Gene's Symbols Talk
Peter Renzland
commenting on Gene's talk. Nor has Gene responded to my comments.
Perhaps California is shrouded in (electrical) darkness again?
Or perhaps the reason why people love talking small talk but don't
talk about Freemasonry here is that they don't want to give away
any secrets? Or perhaps, any quiet meaningful talk would be
squelched out by the roar of 100's of small talks?
Or is it that Gene choose a subject title that carefully obscured
his content?
So many questions. So few answers.
Here is a simple question:
What is your favourite book about the nature and the use of
symbols and symbolism in Freemasonry?
I'm making another trip to our GL library tomorrow.
Any comments on . . .
M6A By Signs and Symbols - Wm. Moull
P2B1B Comparison of Egyptian Symbols with Those of The Hebrews, A - Frederic Portal
R1K Craft and Its Symbols, The - Allen E. Roberts
S2S Egyptians, The Symbolism of the Gods of the - Dr.Thomas Milton Stewart
M1K9 Freemasonry--A Journey Through Ritual and Symbol - W. Kirk MacNulty
J1A2 Lectures on Symbolism - E.W. Jarvis
B1E Lost Language of Symbolism, The (2 Vols. B1E1-B1E2) - Harold Bayley
H3K7 Macht Des Symbols - August Horneffer
M1F Mackey's Symbolism of Freemasonry (1921) - Albert G. Mackey; Revised by R.I. Clegg
M1G Mackey's Symbolism of Freemasonry (1952) - Albert G. Mackey
M1H Mackey's Symbolism of Freemasonry (1975) - Albert G. Mackey
S2G9Z Mark Degree, The (Early History, Variation in Ritual, Symbolism and Teaching) -
Bernard H. Springett
L1H Masonic Jurisprudence and Symbolism - Rev.John T. Lawrence
W3E Masonic Symbolism and the Mystic Way - Arthur Ward
P1I Masonry and Its Symbols - Harold W. Percival
M2A3 Pocket Encyclopedia of Masonic Symbols - The Masonic Service Association
C2G Signs and Symbols of Primordial Man, The - Dr.Albert Churchward
P1E5 Solomon's Temple, The Symbolism of - Rev. T. DeWitt Peake
H2F Symbolical Masonry - H.L. Haywood
D2A Symbolism in Craft Freemasonry - Colin F.W. Dyer
D1W Symbolism in Freemasonry (Speeches) - F.M. Driscoll
B2T Symbolism of Freemasonry or Mystic Masonry - J.D. Buck
M1F1 Symbolism of Freemasonry, The (1869) - Albert G. Mackey
M1H2 Symbolism of Freemasonry, The (First Edition 1869) - Albert G. Mackey
S2U Symbolism of the Three Degrees (3 Vols.S2U1-S2U3) - Oliver Day Street
S2T Symbolism of the Three Degrees (one volume) - Oliver Day Street
F1F Symbols and Legends of Freemasonry, The - J. Finlay Finlayson
Thanks!
--
Peter Renzland Simcoe No.^.644 GRC Toronto ON CA
Robert Curriden
If I had to pick a favorite, it would be the introductory books by Carl
Claudy. Not for it's intracicies, or for it's wit and prose, but because it
was the first real explaination that I had for the symbols of Freemasonry,
and while it really lacks a great deal of depth, the 40 or so pages in the
books contain enough to whet the appetite for something more substantial in
those with the inclination, and not too much for those who would wrap their
minds around the simple explainations, before possible moving on to heavier
topics later in life.
I think this is also gives rise to why there is so much 'small talk' in
alt.freemasonry. Some of us want to discuss the ehavy topics, and some of us
have these things in the back of our minds, but would rather just engage in
the small talk, and enjoy fraternal relations with our brothers.
Such is the nature of the beast, Peter.
Fraternally,
--
--
Robert Curriden MM
Dual Member:
Glassboro Lodge No. 85 F.+A.M.
Glassboro, NJ
Pitman Lodge No. 197 F.+A.M.
Pitman, NJ
http://users.rcn.com/curriden/
Jack Hickey
>I'm surprised that *nobody* seems to have taken an interest in
>commenting on Gene's talk.
I've not commented on Gene's work because I don't consider myself
knowledgeable enough to comment USEFULLY. If Gene had called for
commentary and criticism by those who don't know what they're talking about,
I
might have been at the head of the pack.
>What is your favourite book about the nature and the use of
>symbols and symbolism in Freemasonry?
Of those you listed, I prefer "Craft and its Symbols" by Roberts and
"Symbolical Masonry" by Haywood. Very solid research with little
guesswork.
I haven't read all of them books listed, of course.
Jack Hickey
SW, Isaiah Thomas Lodge
Worcester MA
Mike Restivo
Regardless of others' response or lack of it. Are you actually
permitted to discuss symbology which discussion could be interpreted as
contrary to your Masonic solemn promise "not to reveal ..."?
Prudent and obedient silence may be misinterpreted for indifference.
Restivo was forbidden, without qualification, by the Lodge Secretary to
post on the Internet. What is the official ruling for your Lodge? For
Ontario?
These kinds of restrictions go a long way to explaining the
comparatively trivial nature of alt.freemasonry discourse. Many lurkers
are just being obedient Masons and refuse to comment about the Work at
all. if they are allowed to post on Internet newsgroups at all, they
should consider themselves fortunate for receiving Lodge and/or Grand
Lodge permission to do so.
† Mike Restivo
Malcolm Tucker
"Mike Restivo" <mtro...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3AD5E179...@sympatico.ca...
> Regardless of others' response or lack of it. Are you actually
> permitted to discuss symbology which discussion could be interpreted as
> contrary to your Masonic solemn promise "not to reveal ..."?
The solemn promises I have made have all been never to reveal the secrets of
the degree, those usually consist of signs, token, and words . The
symbolism is not part of the traditional secrets, however I personally
would be hesitant to explain too much of it in a forum such as this,
although I would do so face to face with a friend.
As I understand it, the modes of recognition are the secrets of freemasonry,
and the ceremonies and symbolism are simply private.
Your lodge secretary was probably expressing his own view and erring on the
side of caution in advising you never to post masonic topics on the
internet. (Lodge secretaries almost never make mistakes of course)
I am pleased to see Mike posting again, and on topic, and I hope that the
recent unmasonic diversions will be left in the past.
Malcolm Tucker PM
Secretary
Lion of the North 3640 UGLE
Mike Restivo
>
> "Mike Restivo" <mtro...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AD5E179...@sympatico.ca...
> > Regardless of others' response or lack of it. Are you actually
> > permitted to discuss symbology which discussion could be interpreted as
> > contrary to your Masonic solemn promise "not to reveal ..."?
>
> The solemn promises I have made have all been never to reveal the secrets of
> the degree, those usually consist of signs, token, and words . The
> symbolism is not part of the traditional secrets, however I personally
> would be hesitant to explain too much of it in a forum such as this,
> although I would do so face to face with a friend.
> As I understand it, the modes of recognition are the secrets of freemasonry,
> and the ceremonies and symbolism are simply private.
That is a reasonable approach. I asserted the right as a rational
autonomous person to discuss philosophy which was the product of my own
thinking, beyond that contained in the Work, but providing insights into
it. That, "Masonic Philosophy" was denied by a snort of derision from
the Lodge Secretary. And people wonder why Restivo gets annoyed:
Imagine, Restivo getting angry over his civil rights being impugned,
being told what to do like a cult zombie, having no respect granted to
him as a Master Mason OR Canadian citizen, and having the Ontario
Masonic Book of Constitution misapplied just against him?
>
> Your lodge secretary was probably expressing his own view and erring on the
> side of caution in advising you never to post masonic topics on the
> internet. (Lodge secretaries almost never make mistakes of course)
>
> I am pleased to see Mike posting again, and on topic, and I hope that the
> recent unmasonic diversions will be left in the past.
>
> Malcolm Tucker PM
> Secretary
> Lion of the North 3640 UGLE
I have a few flames sent my way from the usual neurotics who are
obsessed with Restivo. I'll consider responding to them during TV
commercials. Just filter the strife stuff with the usual suspects out.
Contravening one's civil rights is not caution, it is a federal
offence.
† Mike Restivo
Ed King
> I'm surprised that *nobody* seems to have taken an interest in
> commenting on Gene's talk.
Why surprised? "Regular" posters here fully understand that this is
not the venue for involved and weighty subjects as they're guaranteed
to be overridden/misinterpreted by the anti-Masonic faction which is
so frequently prevalent.
Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
> Nor has Gene responded to my comments.
Perhaps he interpreted your commentary much as I did. Who knows?
> Perhaps California is shrouded in (electrical) darkness again?
Perhaps I shouldn't read too much into that - or perhaps I should?
> Or perhaps the reason why people love talking small talk but don't
> talk about Freemasonry here is that they don't want to give away
> any secrets?
Or perhaps there are no secrets to give away and thus, there's nothing
to talk about?
> Or perhaps, any quiet meaningful talk would be
> squelched out by the roar of 100's of small talks?
Or perhaps many understand 'to every thing there is a season' - and
that there's a time and place for everything. Personally, I've
found the electronic medium of messaging very unsatisfying when
one seeks collaboration. I'm hoping Microsoft's new OfficeXP will
deliver as they promise in this regard but that's not going to
impact what goes on here.
> Or is it that Gene choose a subject title that carefully obscured
> his content?
You think his content was different from the subject? Interesting
interpretation....
> So many questions. So few answers.
So much provocation....
> Here is a simple question:
>
> What is your favourite book about the nature and the use of
> symbols and symbolism in Freemasonry?
I believe that each Mason finds things of interest to them and that
it's totally inappropriate to _force_ people to feign interest
in subjects beyond their realm of interest.
Some people greatly enjoy watching the weather channel, some people
enjoy reading the daily newspaper, some people can't live without
the latest sports information, and some people won't read anything
but fiction. Are these people wrong because they don't share my
interest in Freemasonry? Are they wrong because they don't continually
keep up with MY interests?
Do you expect others to be reading books about dancing just because
that is (was) an interest of yours?
Expecting Masons to have a "favourite book" about a subject is
ludicrous, IMO. What's YOUR favorite book on dog breeding? What's
YOUR favorite book on marksmanship? What's YOUR favorite book on
healthcare reform?
Now it could be argued that Masons _should_ want to read about
symbols. It could also be argued that Baptists should want to read
books about the Baptist Church but how many have?
> I'm making another trip to our GL library tomorrow.
>
> Any comments on . . .
>
> M6A By Signs and Symbols - Wm. Moull
> P2B1B Comparison of Egyptian Symbols with Those of The Hebrews, A - Frederic Portal
Have not read the above.
> R1K Craft and Its Symbols, The - Allen E. Roberts
An easy to read classic. Really good on a stormy Friday night in front
of a roaring fireplace.
> S2S Egyptians, The Symbolism of the Gods of the - Dr.Thomas Milton Stewart
Not read. While the symbolism used by the ancient Egyptians might be
interesting to a scholar of such issues, I find it has little import
to my life or the current Freemasonry with which I deal.
> M1K9 Freemasonry--A Journey Through Ritual and Symbol - W. Kirk MacNulty
I read this several years ago and found it interesting. I may reread it
after I finish a reread of "Beneath the Stone".
> J1A2 Lectures on Symbolism - E.W. Jarvis
> B1E Lost Language of Symbolism, The (2 Vols. B1E1-B1E2) - Harold Bayley
> H3K7 Macht Des Symbols - August Horneffer
I wouldn't expect any but the most ardent scholars to have become involved
with these.
> M1F Mackey's Symbolism of Freemasonry (1921) - Albert G. Mackey; Revised by R.I. Clegg
> M1G Mackey's Symbolism of Freemasonry (1952) - Albert G. Mackey
> M1H Mackey's Symbolism of Freemasonry (1975) - Albert G. Mackey
I think you'll find the above are all the same book - simply different
printings.
> S2G9Z Mark Degree, The (Early History, Variation in Ritual, Symbolism and Teaching) -
> Bernard H. Springett
There is an _extraordinary_ amount of interpretation of the Mark Degree. I've
found the material by QCCC members to be sufficient immersion in the
matter for me.
> L1H Masonic Jurisprudence and Symbolism - Rev.John T. Lawrence
This really isn't the 'standard' on Jurisprudence....
> W3E Masonic Symbolism and the Mystic Way - Arthur Ward
Ward was a "mystic" far more than a Mason. I have difficulty with esoterica
layered on top of what is already a very rich symbology.
> P1I Masonry and Its Symbols - Harold W. Percival
Read this a bunch of years ago and wasn't too impressed. Can't find my copy
now, it seems.
> M2A3 Pocket Encyclopedia of Masonic Symbols - The Masonic Service Association
The MSANA has a newly redesigned web site. Check it out!
This is probably the best 'introduction' for non-Masons trying to figure out
what that Square and Compass is all about. It's a little 'dated', though.
Like other MSANA publications, it reflects the bias (and potentially
erroneous interpretation) of its author.
> C2G Signs and Symbols of Primordial Man, The - Dr.Albert Churchward
> P1E5 Solomon's Temple, The Symbolism of - Rev. T. DeWitt Peake
Haven't read either. In light of earlier comments, you can likely bet
that I won't.
> H2F Symbolical Masonry - H.L. Haywood
Brother Haywood's interpretations of things don't always agree with mine.
That's true here as well.
> D2A Symbolism in Craft Freemasonry - Colin F.W. Dyer
Bro. Dyer's material in SO many areas is profound. Obviously, this has
a definite UK bent.
> D1W Symbolism in Freemasonry (Speeches) - F.M. Driscoll
Publisher? Date?
> B2T Symbolism of Freemasonry or Mystic Masonry - J.D. Buck
Buck falls into the same place as my opinion of as Manley Hall.
> M1F1 Symbolism of Freemasonry, The (1869) - Albert G. Mackey
> M1H2 Symbolism of Freemasonry, The (First Edition 1869) - Albert G. Mackey
Referenced three times earlier.
> S2U Symbolism of the Three Degrees (3 Vols.S2U1-S2U3) - Oliver Day Street
> S2T Symbolism of the Three Degrees (one volume) - Oliver Day Street
VERY dated and difficult to understand.
> F1F Symbols and Legends of Freemasonry, The - J. Finlay Finlayson
? Date? Publisher?
> Thanks!
You're welcome. Did you want book reviews too?
Ed King
http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Robert Curriden
Did this Lodge Secretary forbid you to post on your own philosophies?
On what Authority?
And you continue to post nonetheless, why?
If they have committed such offense, prosecute. Otherwise no offense has
been committed. In order to commit an offense, there must be an offended.
Since you are not the federal law the offense you reference is against, you
cannot be the offended. If the law is that which is offended, then the law
must be the one to answer the offense.
Why have you not sought after the law to answer the offense, Mike?
Sincerely,
Mike Restivo
>
> Mike,
>
> Did this Lodge Secretary forbid you to post on your own philosophies?
No Internet posting without qualification. That means no posting in any
way shape or form on the Internet. Not in any newsgroup, not on any
topic, ever. These were the conditions to allow my petition to move to
the stage of being read out in Lodge. I found and still find these ad
hoc 'conditions" regressive and unacceptable and will not surrender my
civil rights. Obviously, I was mislead about the welcome that I would
receive at General Mercer Lodge and my treatment by at least Ontario
Grand Lodge official William Thompson, who needed to inform the public
that my ballot would be unfavourable, and has not posted since. there
is a not insignificant link between him and the Philalethes Society.
Thompson saw an opportunity to do a favour for the Philalethes Society
by interfering with Restivo's petition. Edward L. King had lied to
Nelson King about disruptions at a conference in Toronto at that time.
Was "hit-man" Thompson working on orders from Nelson King? Nice little
bunch of sweeties. And you wonder why Restivo is annoyed at his
predators? You couldn't last a few weeks under the attacks I got, yet
in utter ignorance make judgements about Restivo.
>
> On what Authority?
His say so. Is that not enough? Obviously the Ontario book of
Constitution is inadequate to him. Ad hoc make it up to deny Restivo
justice was the order of the day with him.
>
> And you continue to post nonetheless, why?
and why not? A few neurotics have made it their profession to attack
Restivo. They are jealous of what they perceive as rival authority or
parental authority. They need to remove/discredit Restivo who they
think is a rival for their authority. Their problem is psychological,
not Masonic. I've studied 'em for years, submitted my early study for
credit in my Social Psychology class.
To cease posing positively on Freemasonry because of strife with
disturbed fools is immature.
What part of posting positively on Freemasonry do readers not
understand? plenty, the ones with psychological problems for which
Restivo is their lightening rod. Trouble is, I return their attacks
with excess vigour, not passively accept their rants, and the flame
escalation runs its course again and again, until my predator's neurotic
episode spends itself like masterbatory self-abuse. They keep coming
back for more for years, the sadists attracted to Restivo in a
psychically unhealthy relationship in which they, like Ed King, call me
"master" in their delusions, and then need to kill their father
surrogate or latent homosexual projection into Restivo.
Ed King, for years, is jealous of Restivo's continuing education, of
Restivo's writing, of Restivo's sex life, etc., and justifies social and
civil crimes against Restivo because Restivo writes positively about
Freemasonry. When writing positively about Freemasonry is a
justification to commit civil if not criminal crimes against a person, a
sane person must conclude that Ed King's motives and actions against
Restivo are anti-Masonic. Period.
If the high ideals of Restivo, which Ed King and his associates hate,
are those of Blue Lodge (i.e. Craft) Freemasonry, and they are, Ed King
and his dupes and dopes are explicitly warring against Masonry and
enabled and supported by idiots to enthralled with mob mentality to
actually think logically over why Restivo is being attacked for years,
and why he takes extreme measures to garner evidence of criminal
activities against him.
To cease writing positively on Freemasonry would be to capitulate to
their petulance. Look at the usual suspects. Compare their own writing
on Masonic philosophy with my own, to which they cannot compare either
in quality or quantity. That fuels their neuroses. I expose them and
continue to write positively. That double response drives them into
psychosis. All from my computer terminal.
>
> If they have committed such offense, prosecute. Otherwise no offense has
> been committed.
And this you say to rape victims? Ed king's actions are subject to the
Grand lodge of Maine which has a duty to all maine Masons not to have
their Jurisdiction not made into a continued source of ridicule. If the
Grand Lodge is indifferent to the maintenance of masonic reputation and
that of its members at Lodge, it will not suddenly become so concerned
and involved on Restivo's say so. They want to look like anti-Masons.
Let 'em I say. Why must Restivo wipe their little orifices? If they
are holding their nose so hard as not to smell their own stink, there is
nothing Restivo can do about it. Let 'em smell and serve as an object
lesson for rational persons, not neurotics or fools.
In order to commit an offence, there must be an offended.
All Masons are offended by professional anti-Masons abusing the Order.
Members get the kind of Freemasonry they deserve. If you like a
stinking pot of mendacity, mediocrity, cronyism and cultism, don't try
to pass that off as real Freemasonry to sane Masons who know better.
> Since you are not the federal law the offense you reference is against, you
> cannot be the offended.
Restivo must be a law officer to be attacked. Try thinking before
writing. All crimes against non-law enforcement officers are permitted
by your stupid syllogism. Go on tell me your kind of nutty logic is
used by lawyers all the time. NOT!
If the law is that which is offended, then the law
> must be the one to answer the offense.
Not answer to the offence. Judge the offenders and convict them.
>
> Why have you not sought after the law to answer the offense, Mike?
I don't work according to your timetable or goofy logic. More details
will be addressed with respect to Bro. Jerome's post. The short answer
is that there's insufficient evidence to prosecute, for now. That does
not nullify the criminality of the deeds in question.
So according to you, crime is ok as long as one escapes prosecution.
Let the dead bring charges themselves, you say. Can't? 'Cause your
dead? Too bad. No crime was committed. Your thinking is not even
civil. It is anti-Masonic and psychologically disturbed.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> --
> Robert Curriden MM
> Dual Member:
> Glassboro Lodge No. 85 F.+A.M.
> Glassboro, NJ
> Pitman Lodge No. 197 F.+A.M.
> Pitman, NJ
> http://users.rcn.com/curriden/
Your rant is about as sincere as a snake oil salesman.
You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Blaming
your immaturity on Restivo or the devil or always somebody else only
keeps you in a rut of denial and ego defence mechanisms.
† Mike Restivo
Ed King
<snip whining repeated ad nauseum>
> Edward L. King had lied to Nelson King about disruptions at a
> conference in Toronto at that time.
Bull-crap, Mike. Why don't you simply GROW UP???!!!
Everyone could read the messages here from you INCLUDING Nelson King. We
discussed the matter on the phone - with him calling ME, in fact!
Your fantasies really run the gamut, don't they?
<snip>
> What part of posting positively on Freemasonry do readers not
> understand? plenty, the ones with psychological problems for which
> Restivo is their lightening rod.
Since you seem to have found problems with virtually everyone that has entered
into a message exchange with you, are you asserting that all Masons (save one or
two) who post in alt.freemasonry have psychological problems?
Physician, heal thyself!
> Trouble is, I return their attacks with excess vigour, not passively
> accept their rants, and the flame escalation runs its course again
> and again, until my predator's neurotic episode spends itself like
> masterbatory self-abuse.
Looks to me like you've been into the issue of masturbation a LOT lately, Mike.
Gettin' worried about hitting 55?
> They keep coming back for more for years, the sadists attracted to
> Restivo in a psychically unhealthy relationship in which they,
> like Ed King, call me "master" in their delusions, and then need to
> kill their father surrogate or latent homosexual projection into Restivo.
You're quite a piece of work, aren't you? Don't you EVER know when to stop?
> Ed King, for years, is jealous of Restivo's continuing education, of
> Restivo's writing, of Restivo's sex life, etc.,
Would you care to provide some proof that I'm jealous of your continuing
education or your writing?
I think it's pretty fair to say that NO ONE here would think I'm jealous of your
sex life since we all have pretty much figured out that it's non-existant!
<ROFL>
> and justifies social and civil crimes against Restivo because Restivo
> writes positively about Freemasonry. When writing positively about
> Freemasonry is a justification to commit civil if not criminal crimes
> against a person, a sane person must conclude that Ed King's motives
> and actions against Restivo are anti-Masonic. Period.
Poor, poor Mike. You really seem fixated these days. Just because I caught you
in the act and everyone here has seen you for the fool....
> If the high ideals of Restivo, which Ed King and his associates hate,
As expressed in the pornography you wrote? Wanna tell everyone about your "high
ideals" there, Mike? How about posting a few sentences for everyone to see, eh?
Oh, yes: high ideals!
> are those of Blue Lodge (i.e. Craft) Freemasonry, and they are, Ed King
> and his dupes and dopes are explicitly warring against Masonry and
> enabled and supported by idiots to enthralled with mob mentality to
> actually think logically over why Restivo is being attacked for years,
> and why he takes extreme measures to garner evidence of criminal
> activities against him.
Do you even know what you're writing about? Get out of the gutter and into
grace. Say, maybe now we should send that letter to your Bishop and ask what HE
thinks of your high moral writings, huh?
> To cease writing positively on Freemasonry would be to capitulate to
> their petulance. Look at the usual suspects. Compare their own writing
> on Masonic philosophy with my own, to which they cannot compare either
> in quality or quantity. That fuels their neuroses. I expose them and
> continue to write positively. That double response drives them into
> psychosis. All from my computer terminal.
<ROFL> Yeah, you're such a light for us all, Mike! <ROFL>
> > If they have committed such offense, prosecute. Otherwise no offense has
> > been committed.
>
> And this you say to rape victims?
Are you now asserting that I've raped you? Good grief, Mike. Have you NO shame?
You minimize the horrid act of rape by comparing newsgroup postings which show
you to not be the profound, bright light you imagine yourself. How disgusting!
> Ed king's actions are subject to the Grand lodge of Maine which has a
> duty to all maine Masons not to have their Jurisdiction not made into
> a continued source of ridicule.
<ROFL> Wanna howl about who hosts my web site too? You were just as accurate in
your assessment of that issue three years ago as you are in this.
But I'm sure the Grand Lodge of Maine and the Grand Lodge of California
appreciated hearing from you. What did either do? They told you to go 'pound
sand'.
> If the Grand Lodge is indifferent to the maintenance of masonic reputation and
> that of its members at Lodge, it will not suddenly become so concerned
> and involved on Restivo's say so.
Bottom line, Mike: you're an obsessed, lonely fanatic. You've got no life except
sitting in your cellar whining about how everyone is picking on you. It's sad.
In fact, it's absolutely pathetic.
<snip of more whining>
When, oh when, will you grow up, Mike?
jDolan
snup
> > P1E5 Solomon's Temple, The Symbolism of - Rev. T. DeWitt Peake
>
> Haven't read either. In light of earlier comments, you can likely bet
> that I won't.
I didn't notice the author of this the first time it went past, but
itemized as it was here it was more noticeable.
Is Rev. Peake the same person who authored 'Peake's Bible Commentary'?
And if so, was he perhaps a Mason?
--
jHam You have the time, they might not:
White River #90 Feed the hungry with a click of your mouse:
Bethel, Vt. http://www.thehungersite.com
Mike Restivo
>
> In article <3AD62BF7...@sympatico.ca>, Mike Restivo wrote:
> <snip whining repeated ad nauseum>
>
> > Edward L. King had lied to Nelson King about disruptions at a
> > conference in Toronto at that time.
>
> Bull-crap, Mike. Why don't you simply GROW UP???!!!
>
> Everyone could read the messages here from you INCLUDING Nelson King. We
> discussed the matter on the phone - with him calling ME, in fact!
>
> Your fantasies really run the gamut, don't they?
>
Restivo already proved your story was a lie. I confronted both police
and Director of Security for the hotel. Both dismissed your charge as
baseless. Both never heard of any complaint issuing from Nelson King.
You told him a lie that he was to lazy to discover for himself that it
was a lie, then allowed him to make an idiot of himself. The director
of hotel security was not amused at Masons over this stunt. Don't they
have ahead guy that can control this type of thing? He asked.
You are confusing your fantasies with RCMP officers leading you around
surrounded from Restivo's sniper scopes. I phoned them. They knew
nothing of your stunt and can't act until a crime has actually been
committed, not on your fantasy delusions.
So you admit that the two of you conspired to commit an act of public
mischief. What else did you to concoct over the phone. don't be shy,
go on, brag how you intended to frame Restivo with false charges. Then
fame Restivo with Thompson's interference. What part of "frame" Restivo
has not been made manifest except to the deluded?
> <snip>
>
> > What part of posting positively on Freemasonry do readers not
> > understand? plenty, the ones with psychological problems for which
> > Restivo is their lightening rod.
>
> Since you seem to have found problems with virtually everyone that has entered
> into a message exchange with you, are you asserting that all Masons (save one or
> two) who post in alt.freemasonry have psychological problems?
Wake up. That old silliness never worked years ago. There are only a
few bitter losers, like you, who strive with Restivo. Is a count over
10 considered "everyone" in your small potatoes mind?
>
> Physician, heal thyself!
>
> > Trouble is, I return their attacks with excess vigour, not passively
> > accept their rants, and the flame escalation runs its course again
> > and again, until my predator's neurotic episode spends itself like
> > masterbatory self-abuse.
>
> Looks to me like you've been into the issue of masturbation a LOT lately, Mike.
> Gettin' worried about hitting 55?
I get plenty of my needs attended normally. Dirty Ed King needs to
steal erotic stories from Restivo. Your the one who needs to jack off
aver Restivo so bad that you hack into my private file area and copy my
bait, set just for you. Learning how to type with one hand?
>
> > They keep coming back for more for years, the sadists attracted to
> > Restivo in a psychically unhealthy relationship in which they,
> > like Ed King, call me "master" in their delusions, and then need to
> > kill their father surrogate or latent homosexual projection into Restivo.
>
> You're quite a piece of work, aren't you? Don't you EVER know when to stop?
Well you just put on your white sheet and pointy hood and get the gang
together. I'm sure you and the gang will think up something another
frame-up, more public mischief, etc., black bag ops, or fall for another
of my traps.
>
> > Ed King, for years, is jealous of Restivo's continuing education, of
> > Restivo's writing, of Restivo's sex life, etc.,
>
> Would you care to provide some proof that I'm jealous of your continuing
> education or your writing?
You whine about every year of my progress and how it is subsidized by
the government, as if Canadians have no entitlement. Or is it just
Restivo that has no entitlement to education in your deluded mind? Do a
Google search on the archive, don't waste my time. I'll post 'em when
you've made more of a jackass of yourself. that should take about a
couple of your sentences. Haw! You should know better than doubt the man
who has tracked and archived everything that you've written about me on
alt.freemasonry.
>
> I think it's pretty fair to say that NO ONE here would think I'm jealous of your
> sex life since we all have pretty much figured out that it's non-existant!
> <ROFL>
What passes for your crooked morals of break and enter and porno
distribution among your looser gang members, is hardly a consensus of
normal. Jealous Eddie says Restivo is this, Restivo is that. Jump, bow
wow, Eddie spank if you don't jump, bow wow. Keep dreaming and stroking
off or whatever you do with the stories you took and intended to corrupt
others through your gross indifferent publication of the URL to them.
Incontinent in word and deed is Ed King. You rush so hard to fulfill
you fantasy hate against Restivo you will use whoever you have to to
accomplish your delusion. It doesn't matter how much shame and ridicule
your anti-Masonic behaviour is piled high upon Masonry. Blame it on
Restivo. That's your stock immature answer.
>
> > and justifies social and civil crimes against Restivo because Restivo
> > writes positively about Freemasonry. When writing positively about
> > Freemasonry is a justification to commit civil if not criminal crimes
> > against a person, a sane person must conclude that Ed King's motives
> > and actions against Restivo are anti-Masonic. Period.
>
> Poor, poor Mike. You really seem fixated these days. Just because I caught you
> in the act and everyone here has seen you for the fool....
You caught yourself, trespassing and hacking into a private, unposted
area of my ISP's web server. You furthermore stole the baited erotic
material that I provided for you and others. You additionally and
recklessly publicly posted the URL in alt.freemasonry and which is
archived in Google, an address which you knew pointed to pages of
written pornography, with gross indifference to the effect and propriety
of doing so in such an off-topic and offensive manner. This criminal
offence of publishing pornography, on your part. Restivo never made it
public, You, Ed King made pornographic material public. I foiled your
criminal act by removing the bait, it having served its purpose. You
however still have copies for your masterbatory enjoyment. Guffaw!
All this, and it is Restivo, got caught? Dream on. How forced you to
publish pornography? Not Restivo. who stopped you from doing so?
Restivo, by removing the pages. Yet it is claimed by idiots that it is
Restivo that is caught. The logic is absent as expected from losers who
need to play to their constituency of dupes and dopes who should have
seen that they are played like fools.
And what reason does Ed King give for his online porno publication? Why
he squeaks, he had to show how Restivo's morality was hypocritical.
That is Ed King's justification. Crimes are not crimes as long as they
are against Restivo. And what is the morality of Restivo to which dirty
Eddie King compulsively and incontinently rushed to expose like a
pervert in N.Y. Central Park? Restivo's morality is the Freemasonic
Idealism about which I have been writing for years. Eddie doesn't like
What Restivo writes. And What Restivo writes is the ideals of
Freemasonry. This is not news. I've been doing it for years. So
somebody explain sanely how Ed King's attack on Restivo is not an attack
upon the Craft? it is precisely an attack upon Blue Lodge Masonry. If
he could but comprehend the principles of the Craft, instead of his
eccentric brand of hate, he would recognize his anti-Masonic behaviour.
This I suppose Restivo caused. for immature and troubled minds, a
victim is required to lay their hate upon. But judgement is not found
among fools, but among rational individuals. I don't care what your mob
of dupes have to say or think. people capable of accepting your
criminal and ani-Masonic behaviour as both legal and Masonic will
believe anything that they are told, for they need to believe and to
accept their debasement, if only they can be part of your mob of Hate
Restivo R'Us. Pathetic.
>
> > If the high ideals of Restivo, which Ed King and his associates hate,
>
> As expressed in the pornography you wrote? Wanna tell everyone about your "high
> ideals" there, Mike? How about posting a few sentences for everyone to see, eh?
> Oh, yes: high ideals!
>
> > are those of Blue Lodge (i.e. Craft) Freemasonry, and they are, Ed King
> > and his dupes and dopes are explicitly warring against Masonry and
> > enabled and supported by idiots to enthralled with mob mentality to
> > actually think logically over why Restivo is being attacked for years,
> > and why he takes extreme measures to garner evidence of criminal
> > activities against him.
>
> Do you even know what you're writing about? Get out of the gutter and into
> grace. Say, maybe now we should send that letter to your Bishop and ask what HE
> thinks of your high moral writings, huh?
When Bro. Jerome asked about what extortion you were guilty of. He
answered his own question. I already told you that your intimidation
will have no effect. "shut up Restivo or I'll sent the incriminating
material out to defame you." goes your extortion scheme. I have no
control over your evil. I have already distanced myself from your
publishing of what was intended strictly as bait in a sting entrapment
of anti-Restivo predators.
And when the Archbishop learns how a Mason has attempted to manipulate
him by drawing him into your sordid scheme of hate, he will take a long
and deep look at what kind of criminals Masons are who not only perform
but endorse and approve break and enter, trespass and theft, and
extortion. Yeah Eddie, I've been waiting for this. Your only
disappointed that I don't have an employer you can make threats to.
Hey Eddie, send the stuff to the University of Toronto! Yeah, they'll
boot Restivo right out of there, right? Sorry to burst your little
bubble, but they teach classes in erotic writing. You are a snivelling
small neurotic who doesn't realize that what you think is of
discreditable value is empty, is bait, which I left for you and your
gang to lure you and others into revealing more about the dirty and
criminal actions of rogue and renegade Masons since Morgan. It will
make an interesting book, especially when you get somebody to try to
shoot me. Like Russ Liachoff posting a detailed map to Ken mitchell's
hose. Get a bunch of enforcer Masons to spray his house with gunfire.
That'll teach him.
And when the Archdiocese repulses you and your dirty manipulations, will
you direct other weak minds to get revenge upon the Church of Rome? The
mind reels, not how ill you are, but how ready and willing there are
people to do your bidding. [shudder]
You don't know when to shut-up and your lackeys are too weak to inform
you that you are the source of your psychological problems, not
Restivo.
At every turn and application, what you imagined could be used to your
advantage was what I wanted you, of gross and low mind to think. The
pornography was just the thing to get you to jump and think and act in
ways of my anticipation. You think you can press and advantage, with
what I have allowed you to seize, but you have replaced your cable-tow
to one of your own making. I have chained you neurotic mind to
pornography. Your desperation needs to find some use for it, but your
schemes will be hollow.
>
> > To cease writing positively on Freemasonry would be to capitulate to
> > their petulance. Look at the usual suspects. Compare their own writing
> > on Masonic philosophy with my own, to which they cannot compare either
> > in quality or quantity. That fuels their neuroses. I expose them and
> > continue to write positively. That double response drives them into
> > psychosis. All from my computer terminal.
>
> <ROFL> Yeah, you're such a light for us all, Mike! <ROFL>
The opinions of a few neurotics and dupes and dopes are of no
importance. Neither are their schemes.
>
> > > If they have committed such offense, prosecute. Otherwise no offense has
> > > been committed.
> >
> > And this you say to rape victims?
>
> Are you now asserting that I've raped you? Good grief, Mike. Have you NO shame?
> You minimize the horrid act of rape by comparing newsgroup postings which show
> you to not be the profound, bright light you imagine yourself. How disgusting!
Gee Eddie. I didn't write anything of the sort. If your sexual
delusions read that into what I've written, then ... good. You are
degenerating from neurotic to psychotic. I do what I can. This is too
easy ... Guffaw!
>
> > Ed king's actions are subject to the Grand lodge of Maine which has a
> > duty to all maine Masons not to have their Jurisdiction not made into
> > a continued source of ridicule.
>
> <ROFL> Wanna howl about who hosts my web site too? You were just as accurate in
> your assessment of that issue three years ago as you are in this.
Who cares about your anonymous ISP? Anonymous crap is still crap. It's
obvious that you need to hide your activities. I don't. And that
drives you nuts. "What's with this guy, I can't get him on porno?" You
have been and always will be several paces behind the curve. You are
like a mouse holding poisoned bait, only you don't realize it.
>
> But I'm sure the Grand Lodge of Maine and the Grand Lodge of California
> appreciated hearing from you. What did either do? They told you to go 'pound
> sand'.
>
> > If the Grand Lodge is indifferent to the maintenance of masonic reputation and
> > that of its members at Lodge, it will not suddenly become so concerned
> > and involved on Restivo's say so.
>
> Bottom line, Mike: you're an obsessed, lonely fanatic. You've got no life except
> sitting in your cellar whining about how everyone is picking on you. It's sad.
> In fact, it's absolutely pathetic.
Little Eddie can't tell whether I'm on the roof-tops ready to shoot
people or hiding out in the basement jacking-off, or maybe dead. I
might be somebody else like Elvis. Poor Eddie's psychological problems
go on unabated. "Pssst, hey buddy, wanna see some of Restivo's porno?"
is Ed King's new token and password.
Real adults aren't interested in what you're peddling, and you don't get
it. That was. is, and will be Restivo's power over you and your gang.
[snip]
† Mike Restivo
Robert Curriden
it is their fault for it)
> >
> > If they have committed such offense, prosecute. Otherwise no offense has
> > been committed.
>
> And this you say to rape victims?
Actually yes. I say Nail the Bastards to the wall according to the laws of
the land or stop your bitching over it.
Ed king's actions are subject to the
> Grand lodge of Maine which has a duty to all maine Masons not to have
> their Jurisdiction not made into a continued source of ridicule. If the
> Grand Lodge is indifferent to the maintenance of masonic reputation and
> that of its members at Lodge, it will not suddenly become so concerned
> and involved on Restivo's say so. They want to look like anti-Masons.
> Let 'em I say. Why must Restivo wipe their little orifices? If they
> are holding their nose so hard as not to smell their own stink, there is
> nothing Restivo can do about it. Let 'em smell and serve as an object
> lesson for rational persons, not neurotics or fools.
Mike, you maitained that your civil rights had been violated. If this is the
case, prosecute those who have abridged your civil rights against you will,
or stop you bitching about it.
<SNip more meaningless hot air>
> > Since you are not the federal law the offense you reference is against,
you
> > cannot be the offended.
>
> Restivo must be a law officer to be attacked. Try thinking before
> writing. All crimes against non-law enforcement officers are permitted
> by your stupid syllogism. Go on tell me your kind of nutty logic is
> used by lawyers all the time. NOT!
>
Mike, read and comprehend before you write.
I am saying that you are not the law, so do not attempt to act as the law.
There is a law against the violation of civil rights, then by use of the
law, prosecute. You are not the final say so they have violated, and you are
not the lawful authority to right it. So prosecute under the law or give it
a rest.
If you have been wrong, seek the proper remedies under the law. By not doing
so, you state that you have not been wronged.
> If the law is that which is offended, then the law
> > must be the one to answer the offense.
>
> Not answer to the offence. Judge the offenders and convict them.
>
Via the lawful authorities. Or do you claim to be the lawful authorities in
your given geographic area?
>
>
> >
> > Why have you not sought after the law to answer the offense, Mike?
>
> I don't work according to your timetable or goofy logic. More details
> will be addressed with respect to Bro. Jerome's post. The short answer
> is that there's insufficient evidence to prosecute, for now. That does
> not nullify the criminality of the deeds in question.
>
Goofy Logic now. Aren't we a delightful individual to speak with.
Prove your case or you have no case. Either you have been wronged, or you
have not. It is that simple. You have said that your civil rights have been
violated, that your webspace was hacked into, that you have been libeled,
and that others have sought to wrong you again and again. Surely, you have
evidence to back all these claims up. I mean, such a long and wide offense
as you have claimed leaves evidence all over the place. Surely, you have
used what you seem to feel is considerable mental faculties to collect the
smallest bit of it, to present to a legal authority, who could then collect
the rest of the evidence required to prosecute, as a Prosecutors office is
supposed to.
> So according to you, crime is ok as long as one escapes prosecution.
> Let the dead bring charges themselves, you say. Can't? 'Cause your
> dead? Too bad. No crime was committed. Your thinking is not even
> civil. It is anti-Masonic and psychologically disturbed.
>
Nice try at exaggeration. If murder were not something that is provided for
to be automatically investigated and prosecuted under the law, you might
even have a point. Have you been murdered Mike? I didn't think so. You are
fully capable of crying from the mountain tops that you have been wronged.
Why do you waste your time here? Go to the Legal authorities, present what
you insist on presenting here, and get on with it.
Of course, this presumes you have a case to present.
>
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Robert Curriden MM
> > Dual Member:
> > Glassboro Lodge No. 85 F.+A.M.
> > Glassboro, NJ
> > Pitman Lodge No. 197 F.+A.M.
> > Pitman, NJ
> > http://users.rcn.com/curriden/
>
> Your rant is about as sincere as a snake oil salesman.
>
Rant? Mike, I am trying to give you good advice. If you have been wronged,
there are remedies under the law. But telling us here all about it does you
no good. You need to speak to a prosecutor, which costs not a dime to
consult.
> You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Blaming
> your immaturity on Restivo or the devil or always somebody else only
> keeps you in a rut of denial and ego defence mechanisms.
>
You have something there that is exactly right. You are either the Problem
or the Solution. Tell me how you constantly deluging us here with how you
have been wronged will be part of the Solution to your problem?
Peter Renzland
> In article <lvGA6.74144$XV.18...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>, Peter Renzland wrote:
> > I'm surprised that *nobody* seems to have taken an interest in
> > commenting on Gene's talk.
>
> Why surprised? "Regular" posters here fully understand that this is
> not the venue for involved and weighty subjects as they're guaranteed
> to be overridden/misinterpreted by the anti-Masonic faction which is
> so frequently prevalent.
Gene posted his draft and asked for comments. I posted detailed comments
in response. I don't recall seeing overwhelming interference from any
"anti-Masonic faction". (Does that ever sound like another war-word ;-)
> Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
> as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
> yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
Good thing I criticized thoughts, and not thinkers, eh? :-)
> > Nor has Gene responded to my comments.
>
> Perhaps he interpreted your commentary much as I did. Who knows?
Perhaps. OTOH, he hasn't posted *anything* in the past few days,
and moreover, the last thing he did post actually allowed for the
possibility of objective truth. Do you recall?
> > Perhaps California is shrouded in (electrical) darkness again?
>
> Perhaps I shouldn't read too much into that - or perhaps I should?
Too much is generally too much. I did hear that there were electricity
shortages in CA, and perhaps people are asked to conserve. Perhaps
ISP's are forced to conserve? I don't know. But I do know there
hasn't been a word from Gene, and that's unusual.
> > Or perhaps the reason why people love talking small talk but don't
> > talk about Freemasonry here is that they don't want to give away
> > any secrets?
>
> Or perhaps there are no secrets to give away and thus, there's nothing
> to talk about?
Does that mean that the thought I expressed is utterly without merit?
I wonder if that is truly the case? I have given quite a bit of thought
as to why an intelligent man of good will, and a Mason, would sometimes
talk straight and sometimes clearly not. The most plausible answer I
have been able to come up with so far is that perhaps he feels that some
things are better not discussed in public.
But even if I am mistaken about that, it certainly does not follow by
conventional logic, that if I am wrong that people don't talk about
ideas to protect secrets, and that there are no secrets, that ergo
there is nothing to talk about. On the contrary. If there are no
secrets we can think and talk freely about _everything_.
> > Or perhaps, any quiet meaningful talk would be
> > squelched out by the roar of 100's of small talks?
>
> Or perhaps many understand 'to every thing there is a season' - and
> that there's a time and place for everything. Personally, I've
> found the electronic medium of messaging very unsatisfying when
> one seeks collaboration. I'm hoping Microsoft's new OfficeXP will
> deliver as they promise in this regard but that's not going to
> impact what goes on here.
There certainly is a great temptation to be rash and unthinking, and it
takes the sort of good will, intelligence, and discipline that those
who care to have quality communication will want to nourish, to overcome
that temptation.
As for Microsoft, I'm sure that promises will be kept in the future as
in the past.
> > Or is it that Gene choose a subject title that carefully obscured
> > his content?
>
> You think his content was different from the subject? Interesting
> interpretation....
The subject title was: "Subject: Read and comment - please"
> > So many questions. So few answers.
>
> So much provocation....
Some see it everywhere. Some call it bait :-)
Some prefer to keep a cool head.
> > Here is a simple question:
> >
> > What is your favourite book about the nature and the use of
> > symbols and symbolism in Freemasonry?
>
> I believe that each Mason finds things of interest to them and that
> it's totally inappropriate to _force_ people to feign interest
> in subjects beyond their realm of interest.
Huh? What happened? Totally ... Inappropriate ... Force ... Feign ...
How did we get there?
> Some people greatly enjoy watching the weather channel, some people
> enjoy reading the daily newspaper, some people can't live without
> the latest sports information, and some people won't read anything
> but fiction. Are these people wrong because they don't share my
> interest in Freemasonry? Are they wrong because they don't continually
> keep up with MY interests?
This *is* about _symbols_ and _freemasonry_, no?
> Do you expect others to be reading books about dancing just because
> that is (was) an interest of yours?
I would not hesitate to ask about that in rec.arts.dance or in
rec.folk.dancing. But this is alt.freemasonry -- shall we stay on topic?
> Expecting Masons to have a "favourite book" about a subject is
> ludicrous, IMO. What's YOUR favorite book on dog breeding? What's
> YOUR favorite book on marksmanship? What's YOUR favorite book on
> healthcare reform?
How interesting. And all that from a simple question about books on
symbols in an article about symbols?
I was simply asking for recommendations or pointers to books on the
subject, since I was planning to take a trip to the library. So,
I listed the books on the subject from the library catalog.
How astonishing that this should be interpreted as such an odious
thing to do, a Mason asking Masons about Masonic books that they
like in a Masonic newsgroup.
> Now it could be argued that Masons _should_ want to read about
> symbols. It could also be argued that Baptists should want to read
> books about the Baptist Church but how many have?
All I know for sure is that *this* Mason wants to read about symbols.
And that's good enough for me.
> > I'm making another trip to our GL library tomorrow.
> >
> > Any comments on . . .
(List omitted)
I had hoped that some people would each pick their top choices from the
list, and that I could then go and read those.
I did appreciate the comments. Many Thanks!
> You're welcome. Did you want book reviews too?
All I had hoped for was one or two "favourites" from perhaps a
few people.
As it turned out, I didn't make it to GL library yesterday, so I'll go
next week. Interestingly, someone I danced with yesterday happened to
be reading one of the books on the list, and as she finished it, she
brought it over today. I took a peek into it to see what it said about
the FC WT, since I gave that lecture tonight, and found it quite
interesting. But I can see how that particular author's writing style
might not appeal to everyone. A little on the intellectual side.
I wonder whether this newsgroup is perceived by its normative regulars
to be an Oxymoron. Should Masons oppose non-masons researching Masonry?
Perhaps this could be a now topic?
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Renzland) wrote:
> I'm surprised that *nobody* seems to have taken an interest in
> commenting on Gene's talk.
I am as well. Sad, but not entirely unexpected.
> Nor has Gene responded to my comments.
Gene has been on vacation, and has not posted for a few days. He is
making his way through the hundreds of posts that he missed. Slowly
but he is getting through them.
(Oh Lord! I'm talking in the third person! There, that's better.)
> Perhaps California is shrouded in (electrical) darkness again?
Nope, just taking a well-deserved break.
> What is your favourite book about the nature and the use of
> symbols and symbolism in Freemasonry?
Probably "The Craft and it's Symbols" by Allen Roberts. Dear Brother
Allen did a wonderful job on it.
> I'm making another trip to our GL library tomorrow.
>
> Any comments on . . .
Only that the books, (including dear Allen's) are the opinions of the
author, and intended to inspire, not to define.
> Thanks!
Any time.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E!
W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP--
t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: You are someone's impression of Masonry
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission may be granted to others upon request.
Objects in this post are funnier than they appear
Be seeing you
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
wrote:
> Regardless of others' response or lack of it. Are you actually
> permitted to discuss symbology which discussion could be interpreted as
> contrary to your Masonic solemn promise "not to reveal ..."?
No. But I WAS asked, by the Grand Master, to prepare a class in
Masonic Symbolism, to be given at a series of Officer's Management
Workshops throughout the jurisdiction. The next one is in Stocton,
next week.
Our symbols are not considered either private or secret.
> Prudent and obedient silence may be misinterpreted for indifference.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
> Restivo was forbidden, without qualification, by the Lodge Secretary to
> post on the Internet.
Or, looked at another way, Mike, you were advised that the sort of
name-calling you had been doing toward Masons here was probably
inappropriate for someone who was petitioning for reinstatement.
> What is the official ruling for your Lodge?
That the requests of the Grand Master, and his committees, are to be
honored.
> These kinds of restrictions go a long way to explaining the
> comparatively trivial nature of alt.freemasonry discourse.
As does the more simple fact that many of us just come here to chat
with friends and have a nice visit.
> Many lurkers
> are just being obedient Masons and refuse to comment about the Work at
> all. if they are allowed to post on Internet newsgroups at all, they
> should consider themselves fortunate for receiving Lodge and/or Grand
> Lodge permission to do so.
Or fortunate that they are Masons, and learned in the rules and
regulations of Masonry.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
wrote:
> Contravening one's civil rights is not caution, it is a federal
> offence.
Mike, if you have reason to believe someone has committed a crime, you
REALLY should report it to the proper authorities. Failure to do so
could be considered "Aiding and abetting".
Gerard Cojot
> Our symbols are not considered either private or secret.
So they are in many books.
But the whole maining exist only living them with others masons.
--
Amitiés, Gérard Cojot mailto:gerard...@wanadoo.fr
'Si tu diffères de moi, Frère, loin de me léser, tu m'enrichis'
(Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Terre des Hommes)
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/gerard.cojot/
Gerard Cojot
> "Animal Style" Gene Goldman.·. <br_...@pacbell.net> écrit:
>
> > Our symbols are not considered either private or secret.
>
> So they are in many books.
> But the whole maining exist only living them with others masons.
Sorry: mEAning.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
wrote:
> I've studied 'em for years, submitted my early study for
> credit in my Social Psychology class.
Mike,
I DO hope that "submission" was cleaner than the one we were
discussing here recently.
> To cease posing positively on Freemasonry because of strife with
> disturbed fools is immature.
To describe a simple piece of advice as though it was a set of
marching orders from the commanding general is, frankly, a bit
paranoid.
> Ed King, for years, is jealous of Restivo's continuing education, of
> Restivo's writing, of Restivo's sex life, etc., and justifies social and
> civil crimes against Restivo because Restivo writes positively about
> Freemasonry.
But that's not all you write, is it Mike? Rumor has it you "try your
hand" in other venues, too.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
wrote:
> Your fantasies really run the gamut, don't they?
And some of them have been preserved in print, for future generations!
> Looks to me like you've been into the issue of masturbation a LOT lately, Mike.
> Gettin' worried about hitting 55?
Naw. He's probably just looking to improve his writing.
> Would you care to provide some proof that I'm jealous of your continuing
> education or your writing?
Jealous of Mike's writing? Interesting concept.
> Do you even know what you're writing about? Get out of the gutter and into
> grace. Say, maybe now we should send that letter to your Bishop and ask what HE
> thinks of your high moral writings, huh?
THAT would be interesting!
> Bottom line, Mike: you're an obsessed, lonely fanatic. You've got no life except
> sitting in your cellar whining about how everyone is picking on you. It's sad.
> In fact, it's absolutely pathetic.
Not true, Ed. He has his writing to keep him warm at night.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E!
W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP--
t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: You are someone's impression of Masonry
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
wrote:
> Restivo's morality is the Freemasonic
> Idealism about which I have been writing for years.
Rumor has it you have been writing other things for years, too, Mike.
> So somebody explain sanely how Ed King's attack on Restivo is not an attack
> upon the Craft?
A. Outside your imagination, it is not an attack on Restivo, Mike.
B. An attack (when one actually occurs) on an individual is not an
attack on every organization to which he or she belongs, or once
belonged.
C. For an attack on an individual (when one actually occurs, as
opposed to being alleged) to be an attack on an organization, the
attack must be because the individual is a member of the organization
(in this case, Mike, you are not a member of a Masonic Lodge) or as a
representative of the organization (not being a member of a Lodge, you
cannot represent a jurisdiction, can you?).
You could make a case that (as Grand Master) his alleged attack on you
was an alleged attack on your Martinist Order. That might hold water.
But you certainly do not represent either the fraternity of
Freemasonry, any particular jurisdiction, or any Lodge therein
Constituted.
I hope this clears it up for you, Mike.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E!
W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP--
t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: You are someone's impression of Masonry
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
wrote:
> Why surprised? "Regular" posters here fully understand that this is
> not the venue for involved and weighty subjects as they're guaranteed
> to be overridden/misinterpreted by the anti-Masonic faction which is
> so frequently prevalent.
I guess I am an "Irregular".
<s>
> Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
> as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
> yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
Good point.
> > Nor has Gene responded to my comments.
>
> Perhaps he interpreted your commentary much as I did. Who knows?
Naw. Just on vacation.
> > Or perhaps the reason why people love talking small talk but don't
> > talk about Freemasonry here is that they don't want to give away
> > any secrets?
>
> Or perhaps there are no secrets to give away and thus, there's nothing
> to talk about?
Or perhaps the small talk is the secret.
> > Or perhaps, any quiet meaningful talk would be
> > squelched out by the roar of 100's of small talks?
>
> Or perhaps many understand 'to every thing there is a season' - and
> that there's a time and place for everything. Personally, I've
> found the electronic medium of messaging very unsatisfying when
> one seeks collaboration. I'm hoping Microsoft's new OfficeXP will
> deliver as they promise in this regard but that's not going to
> impact what goes on here.
Honestly, I wasn't expecting much. Just a few comments, suggestions
for improvement, ideas I hadn't considered.
> > Or is it that Gene choose a subject title that carefully obscured
> > his content?
>
> You think his content was different from the subject? Interesting
> interpretation....
Let's see. My subject was "Symbols" and the piece was about
"symbols". Hmmmmmmm.
> > So many questions. So few answers.
>
> So much provocation....
So many fish tacos, so little time ...
> I believe that each Mason finds things of interest to them and that
> it's totally inappropriate to _force_ people to feign interest
> in subjects beyond their realm of interest.
>
> Some people greatly enjoy watching the weather channel, some people
> enjoy reading the daily newspaper, some people can't live without
> the latest sports information, and some people won't read anything
> but fiction. Are these people wrong because they don't share my
> interest in Freemasonry? Are they wrong because they don't continually
> keep up with MY interests?
Some people would suggest so. Personally, I have also observed that
some individuals cannot learn anything unless it is written down in
some book. Personal experience, their own or that of someone else, is
worthless to them. They are more interested in what is written than
in reality. IOW, they confuse the map with the territory.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E!
W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP--
t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: You are someone's impression of Masonry
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Renzland) wrote:
> Does that mean that the thought I expressed is utterly without merit?
> I wonder if that is truly the case? I have given quite a bit of thought
> as to why an intelligent man of good will, and a Mason, would sometimes
> talk straight and sometimes clearly not. The most plausible answer I
> have been able to come up with so far is that perhaps he feels that some
> things are better not discussed in public.
Or perhaps those times when you believe he is not "talking straight",
he really is, but you are misunderstanding what he is saying.
> Should Masons oppose non-masons researching Masonry?
I strongly support non Masons researching Masonry.
> Perhaps this could be a now topic?
Perhaps it could.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E!
W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP--
t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: You are someone's impression of Masonry
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
jaqueira2
I didn't follow this thread much before and so I missed this:
>> Should Masons oppose non-masons researching Masonry?
>
>I strongly support non Masons researching Masonry.
Years ago, when I became a Mason we did so really in the dark, well most of us
did. Times and attitudes have change. In this day and age the general public
wants to know just what they are getting into. Almost everything we wish to
know about a variety of subjects can now be discovered in our own homes by
computer. That coupled with a litigious society that has grown weary of trust
in our fellow man requires a more enlightened person, and so I agree with the
both of you that non-Masons studying Masonry can only be good for the
organization. Many times I hear of skeptical people who were studying Masonry,
joining after they find how wholesome membership and our friendships are. We
should not oppose non-Masons studying Masonry, we should and do encourage it.
V.'.W.'. Sam Schwarzman, AGL, GLNY
Treasurer and Past President; Metropolitan Assistant
Grand Lecturers Association (MAGLA)
KIV11
>We
>should not oppose non-Masons studying Masonry, we should and do encourage it.
As an addendum, The Livingston Library at the Grand Lodge of NY is open to
non-Masons for scholarly research.
George F. Kivowitz
Russ
Mike Restivo wrote:
--
x-no-archive: yes
Remember, if you can not dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Barbara
Streisand.
Robert Pringle
Bob Pringle
Russ wrote:
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Peter Renzland
> Gene and Peter:
> I didn't follow this thread much before and so I missed this:
>
> >> Should Masons oppose non-masons researching Masonry?
> >
> >I strongly support non Masons researching Masonry.
>
> Years ago, when I became a Mason we did so really in the dark, well most of us
> did. Times and attitudes have change. In this day and age the general public
> wants to know just what they are getting into. Almost everything we wish to
> know about a variety of subjects can now be discovered in our own homes by
> computer. That coupled with a litigious society that has grown weary of trust
> in our fellow man requires a more enlightened person, and so I agree with the
> both of you that non-Masons studying Masonry can only be good for the
> organization. Many times I hear of skeptical people who were studying Masonry,
> joining after they find how wholesome membership and our friendships are. We
> should not oppose non-Masons studying Masonry, we should and do encourage it.
I always find it interesting to see just exactly what Gene
removes from the context, as he "quotes" and then responds.
The complete context was:
>>> I wonder whether this newsgroup is perceived by its normative regulars
>>> to be an Oxymoron. Should Masons oppose non-masons researching Masonry?
That was the context in which I, who asked the question, asked the question.
So, how about it? This newsgroup is for research about Masonry. Not for
small talk among Masons. Masons are not supposed to be "in charge" here.
True or False? Is the opinion of vociferous Masons equal to the
scholarship of knowledgeable researchers?
jaqueira2
>So, how about it? This newsgroup is for research about Masonry.
That is your concept but not necessarily the correct one. Read on.
Not for
>small talk among Masons. Masons are not supposed to be "in charge" here.
Well, the "small talk" is the fun stuff that Masons enjoy as opposed to always
being up tight and serious. Peter, really there are much better research
newsgroups, which are much more serious like Global Freemasonry or Soc.org.
This newsgroup is much more controversial but a lot more fun.
>True or False? Is the opinion of vociferous Masons equal to the
>scholarship of knowledgeable researchers?
No! of course not but you are missing the point. Although from time to time I
come across articles here that can have given me much "food for thought," I
find many more such subjects in the other news groups.
Peter, the way I understand it, the originators of this group sought to open a
channel for Masons to have discussions and without moderation. Soon after it
began, the "lunatic" fringe of anti Masons set in and ruined those plans. They
then created "alt.masonic.members" but again the controls didn't work. Their
final attempt, Soc.org.freemasonry meets with much more success and that is a
better area for more serious research. In this venue (alt.freemasonry) you will
continue to be served fish tacos stuffed with anguish because that is what the
posters here want. To try to change this NG to a serious source of Masonic
research, well it's too late to close the door, the horses are already out of
the coral.
Peter Renzland
> >So, how about it? This newsgroup is for research about Masonry.
> That is your concept but not necessarily the correct one. Read on.
Here is the *correct* concept, straight from the Charter. Every one
of my posts contains a URL reference to the Charter in the headers:
X-CHARTER: ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/alt/alt.freemasonry.Z
| alt.freemasonry An open forum for sharing facts on Freemasonry.
|
| Alt.freemasonry is intended for
| 1) the general Usenet user,
| 2) the increasing number of people doing academic research on Freemasonry,
| 3) those who have been carring on discussions about Freemasonry in other
| alt.newsgroups.
|
| There are other net options for members of the organization to talk
| to each other in a moderated format.
|
| Alt.freemasonry is for people with an interest in the organization,
| (for its role in history, etc.), but not necessarily with an insider's
| approach. It is expected that it can become a repository of FAQ's and
| other information, and generally a useful resource for anyone with a
| question in the field.
> >Not for
> >small talk among Masons. Masons are not supposed to be "in charge" here.
>
> Well, the "small talk" is the fun stuff that Masons enjoy as opposed to always
> being up tight and serious. Peter, really there are much better research
> newsgroups, which are much more serious like Global Freemasonry or Soc.org.
> This newsgroup is much more controversial but a lot more fun.
>
> >True or False? Is the opinion of vociferous Masons equal to the
> >scholarship of knowledgeable researchers?
>
> No! of course not but you are missing the point. Although from time to time I
> come across articles here that can have given me much "food for thought," I
> find many more such subjects in the other news groups.
My question is -- should the Masons here respect the newsgroup's charter
as it is? Especially the "normative regulars"? It is not I who is
proposing innovation - on the contrary. ;-)
> Peter, the way I understand it, the originators of this group sought to
> open a channel for Masons
Sorry, Sam, that's not what the Charter says.
> to have discussions and without moderation. Soon after it
> began, the "lunatic" fringe of anti Masons set in and ruined those plans. They
> then created "alt.masonic.members" but again the controls didn't work. Their
> final attempt, Soc.org.freemasonry meets with much more success and that is a
> better area for more serious research. In this venue (alt.freemasonry) you will
> continue to be served fish tacos stuffed with anguish because that is what the
> posters here want. To try to change this NG to a serious source of Masonic
> research, well it's too late to close the door, the horses are already out of
> the coral.
> V.'.W.'. Sam Schwarzman, AGL, GLNY
> Treasurer and Past President; Metropolitan Assistant
> Grand Lecturers Association (MAGLA)
I know that often people act out of ignorance. I just wonder whether,
once there is awareness of what the charter actually says, people will
respect it? That was my question. :-)
Mike Restivo
>
> (Snip a bit of hot air that really amounted to they wouldn't accept me and
> it is their fault for it)
>
> > >
> > > If they have committed such offense, prosecute. Otherwise no offense has
> > > been committed.
> >
> > And this you say to rape victims?
>
> Actually yes. I say Nail the Bastards to the wall according to the laws of
> the land or stop your bitching over it.
Get some adult to read your own words to you:
You wrote above. Still with me? ok. this is what you wrote above:
<<If they have committed such offence, prosecute. Otherwise no offence
has
> > > been committed.>>
Do you admit that it was you who wrote that statement, and that to the
best of your knowledge you wrote it without correction? Still with me?
Lost? Then start again with help. If you need to act like a moron, then
correspondence will cease. I can't teach you to read if you need to
play games. I've been through this strategy of correspondence
stultification for years. A correspondent pretends to be an idiot to
wear down or "grind" the other correspondent. C'est la vie. Then you
whine that I'm insulting. You can't have it both ways. Ops, I've
probably lost you again. No problem, start from the beginning. Know
where that is? No. Oh my ...
Now your statement:
<<If they have committed such offense, prosecute. Otherwise no offense
has
> > > been committed.>>
Claims that unless a crime is prosecuted, then no crime has been
committed. Therefore, a rape victim too afraid of charging her father,
the violator, upon whom she as a minor depends for welfare, would in
your anti-social system of justice not have been raped and her father
not have committed a crime. Indeed, the incestuous father gets you
blessing to continue to rape his underage daughter as long as the courts
do not prosecute. Again I declare your justice to be anti-Masonic and
anti-social. Just substitute organized crime victim under intimidation
of death for a similar scenario.
Gee, why take any chances? Just kill the victim, then the likelihood of
charges even being laid is minimized. Then no crime is committed. This
is the justification for police state execution squads in Brazil that
allegedly exterminate homeless children. Your fascism has no place in a
Just society.
That you refuse to understand what normal adults grasp at once with
respect to Justice goes a long way to explaining your anti-Restivo hate.
[snip]
>
> I am saying that you are not the law, so do not attempt to act as the law.
A citizen need not act as the law. You are hallucinating. A citizen is
entitled to equal protection under the law. You confuse Restivo's
entitlement to Justice with your delusion that I am Justice. Get a
psychiatrist. Your projective transference is hobbling your ability to
even think properly.
> There is a law against the violation of civil rights, then by use of the
> law, prosecute. You are not the final say so they have violated, and you are
> not the lawful authority to right it. So prosecute under the law or give it
> a rest.
>
> If you have been wrong, seek the proper remedies under the law. By not doing
> so, you state that you have not been wronged.
You're just repeating your own old nonsense. I have a multi year plan
involved, quite beyond your obvious and proven inability to understand.
I don't jump to the whims of nay sayers who will and must deny anything
contrary to their prejudices anyway. I'm not interested in convincing
people like you who are obsessed with getting even, projecting their
neuroses and needing to safeguard their ego defence mechanisms. Its
all, "Restivo do this, Restivo do that, Restivo wipe my ass." That's
the "Twelve Labours of Hercules" tactic. Seen it all years ago. Get
the correspondent to jump around proving whatever in grinding detail
then reply "So what? We're not interested."
Your problem is that because Ed King is not slapped in jail right now
his criminal behaviour is justified. And if he is incarcerated, you
would need to squeak that he is but one case. The big picture is
obviously beyond you: There are always wrong doers. What of the
majority who enables them? That's my study. I'm not interested in
crushing a few sickos. I use 'em to understand group behavioural
dynamics: How is it that the behaviour on alt.freemasonry is so
different from SOF? Which newsgroup is the better representation of
Freemasonry. I claim it is SOF, between the too. Anyway, you need to
deny, and even a thousand Masons in jail would not open your eyes:
"Why and how does Freemasonry get associated with men whose sense of
Justice is so degenerate as to be anti-social? Is it Freemasonry's
fault?" That's just something to write about positively. If not by
Masons, then by whom else?
>
> > If the law is that which is offended, then the law
> > > must be the one to answer the offense.
> >
> > Not answer to the offence. Judge the offenders and convict them.
> >
>
> Via the lawful authorities. Or do you claim to be the lawful authorities in
> your given geographic area?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Why have you not sought after the law to answer the offense, Mike?
> >
> > I don't work according to your timetable or goofy logic. More details
> > will be addressed with respect to Bro. Jerome's post. The short answer
> > is that there's insufficient evidence to prosecute, for now. That does
> > not nullify the criminality of the deeds in question.
> >
>
> Goofy Logic now. Aren't we a delightful individual to speak with.
>
> Prove your case or you have no case. Either you have been wronged, or you
> have not. It is that simple. You have said that your civil rights have been
> violated, that your webspace was hacked into, that you have been libeled,
> and that others have sought to wrong you again and again. Surely, you have
> evidence to back all these claims up. I mean, such a long and wide offense
> as you have claimed leaves evidence all over the place. Surely, you have
> used what you seem to feel is considerable mental faculties to collect the
> smallest bit of it, to present to a legal authority, who could then collect
> the rest of the evidence required to prosecute, as a Prosecutors office is
> supposed to.
If you interrupted watching television for a moment to actually think,
you could realize that there is a minimal threshold to prosecuting
anything. I can spend indeterminate sums of money to complain and make
charges, but they cannot be acted upon out of state by police. It's a
civil matter. Sue 'em. That will happen, it is inevitable, but not on
your timetable.
>
> > So according to you, crime is ok as long as one escapes prosecution.
> > Let the dead bring charges themselves, you say. Can't? 'Cause your
> > dead? Too bad. No crime was committed. Your thinking is not even
> > civil. It is anti-Masonic and psychologically disturbed.
> >
>
> Nice try at exaggeration. If murder were not something that is provided for
> to be automatically investigated and prosecuted under the law, you might
> even have a point. Have you been murdered Mike? I didn't think so. You are
> fully capable of crying from the mountain tops that you have been wronged.
> Why do you waste your time here?
The advocacy of Justice is hat you call a waste of time. Among
neurotics and fanatics, to speak to common civil justice is offensive to
people like you. And you call yourself a Mason?
Go to the Legal authorities, present what
> you insist on presenting here, and get on with it.
>
> Of course, this presumes you have a case to present.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Robert Curriden MM
> > > Dual Member:
> > > Glassboro Lodge No. 85 F.+A.M.
> > > Glassboro, NJ
> > > Pitman Lodge No. 197 F.+A.M.
> > > Pitman, NJ
> > > http://users.rcn.com/curriden/
> >
> > Your rant is about as sincere as a snake oil salesman.
> >
>
> Rant? Mike, I am trying to give you good advice. If you have been wronged,
> there are remedies under the law. But telling us here all about it does you
> no good. You need to speak to a prosecutor, which costs not a dime to
> consult.
Consult, laying charges, over quantitatively insignificant offences is
no guarantee that the offender(s) will be even charged, let alone
prosecuted. I remain content for now, gathering what evidence I can.
I'm not in the Curriden pleasing business. My agenda is not set by you.
>
> > You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Blaming
> > your immaturity on Restivo or the devil or always somebody else only
> > keeps you in a rut of denial and ego defence mechanisms.
> >
>
> You have something there that is exactly right. You are either the Problem
> or the Solution. Tell me how you constantly deluging us here with how you
> have been wronged will be part of the Solution to your problem?
If you were psychologically capable of understanding that, you would not
have written your stultification posts and you would already know an
answer.
jaqueira2
S & F>Sorry, Sam, that's not what the Charter says.
Peter, I didn't say it was. I said that the purpose it was created for didn't
work from the very beginning and still doesn't, also I stated that their second
attempt, alt.Masonic members didn't work either but that Soc.org.freemasonry
does work as expected and that was their third attempt. I know what the charter
calls for, it is not what is happening, that is why I said that it is too late
to close the door after the horses are out. Now if you really want a serious
and better answer and are not just trying to be antagonistic, go right to the
source. I suggest that you contact Ted Morgan at tmo...@yahoo.com, he is a
Soc.org.freemason monitor and I believe one of the creators of Alt.Freemasonry.
He is quite a nice guy, a Brother and a gentleman, perhaps he can answer your
question better then any of us here. Please let us (me) know the results.
S & F
Peter Renzland
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:59:43 GMT, Mike Restivo <mtro...@sympatico.ca>
>
> > permitted to discuss symbology which discussion could be interpreted as
> > contrary to your Masonic solemn promise "not to reveal ..."?
>
> No. But I WAS asked, by the Grand Master, to prepare a class in
> Masonic Symbolism, to be given at a series of Officer's Management
> Workshops throughout the jurisdiction. The next one is in Stocton,
> next week.
>
> Our symbols are not considered either private or secret.
It could be that I am losing my mind, but perhaps there is another
explanation for why this "answer" does not really answer the question.
(Open-minded readers may want to reread Q & A, to see what I mean. :-)
What kind of "Officers" are these? Are they Military Officers?
Or Police Officers? Or are they Masonic Officers?
The answer to this question makes your argument either coy or vacuous.
Clearly, if they are Masonic Officers (as I suspect), you have just
rhetorically shot yourself into the foot stuck in your mouth, no? :-)
Let me take it one step further. If the symbols are not secret,
how about the allegories? Are they not secret either? I hope you
know what I'm getting at.
(Hm. I just noticed that the CA obligation is different from the ON in
this respect. Jim, I wonder how you see this: what is meant by "hidden
mysteries" and how does that relate to what is veiled and illustrated?
My interpretation is that the ritual is not for me to reveal.)
jDolan
> Restivo's morality is the Freemasonic
> Idealism about which I have been writing for years. Eddie doesn't like
> What Restivo writes. And What Restivo writes is the ideals of
> Freemasonry.
Mike-
I beg to differ.
I suggest you take a step back and a few deep breathes.
You appear to be a very angry man.
And I'd appreciate it if you would contain the off-color illustrations
of your posts. People of all ages can and do read this newsgroup.
I don't think your current writings accurately represent Masonry at
all.
Peter Renzland
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:25:42 EDT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com>
> wrote:
> > Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
> > as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
> > yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
>
> Good point.
Care to illustrate that "good point", Gene?
Would you prefer me to respond even less to your writing?
I have the technology. And I'm willing to deploy it.
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY:
>>> Or is it that Gene choose a subject title that carefully obscured
>>> his content?
>>
>> You think his content was different from the subject? Interesting
>> interpretation....
>
> Let's see. My subject was "Symbols" and the piece was about
> "symbols". Hmmmmmmm.
DID YOU SEE THE DISTORTION?
Let me spell it out.
The topic, as found in the body of the article, was "Symbolism in Masonry"
However, the "subject title" was "Subject: Read and comment - please".
DOES THAT MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR NOW?
Guvf vf whfg bar rknzcyr bs ubj gur jevgvatf bs bguref ner qvfgbegrq.
Nf sne nf V nz pbaprearq, zvfercerfragvat nabgure'f jevgvat, fb nf gb
pnfg gurz va n onq yvtug, vf fynaqre. V nz pnershy abg gb qb gung gb
bguref, ertneqyrff bs jurgure V yvxr gurz. Naq V nz nfgbavfurq naq
fubpxrq gung vg unccraf evtug urer, ebhgvaryl.
Robert Curriden
You are full of yourself, and I see no reason to continue to speak with you.
I reinitiate you to the killfile
Robert Curriden
Jim Bennie
(Peter Renzland) wrote:
> (Hm. I just noticed that the CA obligation is different from the ON in
> this respect. Jim, I wonder how you see this: what is meant by "hidden
> mysteries" and how does that relate to what is veiled and illustrated?
> My interpretation is that the ritual is not for me to reveal.)
Hi, Peter. To me, "hidden mysteries" are those parts of the ceremonies
which are considered secret. But I don't doubt the term can be
interpreted to mean something else (hmm..does that make it a symbol? ;)
I take it, from the last sentence in your parenthetical note that
you are equating the non-adjectivised "mysteries" in your 1st degree
obl. with "ritual"?
Jim Bennie, IPM No. 44, Vancouver
Jim Bennie
(Peter Renzland) wrote:
> jaqueira2 wrote on 14 Apr 2001 00:55:17 GMT:
> > >So, how about it? This newsgroup is for research about Masonry.
> > That is your concept but not necessarily the correct one. Read on.
> Here is the *correct* concept, straight from the Charter.
> | alt.freemasonry An open forum for sharing facts on Freemasonry.
> |
> | Alt.freemasonry is intended for
> | 1) the general Usenet user,
> | 2) the increasing number of people doing academic research on
> | Freemasonry,
> | 3) those who have been carring on discussions about Freemasonry in other
> | alt.newsgroups.
> |
> | There are other net options for members of the organization to talk
> | to each other in a moderated format.
If one wishes to split hairs, Peter, the charter says the newsgroup
isn't even for Masons. That's because they have "other net options".
Research certainly is only one purpose of the newsgroup, but the Charter
is pretty broad, and that's why there have been problems complaining to
ISPs about people over the years who have been annoying trolls.
> My question is -- should the Masons here respect the newsgroup's charter
> as it is? Especially the "normative regulars"? It is not I who is
> proposing innovation - on the contrary. ;-)
> > Their
> > final attempt, Soc.org.freemasonry meets with much more success and that
> > is a better area for more serious research.
It should be noted that the "their" behind s.o.f. and the "their"
behind this newsgroup are not the same people. Ron Boutwell was
involved in the creation of a.f. and a.m.m. in the dying days of the
old bit.listserv newsgroup. Gordon Charlton endeavoured to start a
moderated group, and gave up after several problems, including some
involving his own health. Some people unaware of all this .. well,
most of them were .. then came forward with their own moderated
endeavour.
(I'm sorry Gordon isn't here any more, along with many other Masons
I used to chat with over the years here)
> > In this venue (alt.freemasonry) you will
> > continue to be served fish tacos stuffed with anguish because that is
> > what the
> > posters here want. To try to change this NG to a serious source of Masonic
> > research, well it's too late to close the door, the horses are already
> > out of the coral.
Coral? They must have been sea-horses.
> I know that often people act out of ignorance. I just wonder whether,
> once there is awareness of what the charter actually says, people will
> respect it? That was my question. :-)
The cynical answer, Peter - it's Usenet. In other words, Sam's right.
And the same thing used to happen on the old BBSs and still happens
on mailing lists. The UK Mason list had to even create a whole
"off topic" category which I delete with regularity.
Bmasonjohnson
you can fully understand your interpretation of them. The "official"
explanations appear in standard books for all to see.
Peter Renzland
Yes, my question related to Mr. Kenobi's Christian name. In particular,
where ours is s&hm, in .CA.US it's just s.
BTW, our COTW (MW Bro. E.D.)told me that everything that is in the Work
is secret. (In answer to a question about the Installation Charge.)
I guess that one is probably public in (some of) the U.S. :-)
Peter Renzland
> Peter Renzland said in <MFMB6.4728$5E3.1...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>:
> >So, how about it? This newsgroup is for research about Masonry. Not for
> >small talk among Masons. Masons are not supposed to be "in charge" here.
> >True or False? Is the opinion of vociferous Masons equal to the
> >scholarship of knowledgeable researchers?
>
> both?
>
> This group is ideal for non-Masons to ask questions about Masonry (and
> get answers both from Masons and from lurking/postings antis), and for
> Masons to discuss Masonry - 99.9% of the craft can be openly discussed
> in a public forum without upsetting anyone these days, and the
> discussions may well help non-Masons to understand the craft a little
> more!
Not only does it help non-Masons understand the Craft a little more,
it also helps them see actual contemporary Masons act.
A shared forum for both Masons and non-Masons, rather than an insider's
forum for Masons and sympathizers is what the newsgroup appears to have
been created for, according to the Charter.
I wonder whether that is how the "regulars" perceive it. ...
Here's the Charter:
|alt.freemasonry An open forum for sharing facts on Freemasonry.
|
|Alt.freemasonry is intended for
|1) the general Usenet user,
|2) the increasing number of people doing academic research on Freemasonry,
|3) those who have been carring on discussions about Freemasonry in other
| alt.newsgroups.
|
|There are other net options for members of the organization to talk
|to each other in a moderated format. Alt.freemasonry is for people with
|an interest in the organization, (for its role in history, etc.), but not
|necessarily with an insider's approach.
|
|It is expected that it can become a repository of FAQ's and other
|information, and generally a useful resource for anyone with a
|question in the field.
Having said that this newsgroup helps people see Masons in action (or
at least in word), one may wonder how representative A.F. Masons are.
Keith Chesworth
>
>Having said that this newsgroup helps people see Masons in action (or
>at least in word), one may wonder how representative A.F. Masons are.
I would suggest that overall it is quite a fair representation. At
least when taken in the context of the population as a whole and when
considering that:
a) All here have learnt how to turn a computer on.
b) All here have learnt how to access the Internet
c) All here have found out that there is more to the internet than the
WWW
d) All here have found Usenet and how to retrieve and post.
This means that there may be a slightly higher intellegence here than
in the populace as a whole, although over the last five years this
seems to be slipping :-(
The other qualification I would make is that the ones here have, or
have found, the time come spend discussing Masonry.
But overall I would suggest that the representation here is quite
fair. Going from the almost unbelievably kind, generous loving souls
who embody fully the principles of the Craft to some, should we say
who may be better served outside?
Keith J Chesworth
Web sites:-
Dunstable - www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/8227/home.htm
Warships of WW1- www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/6728/index.html
Oil Tankers - www.telinco.co.uk/boilerbill/
Masonic Musings - www.masonry.telinco.co.uk/
Ed King
> Brother Peter:
>
> >So, how about it? This newsgroup is for research about Masonry.
>
> That is your concept but not necessarily the correct one. Read on.
>
> >Not for
> >small talk among Masons. Masons are not supposed to be "in charge" here.
>
> Well, the "small talk" is the fun stuff that Masons enjoy as opposed to always
> being up tight and serious. Peter, really there are much better research
> newsgroups, which are much more serious like Global Freemasonry or Soc.org.
> This newsgroup is much more controversial but a lot more fun.
And it's not subject to the whims and controls of someone who wants to create the
world in _their_ image, fortunately. There is also the Freemasonry mailing list,
Compuserve's Masonry Forum and - for the truly serious researcher - the closed
Philalethes list. It's not as if this is the 'only game in town', is it? <g>
> >True or False? Is the opinion of vociferous Masons equal to the
> >scholarship of knowledgeable researchers?
>
> No! of course not but you are missing the point. Although from time to time I
> come across articles here that can have given me much "food for thought," I
> find many more such subjects in the other news groups.
Amen! But just as we ALL have preferences, so too is it with our spare online
time. I thoroughly enjoy reading the Philalethes list, for example, where right
now there's a somewhat interesting debate on 'which venue is best'. (Who knows
why people argue over how many angels can sit on the head of a pin....? <shrug>).
On the other hand, I kinda enjoy being able to relax more at the end of a day and
not have to 'crank up' my mind so that my post can stand the scrutiny of the
acknowledged experts on PSOC.
> Peter, the way I understand it, the originators of this group sought to open a
> channel for Masons to have discussions and without moderation. Soon after it
> began, the "lunatic" fringe of anti Masons set in and ruined those plans. They
> then created "alt.masonic.members" but again the controls didn't work. Their
> final attempt, Soc.org.freemasonry meets with much more success and that is a
> better area for more serious research.
It was at a time too when usenet was just coming into use by a wider range of
'techies' and Compuserve rates were becoming unbearable. It was an alternative.
It was also, to some extent, an opportunity to escape from a _moderated_ venue
where some folks felt as if they were being 'jumped' if they said something which
was out of line. In those locales, a Mason wouldn't be allowed to call ANYONE a
"moron" repeatedly, for example, since it was felt that such an act lowered the
impression of Freemasonry.
People are people first, though, and they want to write what they want to write.
If it's about fish tacos, so be it. At the end of the day, I'm not always looking
to have my mind enlightened by weighty tomes on the significance of the plumb in
the rituals of the mid-1800s in France.... <g>
> In this venue (alt.freemasonry) you will continue to be served fish tacos
> stuffed with anguish because that is what the posters here want.
Or, in some cases, they recognize that there's a time and a place for everything.
I don't go to the local pub looking for people talking about the importance of
the 12th Amendment to the Constitution nor do I go to lodge looking for the
latest barroom jokes. I don't come here looking for weighty discussion but along
the way, I've met a LOT of great folks with whom there have been off-list
discussions and sharing of personal stuff. This place to me is like walking into
the local town square - and I hope it'll never change (except perhaps to get that
guy on the corner who's thumping his bible to quit heaving rocks at the crowd and
to get that little squealy guy out there on the fringe to stop screaming that
he's going to get even, since he does appear to be moving in the direction of the
bell tower!).
> To try to change this NG to a serious source of Masonic
> research, well it's too late to close the door, the horses are already out of
> the coral.
It's like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. <G> And besides that,
it'd then be someplace different, wouldn't it?
BTW, keep us posted on the PH vote there, will you? I read in the recent issue of
the Empire State Mason that's coming up soon.
Fraternally,
Ed King
http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View
Ed King
<snippo mucho>
> Your problem is that because Ed King is not slapped in jail right now
> his criminal behaviour is justified.
OK EVERYONE!!!!! WATCH YOUR SURFING THE WEB FROM HERE ON IN!!!!
If you go to a web site such as www.anyplace.com/lotsofstuff.htm and there's no
button for "Home", you can NOT - under any circumstances - delete the
"/lotsofstuff.htm" with your cursor. If the site has removed their 'home' page
and has directory browsing enabled, using the always-impeccable Restivo
mentality you'll be guilty of theft, trespassing, and all the other heinous
crimes Mike Restivo has accused me of - and YOU should wind up in JAIL!!!
Don't crop the extensions! Don't risk jail time, friends and brothers. Be ye
extraordinarily careful and NEVER, NEVER try to get to the home page of a web
site if the site's author hasn't given you a "home" button to use. Do you want
to languish in jail for your transgressions? Of course not! Even though I once
heard a smart attorney say: "It's not a hack if you don't use 'Back'!", Mike
Restivo has declared it to be a crime worthy of imprisonment so don't YOU be
among the millions who're about to begin long periods of incarceration for this
horrid and despicable act!
You have now been warned. Send this message to 100 of your closest friends
IMMEDIATELY. Begin classes for everyone you know. This is SERIOUS!
Millions upon millions of internet surfers are perpetrating this horrid crime
every day. It's an international tragedy of gargantuan proportions - and you
never know when Mike Restivo will attempt (as part of his "multi-year plan"
<ROFL>) to have everyone arrested and/or sued for this heinous crime.
You have now been warned - and we return you to your normal programming! <G>
<mucho whineo snippo>
Ed King
> Restivo already proved your story was a lie.
Just review with me for a moment how you proved that Nelson did not call me about
this, will you? I don't ever remember seeing that "proof" before. <shaking head>
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it! <GRIN> And you can't PROVE that it's a lie.
Nyah-nyah!!!
The more you rant, the more your fantasies grow, don't they? Why don't you just
realize that you're never going to browbeat people into believing that you're as
correct as you think you are?
> I confronted both police and Director of Security for the hotel.
> Both dismissed your charge as baseless.
Actually, there were some VERY interesting comments about you, Mike. And do you
REALLY think law enforcement personnel are going to.... Never mind: you just don't
'get it', fer sure!
> Both never heard of any complaint issuing from Nelson King.
<ROFL> I'm sure. The Hate Crimes Division of the Toronto PD is well aware of who
Nelson King is. Of course, you can call, identify yourself as the person who
threatened someone via the internet, and ask them about it if you'd like.
> You told him a lie that he was to lazy to discover for himself that it
> was a lie, then allowed him to make an idiot of himself.
I told WHAT lie? He read your bizarre and suggestive messages and called me about
your aberrant behavior. It's all pretty simple, Mike. I know, I know: you don't
believe it. At the time, I think others might have thought I was overreacting. Now,
after seeing the lengths you'd go to set "traps", perhaps they're not quite as sure.
> The director of hotel security was not amused at Masons over this stunt.
> Don't they have ahead guy that can control this type of thing? He asked.
If ONLY we had a head guy who could control you.... <ROFL>
> You are confusing your fantasies with RCMP officers leading you around
> surrounded from Restivo's sniper scopes. I phoned them. They knew
> nothing of your stunt and can't act until a crime has actually been
> committed, not on your fantasy delusions.
<chuckle> Were you hiding behind that moose in front of the building?
I've said before and I'll say again, Mike: there were RCMP officers at the meeting.
One was armed and in full red uniform. (BTW: he carried in the Canadian Flag for the
flag ceremony and is a member of a local lodge! <grin>)
> So you admit that the two of you conspired to commit an act of public
> mischief.
No, Mike: I've admitted no such thing. Is this how your logic always functions? YOU
threatened and WE responded. Pretty simple.
> What else did you to concoct over the phone. don't be shy,
> go on, brag how you intended to frame Restivo with false charges. Then
> fame Restivo with Thompson's interference. What part of "frame" Restivo
> has not been made manifest except to the deluded?
<chuckle> Better wipe the spittle off of your face, Mike. You're really getting all
worked up again! Do you really think that people sit around talking about and
thinking about you? <ROFL>
First you say you've proven that I lied about this and now you agree that I've told
the truth. Get your stories straight, Mike.
> > Since you seem to have found problems with virtually everyone that has entered
> > into a message exchange with you, are you asserting that all Masons (save one or
> > two) who post in alt.freemasonry have psychological problems?
>
> Wake up. That old silliness never worked years ago. There are only a
> few bitter losers, like you, who strive with Restivo. Is a count over
> 10 considered "everyone" in your small potatoes mind?
Perhaps you could cite the number of people here whom you haven't slandered,
insulted, belittled, or minimized?
> > Looks to me like you've been into the issue of masturbation a LOT lately, Mike.
> > Gettin' worried about hitting 55?
>
> I get plenty of my needs attended normally. Dirty Ed King needs to
> steal erotic stories from Restivo. Your the one who needs to jack off
> aver Restivo so bad that you hack into my private file area and copy my
> bait, set just for you. Learning how to type with one hand?
<shaking head> Your fantasies just go on and on, don't they? How sad that you're
still attempting to assert this foolishness - and with gutter language and
suggestions now as well. Oh, how the mighty have fallen!
> > You're quite a piece of work, aren't you? Don't you EVER know when to stop?
>
> Well you just put on your white sheet and pointy hood and get the gang
> together. I'm sure you and the gang will think up something another
> frame-up, more public mischief, etc., black bag ops, or fall for another
> of my traps.
OOOOOoooooooowwwwww..... More Restivo "traps". The mind reels at the possibilities.
Poor dear child: get out of the gutter and into grace, will you?
> > Would you care to provide some proof that I'm jealous of your continuing
> > education or your writing?
>
> You whine about every year of my progress and how it is subsidized by
> the government, as if Canadians have no entitlement. Or is it just
> Restivo that has no entitlement to education in your deluded mind? Do a
> Google search on the archive, don't waste my time. I'll post 'em when
> you've made more of a jackass of yourself. that should take about a
> couple of your sentences. Haw! You should know better than doubt the man
> who has tracked and archived everything that you've written about me on
> alt.freemasonry.
I've _whined_ about your "progress"? <ROFL> You really do think the sun rises and
sets over you, don't you?
> What passes for your crooked morals of break and enter and porno
> distribution among your looser gang members, is hardly a consensus of
> normal.
I think you'll find, Mike, that there was not a single person who agreed with your
assertion that I'd done any such thing. Perhaps it's now time to PROVE that
assertion, eh? Do it and be quick about it!
> Jealous Eddie says Restivo is this, Restivo is that. Jump, bow
> wow, Eddie spank if you don't jump, bow wow. Keep dreaming and stroking
> off or whatever you do with the stories you took and intended to corrupt
> others through your gross indifferent publication of the URL to them.
Your stories weren't even worth reading the first time, Mike. Trust me: don't give
up the government dole for a hope of making a cent selling pornography.
> Incontinent in word and deed is Ed King. You rush so hard to fulfill
> you fantasy hate against Restivo you will use whoever you have to to
> accomplish your delusion. It doesn't matter how much shame and ridicule
> your anti-Masonic behaviour is piled high upon Masonry. Blame it on
> Restivo. That's your stock immature answer.
<chuckle> Poor Mikey. Poor, poor Mikey.
> You caught yourself, trespassing and hacking into a private, unposted
> area of my ISP's web server.
I NEVER "hacked" into anything, Mike. You know it, I know it, and the world knows
it. You, however, can't see when you're defeated and attempt to defraud others just
as you have all along.
> You furthermore stole the baited erotic material that I provided for you
> and others.
Please provide evidence of your claim. Can't? Ah, well.....
> You additionally and recklessly publicly posted the URL in alt.freemasonry
> and which is archived in Google, an address which you knew pointed to pages of
> written pornography, with gross indifference to the effect and propriety
> of doing so in such an off-topic and offensive manner.
You know, Mike, this is kinda like the child who kills his parents and then throws
himself on the leniency of the court because he's an orphan. Bet you don't see the
similarity though, do you?
> This criminal offence of publishing pornography, on your part.
<ROFL> The person who provides an address is somehow the publisher while the person
who writes and _publishes_ it to a PUBLIC site is somehow blameless. What a strange
world you live in.
> Restivo never made it public, You, Ed King made pornographic material public.
I see. So what did you think would happen when you PUBLISHED your web site. Did you
have any security protection there? Were you totally ignorant of the normal web
browsing methodology for arriving at a top level of a site?
> I foiled your criminal act by removing the bait, it having served its
> purpose.
What you've done, Mike, is make a total fool of yourself. Your perpetuation of this
lunacy only serves to cement that opinion in the minds of all.
> You however still have copies for your masterbatory enjoyment. Guffaw!
And now you know what's on my computer or what I've printed? My, my, Mike: do your
powers of perception have NO boundaries?
OK, folks: is there ANYONE ANYWHERE who agrees with Mike's interpretation of what he
did? Mike, the porno writer, lies again.
<Due to message size limitations on my software, this will (sadly) be continued in
another message. I hate to do this, folks, but - as I've stated many times - I will
NOT allow lies to stand! Please bear with me. In fact, I'd also encourage you to
remind Mike Restivo that HE was the writer and publisher of the pornography referred
to. You might also help him learn how to 'surf the web' the way MOST people do it!>
Ed King
> I think this is an important point! Having said that there are the
> occasional posts from possible Masons that do the fraternity little
> good, most are positive however.
You've said a mouthful, Brother! <grin>
> The more open the craft becomes, the less amunition the antis have.
Amen and hallelujah.
> Like most newsgroups, it's prolly perceived differently by everyone who
> posts here!
No doubt about it - and everybody is looking for something just a bit
different. It's a fun place to while away a few minutes - and it's even fun
when I'm forced to think once in a while!!! <BWG>
Fraternally,
Ed King
http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View
Ed King
<snipped and answered in message #1 of 2. This is message #2 of 2>
> All this, and it is Restivo, got caught? Dream on.
<chuckle> Survey says....
> How forced you to publish pornography? Not Restivo.
Mike, let's try a little experiment here, shall we? Go to the program you use for
putting pages on the web. What's the term they use for that? Is it..... <drum roll,
please> PUBLISH?
Yet you claim you didn't PUBLISH them? <ROFL>
Was it one of the many members of your one-man Martinist group perhaps? Help me out
here, will you?
> who stopped you from doing so? Restivo, by removing the pages.
Restivo writes porn, PUBLISHES it, and then wants to take credit for saving the
world from seeing it. Pretty twisted logic, I'd say.
> Yet it is claimed by idiots that it is Restivo that is caught.
Idiots who, apparently, can tell the truth from some kind of flim-flam sham that
you're trying to get folks to swallow.
> The logic is absent as expected from losers who need to play to
> their constituency of dupes and dopes who should have seen that they
> are played like fools.
That's it, Mike: everyone who doesn't agree that you've saved everyone from reading
your porn by removing it is an idiot.
> And what reason does Ed King give for his online porno publication? Why
> he squeaks, he had to show how Restivo's morality was hypocritical.
> That is Ed King's justification.
It's a REASON, Mike. And you are, in my opinion and that of others, GROSSLY
hypocritical. It continues unabated.
> Crimes are not crimes as long as they are against Restivo.
Huh?
> And what is the morality of Restivo to which dirty Eddie King
> compulsively and incontinently rushed to expose like a pervert in
> N.Y. Central Park?
MUST you resort to ad hominem now, Mike? It's a common trait of yours although some
often ignore it.
> Restivo's morality is the Freemasonic Idealism about which I have been writing
> for years. Eddie doesn't like What Restivo writes.
And for years, I've been saying you're a hypocrite who doesn't know what he's
talking about. Guess I've proven the hypocrite part pretty well - or should I say
YOU'VE proven the hypocrite part pretty well? Your behavior is evidence of how much
faith someone should place in your ability to understand right and wrong.
> And What Restivo writes is the ideals of Freemasonry. This is not news.
> I've been doing it for years.
No, what you write are your sometimes lucid and sometimes totally bizarre
interpretations on what YOU would like to see Freemasonry become. It has tangential
connection to reality.
> So somebody explain sanely how Ed King's attack on Restivo is not an attack
> upon the Craft? it is precisely an attack upon Blue Lodge Masonry. If
> he could but comprehend the principles of the Craft, instead of his
> eccentric brand of hate, he would recognize his anti-Masonic behaviour.
I've noted that you have published pornography. You have acknowledge that you wrote
it as well (using, as you do with your reason for your demit two decades ago, two
different explanations - whichever seems to suit the situation). Please note that
telling the truth can NEVER dishonor Freemasonry - of ANY kind!
> This I suppose Restivo caused. for immature and troubled minds, a
> victim is required to lay their hate upon. But judgement is not found
> among fools, but among rational individuals. I don't care what your mob
> of dupes have to say or think. people capable of accepting your
> criminal and ani-Masonic behaviour as both legal and Masonic will
> believe anything that they are told, for they need to believe and to
> accept their debasement, if only they can be part of your mob of Hate
> Restivo R'Us. Pathetic.
I think the last word of that diatribe pretty well sums up what essentially all
Masons are thinking about you right now.
> When Bro. Jerome asked about what extortion you were guilty of. He
> answered his own question.
Brother Jerome asked you a number of questions and your answers have not been
forthcoming. Brother Jerome also, I note, has had quite a few laughs over your
behavior. I, unlike others here who've made you yet again the brunt of jokes, find
only pity in your contemptible behavior. I used to laugh at you, Mike: now, I just
shake my head in wonderment at a life wasted. You're an old man (mentally and
becoming so physically) whose atrophied recognition of reality has caused you to
fixate and lash out at anyone and everyone. You've convinced yourself that you're
the alpha and the omega and don't realize that if you'd just act like a human being,
you might garner a LOT of sympathy - and perhaps even friendship. You, though, are
FAR past the point of needing or wanting friends and your ONLY activity now seems to
be fending off every shadow which attacks you. It's a horribly sad commentary on one
who really did have a lot of promise.
> I already told you that your intimidation will have no effect.
Good, Mike. Be a brave little boy. Stand up for yourself! <shaking head>
> "shut up Restivo or I'll sent the incriminating material out to defame you."
> goes your extortion scheme. I have no control over your evil.
No, Mike: I don't deal in pornographic material, unlike yourself. Do you want to
tell us whether your "lady friends" enjoyed seeing the porn you wrote or do you want
to tell us how you spent hours devising those descriptions of sexual situations just
to "trap" Masons who're out to 'get you'?
> I have already distanced myself from your publishing of what was
> intended strictly as bait in a sting entrapment of anti-Restivo predators.
Are you REALLY that obsessed, Mike, that you felt the need to do this? Don't you
realize what this says about YOU???
> And when the Archbishop learns how a Mason has attempted to manipulate
> him by drawing him into your sordid scheme of hate, he will take a long
> and deep look at what kind of criminals Masons are who not only perform
> but endorse and approve break and enter, trespass and theft, and
> extortion.
Aha! And he'll pat you on the back as having written a bunch of good pornography and
put it on the internet. Yep, it's a strange world, I guess.
> Yeah Eddie, I've been waiting for this. Your only disappointed that I
> don't have an employer you can make threats to.
No, Mike. Unlike you, I don't go around calling people trying to demean and debase
them. I don't pretend that I'm the victim of some horrific crime perpetrated by a
group of online predators whose only goal is to drive me into submission. No, Mike:
that's YOUR gig!
> Hey Eddie, send the stuff to the University of Toronto! Yeah, they'll
> boot Restivo right out of there, right?
<shaking head in disbelief> Don't you realize how foolish you're making yourself
look, Mike?
> Sorry to burst your little bubble, but they teach classes in erotic writing.
I think you could CERTAINLY benefit from one. The stuff you wrote was about 8th
grade level. On the other hand, does a Martinist initiator and Christian mystic
REALLY feel that they can become more enlightened through writing pornography? Are
you trying to be another Leo Taxil? Alestair Crowley, perhaps???
> You are a snivelling small neurotic who doesn't realize that what you
> think is of discreditable value is empty, is bait, which I left for you
> and your gang to lure you and others into revealing more about the dirty and
> criminal actions of rogue and renegade Masons since Morgan.
Once upon a time, Mike, you were a skilled debater. Your arguments were well thought
out and although I thoroughly disagreed with several, one could not help but be
impressed with your rhetoric and logic. Now, though, you've become an insulting and
clearly disturbed individual who engages in ready insults and disgusting behavior.
It's a shame, Mike. I only hope that somehow, someway, you'll get professional help.
While I've NEVER believed that the end justifies the means, I think it's abundantly
clear now, though, that you simply don't belong anywhere Freemasonry.
> It will make an interesting book, especially when you get somebody to try to
> shoot me.
No, Mike: this is all just another of your fantasies.
> Like Russ Liachoff posting a detailed map to Ken mitchell's
> hose. Get a bunch of enforcer Masons to spray his house with gunfire.
> That'll teach him.
For the benefit of lurkers or those who weren't here at the time, let me just recap
the situation briefly. Russ, a Mason, had been engaged in a deteriorating exchange
of messages with Ken Mitchell, a rabid anti-Mason whose exploits I've outlined in
detail on my website. Each of them attempted to 'best' the other in terms of 'hurt'.
They tried to get each other thrown off of their respective ISPs, they both found
material on the web about the other and tossed it in the other's face, and - at one
point - Russ gave directions to Ken's house. It was ill-conceived (just, I might
add, as was your "trap", Mike) and it was unbecoming of a Mason. In the heat of the
moment, though, we ALL make mistakes. Now, retrospectively, Russ knows he'd gone too
far - and has posted apologies to Ken here on this newsgroup. Ken was not blameless
in this and his constant provocations (posting under a pseudonym which was the name
of Russ's deceased brother, for example) can cause one to understand the depth of
hurt each felt.
There is, though, Mike, no comparison in your situation. Have Masons here laughed at
some of what we perceived as your wacky ideology about Freemasonry, an organization
which you abandoned after less than four months some twenty plus years ago? Yes,
Mike, we have. Is that any reason to assume that we're going to rake your house with
gunfire? It's utterly absurd to contemplate such a thing, frankly.
In fact, of ALL the people here who might be suspect should anything untoward befall
you, I'd guess that its me and let me assure you right here and right now that
you're FAR too insignificant for me to ruin or even temporarily disrupt my life
over. In fact, except for an occasional giggle, you're really _nothing_ to me. So
don't disturb your little brain over things, Mike. I've no intention of taking any
action whatsoever against your person.
That is not to say, however, that I will not continue to find your wacky
interpretations of "Masonic idealism" worthy of comment - and a bit of sardonic
scorn arising from your puffery and the fact that someone who writes pornography and
publishes it on the web is HARDLY the person to be lecturing to Masons about their
morality.
> And when the Archdiocese repulses you and your dirty manipulations, will
> you direct other weak minds to get revenge upon the Church of Rome? The
> mind reels, not how ill you are, but how ready and willing there are
> people to do your bidding. [shudder]
Are you trying to be the next Leo Taxil-type, Mike? Sure sounds like it!
> You don't know when to shut-up and your lackeys are too weak to inform
> you that you are the source of your psychological problems, not
> Restivo.
<Guffaw> Talk about not knowing when to shut up..... <ROFL>
> At every turn and application, what you imagined could be used to your
> advantage was what I wanted you, of gross and low mind to think. The
> pornography was just the thing to get you to jump and think and act in
> ways of my anticipation. You think you can press and advantage, with
> what I have allowed you to seize, but you have replaced your cable-tow
> to one of your own making. I have chained you neurotic mind to
> pornography. Your desperation needs to find some use for it, but your
> schemes will be hollow.
Poor, poor Mike: everyone is just SO inferior to you, aren't they?
> > > To cease writing positively on Freemasonry would be to capitulate to
> > > their petulance. Look at the usual suspects. Compare their own writing
> > > on Masonic philosophy with my own, to which they cannot compare either
> > > in quality or quantity. That fuels their neuroses. I expose them and
> > > continue to write positively. That double response drives them into
> > > psychosis. All from my computer terminal.
> >
> > <ROFL> Yeah, you're such a light for us all, Mike! <ROFL>
>
> The opinions of a few neurotics and dupes and dopes are of no
> importance. Neither are their schemes.
<chuckle> Yeah, yeah: just keep telling us how you're of such superior moral
stature while you're writing four letter words....
> > > > If they have committed such offense, prosecute. Otherwise no offense has
> > > > been committed.
> > >
> > > And this you say to rape victims?
> >
> > Are you now asserting that I've raped you? Good grief, Mike. Have you NO shame?
> > You minimize the horrid act of rape by comparing newsgroup postings which show
> > you to not be the profound, bright light you imagine yourself. How disgusting!
>
> Gee Eddie. I didn't write anything of the sort. If your sexual
> delusions read that into what I've written, then ... good. You are
> degenerating from neurotic to psychotic. I do what I can. This is too
> easy ... Guffaw!
Whatever you say, Mike. You were given the opportunity to leave but you've chosen
not to take it. Instead, you return with your limp excuses. Such a tragedy.
> > <ROFL> Wanna howl about who hosts my web site too? You were just as accurate in
> > your assessment of that issue three years ago as you are in this.
>
> Who cares about your anonymous ISP? Anonymous crap is still crap. It's
> obvious that you need to hide your activities. I don't.
Oh, but wait: weren't you the one who said you HID that porn so that only those who
were of feeble mind or evil intent would find it? So in one breath you're _not_
hiding things and in the next breath you are. How amazing. Your weathervane excuses
(and morality) is making you more of a joke with each and every post.
> And that drives you nuts. "What's with this guy, I can't get him on porno?"
You're wrong, Mike. Everyone but you sees what's going on here.
> You have been and always will be several paces behind the curve. You are
> like a mouse holding poisoned bait, only you don't realize it.
Your analogy applies, I'd opine, to my having 'touched' your pornography.
> Little Eddie can't tell whether I'm on the roof-tops ready to shoot
> people or hiding out in the basement jacking-off, or maybe dead.
Perhaps all three?
> I might be somebody else like Elvis.
He made as many excuses for his bad behavior too, I seem to recall.
> Poor Eddie's psychological problems go on unabated.
So because you've taken a college freshman course in psychology, you now feel you're
ready to diagnose via the internet? WOW, Mike: do your powers have any limits?
> "Pssst, hey buddy, wanna see some of Restivo's porno?" is Ed King's new
> token and password.
Believe me, Mike: it was NOT good enough for ANYONE to read, even the first time!
> Real adults aren't interested in what you're peddling, and you don't get
> it. That was. is, and will be Restivo's power over you and your gang.
How long do you want to keep up this pitiful lament? You _clearly_ don't see what a
fool you're making of yourself. I can only hope one of your 'friends' here can talk
some sense into you before this gets much worse.
It's like watching a once proud sports figure battling in the minor leagues and
telling everyone how much they should pay attention to him because once upon a time,
he made some spectacular plays. Not realizing when age and infirmities have caught
up to your powers of reasoning, you're reduced to calling me names and swearing that
you're right even when _everyone_ has said otherwise. Come on, Mike: call it quits
now, will you?
Richard White
"Jim Bennie" <jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:9b8mqt$m...@vcn.bc.ca...
> In <8qOB6.5259$5E3.1...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>,
N010...@dancing.org
> (Peter Renzland) wrote:
> > jaqueira2 wrote on 14 Apr 2001 00:55:17 GMT:
> > > >So, how about it? This newsgroup is for research about Masonry.
>
> > > That is your concept but not necessarily the correct one. Read on.
>
> > Here is the *correct* concept, straight from the Charter.
> > | alt.freemasonry An open forum for sharing facts on Freemasonry.
> > |
> > | Alt.freemasonry is intended for
> > | 1) the general Usenet user,
> > | 2) the increasing number of people doing academic research on
> > | Freemasonry,
> > | 3) those who have been carring on discussions about Freemasonry
in other
> > | alt.newsgroups.
> > |
> > | There are other net options for members of the organization to
talk
> > | to each other in a moderated format.
You mean that there *IS* a charter for an <alt.xxxxx> group?
I thought that they were just free for all battle grounds :-)
Must ask though .... where on earth is this Charter? And, what
"official" status does/should it have?
S & F Regards,
Richard White
PM
Addington Lodge No. 5080
Old Olavians Lodge No. 5758
UGLE
and
H.A. Mann Lodge of MMM No. 1197
GLMMME
Steven M. Hudson
"Peter Renzland" <N010...@dancing.org> wrote in message
news:MFMB6.4728$5E3.1...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> So, how about it? This newsgroup is for research about Masonry.
> Not for small talk among Masons.
And you seem to assume that having small talk with learning about the
personalities of individual Masons does not constitute "research about
Masonry".
> Masons are not supposed to be "in charge" here.
> True or False?
True. Public, unmoderate forum == NO ONE IN CHARGE!
> Is the opinion of vociferous Masons equal to the
> scholarship of knowledgeable researchers?
"Equal" in terms of what?
Entertainment? Certainly not! (I prefer the vociferousness).
Scholarship? Sometimes!
Dissuasion to obnoxious anti-posters? YES! (Both are equally ineffective!)
Steven M. Hudson
> jaqueira2 wrote on 14 Apr 2001 00:55:17 GMT:
>
> > >So, how about it? This newsgroup is for research about Masonry.
>
> > That is your concept but not necessarily the correct one. Read on.
>
> Here is the *correct* concept, straight from the Charter. Every one
> of my posts contains a URL reference to the Charter in the headers:
> X-CHARTER: ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/alt/alt.freemasonry.Z
>
> once there is awareness of what the charter actually says, people will
> respect it? That was my question. :-)
>
You really are quite the "legalist" aren't you? Are you really that
uncomfortable with the free play of ideas? Or is your nose just out of
joint because you seldom seem to get the current batch of 'regulars' to
agree with you?
KIV11
Was it really necessary for you to re-post Mike's entire post, just so you
could write:
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
????????
George F. Kivowitz
Steven M. Hudson
> "Animal Style" Gene Goldman.·. wrote on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:10:32 -0700:
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:25:42 EDT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> Or is it that Gene choose a subject title that carefully obscured
> >>> his content?
> >>
> >> You think his content was different from the subject? Interesting
> >> interpretation....
> >
> > Let's see. My subject was "Symbols" and the piece was about
> > "symbols". Hmmmmmmm.
>
> DID YOU SEE THE DISTORTION?
>
> Let me spell it out.
Yeah right. Maybe you can get a child to read it to me huh? You really
appear to be quite rhetorically and semantically challenged.
> The topic, as found in the body of the article, was "Symbolism in Masonry"
> However, the "subject title" was "Subject: Read and comment - please".
>
> DOES THAT MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR NOW?
>
> Guvf vf whfg bar rknzcyr bs ubj gur jevgvatf bs bguref ner qvfgbegrq.
> Nf sne nf V nz pbaprearq, zvfercerfragvat nabgure'f jevgvat, fb nf gb
> pnfg gurz va n onq yvtug, vf fynaqre. V nz pnershy abg gb qb gung gb
> bguref, ertneqyrff bs jurgure V yvxr gurz. Naq V nz nfgbavfurq naq
> fubpxrq gung vg unccraf evtug urer, ebhgvaryl.
Feel better?? You really are starting to just flake out. You know, if
you've had a bad week, perhaps you shouldn't post on those days.
Russ
KIV11 wrote:
--
x-no-archive: yes
Remember, if you can not dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Barbara
Streisand.
Ed King
wrote:
> > Why surprised? "Regular" posters here fully understand that this is
> > not the venue for involved and weighty subjects as they're guaranteed
> > to be overridden/misinterpreted by the anti-Masonic faction which is
> > so frequently prevalent.
>
> I guess I am an "Irregular".
> <s>
There are a number of over-the-counter remedies that can help, Gene! <BWG>
> > Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
> > as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
> > yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
>
> Good point.
I thought so. But others may not.... <G>
> > > Nor has Gene responded to my comments.
> >
> > Perhaps he interpreted your commentary much as I did. Who knows?
>
> Naw. Just on vacation.
Hey, good for you! I've been chasing my tail with a couple of particularly
vexing issues involving a new client. Looks like things are coming
together, though, with a happy ending. Now the question is when _I_ can
get away....
> > Or perhaps there are no secrets to give away and thus, there's nothing
> > to talk about?
>
> Or perhaps the small talk is the secret.
For me, it's learning from others, often in person so there's feedback
face-to-face. I think too that the ever-changing English language has a
lot to do with what we think about these things. Our ritual explains them
with the assumption of the understanding held by men in the late 1700s in
many cases. Trying to translate that to the 'base knowledge' held by those
joining today isn't as clean a cross-walk as one might hope.
> > Or perhaps many understand 'to every thing there is a season' - and
> > that there's a time and place for everything. Personally, I've
> > found the electronic medium of messaging very unsatisfying when
> > one seeks collaboration. I'm hoping Microsoft's new OfficeXP will
> > deliver as they promise in this regard but that's not going to
> > impact what goes on here.
>
> Honestly, I wasn't expecting much. Just a few comments, suggestions
> for improvement, ideas I hadn't considered.
Breads have to rise before they can be fully enjoyed: I think it's the
same thing with subjects such as "symbols". In another thread, there was
discussion about 'regularity' - a subject I seem to recall we've chatted
about in the past <G>. Took me a LONG time to fully understand the issues
involved there - and a lot of contemplation. Mike Segall and I had a very
interesting chat about it in person last October.... <G> Someday I look
forward to a similar discussion with a couple of others who post here
(whom I shall leave unnamed).
> > You think his content was different from the subject? Interesting
> > interpretation....
>
> Let's see. My subject was "Symbols" and the piece was about
> "symbols". Hmmmmmmm.
It's that ol' 'Eye of the Beholder' thing again, I suppose....
> > So much provocation....
>
> So many fish tacos, so little time ...
Perhaps that could read "Too many fish tacos, too little time...."
> Some people would suggest so. Personally, I have also observed that
> some individuals cannot learn anything unless it is written down in
> some book. Personal experience, their own or that of someone else, is
> worthless to them. They are more interested in what is written than
> in reality. IOW, they confuse the map with the territory.
And some people also seem to believe that once they've convinced
themselves that they've got the right 'take' on things, NOTHING will move
them from where they've planted their feet. Such a shame when folks are
convinced that their accumulated knowledge 'bests' that of everyone else.
Some of the things I read here remind me how fragile my knowledge of
Freemasonry really is. Whether it's a question like the ones Tom has
posted this week or whether it's listening to someone like Allen Roberts
or Wallace McLeod, there is just SO much to retain. And frankly, I find it
FAR more enriching to _discuss_ the stuff rather than trying to impress
folks with the number of books I've read.... <G>
Fraternally,
Ed King
wrote:
> "Animal Style" Gene Goldman.·. wrote on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:10:32 -0700:
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:25:42 EDT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
> > > as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
> > > yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
> >
> > Good point.
>
> Care to illustrate that "good point", Gene?
> Would you prefer me to respond even less to your writing?
> I have the technology. And I'm willing to deploy it.
After writing my earlier response and then my reply to Mike Restivo's
foolishness, it suddenly occurred to me that YOU had not taken Mike Restivo
to task for 'changing the subject' as it were OR for his chastisement of
others over 'errors of thought'. (Well, I'm sure a lot of others 'got it'
but sometimes I take things at face value when I shouldn't....)
In fact, it might not be inappropriate to suggest that you've given your "
Brother" Mike Restivo a free ride on this while berating Gene because you
take umbrage with his style.
> PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY:
While I know you think you've learned everything about Freemasonry, Peter,
and you broadly hint that Gene is - at best - an ignorant bumpkin, I'd
suggest that once you've been Master of two different lodges, a member of
the Brotherhood of the Blue Forget-Me-Not, and a recipient of the other
recognitions Gene has, you might be in a better position to do so.
Yeah, yeah: it's just those old grey-beards using their old logic again, I
know. Reminds me of what our Brother Mark Twain had to say about youth and
maturity....
> DID YOU SEE THE DISTORTION?
>
> Let me spell it out.
It's been SO helpful to have an 'interpreter' of Freemasonry here, Peter.
Thanks so much for shouting at us.
> The topic, as found in the body of the article, was "Symbolism in Masonry"
> However, the "subject title" was "Subject: Read and comment - please".
But we _all_ read what we want in these messages. Perhaps Gene didn't
interpret it the same way you did. Maybe he read it too quickly. Perhaps he
was more concerned about things he perceived as more important at the time.
Frankly, I'm not going to chastise him for that - but apparently you have
the luxury of doing so.
> DOES THAT MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR NOW?
It makes SOMETHING perfectly clear - but what that is may be subject to
different interpretations between us.
I'll be looking forward to a similar message from you to Mike Restivo. Have
a great weekend!
> Guvf vf whfg bar rknzcyr bs ubj gur jevgvatf bs bguref ner qvfgbegrq.
> Nf sne nf V nz pbaprearq, zvfercerfragvat nabgure'f jevgvat, fb nf gb
> pnfg gurz va n onq yvtug, vf fynaqre. V nz pnershy abg gb qb gung gb
> bguref, ertneqyrff bs jurgure V yvxr gurz. Naq V nz nfgbavfurq naq
> fubpxrq gung vg unccraf evtug urer, ebhgvaryl.
Now once upon a time, my interest in cryptology would have caused me to leap
at this, even if it wasn't the level of the stuff that the guys/gals in VQ-1
were after off the China coast. These days, though, I have different
interests and see it as a baited trap of inconsequential value. Again, for
you, it was probably something far different. Gee whiz: who would have
guessed, huh?
Ed King
> Gene and Peter:
> I didn't follow this thread much before and so I missed this:
>
> >> Should Masons oppose non-masons researching Masonry?
> >
> >I strongly support non Masons researching Masonry.
Can I jump in here too?
> Years ago, when I became a Mason we did so really in the dark, well most of us
> did.
That is SUCH a big difference. Years ago (PLEASE let's not count how many!!!),
men joined Freemasonry 'on faith' as it were. Now, they want a full explanation,
chapter and verse, line by line. I dunno: who really gets the better
'experience' of joining?
> Times and attitudes have change. In this day and age the general public
> wants to know just what they are getting into. Almost everything we wish to
> know about a variety of subjects can now be discovered in our own homes by
> computer.
Along with a LOT of misconceptions, I'm afraid. I just read something the other
day, though, which indicates that not all of the bad ideas coming from the
internet really hold sway. The report, contradictory to what I'd believed,
indicated that internet hate sites (the Aryan and anti-homosexual ones, for
example) had far less impact than personal contact at meetings etc.
> That coupled with a litigious society that has grown weary of trust
> in our fellow man requires a more enlightened person, and so I agree with the
> both of you that non-Masons studying Masonry can only be good for the
> organization.
When I was told that I should 'fear no danger' in Masonic ceremonies, I believed
it - fully and completely - the minute the words were spoken. I guess I knew it
instinctively before that but the reassurance was wonderful. One wonders if
those joining today really understand or appreciate that section of the ritual.
> Many times I hear of skeptical people who were studying Masonry,
> joining after they find how wholesome membership and our friendships are.
You should see the notes I get from my web site! <G> It's truly astonishing.
> We should not oppose non-Masons studying Masonry, we should and do
> encourage it.
And the only thing that's a problem now is that 'trash' (a generous description
at best) gets only a cursory review by an editor who has no idea of the subject
matter at hand and winds up on a shelf - or, worse, it's published by some
organization with mercenary motives and gets passed off as 'literature' when, in
fact, it's nothing but tripe. <shaking head>
Fraternally,
Jim Bennie
> In article <20010413144541...@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Jaqueira2 wrote:
> > Years ago, when I became a Mason we did so really in the dark, well most
> > of us did.
> That is SUCH a big difference. Years ago (PLEASE let's not count how
> many!!!),
> men joined Freemasonry 'on faith' as it were. Now, they want a full
> explanation,
> chapter and verse, line by line. I dunno: who really gets the better
> 'experience' of joining?
Really, Ed? That is not my experience with petitioners. In a couple
of cases, they have said they "realise" we can't explain the ceremonies
in advance. They don't expect answers to everything. But I think we do
tell them more than we did years ago, judging by the old investigation
forms I've seen.
> The report, contradictory to what I'd believed,
> indicated that internet hate sites (the Aryan and anti-homosexual ones, for
> example) had far less impact than personal contact at meetings etc.
That doesn't surprise me, Ed. Doesn't personal contact work best
if you're pushing something, even if it's hate?
> When I was told that I should 'fear no danger' in Masonic ceremonies, I
> believed
> it - fully and completely - the minute the words were spoken. I guess I
> knew it instinctively before that but the reassurance was wonderful.
Hmm. Thinking back, I didn't need any. After all, Ed, these were
THE MASONS, the guys who were sombre, letter-perfect ritualists
like I had been told in DeMolay. So much for impressions.
I remember thinking how similar the degree was to the DeMolay
initiation until we got to a certain part of the obl.
Jim Bennie
(Peter Renzland) wrote:
> Jim Bennie wrote on 13 Apr 2001 22:22:33 -0700:
> > I take it, from the last sentence in your parenthetical note that
> > you are equating the non-adjectivised "mysteries" in your 1st degree
> > obl. with "ritual"?
> Yes, my question related to Mr. Kenobi's Christian name. In particular,
> where ours is s&hm, in .CA.US it's just s.
Then, if that's the case, I guess you've broken your obl. by even
discussing the fact there *is* an obligation, let alone one which
contains the terminology which you just mentioned (hmm. is it a part,
or a point?)
Hmm. I guess I should use one of those emoti-things.
> BTW, our COTW (MW Bro. E.D.)told me that everything that is in the Work
> is secret. (In answer to a question about the Installation Charge.)
> I guess that one is probably public in (some of) the U.S. :-)
Far be it from me to disagree with a Past Grand Master from a foreign
jurisdiction (I prefer to do it with our own), but if everything
is secret, then why does your Grand Lodge print it?
And, for that matter, why then are the secrets in each degree
described in detail, and nowhere does it say "secrets" mean
the full ritual?
And how do you make something secret that was partially written
for a public ladies night, and partially from a public book written
in 1775?
I guess it's impertinent for me to ask rhetorical questions of
another jurisdiction you've likely asked to yourself, so let me move on.
I personally don't define "mysteries" as "the full ceremonies"
but it is an interesting question you raise - what does the word
"mysteries" mean in the obligation?
Our GM, this year, is allowing the installation charge to be given
in public. I don't really like the idea, either, but who am I to
argue with the GM?
That Charge, by the way, likely isn't public anywhere in the US.
It was compiled by Otto Klotz (who wrote some of it), and thus
exported to those provinces which use the Ontario ritual. It's so
well-compiled, even the Lodges here which use the American ritual
generally eschew their own charge for it. Several PGMs congratulated
me on the way I gave it at one of the Lodges recently. I was willing
to let myself be convinced they were right for a change :)
Ed King
> In <VA.00001f1...@mint.net>, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com> wrote:
> > That is SUCH a big difference. Years ago (PLEASE let's not count how
> > many!!!), men joined Freemasonry 'on faith' as it were. Now, they
> > want a full explanation, chapter and verse, line by line. I dunno:
> > who really gets the better 'experience' of joining?
>
> Really, Ed? That is not my experience with petitioners. In a couple
> of cases, they have said they "realise" we can't explain the ceremonies
> in advance. They don't expect answers to everything. But I think we do
> tell them more than we did years ago, judging by the old investigation
> forms I've seen.
Shouldn't generalize! Sorry. Sometimes my responses are too heavily tainted by
internet goings-on.
You are right, though, and PARTICULARLY in places like Massachusetts where
there's a 'pre-application committee meeting' with the prospective candidate, a
practice nearly unique amongst Grand Lodges as far as I can tell.
> > The report, contradictory to what I'd believed,
> > indicated that internet hate sites (the Aryan and anti-homosexual ones, for
> > example) had far less impact than personal contact at meetings etc.
>
> That doesn't surprise me, Ed. Doesn't personal contact work best
> if you're pushing something, even if it's hate?
Yep....
> > When I was told that I should 'fear no danger' in Masonic ceremonies, I
> > believed it - fully and completely - the minute the words were spoken.
> > I guess I knew it instinctively before that but the reassurance
> > was wonderful.
>
> Hmm. Thinking back, I didn't need any. After all, Ed, these were
> THE MASONS, the guys who were sombre, letter-perfect ritualists
> like I had been told in DeMolay. So much for impressions.
<ROFL> Well, I joined some 8,000 miles away from home. Here again, my personal
experience colored my reply.
> I remember thinking how similar the degree was to the DeMolay
> initiation until we got to a certain part of the obl.
I think I know the part you're talking about!!! <BWG>
Jim Bennie
(Peter Renzland) wrote:
> Jim Bennie wrote on 13 Apr 2001 22:22:33 -0700:
> > I take it, from the last sentence in your parenthetical note that
> > you are equating the non-adjectivised "mysteries" in your 1st degree
> > obl. with "ritual"?
> Yes, my question related to Mr. Kenobi's Christian name. In particular,
> where ours is s&hm, in .CA.US it's just s.
Then, if that's the case, I guess you've broken your obl. by even
discussing the fact there *is* an obligation, let alone one which
contains the terminology which you just mentioned (hmm. is it a part,
or a point?)
Hmm. I guess I should use one of those emoti-things.
> BTW, our COTW (MW Bro. E.D.)told me that everything that is in the Work
> is secret. (In answer to a question about the Installation Charge.)
> I guess that one is probably public in (some of) the U.S. :-)
Far be it from me to disagree with a Past Grand Master from a foreign
jurisdiction (I prefer to do it with our own), but if everything
is secret, then why does your Grand Lodge print it?
And, for that matter, why then are the secrets in each degree
described in detail, and nowhere does it say "secrets" mean
the full ritual?
And how do you make something secret that was partially written
for a public ladies night, and partially from a public book written
in 1775?
I guess it's impertinent for me to ask rhetorical questions of
another jurisdiction you've likely asked to yourself, so let me move on.
I personally don't define "mysteries" as "the full ceremonies"
but it is an interesting question you raise - what does the word
"mysteries" mean in the obligation?
Our GM, this year, is allowing the installation charge to be given
in public. I don't really like the idea, either, but who am I to
argue with the GM?
That Charge, by the way, likely isn't public anywhere in the US.
It was compiled by Otto Klotz (who wrote some of it), and thus
exported to those provinces which use the Ontario ritual. It's so
well-compiled, even the Lodges here which use the American ritual
generally eschew their own charge for it. Several PGMs congratulated
me on the way I gave it at one of the Lodges recently. I was willing
to let myself be convinced they were right for a change :)
Jim Bennie, IPM No. 44, Vancouver
Jim Bennie
> > Years ago, when I became a Mason we did so really in the dark, well most
> > of us did.
> That is SUCH a big difference. Years ago (PLEASE let's not count how
> many!!!),
> men joined Freemasonry 'on faith' as it were. Now, they want a full
> explanation,
> chapter and verse, line by line. I dunno: who really gets the better
> 'experience' of joining?
Really, Ed? That is not my experience with petitioners. In a couple
of cases, they have said they "realise" we can't explain the ceremonies
in advance. They don't expect answers to everything. But I think we do
tell them more than we did years ago, judging by the old investigation
forms I've seen.
> The report, contradictory to what I'd believed,
> indicated that internet hate sites (the Aryan and anti-homosexual ones, for
> example) had far less impact than personal contact at meetings etc.
That doesn't surprise me, Ed. Doesn't personal contact work best
if you're pushing something, even if it's hate?
> When I was told that I should 'fear no danger' in Masonic ceremonies, I
> believed
> it - fully and completely - the minute the words were spoken. I guess I
> knew it instinctively before that but the reassurance was wonderful.
Hmm. Thinking back, I didn't need any. After all, Ed, these were
THE MASONS, the guys who were sombre, letter-perfect ritualists
like I had been told in DeMolay. So much for impressions.
I remember thinking how similar the degree was to the DeMolay
initiation until we got to a certain part of the obl.
Jim Bennie, IPM No. 44, Vancouver
Mike Restivo
>
> Mike Restivo wrote:
>
> > Restivo's morality is the Freemasonic
> > Idealism about which I have been writing for years. Eddie doesn't like
> > Freemasonry.
>
> Mike-
>
> I beg to differ.
Talk is cheap. here's you facts? You have none.
> I suggest you take a step back and a few deep breathes.
> You appear to be a very angry man.
Angry? Injustice is not an emotion that you can call "anger".
Restivo's not victimized, He's just "angry". Label me whatever you need
to label me to hide the Truth from your eyes.
> And I'd appreciate it if you would contain the off-color illustrations
> of your posts. People of all ages can and do read this newsgroup.
> I don't think your current writings accurately represent Masonry at
> all.
And when Dirty Eddie posted the URL to pornography, you were silent.
That is permitted. Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does. Goon Masons
threaten, intimidate, extort and prey on Restivo for years, with ot a
peep of protest from you. I call their actions the filth that it is.
Clean you own house from it's stench not tell everyone on earth to hold
their nose. The Emperor's New Clothes fable might remind you that
Freemasonry is about leadership, not acquiescence to mob minds.
>
> --
> jHam You have the time, they might not:
> White River #90 Feed the hungry with a click of your mouse:
> Bethel, Vt. http://www.thehungersite.com
† Mike Restivo
Jack Hickey
>In a couple of cases, they have said they "realise" we can't explain the
ceremonies
>in advance. They don't expect answers to everything. But I think we do
>tell them more than we did years ago, judging by the old investigation
>forms I've seen.
Going into the ceremonies without knowing what's going to happen is probably
better, anyway. I made the mistake of learning far too much beforehand -- I
knew in some detail what was going to occur, and in fact, before my second
degree, I corrected the JD when he tied my cable-tow in the wrong place ("No,
not that side, it's got to go over HERE") I went through all three degrees
being impatient for them to be over with ... a mistake, in retrospect. I
could have enjoyed them more not knowing what was going to happen.
Jack Hickey
SW, Isaiah Thomas Lodge
Worcester Massachusetts
Eureka Royal Arch Chapter
Hiram Council, RSM
Worcester County Commandery No. 5
www.masslodges.org
Ed King
> Angry? Injustice is not an emotion that you can call "anger".
> Restivo's not victimized, He's just "angry". Label me whatever you need
> to label me to hide the Truth from your eyes.
Ah, Mike Restivo the victim. Always the victim.... It's been that way from
the Compuserve days, hasn't it? Always SOMETHING to make YOU the victim....
Why, oh why....
And WHY, Mike, are you trying to divert the discourse away from the fact that
YOU have both written and publicly posted pornography?
> > And I'd appreciate it if you would contain the off-color illustrations
> > of your posts. People of all ages can and do read this newsgroup.
> > I don't think your current writings accurately represent Masonry at
> > all.
>
> And when Dirty Eddie posted the URL to pornography, you were silent.
> That is permitted. Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does.
But wait: YOU have said it was erotica. Now you're saying it's pornography.
Which is it, Mike?
Did you write erotica (as you claimed just a few hours ago, hinting that you
might even be taking a course in it from your college) or is it
PORNOGRAPHY???
Once again, hoisted on your own petard of lies and obfuscation!
I sure hope you NEVER get lost in the woods: with your skills as a 'trapper',
you'd starve to death.
> Goon Masons
> threaten, intimidate, extort and prey on Restivo for years, with ot a
> peep of protest from you. I call their actions the filth that it is.
> Clean you own house from it's stench not tell everyone on earth to hold
> their nose. The Emperor's New Clothes fable might remind you that
> Freemasonry is about leadership, not acquiescence to mob minds.
And, Mike, we're also reminded that your actions in writing that pornography
and making it publicly available are the cause of this entire discussion. For
shame, Mike.
Peter Renzland
> I personally don't define "mysteries" as "the full ceremonies"
> but it is an interesting question you raise - what does the word
> "mysteries" mean in the obligation?
Yes, that's what I was asking.
> Our GM, this year, is allowing the installation charge to be given
> in public. I don't really like the idea, either, but who am I to
> argue with the GM?
>
> That Charge, by the way, likely isn't public anywhere in the US.
> It was compiled by Otto Klotz (who wrote some of it), and thus
> exported to those provinces which use the Ontario ritual. It's so
> well-compiled, even the Lodges here which use the American ritual
> generally eschew their own charge for it. Several PGMs congratulated
> me on the way I gave it at one of the Lodges recently. I was willing
> to let myself be convinced they were right for a change :)
No doubt. It's easier to deliver something with excellence that has
excellence in it already. :-)
Russ
Mike Restivo wrote:
>
> And when Dirty Eddie posted the URL to pornography,
it was porno that YOU created, Mikey. What a dolt.
Mike Restivo
Yep, just to trap Ed King and Gene Goldman, but I only got Dirty Eddie.
Ed king who had hopped to find something with which to extort and
intimidate Restivo. I furnished him with what he would think would be
useful: pornographic writing. This was bait, discoverable only by one
like him intent on hacking into my ISP's server using the address I had
given to my pro-Masonry site. Nobody dares refer to that site, else Ed
king and Gene Goldman spank. So, Ed King attempted to access
successively higher sub-directories on the URL path. having succeeded
he further clicked on the sub directory "erotica". furthermore he
copied all that he found. Furthermore he gave the URL a public posting
in alt.freemasonry as if real men would be interested in non-Masonic
topic of that nature. What justified his presumption to violate rules
of discretion, decency and terms of use? he claimed that he needed to
show that I was a hypocrite, that the morality of which I spoke was
false. but I always referred to Freemasonic morality. he being too
ignorant of same to recognize it over the years. It is his practice to
immediately slur what restivo has written, even though it is consonant
with the same spirit as conserved in Craft Masonry. His Masonry is a
cult of mendacity, and mediocrity, where Masons are only those who
submit to him. he reacts against those who repudiate his ego and has
launched his professional anti-Restivo hate business years ago.
Ed King published it in public, not Restivo.
Ed King trespassed and stole bait which was not possible to be obtained
except by direct hacking, certainly not by accident.
Ed King extorts and intimidates by trying to waive bait that I set out
for him. Now he is trying to get me to obey him or else he will tell on
me to the archdiocese. I tell him to go ahead. The Archbishop needs to
be informed of criminal activities of Masons and how Restivo's traps
expose them repeated.
Dirty bait for dirty goons. Certainly too catch a crook, uninteresting
bait would be useless. I needed salacious stuff, so he would use it
without thinking, assured falsely in the merit of what I had allowed his
black bag ops to obtain.
Normal persons aren't interested in his neurotic crap, nor his public
porno publishing, nor his extortion racket.
You are. Why am I not surprised.
Police do stings of this type frequently. I did the same to catch a
crook. I'm still not finished.
† Mike Restivo
Malcolm Tucker
"Mike Restivo" <mtro...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3AD92E92...@sympatico.ca...
> Russ wrote:
> >
> > Mike Restivo wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > And when Dirty Eddie posted the URL to pornography,
> >
> > it was porno that YOU created, Mikey. What a dolt.
>
> Yep, just to trap Ed King and Gene Goldman, but I only got Dirty Eddie.
Mike,
I have lurked for a year or so and whilst at first I thought you an
intelligent being, I feel that you are in fact a becoming tad deranged.
Seek help,
and for your own mental health stop posting here before others start
laughing out loud at you. Continually revisiting old issues and hurts cannot
be good for any mind, let go and move on.
Malcolm Tucker PM
Lion of the North 3640 UGLE
Peter Renzland
> You really are quite the "legalist" aren't you?
Am I? Why do you call me a name?
Do you find my thoughts offensive?
Do you find my posting of the newsgroup Charter inappropriate?
Can you express your criticism without name-calling?
> Are you really that uncomfortable with the free play of ideas?
How uncomfortable to you purport me to be?
Why do you make that assumption?
Are you sure you do not misrepresent me to the world?
That you do not distort to the point of deception?
As in "bear false witness"?
You sound like you are censuring my ideas and my participation
by resorting to disparaging speculation about my intentions and
my spirit. Is that how you wish to sound?
Would you like me to shut up, because *I* am uncomfortable
with ideas?
Especially when I was arguing in favour of making non-insiders feel
welcome, rather than excluded, unless they align themselves with the
ones "in charge"?
> Or is your nose just out of joint
> because you seldom seem to get the current batch of 'regulars' to agree with you?
Is that how a Mason should address a Brother Mason, in your view?
And is popularity a measure of truth?
Should I shut up because the "regulars" do not approve?
Are you speaking on behalf of those "regulars"?
Do you feel that I have attacked your dignity? Or that of anyone else?
Do you feel you are retaliating or initiating?
I invite you to respond to my ideas without deprecating my person,
if you can find it in your heart.
Happy Easter!
The sage is just
To the unjust
As he is just
To the just
Because the Dao
Is just
Peter Renzland
>
> "Peter Renzland" <N010...@dancing.org> wrote in message
> news:LNPB6.5555$5E3.1...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > "Animal Style" Gene Goldman.·. wrote on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:10:32 -0700:
> > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:25:42 EDT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >>> Or is it that Gene choose a subject title that carefully obscured
> > >>> his content?
> > >>
> > >> You think his content was different from the subject? Interesting
> > >> interpretation....
> > >
> > > Let's see. My subject was "Symbols" and the piece was about
> > > "symbols". Hmmmmmmm.
> >
> > DID YOU SEE THE DISTORTION?
> >
> > Let me spell it out.
>
> Yeah right. Maybe you can get a child to read it to me huh? You really
> appear to be quite rhetorically and semantically challenged.
Again I apologize. I had assumed that it would be clear how my comment
about a nondescriptive subject header "please comment ...", possibly not
having been as effective as a more descriptive one, was being invalidated
deceptively.
Perhaps neither Ed nor Gene (nor Steve) realized that Gene's Subject
title was not "symbols" (as he claimed it was, but rather something
much more vague -- "Subject: Read and comment - please".
Perhaps Ed, Gene, and Steve actually thought that Gene's Subject
title said "symbols", and I was just talking nonsense?
> > The topic, as found in the body of the article, was "Symbolism in Masonry"
> > However, the "subject title" was "Subject: Read and comment - please".
> >
> > DOES THAT MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR NOW?
> >
> > Guvf vf whfg bar rknzcyr bs ubj gur jevgvatf bs bguref ner qvfgbegrq.
> > Nf sne nf V nz pbaprearq, zvfercerfragvat nabgure'f jevgvat, fb nf gb
> > pnfg gurz va n onq yvtug, vf fynaqre. V nz pnershy abg gb qb gung gb
> > bguref, ertneqyrff bs jurgure V yvxr gurz. Naq V nz nfgbavfurq naq
> > fubpxrq gung vg unccraf evtug urer, ebhgvaryl.
>
> Feel better?? You really are starting to just flake out. You know, if
> you've had a bad week, perhaps you shouldn't post on those days.
Again I goofed. I thought that Steve the computerist and Ed the
cryptographer would instantly recognize rot13. Instead, they apparently
thought it either complete nonsense or way more arcane than it actually is.
Sorry.
Tom Accuosti
"Keith Chesworth" <keith.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:i1fgdtgmu67unbls5...@4ax.com...
> snip
> >
> >Having said that this newsgroup helps people see Masons in action (or
> >at least in word), one may wonder how representative A.F. Masons are.
Gosh, you seem just like normal folk to me. But perhaps I'm too
accustomed to usenet groups?
> I would suggest that overall it is quite a fair representation. At
> least when taken in the context of the population as a whole and when
> considering that:
> a) All here have learnt how to turn a computer on.
> b) All here have learnt how to access the Internet
> c) All here have found out that there is more to the internet than the
> WWW
> d) All here have found Usenet and how to retrieve and post.
>
> This means that there may be a slightly higher intellegence here than
> in the populace as a whole, although over the last five years this
> seems to be slipping :-(
Yes, but the same could be said of the general population at large <g>.
Seriously, I don't see anything here that is different from other groups
devoted to discussing particular topics. In fact, I really haven't seen
any serious trolling or rantings by antis. Most troll posts are quickly
responded to wiht either humor or sometimes a bit of (not undeserved)
cutting sarcasm - espcially when the troller can't spell or has mixed up
the facts beyond recognition. It's quite possible that you may be
over-rating the potential effect of some of the antis, too, since they
rarely seem to continue any argument beyond one or two posts.
Also, you could argue that lurkers who might be reading this groups for
information should also be savvy enough to visit the websites, read
books, and perhaps even read some of the other groups. I can't believe
that a.f is the *only* exposure to freemasonry for anybody.
Keep in mind that using usenet for research is tricky - and that could
be said about any web resource, since there are very few controls on
what can be "published". Those looking to research freemasonry topics
are probably better served relying on NG's to get leads on books,
articles, archives, etc. Just like for *any* topic.
> But overall I would suggest that the representation here is quite
> fair. Going from the almost unbelievably kind, generous loving souls
> who embody fully the principles of the Craft to some, should we say
> who may be better served outside?
My 2 cents: I've been reading this group for a few months, and
personally, I enjoy the debates, counterarguments, and occasiaonal
rantings. This group has that "local pub" feel to it, the kind where you
know that there will be a few regulars, some more irregulars, and a
couple of token oddballs. I also get the impression that most of you
would be willing to drop the petty disagreements should the need arise,
and get to doing whatever needs to be done.
Just my impression of a.f as an outsider.
Tom Accuosti
Keith Chesworth
>
>My 2 cents: I've been reading this group for a few months, and
>personally, I enjoy the debates, counterarguments, and occasiaonal
>rantings. This group has that "local pub" feel to it, the kind where you
>know that there will be a few regulars, some more irregulars, and a
>couple of token oddballs. I also get the impression that most of you
>would be willing to drop the petty disagreements should the need arise,
>and get to doing whatever needs to be done.
>
>Just my impression of a.f as an outsider.
>
>Tom Accuosti
>
>
Keith J Chesworth
Web sites:-
Dunstable - www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/8227/home.htm
Warships of WW1- www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/6728/index.html
Oil Tankers - www.telinco.co.uk/boilerbill/
Masonic Musings - www.masonry.telinco.co.uk/
Steven M. Hudson
No apology necessary. It is I who should apologize. I assumed incorrectly
that it was "merely" a gratuitious attempt to post something 'cryptic' to
highlight and communicate your feelings of being misunderstood. It
certainly made that point, but I just assumed it was mere 'greeking' to make
your point. I made no attempt whatsoever to see if there was 'information'
contained what I incorrectly percieved as 'noise'. Mea Culpa. In my line of
work as a programmer I seldom work with encrypted communiques, so I did not
recognize it.
Unfortunatly I have no means at my disposal to easily decrypt rot13 but
perhaps if I get some spare time at work...I'm sure it contains an
interesting nugget if you went to the trouble to encrypt it. Next time I
see 'greeking' from you, I'll look a bit closer to see if your passing an
encrypted message my way.
Thanks,
Steve
Peter Renzland
> Unfortunatly I have no means at my disposal to easily decrypt rot13 ...
Since you are using OE:
Pour décoder un message en Rot13, il suffit de faire "Édition" (OE4) ou "Message"
(OE5) puis "Déchiffrer (ROT13)".
--
Peter .^.
Steven M. Hudson
Thanks, that worked. I'd never done that before. Apparently, (and for the
non-Outlook impaired), this is the text of your 'scrambled' message...
> > > This is just one example of how the writings of others are distorted.
> > > As far as I am concerned, misrepresenting another's writing, so as to
> > > cast them in a bad light, is slander. I am careful not to do that to
> > > others, regardless of whether I like them. And I am astonished and
> > > shocked that it happens right here, routinely.
Almost didn't get it though. (Je parle et ecrire français mais un peut.)
Pardon my french.
:-)
Steve .'.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Renzland) wrote:
> "Animal Style" Gene Goldman.·. wrote on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 07:53:58 -0700:
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:59:43 GMT, Mike Restivo <mtro...@sympatico.ca>
> >
> > > Regardless of others' response or lack of it. Are you actually
> > > permitted to discuss symbology which discussion could be interpreted as
> > > contrary to your Masonic solemn promise "not to reveal ..."?
> >
> > No. But I WAS asked, by the Grand Master, to prepare a class in
> > Masonic Symbolism, to be given at a series of Officer's Management
> > Workshops throughout the jurisdiction. The next one is in Stocton,
> > next week.
> >
> > Our symbols are not considered either private or secret.
>
> It could be that I am losing my mind, but perhaps there is another
> explanation for why this "answer" does not really answer the question.
> (Open-minded readers may want to reread Q & A, to see what I mean. :-)
>
> What kind of "Officers" are these? Are they Military Officers?
> Or Police Officers? Or are they Masonic Officers?
Officers, appointed and elected, of Masonic Lodges constituted in this
jurisdiction.
> The answer to this question makes your argument either coy or vacuous.
> Clearly, if they are Masonic Officers (as I suspect), you have just
> rhetorically shot yourself into the foot stuck in your mouth, no? :-)
No.
> Let me take it one step further. If the symbols are not secret,
> how about the allegories? Are they not secret either? I hope you
> know what I'm getting at.
The allegories are also not considered secret. In this jurisdiction,
our secrets include the private business of a Lodge, our modes of
recognition, the details of our ceremonies and very little else.
Specifically, anything published in clear text by Grand Lodge (such as
our symbols, in the Monitor and Officer's Manual, as well as other
published documents available from the Grand Lodge supply center) is
not to be considered secret.
> (Hm. I just noticed that the CA obligation is different from the ON in
> this respect. Jim, I wonder how you see this: what is meant by "hidden
> mysteries" and how does that relate to what is veiled and illustrated?
> My interpretation is that the ritual is not for me to reveal.)
Hidden mysteries are mysteries that are, well, hidden. Mysteries that
are placed in plain sight, available to the public, are not hidden.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E!
W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP--
t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: You are someone's impression of Masonry
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission may be granted to others upon request.
Objects in this post are funnier than they appear
Be seeing you
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Renzland) wrote:
> So, how about it? This newsgroup is for research about Masonry. Not for
> small talk among Masons.
I disagree. If this newsgroup was for Masonic research, particularly
to the exclusion of small talk, I would think it would have been
moderated and named something like alt.Masonic.research. No, Peter, I
personally believe this newsgroup is for discussions about Masonry,
and with/between Masons. Specifically including small talk.
> Masons are not supposed to be "in charge" here.
> True or False?
True. Do you feel someone has been placed "in charge here"?
> Is the opinion of vociferous Masons equal to the
> scholarship of knowledgeable researchers?
No, but ten dimes are equal to one dollar.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Renzland) wrote:
> BTW, our COTW (MW Bro. E.D.)told me that everything that is in the Work
> is secret. (In answer to a question about the Installation Charge.)
Wouldn't the fact that there IS such a Charge be secret then?
> I guess that one is probably public in (some of) the U.S. :-)
IMJ, the Charges are all published in clear text and not considered
secret.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
<tacc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Also, you could argue that lurkers who might be reading this groups for
> information should also be savvy enough to visit the websites, read
> books, and perhaps even read some of the other groups. I can't believe
> that a.f is the *only* exposure to freemasonry for anybody.
And I would hope they had enough common sense to test EVERYTHING they
read or are told against what they themselves know to be true from
their own personal experience, or what can be independently verified.
Statements from books are no substitute for reality.
> My 2 cents: I've been reading this group for a few months, and
> personally, I enjoy the debates, counterarguments, and occasiaonal
> rantings. This group has that "local pub" feel to it, the kind where you
> know that there will be a few regulars, some more irregulars, and a
> couple of token oddballs. I also get the impression that most of you
> would be willing to drop the petty disagreements should the need arise,
> and get to doing whatever needs to be done.
We always have in the past, when the need has arisen.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Renzland) wrote:
> "Animal Style" Gene Goldman.·. wrote on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:10:32 -0700:
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:25:42 EDT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
> > > as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
> > > yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
> >
> > Good point.
>
> Care to illustrate that "good point", Gene?
No thanks. You did very well.
> Would you prefer me to respond even less to your writing?
That is not for me to decide. You are responsible for your own
decisions. Personally, I enjoy our conversations. If you do as well,
prey continue. If they cause you stress, feel free to stop.
> I have the technology. And I'm willing to deploy it.
I'm glad.
> PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY:
>
> >>> Or is it that Gene choose a subject title that carefully obscured
> >>> his content?
> >>
> >> You think his content was different from the subject? Interesting
> >> interpretation....
> >
> > Let's see. My subject was "Symbols" and the piece was about
> > "symbols". Hmmmmmmm.
>
> DID YOU SEE THE DISTORTION?
No.
> Let me spell it out.
>
> The topic, as found in the body of the article, was "Symbolism in Masonry"
> However, the "subject title" was "Subject: Read and comment - please".
>
> DOES THAT MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR NOW?
It helps. You feel I should have put the word "Symbols" in the
subject, right?
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
wrote:
> > I guess I am an "Irregular".
> > <s>
> There are a number of over-the-counter remedies that can help, Gene! <BWG>
And they do.
<s>
> > > Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
> > > as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
> > > yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
> >
> > Good point.
>
> I thought so. But others may not.... <G>
It seems so, sadly.
> > > > Nor has Gene responded to my comments.
> > >
> > > Perhaps he interpreted your commentary much as I did. Who knows?
> >
> > Naw. Just on vacation.
>
> Hey, good for you! I've been chasing my tail with a couple of particularly
> vexing issues involving a new client. Looks like things are coming
> together, though, with a happy ending. Now the question is when _I_ can
> get away....
Make it out here, and I have a fish taco for you.
> Breads have to rise before they can be fully enjoyed: I think it's the
> same thing with subjects such as "symbols". In another thread, there was
> discussion about 'regularity' - a subject I seem to recall we've chatted
> about in the past <G>. Took me a LONG time to fully understand the issues
> involved there - and a lot of contemplation. Mike Segall and I had a very
> interesting chat about it in person last October.... <G> Someday I look
> forward to a similar discussion with a couple of others who post here
> (whom I shall leave unnamed).
I hope I will be able to see it. Sounds like fun. Mike is an
extremely knowledgable - and wise - Mason. And a dear friend. I miss
him.
> And some people also seem to believe that once they've convinced
> themselves that they've got the right 'take' on things, NOTHING will move
> them from where they've planted their feet. Such a shame when folks are
> convinced that their accumulated knowledge 'bests' that of everyone else.
Particularly when their "accumulated knowledge" comes from books and
that of "everyone else" comes from experience in the real world.
> Some of the things I read here remind me how fragile my knowledge of
> Freemasonry really is. Whether it's a question like the ones Tom has
> posted this week or whether it's listening to someone like Allen Roberts
> or Wallace McLeod, there is just SO much to retain. And frankly, I find it
> FAR more enriching to _discuss_ the stuff rather than trying to impress
> folks with the number of books I've read.... <G>
Agreed. While some (like us) read books in order to gather ideas to
test against reality, some seem to read them as a substitute for
real-world experience.
Ed King
<snip>
> > Would you prefer me to respond even less to your writing?
>
> That is not for me to decide. You are responsible for your own
> decisions. Personally, I enjoy our conversations. If you do as well,
> prey continue. If they cause you stress, feel free to stop.
"prey continue". Now THERE'S a Freudian slip if I _ever_ saw one! <BWG>
Or then again, maybe it wasn't.... <ROFL>
Fraternally,
Ed King
http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View
Peter Renzland
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 03:50:03 GMT, N010...@dancing.org (Peter
> Renzland) wrote:
> > "Animal Style" Gene Goldman.·. wrote on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:10:32 -0700:
> > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:25:42 EDT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
> > > > as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
> > > > yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
> > >
> > > Good point.
> >
> > Care to illustrate that "good point", Gene?
>
> No thanks. You did very well.
I did what very well? Ed spoke of chastisement over errors of thought from
me. And of agony. Is that how you feel?
> > Would you prefer me to respond even less to your writing?
>
> That is not for me to decide. You are responsible for your own
> decisions. Personally, I enjoy our conversations. If you do as well,
> prey continue. If they cause you stress, feel free to stop.
While the decision is mine, I do not wish to cause feelings of
chastisement or agony. You say you enjoy our conversations, yet
you appear to agree ("Good point") with Ed's characterization of
chastisement and fruitless pursuit of agony.
Or are you really saying that *you* enjoy *my* agony as you toy
with me as _prey_? :-)
> > PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY:
> >
> > >>> Or is it that Gene choose a subject title that carefully obscured
> > >>> his content?
> > >>
> > >> You think his content was different from the subject? Interesting
> > >> interpretation....
> > >
> > > Let's see. My subject was "Symbols" and the piece was about
> > > "symbols". Hmmmmmmm.
> >
> > DID YOU SEE THE DISTORTION?
>
> No.
>
> > Let me spell it out.
> >
> > The topic, as found in the body of the article, was "Symbolism in Masonry"
> > However, the "subject title" was "Subject: Read and comment - please".
> >
> > DOES THAT MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR NOW?
>
> It helps. You feel I should have put the word "Symbols" in the
> subject, right?
"Should" is a strong word, My suggestion was that a descriptive Subject
header might have caused more people to select the article and comment.
That was my original comment.
What followed was an exchange between yourself and Ed that tried
to make my comment appear vacuous, by employing word play that
might have fooled a casual reader. It was a very small matter,
but it is a rather typical example of deception by distortion,
IMHO. I find such tactics astonishing, but less so now, than at
first. My basic problem is that I keep thinking that I can make
a constructive contribution, and then such a distortion happens.
I should just not speak/write to people who distort my words.
Or do you see another option, Gene?
Bordure
nothing seceret from anybody. It is all on our monitor as well.
Bordure.
Fred Larson
#37 AFAM Edmond
AASR Valley of Guthrie
York Rite Comandry #1 Guthrie OK
No one has the right to tell someone else what they believe in is wrong unless
they are willing to give everyone else the same right.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Renzland) wrote:
> My question is -- should the Masons here respect the newsgroup's charter
> as it is?
I certainly do. As a historical document, the charter of this
newsgroup gives us a lot of insight into what it's founders intended
when they started it. That is a good thing to know.
It is not, however, legally binding, nor was it ever so.
> I know that often people act out of ignorance. I just wonder whether,
> once there is awareness of what the charter actually says, people will
> respect it? That was my question. :-)
I certainly have, do and intend to continue to.
Subject change:
Joe, The Master of my Lodge and I had Mongolian BBQ yesterday for
lunch. I was disappointed - they replaced the celery with pea pods!
I was aghast!
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E!
W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP--
t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: You are someone's impression of Masonry
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Renzland) wrote:
> > > > > Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
> > > > > as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
> > > > > yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
> > > >
> > > > Good point.
> > >
> > > Care to illustrate that "good point", Gene?
> >
> > No thanks. You did very well.
>
> I did what very well?
Illustrated your point.
> Ed spoke of chastisement over errors of thought from
> me. And of agony. Is that how you feel?
Not at all. Then again, I didn't write it.
> While the decision is mine, I do not wish to cause feelings of
> chastisement or agony.
Peter, I have never felt chastised, nor agonized, by or over you.
> You say you enjoy our conversations, yet
> you appear to agree ("Good point") with Ed's characterization of
> chastisement and fruitless pursuit of agony.
Yes. I enjoy our conversations. Yes, I agree that persuit of agony
is unfruitful.
> Or are you really saying that *you* enjoy *my* agony as you toy
> with me as _prey_? :-)
Not at all. Do you feel agony, or like you are being toyed with? If
so, perhaps it would be prudent for you to reconsider your
involvement. If not, forgive my curiosity.
> > It helps. You feel I should have put the word "Symbols" in the
> > subject, right?
>
> "Should" is a strong word, My suggestion was that a descriptive Subject
> header might have caused more people to select the article and comment.
> That was my original comment.
Good point. My selection only attracted the attention of those who
would be likely to want to add comments, and not those who might be
interested in the subject of the talk. Thank you for pointing that
out.
> What followed was an exchange between yourself and Ed that tried
> to make my comment appear vacuous, by employing word play that
> might have fooled a casual reader. It was a very small matter,
> but it is a rather typical example of deception by distortion,
> IMHO. I find such tactics astonishing, but less so now, than at
> first. My basic problem is that I keep thinking that I can make
> a constructive contribution, and then such a distortion happens.
> I should just not speak/write to people who distort my words.
>
> Or do you see another option, Gene?
Yes, in fact I do. You might consider not putting meanings into
others' words that are not there ("tried to make my comment appear
vacuous"), not asking questions you do not want the answers to, not
putting untested assumptions and presuppositions into the questions
you do ask ("as you toy with me as _prey_"), and not taking things
personally that are not about you ("an exchange between yourself and
Ed"). I, personally, find avoiding those practices very helpful.
Further, you might find an aspect of usenet that you find enjoyable,
rather than stressful.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
wrote:
> "prey continue". Now THERE'S a Freudian slip if I _ever_ saw one! <BWG>
>
> Or then again, maybe it wasn't.... <ROFL>
Apparently my spell checker can't spell any better than I can.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E!
W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP--
t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: You are someone's impression of Masonry
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Mike Restivo
I've been exposing this same small bunch of sorry creeps for years, and
have moved on to more exposure of same. Holding your nose instead of
cleaning your own house is not the solution.
How many years of anti-Masonic behaviour publicly exposed do you need to
read? None. You just filter it all out. There problem all gone.
"Why do those Jews gotta keep talkin' about the Holocaust. Move on ..."
"Move on" is the cry directed to yourself who needs to have ego defence
mechanisms in place because you refuse to deal with the Truth.
† Mike Restivo
Mike Restivo
"Geez Renzland, chill out. I've been reading this newsgroup for years
and I used to think you were level-headed, but now you appear to be
sliding into self-obsessed paranoia. Get some help. You are making a
fool of yourself."
This is the stock response that you can expect, the answer to which is
difficult without appearing to justify the claims of "paranoia". It is
but the beginning. Then your Masonry will be questioned:
"A real Mason wouldn't be so inquisitive. The guy's an anti in
disguise. All loyal Masons must oppose him ... he's the devil, he causes
me to sin. (that's where Restivo is at presently.)"
Now I stress that it is not my intention to make object lessons of your
exchanges, (Yeah but that hasn't prevented Restivo from interfering ...)
but hope that my intervention might shed light upon the inexorable
futility of demonization techniques.
Bro. Hudson *may* feel that your questions are excessive. A simple ask
and answer should be sufficient. We can't get all our questions
answered to our satisfaction and to trouble a Brother with badgering and
queries is fraternally inharmonious. Maybe off-line queries might be
better. And so on and so on.
Bro. Hudson, what is to be gained by characterizing Bro. Renzland as
anything less than a level and upright Mason? Just filter him out. What
kind of Freemasonry teaches you to "make your bones" from the
demonization of Brother Masons? And where were you when Restivo was
being railroaded daily during his Petition for re-affiliation was on the
Newsgroup? You were not a Mason yet, to be sure, but you presumably
were able to discern right from wrong both then and now, especially now.
And what is to prevent Bro. Renzland from complaining to your Lodge's WM
that he, Renzland, was subject to your public attacks upon his character
in a manner unbefitting a Mason? Nothing. Similar complaints could
impede your ascension through the Officers' Line. Never be in a rush to
accept bad advice or bad example as a moral guide merely because it is
expedient.
† Mike Restivo
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
wrote:
> And what is to prevent Bro. Renzland from complaining to your Lodge's WM
> that he, Renzland, was subject to your public attacks upon his character
> in a manner unbefitting a Mason? Nothing. Similar complaints could
> impede your ascension through the Officers' Line. Never be in a rush to
> accept bad advice or bad example as a moral guide merely because it is
> expedient.
Probably his common sense. If Peter objects to Steve noticing that he
is upset, what excuse could he use to refrain from complaining at
someone calling a Mason a nazi, terrorist or criminal? Or for writing
porn and entrapping a Mason?
No, Peter has far too much wisdom for that.
Jim Bennie
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:28:18 GMT, N010...@dancing.org (Peter
> Renzland) wrote:
>> BTW, our COTW (MW Bro. E.D.)told me that everything that is in the Work
>> is secret. (In answer to a question about the Installation Charge.)
> Wouldn't the fact that there IS such a Charge be secret then?
That's sort of my question, too, Gene. But the PGM in question is
the one to answer that, seems to me.
Jim Bennie, IPM No. 44, Vancouver
Mike Restivo
He knew that. He was just testing you. Now suppose Bro. Hudson doesn't
easily have a way to decrypt French?
Is there no limit to your vexatious machinations? [grin]
† Mike Restivo
David Simpson
wrote:
>
>You're just repeating your own old nonsense. I have a multi year plan
>involved, quite beyond your obvious and proven inability to understand.
>I don't jump to the whims of nay sayers who will and must deny anything
>contrary to their prejudices anyway. I'm not interested in convincing
>people like you who are obsessed with getting even, projecting their
>neuroses and needing to safeguard their ego defence mechanisms. Its
>all, "Restivo do this, Restivo do that, Restivo wipe my ass." That's
>the "Twelve Labours of Hercules" tactic. Seen it all years ago. Get
>the correspondent to jump around proving whatever in grinding detail
>then reply "So what? We're not interested."
>
>Your problem is that because Ed King is not slapped in jail right now
>his criminal behaviour is justified. And if he is incarcerated, you
>would need to squeak that he is but one case. The big picture is
>obviously beyond you: There are always wrong doers. What of the
>majority who enables them? That's my study. I'm not interested in
>crushing a few sickos. I use 'em to understand group behavioural
>dynamics: How is it that the behaviour on alt.freemasonry is so
>different from SOF? Which newsgroup is the better representation of
>Freemasonry. I claim it is SOF, between the too. Anyway, you need to
>deny, and even a thousand Masons in jail would not open your eyes:
>
>"Why and how does Freemasonry get associated with men whose sense of
>Justice is so degenerate as to be anti-social? Is it Freemasonry's
>fault?" That's just something to write about positively. If not by
>Masons, then by whom else?
>
>
Mike, Put up or shut up.
If a crime has been committed then the police should be informed. I
don't perceive any crime you are talking about and I am sick of
hearing you whine about nothing tangible. If you are or are not going
to the police makes no difference to me. I don't want to hear your
little boy whines.
The newsgroup is alt.freemasonry. If you have some on topic posts then
fine, otherwise keep your hands off the keyboard as I, for one, do not
want to hear your rants.
I don't want to hear the other side either. The baiting should stop
just as much as the ranting. You are all behaving like immature
morons, in fact morons generally have better manners, so please cease
and desist..
--
Regards
David Simpson (Remove spam blocker to reply)
(Unattached MM)
Old age and treachery will always overcome
youth and skill.
Jim Bennie
wrote:
> In Oklahoma we do installation in open lodge which means there is
As you may know, we don't have open installations here, and I don't
favour them personally. And we don't have a monitor; we have a
ritual book which spells out everything except the secret stuff.
I'm losing track of all the threads, but our Address at our
installation isn't given anywhere but in Canada, and then only
in those parts where Ontario Masons had an influence, ours being
one.
Steven M. Hudson
> Peter Renzland wrote:
> >
> > Steven M. Hudson wrote on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:15:34 -0400:
> >
> This is the stock response that you can expect, the answer to which is
> difficult without appearing to justify the claims of "paranoia". It is
> but the beginning. Then your Masonry will be questioned:
not from me
> Bro. Hudson, what is to be gained by characterizing Bro. Renzland as
> anything less than a level and upright Mason?
none. I stand guilty of letting my anger color my perceptions of Peter. I
was dead wrong.
> Just filter him out. What kind of Freemasonry teaches you to "make your
bones" from the
> demonization of Brother Masons?
I hardly think I 'demonized him' though I admit I sometimes succumb to the
temptation to hyperbolize when I feel provoked, and sometimes it takes me a
few post to 'return to center'. What on earth makes you think I believe
this is anything other than my own personal failing??
> And where were you when Restivo was being railroaded
> daily during his Petition for re-affiliation was on the Newsgroup?
It was 'fait accompli' when I started reading. At first, I believed you.
Then as you repeated more of the details, I really began to feel you had
sabotoged your own goals of reaffilition by not curbing your expressiveness
during the 'sensitive period'. Then when you lashed out and accused me of
"arrogantly teaching masons", I became convinced that you had little verbal
control and that this was in fact the source of your troubles. The months I
have been reading here have verified that assertion in my own mind.
> You were not a Mason yet, to be sure, but you presumably
> were able to discern right from wrong both then and now, especially now.
I only see through a glass darkly I'm afraid. I have not decided anything
on the jurisprudence of your affairs. I have decided that I don't believe
you truly want to be affiliated, or you'd have found a way, regardless of
the actions of your 'enemies'. Sun Tzu said "A wise general does not fight
for ground that is no stategic importance".
> And what is to prevent Bro. Renzland from complaining to your Lodge's WM
> that he, Renzland, was subject to your public attacks upon his character
> in a manner unbefitting a Mason? Nothing.
Correct. However, I don't believe suggesting someone has a 'legalist' or
'Aristotelian' frame of mind constitutes 'attacks upon his character' or is
'unmasonic'. In fact, my brother Jason Russo's quite enjoys his reputation
as a 'literalist' and feels it is a hallmark of his Masonry. We disagree on
approach, but I do not consider him 'less of a mason' nor 'less of a person'
because he chooses a 'literalist' path.
> Similar complaints could impede your ascension through the Officers'
Line.
True. But I will succeed or fail based on my own behavior and I accept
responsiblity for it.
> Never be in a rush to accept bad advice or bad example as a moral guide
> merely because it is expedient.
so mote it be.
> ? Mike Restivo
Peter Renzland
> Peter wrote:
>> Gene wrote:
>>> Peter wrote:
>>>> Gene wrote:
>>>>> Ed King wrote:
>
>>>>>> Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
>>>>>> as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
>>>>>> yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
>>>>> Good point.
>>>> Care to illustrate that "good point", Gene?
>>> No thanks. You did very well.
>> I did what very well?
> Illustrated your point.
Gene, it was *you* who said "Good point". It was Ed's point.
Ed had claimed that I had chastised (you? him?) over "errors of thought".
You agreed with him. Do you believe I had chastised you over "errors
of thought"?
> > Ed spoke of chastisement over errors of thought from
> > me. And of agony. Is that how you feel?
>
> Not at all. Then again, I didn't write it.
No may not have written it, but you agreed with it, Perhaps that
was an error? And you don't agree with it? I will accept that,
if that is what you say.
> > While the decision is mine, I do not wish to cause feelings of
> > chastisement or agony.
>
> Peter, I have never felt chastised, nor agonized, by or over you.
Thank you. I believe you. I hope that those who are rash and quick
to say otherwise may subdue their zeal to accuse me of having done so
you.
> > You say you enjoy our conversations, yet
> > you appear to agree ("Good point") with Ed's characterization of
> > chastisement and fruitless pursuit of agony.
>
> Yes. I enjoy our conversations. Yes, I agree that persuit of agony
> is unfruitful.
I will converse with you as long as there is at least some feeling
of genuine benefit by you. I have learned to be cautious and not
make myself vulnerable to the effects of taking what you say at
face value. This not not preclude my treating you with respect and
dealing sincerely with ideas and issues.
In the process, I may have to be blunt, especially when I see
dynamic semantics on your part, and I feel the need to "nail you
down" to a clear statement. It is my understandinmg that you don't
mind this, and even though it may sound unkind to those who do not
follow closely, that you know that I am treating you with respect,
as I subject your ideas to stringent tests.
> > Or are you really saying that *you* enjoy *my* agony as you toy
> > with me as _prey_? :-)
>
> Not at all. Do you feel agony, or like you are being toyed with? If
> so, perhaps it would be prudent for you to reconsider your
> involvement. If not, forgive my curiosity.
I would prefer to have clear, concise discourse. But it's not your
nature. For now I know so little that I can still learn from your
knowledge and experience. In return, I offer my skills in analysis,
problem-solving, and general understanding of systems, and structures,
> > > It helps. You feel I should have put the word "Symbols" in the
> > > subject, right?
> >
> > "Should" is a strong word, My suggestion was that a descriptive Subject
> > header might have caused more people to select the article and comment.
> > That was my original comment.
>
> Good point. My selection only attracted the attention of those who
> would be likely to want to add comments, and not those who might be
> interested in the subject of the talk. Thank you for pointing that
> out.
Descriptive Subject titles are a *good* thing. For various reasons.
People who care about quality are often more selective that those
who read everything superficially.
> > What followed was an exchange between yourself and Ed that tried
> > to make my comment appear vacuous, by employing word play that
> > might have fooled a casual reader. It was a very small matter,
> > but it is a rather typical example of deception by distortion,
> > IMHO. I find such tactics astonishing, but less so now, than at
> > first. My basic problem is that I keep thinking that I can make
> > a constructive contribution, and then such a distortion happens.
> > I should just not speak/write to people who distort my words.
> >
> > Or do you see another option, Gene?
> Yes, in fact I do. You might consider not putting meanings into
> others' words that are not there ("tried to make my comment appear
> vacuous"), not asking questions you do not want the answers to, not
> putting untested assumptions and presuppositions into the questions
> you do ask ("as you toy with me as _prey_"), and not taking things
> personally that are not about you ("an exchange between yourself and
> Ed"). I, personally, find avoiding those practices very helpful.
Now, this is most encouraging. That you are aware of the danger of
carelessly ascribing meanings to others.
So, please tell me, what *was* your intention which I misread as
"tried to make my comment appear vacuous"?
And what was that exchange between you and Ed about, if not me?
(You know the one that takes something I said, and then comments
about it, as if to say: "what a moron!"):
>>> Or is it that Gene choose a subject title that carefully obscured
>>> his content?
>>
>> You think his content was different from the subject? Interesting
>> interpretation....
>
> Let's see. My subject was "Symbols" and the piece was about
> "symbols". Hmmmmmmm.
Please don't misunderstand me. I don't mind being thought stupid.
It amuses me. I wanted to illustrate the danger of doing this,
because I do mind it when it's done to others.
At this point it would be best to be able to call on a mutually
respected third party who could tell whether it sounded like what
I perceive it sounded like, or what?
> Further, you might find an aspect of usenet that you find enjoyable,
> rather than stressful.
Usenet for me is not an entertainment. I am not one who needs to kill
time, or who enjoys small talk. Writing for you is taking time away
from other worthy things.
Part of my joy comes from being of service to others. When you tell
me that you are giving me more than I you, I will happily redirect
my attention and efforts.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Renzland) wrote:
> >>>>>> Also, after having seen _arguments_ over what symbols _mean_ (as well
> >>>>>> as what I perceived as a chastisement over errors of thought from
> >>>>>> yourself), it seemed fruitless to pursue the agony.
> >>>>> Good point.
> >>>> Care to illustrate that "good point", Gene?
> >>> No thanks. You did very well.
> >> I did what very well?
> > Illustrated your point.
>
> Gene, it was *you* who said "Good point". It was Ed's point.
Yes. The point that I believe is good was " it seemed fruitless to
pursue the agony".
> Ed had claimed that I had chastised (you? him?) over "errors of thought".
> You agreed with him. Do you believe I had chastised you over "errors
> of thought"?
No. See above.
> > Not at all. Then again, I didn't write it.
> No may not have written it, but you agreed with it, Perhaps that
> was an error? And you don't agree with it? I will accept that,
> if that is what you say.
I didn't consider it. I was commenting on " it seemed fruitless to
pursue the agony".
> Thank you. I believe you. I hope that those who are rash and quick
> to say otherwise may subdue their zeal to accuse me of having done so
> you.
For the record. "I have never felt chastised by Peter."
> So, please tell me, what *was* your intention which I misread as
> "tried to make my comment appear vacuous"?
I was chatting with Ed. Small talk between Brothers.
> And what was that exchange between you and Ed about, if not me?
> (You know the one that takes something I said, and then comments
> about it, as if to say: "what a moron!"):
Small talk, chit-chat, such as is commonly found in un moderated
usenet venues.
> At this point it would be best to be able to call on a mutually
> respected third party who could tell whether it sounded like what
> I perceive it sounded like, or what?
It is a free newsgroup. Proceed as you wish.
> Usenet for me is not an entertainment. I am not one who needs to kill
> time, or who enjoys small talk. Writing for you is taking time away
> from other worthy things.
Well, don't do it for my sake. For me, it is mostly entertainment,
diversion. I pick up a tid bit here and there, but I am here because
it pleases me to be here.
> Part of my joy comes from being of service to others. When you tell
> me that you are giving me more than I you, I will happily redirect
> my attention and efforts.
Peter, I have no idea what you, or anyone, may take from my posts.
And truthfully, it doesn't matter. I am here because I want to be.
When I no longer want to be here, I will not be here.
In another thread, you suggested that the Charges in your jurisdiction
are legally binding. If that is so, I wonder if your Charges include
a section on duties. Ours does, and is very clear about what duties
should take precedence over others.
Now, our Charges are certainly not binding. Here, they are just
advice. But they are GOOD advice. If you have "other worthy things"
to do - do them. I will be just fine, I assure you. Even if your
Charges are not binding, the advice is sound.
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
the one on Epsilon Chai Iota Tau, and is followed by The Blind Men and
The Elephant. Discussion follows.
[begin]
_____________________________
Symbolism in Masonry
By Eugene Goldman, past Master
Masonry is a beautiful system of morality, veiled in allegory and
illustrated by symbols. Have you heard that before?
What is a symbol?
From the dictionary:
Main Entry: 1sym·bol
Pronunciation: 'sim-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: in sense 1, from Late Latin symbolum, from Late Greek
symbolon, from Greek, token, sign; in other senses from Latin symbolum
token, sign, symbol, from Greek symbolon, literally, token of identity
verified by comparing its other half, from symballein to throw
together, compare, from syn- + ballein to throw.
Date: 15th century
1: an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine: CREED
2: something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of
relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance;
especially: a visible sign of something invisible <the lion is a
symbol of courage>
3: an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing
relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities,
elements, relations, or qualities
4: an object or act representing something in the unconscious mind
that has been repressed <phallic symbols>
5: an act, sound, or object having cultural significance and the
capacity to excite or objectify a response
Within the context of Masonry, definitions 2 and 5 are most
applicable. A symbol is something that we can all see, hear, feel or
otherwise sense that serves to remind us of something more personal
within ourselves, and about which we may have stronger feelings.
The symbols in Masonry represent the morality, the ethics, and the
values we (as Masons and as individuals) hold dear. They remind us to
observe and practice them. They remind us to keep them important in
our lives. More than that, the symbols inspire us to reach new
heights, strike out in new directions and set new goals. All in a
Masonic - that is MORAL - context.
There are many ways to consider an object. Two of the most used in
Masonry are literally and symbolically.
Let me take the Letter "G" as an example. In one of our lectures, we
pay respects to the letter in the East. A literal consideration would
be that we are respecting the letter, or the physical object mounted
on the wall. This, of course, is nonsense. The seventh letter of the
English alphabet is not deserving of our particular notice, as a
letter.
However, a *symbolic* consideration (and the one that actually
describes what happens in the Masonry that exists in the real world)
is that we are paying respect to what that letter *represents* - Our
Divine Creator. This respect, we pay *through* the symbol. Everyone
is able to agree that the letter *represents* Him, even
(particularly?) when we do not agree on what He looks like, what Name
He is best known by, or how best to worship Him. Because we use a
symbol, instead of a literal, we do not have to agree on the details.
Similarly, when considering the many references to His Holy Word in
our ritual, we use them symbolically (in most cases), not literally.
Yes, there are some *historical* references, and those, I submit, are
literal. The ones about King Solomon's Temple, in particular.
However, the rest are strictly symbolic. Equally applicable to
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Buddhist and anyone I have
inadvertently omitted. For example, those references to the
individual's own Holy Writings. In that same manner, references to
anything in our laws, rules and regulations are necessarily literal,,
uniform and specific.
There is a sharp and noticeable distinction, an obvious point of
demarcation, between what is fact and what is fiction in our ritual.
Throughout our Degrees, certain terms are used. When someone says,
"Sacred History teaches us", or "The great Jewish Historian Josephus
informs us" or a similar term, the lecturer is about to refer to an
item of historical or religious fact. What he is about to describe is
the way it was, or what happened.
But whenever he says "Masonic Tradition informs us", you can bet that
what you are about to hear is an allegory, a fable, completely
fictional. It is a symbolic teaching and not a historical lesson.
An illustration of this would be that it would make no difference in
what we teach if the letter "G" was replaced with "A" for Architect,
"D" for Deity (as done in some jurisdictions), or (as is most common
outside the USA) there were no letter within the Square and Compass at
all, and we simply symbolized our devotion to The Most High by the
representation of His Holy Word atop the altar. The lesson would not
change. However, our law is very clear. The letter "G" cannot be
replaced with an "A", nor with a "D", an "H", a "J" nor a "K". It
cannot be removed. It cannot be lower case.
Fortunately, because ritual does not affect law, and law does not
affect ritual, the possible contradictions that might arise from this
do not occur. Our ritual is what it is, and exists to instruct our
minds and inspire our spirits. Our law is what it is, and exists to
bind our behavior and regulate our actions.
It would make no difference to the fabric of our nation if it turned
out that George Washington's dad never owned a Cheery Tree. The
allegory would hold, even if it were based in fiction.
Similarly, it would make no difference to Masonry if Hyram Abiff were
not in fact slain, but lived to complete the Temple, got a performance
bonus from Solomon, retired on a nice pension and spent his twilight
years touring the world in his motor home. The lessons taught would
be no less valid. We would be no less Masonic.
In fact, it is most likely that the legend of the Third Degree is
fiction. Scripture does not record a murder during the building of
the Temple. Such an act would almost have to have been recorded,
particularly the murder of one in so important a position as
"Architect of the Work". Even if a murder had been committed and
somehow gone unrecorded, the body would not - COULD not - have been
reduced to ashes. Cremation did not exist, and Jewish law
specifically forbids it anyway. Nor could the body have been buried
"near the Sanctum Sanctorum". Jewish law required that cadavers be
buried without the gates of the city, and the Temple was Hallowed
Ground.
The point here is that it doesn't matter if the Legend is based on
fact or fiction. It is allegory. It's basis doesn't affect it's
validity in our Craft.
A symbol, when properly used, has greater value when it's exact
definition is personal, individually-determined, and most meaningful
to the one considering it. Like words (which are in themselves
symbols), symbols mean different things to different individuals, in
different contexts. Where there is general agreement, there is also
communication. Ideas, particularly moral and ethical ones, can be
communicated much more effectively, in my experience, when they are
symbolically represented.
Masonry uses symbols - of that there is no question.
What do we *DO* with them? Besides "illustrate moral and ethical
principles", I mean.
I am coming to understand that Masonry does define the symbols it uses
(most of them, anyway). But the definitions are only in the most
general terms. The Plumb signifies that we should ever remember to
walk uprightly. The VoSL that we should always look to our Divine
Creator, and His Teachings (as given to us in His Holy Word) for
guidance and support in all our undertakings. The beehive that we
should be industrious, and so on.
Nowhere that I can find, in any of the symbols or teachings in
Masonry, is there more than the most general definition. What does it
mean to "walk uprightly"? Which Holy Book should we use to learn
about, what Name should we use to refer to The Great Architect? What
form should our industry take?
All these, and other, questions are left for the individual to
determine for himself, in the context of his life, as he finds best.
There are no instructions and no judgments.
Does patriotism mean voting for or against this issue? Is it my duty
as a neighbor to advise the folks next door that their back-yard
target practice is bothering the neighbors, or is it my duty to call
the cops and have them restore the peace and good order of the
neighborhood? Does Brotherly Love mean that I should loan my friend
the money, or is it better to help him find a job? Should I draw a
card or stand pat?
Masonry stands mute on all these, and similar issues. All Masonry
does, really, is remind us that we are to find ways of causing true
friendships to exist among those who might otherwise have remained at
a perpetual distance. Masonry encourages us to practice Brotherly
Love, Relief, Truth, Faith, Hope, Charity, Respect, Temperance,
Fortitude, Prudence and Justice. It does this, largely, by presenting
us with symbols, inspirational reminders, of these ideas.
However, HOW we are to do those things are left up to us. How we will
interpret the symbols is our decision. What actions we will
undertake, or not, is left to our own election.
Consider the rainbow. Everyone sees something different when looking
at a rainbow
A physicist sees a practical demonstration of the refraction of light
across the visible spectrum.
An Old Testament scholar sees a reminder of the covenant G-d made with
Noah.
A New Testament scholar sees a reminder of the fulfillment of the
promise of a Deliverer.
A child sees pretty colors.
A storyteller sees a leprechaun protecting his pot of gold.
An artist sees brilliant hues and gorgeous transitions.
A meteorologist sees the end of a long rain.
All of them are looking at the same rainbow. It is objectively
measurable. Everyone sees the same thing. We all agree what we are
seeing, hearing, etc. We agree on the shape, color, size, location
and so on. The rainbow as an object does not vary. The
interpretations men make of it, when seeing it as a symbol, however,
will.
Masonry shows us rainbows, and asks us to consider what they mean,
what we see in them. Different people will see different things in
the same rainbow.
A red light will mean different things in different contexts to
different people.
A photographer see it as a signal that a developments process is under
way.
An actor sees it as an indication which camera is currently on.
A cop sees it as a means of traffic control.
A machine operator sees it as a signal that power is on.
A vice cop sees it as an indication that prostitution is happening.
A kid sees it as a sign that a holiday is approaching.
It would be kind of silly for a traffic cop to write a ticket for
someone who drives past a brothel without stopping. But that is
exactly what happens when someone tries to impose *their*
interpretations on
others.
Having said that, it IS important to remember that the *law* (as
distinct from the meanings of the symbols) is clear that when someone
operates a motor vehicle, he agrees to abide by the rules. Among
those rules is one about stopping at intersections where a red light
is displayed. Failure to stop may mean being cited for an offense, or
even that physical harm may come to someone. These would not be good
things - so we drivers enter into a social contract to abide by the
rule, or suffer the penalties.
But abiding by a rule, and agreeing with an interpretation of a symbol
are COMPLETELY separate matters. No contradictions, no interaction.
A red light means whatever it means to the individual. The law
requires that we stop under certain conditions. Neither has any
effect on the other. Neither subordinates it's importance to the
other. Separate and distinct.
========
THE NUMBER THREE
The number Three is one of the most important numbers in Masonic
symbolism.
I would like to address just one (for now) aspect of it's meaning.
In the lecture of the Second Degree, we say that Masonry is divided
into Two sections - Operative and Speculative. I would submit that in
adopting a symbolic approach to teaching, and the inclusion of so many
symbols into our Craft, it is really Three parts (like the 24" gauge).
Operative, Speculative and Applied.
The Operative Masonry provides us with our history (real or symbolic),
the Speculative gives us the impetus to discover and develop our own
interpretations of the symbols, and the Applied pushes us forward, out
into the real world, to make our contributions to it. We make those
contributions not only out of our G-d given talents, but out of the
added value of our Masonry - Veiled in Allegory and Illustrated by
Symbols.
------------------------------
[end]