Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jared Leisner <leisnj48@****.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
Subject: [OT] Aztech (Pretty Long)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:16:33 -0600
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>


>and thus did Jared Leisner speak on 10 Jan 99 at 22:01:

[snip]

>Strange, if you have such a war glorifying culture it does not make
>much sense to "rob" your armies of a chance to gain prestige. I would
>imagine that a lot of the military weren't to happy about these
>dishonourable tactics. I never heard of this before, could you give
>me a source, I would like to know more.

Oh, don't get me wrong, they did fight. But when they could avoid it, they
did. Go up to any military leader and ask, "How would you like to lose half
of your fighting force when you don't have to?" Would you say, "Oh yes
please, let's kill off my troops." It wasn't dishonorable, but rather quite
honorable to have warriors of such caliber that they were able to depose a
government without losing any of their troops.

If you really want a source, gimme 3 weeks and I'll look up my notes when I
get home from school. If, however, that's a not-so-subtle jab calling my
'misinformed', do some research. Unless the book I found it in lied to me,
you should find that kings sent nobles into other city-states to spy and
find out which ones could be easily deposed and the people of which would
not object too greatly to paying a tribute to them (since that would also
buy them protection).

>> Actually, /everyone/ did. :)

>I thought the priests were excempted, but you probably know more than
>I do.


I don't believe so. Again, what I remember from my research said that /all/
males did internships under experienced warriors during aa battle.

>> Again, true. Little quirk: Males had to grow a really long ponytail
>> off of their head until they caught a prisoner in battle. If you
>> didn't ditch that soon, no girl would even look at you, unless it
>> was to laugh.

>Heh, IIRC they could catch one with a group of five kids or so, makes
>the odds a little bit better if you barely have any experience.


Easier said than done, they had to stay behind the shield of an experienced
warrior (see above).

>> Again, true, but remember that a single battle could wipe out 5000
>> people, easily. Their battles consisted of two club-wielding groups
>> running at each other. And if yer paying tribute to someone, you can
>> always try to shuffle off the mantle of 'punk'.

>Which didn't happen very often because of the truly fearsome
>reputation the Aztecs had with their neighbours. If you rebel they
>would sacrifice the whole town, no exceptions. Plus their had an
>excellent and large army, with elite units at the front and the rest
>of the whole population ganging up behind them.

The Aztecs weren't just a few city-states (no, there were more than the Big
Three), they were a common culture spread out over southern-central (modern
day) Mexico. Yes, it would be tough, but it could be done.

>BTW, I didn't write all this to put the Aztecs in a bad daylight, the
>idea was more to show why looking at the culture from the outside
>they fit excellently in to the role of the bad guys FASA gave them.
>Specially if you do it with a current set of morals and social
>systems.


I'm sorry, but I must chuckle here. *chuckle* See? Told ya. Lemme ask you
this: If The Shining Path or Jihad wrote RPGs (Yeah, I know it's a stretch,
but go with the flow, ok?), how do you think the Japanese or Americans would
seem? You are trying to prove something (a game writte by a majority of
North Americans) by using something that lent itself to the construction of
the same thing (North American popular morals), which we all know is a
fallacy.

It's popularly held that FASA screwed up Voodoo (although I haven't studied
it enough to give an opinion, tho). Not to say that they've screwed up the
Aztec, but I was rather pointing out that SR's Aztechnology was perverting
the real Aztec people. Now that Oscuro's gone, perhaps that'll be changed
now, but my point still stands.

>> That goes back to the belief of their responsibility to give
>> strength to the gods in their fight against the darkness. As for you
>> last statement, that almost sounds like body-piercing and tattooing.
>> That may sound self-righteous, but maybe I'm just trying to get the
>> Aztechs to be seen in a more impartial light.

>The thing is, wouldn't you say now that Christians in medieval times
>were wrong to burn witches? The people convicting those people firmly
>believed that what they were doing was for the better of everyone,
>including the victim. So my viewpoint is that the Aztecs might have
>had a perfectly logical reason to sacrify all those thousands for
>their gods, but that the methods to serve their gods were a little
>brutal to say the least. And if some group of revivalists re-instated
>this type of worship in the future, wouldn't it make them inhuman?


Think of this: Do you think that hundreds of people killing themselves to
blow up some mountain is brutal/inhuman (see: Great Ghost Dance)? How about
anonymously bombing two countries (see: Nightwing<?> incident)? How about
killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose (see: US in WWII)? How
about one people enslaving another (see: Slavery)? How about trying to
commit genocide (see: Holocaust)?

Truth it that most people would say 'Bad' to the majority of those, but if
they're so bad, why were they done? There were reasons that people seriously
believed in at the time.

Ok, how about a little modern day equivilent? The U.S. has (recently)
executed hundreds of people (if you really want an exact figure, I can run
to the library and pull out the census data and toss ya the number). Canada
imprisoned up to third-generation Japanese-Canadians (why would anyone move
to Canada, btw?) during WWII and the U.S. has space and plans to imprison up
to third-generation Arab-Americans (I use Arab to describe all those
decended from the Middle Eastern area) in case there is a terrorist attack
on the U.S. Wouldn't you call that inhuman?

Now that I've wasted time writing that, I'll answer your question *smile*.
Inhuman? No, but would I like it? No. Times are different. Just as how you
can't stick a sword through the chest of someone who insulted your wig, you
don't have any slaves or POWs to sacrifice to your gods (Geneva Convention).
But, for the times, they were doing good.

>> True, but are any of today's nations a healthy, stable culture?
>> Inter-faction warring, possible destruction of half the globe...all
>> that fun stuff.

>Quite a few of them are, excluding external threats. They would be
>able to perpetuate themselves for a long time for they are not
>reliant on a constant supply of new places to conquer, new enemies
>to defeat, or fresh victims for the gods. I don't want to say that
>modern nations are stable to the extreme, but the Aztecs had the
>equivalent of a chain-letter principle culture going on, eventually
>the chain would break.


I wouldn't describe them as that fragile. Yeah, they were fragile, but that
was because of the area where they lived. From a point of view, the massive
deaths were good since they prevented the destruction of the rain forest (by
over-farming the land and thus taking all the nutrients out of it).

>> Ok, this I gotta nail: Conformists aren't ruled by fear, they are
>> proud to serve their city-state any way they can.

>City state yes, Aztec overlords, maybe not.

No, they were loyal to their family and city-state (although they might not
have liked the particular ruler, at which time a merchant-spy usually
reported to his ruler and the former ruler was taken out). The city-states
were there for protection, and one does not rule by fear when people
willingly live together. At least, that's what I gathered (and remember)
from my research, unless you have a source saying that the rulers ruled
through fear?

>> They weren't willing to help out Spanish. They were bound by their
>> heritage and religion to follow the "god" Cortes. Many didn't want
>> to (you wouldn't believe how hard it was for Cortes to get a guide,
>> and when he did, they took him on a trip over five times longer than
>> it should have been).

>If my sources are correct Cortez was brought to the city by Aztec
>diplomats, and before that he used two guides, one Spanish guy who
>had lived there for some time and a native girl.


Oh yeah, he was taken to Technochitlan by the Aztecs, but when he started
killing everyone, they were misleading them...If you want, I can go call my
professor and the guy who got his PhD a pair of fibbers, then I'll do it.
But first, I need you to provide me with at least five recognized sources
that disprove their assertments.

>> Not sure what you mean, but evil is in the eye of the beholder,
>> sure. Anyone here not think Aztechnology is evil? *smirk*

>The thing I was trying to say is that I don't like the way FASA
>re-instated only the bad parts of the Aztec culture, thus turning it
>into a "pure" evil organization. I rather see something a little bit
>more balanced; revolting for westerners maybe, but with the good
>parts added to it, so it would both attract and repulse at the same
>time.


I just have to say that you (or any of us) do not have any right to judge
the elements of a culture, seperate from our own, as right or wrong.

-Jared Leisner
Message no. 2
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: [OT] Aztech (Pretty Long)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:20:57 +0000
and thus did Jared Leisner speak on 12 Jan 99 at 20:16:

> Oh, don't get me wrong, they did fight. But when they could avoid
> it, they did. Go up to any military leader and ask, "How would you
> like to lose half of your fighting force when you don't have to?"
> Would you say, "Oh yes please, let's kill off my troops." It wasn't
> dishonorable, but rather quite honorable to have warriors of such
> caliber that they were able to depose a government without losing
> any of their troops.

Hmm, here you're doing something you accuse me of later: comparing
modern day military practises with those of the past. I could give
you a few examples where military leaders declined to listen to
alternative, bloodless options because it went against their honour,
problem is I can't remember the source; might have been military
blunders or something similar.
.
> If you really want a source, gimme 3 weeks and I'll look up my notes
> when I get home from school. If, however, that's a not-so-subtle jab
> calling my 'misinformed', do some research. Unless the book I found
> it in lied to me, you should find that kings sent nobles into other
> city-states to spy and find out which ones could be easily deposed
> and the people of which would not object too greatly to paying a
> tribute to them (since that would also buy them protection).

No insult intended, there is just not a good way to phrase that
question using e-mail without it including the possibility of that
"jab". My information is limited to a Time Life book actually
present, and I've read most of the Spanish eye witness documentation
available of that time. I'm aware that this doesn't really give me an
unbiased source of information, but at that time it didn't matter for
the project. If there are sources remaining that weren't destroyed by
the clergy and give a view from the other side I would be most
interested.

> Easier said than done, they had to stay behind the shield of an
> experienced warrior (see above).

Yes, but he couldn't interfere any more once they'd marked a target.
Plus it couldn't have been incredibly difficult or else the majority
of the male population would never be considered adult. The whole
idea of these rites is that they're tough but do-able.

> The Aztecs weren't just a few city-states (no, there were more than
> the Big Three), they were a common culture spread out over
> southern-central (modern day) Mexico. Yes, it would be tough, but it
> could be done.

Huh? In this case I suggest you better check your books. The actual
Aztec tribes didn't show up until +-1300 and were destroyed by the
Spanish in 1521. That is not enough time for a common culture to
develop. The Aztecs adopted the existing culture of the Tolmecs who
in their turn were very likely influenced heavily by the
Teotihuacans and at the base of it all lies the mysterious culture
of the Olmecs. The Aztecs started out as one city state and
conquered the surrounding city states in the next three centuries,
maybe that the earlier conquered cities were integrated up to such
an extend that they saw themselves as Aztecs, but like K said I
think it's more like in the Roman Empire, were only people living in
Rome were considered to be Romans.

> I'm sorry, but I must chuckle here. *chuckle* See? Told ya. Lemme
> ask you this: If The Shining Path or Jihad wrote RPGs (Yeah, I know
> it's a stretch, but go with the flow, ok?), how do you think the
> Japanese or Americans would seem? You are trying to prove something
> (a game writte by a majority of North Americans) by using something
> that lent itself to the construction of the same thing (North
> American popular morals), which we all know is a fallacy.

I wasn't proofing anything and you confirm what I was trying to say
by what you write above yourself. My point was that from a current
day viewpoint it is very hard to understand and specially feel
attracted to the Aztec culture, no matter where you live, or if
you grew up with "fallacious" American morals.

> It's popularly held that FASA screwed up Voodoo (although I haven't
> studied it enough to give an opinion, tho). Not to say that they've
> screwed up the Aztec, but I was rather pointing out that SR's
> Aztechnology was perverting the real Aztec people. Now that Oscuro's
> gone, perhaps that'll be changed now, but my point still stands.

My opinion on that particular point is that /if/ you accept FASA
history for the region and the events that lead to Oscuro's fall
have been happening longer than half a year ago in the SR timeline,
it is unlikely that things will change very soon. Oscuro must have
had a powerbase and that powerbase isn't likely to give up it's
power. What could have happened is that the struggle between the
different "crown-princes" destabilized the system so much that it
would topple, but after enough time it stabilizes again and
re-establishes control.
That is of course if bloodmagic is still as powerful as it was.

> >> That goes back to the belief of their responsibility to give
> >> strength to the gods in their fight against the darkness. As for you
> >> last statement, that almost sounds like body-piercing and tattooing.
> >> That may sound self-righteous, but maybe I'm just trying to get the
> >> Aztechs to be seen in a more impartial light.

> Think of this: Do you think that hundreds of people killing
> themselves to blow up some mountain is brutal/inhuman (see: Great
> Ghost Dance)? How about anonymously bombing two countries (see:
> Nightwing<?> incident)? How about killing hundreds of thousands of
> civilians on purpose (see: US in WWII)? How about one people
> enslaving another (see: Slavery)? How about trying to commit
> genocide (see: Holocaust)?

Different examples and not at all applicable on this situation. Let's
say for the sake of argument that suddenly the church of scientology
decided that sacrificing a follower a month is what needs to be done.
What do you think the general reaction would be: "oh, well, as long
as they keep it to themselves" ? Not very likely. Now what if they
decided to sacrify their "enemies" instead of volunteers. You'll get
the picture, I hope.

[snip some stuff to prevent this from becoming too long]

> No, they were loyal to their family and city-state (although they
> might not have liked the particular ruler, at which time a
> merchant-spy usually reported to his ruler and the former ruler was
> taken out). The city-states were there for protection, and one does
> not rule by fear when people willingly live together. At least,
> that's what I gathered (and remember) from my research, unless you
> have a source saying that the rulers ruled through fear?

Various ones mention that most cities in the Aztec empire had to
pay fairly punishing taxes and that the armies of Tenochtitlan kept
them in fear enough to keep them from rebelling.

> >If my sources are correct Cortez was brought to the city by Aztec
> >diplomats, and before that he used two guides, one Spanish guy who
> >had lived there for some time and a native girl.

> Oh yeah, he was taken to Technochitlan by the Aztecs, but when he
> started killing everyone, they were misleading them...If you want, I
> can go call my professor and the guy who got his PhD a pair of
> fibbers, then I'll do it. But first, I need you to provide me with
> at least five recognized sources that disprove their assertments.

Yeah well, you can't believe I was trying to say that once he started
killing Aztecs, they went around with his men telling them were the
rest of them were hiding ("here's my dad, mr Spanish conqueror").
What I meant, and what I said was that he had support from local
tribes surrounding the Aztec empire, most notable the Tlaxcalians. If
you want I can dig up five or more sources for that and you can make
your phone call.

> I just have to say that you (or any of us) do not have any right to
> judge the elements of a culture, seperate from our own, as right or
> wrong.

Sure we do, and we do it all the time thanks to the UN. It's
however unfair to judge an ancient culture by modern standards, but
we /can/ say "never again".


Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 3
From: Penta <cpenta@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Aztech (Pretty Long)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:35:58 -0800
Um...where doth it say that Oscuro's fallen....huh?

Martin Steffens wrote:

> and thus did Jared Leisner speak on 12 Jan 99 at 20:16:
>
> > Oh, don't get me wrong, they did fight. But when they could avoid
> > it, they did. Go up to any military leader and ask, "How would you
> > like to lose half of your fighting force when you don't have to?"
> > Would you say, "Oh yes please, let's kill off my troops." It wasn't
> > dishonorable, but rather quite honorable to have warriors of such
> > caliber that they were able to depose a government without losing
> > any of their troops.
>
> Hmm, here you're doing something you accuse me of later: comparing
> modern day military practises with those of the past. I could give
> you a few examples where military leaders declined to listen to
> alternative, bloodless options because it went against their honour,
> problem is I can't remember the source; might have been military
> blunders or something similar.
> .
> > If you really want a source, gimme 3 weeks and I'll look up my notes
> > when I get home from school. If, however, that's a not-so-subtle jab
> > calling my 'misinformed', do some research. Unless the book I found
> > it in lied to me, you should find that kings sent nobles into other
> > city-states to spy and find out which ones could be easily deposed
> > and the people of which would not object too greatly to paying a
> > tribute to them (since that would also buy them protection).
>
> No insult intended, there is just not a good way to phrase that
> question using e-mail without it including the possibility of that
> "jab". My information is limited to a Time Life book actually
> present, and I've read most of the Spanish eye witness documentation
> available of that time. I'm aware that this doesn't really give me an
> unbiased source of information, but at that time it didn't matter for
> the project. If there are sources remaining that weren't destroyed by
> the clergy and give a view from the other side I would be most
> interested.
>
> > Easier said than done, they had to stay behind the shield of an
> > experienced warrior (see above).
>
> Yes, but he couldn't interfere any more once they'd marked a target.
> Plus it couldn't have been incredibly difficult or else the majority
> of the male population would never be considered adult. The whole
> idea of these rites is that they're tough but do-able.
>
> > The Aztecs weren't just a few city-states (no, there were more than
> > the Big Three), they were a common culture spread out over
> > southern-central (modern day) Mexico. Yes, it would be tough, but it
> > could be done.
>
> Huh? In this case I suggest you better check your books. The actual
> Aztec tribes didn't show up until +-1300 and were destroyed by the
> Spanish in 1521. That is not enough time for a common culture to
> develop. The Aztecs adopted the existing culture of the Tolmecs who
> in their turn were very likely influenced heavily by the
> Teotihuacans and at the base of it all lies the mysterious culture
> of the Olmecs. The Aztecs started out as one city state and
> conquered the surrounding city states in the next three centuries,
> maybe that the earlier conquered cities were integrated up to such
> an extend that they saw themselves as Aztecs, but like K said I
> think it's more like in the Roman Empire, were only people living in
> Rome were considered to be Romans.
>
> > I'm sorry, but I must chuckle here. *chuckle* See? Told ya. Lemme
> > ask you this: If The Shining Path or Jihad wrote RPGs (Yeah, I know
> > it's a stretch, but go with the flow, ok?), how do you think the
> > Japanese or Americans would seem? You are trying to prove something
> > (a game writte by a majority of North Americans) by using something
> > that lent itself to the construction of the same thing (North
> > American popular morals), which we all know is a fallacy.
>
> I wasn't proofing anything and you confirm what I was trying to say
> by what you write above yourself. My point was that from a current
> day viewpoint it is very hard to understand and specially feel
> attracted to the Aztec culture, no matter where you live, or if
> you grew up with "fallacious" American morals.
>
> > It's popularly held that FASA screwed up Voodoo (although I haven't
> > studied it enough to give an opinion, tho). Not to say that they've
> > screwed up the Aztec, but I was rather pointing out that SR's
> > Aztechnology was perverting the real Aztec people. Now that Oscuro's
> > gone, perhaps that'll be changed now, but my point still stands.
>
> My opinion on that particular point is that /if/ you accept FASA
> history for the region and the events that lead to Oscuro's fall
> have been happening longer than half a year ago in the SR timeline,
> it is unlikely that things will change very soon. Oscuro must have
> had a powerbase and that powerbase isn't likely to give up it's
> power. What could have happened is that the struggle between the
> different "crown-princes" destabilized the system so much that it
> would topple, but after enough time it stabilizes again and
> re-establishes control.
> That is of course if bloodmagic is still as powerful as it was.
>
> > >> That goes back to the belief of their responsibility to give
> > >> strength to the gods in their fight against the darkness. As for you
> > >> last statement, that almost sounds like body-piercing and tattooing.
> > >> That may sound self-righteous, but maybe I'm just trying to get the
> > >> Aztechs to be seen in a more impartial light.
>
> > Think of this: Do you think that hundreds of people killing
> > themselves to blow up some mountain is brutal/inhuman (see: Great
> > Ghost Dance)? How about anonymously bombing two countries (see:
> > Nightwing<?> incident)? How about killing hundreds of thousands of
> > civilians on purpose (see: US in WWII)? How about one people
> > enslaving another (see: Slavery)? How about trying to commit
> > genocide (see: Holocaust)?
>
> Different examples and not at all applicable on this situation. Let's
> say for the sake of argument that suddenly the church of scientology
> decided that sacrificing a follower a month is what needs to be done.
> What do you think the general reaction would be: "oh, well, as long
> as they keep it to themselves" ? Not very likely. Now what if they
> decided to sacrify their "enemies" instead of volunteers. You'll get
> the picture, I hope.
>
> [snip some stuff to prevent this from becoming too long]
>
> > No, they were loyal to their family and city-state (although they
> > might not have liked the particular ruler, at which time a
> > merchant-spy usually reported to his ruler and the former ruler was
> > taken out). The city-states were there for protection, and one does
> > not rule by fear when people willingly live together. At least,
> > that's what I gathered (and remember) from my research, unless you
> > have a source saying that the rulers ruled through fear?
>
> Various ones mention that most cities in the Aztec empire had to
> pay fairly punishing taxes and that the armies of Tenochtitlan kept
> them in fear enough to keep them from rebelling.
>
> > >If my sources are correct Cortez was brought to the city by Aztec
> > >diplomats, and before that he used two guides, one Spanish guy who
> > >had lived there for some time and a native girl.
>
> > Oh yeah, he was taken to Technochitlan by the Aztecs, but when he
> > started killing everyone, they were misleading them...If you want, I
> > can go call my professor and the guy who got his PhD a pair of
> > fibbers, then I'll do it. But first, I need you to provide me with
> > at least five recognized sources that disprove their assertments.
>
> Yeah well, you can't believe I was trying to say that once he started
> killing Aztecs, they went around with his men telling them were the
> rest of them were hiding ("here's my dad, mr Spanish conqueror").
> What I meant, and what I said was that he had support from local
> tribes surrounding the Aztec empire, most notable the Tlaxcalians. If
> you want I can dig up five or more sources for that and you can make
> your phone call.
>
> > I just have to say that you (or any of us) do not have any right to
> > judge the elements of a culture, seperate from our own, as right or
> > wrong.
>
> Sure we do, and we do it all the time thanks to the UN. It's
> however unfair to judge an ancient culture by modern standards, but
> we /can/ say "never again".
>
> Martin Steffens
> chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 4
From: Penta <cpenta@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Aztech (Pretty Long)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:38:40 -0800
<snip all>
Apologies on the reply-to field and the quoting...Stuck with a cold, and a
fragged NS mailer (Showed quote above my stuff, till I sent it. <frown>)....

Penta
Message no. 5
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Aztech (Pretty Long)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:39:53 +1000
Martin Steffens writes:
> > Oh, don't get me wrong, they did fight. But when they could avoid
> > it, they did. Go up to any military leader and ask, "How would you
> > like to lose half of your fighting force when you don't have to?"
> > Would you say, "Oh yes please, let's kill off my troops." It wasn't
> > dishonorable, but rather quite honorable to have warriors of such
> > caliber that they were able to depose a government without losing
> > any of their troops.
>
> Hmm, here you're doing something you accuse me of later: comparing
> modern day military practises with those of the past. I could give
> you a few examples where military leaders declined to listen to
> alternative, bloodless options because it went against their honour,
> problem is I can't remember the source; might have been military
> blunders or something similar.

Agreed. The assumption that military commanders don't like to have their
soldiers killed is conditional on the assumption that military commanders
have some empathy for their soldiers. In situations where the commanders
work their way up the ranks, that tends to be the case. But where the people
in charge (who may not be military) don't have that sort of empathy, they
don't tend to care, and will quite happily see hundreds or thousands of
people slaughtered, especially over points of honour.

Then you get cultural differences, like how Japanese soldiers in World War
II committed suicide in regiment-size groups rather than surrender.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 6
From: Jared Leisner <leisnj48@****.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Aztech (Pretty Long)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:41:03 -0600
>Agreed. The assumption that military commanders don't like to have their
>soldiers killed is conditional on the assumption that military commanders
>have some empathy for their soldiers. In situations where the commanders
>work their way up the ranks, that tends to be the case. But where the
people
>in charge (who may not be military) don't have that sort of empathy, they
>don't tend to care, and will quite happily see hundreds or thousands of
>people slaughtered, especially over points of honour.


Ok, so are we actually disagreeing about anything anymore?

>Then you get cultural differences, like how Japanese soldiers in World War
>II committed suicide in regiment-size groups rather than surrender.


Oh, definately.


-Jared Leisner

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Aztech (Pretty Long), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!