The Christianisation of Cthulhu

[Ramsey Campbell]

In response to Jim's appeal for a revival of the group...

Was John Dee originally responsible for blurring the Cthulhu myth and associated traditions? I quote:

“The prating of the prophets chatters down the centuries without beginning to encompass the truths which shape the world. Still less can the gewgaws of religion challenge forces older than the universe we know. In his enfeebled Christian travesty of Al-Hazred, John Dee speaks of a glowing cross which appeared above the sabbats to confound the summoned powers. Say rather that the sabbats were no
more than puerile parodies of ancient rituals, so mired in the tradition of the celebrated Jew that the biblical bauble could be misapprehended as a talisman..."

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 12, 2013 9:18:20 AM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Was John Dee originally responsible for blurring the Cthulhu myth
> and associated traditions?

I don't know. Was he?

> I quote:

What are you quoting?

[Kevin Blackburn]

On 12/04/2013 14:18, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> In response to Jim's appeal for a revival of the group...
>
> Was John Dee originally responsible for blurring the Cthulhu myth and associated traditions? I quote:
>

> �The prating of the prophets chatters down the centuries without beginning to encompass the truths which shape the world. Still less can the gewgaws of religion challenge forces older than the universe we know. In his enfeebled Christian travesty of Al-Hazred, John Dee speaks of a glowing cross which appeared above the sabbats to confound the summoned powers. Say rather that the sabbats were no

> more than puerile parodies of ancient rituals, so mired in the tradition of the celebrated Jew that the biblical bauble could be misapprehended as a talisman..."
>

Anyone writing any of the documents we know of, not just the
Necronomicon, but any other the other items in a human language, will
have been written either by someone completely mad, or controlled by
some external power: I think that is a reasonable position.

The historical John Dee seems not to have been notoriously mad (just
eccentric), but was likely still unable to fully comprehend what he was
translating and probably tried at least some of the rituals and will
have been traumatised by this - so gross corruption of the text is
hardly surprising. To mix with Christian imagery was probably the least
of the faults he introduced.

But consider that the Latin translation he was likely working from would
of been written by someone mad, and was itself taken from the mad Arab,
and probably a few scribes copying the scrolls not so verbatim in
between you can hardly hope anything much meaningful gets through.

That even what is left causes madness should be a warning!

(Bah, I don't know the difference between Reply and Followup after all
this time???)
--
Kevin Blackburn ke...@fairbruk.demon.co.uk

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

Kevin Blackburn wrote:
> To mix with Christian imagery was probably the
> least of the faults he introduced.

Well, as far as HPL's fiction is concerned, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose he did such a thing.

Per the information given by HPL, Dee's version can be assumed to be imperfect for 2 reasons (1) it is a translation of a translation of a translation or the Arabic (which, for all I know, may itself contain translation); and (2) it survives in only fragmentary form.

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Friday, 12 April 2013 18:45:47 UTC+1, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 12, 2013 9:18:20 AM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
>
> > Was John Dee originally responsible for blurring the Cthulhu myth
>
> > and associated traditions?
>
>
>
> I don't know. Was he?

I'm wondering if there is any evidence of earlier Christianisation (or indeed Mohammedisation).

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

Perhaps there is. Its original author was an "indifferent Muslem" (however indifferent he was, he apparently a product of Islamic culture), and Islam is, to at least some extent, a Christian-influenced religion. If the Necronomicon did have Christian imagery, such imagery might be original to Al Hazred's text. Occultists are infamous for their eclectic borrowings.

Of course, I know of no evidence that any version of Necronomicon contains Christian imagery, including Dee's version.

I noticed you dodged my question about who you are quoting. I am forced to conclude that you are, once again, quoting Wilum Pugmire without giving him due credit.

[wilum pugmire]

The quote is none of mine. Hey, can I spam and mention that my new paperback is available on Amazon as of to-day??? Pretty please may I spam??? Hey, may I spam if I make it a quote from ye Necronomicon?
"Seldom is seen, and low is ye knowledge, that is etched on palms of tigers. For He will come, and His name will be Enoch, and he will dwell in the cold wastes of Boston. And His record shall be written as ENCOUNTERS WITH ENOCH COFFIN, and will be relase'd upon the paltry world of men. And serpents will hiss His name. And bedbugs will itch to kiss Him. And mortals will howl with madness, and know new fear, and erect with novel ecstasy, that such a rad book shou'd exist in the Neoteric Time. Selah."

[Ramsey Campbell]

No, not the excellent Wilum! It's from ON CONJURATION (Matterhorn Press, 1865).

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Friday, 12 April 2013 23:58:06 UTC+1, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:

> Of course, I know of no evidence that any version of Necronomicon contains Christian imagery, including Dee's version.

Surely there is this: "The cross is not a passive agent. It protects the pure of heart, and it has often appeared in the air above our sabbats, confusing and dispersing the powers of Darkness." — John Dee's Necronomicon

[Kevin Blackburn]

On 13/04/2013 21:16, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> On Friday, 12 April 2013 23:58:06 UTC+1, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Of course, I know of no evidence that any version of Necronomicon contains Christian imagery, including Dee's version.
>

> Surely there is this: "The cross is not a passive agent. It protects the pure of heart, and it has often appeared in the air above our sabbats, confusing and dispersing the powers of Darkness." � John Dee's Necronomicon
>

And you cannot but feel a little bit sorry for the various priests this
has led astray.

There might have been a glowing symbol, but I bet it's origin was
anything but Christian (oh, say a glowing Elder Sign), and anyone
assuming otherwise has got ... a problem ... incoming.
--
Kevin Blackburn ke...@fairbruk.demon.co.uk

[John Whelan]

You are the God of your own private universe. So if you say it says
that, I suppose it says that. But then why ask us? Answer your own
question, and tell us how this differs in meaning from Wormius' Latin
version, from the Greek version, and finally from Al Hazred's
version.

Personally, I don't feel these fictions of yours are a comfortable fit
with those of HPL. According to HPL, Al Hazred was an "indifferent
Muslem" worshiping various bizarre pagan entities. His Necronomicon,
hence, was a religious text.

So your fictional 1865 source (who you still do not name) is someone
with an axe to grind against "religion" (without distinction). And
yet, bizarrely, he cares about whether John Dee has altered the mad
occult ravings of a devil-worshipping mohomedan heretic. Nor can I
see what motive John Dee would have for doing such a thing; nor does
it seem likely that your source would know the difference even if he
did.

Also, since John Dee's translation was never published (at least
before 1920), what possible occasion could your source have to be
ranting about it so irrationally? It existed only in (partial)
manuscript form, presumably in someone's private collection. So who
is this "On Conjuration" document (which you posit was actually
published) addressed to? Did your source also publish scathing book
reviews of unpublished novels?

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Sunday, 14 April 2013 05:45:44 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
> Ramsey Campbell wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 12 April 2013 23:58:06 UTC+1, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Of course, I know of no evidence that any version of Necronomicon
>
> > > contains Christian imagery, including Dee's version.
>
> >
>
> > Surely there is this: "The cross is not a passive agent. It protects the pure of
>
> > heart, and it has often appeared in the air above our sabbats, confusing and
>
> > dispersing the powers of Darkness." — John Dee's Necronomicon
>
>
>
> You are the God of your own private universe. So if you say it says
>
> that, I suppose it says that.

Forgive me - I'd assumed folk would recognise this as the motto from Frank Belknap Long's "The Space-Eaters".

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Sunday, 14 April 2013 05:45:44 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:

> So your fictional 1865 source (who you still do not name)...

The author isn't named in the Matterhorn Press edition, I'm afraid, but here's another quote: “And what shall be said of the star-signs which some claim as protection against entities no less immemorial than creation? How blurred the ancient truths become in the minds of the uninitiated! What are these signs but imperfect renderings of a stage in the formation of the universe? None but the ignorant seek to invest them with power, and only the most imbecilic of the old survivals may mistake them for a hostile charm, to be cowed by them for a short
while..."

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Sunday, 14 April 2013 05:45:44 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:

> Also, since John Dee's translation was never published (at least
>

> before 1920)...

When you say that, do you mean the copy Wilbur Whateley's grandfather bequeathed him in 1924? You're saying the grandfather acquired that copy in 1920?

[John Whelan]

No. The copy you refer to is Dr. Dee's unpublished manuscript copy,
which at this time was in somebody's private collection (Wilbur
Whately, via his grandfather).

I said "at least before 1920", because HPL's "History of the
Necronomicon" was probably written no later than this; and hence can
be taken as ruling out any publication prior to the date it was
written.

[Aaron]

Funny, I just pitched the following panel to San Diego Comic Con 2013:

"2013 marks the 75th anniversary of the "History of the Necronomicon," a short essay written by iconic horror author H.P. Lovecraft and published a year after his death. Since then, the dread book written by the Mad Arab Abdul Alhazred has appeared in movies, books, comics, cartoons, art, music, and games. Although originally a literary hoax, there are hundreds of products that bear its name today. Come explore the truth and legend behind the greatest creation of the 20th century's greatest weird fiction writer, and learn how and why the book and its creator continue to influence all aspects of culture."

Cross your fingers that they'll accept it; in which case, hope to see you there!

Aaron

PS-I also hope to see all of you at the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival in Portland, Oregon, May 3-5, and/or at the HPLFF-Los Angeles September 27-29. For Los Angeles, I am embargoing my guest and programming info for a few more weeks (releasing post-Portland), but I'm excited about our growing lineup of authors, artists, and filmmakers. http://www.hplfilmfestival.com/

[John Whelan]

Obviously you assumed no such thing. Your motives for being vague and
mysterious are known only to yourself.

If we choose accept suspend disbelief in Long's fictions (or accept
them as "canon" or whatever), then Long is presumably referring to one
of those fragments of Dr. Dee's copy that survived the Dunwich
Horror.

HPL does not directly say how Dr. Dee's copy came into Whatley's
possession. The implication of the tale is that it was in his family
for 50+ years, since circa 1870. Before that, the implication is that
it was most likely in the possession of one of those "armigerous
families" referred to in the tale (possibly the Whatleys, or their
forebears), that came to Dunwich from Salem in 1692.

Hence, it does not appear likely that any 19th-century publication by
Matterhorn Press can have been complaining about its corruptions. The
only copy then existing had apparently been hiding in Dunwich for the
last 200 years. Your mysterious Matterhorn Press source appears to be
a forgery.

[John Whelan]

Kevin Blackburn wrote:
> On 13/04/2013 21:16, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> > On Friday, 12 April 2013 23:58:06 UTC+1, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Of course, I know of no evidence that any version of Necronomicon contains Christian imagery, including Dee's version.
> >
> > Surely there is this: "The cross is not a passive agent. It protects the pure of heart, and it has often appeared in the air above our sabbats, confusing and dispersing the powers of Darkness." � John Dee's Necronomicon
> >
>
> And you cannot but feel a little bit sorry for the various priests this
> has led astray.

What priests? There cannot have been too many devil-worshipping
priests in Salem or Dunwich requesting access to this copy, then in
private hands.

[Magister]

Den söndagen den 14:e april 2013 kl. 18:08:25 UTC+2 skrev John Whelan:
>
>
> I said "at least before 1920", because HPL's "History of the
>
> Necronomicon" was probably written no later than this; and hence can
>
> be taken as ruling out any publication prior to the date it was
>
> written.

No later than 1920 is way too early, since the Necronomicon isn't mentioned until "The Hound" (September 1922).

In fact, "History of the Necronomicon" was written in 1927. See letter to Clark Ashton Smith, 27 November 1927:

"I have had no chance to produce new material this autumn, but have been classifying notes & synopses in preparation for some monstrous tales later on. In particular I have drawn up some data on the celebrated & unmentionable Necronomicon by the mad Arab Abdul Alhazred! It seems that this shocking blasphemy was produced by a native of Sanaá, in Yemen, who flourished about 700 A. D. & made many mysterious pilgrimages to Babylon's ruins, Memphis's catacombs, & the devil-haunted & untrodden wastes of the great southern deserts of Arabia--"

and so on and so on, giving all the details of "History".

[Magister]

It is stated nowhere that this is Dee's original manuscript. "priceless but imperfect copy" is what it says in "The Dunwich Horror". Just because the book was never printed doesn't mean it didn't circulate -- in manuscript. Hence, other hand-written copies could -- and probably were -- available at the given time.

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Sunday, 14 April 2013 19:24:39 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
> Ramsey Campbell wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 14 April 2013 05:45:44 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
>
> > > Ramsey Campbell wrote:
>
> > > > On Friday, 12 April 2013 23:58:06 UTC+1, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Of course, I know of no evidence that any version of Necronomicon
>
> > > > > contains Christian imagery, including Dee's version.
>
> > >
>
> > > > Surely there is this: "The cross is not a passive agent. It protects the pure of
>
> > > > heart, and it has often appeared in the air above our sabbats, confusing and
>
> > > > dispersing the powers of Darkness." — John Dee's Necronomicon
>
> > >
>
> > > You are the God of your own private universe. So if you say it says
>
> > > that, I suppose it says that.
>
> >
>
> > Forgive me - I'd assumed folk would recognise this as the motto from
>
> > Frank Belknap Long's "The Space-Eaters".
>
>
>
> Obviously you assumed no such thing. Your motives for being vague and
>
> mysterious are known only to yourself.

Please don't call me a liar, Mr Whelan. I did exactly what I said, and I imagine most people who post here would recognise the quote from Frank Long's tale.

[Kishin]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 April 2013 19:24:39 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
>> Ramsey Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 14 April 2013 05:45:44 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
>>
>>>> Ramsey Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Friday, 12 April 2013 23:58:06 UTC+1, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Of course, I know of no evidence that any version of Necronomicon
>>
>>>>>> contains Christian imagery, including Dee's version.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Surely there is this: "The cross is not a passive agent. It protects the pure of
>>
>>>>> heart, and it has often appeared in the air above our sabbats, confusing and
>>

>>>>> dispersing the powers of Darkness." � John Dee's Necronomicon

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> You are the God of your own private universe. So if you say it says
>>
>>>> that, I suppose it says that.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Forgive me - I'd assumed folk would recognise this as the motto from
>>
>>> Frank Belknap Long's "The Space-Eaters".
>>
>>
>>
>> Obviously you assumed no such thing. Your motives for being vague and
>>
>> mysterious are known only to yourself.
>
> Please don't call me a liar, Mr Whelan. I did exactly what I said, and I imagine most people who post here would recognise the quote from Frank Long's tale.

I have a number of words that I use as synonyms for "John Whelan," but I
will not use them in this group, as most of the members are too genteel
for such language. But suffice it to say that my opinion of him is not
very positive. All he does is make assumptions and accusations. Now
kindly imagine the most foul profanity you can think of and apply it to
him. Thank you for your indulgence.

--

Kishin

[John Whelan]

Magister wrote:
> Den söndagen den 14:e april 2013 kl. 18:08:25 UTC+2 skrev John Whelan:
> > I said "at least before 1920", because HPL's "History of the
> > Necronomicon" was probably written no later than this; and hence can
> > be taken as ruling out any publication prior to the date it was
> > written.
>
> No later than 1920 is way too early, since the Necronomicon isn't
> mentioned until "The Hound" (September 1922).

Sorry. I meant "no earlier than this". I was attempting to clarify
and inadvertently sowed confusion. My point, which still stands, it
that "History of the Necronomocon", which says Dee's version was never
printed, can be taken as ruling out any publication prior to "The
History of the Necronomicon". Specifically, it can be taken as ruling
out any publication of Dr. Dee's version at any time in the 19th
century.

But if we want to speculate beyond HPL's fiction, then nothing rules
out the surviving fragments of Dee's Necronomicon from being published
LATER than the date of HPL's "History of the Necronomicon".

> In fact, "History of the Necronomicon" was written in 1927. See letter to Clark
> Ashton Smith, 27 November 1927:
>
> "I have had no chance to produce new material this autumn, but have
> been classifying notes & synopses in preparation for some monstrous tales
> later on. In particular I have drawn up some data on the celebrated &
> unmentionable Necronomicon by the mad Arab Abdul Alhazred! It seems
> that this shocking blasphemy was produced by a native of Sanaá, in
> Yemen, who flourished about 700 A. D. & made many mysterious
> pilgrimages to Babylon's ruins, Memphis's catacombs, & the d
> evil-haunted & untrodden wastes of the great southern deserts of
> Arabia--"

Thank you for the quote. The next tale he wrote (for which these
notes were preparation) was "The Dunwich Horror", for which the climax
was eventually made to occur in early 1928. It is my suspicion that
when he says Dee's version "exists only in fragments recovered from
the original manuscript" he is referring to those fragments that
survived the climax of "The Dunwich Horror"

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 April 2013 19:24:39 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
> > Obviously you assumed no such thing. Your motives for being vague and
> > mysterious are known only to yourself.
>
> Please don't call me a liar, Mr Whelan.

Huh? I did not call you a liar, Mr. Campbell. I merely failed to
take you seriously. Was I SUPPOSED to take you seriously? Does that
apply to EVERYTHING you have said in this thread? Or are you suddenly
changing the rules of the discussion.

If I am supposed to take you seriously, then please provide a straight
answer to the question I asked you many posts ago: What is your
source for the quote you provided at the beginning of this thread? If
you made it up yourself, then just say so.

> I did exactly what I said, and I imagine most people who post here would
> recognise the quote from Frank Long's tale.

As to that, I will merely say that I do not think it is a reasonable
assumption that anyone who might be interested in posting in this
group knows "The Sin Eaters" of Frank Belknap Long by heart. Hence,
it might be helpful to identify the source of your "quotes",
especially those which are not from HPL. I am also worried that would-
be posters here might be intimidated by the possible implication
(which I am sure you did not intend) that they are not welcome here
unless they are intimately familiar with every minor Mythos author,
and can instantly identify quotes from them.

[John Whelan]

Magister wrote:
> It is stated nowhere that this is Dee's original manuscript.

HPL said that only one copy exists, which is the original mansucript,
surviving only in fragments. HPL said that Dee's version was "never
printed" (ie. that it was/is a "manuscript"). HPL referred to the
copy in the Dunwich Horror as Dr. Dee's copy (obviously his manuscript
copy, and not his photocopy), and said it was in bad condition. Taken
all together, HPL has indeed told us that Whateley's copy was Dr.

Dee's original manuscript.

> "priceless but imperfect copy" is what it says in "The Dunwich Horror".

Of course, the reason it is "priceless" is because it is unique. It
is the only one of its kind. Dr. Dee only copied the Necronomicon
once. "Imperfect copy" in this context apparently means "imperfect
copy of the Necronomicon". This is Dee's copy of the Necronomicon,
made by hand (manuscript) and not by printing.

> Just because
> the book was never printed doesn't mean it didn't circulate -- in manuscript.

It does not seem to the the sort of book one lends casually. The
implication seems to be that those who owned it, USED it. Apparently,
not after Dr. Dee's death in 1608, the manuscript fell into the hands
of the Whateley family. When their occult activities got them into
trouble in England, they fled to America, ending up in Salem. When
their occult activities continued to get them into trouble in Salem,
the family fled to remote Dunwich only 84 years after Dr. Dee's death,
the volume presumably staying with them, and eventually ending up by
circa 1860 (or thereabouts) in the hands of Old Whateley (Wilbur's
granddad) who at this time (his youth) becomes known locally as a
sorcerer, no doubt with the aid of the "great odorous books" he "had
inherited through two centuries of Whateleys). After Wilbur
Whateley's death, the manuscript was recovered in fragmentary form by
professors of Miscatonic University. That, at least, seems to me the
most probable history, given the facts that HPL provides.

> Hence, other hand-written copies could -- and probably were -- available
> at the given time.

The probabilities seem to be the other way, judging by HPL's fiction
alone. Now, perhaps you are bending over backwards to acknowledge
some other source as also canon, and that's fine. But you've given me
no reason to care. You and Mr. Campbell have still not told me what
source you are discussing.

[Kevin Blackburn]

On 15/04/2013 02:21, Kishin wrote:
> I have a number of words that I use as synonyms for "John Whelan," but I
> will not use them in this group, as most of the members are too genteel
> for such language. But suffice it to say that my opinion of him is not
> very positive. All he does is make assumptions and accusations. Now
> kindly imagine the most foul profanity you can think of and apply it to
> him. Thank you for your indulgence.

Long since set his posts to ignore. He may or may not be sincere, but
his level of politeness to others is unacceptable to me.

--
Kevin Blackburn ke...@fairbruk.demon.co.uk

[John Whelan]

This is funny. "Kevin Blackburn", who claims he has not read any of
my posts since "long since" (and therefore has no cause to complain of
my recent behavior), nonetheless posts a "me too" post whose sole
purpose is to heap personal abuse and venom upon me. Why? Because my
level of politeness is unacceptable to him. And yet, Kishin's level
of politeness is evidently completely acceptable to him.

Strange!

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Monday, 15 April 2013 06:16:03 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
HPL referred to the
>
> copy in the Dunwich Horror as Dr. Dee's copy (obviously his manuscript
>
> copy, and not his photocopy), and said it was in bad condition.

This is the precise wording: "Wilbur had with him the priceless but imperfect copy of Dr Dee's English version which his grandfather had bequeathed him." That means a copy of Dee's version, not Dee's own copy.

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Monday, 15 April 2013 04:39:24 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:

> As to that, I will merely say that I do not think it is a reasonable
>
> assumption that anyone who might be interested in posting in this
>
> group knows "The Sin Eaters" of Frank Belknap Long by heart.

I certainly wouldn't suggest that. I don't know that tale by Frank myself.

[Ramsey Campbell]

As to ON CONJURATION, an expert on fine books and book collecting tells me that it was listed in a nineteenth-century auction catalogue of occult books.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> On Monday, 15 April 2013 06:16:03 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
> HPL referred to the
> >
> > copy in the Dunwich Horror as Dr. Dee's copy (obviously his manuscript
> >
> > copy, and not his photocopy), and said it was in bad condition.
>
> This is the precise wording: "Wilbur had with him the priceless but imperfect
> copy of Dr Dee's English version which his grandfather had bequeathed him."

This quote (since you say it is the precise wording) should contain an
elipse at the end. The rest of the sentence makes clear that he is
comparing this particular "copy" to a Latin "copy". This is relevant
to interpretation, since "copy" has several definitions (check a good
dictionary). It can refer to a reproduction of a document ("I have
two copies and an original"); or to any production or physical
instance of a document ("I have 3 copies, including the original").
The latter usage is more likely in certain contexts, as when multiple
instances of a document are being discussed..

For example, if I were to say: "Of the Necronomicon, there are
currently in existence 4 surviving copies of the Greek version, 12
surviving copies of the Latin version, one surviving copy of Dee's
English version, and no surviving copies of the Arabic version", this
would normally be interpreted in the second sense, with surviving
"copies" including any originals.

By itself, "The Dunwich Horror" is more ambiguous. Normally, I might
be inclined to accept your interpretation, except for one thing.
Unfortunately for your interpretation, "History of the Necronomicon"
completely resolves any ambiguity the other way. This document
survives ONLY as the fragmentary original manuscript. There are no
copies, as you define "copy".

> That means a copy of Dee's version, not Dee's own copy.

Judging from "History of the Necronomicon", HPL disagrees with your
interpretation. "Copy of Dee's version" must mean "physical instance
of Dee's version".

[John Whelan]

Aargh. You got me, Mr. Campbell. It should be "The Space Eaters" by
Frank Belknap Long.

But I stand by the general sense of what I said. I trust you agree.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> As to ON CONJURATION, an expert on fine books and book collecting tells
> me that it was listed in a nineteenth-century auction catalogue of occult books.

Interesting. But not relevant to my question. I merely wanted to
know your (immediate) source for the quote you provided.

[John Whelan]

On Apr 15, 10:55 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> > That means a copy of Dee's version, not Dee's own copy.
>
> Judging from "History of the Necronomicon", HPL disagrees with your
> interpretation. "Copy of Dee's version" must mean "physical instance
> of Dee's version".

BTW, I just found 2 more quotes from HPL where he appears to use the
word "copy" to refer to what is essentially an "original manuscript":

"The entire affair was reported by Mr. W. Lablache Talcum, his copy
being revised by Horse Power Hateart."

"Besides nameless rites and human sacrifices there were certain queer
hereditary rituals addressed to a supreme elder devil or tornasuk; and
of this Professor Webb had taken a careful phonetic copy from an aged
angekok or wizard-priest, expressing the sounds in Roman letters as
best he knew how."

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:38:16 PM UTC-4, Magister wrote:
> In fact, "History of the Necronomicon" was written in 1927.
> See letter to Clark Ashton Smith, 27 November 1927:
>
> "I have had no chance to produce new material this autumn, but have
> been classifying notes & synopses in preparation for some monstrous
> tales later on. In particular I have drawn up some data on the
> celebrated & unmentionable Necronomicon by the mad Arab Abdul
> Alhazred! It seems that this shocking blasphemy was produced by
> a native of Sanaá, in Yemen, who flourished about 700 A. D. &
> made many mysterious pilgrimages to Babylon's ruins, Memphis's
> catacombs, & the devil-haunted & untrodden wastes of the great
> southern deserts of Arabia--"
>
> and so on and so on, giving all the details of "History".

Well ... not quite all of them. I just read the entire letter online, and there is no mention of Dr. Dee's version.

This omission is consistent with my supposition: That the existence of Dr. Dee's copy was not generally known prior to 1928; it was purely private information for a story HPL was still planning. The existence of the Dee copy was something that was supposed to emerge in the context of "The Dunwich Horror"; a device to explain how degraded, poorly-educated, backwoods types (Lavinia and her Dad) could read the Necronomicon.

[John Whelan]

On second thought, I have just examined the photocopy of HPL's
manuscript of "History of the Necronomicon", published in Golancz's
ELDRITCH TALES. The actual Ms strongly suggests a different reason
why HPL does not mention Dr. Dee in his 27 Nov 1927 letter to CA
Smith -- he had not written this part yet. On the original
manuscipt, the reference to Dr. Dee is clearly a later, interlinear,
insertion, squeezed in tiny script between 2 normally-spaced lines.

This insertion was likely made after, or contemporaneous with, the
writing of "The Dunwich Horror, some time in 1928.

[Ramsey Campbell]

I'm sure it wasn't generally known, but what concept of time are we working with here? Dee had been dead for centuries in the 1920s, and he'd already made the translation. At least one of the unidentified authors of ON CONJURATION was clearly aware of it.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

I have in mind a realistic concept of time and space, where the mists of time swallow up the infinite past, and nothing is known to future generations except to the limited extent that considerable human efforts, not only to preserve, but also to disseminate, the information, have met with an unusual degree of success.

> Dee had been dead for centuries in the 1920s, and he'd already made
> the translation.

And for at least 2 of those centuries, if not all 3, Dee's copy was in the private collection of the Whateley family. Not only did they not seek publicity for their occult activities, but they sought to hide them in
backwoods settlements of remote colonies.

The author of "The Secret Treatise of the Great Seth" is dead even longer than Dr. Dee, but you will have great trouble finding any quotations from it that precede the discovery of this manuscript, and its eventual publication, some time after 1945.

> At least one of the unidentified authors of ON CONJURATION was clearly
> aware of it.

Evidently not, since you refuse to name your immediate source, after admitting you did not access ON CONJURATION directly, but know of it only on the vague say-so of some unnamed "expert" who in turn only says only that he saw the title in a catalog.

More likely, your unidentified source is writing some time after early 1928, which is the time that the existence (at least) of the Dee copy came to the attention of Miscatonic University scholars. He is a militant ideologue reacting indignantly to what he (perhaps mistakenly) understands to be the Christian implications of a fragment of "Dee's Necronomicon" quoted by Frank Belknap Long later that year (which fragment itself may or may not be genuine; or, even if genuine to Dee's copy, may or may not be from Al Hazred's portion of the text as distinct from being a quotation from commentary materials of Dee, Wormius, or Philetas).

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:17:14 AM UTC-4, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> The author of "The Secret Treatise of the Great Seth" is dead even longer

Aargh! Before the erudite Mr. Campbell corrects me again, that should be "The Second Treatise of the Great Seth".

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Wednesday, 17 April 2013 15:17:14 UTC+1, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Dee had been dead for centuries in the 1920s, and he'd already made
>
> > the translation.
>
>
>
> And for at least 2 of those centuries, if not all 3, Dee's copy was in the private collection of the Whateley family. Not only did they not seek publicity for their occult activities, but they sought to hide them in backwoods settlements of remote colonies.

I think you're misreading "Dee copy" as "Dee's copy". Lovecraft says the original wasn't published, not that it wasn't copied. And even you agree that The Whateleys may not have had their copy for all three centuries of its existence, if that's how long it had existed.

[John Whelan]

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:52:36 AM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> I think you're misreading "Dee copy" as "Dee's copy".

By itself, "Dee copy" is ambiguous. It is "History of the
Necronomicon" that resolves the ambiguity. Only one copy survives,
and it is, indeed, "Dee's copy".

Your position, I suppose, is that HPL is wrong, and 2 copies survive.
But I am going with HPL on this one. Sorry!

> Lovecraft says the original wasn't published, not that it wasn't copied.

If it was ever hand-copied (and there is no reason to believe it was),
the copy does not survive. See "History of the Necronomicon".

Even if it was copied, that only means two manuscripts in private
hands instead of one. This is the age of the printing press.
Significant copying and dissemination simply does not occur without
the aid of printing. It would be a waste of energy. The Necronomicon
had 3 print runs in Latin or Greek, and look how rare and unobtainable
those copies are?

Writers sometimes quote unpublished sources, but when they do, they do
so to publicize (in part) their contents, on the belief that they have
value. But that is not your source's attitude or purpose: he is
arguing and protesting against contents he considers valueless. He is
clearly reacting to, and arguing against, something that has already
been published: Long's 1928 quotation. This is a post-1928 writer.

> And even you agree that The Whateleys may not have had their copy for all
> three centuries of its existence, if that's how long it had existed.

I don't see what difference it makes. The Whateleys are as likely, or
unlikely, to hand-copy this document as anyone else. In any event,
the Whateley was were already associated with witchcraft when they
fled from Salem in 1692. Since both the family, and the volume, hail
originally from England, it seems a violation of Occham's Razor to
postulate any other scenario than the family acquiring the volume in
England, before they even came to the New World, while they were still
wealthy.

Food for speculation: Dee did lose much of his valuable library
(printed volumes and manuscripts) in a devastating robbery. I know of
know Whateleys who were associated with Dee. However, some suppose
their is a connection between Dee and Shakespeare, and Shakespeare in
turn is associated with the mysterious (and possibly non-existant)
Anne Whateley.

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Friday, 19 April 2013 00:25:38 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:

> Writers sometimes quote unpublished sources, but when they do, they do
>
> so to publicize (in part) their contents, on the belief that they have
>
> value.

Not necessarily at all, and whoever wrote the comment in ON CONJURATION was clearly trying to counteract a trend by giving an example of the way it had affected a version of a famous (and famously rare) occult work.

But that is not your source's attitude or purpose: he is
>
> arguing and protesting against contents he considers valueless. He is
>
> clearly reacting to, and arguing against, something that has already
>
> been published: Long's 1928 quotation.

No, just something to which he'd had access.

>
>
>
> > And even you agree that The Whateleys may not have had their copy for all
>
> > three centuries of its existence, if that's how long it had existed.
>
>
>
> I don't see what difference it makes. The Whateleys are as likely, or
>
> unlikely, to hand-copy this document as anyone else. In any event,
>
> the Whateley was were already associated with witchcraft when they
>
> fled from Salem in 1692. Since both the family, and the volume, hail
>
> originally from England, it seems a violation of Occham's Razor to
>
> postulate any other scenario than the family acquiring the volume in
>
> England, before they even came to the New World, while they were still
>
> wealthy.

Yes, but ON CONJURATION was written and published in England.

[John Whelan]

On Apr 19, 4:54 pm, Ramsey Campbell <ramseycampbel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, 19 April 2013 00:25:38 UTC+1, John Whelan  wrote:
> > Writers sometimes quote unpublished sources, but when they do, they do
> > so to publicize (in part) their contents, on the belief that they have
> > value.
>

> Not necessarily at all, [...]

Yes. But why speculate as to theoretically possible severe
unlikelihoods? There is no evidence in support, and the probabilities
are clearly against it.

Your persistently refusal to name your source. Hence. No evidence.

[Ramsey Campbell]

No, I don't. Once again, it's ON CONJURATION (Matterhorn Press, 1865).

[John Whelan]

You have already admitted that this is not your source for the words
you quote. You are convinced of its existence only because an expert
assures you he saw the title in a catalog. A good fiction writer
keeps his fictions straight. Try again!

[Ramsey Campbell]

Not at all. I was citing the auction catalogue since you seemed to be asking for extra confirmation. Indeed, I'm told that a facsimile of the catalogue will be published quite soon, and then you can consult it yourself. And where on earth have I "already admitted" that ON CONJURATION isn't the source? It is indeed.

[Magister]

Den onsdagen den 17:e april 2013 kl. 05:34:27 UTC+2 skrev John Whelan:
> On second thought, I have just examined the photocopy of HPL's
>
> manuscript of "History of the Necronomicon", published in Golancz's
>
> ELDRITCH TALES. The actual Ms strongly suggests a different reason
>
> why HPL does not mention Dr. Dee in his 27 Nov 1927 letter to CA
>
> Smith -- he had not written this part yet. On the original
>
> manuscipt, the reference to Dr. Dee is clearly a later, interlinear,
>
> insertion, squeezed in tiny script between 2 normally-spaced lines.
>
>
>
> This insertion was likely made after, or contemporaneous with, the
>
> writing of "The Dunwich Horror, some time in 1928.
>
>

The insertion had nothing to do with "The Dunwich Horror". It was caused by Frank Belknap Long referring to the Dee Necronomicon in "The Space Eaters".

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Not at all. I was citing the auction catalogue since you seemed to be asking
> for extra confirmation.

The mere existence of an 1865 document called "ON CONJURATION" is not
extra confirmation of anything. The fact that you are citing an
unnamed expert, who says he consulted an auction catalog, which
allegedly lists this title, is proof not only that you did not
yourself consult the auction catalog, but also that you did not
yourself consult "ON CONJURATION".

> Indeed, I'm told that a facsimile of the catalogue will be published quite soon,
> and then you can consult it yourself.

Who cares?

> And where on earth have I "already admitted" that ON CONJURATION isn't
> the source?

I did not say that. I said that you had, in effect, admitted it was
not YOUR source. If you was YOUR source, you would have assured me
you had consulted the document yourself. You would not be citing an
unnamed expert, who says he saw an auction catalog, which in turn
states only that some such document exists.

When it came to the Long quote from "Dee's Necronomicon", you had no
trouble citing Long as your intermediate source.

[John Whelan]

To me, the most likely chronology is as follows: (1) Long writes "The
Space Eaters", introducing the "Dee's Necronomicon" idea, & HPL at
some point reads the manuscript; (2) HPL writes "History of the
Necronomicon", but without referencing "Dee's Necronomicon"; (3) HPL
writes "The Dunwich Horror" and at this point decides to use Long's
idea of a Dee version of "the Necronomicon"; (4) HPL, at this time,
inserts a reference to Dee's Necronomicon into his "History of the
Necronomicon", making it consistent with "The Dunwich Horror".

But if you have actual evidence that this chronology is wrong, I would
be happy to listen. But certainly, the mere fact that Long was the
first to mention Dee's Necronomicon is not particularly relevant.

[Ramsey Campbell]

Ah well, just as you like. I hope the audience has had as much fun as I have.

[Magister]

I did. Thanks, Ramsey!

Yrs
Martin

[Ramsey Campbell]

Just between ourselves, Martin (nobody else can read this, yes? You know how careful we must be in occult matters) I have indeed seen those passages from ON CONJURATION in print, and more from it too. Shhh!

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Ah well, just as you like. I hope the audience has had as much fun as I have.

Yes, I had lots of fun. Thank you..

Oh, wait! Perhaps you were not talking to me. Perhaps you were
merely inviting your net buddies to congratulate you on a successful
troll.

In that case, it is an honor to be trolled so mercilessly by a
published author.

[John Whelan]

On Apr 21, 8:32 am, Ramsey Campbell <ramseycampbel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Just between ourselves, Martin (nobody else can read this, yes? You know how careful
> we must be in occult matters) I have indeed seen those passages from ON CONJURATION
> in print, and more from it too. Shhh!

Have a care, oh Wise One, lest these occult secrets be too great for
thy mortal ken. Have care, lest thou end up like Harley Warren, or
Robert Suydam, or Crawford Tillinghast, or R.U. Pickman, or Robert
Blake.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:48:35 AM UTC-4, Magister wrote:
> I did. Thanks, Ramsey!

Martin, looks like you are still here ... yet you did not answer my question. Should I take that as a concession?

I know you want to correct me, so I'll throw you (perhaps) a juicier bone. Until now I have been assuming, for the sake of argument, that HPL did indeed get the Dee's Necronomicon idea from Long. However, I am aware of no proof that that is the case. For all I know, the quote at the beginning of "The Space Eaters" may have been the last part written, and added very shortly before publication, after HPL had already circulated the "History of the Necronomicon" (or some variant thereof) to certain of his friends, including Long.

But if there's a good reason to believe otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

[Ramsey Campbell]

I'm not sure what you mean by trolling in this context, but allow me to apologise - you may think me impolite for not thanking you for your earlier advice on how to be a writer.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by trolling in this context [...]

In that case (as before)

Yes, thank you. I had lots of fun.

[Magister]

Den måndagen den 22:e april 2013 kl. 03:16:04 UTC+2 skrev jwjbw...@gmail.com:
> On Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:48:35 AM UTC-4, Magister wrote:
>
> > I did. Thanks, Ramsey!
>
>
>
> Martin, looks like you are still here ... yet you did not answer my question. Should I take that as a concession?

No. Unlike the other information I have already provided, this is buried somewhere in my collection and I can't remember where. And I have better things to do with my time than go look for it.

[John Whelan]

Magister wrote:
> No. Unlike the other information I have already provided, this is buried
> somewhere in my collection and I can't remember where. And I have better
> things to do with my time than go look for it.

I did find the following source, which cites other sources:

On p. 415 of THE THING ON THE DOORSTEP AND OTHER WEIRD STORIES
(Penguin, 2001), (at n38 for "The Dunwich Horror"), Joshi cites
SELECTED LETTERS vol 2 at pp. 171-2 for the proposition that Long was
"working on 'The Space Eaters'" in Sept. 1927; and also (at p. 217)
for the proposition that "HPL had read the story in manuscript no
later than January 1928" (I would guess this probably refers to a
letter, dated Jan '28, where HPL mentions having already read "The
Space Eaters" in manuscript). Joshi also mentioning that "The Space
Eaters" was published, with epigraph, in the July 1928 issue of WEIRD
TALES.

From this evidence, he seems to conclude that "Dee's English
translation of the NECRONOMICON had been invented by Frank Belknap
Long". Obviously, the conclusion does not logically follow from the
cited propositions. But perhaps there is additional evidence that
Joshi neglected to mention.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

I am also informed that, on p13 of THE NECRONOMICON FILES (2003), Daniel Harms reports the same conclusion (that Long originated the Dee connection), but apparently he does not cite a source. Harms reports that the epigraph WAS present in the version HPL read, but (contra Joshi) claims it was NOT present in the WEIRD TALES appearance.

This should be taken with a grain of salt; due to (1) the failure to cite a source; (2) the contradiction with Joshi; and (3) the possibility that his source is a garbled recollection of Joshi's Penguin text, with the Joshi argument subconsciously altered so that the premises actually support the conclusion.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

Checking further, I find that it is in fact Joshi who has contradicted himself. Elsewhere (on p. 141 of A SUBTLER MAGICK (1996), and on p. 51 of A LOVECRAFT ENCYCLOPEDIA (2001)), Joshi says that the epigraph was ABSENT from the initial WEIRD TALES publication.

Which, if true, further raises the question: What basis is there for the belief that Long invented the Dee-Necronomicon connection? If it was not in the initial publication, what basis is there for the idea that it was in some earlier draft that HPL read?

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

Donald Tyson, in THE DREAM WORLD OF HP LOVECRAFT (2010) also claims that this epigraph was present in the manuscript of "The Space Eaters" HPL read in 1927. But he cites no source for this claim; and may be merely parroting the unsubstantiated texts already quoted.

[Ramsey Campbell]

Or Peter Grace.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

Ah. From some 80's novel, right? Called, IIRC, THE PARASITE. Can't remember the author's name. Richard Strumpett or something like that.

So what did you think of that one? Was it any good?

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:46:49 AM UTC-4, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ah. From some 80's novel, right? Called, IIRC, THE PARASITE. Can't
> remember the author's name. Richard Strumpett or something like that.
>
> So what did you think of that one? Was it any good?

On second thought, I think the name was actually Crumpett.

[Ramsey Campbell]

Not to mention John Strong.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Not to mention John Strong.

Ah. That's a Pugmire protagonist, is it not? I must say, it is very noble of you to condescend to mention your friend's work. Clearly, the poll of the Elite Cognoscenti has been completed, and they have reluctantly conceded to your heartfelt request that you be finally permitted to discuss works other than your own.

But you still have not told me what you thought of the Richard Crumpett novel.

[Ramsey Campbell]

Not much good, I'd say, no.

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Tuesday, 30 April 2013 10:17:38 UTC+1, Ramsey Campbell wrote:

And then there's Arthur Pendemon.

[John Whelan]

On Apr 30, 4:48 pm, Ramsey Campbell <ramseycampbel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> And then there's Arthur Pendemon.

Awww ... Noooo! Ramsey, you're backsliding! You're discussing Ramsey
Campbell again! After a couple of too-brief moments mentioning
Richard Crumpett and Wilum Pugmire, its right back to Ramsey Campbell.

Do the Elite Cognoscenti have you on a short leash? Rebel! Defy
them, I say! Break the shackles of self-importance that have your
head enchained in your own backside. Stop being Alone with the
Horrors. Run free in the bright warm sunlight, and enjoy the
beautiful humble feeling of being just a tiny person in a vast, vast
universe.

[Ramsey Campbell]

I thought we were swapping names of doomed occultists.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> I thought we were swapping names of doomed occultists.

If you like. But would you have your name added to the list? Defy
the Elite Cognoscenti. Cease listening to their foul whisperings.
Take courage, and venture bravely into realms where none have ever
heard of the Great Ramsey Campbell. Embrace with joy your own
insignificance. Only then can you truly break free.

[Ramsey Campbell]

I'm not with you. I'm not an occultist, just a writer. On the other hand, my observation is that most people who are interested in Lovecraft are also interested in his influence.

[Ramsey Campbell]

And Thomas Underhill.

[John Whelan]

On May 1, 8:45 am, Ramsey Campbell <ramseycampbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not with you. I'm not an occultist, just a writer.

Who, then, are these Elitely Cognizant Ones, with whom you commune,
and from whom you take your marching orders, and who feed your mad
pride with their foul whisperings.

> On the other hand, my observation is that most people who are interested in Lovecraft are also interested in his influence.

Ach! I had no idea you were that old! And don't try to tell me that
these unnatural gifts have been achieved without human sacrifice, or
some other terrible price!

[John Whelan]

On May 1, 8:46 am, Ramsey Campbell <ramseycampbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And Thomas Underhill.

Randolph Carter
Michael Jackson
Henry Jekyll
Dorian Grey
Christine Brown
Lavinia Whateley
Victor Frankenstein
Ar-Pharazon
Elisabeth Bathory
Mr. Karswell

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 14, 2013 9:21:24 PM UTC-4, Kishin wrote:
> kindly imagine the most foul profanity you can think of >and apply it to him. Thank you for your indulgence.

ANuS, or Franklin. You should get the former
reference.

[John Whelan]

I don't get either reference (these terms, no doubt, are understood only by the elite cognizenti) but am amused by the idea that someone has revived a year old thread merely so they could apply to me the foulest profanity they can think of. To what do I owe this honor? And who, exactly, is my nemesis?

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 1:59:58 PM UTC-4, John Whelan

> I don't get either reference (these terms, no doubt, are >understood only by the elite cognizenti)

You wouldn't unless you are a member of
the Left-Hand Path Illuminati who live
to see the rise of the Goat With a Thousand
Young, who... Just kidding. They were both
people who posted either here or on the
alt.horror group awhile back. It wasn't an
insult, despite your attempts to take it as
such. If you recall, I found that there was
a good chance you could shape your written
piece with a little editing & revision into
a great piece. By the way, the word is spelled
as "cognoscenti".

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 1:59:58 PM UTC-4, John Whelan:

>And who, exactly, is my nemesis?

We are all our own worst enemy.

[John Whelan]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:05:36 PM UTC-4, blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
> They were both
> people who posted either here or on the
> alt.horror group awhile back. It wasn't an
> insult, despite your attempts to take it as
> such.

I haven't taken anything any way, except with a certain level of amusement and a certain level of confusion.

If I understand your words in the context, you are equating the nyms of these posters with the "foulest profanity you can imagine" and comparing them to me. That you you are trying to (rather vaguely) insult three people (me included) now seems the logical conclusion. Of course, since I do not know these people from Adam, I still do not know the precise meaning of the foul people I am being compared to. Perhaps I should be honored to be in their company?

> If you recall, I found that there was
> a good chance you could shape your written
> piece with a little editing & revision into
> a great piece.

Sorry, I don't recall. What piece are you referring to?

> By the way, the word is spelled
> as "cognoscenti".

Thank you kindly. I have tried, in this thread, to spell it in every possible way imaginable.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, John Whelan

> If I understand your words in the context

No, you don't.

>That you you are trying to (rather vaguely) insult three >people (me included) now seems the logical conclusion.

Have you ever considered seeking real
professional help for the obvious problem
you have with your ego? Something is really
wrong when you believe EVERYTHING revolves
around you.

[John Whelan]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 8:21:58 PM UTC-4, blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
> Have you ever considered seeking real
> professional help for the obvious problem
> you have with your ego?

I apologize. Clearly I was wrong to perceive your posts as personal and insulting. Thank you for your kind suggestion that I seek psychiatric advice.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:22:38 AM UTC-4, John Whelan

>Thank you for your kind suggestion that I seek psychiatric >advice.

No problem, and best of luck with it.

[John Whelan]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:38:06 PM UTC-4, blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
> No problem, and best of luck with it.

Thank you kindly! We can certainly use more benevolent words and thoughts around here.

[john smith]

What - like this?

http://www.firstcomicsnews.com/?p=109944



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Andrew]

On 7/2/2014 11:16 AM, john smith wrote:
> What - like this?
>
> http://www.firstcomicsnews.com/?p=109944

Shameless plug alert!

:)



Andrew

[Kishin]

john smith wrote:
> What - like this?
>
> http://www.firstcomicsnews.com/?p=109944

Nice!

--

Kishin