nagging minor questions

[rusmeister]

Okay, if you take me literally, it's about 40 miles (Groton) ... but you're still practically my nextdoor neighbor Watch-wise.

Groton! I did my submarine training there, and then lived there for a year in '89-90. Mystic is a favorite place. small world, eh?

Ha-ha! Groton! Fate almost lead me there! (I wound up serving overseas instead). Sounds like I already got out by the time you were getting started...

I do agree that SRD could have a completely different view of Christianity. It seems most probable that his view is at best neutral; certainly not positive. I don't know much about GI, how it works, or how much time an author in SRD's league can spend in communicating with fans and admirers.

I think the question of how gnostic vs how dualist TCoC is a good one. I'll admit there are elements of both.

I wouldn't say I believe literature should present 'balanced' views of everything. In general, that kind of thinking (which we usually call 'politically correct') springs from pluralism, which is ostensibly respect for other beliefs but necessarily says that individual beliefs are unimportant. That's another 'other thread' theme.

As to my personal reaction, imagine a photographic negative version of the books where TC and Linden finding a Clave that was actually working to spread knowledge and learning, and our heroes feeling they needed to stop it and keep people ignorant. How much would we sympathize with an attitude that championed such suppression? We might enjoy the story on the whole if it was well-written enough, but elements that we found in such a story to be ultimately wrong (particularly if that really seemed to be the philosophy of the author) would nag at us. (just trying to explain my apparantly unpopular reaction - if you believe something to be both true and important, it will probably irk you when it is held to be untrue or unimportant)

To Duchess: I don't think there's anything specially Christian about the positive characters. They are moral, yes, but atheists can be moral (have good morals) too. There doesn't need to be anything specially Christian in SRD's work. Tolkien's Middle-Earth and Lewis's Narnia, while fundamentally of a Christian worldview, are not presented as Christian as such (although Lewis's work, as allegory, is more apparent).


To Holsety:

I'm not an atheist - rather, I'm something pretty close to a nontheist. I would say that because of the views I express people often think I'm an atheist or agnostic, and I know of no general literary or historical works that categorize my group correctly, or at all. But I don't really care how I'm represented as long as I get the option to "speak out" about who I am.

My point is that in these books, we don't get the opportunity to speak out about who we are (and a good thing, too!). Given that, is what you believe important? If not, nothing matters. How your beliefs are represented is immaterial.

[duchess of malfi]

To Duchess: I don't think there's anything specially Christian about the positive characters. They are moral, yes, but atheists can be moral (have good morals) too. There doesn't need to be anything specially Christian in SRD's work. Tolkien's Middle-Earth and Lewis's Narnia, while fundamentally of a Christian worldview, are not presented as Christian as such (although Lewis's work, as allegory, is more apparent).

Actually, the two characters I cited are specifically pointed out as being Christians in the texts of the books in question. That is why I brought them up.

[rusmeister]

To Duchess: I don't think there's anything specially Christian about the positive characters. They are moral, yes, but atheists can be moral (have good morals) too. There doesn't need to be anything specially Christian in SRD's work. Tolkien's Middle-Earth and Lewis's Narnia, while fundamentally of a Christian worldview, are not presented as Christian as such (although Lewis's work, as allegory, is more apparent).

Actually, the two characters I cited are specifically pointed out as being Christians in the texts of the books in question. That is why I brought them up.

Yeah, I might be wrong. I'm running from memory here.

[wayfriend]

The way I see it, Donaldson's intention was to tell a story, not to knock any religion. Covenant wandering in soul agony, and hearing words that promise a way out, only be to be tossed by the bouncer - that's about having no where to go, having no way out. It's not about mocking revivalists in general. In fact, he had Covenant receive similar treatment from the nurses in the hospital - people you trust to help but who cannot get passed his leprosy. So he wasn't painting something only on Christians.

[Nerdanel]

Though, Lord Foul has certain eerie connections with the Old Testament God, and I think that's intended. For example, a snippet of the wording of the scripture read in the tent revival scene is echoed later in the book in connection to Lord Foul's Winter. IIRC the bit was about an iron earth and a brass sky, which is not the kind of language that gets thrown around accidentally. And really, the entire passage read is relevant to the rest of the book too.

I'm surprised that this doesn't get mentioned more often, but I suppose the connection isn't as obvious as it seems to me. The Lord Foul = Old Testament/Revelations God thing could merit a thread of its own, I think.

[iQuestor]

Nerdanel wrote:

Lord Foul = Old Testament/Revelations God

I would think that Foul = Old Testament Satan more of a parallel.

Both attempted to corrput or destroy creation;
Both were cast down and emprisoned;
Both hate and seek to thwart their respective creators;

I agree the parallel breaks down after that; the Old testament God was mighty and wrathful and quick to smite, but also capable of goodness and justice and protection as long as you believed in him and kept his commandments and sacrificed a goat or two. Foul is not capable of creation or justice or goodness, only destruction. He enforces loyalty and his ultimate goal is to destroy the Land and get free of the Arch of Time. He doesn't care about sacrifice or tribute or any of the things the Old testament God did.

I don't see the parallel... Could you please elaborate?

[Nerdanel]

Actually, Old Testament Satan was not like that. He doesn't appear much, and he was God's servant - a chief prosecutor - rather than enemy. In the Book of Job Satan in Heaven makes a friendly bet with God. Later the Jewish view of Satan changed due to influence from the dualistic Zoroastrianism, but originally both good and evil were attributed to God. In the Old Testament, God sends diseases on people that have sinned against him, but in the New, diseases are due to demons. In the Old Testament, God is said to have created evil.

If you read the Old Testament, you'll bump into a lot of instances that sound evil or overly harsh. You know, divinely mandated genocide, etc. etc.

This is a big subject. The traditional Christian view seems to be that God is good because he defines himself as good and therefore anything he does is automatically "good" and anything he doesn't like is automatically evil, such as being merciful when commanded to commit genocide. The popular alternative is that the concept of good exists independently of God, and God just happens to agree with it perfectly, a view that doesn't really agree with God's supposed omnipotence without cognitive dissonance, especially if you read the Bible.

Even the Sunbane gave some benefit for those sacrificing to it. If you just heap plagues on people you can easily run out of them if you don't stay your hand or even do a good deed once upon a while.

[iQuestor]

I thought it was the old testament that told the story of creation and satan's fall from grace with God - Genesis. It wouold seem from the KJV that the serpent that tempted eve with the apple was Satan and personification of Evil. SInce the Old testament starts out that way, I guess I assumed Satan figured as well throughout. At any rate, I guess I need to read up more on the old testament. thanks for the response.

(Personally, I like Ann Rice's version better anyway. )


Where are the parallels of Foul = OTG? I still don't see Foul having any good component, showing mercy or justice anywhere. He is very one sided, where OTG had mant facets. Can you draw the parellel for me?

[rusmeister]

Actually, Old Testament Satan was not like that. He doesn't appear much, and he was God's servant - a chief prosecutor - rather than enemy. In the Book of Job Satan in Heaven makes a friendly bet with God. Later the Jewish view of Satan changed due to influence from the dualistic Zoroastrianism, but originally both good and evil were attributed to God. In the Old Testament, God sends diseases on people that have sinned against him, but in the New, diseases are due to demons. In the Old Testament, God is said to have created evil.

Speaking as a residential Christian on this forum, I'll say that that's not quite accurate. God is NOT said to have created evil. Certainly, punishments came from God, but our perception of them as evil comes from an inability to understand how suffering can impact us positively.

"God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world." C.S. Lewis

Also, Satan (even in the context of the Old Testament) is a rebel - I assume you are thinking of the book of Job regarding the idea of a 'prosecutor' - I would just say that not everything you read should be taken literally. The Old Testament is many things - some poetic, some hyperbolic, some requiring an understanding of ancient Jewish culture to 'get the joke'.

This is a big subject. The traditional Christian view seems to be that God is good because he defines himself as good and therefore anything he does is automatically "good" and anything he doesn't like is automatically evil, such as being merciful when commanded to commit genocide. The popular alternative is that the concept of good exists independently of God, and God just happens to agree with it perfectly, a view that doesn't really agree with God's supposed omnipotence without cognitive dissonance, especially if you read the Bible.

I'll just say neither (a) nor (b). God IS good, and all of our perceptions of good come from Him.
Again, Lewis has good stuff on this. I'd especially recommend "The Problem of Pain" to begin to understand how the concept of a good God is compatible with all of the evil and suffering in the world. One little preview - If we were created by (a) God that gave us free will, then that must include the freedom to work evil. By and large, God doesn't do evil to us. God doesn't create hell or 'send' us to it. We make it all by ourselves.
If you want to understand anything about Christianity you should seek out its best and wisest defenders (which I am not), not the weakest. Christianity, when rejected by reason, is usually rejected due to straw man arguments, false understandings of what Christian teaching is*.

I'd recommend the Orthodox Church for Christian teaching, and C.S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton for apologetics (rational defense of Christianity).

*I think of it as '2nd-grader's version of Christianity' because a great many people in my (American) experience go to church as a child and leave as soon as they can, never attaining an adult understanding of what the Faith is or what it really has to say.

[wayfriend]

I always thought that Dante's Satan, Melkor, and Foul were similar, in that they are divine beings who have "fallen" from heaven, after attempting to usurp God's (the Creator's) privilege of choosing the form of creation. And in each case, leave Heaven and dwell in the Earth itself, and from there continue to thwart this privilege by undermining the creation and establishing their own, cruder dominion wherein they can be "God".

[rusmeister]

I always thought that Dante's Satan, Melkor, and Foul were similar, in that they are divine beings who have "fallen" from heaven, after attempting to usurp God's (the Creator's) privilege of choosing the form of creation. And in each case, leave Heaven and dwell in the Earth itself, and from there continue to thwart this privilege by undermining the creation and establishing their own, cruder dominion wherein they can be "God".

I quite agree - although you may know that with Tolkien's Melkor (and Sauron of course) the similarity is more deliberate - Tolkien's work, although not allegory like Lewis's Narnia, is deliberately shaped from a Christian worldview. With Donaldson it's much harder to say, but I would bet he drew on the stories, at least as mythology.

[Nerdanel]

Finland doesn't really have a separation of church and state in the American sense (although there is a freedom of religion), and so I ended up having obligatory Religion classes in school. Those were from a decidedly Lutheran viewpoint, although I suppose the local brand of Evangelical Lutheranism is very liberal on American standards. For example, our schoolbooks in the more advanced classes would talk about how the texts had been compiled, like stuff about multiple Genesises (Geneses?), while I have noticed that many people in places like America still insist that John the disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of John, for example. I think the changing role of Satan was somewhere there too.

One year my teacher promised the best grade for whomever read the entire Bible, and I, being in love with good grades, read it. The Bible turned out to be quite an anti-apologetic for itself...

Anyway, back to Lord Foul and God...

Both Lord Foul and the traditional view of depicting God are similar: an impressive-looking old guy with a beard and a robe. Both have also appeared as a cloud.

Both like to be worshipped and treated as the only authority. God is called Lord, Lord Foul Master.

Both like blood sacrifices, and there is fire involved in rites involving them.

Both often try to make the victim blame himself/herself. See the Sunbane-as-a-justified-punishment thing as well as more or less the entire Old Testament, as well as more subtle examples in the Chronicles.

Both have certain similarities in their capabilities, such as targetted lightnings, etc. (This is a big and rather complex subject.)

Both have at some time lived in a mountain (Mount Thunder/Mount Sinai). There is evidence that Mount Sinai was a volcano like Mount Thunder.

If you buy my logic from another thread, Lord Foul's true name is Word. ("In the beginning was the Word...")

The jheherrin are comparable to the damned in Hell. Both have been thrown to a lake of fire and are condemned to an eternal miserable existence underground for not having been up to their maker's standards.

If you combine the Old Testament view of God sending diseases and the New Testament view of diseases being caused by demonic possession, that's not a big step to Lord Foul controlling Ravers.

Both (Revelations) God and Lord Foul are eventually intending to cause the end of the world.

That's all I can think of at that moment.

[wayfriend]

You forgot, both God and Foul drive a 3 series.

[rusmeister]

Finland doesn't really have a separation of church and state in the American sense (although there is a freedom of religion), and so I ended up having obligatory Religion classes in school. Those were from a decidedly Lutheran viewpoint, although I suppose the local brand of Evangelical Lutheranism is very liberal on American standards. For example, our schoolbooks in the more advanced classes would talk about how the texts had been compiled, like stuff about multiple Genesises (Geneses?), while I have noticed that many people in places like America still insist that John the disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of John, for example. I think the changing role of Satan was somewhere there too.

One year my teacher promised the best grade for whomever read the entire Bible, and I, being in love with good grades, read it. The Bible turned out to be quite an anti-apologetic for itself...

Anyway, back to Lord Foul and God...

Both Lord Foul and the traditional view of depicting God are similar: an impressive-looking old guy with a beard and a robe. Both have also appeared as a cloud.

Both like to be worshipped and treated as the only authority. God is called Lord, Lord Foul Master.

Both like blood sacrifices, and there is fire involved in rites involving them.

Both often try to make the victim blame himself/herself. See the Sunbane-as-a-justified-punishment thing as well as more or less the entire Old Testament, as well as more subtle examples in the Chronicles.

Both have certain similarities in their capabilities, such as targetted lightnings, etc. (This is a big and rather complex subject.)

Both have at some time lived in a mountain (Mount Thunder/Mount Sinai). There is evidence that Mount Sinai was a volcano like Mount Thunder.

If you buy my logic from another thread, Lord Foul's true name is Word. ("In the beginning was the Word...")

The jheherrin are comparable to the damned in Hell. Both have been thrown to a lake of fire and are condemned to an eternal miserable existence underground for not having been up to their maker's standards.

If you combine the Old Testament view of God sending diseases and the New Testament view of diseases being caused by demonic possession, that's not a big step to Lord Foul controlling Ravers.

Both (Revelations) God and Lord Foul are eventually intending to cause the end of the world.

That's all I can think of at that moment.

Wow. All I can say is that the God you describe is NOT the one I worship. Even the Bible seems different. I couldn't worship a God like that, either.

There's an Orthodox Church in Finland, too!

[iQuestor]

I guess my main point is, Old Testament God has 2 sides, where Foul has just one. He is very one-dimensional (like say, Satan), whereas OTG's wrathful side was tempered with justice and caring for his people. This makes them fundamentally different.

I guess I also dispute that Foul liked worship, blood sacrifices, and to be treated as the only authority; Foul did not leave personal devotion and worshipping up to his minions own decisions; either they were directly controlled by Magic or the Ill Earth stone (Giant Ravers and their armies), created (or, reanimated) directly by him or his minions (Ur-Viles,demondim) or shared a common hatred of Life, such as the ravers. No where I can remember does it say any significant number of people within the Land directly worshipped or gave allegiance to Foul of their own will. I cannot remember any passage where someone of their own will did so. The blood sacrifices were, to the people, fuel for a force that supposedly kep the sunbane at bay, and not to appease any wrathful god. This is a lot different than the sacrifice of a lamb or goat as an offering of thanks for a good harvest.

Now, the Children of Retribution did seem to worship Foul, with satanic-like rites of fire and blood. But I think the point was that they did not know about Foul and were more or less mis-directed Satan worshippers. I would have to go back and re-read the 2cnd chrons to draw parallels.

[Nerdanel]

I found a quote about God sending evil spirits.

16:14 Now the Spirit of Yahweh departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from Yahweh troubled him. 16:15 Saul’s servants said to him, “See now, an evil spirit from God troubles you. 16:16 Let our lord now command your servants who are before you, to seek out a man who is a skillful player on the harp. It shall happen, when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play with his hand, and you shall be well.”

(emphases mine)

And how did we get this situation?

Well, there was a call for genocide to avenge something that happened way before the grandfathers of any of the current mortal characters were born.

15:1 Samuel said to Saul, “Yahweh sent me to anoint you to be king over his people, over Israel. Now therefore listen to the voice of the words of Yahweh. 15:2 Thus says Yahweh of Armies, ‘I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. 15:3 Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and don’t spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

(emphasis mine)

Saul does commit genocide, but he's not quite thorough enough, as he saves some of the cattle and takes the king prisoner. It's not good enough that he kills everyone else. God cannot tolerate such an incomplete genocide, even though Saul asks forgiveness.

15:17 Samuel said, “Though you were little in your own sight, weren’t you made the head of the tribes of Israel? Yahweh anointed you king over Israel; 15:18 and Yahweh sent you on a journey, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 15:19 Why then didn’t you obey the voice of Yahweh, but took the spoils, and did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh?”

15:20 Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the voice of Yahweh, and have gone the way which Yahweh sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 15:21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and cattle, the chief of the devoted things, to sacrifice to Yahweh your God in Gilgal.”

15:22 Samuel said, “Has Yahweh as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yahweh? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because you have rejected the word of Yahweh, he has also rejected you from being king.”

15:24 Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned; for I have transgressed the commandment of Yahweh, and your words, because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. 15:25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship Yahweh.”

15:26 Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of Yahweh, and Yahweh has rejected you from being king over Israel.”

The Old Testament has a lot of things like that, but it's so long and boring they don't get the attention they deserve. At the very least, they would force some people to make tough choices between Biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation and the commonly accepted nature of God.

By the way, the Gnostic point of view is that the God of Jesus and the New Testament is the true God that exists outside the universe and the God of the Old Testament is an evil lesser entity.

[rusmeister]

I found a quote about God sending evil spirits.

16:14 Now the Spirit of Yahweh departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from Yahweh troubled him. 16:15 Saul’s servants said to him, “See now, an evil spirit from God troubles you. 16:16 Let our lord now command your servants who are before you, to seek out a man who is a skillful player on the harp. It shall happen, when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play with his hand, and you shall be well.”

(emphases mine)

And how did we get this situation?

Well, there was a call for genocide to avenge something that happened way before the grandfathers of any of the current mortal characters were born.

15:1 Samuel said to Saul, “Yahweh sent me to anoint you to be king over his people, over Israel. Now therefore listen to the voice of the words of Yahweh. 15:2 Thus says Yahweh of Armies, ‘I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. 15:3 Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and don’t spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

(emphasis mine)

Saul does commit genocide, but he's not quite thorough enough, as he saves some of the cattle and takes the king prisoner. It's not good enough that he kills everyone else. God cannot tolerate such an incomplete genocide, even though Saul asks forgiveness.

15:17 Samuel said, “Though you were little in your own sight, weren’t you made the head of the tribes of Israel? Yahweh anointed you king over Israel; 15:18 and Yahweh sent you on a journey, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 15:19 Why then didn’t you obey the voice of Yahweh, but took the spoils, and did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh?”

15:20 Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the voice of Yahweh, and have gone the way which Yahweh sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 15:21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and cattle, the chief of the devoted things, to sacrifice to Yahweh your God in Gilgal.”

15:22 Samuel said, “Has Yahweh as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yahweh? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because you have rejected the word of Yahweh, he has also rejected you from being king.”

15:24 Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned; for I have transgressed the commandment of Yahweh, and your words, because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. 15:25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship Yahweh.”

15:26 Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of Yahweh, and Yahweh has rejected you from being king over Israel.”

The Old Testament has a lot of things like that, but it's so long and boring they don't get the attention they deserve. At the very least, they would force some people to make tough choices between Biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation and the commonly accepted nature of God.

By the way, the Gnostic point of view is that the God of Jesus and the New Testament is the true God that exists outside the universe and the God of the Old Testament is an evil lesser entity.

Nothing is as simple as it seems.

This approach seems very much like the Sola Scriptura approach of many Protestant faiths (that believe that they have the wisdom and understanding to simply pick up the Bible and understand whatever they are reading at face value with no guide other than their own intelligence and experience).

This approach is rejected by the Orthodox, Catholic, and High Anglican Churches. Scripture is part of something bigger, called Tradition. You see, the Bible was compiled by the Church over several centuries. It didn't fall out of the sky. The Old Testament was gathered and written from a lot of oral Tradition from some time before the birth of Christ; the early Christians did without a Bible for roughly 300 years. The Church gradually determined what was canonical and what was not.
Tradition also includes the writings of the early Church fathers that clarified and explained numerous things in Scripture that with time and geography gradually ceased to be understood. One good example would be the doctrine that Mary remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ. In the English translations of the Bible, it states that Mary did not know her husband Joseph until she had had the baby Jesus. However, in the original Greek (and Russian, btw), the word used means up to the given point (the birth of Christ) and after - at least, it leaves the question open. Most English-speaking Protestants, relying on their understanding of the English word 'until', which implies finishing at the given point, assume that she naturally did not remain a virgin. (The same Tradition also reports that Joseph was a LOT older - as much as 30 years.)

There are a number of things I could say about the given texts, and the assumptions applied to them. To offer a couple of off-the-cuff answers (not authorative or definitive); just to give pause for thought...

One thing I will say is that it is easy to assume from the first text we have in English that God SENT an evil spirit, although He could as easily have ALLOWED a spirit to do something (that the spirit wanted to do anyway, being evil) to someone that had turned away from God and refused His protection. Suffering can be used with the purpose of bringing about ultimate good (or at least offering a chance) - one of the values of suffering - it's not an unqualified evil.

The other thing is that it is easy to apply our modern standards to situations in other places and times (I think of Disney's 'Alladin' where the princess ridiculously insists on women's right to a free choice of spouse in the middle of a culture that had never heard of such a thing), but I have no doubt that there were perfectly good reasons for the described massacre. This was the Old Testament - a different set of rules. I do think the question you raise is a perfectly good one, though, and deserves a worthy answer, so I suppose I'll have to get back to you on that. I'm just trying to say it's a little unfair to hastily judge what we read in the Bible, particularly when we don't know ancient Greek, Latin, or Aramaic, and know quite little about the cultures involved, and there are certainly answers from a Church that has had almost 2,000 years to think about these questions. (Same goes for an understanding on the purpose of blood sacrifices.)

Gnosticism (essentially salvation through the learning of secret knowledge) is a heresy that the Church condemned long ago.

[danlo]

saguaro

sorry I didn't notice your post until now...but WHY does everybody think there are saguaro cactuses in New Mexico??? Yes there are deserts and yes there is quite a variety of cactii-but I will pay you 100 dollars for every naturally occuring saguaro you can show me. Oh and while we're on this take New Mexico really is part of the United States and no you don't need a visa to get here!

[wayfriend]

saguaro

sorry I didn't notice your post until now...but WHY does everybody think there are saguaro cactuses in New Mexico???

Wayfriend's Top Ten Reasons for saying Saguaro:

10. I really had no idea.
9. It's the only kind of cactus I could think of.
8. It's a funny story. Saguaro in NM? Get it? Haw haw.
7. I was testing you.
6. Nerdanel bet me you wouldn't notice.
5. Artistic license.
4. When the heck am I gonna get to NM to find out? ( Fest!! Fest!! )
3. It's Bush's fault.
2. Saguaros are found in Northwest Mexico. NW Mexico, New Mexico - honest mistake!

And

1. I was preserving the illusion that there was something interesing in NM.

[danlo]

1. I was preserving the illusion that there was something interesing in NM.

OOO so you're infering I'm not interesting!!?? (obviously I didn't get too mad about all this or I would have deleted every single post of yours on this forum...and you wouldn't be reading this right now! )