[UA] The Amoromantic Anti-Defamation League

[Jason Schneiderman]

>   My first thang is that having shot over the main book and PoMoMa with
>another lister who runs a game I'm in, I've figured the two most easily
>inhuman of the canon schools: Amoromancy and Thanotomancy (sp?).
>Thanotomaners aren't necessarily evil - but they are dark, nasty bastards,
>to a man - they have to be.
>But Amoromancers? They're the ones who've cut themselves off the most from
>other people, from the intrinsic drive to *care* about others. Hideously
>nasty people, who from what I grab are just the nastiest cakes out there to
>be eaten.

Am I the only one who thinks that one need not be a stone bastard
to be an amoromancer? Granted, it *helps*, but I think it's perfectly
reasonable to be a flirt, gain minor charges and the odd
significant, and not leave the world a decidedly worse place for it?

Jason, who also believes in polyamory, so perhaps that's a help

* * * * *
Jason Schneiderman
jadasc at ma.ultranet.com



_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua