Kilroy this Morning
Helen
discussion theme "Witchcraft"?
Some interesting things being raised so far and it has only been on 15
minutes or so as I am writing - any other comments?
Blessed be,
-Helen
===
homepages: http://www.yoshiwara.demon.co.uk
Andy Gates
than crazed hex-maniacs. Still not sure what that satanist was doing there,
though...
Andy
Helen wrote in message <377b2275...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Bethan
Helen <he...@yoshiwara.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:377b2275...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Anybody see this somewhat irritating chat show this morning with the
> discussion theme "Witchcraft"?
>
> minutes or so as I am writing - any other comments?
>
Thought you didn't 'do' mornings?
It's on a bit late for me (I'm at work by then) but when I do catch it,
whatever the subject it's always a bit off.
--
BMW
(Bolshy Mad & Weird)
Helen
>than crazed hex-maniacs. Still not sure what that satanist was doing there,
>though...
Mm - a couple of the, shall we say "characters" they had on there were
ok, and actually did (I thought) quite a lot for wicca and paganism in
general, despite that really irritating bloke in the front row going
on and on about how mad we all are and how we are a few sarnies short
of a picnic etc. The first witch they spoke to was good - she was
honest and open and (hopefully) changed a few attitudes in the UK. I
hope.
Helen
>> discussion theme "Witchcraft"?
>> Some interesting things being raised so far and it has only been on 15
>> minutes or so as I am writing - any other comments?
>Thought you didn't 'do' mornings?
Normally I wouldn't but that time I got up when SO did and didn't
manage to go back to bed after he went out.
>It's on a bit late for me (I'm at work by then) but when I do catch it,
>whatever the subject it's always a bit off.
Mm - exactly.
Kro'dog
Andy Gates wrote in message <7lfkv5$lvt$1...@news1.cableinet.co.uk>...
>At least the telly decided to portray us as dingbats in pillow-cases,
rather
>than crazed hex-maniacs. Still not sure what that satanist was doing
there,
>though...
I only caught the last 15 mins, but I wasn't too sure what those Christians
were doing there (perhaps we could send delegates* to any and all debates
across the country on Christianity, that'll get their Goat). They seemed to
have changed tact somewhat now though, after all they have problems
lambasting Paganism as a religion (awkward legal waters, I presume), so now
they like to emphasis that the powers we deal with come from 'dubious'
sources!!!
Duh, like the power exhibited by their God has only ever been used for
goodness sake, DON'T THINK SO. I mean, ask Job, ask the Egyptians, ask all
those countless tribes that the Israelites slaughtered using the power of
their God (well I suppose it IS for good if you are a blood thirsty,
xenophobic, bigoted, pagan bashing Christian or Jew).
Bloody Xtians!
Oooh, calm down Kro'dog, calm down.
I suppose though, we can, as Pagans, be confident. They have a real problem
dealing with the power of our Lady. OK, so there may be a few radicals
within the Church toying with the concept that their God could be an
androgynous figure, or even worse (better?) a female, heaven forbid, but
they can't re-write the bible THAT much can they! We all know they are
barking up the wrong tree. When faced with the glorious powers of this
Earth, our Goddess, their overwhelmingly patriarchal monotheistic concepts
just crumble to dust, and they know it.
Oh, don't get me wrong, let them worship whomever they wish to, as children
of the Goddess I suppose they have that right. After all She's big enough
for all of us, eh?
*delegates - we still seem to be so disjointed and disorganised when it
comes to us representing ourselves. I don't know if you are all happy with
the situation, but don't any of you think it's time that we displayed a more
professional image, at least when it comes to representation in the media.
Where does the Pagan Federation stand in all this?
Are we happy to let them represent us, with all our myriad of views?
I believe that if we did get more organised, we and newcomers, would get a
better idea of what Paganism is basically about. Let all and sundry have
their say, of course, but it would be good (???) if we had some kind of
'official line', a synthesis of our beliefs, no matter how basic it turns
out to be.
What is Paganism 'basically' about, any thoughts?
Do we have any common ground?
I think, yes. It is surely the Goddess, great salutations to Her, eh?
Perhaps we have no common ground!
Perhaps I'm just waffling on!
Perhaps the Milky Way really is a chocolate bar!
Kro'dog
p.s. who IS Kevin? See a lot of him on the box. Anyone know him?
Inky
<kro...@nodens2000.freeserve.co.uk> crept out of the shadows and spake
thus:
>I only caught the last 15 mins, but I wasn't too sure what those Christians
>were doing there (perhaps we could send delegates* to any and all debates
>across the country on Christianity, that'll get their Goat). They seemed to
>have changed tact somewhat now though, after all they have problems
>lambasting Paganism as a religion (awkward legal waters, I presume), so now
>they like to emphasis that the powers we deal with come from 'dubious'
>sources!!!
"Dubious sources"?!? You mean theyrefrained from say "the Devil"
outright, then? <drily> There's a novelty...
>Duh, like the power exhibited by their God has only ever been used for
>goodness sake, DON'T THINK SO. I mean, ask Job, ask the Egyptians, ask all
>those countless tribes that the Israelites slaughtered using the power of
>their God (well I suppose it IS for good if you are a blood thirsty,
>xenophobic, bigoted, pagan bashing Christian or Jew).
>
>Bloody Xtians!
>
>Oooh, calm down Kro'dog, calm down.
Yes, calm down Kro'dog - they aren't after you personally ;) And
forget, there's one or two Christians in here with us...
>I suppose though, we can, as Pagans, be confident. They have a real problem
>dealing with the power of our Lady. OK, so there may be a few radicals
>within the Church toying with the concept that their God could be an
>androgynous figure, or even worse (better?) a female, heaven forbid, but
>they can't re-write the bible THAT much can they! We all know they are
>barking up the wrong tree. When faced with the glorious powers of this
>Earth, our Goddess, their overwhelmingly patriarchal monotheistic concepts
>just crumble to dust, and they know it.
Or even better, that there is a divine balance of feminine and
masculine principles. Welcome the goddesses in but don't forget the
gods. Balance is important - if you have two much of one side /or/ the
other, it could cause problems.
>Oh, don't get me wrong, let them worship whomever they wish to, as children
>of the Goddess I suppose they have that right. After all She's big enough
>for all of us, eh?
A whole universe wide...
>*delegates - we still seem to be so disjointed and disorganised when it
>comes to us representing ourselves. I don't know if you are all happy with
>the situation, but don't any of you think it's time that we displayed a more
>professional image, at least when it comes to representation in the media.
But that's getting into the territory of organisation. Most pagans
don't want to get too organised because we're not into the organised
religion thing. Besides, we'd first have to agree on what
commonalities there are between all the different pagan paths and
traditions, what paganism actually /is/ and how we wish that to be
represented.
How do mean "professional image"? Should those of us who are
unconventional in appearance smarten ourselves up so that we don't
offend society at large be being the weirdos they expect? Should we be
"professional" or is it better to simply be ourselves and be honest,
rather than hide?
>Where does the Pagan Federation stand in all this?
For itself, most likely and from what I've heard, it sometimes has a
hard time agreeing with /itself/, never mind those pagans who aren't
allied with it.
>Are we happy to let them represent us, with all our myriad of views?
Me personally? Not really, as they seem to have this general thing of
focusing in on Wicca and forgetting other things. I'm not a Wiccan.
>I believe that if we did get more organised, we and newcomers, would get a
>better idea of what Paganism is basically about. Let all and sundry have
>their say, of course, but it would be good (???) if we had some kind of
>'official line', a synthesis of our beliefs, no matter how basic it turns
>out to be.
In order to get some sort of synthesis of the basics of paganism we
would need to examine every single pagan path and work out what it has
in common with all other pagan paths. You then run into the problem of
deciding who/what is or isn'y pagan. What about those who follow no
path but their own? Do we exclude them or try and force them to fit
into some category that looks acceptable? Paganism is such a vast
umbrella that it covers many things that could be seens as very
different, if not opposite. Any talk of ritual would have to be
excluded because they vary widely and lets face it, its the ritual bit
that most non-pagans want to know about because they think that's the
essence of it, the Devil worship they're so afraid of.
>What is Paganism 'basically' about, any thoughts?
>Do we have any common ground?
>I think, yes. It is surely the Goddess, great salutations to Her, eh?
I think we have a lot of common ground, yes. I've heard the words
"Earth-based spirituallity" bandied around and, I suppose,
broadly-speaking, that covers a lot of pagans. Not all pagans worship
specific deities, though. In fact some have no concrete view of deity.
A while back, there was talk of atheist pagans, pagans who don't
worship any form of deity. There are those who pick and choose which
version of deity, which face of the divine, they want to use for a
particular occasion. Certainly, not everyone venerates the Goddess as
the definitive version of the divine force of the universe.
>Perhaps we have no common ground!
>Perhaps I'm just waffling on!
Maybe <g>
>Perhaps the Milky Way really is a chocolate bar!
Truth is stranger than fiction, remember... If the Milky Way really
/is/ a chocolate bar, how many URPers want to help fund the URP space
program so we can investigate? <g>
>Kro'dog
>p.s. who IS Kevin? See a lot of him on the box. Anyone know him?
You mean the hacker guy in the States who's been "allegedly"
imprisoned on trumped up charges and is being used as an icon for
free-speech and free access on the net?
Bright Blessings,
--
Inky
--
To reply remove the TINOFSPAM from the above address.
Visit me at: http://www.orphic-egg.freeserve.co.uk/
Gwydion
Inky <in...@orphic-eggTINOFSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:377fead6...@news.freeserve.net...
> "Dubious sources"?!? You mean they refrained from say "the Devil"
> outright, then? <drily> There's a novelty...
<echo> "you must know that people find what you do offensive"
I wonder if they're just being a little more circumspect ?
> But that's getting into the territory of organisation. Most pagans
> don't want to get too organised because we're not into the organised
> religion thing. Besides, we'd first have to agree on what
> commonalities there are between all the different pagan paths and
> traditions, what paganism actually /is/ and how we wish that to be
> represented.
I was thinking about this earlier, for me a set routine just doesn't work. I
believe that feelings and the very live aspect of nature are certainly the
driving forces behind what I do. You can't rationalise and control that.
> Me personally? Not really, as they seem to have this general thing of
> focusing in on Wicca and forgetting other things. I'm not a Wiccan.
Wicca is one of the most easily "recognised" forms of paganism, I guess the
idea is that if the federation can get that one "covered" they can work on
the smaller segments of paganism at a later date. This gives the biggest
"return" for a single task.
> Truth is stranger than fiction, remember... If the Milky Way really
> /is/ a chocolate bar, how many URPers want to help fund the URP space
> program so we can investigate? <g>
<sigh> You only wanna do it 'cos it's got a chocolate potential... ;)
--
Brightest Blessings,
Gwydion
ICQ 35227583
DinkiPixie
<snip>
>How do mean "professional image"? Should those of us who are
>unconventional in appearance smarten ourselves up so that we don't
>offend society at large be being the weirdos they expect?
There's a thought. I live in t-shirts and leggings mostly. Among my t-shirt
collection are ones displaying: The Goddess in Me, Hobgoblin (Wychwood
Brewery), and Death (TP). Have I got the wrong image? :o]
--
Angela Touchstone
Chris Croughton
<in...@orphic-eggTINOFSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>But that's getting into the territory of organisation. Most pagans
>don't want to get too organised because we're not into the organised
>religion thing. Besides, we'd first have to agree on what
>commonalities there are between all the different pagan paths and
>traditions, what paganism actually /is/ and how we wish that to be
>represented.
Yes, exactly. Apropos of which, I was looking at the conditions for
membersgip in the Pagan Federation, and they say
i. Love and Kinship with Nature. Reverence for the life force and its
ever-renewing cycles of life and death.
ii. The Pagan Ethic: "If it harm none, Do what thou wilt." This is a
positive morality, expressing the belief in individual
responsibility for discovering ones own true nature and developing
it fully, in harmony with the outer world and community.
iii. Honouring the Totality of Divine Reality, which transcends
gender, without suppressing either the female or male aspect of
Deity.
I was wondering how many pagans do /not/ agree with those three? For
instance, I know some who do see the Goddess without a male part and
couldn't do the third point (I believe there are some pagans with only
male deities as well), and I've heard the second called "The Wiccan
Creed" implying that not all non-Wiccans agree with it.
>How do mean "professional image"? Should those of us who are
>unconventional in appearance smarten ourselves up so that we don't
>offend society at large be being the weirdos they expect? Should we be
>"professional" or is it better to simply be ourselves and be honest,
>rather than hide?
You know my views on that <g>. I don't do suits..
>>Where does the Pagan Federation stand in all this?
>>Are we happy to let them represent us, with all our myriad of views?
>
>Me personally? Not really, as they seem to have this general thing of
>focusing in on Wicca and forgetting other things. I'm not a Wiccan.
There are a lot of pagans who aren't in tune with the Pagan Federation
(hence the Beltane camp in the New Forest this year was not run by them
but by local groups).
>In order to get some sort of synthesis of the basics of paganism we
>would need to examine every single pagan path and work out what it has
>in common with all other pagan paths.
You might as well try for a complete world religion while you're about
it...
>You then run into the problem of deciding who/what is or isn'y pagan.
>What about those who follow no path but their own? Do we exclude them
>or try and force them to fit into some category that looks acceptable?
Exactly. However you 'organise' people are going to be left out, and
they will either still call themselves 'pagan' (but not 'Pagan', for
instance) and will confuse the public or they'll have to find yet
another name which means "not a member of organised and approved religion".
>Paganism is such a vast umbrella that it covers many things that could
>be seens as very different, if not opposite. Any talk of ritual would
>have to be excluded because they vary widely and lets face it, its the
>ritual bit that most non-pagans want to know about because they think
>that's the essence of it, the Devil worship they're so afraid of.
>
>>What is Paganism 'basically' about, any thoughts?
>>Do we have any common ground?
>>I think, yes. It is surely the Goddess, great salutations to Her, eh?
>
>I think we have a lot of common ground, yes. I've heard the words
>"Earth-based spirituallity" bandied around and, I suppose,
>broadly-speaking, that covers a lot of pagans.
Not all, though?
>Not all pagans worship specific deities, though. In fact some have no
>concrete view of deity. A while back, there was talk of atheist
>pagans, pagans who don't worship any form of deity. There are those who
>pick and choose which version of deity, which face of the divine, they
>want to use for a particular occasion.
I resemble that remark...
>Certainly, not everyone venerates the Goddess as the definitive version
>of the divine force of the universe.
Many take a balance.
>>Perhaps the Milky Way really is a chocolate bar!
>
>Truth is stranger than fiction, remember... If the Milky Way really
>/is/ a chocolate bar, how many URPers want to help fund the URP space
>program so we can investigate? <g>
That's an idea...
>>Kro'dog
>>p.s. who IS Kevin? See a lot of him on the box. Anyone know him?
>
>You mean the hacker guy in the States who's been "allegedly"
>imprisoned on trumped up charges and is being used as an icon for
>free-speech and free access on the net?
Oh, I thought he meant the bat <g>...
Chris C
PJS
>Inky <in...@orphic-eggTINOFSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> writes
><snip>
>>How do mean "professional image"? Should those of us who are
>>unconventional in appearance smarten ourselves up so that we don't
>>offend society at large be being the weirdos they expect?
>
>collection are ones displaying: The Goddess in Me, Hobgoblin (Wychwood
>Brewery), and Death (TP). Have I got the wrong image? :o]
>--
>Angela Touchstone
Seems to be exactly the right image for someone called Angela Touchstone who
uses the nick DinkiPixie . . . however, I wouldn't think about a career
change to a cabinet press secretary.
---
Silence! There is no room for sentiment in this organisation!
Inky
crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
><echo> "you must know that people find what you do offensive"
>I wonder if they're just being a little more circumspect ?
What? You think they'd care about that? I'm not so sure, myself.
>I was thinking about this earlier, for me a set routine just doesn't work. I
>believe that feelings and the very live aspect of nature are certainly the
>driving forces behind what I do. You can't rationalise and control that.
It goes back to some things I've said in earlier threads: each years,
the way the seasons change is different, and depends on locale. People
who live in different landscapes with different weather may well
celebrate in different ways because of how they view that landscape,
how they interpet its alnguage and what gods and goddesses, if any,
resonate with them, personally. No you can't rationalise that because
it's unique to each person - that for me, is at the very heart of why
I am pagan, because it's my way of expressing and connecting with my
world.
>Wicca is one of the most easily "recognised" forms of paganism, I guess the
>idea is that if the federation can get that one "covered" they can work on
>the smaller segments of paganism at a later date. This gives the biggest
>"return" for a single task.
Although I do wonder about that when i hear of PF meetings where those
who aren't obviously Wiccan and aren't wearing black are made to feel
left out.
>> Truth is stranger than fiction, remember... If the Milky Way really
>> /is/ a chocolate bar, how many URPers want to help fund the URP space
>> program so we can investigate? <g>
>
><sigh> You only wanna do it 'cos it's got a chocolate potential... ;)
Yes. Did I say otherwise? <g>
Bright blessings,
Inky
crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
<waves briefly> Hi Chirs. good to have you back again. moving swiftly
on...
>Yes, exactly. Apropos of which, I was looking at the conditions for
>membersgip in the Pagan Federation, and they say
>
> i. Love and Kinship with Nature. Reverence for the life force and its
> ever-renewing cycles of life and death.
> ii. The Pagan Ethic: "If it harm none, Do what thou wilt." This is a
> positive morality, expressing the belief in individual
> responsibility for discovering ones own true nature and developing
> it fully, in harmony with the outer world and community.
> iii. Honouring the Totality of Divine Reality, which transcends
> gender, without suppressing either the female or male aspect of
> Deity.
>
>I was wondering how many pagans do /not/ agree with those three? For
>instance, I know some who do see the Goddess without a male part and
>couldn't do the third point (I believe there are some pagans with only
>male deities as well), and I've heard the second called "The Wiccan
>Creed" implying that not all non-Wiccans agree with it.
For myself, yes, I agree with those three, although I don't refer to
the second as the Wiccan Rede. To me, it's the Witches' Rede (not all
witches are Wiccan, after all), but I imagine there might be witches
who don't live by that one. It's already been commented on that not
all pagans see that one as a guiding principle for their lives, so
that means they are automatically excluded from and PF dealings and
aren't represented by them. Does that make them not properly pagan? I
wouldn't have thought so.
As for the latter, i suppose it depends what sort of goddess or god
these people venerate. One could have a god that embodies love and
respect for all, regardless of sex or gender, but I wouldn't know
about that.
>>How do mean "professional image"? Should those of us who are
>>unconventional in appearance smarten ourselves up so that we don't
>>offend society at large be being the weirdos they expect? Should we be
>>"professional" or is it better to simply be ourselves and be honest,
>>rather than hide?
>
>You know my views on that <g>. I don't do suits..
I'm with you on that one, as you know.
>There are a lot of pagans who aren't in tune with the Pagan Federation
>(hence the Beltane camp in the New Forest this year was not run by them
>but by local groups).
Precisely, which throws the whole idea of them being /the/
representative body for pagans out the window. How can they be when
quite a lot of pagans don't agree with them? It's fine and dandy
talking about having some sort of organisation that could represent us
but we would never be able to create an organisation that is fully
inclusive, that all pagans can feel happy with.
>You might as well try for a complete world religion while you're about
>it...
Yeah, and I think we all know where that would get us! Precisely
nowhere.
>Exactly. However you 'organise' people are going to be left out, and
>they will either still call themselves 'pagan' (but not 'Pagan', for
>instance) and will confuse the public or they'll have to find yet
>another name which means "not a member of organised and approved religion".
Which goes back to the thing about whether we should call ourselves
pagan (or Pagan) or think up another name - which gets us back to the
dreaded PC thing again. Aaagh!
>>I think we have a lot of common ground, yes. I've heard the words
>>"Earth-based spirituallity" bandied around and, I suppose,
>>broadly-speaking, that covers a lot of pagans.
>
>Not all, though?
I don't know. I don't know all pagans so how can I answer a question
like that with any certainty and without offending someone, even if
it's just one person. I can't. I'd be surprised if there were pagans
who didn't venerate or respect the Earth and the cycles of nature, of
life and death, but who knows?
>>Not all pagans worship specific deities, though. In fact some have no
>>concrete view of deity. A while back, there was talk of atheist
>>pagans, pagans who don't worship any form of deity. There are those who
>>pick and choose which version of deity, which face of the divine, they
>>want to use for a particular occasion.
>
>I resemble that remark...
well, so do I...
>>Certainly, not everyone venerates the Goddess as the definitive version
>>of the divine force of the universe.
>
>Many take a balance.
Which is how I see it, though I may not use terms like Goddess and God
- the underlying thing is still there as I couldn't see things any
other way. But once agai, it isn't true for everyone. I've encountered
the feminist Goddess-oriented witches who daub themselves with
menstrual blood and will have nothing to do with Gods or men-things.
Not very balanced but would you say they are not pagan because of
that?
>>Truth is stranger than fiction, remember... If the Milky Way really
>>/is/ a chocolate bar, how many URPers want to help fund the URP space
>>program so we can investigate? <g>
>
>That's an idea...
Yeahyeahyeah!
>>>Kro'dog
>>>p.s. who IS Kevin? See a lot of him on the box. Anyone know him?
>>
>>You mean the hacker guy in the States who's been "allegedly"
>>imprisoned on trumped up charges and is being used as an icon for
>>free-speech and free access on the net?
>
>Oh, I thought he meant the bat <g>...
Eh?
Inky
<dink...@dinkipix.demon.co.uk> crept out of the shadows and spake
thus:
>There's a thought. I live in t-shirts and leggings mostly. Among my t-shirt
>collection are ones displaying: The Goddess in Me, Hobgoblin (Wychwood
>Brewery), and Death (TP). Have I got the wrong image? :o]
No, you've got /you're/ image, as I have mine. I imagine that with
you, as with me, it has little or nothing to do with your religious
beliefs. It's just clothes we choose to wear but it does seem that
some folk have an idea of all pagans being the sort who wear baggy
tie-dyed trousers and T-shirts and have beads and hair-wraps and
stuff. If we aren't satanists then we're hippies, which to some
people, it seems, is just as bad. I don't see that as reason to make
myself appear respectable to a bunch of people who are never likely to
respect me, anyway.
Hobgoblin! Mmmmm. I didn't know one could get T-shirts of that - I
just have a bottle on top of one of my kitchen wall cupboards because
it's a nice label and goes well with my (ever-growing) collection of
blue glass things. Nice beer, too...
Bethan
Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn7o0m5d...@ccserver.keris.org...
>
> Yes, exactly. Apropos of which, I was looking at the conditions for
> membersgip in the Pagan Federation, and they say
>
> i. Love and Kinship with Nature. Reverence for the life force and its
> ever-renewing cycles of life and death.
> ii. The Pagan Ethic: "If it harm none, Do what thou wilt." This is a
> positive morality, expressing the belief in individual
> responsibility for discovering ones own true nature and developing
> it fully, in harmony with the outer world and community.
> iii. Honouring the Totality of Divine Reality, which transcends
> gender, without suppressing either the female or male aspect of
> Deity.
>
> I was wondering how many pagans do /not/ agree with those three? For
> instance, I know some who do see the Goddess without a male part and
> couldn't do the third point (I believe there are some pagans with only
> male deities as well), and I've heard the second called "The Wiccan
> Creed" implying that not all non-Wiccans agree with it.
Two rules me out, The PF started off as Wiccan and were being pushed away
from it, but not yet far enough to drop that. The other two are 'fluffy
bunny' enough to be fine, but they also ask for a sort of pagan bio which I
object to on some principle (probably mind your own business)
>
> >How do mean "professional image"? Should those of us who are
> >unconventional in appearance smarten ourselves up so that we don't
> >offend society at large be being the weirdos they expect? Should we be
> >"professional" or is it better to simply be ourselves and be honest,
> >rather than hide?
>
> You know my views on that <g>. I don't do suits..
It doesn't have to mean 'suits' just being able to present our views calmly
and with reasoned arguement, getting people past our unconventional
appearance - though even I'd cringe if a pagan went on to Newsnight in full
ritual dress rather then everyday clothes (sort of wear the dog collar,but
not the cassock please)>
> >>Where does the Pagan Federation stand in all this?
> >>Are we happy to let them represent us, with all our myriad of views?
> >
> >Me personally? Not really, as they seem to have this general thing of
> >focusing in on Wicca and forgetting other things. I'm not a Wiccan.
>
> There are a lot of pagans who aren't in tune with the Pagan Federation
> (hence the Beltane camp in the New Forest this year was not run by them
> but by local groups).
>
There used to be another group, Pagan Network I think, but I haven't seen
anything about it for ages. The problem with both of them is a need to get
consensus before they speak.
> >In order to get some sort of synthesis of the basics of paganism we
> >would need to examine every single pagan path and work out what it has
> >in common with all other pagan paths.
>
> You might as well try for a complete world religion while you're about
> it...
>
> >You then run into the problem of deciding who/what is or isn'y pagan.
> >What about those who follow no path but their own? Do we exclude them
> >or try and force them to fit into some category that looks acceptable?
Maybe we're trying too hard to include everybody, we've enough Christians
posting to this group who don't hold with the organised bits/ offical line
(you know what I mean) that we don't have to define every catergory, just
some umbrella terms
I know it went down like a dead duck when I asked if anyone had read
Listening People... but for a simple definition how about 'The Pagan
tradition celebrates the physical nature of life on earth, blending science
with spiritual folklore. encouraging the development of power within
> >>Kro'dog
> >>p.s. who IS Kevin? See a lot of him on the box. Anyone know him?
> >
> >You mean the hacker guy in the States who's been "allegedly"
> >imprisoned on trumped up charges and is being used as an icon for
> >free-speech and free access on the net?
>
> Oh, I thought he meant the bat <g>...
Think he means Kevin Carlyon, who I believe is the Witch King<g> certainly
pops up on the box a lot.(usually in full cassock)
--
BMW
(Bolshy Mad & Weird)
>
> Chris C
DinkiPixie
<snyppe>
>Seems to be exactly the right image for someone called Angela Touchstone who
>uses the nick DinkiPixie . . . however, I wouldn't think about a career
>change to a cabinet press secretary.
I wonder what they actually do? The cabinet's ironing, perhaps?
--
Angela Touchstone
Tim McGregor
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:32:48 +0100, DinkiPixie>
> just have a bottle on top of one of my kitchen wall cupboards because
> it's a nice label and goes well with my (ever-growing) collection of
> blue glass things. Nice beer, too...
>
You've not been to any of the Wychwood pubs then? Most of them sell
merchandise.
The one down here is actually called the Hobgoblin (Possibly they all are, I
dunno)
Their label art is among my favourite, witchy things, goblins, the green man
etc.
I like most of their beers but I do tend to find myself drinking guinness
most of the time I'm down there.
Cheers,
T.McG.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/sarsippius/
------------------------------------------------------------
Gwydion
> ><echo> "you must know that people find what you do offensive"
> >I wonder if they're just being a little more circumspect ?
>
> What? You think they'd care about that? I'm not so sure, myself.
<grin> No, but there's no harm in wishing...
> >I was thinking about this earlier, for me a set routine just doesn't
work. I
> >believe that feelings and the very live aspect of nature are certainly
the
> >driving forces behind what I do. You can't rationalise and control that.
>
> It goes back to some things I've said in earlier threads: each years,
> the way the seasons change is different, and depends on locale. People
> who live in different landscapes with different weather may well
> celebrate in different ways because of how they view that landscape,
> how they interpet its alnguage and what gods and goddesses, if any,
> resonate with them, personally.
I was in Portugal for Samhain last year - that was an odd sensation, nothing
"felt" right.
> Although I do wonder about that when i hear of PF meetings where those
> who aren't obviously Wiccan and aren't wearing black are made to feel
> left out.
<sigh> That's a shame. If that's the way they want to be then fair enough -
but why give the impression that they are a universal pagan organisation if
they are going to treat non wiccans as sub standard.
I've never felt any inclination to become involved in the PF (only have a
vague idea of what they are about), I prefer to make my own decisions about
what matters to me.
> ><sigh> You only wanna do it 'cos it's got a chocolate potential... ;)
>
> Yes. Did I say otherwise? <g>
No, but where will it all end - Mars, (the) Galaxy or just a quick trip on a
Double Decker before become a Drifter...
Kro'dog
Inky wrote in message <377fead6...@news.freeserve.net>...
>"Dubious sources"?!? You mean they refrained from say "the Devil"
>outright, then? <drily> There's a novelty...
They can live with that!
>Yes, calm down Kro'dog - they aren't after you personally
Sorry, there's a part of me that likes to branch away from individuality.
>>I suppose though, we can, as Pagans, be confident. They have a real
problem
>>dealing with the power of our Lady. OK, so there may be a few radicals
>>within the Church toying with the concept that their God could be an
>>androgynous figure, or even worse (better?) a female, heaven forbid, but
>>they can't re-write the bible THAT much can they! We all know they are
>>barking up the wrong tree. When faced with the glorious powers of this
>>Earth, our Goddess, their overwhelmingly patriarchal monotheistic concepts
>>just crumble to dust, and they know it.
>Or even better, that there is a divine balance of feminine and
>masculine principles. Welcome the goddesses in but don't forget the
>gods. Balance is important - if you have two much of one side /or/ the
>other, it could cause problems.
Yes ultimately, but the in the collective unconscious of our society the
steps in between still have to be played out before She can rejoice in
'true' union with God.
>>Oh, don't get me wrong, let them worship whomever they wish to, as
children
>>of the Goddess I suppose they have that right. After all She's big enough
>>for all of us, eh?
>A whole universe wide...
Sorry again, I'm pretty earth-bound in my spirituality, although my vision
does spread into the solar system occasionally, and once... or was it twice,
I have been thrown into the immensity of our galaxy, but that was far far
more than I ever needed to know on this planet.
Still, I wouldn't disagree with you.
>>*delegates - we still seem to be so disjointed and disorganised when it
>>comes to us representing ourselves. I don't know if you are all happy with
>>the situation, but don't any of you think it's time that we displayed a
more
>>professional image, at least when it comes to representation in the media.
>
>But that's getting into the territory of organisation. Most pagans
>don't want to get too organised because we're not into the organised
>religion thing. Besides, we'd first have to agree on what
>commonalities there are between all the different pagan paths and
>traditions, what paganism actually /is/ and how we wish that to be
>represented.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd be the first to steer well clear of 'organised
religion', but surely that refers more to it's dogmatic approach to ceremony
and rites, there'd be nothing wrong in being as organised as a trade union
or business or pressure group. But a common org like the PF could be a hub
for all our different ways, the common pagan traits will emerge, we will
have all our different groups and sub orgs like we have now. We just *need*
a professional image.
>How do mean "professional image"? Should those of us who are
>unconventional in appearance smarten ourselves up so that we don't
>offend society at large be being the weirdos they expect? Should we be
>"professional" or is it better to simply be ourselves and be honest,
>rather than hide?
Our disorganisation leads to us being *hidden* in ways the Church could only
have dreamed of. In the mean time, the establishment allows them to keep
telling our kids that we are devil-worshippers (but conveniently for them,
never in a direct fashion, only by their constructed system of
mis-information).
The image I was refering to was not only about looks, but also about
presentation to the media, representaion when Pagan issues are going to be
affected, knowledge within the community that if you are a Pagan then you
have a place to go to, a 'first port of call' so to speak.
>>Where does the Pagan Federation stand in all this?
>For itself, most likely and from what I've heard, it sometimes has a
>hard time agreeing with /itself/, never mind those pagans who aren't
>allied with it.
Hmmmm :|
>>Are we happy to let them represent us, with all our myriad of views?
>Me personally? Not really, as they seem to have this general thing of
>focusing in on Wicca and forgetting other things. I'm not a Wiccan.
>>I believe that if we did get more organised, we and newcomers, would get a
>>better idea of what Paganism is basically about. Let all and sundry have
>>their say, of course, but it would be good (???) if we had some kind of
>>'official line', a synthesis of our beliefs, no matter how basic it turns
>>out to be.
>In order to get some sort of synthesis of the basics of paganism we
>would need to examine every single pagan path and work out what it has
>in common with all other pagan paths. You then run into the problem of
>deciding who/what is or isn'y pagan. What about those who follow no
>path but their own? Do we exclude them or try and force them to fit
>into some category that looks acceptable? Paganism is such a vast
>umbrella that it covers many things that could be seens as very
>different, if not opposite. Any talk of ritual would have to be
>excluded because they vary widely and lets face it, its the ritual bit
>that most non-pagans want to know about because they think that's the
>essence of it, the Devil worship they're so afraid of.
It isn't easy in this society to 'come-out' and announce yourself as Pagan,
so, maybe that's all the criteria we need. Any who is willing to call
themselves 'Pagan'? The pagan society itself will discover peoples beliefs
and enfold them into the whole. We all know the value we put on individual
beliefs, but we are still a pagan society, a tribe, a group and there are
those who suffer from lack of representaion, solitude, and fear, especially
amongst the young (well that's what I think).
>>What is Paganism 'basically' about, any thoughts?
>>Do we have any common ground?
>>I think, yes. It is surely the Goddess, great salutations to Her, eh?
>I think we have a lot of common ground, yes. I've heard the words
>"Earth-based spirituallity" bandied around and, I suppose,
>broadly-speaking, that covers a lot of pagans. Not all pagans worship
>specific deities, though. In fact some have no concrete view of deity.
>A while back, there was talk of atheist pagans, pagans who don't
>worship any form of deity. There are those who pick and choose which
>version of deity, which face of the divine, they want to use for a
>particular occasion. Certainly, not everyone venerates the Goddess as
>the definitive version of the divine force of the universe.
Yes but they all call themselves Pagan, don't they?
>>Perhaps we have no common ground!
>>Perhaps I'm just waffling on!
>Maybe <g>
<g>
>>Perhaps the Milky Way really is a chocolate bar!
>>p.s. who IS Kevin? See a lot of him on the box. Anyone know him?
>You mean the hacker guy in the States who's been "allegedly"
>imprisoned on trumped up charges and is being used as an icon for
>free-speech and free access on the net?
No, I don't think so, I mean't the guy on Kilroy, Kevin the witch, all
dressed up in red, a 'High Priest'. Who is he? I've seen him on the telly
LOADS of times.
Kro'dog
Helen
<kro...@nodens2000.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>A while back, there was talk of atheist pagans, pagans who don't
>>worship any form of deity. There are those who pick and choose which
>>version of deity, which face of the divine, they want to use for a
>>particular occasion. Certainly, not everyone venerates the Goddess as
>the definitive version of the divine force of the universe.
>Yes but they all call themselves Pagan, don't they?
AFAIK, "Pagan" is something of a blanket term, covering all types of
Pagan within it,(Wiccans, Druids etc), in the same way that
"Christian" is a blanket covering baptist, methodist, catholic,
mormon, JW's etc?
And it doesn't all have to be based around the Goddess, does it? My
paganism is rooted in a long held respect and love of the world around
me, and the living things on it, plus my belief in the existence of
*more than one* deity - not just a Goddess.
That's the way I understand it. All the people that have neeb
mentioned above may be Pagan, merely different types of Pagan. And
even within this there may be some who refuse to recognise some other
types as Pagan, in the same way that some Christians refuse to
acknowledge Jehovah's Witnesses as christians, although on fundamental
principles, they are.
But please, someone slap me down if I am wrong.<G>
Blessed be
-Helen
===
Homepages: http://www.yoshiwara.demon.co.uk
DinkiPixie
<snip>
>Hobgoblin! Mmmmm. I didn't know one could get T-shirts of that -
IIRC you collect five bottle-tops and send them with about a fiver to the
brewery. It's all on the label though very small.
--
Angela Touchstone
Brigantia-UK
Bethan <b...@chinnook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7lr9o5$14r$5...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
(snip)
The PF is currently in the process of looking at the 3P's to see if they can
be more encompassing.
--
Brigantia
)o------->
M@
thing we do every night, ch...@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton), post
to Usenet and say:
<snip>
>Yes, exactly. Apropos of which, I was looking at the conditions for
>membersgip in the Pagan Federation, and they say
>
> i. Love and Kinship with Nature. Reverence for the life force and its
> ever-renewing cycles of life and death.
> ii. The Pagan Ethic: "If it harm none, Do what thou wilt." This is a
> positive morality, expressing the belief in individual
> responsibility for discovering ones own true nature and developing
> it fully, in harmony with the outer world and community.
> iii. Honouring the Totality of Divine Reality, which transcends
> gender, without suppressing either the female or male aspect of
> Deity.
>
>I was wondering how many pagans do /not/ agree with those three? For
>instance, I know some who do see the Goddess without a male part and
>couldn't do the third point (I believe there are some pagans with only
>male deities as well), and I've heard the second called "The Wiccan
>Creed" implying that not all non-Wiccans agree with it.
Just to butt in with my 1/16 of a goat... (I prefer barter to cash!)
The above principles of the PF is the main reason why I've decided not
to join, particularly the 2nd. bit. I feel that it may be necessary to
do harm sometimes, in order to prevent a greater harm.
The first and third parts I feel are just too vague and new-agey.
The problem also arises with how these are enforced. As it is, the whole
thing is totally unworkable. Without enforcement the 3 principles of the
PF are meaningless. It's only the ones who are truly honest about their
disagreement with this who are excluded. People have said to me
"Why not just say you're agreeing to them?"
Which kind of destroys the point. If I have to lie in order to join the
PF, well, I don't really want to. Why should I lie about my beliefs?
I'd like to join the PF. As it stands, I can't. Things need to change.
Either they should do away with all conditions of membership other than
a cheque, or they should re-write the conditions in order to take
account of other pagans.
The only reason that I can see for having conditions attached to
membership of the PF is to keep out the "crackpot element"
If that is the case, then without enforcement it seems a little
pointless to attach restrictions to membership. Dropping all conditions
entirely would seem to me the best way to do go.
Anyway, rant over with.
>There are a lot of pagans who aren't in tune with the Pagan Federation
>(hence the Beltane camp in the New Forest this year was not run by them
>but by local groups).
And a bloody fine camp it was, too! Much drinking and merriment.
<waves>
Hi everyone! I'm back from me hols! Still busy in here I see.
<glances down>
You're not *still* talking about chocolate are you? :-))
M@
Nine Words The Eclectic Rede Shall Attest,
Steal What Works, Fix What's Broke, Fake The Rest
Helen
>Hi everyone! I'm back from me hols! Still busy in here I see.
As always! How were your holidays?
><glances down>
>You're not *still* talking about chocolate are you? :-))
Oh yes - but we've moved on to lemon sherbet and ice cream too now!
<g>
DinkiPixie
>Although it's far preferable to save just four bottle-tops (or multiples
>thereof) and take them to your nearest Hobgoblin pub, where they will
>exchange them for a pint of any of their draught beers..
*sigh* Not much chance in Telford as yet.
--
Angela Touchstone
Nick
> p.s. who IS Kevin? See a lot of him on the box. Anyone know him?
you must know who he is, after all he's the king of all the witches
in England (according to him)
Nick
-----We Solve your Computer Problems---
Founder of the Prolifics User Group
Nick
> I was wondering how many pagans do /not/ agree with those three?
>
well I won't join while number 2 is there. I reserve the right
to do harm *if* so choose
Kro'dog
Inky wrote in message <378110c7...@news.freeserve.net>...
>Eh?
Kevin the fruit bat, y'know Rowntrees Fruit Pastels.
I was on about that guy in red robes, has been called a High Priest and
appears on loads of documentaries and chat show thingys, dealing with
witchcraft and Paganism in a very high profile manner.
Who is he???
Kro'dog
Kro'dog
Kro'dog
Kro'dog
Helen wrote in message <3781419c...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>AFAIK, "Pagan" is something of a blanket term, covering all types of
>Pagan within it,(Wiccans, Druids etc), in the same way that
>"Christian" is a blanket covering baptist, methodist, catholic,
>mormon, JW's etc?
I don't understand AFAIK!
>And it doesn't all have to be based around the Goddess, does it? My
>paganism is rooted in a long held respect and love of the world around
>me, and the living things on it, plus my belief in the existence of
>*more than one* deity - not just a Goddess.
There you go, you see you mentioned Her again.
>That's the way I understand it. All the people that have neeb
>mentioned above may be Pagan, merely different types of Pagan. And
>even within this there may be some who refuse to recognise some other
>types as Pagan, in the same way that some Christians refuse to
>acknowledge Jehovah's Witnesses as christians, although on fundamental
>principles, they are.
>But please, someone slap me down if I am wrong.<G>
"Where's that scourge" :)
Kro'dog
Bethan
Brigantia-UK <brigan...@the-shades-1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7lrqto$40q$3...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Bethan <b...@chinnook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7lr9o5$14r$5...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Two rules me out, The PF started off as Wiccan and were being pushed
away
> > from it, but not yet far enough to drop that. The other two are 'fluffy
> > bunny' enough to be fine, but they also ask for a sort of pagan bio
which
> I
> > object to on some principle (probably mind your own business)
>
> (snip)
>
> The PF is currently in the process of looking at the 3P's to see if they
can
> be more encompassing.
Will they dump the bio bit too? I don't mind ticking boxes but I don't want
to write an essay. Are you 'involved with PF? if so could you suggest they
try and talk to those of us who arn't about what we'd like to see that would
make us want to join?
Possibly a questionnaire on their web-site and posted to newgroups. Just a
thought.
Inky
crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
>I was in Portugal for Samhain last year - that was an odd sensation, nothing
>"felt" right.
You were unfamiliar with the local seasonal rhythm. It takes a bit of
time to adjust to a new landscape - you can't just drop into a new
place and immediately feel "at home", at least, not usually.
><sigh> That's a shame. If that's the way they want to be then fair enough -
>but why give the impression that they are a universal pagan organisation if
>they are going to treat non wiccans as sub standard.
I'm not sure that it's a total PF thing - it may be more down to some
of the local groups' attitudes. The PF as a whole is supposedly out to
represent all pagans but I don't know how well this works in practice.
>I've never felt any inclination to become involved in the PF (only have a
>vague idea of what they are about), I prefer to make my own decisions about
>what matters to me.
Nor I - I know what matters to me and even if there are issues that I
can't sort on my own, I'm not sure I'd go to the PF.
>No, but where will it all end - Mars, (the) Galaxy or just a quick trip on a
>Double Decker before become a Drifter...
Nah, a trip on a Double Decker to the Kit Kat club... <g>
Inky
<b...@chinnook.freeserve.co.uk> crept out of the shadows and spake
thus:
>Two rules me out, The PF started off as Wiccan and were being pushed away
>from it, but not yet far enough to drop that. The other two are 'fluffy
>bunny' enough to be fine, but they also ask for a sort of pagan bio which I
>object to on some principle (probably mind your own business)
Ah, so one has to "prove" that one is pagan enough to be allowed in?
:| Not too sure how /I'd/ feel about that, either.
>It doesn't have to mean 'suits' just being able to present our views calmly
>and with reasoned arguement, getting people past our unconventional
>appearance
Good point - and also letting them know that unconvential dress isn't
a pre-requisite of being pagan, as some seem to think. It might
surprise some people to find that the chap sat next to them on the
train, in suit and tie, is a pagan.
> - though even I'd cringe if a pagan went on to Newsnight in full
>ritual dress rather then everyday clothes (sort of wear the dog collar,but
>not the cassock please)>
Mm, think that would make me cringe a bit, too - because it only
serves to reinforce the public's view that we're all weirdos. True,
it's a bit unfair, when a vicar or bishop can go on telly in his
religious get-up, but people are familiar with that and don't see it
as odd. They might need to be broken into our ideas of ceremonial
dress (or lack of!) a bit more gently.
>There used to be another group, Pagan Network I think, but I haven't seen
>anything about it for ages. The problem with both of them is a need to get
>consensus before they speak.
Which brings us right back to square one - some groups thinks they
have more right to representation or can dictate what should and
shouldn't be said, while others resent them trying to take control.
Gets us nowhere.
>Maybe we're trying too hard to include everybody, we've enough Christians
>posting to this group who don't hold with the organised bits/ offical line
>(you know what I mean) that we don't have to define every catergory, just
>some umbrella terms
Yes, but can we even agree on which umbrella terms are general enough?
One man's pagan is another man's satanist <g>
>I know it went down like a dead duck when I asked if anyone had read
>Listening People... but for a simple definition how about 'The Pagan
>tradition celebrates the physical nature of life on earth, blending science
>with spiritual folklore. encouraging the development of power within
For me, that sounds good enough, but then you get pagans who are
completely anti-science and want have anything to do with a scientific
theory and think all science is bad and screwing up the planet.
>Think he means Kevin Carlyon, who I believe is the Witch King<g> certainly
>pops up on the box a lot.(usually in full cassock)
Witch King?!? Is he self-appointed, or what? I must have come across
him, at some point, but I don't recall.
Inky
crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
>Just to butt in with my 1/16 of a goat... (I prefer barter to cash!)
Is that an ordinary or sacrificial goat? <g>
>The above principles of the PF is the main reason why I've decided not
>to join, particularly the 2nd. bit. I feel that it may be necessary to
>do harm sometimes, in order to prevent a greater harm.
The way I view that one is that it isn't an absolute rule but a
guiding principle. Yes, in some situations, it is necessary to do a
smaller harm to avert a greater one - it's a matter for personal
conscience to decide but largely, I go with "An it harm none..."
Someone did comment on it and asked why we (assuming all follow it)
need such a rule but I don't see it as a rule.
>The first and third parts I feel are just too vague and new-agey.
If they were more specific, though, more people would be likely to
complain and say they weren't right for /them/.
>The problem also arises with how these are enforced. As it is, the whole
>thing is totally unworkable. Without enforcement the 3 principles of the
>PF are meaningless. It's only the ones who are truly honest about their
>disagreement with this who are excluded.
Do we really want some kind of enforcement, though? If we slip up on
any of the above principles, do we get thrown out and told we're not
pagan enough? Watch out! Here come the Pagan Police! <g>
>People have said to me "Why not just say you're agreeing to them?"
>Which kind of destroys the point. If I have to lie in order to join the
>PF, well, I don't really want to. Why should I lie about my beliefs?
I agree with you on this point, though - if one has to lie to gain
membership to a group, that group obviously does not represent you
fully.
>I'd like to join the PF. As it stands, I can't. Things need to change.
>Either they should do away with all conditions of membership other than
>a cheque, or they should re-write the conditions in order to take
>account of other pagans.
I suppose the thing with having conditions is that it's designed to
stop the PF being infiltrated by people with nefarious agendas - some
might wonder at how effective that has been. Re-writing the conditions
might lead to one group suggesting that another shouldn't be included
because they aren't truly pagan, or not the sort that they want to be
associated with. We then get back to defining pagan, and so it goes...
>The only reason that I can see for having conditions attached to
>membership of the PF is to keep out the "crackpot element"
>If that is the case, then without enforcement it seems a little
>pointless to attach restrictions to membership. Dropping all conditions
>entirely would seem to me the best way to do go.
Swings and roundabouts, isn't it? There seems no easy answer. Without
enforcement, restrictions do seem poinltess but then I'm sure a lot of
PF members would resent some form of enforcement as an intrusion into
their lifestyle and method of doing things.
>And a bloody fine camp it was, too! Much drinking and merriment.
Sounds good!
><waves>
>
>Hi everyone! I'm back from me hols! Still busy in here I see.
Have a nice holiday? Getting busier all the time, in here...
>You're not *still* talking about chocolate are you? :-))
Who? Us? Surely not... <g>
Inky
<sarsi...@mistral.co.uk> crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
>You've not been to any of the Wychwood pubs then? Most of them sell
>merchandise.
Not knowingly - I shall have to rectify that <g>
>Their label art is among my favourite, witchy things, goblins, the green man
>etc.
I like the label art, too - colourful and imaginative.
>I like most of their beers but I do tend to find myself drinking guinness
>most of the time I'm down there.
I often find Guinness is a good standby when I'm in an unfamiliar pub
and there aren't any decent-looking ales on offer - difficlut to s*d
up the black stuff.
Inky
<dink...@dinkipix.demon.co.uk> crept out of the shadows and spake
thus:
>IIRC you collect five bottle-tops and send them with about a fiver to the
>brewery. It's all on the label though very small.
Just been down and checked and yes - you're absolutely right. So now I
only need another four bottles... (oh, and a fiver) Do they do the
shirts in black, though (I'm not into white)?
Inky
thus:
>They can live with that!
Only because they know that most people still get the inference of
evil...
>Sorry, there's a part of me that likes to branch away from individuality.
Maybe that branch needs pruning off, then <g>
>>Or even better, that there is a divine balance of feminine and
>>masculine principles. Welcome the goddesses in but don't forget the
>>gods. Balance is important - if you have two much of one side /or/ the
>>other, it could cause problems.
>Yes ultimately, but the in the collective unconscious of our society the
>steps in between still have to be played out before She can rejoice in
>'true' union with God.
I guess we have different views on this - seems to me to be a bit
unwise and reactionary to simply flip from God to Goddess and worry
about the integration later, but that's only my view.
>>A whole universe wide...
>Sorry again, I'm pretty earth-bound in my spirituality, although my vision
>does spread into the solar system occasionally, and once... or was it twice,
>I have been thrown into the immensity of our galaxy, but that was far far
>more than I ever needed to know on this planet.
Ah, my awareness tends to be quite out there, as well as down here -
especially having an SO who seems able to astral project to the edge
of the universe with great ease!
>Still, I wouldn't disagree with you.
:) Neither's wrong and neither's right...
>Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd be the first to steer well clear of 'organised
>religion', but surely that refers more to it's dogmatic approach to ceremony
>and rites, there'd be nothing wrong in being as organised as a trade union
>or business or pressure group. But a common org like the PF could be a hub
>for all our different ways, the common pagan traits will emerge, we will
>have all our different groups and sub orgs like we have now. We just *need*
>a professional image.
To gain a professional image we would first have to gain full
acceptance of all the paths, between the paths. As it is, the PF might
well act as a hub but some groups seem to think that the PF is more
for them than others and try to co-opt the PF's voice to say what
/they/ want it to say, rather than it being a voice for everyone.
>Our disorganisation leads to us being *hidden* in ways the Church could only
>have dreamed of. In the mean time, the establishment allows them to keep
>telling our kids that we are devil-worshippers (but conveniently for them,
>never in a direct fashion, only by their constructed system of
>mis-information).
But how do we achieve a level of organistion that can counter this
misinformation?
>The image I was refering to was not only about looks, but also about
>presentation to the media, representaion when Pagan issues are going to be
>affected, knowledge within the community that if you are a Pagan then you
>have a place to go to, a 'first port of call' so to speak.
I think what most people want, though, is simply to be recognised as a
valid religion - not necessarily to have a port-of-call.
>It isn't easy in this society to 'come-out' and announce yourself as Pagan,
>so, maybe that's all the criteria we need. Any who is willing to call
>themselves 'Pagan'? The pagan society itself will discover peoples beliefs
>and enfold them into the whole. We all know the value we put on individual
>beliefs, but we are still a pagan society, a tribe, a group and there are
>those who suffer from lack of representaion, solitude, and fear, especially
>amongst the young (well that's what I think).
Even if we manage to set up an inclusive organisation that doesn't try
to define ritual practices and observances, the people we are being
represented /to/ are still going to want to know. They're so hung up
about what we /do/ that they won't see past that to who we /are/. Any
organisation is going to be asked about practices - it's inevitable.
And even if we act professionally and counter any accusations they
might make, we're still open to the catch-all "You don't /think/ you
worship the Devil, but you do really - he's decieving you, you see."
how does one get round that?
>Yes but they all call themselves Pagan, don't they?
Yes, they do, and they are, which is why only the vaguest of the vague
definitions can ever hope to catch everyone (if at all).
>No, I don't think so, I mean't the guy on Kilroy, Kevin the witch, all
>dressed up in red, a 'High Priest'. Who is he? I've seen him on the telly
>LOADS of times.
Oh, Kevin Carlyon, apparently, the Witch King ;/
Inky
out of the shadows and spake thus:
>AFAIK, "Pagan" is something of a blanket term, covering all types of
>Pagan within it,(Wiccans, Druids etc), in the same way that
>"Christian" is a blanket covering baptist, methodist, catholic,
>mormon, JW's etc?
Although some Druids set themselves apart from pagans...
>And it doesn't all have to be based around the Goddess, does it? My
>paganism is rooted in a long held respect and love of the world around
>me, and the living things on it, plus my belief in the existence of
>*more than one* deity - not just a Goddess.
>
>That's the way I understand it. All the people that have neeb
>mentioned above may be Pagan, merely different types of Pagan. And
>even within this there may be some who refuse to recognise some other
>types as Pagan, in the same way that some Christians refuse to
>acknowledge Jehovah's Witnesses as christians, although on fundamental
>principles, they are.
>But please, someone slap me down if I am wrong.<G>
I don't think you're wrong - you're just highlighting the main problem
- that there are many different types of pagan, some who don't
recognise others and don't want to be represented with others. That's
a major stumbling block.
Maybe we should all stop being such free-thinkers and join the PF like
good little sheep - would make it a lot easier ;}
Gwydion
news:7lu1ch$iit$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Trust a debate on politics to turn into a debate on booze, typical :)
><grin> Nah, chocolate's more typical...
Anyway, it wouldn't be a real debate like what Westminster have without the
booze...
Bethan
Carlyon King of Witches apparently. The media know he likes publicity so
when other 'known' pagans smell a media trap he tends to agree to appear.
From what I've seen of him on the box I'm not overly impressed, but that
might well be their slanting & editing. Don't know for sure what his
credentials are though.
Gwydion
> >I was in Portugal for Samhain last year - that was an odd sensation,
nothing
> >"felt" right.
> You were unfamiliar with the local seasonal rhythm. It takes a bit of
> time to adjust to a new landscape - you can't just drop into a new
> place and immediately feel "at home", at least, not usually.
Not surprising really, first time I've ever been out of the UK !
> >No, but where will it all end - Mars, (the) Galaxy or just a quick trip
on a
> >Double Decker before become a Drifter...
> Nah, a trip on a Double Decker to the Kit Kat club... <g>
Oh dear, that's a bit off Topic...<g>
(don't hit me it was the best I could do at short notice !)
Helen
<kro...@nodens2000.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>AFAIK, "Pagan" is something of a blanket term, covering all types of
>>Pagan within it,(Wiccans, Druids etc), in the same way that
>>"Christian" is a blanket covering baptist, methodist, catholic,
>>mormon, JW's etc?
>I don't understand AFAIK!
Funny, I'm sure it's in the updated version of the FAQ.
>>And it doesn't all have to be based around the Goddess, does it? My
>>paganism is rooted in a long held respect and love of the world around
>>me, and the living things on it, plus my belief in the existence of
>>*more than one* deity - not just a Goddess.
>There you go, you see you mentioned Her again.
Yes - as one possibility.
>>That's the way I understand it. All the people that have neeb
>>mentioned above may be Pagan, merely different types of Pagan. And
>>even within this there may be some who refuse to recognise some other
>>types as Pagan, in the same way that some Christians refuse to
>>acknowledge Jehovah's Witnesses as christians, although on fundamental
>>principles, they are.
>>But please, someone slap me down if I am wrong.<G>
>"Where's that scourge" :)
If I'm wrong, Kro'dog, tell me *how* I am wrong, don't just slap me
down.
Helen
in...@orphic-eggTINOFSPAM.freeserve.co.uk (Inky) wrote:
>>AFAIK, "Pagan" is something of a blanket term, covering all types of
>>Pagan within it,(Wiccans, Druids etc), in the same way that
>>"Christian" is a blanket covering baptist, methodist, catholic,
>>mormon, JW's etc?
>Although some Druids set themselves apart from pagans...
Yes, of course - forgot about that.
>>That's the way I understand it. All the people that have neeb
>>mentioned above may be Pagan, merely different types of Pagan. And
>>even within this there may be some who refuse to recognise some other
>>types as Pagan, in the same way that some Christians refuse to
>>acknowledge Jehovah's Witnesses as christians, although on fundamental
>>principles, they are.
>>But please, someone slap me down if I am wrong.<G>
>I don't think you're wrong - you're just highlighting the main problem
>- that there are many different types of pagan, some who don't
>recognise others and don't want to be represented with others. That's
>a major stumbling block.
what - which prevents us having some kind of unity?
>Maybe we should all stop being such free-thinkers and join the PF like
>good little sheep - would make it a lot easier ;}
Pass the hood! <g>
Bethan
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 22:48:41 +0100, "Bethan"
> thus:
>
> >Two rules me out, The PF started off as Wiccan and were being pushed away
> >from it, but not yet far enough to drop that. The other two are 'fluffy
> >bunny' enough to be fine, but they also ask for a sort of pagan bio
which I
> >object to on some principle (probably mind your own business)
>
> Ah, so one has to "prove" that one is pagan enough to be allowed in?
> :| Not too sure how /I'd/ feel about that, either.
Don't know if that's the intent, but it certainly feels that way.
>
> >It doesn't have to mean 'suits' just being able to present our views
calmly
> >and with reasoned arguement, getting people past our unconventional
> >appearance
>
> Good point - and also letting them know that unconvential dress isn't
> a pre-requisite of being pagan, as some seem to think. It might
> surprise some people to find that the chap sat next to them on the
> train, in suit and tie, is a pagan.
>
> > - though even I'd cringe if a pagan went on to Newsnight in full
> >ritual dress rather then everyday clothes (sort of wear the dog
collar,but
> >not the cassock please)>
>
> Mm, think that would make me cringe a bit, too - because it only
> serves to reinforce the public's view that we're all weirdos. True,
> it's a bit unfair, when a vicar or bishop can go on telly in his
> religious get-up, but people are familiar with that and don't see it
> as odd. They might need to be broken into our ideas of ceremonial
> dress (or lack of!) a bit more gently.
A Bishop in full regalia on Newsnight would make me think it was a Monty
Python sketch.
>
> >There used to be another group, Pagan Network I think, but I haven't seen
> >anything about it for ages. The problem with both of them is a need to
get
> >consensus before they speak.
>
> Which brings us right back to square one - some groups thinks they
> have more right to representation or can dictate what should and
> shouldn't be said, while others resent them trying to take control.
> Gets us nowhere.
>
>
> >I know it went down like a dead duck when I asked if anyone had read
> >Listening People... but for a simple definition how about 'The Pagan
> >tradition celebrates the physical nature of life on earth, blending
science
> >with spiritual folklore. encouraging the development of power within
>
> For me, that sounds good enough, but then you get pagans who are
> completely anti-science and want have anything to do with a scientific
> theory and think all science is bad and screwing up the planet.
I haven't come across them, but I guess we wouldn't see a lot of them on the
internet<g>
> >Think he means Kevin Carlyon, who I believe is the Witch King<g>
certainly
> >pops up on the box a lot.(usually in full cassock)
>
> Witch King?!? Is he self-appointed, or what? I must have come across
> him, at some point, but I don't recall.
he used to be all over the box about six, seven years ago then stopped
appearing. he's the only high profile Kevin I know of, and he was back on
the box last autumn.
Brigantia-UK
> Will they dump the bio bit too? I don't mind ticking boxes but I don't
want
> to write an essay. Are you 'involved with PF? if so could you suggest they
> try and talk to those of us who arn't about what we'd like to see that
would
> make us want to join?
> Possibly a questionnaire on their web-site and posted to newgroups. Just a
> thought.
>
>
> --
> BMW
> (Bolshy Mad & Weird)
>
I will put it to them as a suggestion. All members are entitled to do that
sort of thing, you don't have to be 'involved'. The main reason behind the
questionnaire is to find out where you are coming from and also to weed out
Christian and other infiltration. It is not common but apparently it has
happened in the past. As members are entitled to get contact details of
other members then it is a case of protecting their interests. I'm not
simply trying to defend the PF, I don't agree entirely with the way it is
run, I'm just explaining the reasons behing it. The way I figure it is its
nice to have the back up of an organisation when things go screwy and the
best way to change organisational structure is from the inside.
--
Brigantia
)o------->
Nick
> >Think he means Kevin Carlyon, who I believe is the Witch King<g> certainly
> >pops up on the box a lot.(usually in full cassock)
>
> Witch King?!? Is he self-appointed, or what?
yes, he's the king of all the white witches
Chris Croughton
>well I won't join while number 2 is there. I reserve the right
>to do harm *if* so choose
Thinking about it, as I interpret it that's not banned. My
interpretation is something like:
Do what you like as long as it doesn't do harm.
If it does do harm, do it only if you are prepared to take the
consequences.
It doesn't seem to say "Do no harm" as an absolute.
That's just my interpretation, though, and a recent one at that.
(On the other hand, I don't believe anyone does anything unless they
'will' it, except for real accidents...)
Chris C
M@
Same thing we do every night, "Kro'dog"
<kro...@nodens2000.freeserve.co.uk>, post to Usenet and say:
<snip>
>I don't understand AFAIK!
As Far As I Know. HTH. HAND!
M@
Same thing we do every night, "Bethan" <b...@chinnook.freeserve.co.uk>,
post to Usenet and say:
<snip>
> Kevin Carlyon King of Witches apparently.
> Don't know for sure what his
>credentials are though.
He's a bloody idiot? Just IMO, you know, but from what I've seen and
heard from him, strikes me as a bit of a fool. Well-meaning, but
ultimately a plonker.
M@
Same thing we do every night, da...@eqla.demon.co.uk (Helen ), post to
Usenet and say:
>><waves>
>>Hi everyone! I'm back from me hols! Still busy in here I see.
>
>As always! How were your holidays?
Mmmm. Peace. Green spaces. And a whole week partying like a nutter at
Glasto!
>><glances down>
>>You're not *still* talking about chocolate are you? :-))
>
>Oh yes - but we've moved on to lemon sherbet and ice cream too now!
><g>
Ah. B+J's Phish Food. Choc, marshmallow, caramel.
<drool>
M@
Same thing we do every night, in...@orphic-eggTINOFSPAM.freeserve.co.uk
(Inky), post to Usenet and say:
>On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:28:50 GMT, m...@ecs.NOSPAMTODAY.soton.ac.uk (M@)
>crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
>
>>Just to butt in with my 1/16 of a goat... (I prefer barter to cash!)
>
>Is that an ordinary or sacrificial goat? <g>
An ordinary one. Curries better than sacrificial...
>>The above principles of the PF is the main reason why I've decided not
>>to join, particularly the 2nd. bit. I feel that it may be necessary to
>>do harm sometimes, in order to prevent a greater harm.
>
>The way I view that one is that it isn't an absolute rule but a
>guiding principle. Yes, in some situations, it is necessary to do a
>smaller harm to avert a greater one - it's a matter for personal
>conscience to decide but largely, I go with "An it harm none..."
>Someone did comment on it and asked why we (assuming all follow it)
>need such a rule but I don't see it as a rule.
More of a guideline? Then it should be expanded to explain that.
As I see it, harming none means exactly that. Harm nothing. Nowt,
no-one, zip, nada, naff all, bupkes. Undoubtedly a very noble
principle, but for me it's unworkable. It all depends on interpretation
though. I try to do the least harm, but thats not quite the same as
harming none. YMMV. This is after all my own personal opinion!
>>The first and third parts I feel are just too vague and new-agey.
>
>If they were more specific, though, more people would be likely to
>complain and say they weren't right for /them/.
Yep. Always gonna get some awkward uBggre complaining about summat!
(and it's usually me!)
>>The problem also arises with how these are enforced. As it is, the whole
>>thing is totally unworkable. Without enforcement the 3 principles of the
>>PF are meaningless. It's only the ones who are truly honest about their
>>disagreement with this who are excluded.
>
>Do we really want some kind of enforcement, though? If we slip up on
>any of the above principles, do we get thrown out and told we're not
>pagan enough? Watch out! Here come the Pagan Police! <g>
'Ello, 'ello, 'ello. Do you have a licence for that athame?
My point is that without enforcment the principles agreeing to the
principles is pointless, but enforcing them would be much worse.
Which is why I think they should be dropped entirely.
<deletia>
>I suppose the thing with having conditions is that it's designed to
>stop the PF being infiltrated by people with nefarious agendas - some
>might wonder at how effective that has been.
<grins> I saw a duo play at the PF South conference who did a
brilliantly wicked song about this.
Actually, as far as it goes, I'm quite a big fan of the PF. I just wish
they'd let me join!
>Re-writing the conditions
>might lead to one group suggesting that another shouldn't be included
>because they aren't truly pagan, or not the sort that they want to be
>associated with. We then get back to defining pagan, and so it goes...
Yep. Three pagans, four opinions!
>>The only reason that I can see for having conditions attached to
>>membership of the PF is to keep out the "crackpot element"
>>If that is the case, then without enforcement it seems a little
>>pointless to attach restrictions to membership. Dropping all conditions
>>entirely would seem to me the best way to do go.
>
>Swings and roundabouts, isn't it? There seems no easy answer. Without
>enforcement, restrictions do seem poinltess but then I'm sure a lot of
>PF members would resent some form of enforcement as an intrusion into
>their lifestyle and method of doing things.
Agreed. So the way forward is no restrictions, rather than better
defined restrictions. IMO of course.
<mental note: I really must get around to writing this down in coherent
form and sending it in to Pagan Dawn>
>>Hi everyone! I'm back from me hols! Still busy in here I see.
>
>Have a nice holiday? Getting busier all the time, in here...
Luvverly thanks! Many beers were drunk. Still, nice to be back!
DinkiPixie
>Just been down and checked and yes - you're absolutely right. So now I
>only need another four bottles... (oh, and a fiver) Do they do the
>shirts in black, though (I'm not into white)?
They do some designs in black (the white is actually unbleached cotton).
They sent a little catalogue with my order.
--
Angela Touchstone
Gwydion
Nick <ni...@upsonuk.com> wrote in message news:VA.00000162.033784ff@ue3p...
> In a previous article Inky wrote:
> > >Think he means Kevin Carlyon, who I believe is the Witch King<g>
certainly
> > >pops up on the box a lot.(usually in full cassock)
> >
> > Witch King?!? Is he self-appointed, or what?
>
> yes, he's the king of all the white witches
>
How very nice for him. : |
Nick
> From: ch...@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
> Newsgroups: uk.religion.pagan
> Subject: Re: Kilroy this Morning
> Date: 7 Jul 1999 06:48:10 GMT
>
> On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 20:34:52 GMT, Nick <ni...@upsonuk.com> wrote:
>
> >well I won't join while number 2 is there. I reserve the right
> >to do harm *if* so choose
>
> Thinking about it, as I interpret it that's not banned. My
> interpretation is something like:
"If it harm none, Do what thou wilt."
I interpret it as: "if you are going to harm no-one with your action you
do it, The second half, or 'else' portion is missing
1) I don't need/want their agreement with my actions
2) It's incomplete
> Do what you like as long as it doesn't do harm.
> If it does do harm, do it only if you are prepared to take the
> consequences.
>
> It doesn't seem to say "Do no harm" as an absolute.
>
> That's just my interpretation, though, and a recent one at that.
>
> (On the other hand, I don't believe anyone does anything unless they
> 'will' it, except for real accidents...)
>
> Chris C
>
Nick
Tim McGregor
>
> The way I view that one is that it isn't an absolute rule but a
> guiding principle. Yes, in some situations, it is necessary to do a
> smaller harm to avert a greater one - it's a matter for personal
> conscience to decide but largely, I go with "An it harm none..."
> Someone did comment on it and asked why we (assuming all follow it)
> need such a rule but I don't see it as a rule.
>
follow your own path, as long as that path has no malice and a little
inteligence. You can't use it as a rule or you would spend all of your time
analysing every possible outcome it case it might hurt someone.
Taken to extremes it would mean you couldn't use mouthwash because of all
the bacteria that would be harmed. or couldn't eat bread or drink beer
(aaaaaarrrgh!!!!) because of all the yeast that died in its making.
The only logical (captain) interpretation is as a guideline.
Something more explicit like "take the path that causes least harm where
possible" sounds a little bit daft.
Anyway, I dont think its something you think about consciously (or is it?)
its part of who you are, non?
>
> Do we really want some kind of enforcement, though? If we slip up on
> any of the above principles, do we get thrown out and told we're not
> pagan enough? Watch out! Here come the Pagan Police! <g>
Kevlar ceremonial robes? Riot pentacles?
"Come along sir, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to accompany me down to the
grove for a word with the arch-druid"
this thread could go on for months.
<snip loads>
I agree with most of the stuff I've snipped too.
Essentially, I think you gotta have rules, or you end up with kids who fancy
a bit of laugh, journos et al. But as to what those rules should be, and how
you enforce them is something I wouldn't want to decide on.
Cheers,
T.McG.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/sarsippius/
------------------------------------------------------------
Bethan
M@ <m...@ecs.NOSPAMTODAY.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:378300b7.175377289@news...
> Gee Brain, what are we going to do on Wed, 7 Jul 1999 00:26:35 +0100?,
> post to Usenet and say:
>
> > Kevin Carlyon King of Witches apparently.
> > Don't know for sure what his
> >credentials are though.
>
> He's a bloody idiot? Just IMO, you know, but from what I've seen and
> heard from him, strikes me as a bit of a fool. Well-meaning, but
> ultimately a plonker.
I do so love belonging to a tolerant non-judgemental group like pagans!
But yes he is a bit isn't he<g>
Comharsa
Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn7o0m5d...@ccserver.keris.org...
<snip>
> There are a lot of pagans who aren't in tune with the Pagan Federation
> (hence the Beltane camp in the New Forest this year was not run by them
> but by local groups).
Are you sure about this? Or was there another one? The camp I intended going
to down there but didn't make was run by the PF. The flyer for the
Lughnasadh camp run by the same people states "for members and guests of the
Hampshire and Surrey Regions of the Pagan Federation" and also carries the
PF logo, as have all previous camp flyers. This same group of people have
been running the Beltane and Lughnasadh camps for the past couple of years.
--
Brian
e-mail: comh...@clara.net
website: http://www.comharsa.clara.co.uk/
web design: http://comharsa.com
Comharsa
<snip>
> I know it went down like a dead duck when I asked if anyone had read
> Listening People... but for a simple definition how about 'The Pagan
> tradition celebrates the physical nature of life on earth, blending
science
> with spiritual folklore. encouraging the development of power within
I meant to reply to that some time ago, but by the time I got around to it
it had expired on my ISP's server. I think that it is an excellent book, and
an ideal first read for people looking for a path (as well as those who have
been pagan for some time). One of the few books of its kind (well) written
from a British viewpoint.
Comharsa
<snip>
> Will they dump the bio bit too? I don't mind ticking boxes but I don't
want
> to write an essay. Are you 'involved with PF? if so could you suggest they
> try and talk to those of us who arn't about what we'd like to see that
would
> make us want to join?
> Possibly a questionnaire on their web-site and posted to newgroups. Just a
> thought.
As Sue (my SO) and I became Regional Coordinators for the Solent (East)
region at Beltane, after having been members for some years, I suppose you
could say that we are "involved" with the PF. There has been discussion on
the 3 principles recently, particularly as they are viewed in many different
ways by those who have accepted them, let alone those who haven't.
I'll pass your thoughts on, and see what comes of them.
Comharsa
Helen <da...@eqla.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3781419c...@news.demon.co.uk...
> AFAIK, "Pagan" is something of a blanket term, covering all types of
> Pagan within it,(Wiccans, Druids etc), in the same way that
> "Christian" is a blanket covering baptist, methodist, catholic,
> mormon, JW's etc?
>
> And it doesn't all have to be based around the Goddess, does it? My
> paganism is rooted in a long held respect and love of the world around
> me, and the living things on it, plus my belief in the existence of
> *more than one* deity - not just a Goddess.
Our paganism doesn't involve a Goddess, or a Godess/God, but more a spirit
of place. I'm not even sure that I would call them deities, though some
would. I don't think that makes us any less pagan. This is what annoys me on
a lot of US websites and mailing lists, where they seem to think that the
term pagan and wiccan are interchangeable, and that everyone worships the
Lord and the Lady.
Inky
crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
>> You were unfamiliar with the local seasonal rhythm. It takes a bit of
>> time to adjust to a new landscape - you can't just drop into a new
>> place and immediately feel "at home", at least, not usually.
>
>Not surprising really, first time I've ever been out of the UK !
Funny, but the first time I'd ever been away from the British Isles
was to Portugal!
>> Nah, a trip on a Double Decker to the Kit Kat club... <g>
>
>Oh dear, that's a bit off Topic...<g>
>(don't hit me it was the best I could do at short notice !)
OUCH!!! /That/ was painful!
Inky
<b...@chinnook.freeserve.co.uk> crept out of the shadows and spake
thus:
>> Ah, so one has to "prove" that one is pagan enough to be allowed in?
>> :| Not too sure how /I'd/ feel about that, either.
>
>Don't know if that's the intent, but it certainly feels that way.
Well that's bad enough.
>A Bishop in full regalia on Newsnight would make me think it was a Monty
>Python sketch.
Me too - but to a lot of people, it's acceptable and accepted, because
he has a legitemate rite (ha ha) to appear in his ceremonial get-up,
whereas a apagn gets looked at funny. The point is that there is no
difference in real terms, just a gulf of perception.
>I haven't come across them, but I guess we wouldn't see a lot of them on the
>internet<g>
<g> I daresay not...
>> Witch King?!? Is he self-appointed, or what? I must have come across
>> him, at some point, but I don't recall.
>
>he used to be all over the box about six, seven years ago then stopped
>appearing. he's the only high profile Kevin I know of, and he was back on
>the box last autumn.
After all that's being said about him, I must admit I feel a bit
dubious about him.
Inky
the shadows and spake thus:
>> Witch King?!? Is he self-appointed, or what?
>
>yes, he's the king of all the white witches
And how was it deduced that he should occupy this exalted position.
I've never felt it necessary to have a king (or queen for that matter)
of the craft. Does he speak for all white witches, of whatever
tradition? I'm rather skeptical about it, I must admit...
Inky
crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
>Mmmm. Peace. Green spaces. And a whole week partying like a nutter at
>Glasto!
You jammy swine, you!
>>Oh yes - but we've moved on to lemon sherbet and ice cream too now!
>><g>
>
>Ah. B+J's Phish Food. Choc, marshmallow, caramel.
><drool>
B&J's Cherry. Yumptious! Shame it only seems to come in such little
pots :( (and is so expensive)
Inky
crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
>An ordinary one. Curries better than sacrificial...
I've never tried currying a goat. Favour and horses, yes, but never
goats <g>
>More of a guideline? Then it should be expanded to explain that.
>As I see it, harming none means exactly that. Harm nothing. Nowt,
>no-one, zip, nada, naff all, bupkes. Undoubtedly a very noble
>principle, but for me it's unworkable. It all depends on interpretation
>though. I try to do the least harm, but thats not quite the same as
>harming none. YMMV. This is after all my own personal opinion!
It is a noble principle yes, and yes, it is impossible to implement
fully. Just by sitting in my chair I'm probably killing thousands of
dustmites! I just try to do the best I can, accepting that some
situations may demand a price and that I am not perfect.
>Yep. Always gonna get some awkward uBggre complaining about summat!
>(and it's usually me!)
At least you said it first <g>
>'Ello, 'ello, 'ello. Do you have a licence for that athame?
>My point is that without enforcment the principles agreeing to the
>principles is pointless, but enforcing them would be much worse.
>Which is why I think they should be dropped entirely.
>
><deletia>
Who she? <g>
>Agreed. So the way forward is no restrictions, rather than better
>defined restrictions. IMO of course.
In an ideal world, you're right but I suppose as long as their is the
potential problem of infiltrators with nefarious purposes coming in
and trying to do damage, sow dissent, get hold of members details,
etc., some form of restriction is going to have to apply. Maybe they
could institute a polygraph test and ask if people are real pagans and
if they have no desire to wreck the PF - if they pass, they get in <g>
The Federal Bureau of Paganism, anyone?
><mental note: I really must get around to writing this down in coherent
>form and sending it in to Pagan Dawn>
Would you consider submitting it to my website as it's exactly the
sort of thing I'm looking for? (Please, pretty please?) :) :) :) :)
>Luvverly thanks! Many beers were drunk. Still, nice to be back!
Nice to have you back (yes, I have stopped creeping, now) <g>
Inky
out of the shadows and spake thus:
>>I don't think you're wrong - you're just highlighting the main problem
>>- that there are many different types of pagan, some who don't
>>recognise others and don't want to be represented with others. That's
>>a major stumbling block.
>
>what - which prevents us having some kind of unity?
Maybe not to people like you and me but we can't deny that there are
some pagans who are of the opinion that their way is the best, the
only true way etc, and don't want to be lumped in with all the other
sorts of pagans. AFAIC, it shouldn't prevent some kind of unity - we
should stop getting so hung up on the particulars, the ritual
practices, or whatever, but to some, that is a big problem.
>>Maybe we should all stop being such free-thinkers and join the PF like
>>good little sheep - would make it a lot easier ;}
>
>Pass the hood! <g>
Duly passed <g>
Kro'dog
M@ wrote in message <378300b7.175377289@news>...
>He's a bloody idiot? Just IMO, you know, but from what I've seen and
>heard from him, strikes me as a bit of a fool. Well-meaning, but
>ultimately a plonker.
And unfortunately, he is paganism's main representative on TV!!!
Kro'dog
Kro'dog
Gwydion wrote in message <7m04bv$t2q$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
>How very nice for him. : |
and how exactly do we indicate sarcasm, if the text we type is somewhat
ambiguous?
Kro'dog
Bethan
Comharsa <comh...@clarafred.net> wrote in message
news:FDQg3.18872$GA4.2...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> > I know it went down like a dead duck when I asked if anyone had read
> > Listening People... but for a simple definition how about 'The Pagan
> > tradition celebrates the physical nature of life on earth, blending
> science
> > with spiritual folklore. encouraging the development of power within
>
> I meant to reply to that some time ago, but by the time I got around to it
> it had expired on my ISP's server. I think that it is an excellent book,
and
> an ideal first read for people looking for a path (as well as those who
have
> been pagan for some time). One of the few books of its kind (well) written
> from a British viewpoint.
I found that, and a good book for interested friends and family too.Only
really been able to offer 'Voices from the Circle' before. It also updated
me, having picked my path I don't bother that much anymore with books aimed
at other ones and some of the trads covered have evolved since my 'seeking'
days.
If we ever get paganism recognised as a suitable RE faith I'd suggest it as
a textbook.
M@
>M@ <m...@ecs.NOSPAMTODAY.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:378300b7.175377289@news...
>> >"Bethan" <b...@chinnook.freeserve.co.uk>,
>> <snip>
>> > Kevin Carlyon King of Witches
<snip>
>> He's a bloody idiot? Just IMO, you know, but from what I've seen and
>> heard from him, strikes me as a bit of a fool. Well-meaning, but
>> ultimately a plonker.
>
>I do so love belonging to a tolerant non-judgemental group like pagans!
>But yes he is a bit isn't he<g>
>
Me? Tolerant and non-judgemental?! Never! ;-))
Kro'dog
M@ wrote in message <37830178.175570156@news>...
>As Far As I Know. HTH. HAND!
Aha, Hope That Helps, I can't find an FAQ in my cache!!!
Am I disabled now???
Kro'dog
Chris Croughton
>Are you sure about this? Or was there another one? The camp I intended going
>to down there but didn't make was run by the PF. The flyer for the
>Lughnasadh camp run by the same people states "for members and guests of the
>Hampshire and Surrey Regions of the Pagan Federation" and also carries the
>PF logo, as have all previous camp flyers.
It does, but it's actually open to all. I called Jaki and asked (I
didn't actually see the flyer for the Beltane one) because I'm not a PF
member, and she said that it's old 'boilerplate' forms and it's actually
run under Eala Bhan (hence make cheques etc. payable to them rather than
PF). The Beltane one was the same, except that it was originally going
to be run by PF and then they decided not to do it as PF. I don't know
the exact reasons (since I'm currently in Germany I'm somewhat out of
touch), but I gather there was some sort of split.
(I notice that the PF web site has nothing about it in the list of
coming events; as I recall it had nothing about the Beltane one
either.)
>This same group of people have been running the Beltane and Lughnasadh
>camps for the past couple of years.
It's rather like SF conventions, the same group of peopile tend to be
the ones who do the organising but not always as part of the same
organisation. If you had a totally independent camp you'd probably
still find the same people doing the work...
Chris C
Matt K
Same thing we do every night, in...@orphic-eggTINOFSPAM.freeserve.co.uk
(Inky), post to Usenet and say:
>On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:00:07 GMT, m...@ecs.NOSPAMTODAY.soton.ac.uk (M@)
>crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
>
>>An ordinary one. Curries better than sacrificial...
>
>I've never tried currying a goat. Favour and horses, yes, but never
>goats <g>
It's a very nice traditional Jamaican dish is curried goat. Serve with
rice 'n peas.
<snip>
> Just by sitting in my chair I'm probably killing thousands of
>dustmites! I just try to do the best I can, accepting that some
>situations may demand a price and that I am not perfect.
Nooo! Think of the poor dustmites! <grin>
>>Yep. Always gonna get some awkward uBggre complaining about summat!
>>(and it's usually me!)
>
>At least you said it first <g>
As a pagan I reserve the rite, err, right to question everything.
>><deletia>
>
>Who she? <g>
Roman goddess of bandwidth. Deletia should be invoked to counter the
forces of Verbositus.
>>Agreed. So the way forward is no restrictions, rather than better
>>defined restrictions. IMO of course.
>
>In an ideal world, you're right but I suppose as long as their is the
>potential problem of infiltrators with nefarious purposes coming in
>and trying to do damage, sow dissent, get hold of members details,
>etc., some form of restriction is going to have to apply.
Am I being naive or does that really happen? I know we don't suffer from
Fundies as bad as the 'merkins do, but is infiltration really an issue?
With any restrictions the problem is going to be making them broad
enough to account for all types of pagan, but narrow enough to keep the
crackpots out. Dunno how they're going to do that though.
>Maybe they
>could institute a polygraph test and ask if people are real pagans and
>if they have no desire to wreck the PF - if they pass, they get in <g>
>The Federal Bureau of Paganism, anyone?
Are you now, or have you ever been a Fundie? :-)
Or we could always organise a witch-hunt. (Sorry, tasteless!)
>><mental note: I really must get around to writing this down in
coherent
>>form and sending it in to Pagan Dawn>
>
>Would you consider submitting it to my website as it's exactly the
>sort of thing I'm looking for? (Please, pretty please?) :) :) :) :)
Try http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/Skvala/threeprinciples.html
It's an article written by Arlea for The Sigil and is well worth
reading. Puts the point across better than I could hope to.
When I get the correct quantity of circular tuits, I'll write the letter
and post a copy here and you're more than welcome for a copy for your
website.
(Although why anyone would want to publish my inane ramblings is beyond
me!)
--
M@
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Matt K
"Gwydion" <gwy...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> Nick <ni...@upsonuk.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000162.033784ff@ue3p...
> > In a previous article Inky wrote:
> > > >Think he means Kevin Carlyon, who I believe is the Witch King<g>
> certainly
> > > >pops up on the box a lot.(usually in full cassock)
> > >
> >
> > yes, he's the king of all the white witches
> >
>
>
I don't often do this, but ROTFLMAO!
Matt K
Same thing we do every night, in...@orphic-eggTINOFSPAM.freeserve.co.uk
(Inky), post to Usenet and say:
>On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 07:24:02 GMT, m...@ecs.NOSPAMTODAY.soton.ac.uk (M@)
>crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
>
>>Mmmm. Peace. Green spaces. And a whole week partying like a nutter at
>>Glasto!
>
>You jammy swine, you!
<gloat>
Didn't cost me anything to get in, either! Worked as a steward for
Oxfam. Secluded campsite, solar powered showers. Bliss!
</gloat>
>B&J's Cherry. Yumptious! Shame it only seems to come in such little
>pots :( (and is so expensive)
Have you tried Green & Blacks Organic dark chocolate ice-cream?
Got a pot waiting for me when I get home tonight!
Spyder
news:37827897...@news.freeserve.net...
> crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
> >The above principles of the PF is the main reason why I've decided not
> >to join, particularly the 2nd. bit. I feel that it may be necessary to
> >do harm sometimes, in order to prevent a greater harm.
> The way I view that one is that it isn't an absolute rule but a
> guiding principle. Yes, in some situations, it is necessary to do a
> smaller harm to avert a greater one - it's a matter for personal
> conscience to decide but largely, I go with "An it harm none..."
> Someone did comment on it and asked why we (assuming all follow it)
> need such a rule but I don't see it as a rule.
If it were taken as absolute "Harm NONE" we would not be able to survive.
Any action, (Here comes the science bit <g>) will have an equal and
opposite reaction. To do anything will cause harm somewhere within
the universe. Take, for example food. Even the strict vegan is directly
or indirectly harming plants and the like.
On this point I agree with Inky - It is a matter of personal conscience.
It's what you can live with. Personally, I would rather harm an egg and
cress sandwich than starve to death. <g>
<snip>
> Do we really want some kind of enforcement, though? If we slip up on
> any of the above principles, do we get thrown out and told we're not
> pagan enough? Watch out! Here come the Pagan Police! <g>
No-one expects the Pagan Inquisition
> >People have said to me "Why not just say you're agreeing to them?"
> >Which kind of destroys the point. If I have to lie in order to join the
> >PF, well, I don't really want to. Why should I lie about my beliefs?
>
> I agree with you on this point, though - if one has to lie to gain
> membership to a group, that group obviously does not represent you
> fully.
True. The problem lies in the fact that the PF is trying to be a blanket
organisation, Perhaps a number of more specific organisations should
be in place, with a blanket organisation over them, saying, "You can't
be a member of us [the blanket org] unless you are a member of
X, Y, or Z [the specific orgs}" Just an idea.
<snip>
> >You're not *still* talking about chocolate are you? :-))
<hands out bag of sherbert lemons>
--
Spyder
There are more things in heaven and earth....
than are dreamt of in your philosophy Hamlet - W. Shakespeare
http://freespace.virgin.net/jonh.newman/chris.htm
Spyder
> Maybe we should all stop being such free-thinkers and join the PF like
> good little sheep - would make it a lot easier ;}
True, but would we want to be sheep? I know that a number of Pagans
became such partly because they didn't like being sheep. Myself, when
I was searching for a spiritual path, one of the reasons I didn't choose
Xianity, of Islam or Judaism or ant of those paths was because I felt
that the strict guidelines, the dogma, stifled free thought, and turned
it's followers into sheep. (Not to say that was my only reason, but
to say all would take absolutely ages)
Personally, I'm not saying that all in PF are sheep. The trouble is it is
an organisation run under a massive committee that is its members.
As has been said before, Paganism is a blanket term for a wide, varied
range of beliefs and practices, many with differing and/or opposing
views. That the PF functions at all is a surprise.
For any organisation to work, it needs just that - Organisation. And
that is what the wider Pagan community lacks, due to its very nature.
As has been said, the wide variability between individuals and groups
covered under the term 'Pagan' is our stumbling block.
Maybe, it would be easier to define ourselves, not by what we are, but
by what we are not.
<g>
Gwydion
news:7m21ba$u5q$3...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> and how exactly do we indicate sarcasm, if the text we type is somewhat
> ambiguous?
Does it need to be indicated - you managed to work it out OK. :)
Scott Tatum
<kro...@nodens2000.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
<Snip>
>
>I suppose though, we can, as Pagans, be confident. They have a real problem
>dealing with the power of our Lady. OK, so there may be a few radicals
>within the Church toying with the concept that their God could be an
>androgynous figure, or even worse (better?) a female, heaven forbid, but
>they can't re-write the bible THAT much can they! We all know they are
>barking up the wrong tree. When faced with the glorious powers of this
>Earth, our Goddess, their overwhelmingly patriarchal monotheistic concepts
>just crumble to dust, and they know it.
>
Well, Ben Elton did say that God was a woman, because she invented
elbows. ;)
Scott.
<More snip>
Bethan
> On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 01:45:30 +0100, "Bethan"
> thus:
>
> >> Ah, so one has to "prove" that one is pagan enough to be allowed in?
> >> :| Not too sure how /I'd/ feel about that, either.
> >
> >Don't know if that's the intent, but it certainly feels that way.
>
> Well that's bad enough.
>
> >A Bishop in full regalia on Newsnight would make me think it was a Monty
> >Python sketch.
>
> Me too - but to a lot of people, it's acceptable and accepted, because
> he has a legitemate rite (ha ha) to appear in his ceremonial get-up,
> whereas a apagn gets looked at funny. The point is that there is no
> difference in real terms, just a gulf of perception.
True I wonder if you got a bunch of faiths together in best kit if a pagan
would stand out, I mean they all wear frocks of some sort.
> >> Witch King?!? Is he self-appointed, or what? I must have come across
> >> him, at some point, but I don't recall.
> >
> >he used to be all over the box about six, seven years ago then stopped
> >appearing. he's the only high profile Kevin I know of, and he was back on
> >the box last autumn.
>
> After all that's being said about him, I must admit I feel a bit
> dubious about him.
So do I, but he's got staying power, might have a chat to some friends and
see if i can remember the gossip.
Kro'dog
>"If it harm none, Do what thou wilt."
>
>I interpret it as: "if you are going to harm no-one with your action you
>do it, The second half, or 'else' portion is missing
>
>1) I don't need/want their agreement with my actions
>2) It's incomplete
Personally, I'm quite happy with 'ain it harm none', as a *basic* rede, but
experience has taught me to tag an extra line: 'fight to defend'.
Kro'dog
Nick
AFAIK, he, and his coven of 100's, decided that he was king of all
> I've never felt it necessary to have a king (or queen for that matter)
> of the craft. Does he speak for all white witches, of whatever
> tradition? I'm rather skeptical about it, I must admit...
Oh yes, all white witches owe him allegance
Nick
-----We Solve your Computer Problems---
Founder of the Prolifics User Group
Kro'dog
Gwydion wrote in message <7m2n6n$aoj$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
>Does it need to be indicated - you managed to work it out OK. :)
Hmmmm.
Nick
> Personally, I'm quite happy with 'ain it harm none', as a *basic* rede, but
> experience has taught me to tag an extra line: 'fight to defend'.
>
> Kro'dog
unfortunately the PF require agreement with the rule as stated,
no opportunity to modify it
DinkiPixie
>Myself, when
>I was searching for a spiritual path, one of the reasons I didn't choose
>Xianity, of Islam or Judaism or ant of those paths was because I felt
>that the strict guidelines, the dogma, stifled free thought, and turned
>it's followers into sheep.
Baaa?
--
Angela Touchstone
Matt K
"Kro'dog" <kro...@nodens2000.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> M@ wrote in message <378300b7.175377289@news>...
>
> >heard from him, strikes me as a bit of a fool. Well-meaning, but
> >ultimately a plonker.
>
>
It's either him, wotsisname from Coronation St. or King Arthur
Pendragon. What we need is a nice, meeja-friendly pagan representative.
Bill August
Bethan wrote in message <7lu361$k5t$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...>news:7lu1cg$iit$5...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> Inky wrote in message <378110c7...@news.freeserve.net>...
>>
>> >Eh?
>>
>>
>> Kevin the fruit bat, y'know Rowntrees Fruit Pastels.
>>
>> I was on about that guy in red robes, has been called a High Priest and
>> appears on loads of documentaries and chat show thingys, dealing with
>> witchcraft and Paganism in a very high profile manner.
>>
>> Who is he???
>>
>> Kro'dog
>>
>> Thought I'd answered this, but you might have missed it. he's Kevin
>Carlyon King of Witches apparently. The media know he likes publicity so
>when other 'known' pagans smell a media trap he tends to agree to appear.
>From what I've seen of him on the box I'm not overly impressed, but that
>might well be their slanting & editing. Don't know for sure what his
>credentials are though.
Inky
>True I wonder if you got a bunch of faiths together in best kit if a pagan
>would stand out, I mean they all wear frocks of some sort.
I suppose a lot do - never much gone in for that sort of thing, myself
- too much like a fire-hazard <g>
>> After all that's being said about him, I must admit I feel a bit
>> dubious about him.
>
>So do I, but he's got staying power, might have a chat to some friends and
>see if i can remember the gossip.
Oooh, gossip! Do let us know if you turn anything up - I would be
genuinely interested to hear about this chap - I have a fuzzy mental
image of him, but not much more.
Inky
<kro...@nodens2000.freeserve.co.uk> crept out of the shadows and spake
thus:
>and how exactly do we indicate sarcasm, if the text we type is somewhat
>ambiguous?
I usually go for ;} or ;| :| is more like nonplussed.
Inky
the shadows and spake thus:
>AFAIK, he, and his coven of 100's, decided that he was king of all
I see... <wanders off and smirks to self in corner>
>> I've never felt it necessary to have a king (or queen for that matter)
>> of the craft. Does he speak for all white witches, of whatever
>> tradition? I'm rather skeptical about it, I must admit...
>
>Oh yes, all white witches owe him allegance
Really ;| I'll have to remember that, shan't I?
Inky
out of the shadows and spake thus:
><gloat>
>Didn't cost me anything to get in, either! Worked as a steward for
>Oxfam. Secluded campsite, solar powered showers. Bliss!
></gloat>
Positively advantageous! Better than trying to jump over the fence, at
any rate! <g>
>Have you tried Green & Blacks Organic dark chocolate ice-cream?
>Got a pot waiting for me when I get home tonight!
No, but I suspect I'm going to at some point. Bet it's expensive,
though :(
Inky
out of the shadows and spake thus:
>It's a very nice traditional Jamaican dish is curried goat. Serve with
>rice 'n peas.
I'm not well up on Jamaican food, I have to admit - sounds good,
though.
>As a pagan I reserve the rite, err, right to question everything.
;p
>Am I being naive or does that really happen? I know we don't suffer from
>Fundies as bad as the 'merkins do, but is infiltration really an issue?
>With any restrictions the problem is going to be making them broad
>enough to account for all types of pagan, but narrow enough to keep the
>crackpots out. Dunno how they're going to do that though.
I don't know how much of a problem there has been with this, never
having been affiliated with the PF. You're right, though, if it is a
problem, there is no easy answer.
>Are you now, or have you ever been a Fundie? :-)
>Or we could always organise a witch-hunt. (Sorry, tasteless!)
Yes but I admit it, I laughed! Oh the shame...
>Try http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/Skvala/threeprinciples.html
>It's an article written by Arlea for The Sigil and is well worth
>reading. Puts the point across better than I could hope to.
>When I get the correct quantity of circular tuits, I'll write the letter
>and post a copy here and you're more than welcome for a copy for your
>website.
Ta! Not another one who collects round tuits - my SO does, too....
(Poor things) <g>
>(Although why anyone would want to publish my inane ramblings is beyond
>me!)
Because I haven't any of my own! <g> Only joking... I havn't seen how
inane they are, yet. <g>
Inky
<sarsi...@mistral.co.uk> crept out of the shadows and spake thus:
>Have to agree with you there. Its a reasonable way of saying you're free to
>follow your own path, as long as that path has no malice and a little
>inteligence. You can't use it as a rule or you would spend all of your time
>analysing every possible outcome it case it might hurt someone.
Very true - it's impossible to put into practise if you try and
observe it fully, as a law.
>Taken to extremes it would mean you couldn't use mouthwash because of all
>the bacteria that would be harmed. or couldn't eat bread or drink beer
>(aaaaaarrrgh!!!!) because of all the yeast that died in its making.
>The only logical (captain) interpretation is as a guideline.
>Something more explicit like "take the path that causes least harm where
>possible" sounds a little bit daft.
It's like the whole thing about calling oneself pagan in the first
place - it fits best - might not be perfect but as a guide it's okay.
>Anyway, I dont think its something you think about consciously (or is it?)
>its part of who you are, non?
Exactly. How would I function if I spent all my time worrying about
how much harm my existence might be doing? I admit, though, to feeling
intense guilt a swatting bluebottles when they make incursions into my
kitchen...
>Kevlar ceremonial robes? Riot pentacles?
<ROTFLMBO> I can see it now, I really can. What a /hysterical/ picture
that makes...
>"Come along sir, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to accompany me down to the
>grove for a word with the arch-druid"
>this thread could go on for months.
Er, yeah... wonder if the next major pagan gathering will have a
comedy tent? <g>
><snip loads>
>
>I agree with most of the stuff I've snipped too.
>Essentially, I think you gotta have rules, or you end up with kids who fancy
>a bit of laugh, journos et al. But as to what those rules should be, and how
>you enforce them is something I wouldn't want to decide on.
Pretty much how I feel - things ain't perfect but I don't have the
asnwers.
Gwydion
> >and how exactly do we indicate sarcasm, if the text we type is somewhat
> >ambiguous?
> I usually go for ;} or ;| :| is more like nonplussed.
You mean subtracted ?
PJS
>certainly
>> > >pops up on the box a lot.(usually in full cassock)
>> >
>>
>>
>
>How very nice for him. : |
...and how did he get that then? By exploiting the workers!
---
Silence! There is no room for sentiment in this organisation!
PJS
>
>
>> of the craft. Does he speak for all white witches, of whatever
>> tradition? I'm rather skeptical about it, I must admit...
>
>Oh yes, all white witches owe him allegance
What if all white witches decide they want to institute a republic and that
this person should pay a visit to Madame Guillotine?
Kro'dog
Matt K wrote in message <7m46e7$2kt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>It's either him, wotsisname from Coronation St. or King Arthur
>Pendragon. What we need is a nice, meeja-friendly pagan representative.
I agree, but how on earth do we go about getting one. I think it has to come
from the Pagan Federation, even if there is much about them that pagans are
unhappy with.
Kro'dog
Kro'dog
>unfortunately the PF require agreement with the rule as stated,
>no opportunity to modify it
Well that's pretty sad then isn't it.
Kro'dog
Spyder
> On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 19:44:26 GMT, Nick <ni...@upsonuk.com> crept out of
> the shadows and spake thus:
>
>
Oh don't go off, A good smirk should be shared, and passed
amongst friends. There's nothing like looking up and seeing all
your friends smirking. (I don't know about the rest of you but that
seems to happen alot to me ;-})
> >Oh yes, all white witches owe him allegance
>
> Really ;| I'll have to remember that, shan't I?
<serious> Oh yes. Write it down. </serious>
<smirk> I can't keep a straight face.
Bethan
Gwydion <gwy...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:7m5g98$31i$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> > >and how exactly do we indicate sarcasm, if the text we type is somewhat
> > >ambiguous?
>
> > I usually go for ;} or ;| :| is more like nonplussed.
>
> You mean subtracted ?
well according to netlingo.com it's :->
what I don't understand is when would anyone use :=) (orangutan)