there are people who feel the need to cheat (i guess that's what you're implying, right?). But i guess it's the usual problem...where there's real money, there are cheaters/liars.

Problem is, speeches of politicians before a camera are skripted like written stuff. Most often the politicians didn't even write them themselves. So i am not sure that even counts.
And stumbling over a word here or there is nothing i'd call a fuck up. But i agree that you can also fake a stumbling and yes, that does not mean that the speech is delivered in a natural way. But that is not what i was saying (just in case you were under the impression that i did).

@ The sharmat - First of all, i appreciate your apology. Now onto the topic at hand...
I have indeed a very good basic knowledge of mathematics And i can tell you that the science of counting and probability is not on your side. I am sure you have a better knowledge of biology as i do (i hope so, you studied it after all) but do you work in the actual field of genetics and the manipulation of genes etc.?
I admit i haven't updated myself in a longer time, but last i checked scientists working in the field admited that they more or less know nothing about the details. They have just decoded the genom but have no real idea how it works in detail or what would happen if they modified this or that. With that in mind i really hope they do not try it.

As a sidenote (and i know it's a bit offtopic) - how do we know that some harsher viral stuff (like for example swine or bird flu and the pandemics that loom on the horizon) is indeed not of our own making?! I mean it kind of already is our own fault that those viruses and bacterias ever get more resistant to our medications as we feed our animals with antibiotics or that a lot of people just take antibiotics willy nilly when it wouldn't even be necessary. On top of it, i am still holding to the opinion that this work you're praising so high can as well be our end as it can be our salvation. Most of the time, what happens in science is that the military will use developments first. So gene manipulated super-viruses on the loose are a real posibility (as i am sure all bigger western nations have their very own labs where they manipulate viruses and bacteria).

Oh and please understand that i am not a particularly religious person...so my "playing god" is just an expression. What i meant is that i don't think we humans have the clearheadedness and oversight necessary to play with the basics of life...if we screw up there, its aftermath will be beyond anything that anyone can imagine.

As a last remark, the ever so often used "there is no real evidence..." line is not the same as "there is no evidence". These manipulated foods are way too young to have big enough data about it and so we can not say if it is safe or not. That goes for both ways. So to say it is safe for humans is just as wrong.
But as food is broken up into basic pieces during digestion and then built into our own dna, i am really not comfortable with the knowledge that now i will just have to accept that there will be artificially produced and/or manipulated material built into my own data. And that without proof that this has no side-effects. I think humankind should have waited with this until we could have shown that this is safe.
On top of it, in the foodindustry, this is not used to make better food or food for the hungry in the world, no, it's used to be able to patent natural resources because now they are produced by your firm. And i get sick to the stomach everytime i think about it. In the not so far future you'll have to ask Nestle or other big players if you are allowed to plant corn or potatoes and stuff....this is the peak of hubris.

Edit: Btw, the die out comment was not meant as a question to the effect of one person and if this person wants to live or not. I meant it in a greater perspective. I for one think the human race is doomed to die out sooner or later. And we will have no one to blame than ourselves. And to be honest, if it is natural selection, i am fine with it too. That does not mean that i am not cherishing life to the fullest! And i think it is totally normal that almost everyone does and wants to do it as long as possible. Just to clear this up.