|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:01 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:01 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:05 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:26 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:17 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:28 pm
|
|
|
|
Ulfrikr inn Hrafn Heilsan Allir, To my mind, someone whom is Fluffy is a person whom has certain beliefs as to the veracity of their belief/magical system which are incapable of being supported by rational discussion or information sources. I don't think this as a standalone statement is a fair measure of Fluff.
Quote: They tend to quote dubious authors (whose own research is severly lacking), This much isn't always fluffy. If you don't know any better- it isn't fair to call it fluffy. After someone says "You know, Ravenwolf isn't a quality author because XYZ..." and they continue to maintain the position- that would be fluffy.
Quote: or rely solely on their own thought processes as the origin of their beleifs and practices, Again... not really fluffy. If they can justify them- more power to 'em!
Quote: are completely incapable of standing toe to toe in an extended discussion I really wouldn't count that one as fair. Let's face it- you could bury me when it comes to Norse Folk trad. That doesn't make me a Fluffy. It just means I don't have the education I would like.
Quote: and resort to absolutist statements and ad hominem to divert discussion of their actual thought processes and beliefs. That's not fluff. That's just arseary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:33 am
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai Ulfrikr inn Hrafn Heilsan Allir, To my mind, someone whom is Fluffy is a person whom has certain beliefs as to the veracity of their belief/magical system which are incapable of being supported by rational discussion or information sources. I don't think this as a standalone statement is a fair measure of Fluff. Quote: They tend to quote dubious authors (whose own research is severly lacking), This much isn't always fluffy. If you don't know any better- it isn't fair to call it fluffy. After someone says "You know, Ravenwolf isn't a quality author because XYZ..." and they continue to maintain the position- that would be fluffy. Quote: or rely solely on their own thought processes as the origin of their beleifs and practices, Again... not really fluffy. If they can justify them- more power to 'em! Quote: are completely incapable of standing toe to toe in an extended discussion I really wouldn't count that one as fair. Let's face it- you could bury me when it comes to Norse Folk trad. That doesn't make me a Fluffy. It just means I don't have the education I would like. Quote: and resort to absolutist statements and ad hominem to divert discussion of their actual thought processes and beliefs. That's not fluff. That's just arseary.
Heilsan Tea ok Allir,
None of them should be taken as a standalone statement. I tend to view things wholistically, so merely satisfying one statement is only going to make one statement be satisfied, and hence a person is, in that case outside the definition, as the definition takes all the factors into account. It's a pattern thing.
Ver thu heil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:19 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:15 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|