On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Felix Eisen wrote: > Philip Hart <philiph at slac.stanford.edu> wrote: [dropped attrib] >> Wherever Paarfi got his information, it's all second-hand. > > Matter of opinion. > Err, no. It's NOT a matter of opinion; it is, at the very least, > fact. Unless you're prepared to propose that Paarfi himself was witness > to everything he's writing about, by definition all of his information > is, at -best-, secondhand. I'm suggesting Paarfi's a puppet, that he's a front for Sethra, that he's taking dictation, that you bought a pig in a poke. > I honestly can't see why so many listees That's mostly or entirely me, being prolix, plus the occasional person who finds the idea amusing enough to play with. Or maybe it's all me, posting under dozens of aliases, bwaah haa haaa. > continue to desire to claim that Paarfi's a honest historical fiction > writer [...] Oh, never mind, the "historical fiction" part doesn't apply to my view. Likely your confusion is a result of having missed the long discussion of this in the archives, the upshot of which was that (modulo the G'aereth matter which I blame Someone else for) it's perfectly consistent to think Paarfi or "Paarfi"'s relating the gods' honest truth and everyone in the Texts who claims otherwise is lying or laughing behind their hand at you. Think a moment - for all we know everything in the Texts might be _entirely made up out of nearly whole cloth_. Bask in the possibilites.