Ghost writing...
Elizabeth G. Levy
<Just waiting for Isaac Asimov's _Guide to the Afterlife_>
--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
-- _Bob Roberts_
Steve Russell
I agree so totally about Asimov's GUIDE TO THE AFTER LIFE. The only thing that
stopped that man from arrogantly writing on every subject under the sun
was his death. Like you I wouldnt be shocked to see it in the hard back section
of my local bookstore.:)
BTW............COME YOU GUYS.........WRITE MORE STORIES......IM HOOKED!!!:0
SINCERELY YOURS ......STEVE R.........very much alive:)
miu...@lure.latrobe.edu.au
> ...that there is a _new_ L. Ron Hubbard book in the bookstore.
>
> <Just waiting for Isaac Asimov's _Guide to the Afterlife_>
>
I think I'll wait for it to hit video! :)
Morgana
Elizabeth G. Levy
I'd be more interested in seeing the Books-On-Tape version, read
by the estimable Doctor himself.
--
"I wish there was a way I could vote for you a hundred times"
"There is . . . just kidding."
-- _Bob Roberts_
Hal Wadleigh
1. Some dead authors put out new books written after they are dead.
2. Some live authors put out books they have never seen themselves.
3. Some authors who never existed as real people put out books.
An example of 1 is V.C. Andrews, whose name is used on books written by
others who use characters and plotlines begun by the "real" V.C.Andrews.
An example of 2 is Ron Goulart's Tek books published as by Shatner.
Examples of 3 abound among "series" books in which a publisher's "house"
pen name is used on books written by a series of contract writers.
Laura L. Barnes
Books), has trademarked the name. V.C. Andrews was once a living, breathing
human being, but she died and the publisher retained the rights to her name
because it sells books. If you look on the books, the author is actually V.C.
Andrews TM, who is actually some poor "ghost writer".
Laura
S. Mudgett aka little gator
>All the following are true:
>
>1. Some dead authors put out new books written after they are dead.
>2. Some live authors put out books they have never seen themselves.
>3. Some authors who never existed as real people put out books.
>An example of 2 is Ron Goulart's Tek books published as by Shatner.
another is "imprisoned with the pharaohs", originally credited to harry houdini
but actually written by h.p. lovecraft. modern lovecraft anthologies list it
as written "with harry houdidni".
--
-- little gator aka s. mudgett email: s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us
-- friend of a gator is a friend of mine
cvet...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
> but actually written by h.p. lovecraft. modern lovecraft anthologies list it
> as written "with harry houdidni".
Hmmm, I thought the Harry Houdin story was titled "Under the Pyramids?"
I'm currently the Lovecraft collection and the story appeared in the volume
"Dagon and Other Macabre Tales."
BTW, for you H.P. Lovecraft readers out there, any truth behind the dreaded
Necronomicon? I HAD a copy of that I bought at a bookstore, just for the hell
of it.
Mark Fernee
|> In <1992Sep10....@HQ.Ileaf.COM>, Hal Wadleigh writes:
|> >All the following are true:
|> >
|> >1. Some dead authors put out new books written after they are dead.
|> >2. Some live authors put out books they have never seen themselves.
|> >3. Some authors who never existed as real people put out books.
|>
|> >An example of 2 is Ron Goulart's Tek books published as by Shatner.
|> another is "imprisoned with the pharaohs", originally credited to harry houdini
|> but actually written by h.p. lovecraft. modern lovecraft anthologies list it
|> as written "with harry houdidni".
|> --
|> -- little gator aka s. mudgett email: s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us
|> -- friend of a gator is a friend of mine
What a great story.
I love to read individual Lovecraft stories, but an entire anthology gets
a bit tedious. The strange case of Charles Dexter Ward is one of my fav's.
Are all the best writers of ghost stories and the supernatural dead?
I have heard a narrated version of Lovecrafts, The rats in the walls.
I can no longer find it, but it was great listening after midnight.
Mark.
Michael Rogero Brown
>
>BTW, for you H.P. Lovecraft readers out there, any truth behind the dreaded
>Necronomicon? I HAD a copy of that I bought at a bookstore, just for the hell
>of it.
>
The Necronomicon is wholly fictious. As a sort of joke, Lovecraft wrote up
a little piece giving the history of it, including the various editions and
the locations of the 5 known copies. Many people didn't get the joke and
have searched for a copy.
Other people decided to write their own Necronomicon and palm it off on these
idiots as the real thing. I have heard of three totally different versions
created. The latest was even printed in paperback. Several stores carried
it in their 'Occult' section. Heck I have a copy of this one. The existence
of these books makes it difficult to convince some people (like Fundementalists)
that the Necronomicon and the monsters Lovercraft created are just fiction.
I should know as I have had discussions/arguements with some of these people.
The whole idea for the Necronomicon was inspired in part by the non-existantant
play "The King in Yellow" mentioned in a series of short stories by Robert
Chambers and the real grimories that existed like the "Keys of Solomon".
Many of the 'Lovecraft Circle' created their own books to add to the list.
These books include "The Revelations of Glaaki", the "Unspeakable Cults", the
"Cultes de Goules" and other tomes.
Michael Brown
--
<< >>
<< Michael R. Brown CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ >>
<< Internet: mich...@sol.cse.fau.edu >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax >>
Mark Fernee
|> > another is "imprisoned with the pharaohs", originally credited to harry houdini
|> > but actually written by h.p. lovecraft. modern lovecraft anthologies list it
|> > as written "with harry houdidni".
|>
|> Hmmm, I thought the Harry Houdin story was titled "Under the Pyramids?"
Not in the copy that I have.
|>
|> I'm currently the Lovecraft collection and the story appeared in the volume
|> "Dagon and Other Macabre Tales."
|>
|> BTW, for you H.P. Lovecraft readers out there, any truth behind the dreaded
|> Necronomicon? I HAD a copy of that I bought at a bookstore, just for the hell
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> of it.
|>
|>
What ever you do DON'T READ IT or you go irreversibly INSANE.
Mark.
Elizabeth G. Levy
Dang. Wish someone told me sooner. <gibber, gibber>
--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake.... I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."
Derek Tearne
You only become irreversibly insane if you read it backwards.
ObUL: You can get special red marker pens to enhance the quality of
subliminal messages on CD's
Derek "sdrocer drahciR ffilC no segassem naitsirhc esrever era erehT" Tearne
--
Derek Tearne. -- de...@nezsdc.icl.co.nz -- Fujitsu/ICL New Zealand --
Some of the more aware dinosaurs were worried about the environmental
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
cvet...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
> The Necronomicon is wholly fictious. As a sort of joke, Lovecraft wrote up
> a little piece giving the history of it, including the various editions and
> the locations of the 5 known copies. Many people didn't get the joke and
> have searched for a copy.
Yeah, but did you actually try some of the summonings as listed in the book?
Would be pretty damn funny if you can actually call up Cthulhu!
Ia! Shub-Nigguarth! The Goat with a Thousand Young! Heheh.
Reading Lovecraft's stuff have a strange effect on people...
Elizabeth G. Levy
>
>> The Necronomicon is wholly fictious. As a sort of joke, Lovecraft wrote up
>> a little piece giving the history of it, including the various editions and
>> the locations of the 5 known copies. Many people didn't get the joke and
>> have searched for a copy.
>
>Yeah, but did you actually try some of the summonings as listed in the book?
>
>Would be pretty damn funny if you can actually call up Cthulhu!
>
>Ia! Shub-Nigguarth! The Goat with a Thousand Young! Heheh.
An otherworldly piping, that floats with the aether....
<stomp> <stomp> cvet...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu was never heard from
again...
>
>Reading Lovecraft's stuff have a strange effect on people...
>
>
WA...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
was by "the mad arab" Abdul Alhazred. It think it was a cookbook formerly
titled _To Serve Man_.
Brian Waugh | "What's for dinner?"
WA...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU | Charles Dexter Ward
APPRENTICE
>In article <BuJrE...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fer...@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>, cvet...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
>
>>|> BTW, for you H.P. Lovecraft readers out there, any truth behind the dreaded
>>|> Necronomicon? I HAD a copy of that I bought at a bookstore, just for the hell
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>|> of it.
>
>>What ever you do DON'T READ IT or you go irreversibly INSANE.
I don't know about that but in the beginning of a copy I looked at
had this in the beginning:
"Read no further for what is written within you will carry
with you for the rest of your life."
Pretty good words of wisdom. This is a DARK book and once read, just like
anything, it becomes a part of you. Do you really want that?
Apprentice
bill nelson
: |>
: |> I'm currently the Lovecraft collection and the story appeared in the volume
: |> "Dagon and Other Macabre Tales."
: |>
: |> BTW, for you H.P. Lovecraft readers out there, any truth behind the dreaded
: |> Necronomicon? I HAD a copy of that I bought at a bookstore, just for the hell
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: |> of it.
: |>
: |>
:
: What ever you do DON'T READ IT or you go irreversibly INSANE.
Hm. Is that what drives some people to make idiotic posts?
Bill
bill nelson
:
: I don't know about that but in the beginning of a copy I looked at
: had this in the beginning:
:
: "Read no further for what is written within you will carry
: with you for the rest of your life."
:
: Pretty good words of wisdom. This is a DARK book and once read, just like
: anything, it becomes a part of you. Do you really want that?
How do you parse the above. I can think of a number of ways, each giving a
completely different meaning to the sentence.
Bah. If a person reads it as fiction, then it is no worse than many other
tales.
Bill
Terry Chan
+: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+fer...@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
+: What ever you do DON'T READ IT or you go irreversibly INSANE.
Say, didn't Eddie Antar read this book before starting Crazy Eddie's?
Terry "Outsane" Chan
--
Energy and Environment Division | Internet: TWC...@lbl.gov
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory |
Berkeley, California USA 94720 | It's not weird enough for me yet.
Mark Fernee
I've read it, and that's why I post to rec.pyrotechnics.
Mark.
Mark Fernee
|> tales.
|>
|> Bill
To some it may be fiction, to some it may be fact.
Reality is subject to ones perceptions of it.
This last statement I truly believe..
"The mind is a terrible thing to taste" - Ministry
Mark.
Mark Fernee
|> +: |> Necronomicon?
|> +: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> +fer...@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
|>
|> +: What ever you do DON'T READ IT or you go irreversibly INSANE.
|>
|> Say, didn't Eddie Antar read this book before starting Crazy Eddie's?
|>
|>
|> Terry "Outsane" Chan
I don't know (gibber gigger)
Mark "Unsane" Fernee
Mark Fernee
In article <1992Sep17.1...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, you write:
|> : To some it may be fiction, to some it may be fact.
|>
|> What a person believe it to be does not change whether something is fact
|> or fiction.
Ah! the demon "objective truth" steps in.
|>
|> : Reality is subject to ones perceptions of it.
|>
|> It is true - personal reality is totally subject to the person's perceptions.
|> If that reality is too much in variation with what most other people believe,
|> then they tend to lock you up as "mentally ill".
|>
|> Bill
You seem to be referring to ones subjective perceptions of an
objective reality. While this sounds reasonable, it plunges us
into the depths of the fundamental philosophical debate on the
existance of objective reality.
You should recall that subjective reality is the basis of the
anthropic principal. One may postulate an objective reality,
(this is what scientists do) but one can NEVER prove this. In my
reality, errant behavior can lead to being "locked up". But
then this is MY reality and you are all simply manifestations
within it.
I believe this to be a self consistent model of the universe.
It is simpler than an objective world view, as it doesn't need
the fundamental postulate of an objective reality. Thus,
occams razor reduces objective reality to tiny shreds.:-)
Don't take this all too seriously. It doesn't change the
universe or increase your tax return.
The universe is what you perceive it to be. Not what you
want it to be.
Mark.
bill nelson
: In article <1992Sep16.1...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: |>
: |> How do you parse the above. I can think of a number of ways, each giving a
: |> completely different meaning to the sentence.
: |>
: |> Bah. If a person reads it as fiction, then it is no worse than many other
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: |> tales.
: |>
: |> Bill
:
: To some it may be fiction, to some it may be fact.
What a person believe it to be does not change whether something is fact
or fiction.
: Reality is subject to ones perceptions of it.
Beverly M. Zalan
|> : I don't know about that but in the beginning of a copy I looked at
|> : had this in the beginning:
|> :
|> : "Read no further for what is written within you will carry
|> : with you for the rest of your life."
|> :
|> : Pretty good words of wisdom. This is a DARK book and once read, just like
|> : anything, it becomes a part of you. Do you really want that?
|>
|> How do you parse the above. I can think of a number of ways, each giving a
|> completely different meaning to the sentence.
|>
|> Bah. If a person reads it as fiction, then it is no worse than many other
to be about? Who wrote it?
Beverly M. Zalan
beb...@sru001.chvpkh.chevron.com
Deus Imperator
No...not quite exactly. Some books tend to build up a legend independent of
the material written on the pages. The Bible is one. Static since the
inclusion of Revelations, it is responsible for a great deal of good and evil
perpetrated on the Earth. The effect is profound. The aboriginal people of
the Americas never heard of it, and yet in the name of God they were
enslaved. This is, of course, not intended to be a bash on the Bible per se,
just how a misinterpretation can affect those not directly reading it.
The Necronomicon is another such book. Is it the tome of the Mad Arab? No.
Yet there are those around today, who actually worship Cthulhu. Trust me.
I know one. Is he disturbed? Perhaps. Is he less disturbed than the guy
on the Quad who tells me I will go to hell for being Catholic? Maybe, maybe
not. Let's look:
Cthulist: When my god pops up, you will be eaten, and I will be spared.
Christian: When my god pops up, you will be sent into hellfire, and I will be
saved.
When my "friend" confided he was a follower, I did the "curious" thing, and
bought the book, half off. I had powerful nightmares soon after, for
no particular reason. Every time I reached for the book, I got the sweats,
and I though, "Later..."
Finally, I looked thorough it, a month after purchasing it. Powerful, crazy
stuff. Being fairly educated, I did the "It's only fiction," thing. But
_knowing_ that someone actually took this as gospel lent it power, whether I
wanted to give it or not. I recognized that most of it was a cheap rip off
of a combination of Babylonian and Sumerian mythoi, with some "satanic" rituals
thrown in. And yet, in that way I get when I finally understand a Calculus
problem, it made perfect sense, in a sick sort of way. I put the book back,
this time cradling it against my Bible, and the nightmares stopped. It would
seem symboliccally I had accepted both, and by accepting both, conquered my
demons.
--
Thanatos, DeathUrge, Master of Everything But Love tgt3...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Oh God, does this mean we have to fight?"
-Selina Kyle, _Batman_
Mark Fernee
|>
|> |> : I don't know about that but in the beginning of a copy I looked at
|> |> : had this in the beginning:
|> |> :
|> |> : "Read no further for what is written within you will carry
|> |> with you for the rest of your life."
|> |> :
|> |> : Pretty good words of wisdom. This is a DARK book and once read, just like
|> |> : anything, it becomes a part of you. Do you really want that?
|>
|> to be about? Who wrote it?
|>
|> Beverly M. Zalan
|> beb...@sru001.chvpkh.chevron.com
Ah ha! You do not seem to be aware of the "Necronomicon" written by the mad arab
Abduhl Alhazred. This is an ancient tome containing many of the secrets of the
elder gods and the great old ones (Yog Sothoth, Cthulu, Shub Niggurath etc. (mind
the spelling please)).
To read the Necronomicon is to surely go insane. For it is said that there
are such horrible vistas hidden from our every day lives, filled with vast
and incomprehensible loathsomeness, that merely a glimpse into such stygian
realms would surely send any mortal irrevocably insane. The Necronomicon is
said to hold the key which unlocks the gates to these realms of indescribable
horror.
There are many tales of those who have searched for such knowledge, only to
find eternal torment or death. Sometimes both. These tales are told primarily
by one H. P. Lovecraft.
Read the strange case of Charles Dexter Ward. You will be rewarded.
Mark.
Seth L. Blumberg
>In article <1992Sep16.1...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>> BTW, for you H.P. Lovecraft readers out there, any truth behind the dreaded
>>> Necronomicon? I HAD a copy of that I bought at a bookstore, just for the
>>> hell of it.
>>
>> What ever you do DON'T READ IT or you go irreversibly INSANE.
>
>The Necronomicon in it's present published state is a part of a part
>of a part of the orriginal Works, that if read could conceivably drive
>you insane. The present publishing will not have this effect, but
>what is written in it is true and can happen. I advise you NOT to
>attempt such things as they would be extremely stupid and bring about
>nasty results.
Oh, please....
In the collected letters of H. P. Lovecraft, Lovecraft tells his
friends that "the mad Arab, Abdul Alhazred" (supposed author of the
_Kitab_Al-Azif_, which was later translated into Greek and Latin as
the Necronomicon) was in fact the nom de guerre he used in childhood
fantasies based on the _Arabian_Nights_. The book is wholly an
invention of Lovecraft's vast imagination.
The paperback book entitled _The_Necronomicon_ is, in fact, utterly
unrelated to H. P. Lovecraft, his works, his estate, Arkham House
(which holds the sole right to publish Lovecraft's writings in
English), the estate of August Derleth, or anything else Lovecraftian.
It is, in short, entirely spurious. (In point of fact, the rituals it
describes are based on Sumerian, Akkadian, and other proto-Semitic
cultures, not on Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos stories.)
If you are interested in C.M. (Ceremonial Magick), you *may* find it a
useful resource, although it is my opinion that many better books are
widely available. Lovecraft's works, however, have *NO* connection to
traditional C.M. methodology; he based his horrific magical spells on
Einstein's theories of general and special relativity. The magic in
Lovecraft's books is of the Clarkeian type ("A sufficiently advanced
technology" etc.), being actually alien science.
And *PLEASE*, let's not mistake Lovecraft for his work. While H. P.
was unquestionably a disturbed individual, he did not believe what he
wrote in the Mythos stories. His letters make this clear.
As to the efficacy or lack thereof of any of the C.M. rituals
described in the so-called _Necronomicon_, I am not a practitioner of
(nor a believer in) C.M. of any kind, and can therefore offer no
opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth L. Blumberg | "Once again, fear and superstition triumphed over
sl...@cunixb.columbia.edu | science and technology."
On CI$: 76460,1666 | -- Anton Braun Quist, quoting Ed Whitaker
Dan Peters
> One may postulate an objective reality,
>(this is what scientists do) but one can NEVER prove this.
Granted.
>I believe this to be a self consistent model of the universe.
>It is simpler than an objective world view, as it doesn't need
>the fundamental postulate of an objective reality. Thus,
>occams razor reduces objective reality to tiny shreds.:-)
Not even remotely true. If you're saying that there is no objective reality
at all, this is an objective statement. That is, you're claiming the lack of
objective reality to be objective reality. A blatant contradiction.
On the other hand, if you admit that there is objective reality, and claim that
it is simply that there is no _other_ objective reality, then why should I take
your version of objective reality to be better than mine?
And as for Occam's razor... how can you possibly come up with a simple
explanation for the extraordinary correlations between your subjective reality
and the subjective realities (apparently) experienced by (what seem to be)
other people around you (such as the fact that people can get together and do
science), without either (a) admitting an objective reality which drives our
subjective realities, or (b) descending into solipsism (which philosophers have
long ago given up on, in part because of the existence of language, but that's
another story)?
>The universe is what you perceive it to be. Not what you
>want it to be.
It's neither.
Drin
--
-----------------
Gutted - Flame NA
Jason D. Carr
>: |>
>: |> I'm currently the Lovecraft collection and the story appeared in the volume
>: |> "Dagon and Other Macabre Tales."
>: |>
>: |> BTW, for you H.P. Lovecraft readers out there, any truth behind the dreaded
>: |> Necronomicon? I HAD a copy of that I bought at a bookstore, just for the hell
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: |> of it.
>: |>
>: |>
>:
>: What ever you do DON'T READ IT or you go irreversibly INSANE.
Right.....sure....
The Necronomicon in it's present published state is a part of a part
of a part of the orriginal Works, that if read could conceivably drive
you insane. The present publishing will not have this effect, but
what is written in it is true and can happen. I advise you NOT to
attempt such things as they would be extremely stupid and bring about
nasty results.
-Jason
--
Jason D. Carr | What is the answer to the|"To discover the stars,
j_c...@oz.plymouth.edu | Ultimate Question...Life,| to realize why we are,
Graham Toal
>>An example of 2 is Ron Goulart's Tek books published as by Shatner.
I didn't know that! I'm greatly relieved - i thought Shatner should have
done better (or not at all :-) )
>but actually written by h.p. lovecraft. modern lovecraft anthologies list it
>as written "with harry houdidni".
Little Scottish joke there? "Harry, who didnae?" :)
G
--
Therion
(APPRENTICE) says:
> I don't know about that but in the beginning of a copy I looked at
>had this in the beginning:
>
> "Read no further for what is written within you will carry
> with you for the rest of your life."
>
You people are talking about something that is published in paperback by
Avon books. Think about it.
Rick Kelly
> +: |> Necronomicon?
> +: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +fer...@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>
> +: What ever you do DON'T READ IT or you go irreversibly INSANE.
>
>Say, didn't Eddie Antar read this book before starting Crazy Eddie's?
He carefully studied the section on necroeconomics.
--
Rick Kelly r...@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk r...@frog.UUCP
Brian S. Lev
There are at least two *different* books entitled "Necronomicon" and neither
is (fortunately!!!) HPL's spellbook. One is artwork -- highly fascinating
and disturbing artwork -- by the artist H.R. Giger (designer of the original
Alien), and the other is an imitation "satanist" spellbook/semi-bible that
can be bought at most mainstream bookstores in the "occult" or "new age"
sections...
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian Lev/Hughes STX Corporation 301-286-9514 FAX 301-286-5152 |
| Goddard Space Flight Center DECnet: SDCDCL::LEV |
| Science Network Office, Code 930.6 TCP/IP: l...@dftnic.gsfc.nasa.gov |
| Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA BITNET: LEV@DFTBIT |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "The ability of a network to knit together the members of a sprawling |
| community has proved to be the most powerful way of fostering scien- |
| tific advancement yet discovered." -- Peter Denning |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| FREEDOM IS NOT FREE |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Warren Burstein
>Say, didn't Eddie Antar read this book before starting Crazy Eddie's?
If not, I can get him a copy now, I think he's still in an Israeli
jail while extradition procedures shlep (that's a legal term) on.
--
/|/-\/-\ In real life, the Vice President chastises Murphey Brown
|__/__/_/ for her morals. Bill Clinton plays the sax on "Arsenio
|warren@ Hall." Though "Batman Returns" is fiction, it's not too
/ nysernet.org much stranger than truth - Caryn James, The New York Times
bill nelson
: >: What ever you do DON'T READ IT or you go irreversibly INSANE.
:
: Right.....sure....
: The Necronomicon in it's present published state is a part of a part
: of a part of the orriginal Works, that if read could conceivably drive
: you insane. The present publishing will not have this effect, but
: what is written in it is true and can happen. I advise you NOT to
: attempt such things as they would be extremely stupid and bring about
: nasty results.
Why did you list me in your response - nothing I wrote was included.
The only relationship that the Necronomicon has with the works of Howard
is that he mentioned such a ficticious text.
Also, the current Necronomicons, of which there are several versions,
are also total works of fiction - having little to do with reality.
Have you read any of these books? If so - then you are either insane,
in which case we cannot trust what you write - or you were not affected,
in which case you obviously cannot be right or you would be insane. Either
way, you cannot be correct.
If you have not read the books, then you have no right to be posting dire
warnings about them.
Bill "Neeener, neeener, neener" Nelson
bill nelson
:
: The only relationship that the Necronomicon has with the works of Howard
: is that he mentioned such a ficticious text.
My apologies, it was in the wee hours of the morning. I meant Lovecraft.
Bill
bill nelson
: In article <1992Sep16.1...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: >:
: >: anything, it becomes a part of you. Do you really want that?
: >
: >How do you parse the above. I can think of a number of ways, each giving a
: >completely different meaning to the sentence.
: >
: >Bah. If a person reads it as fiction, then it is no worse than many other
: >tales.
: >
: >Bill
:
: No...not quite exactly. Some books tend to build up a legend independent of
: the material written on the pages. The Bible is one. Static since the
: inclusion of Revelations, it is responsible for a great deal of good and evil
: perpetrated on the Earth. The effect is profound. The aboriginal people of
: the Americas never heard of it, and yet in the name of God they were
: enslaved. This is, of course, not intended to be a bash on the Bible per se,
: just how a misinterpretation can affect those not directly reading it.
:
: The Necronomicon is another such book. Is it the tome of the Mad Arab? No.
: Yet there are those around today, who actually worship Cthulhu. Trust me.
: I know one. Is he disturbed? Perhaps. Is he less disturbed than the guy
: on the Quad who tells me I will go to hell for being Catholic? Maybe, maybe
: not. Let's look:
How does this disagree with what I wrote? Obviously, none of the people you
list above feel that either text is a work of fiction.
: When my "friend" confided he was a follower, I did the "curious" thing, and
: bought the book, half off. I had powerful nightmares soon after, for
: no particular reason. Every time I reached for the book, I got the sweats,
: and I though, "Later..."
Certainly, there was a particular reason. You half believed the stories you
had heard about the book.
: Finally, I looked thorough it, a month after purchasing it. Powerful, crazy
: stuff. Being fairly educated, I did the "It's only fiction," thing. But
: _knowing_ that someone actually took this as gospel lent it power, whether I
: wanted to give it or not. I recognized that most of it was a cheap rip off
: of a combination of Babylonian and Sumerian mythoi, with some "satanic" rituals
: thrown in. And yet, in that way I get when I finally understand a Calculus
: problem, it made perfect sense, in a sick sort of way. I put the book back,
: this time cradling it against my Bible, and the nightmares stopped. It would
: seem symboliccally I had accepted both, and by accepting both, conquered my
: demons.
I would rather believe that your demons are only bumping heads in your
subconscious. You do not conquer anything by acceptance - that is being
conquered.
Bill
Andrew Brown
>
> You should recall that subjective reality is the basis of the
> anthropic principal.
When I was at school we had an anthropoid principal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Brown | email abr...@cix.compulink.co.uk|
Religious Affairs Correspondent | phone +44-71-253-1222 xt 1682 |
The Independent |---------------------------------|
London, England | I'm not paid to have opinions |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mcirvin
Damn, and I got such a lovely vision of Moe Howard writing about Cthulhu.
Matt "nyuk, nyuk, nyuk" McIrvin
--
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Mark Fernee
|> fer...@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
|>
|> > One may postulate an objective reality,
|> >(this is what scientists do) but one can NEVER prove this.
|>
|> Granted.
|>
|> >I believe this to be a self consistent model of the universe.
|> >It is simpler than an objective world view, as it doesn't need
|> >the fundamental postulate of an objective reality. Thus,
|> >occams razor reduces objective reality to tiny shreds.:-)
|>
|> Not even remotely true. If you're saying that there is no objective reality
|> at all, this is an objective statement. That is, you're claiming the lack of
|> objective reality to be objective reality. A blatant contradiction.
|>
|> On the other hand, if you admit that there is objective reality, and claim that
|> it is simply that there is no _other_ objective reality, then why should I take
|> your version of objective reality to be better than mine?
How about a third option: There is NO NEED for an objective reality. If one
can never prove the existance of such, one then needs to postulate this
existance. A subjectivist simply operates withont this postulate. The
universe behaves as he perceives it.
|>
|> And as for Occam's razor... how can you possibly come up with a simple
|> explanation for the extraordinary correlations between your subjective reality
|> and the subjective realities (apparently) experienced by (what seem to be)
|> other people around you (such as the fact that people can get together and do
|> science), without either (a) admitting an objective reality which drives our
|> subjective realities, or (b) descending into solipsism (which philosophers have
|> long ago given up on, in part because of the existence of language, but that's
|> another story)?
There are no other subjective realities. Only my own. If I were to state that all
other manifestations within my own reality had their own personal reality,
independent of my own, then I would have to subscribe to a "subjective
objectivist" philosophy (ie. subjective perceptions of an objective reality).
I will mention that all other supposed realities must appear within the framework
of my own reality which is in turn solely subject to my perceptions.
|>
|> >The universe is what you perceive it to be. Not what you
|> >want it to be.
|>
|> It's neither.
If you perceive the universe, to you, how can it be otherwise?
You seem certain of your statement. Are you God?
Perceptions are all we have.
|>
|> Drin
|> --
|> -----------------
|> Gutted - Flame NA
Mark.
Objectivism is not a bad world view. However there are alternatives.
(Oh! Mr Bradman. What a service.)
Dan Peters
>In article <peters.7...@physics.ubc.ca>, pet...@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters) writes:
>|> fer...@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>|>
>|> > One may postulate an objective reality,
>|> >(this is what scientists do) but one can NEVER prove this.
>|>
>|> Granted.
[I really should have answered this sentence with more than a single word....
It's too easy to misinterpret. Clarification: I grant that the _specifics_ of
any objective reality, such as scientists postulate, can never be proven. I do
not grant, however, that the existence of _some_ objective reality cannot be
proven. In fact, in my previous posting, I proved exactly that.]
[stuff about "there is no objective reality" vs "yes, there is" omitted]
>How about a third option: There is NO NEED for an objective reality. If one
>can never prove the existance of such, one then needs to postulate this
>existance. A subjectivist simply operates withont this postulate. The
>universe behaves as he perceives it.
When you have examined "X is true" and "X is false", there is NEVER a third
option. You are simply restating the first option, which is self-contradictory.
[stuff about correlations between different people's subjective realities
omitted]
>There are no other subjective realities. Only my own. If I were to state that
>all other manifestations within my own reality had their own personal reality,
>independent of my own, then I would have to subscribe to a "subjective
>objectivist" philosophy (ie. subjective perceptions of an objective reality).
>I will mention that all other supposed realities must appear within the frame-
>work of my own reality which is in turn solely subject to my perceptions.
Thank you for clarifying your position. You exist, and I don't. Very cute. In
fact, you can even make that self-consistent if you're careful (this would
entail a few modifications to your views about objective reality), but I hope
you'll understand if I don't agree with that view.
>|>
>|> >The universe is what you perceive it to be. Not what you
>|> >want it to be.
>|>
>|> It's neither.
>If you perceive the universe, to you, how can it be otherwise?
>You seem certain of your statement. Are you God?
I _hope_ that's a rhetorical question. :-)
Seriously, you seem to have the whole God concept backwards. If I claim that
my perceptions are all-encompassing, that is a Godlike claim. I was doing the
exact opposite: claiming that I have limits. That there is _something_ which
does not depend on me. In short, that I'm not God.
>Perceptions are all we have.
What? Have you no will? No emotions? No reason?
I was assuming you possessed reason. If I'm wrong, then there's no point in
trying to argue with you, is there?
>Mark.
Dan Peters
>What? Have you no will? No emotions? No reason?
>I was assuming you possessed reason. If I'm wrong, then there's no point in
>trying to argue with you, is there?
After posting this, I realized it sounded awfully rude... oops...
Perhaps a few smileys would help?
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Starting a flame war is never my intent....
Stephen Mintz exp 11/92~
Agreed!!!
Mark Fernee
I apreciate your arguement and (you may think this surprising) agree with
most of it.
However there seems to me no clear case for rejecting subjective
philosophy accept on the feeble grounds that "it seems unreasonable".
This is hardly rigorous now. Is it?
If I may say this.. You drive a good arguement.
A point that I would like to make is that it IS possible to work
entirely within this subjectivist framework. All word views must
necessarily produce an equivalent basis for observation if they are
to correctly describe our observations.
I am not a subjectivist, nor am I an objectivist. Why? Because I
can not show which is correct. So I live with, and ignore the delima.
>>Perceptions are all we have.
>What? Have you no will? No emotions? No reason?
These are not to the point. Will, emotions and reason exist within us.
They are part of the psyche (if you like) and without perceptions would
be "blind". Lets not get too technical (cognitive psychology and the like).
>>If you perceive the universe, to you, how can it be otherwise?
>>You seem certain of your statement. Are you God?
>I _hope_ that's a rhetorical question. :-)
Yep!
>Seriously, you seem to have the whole God concept backwards. If I claim that
>my perceptions are all-encompassing, that is a Godlike claim. I was doing the
>exact opposite: claiming that I have limits. That there is _something_ which
>does not depend on me. In short, that I'm not God.
You assert there is more yet you cannot observe this. Faith? It is true, my
argument suggests a minor god view (omniscient but not omnipotent).
>|> >The universe is what you perceive it to be. Not what you
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> >want it to be.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Thank you for clarifying your position. You exist, and I don't. Very cute. In
Oh you definitely exist and are providing this excellent discussion.
>fact, you can even make that self-consistent if you're careful (this would
>entail a few modifications to your views about objective reality), but I hope
>you'll understand if I don't agree with that view.
I thought it was self-consistent. I will ponder it more. I would hope that
you would agree with my view, as I would agree with yours when it is inturn
completely self-consistent. You just need more starting axioms than I.
Which is better? Who can say?
>>How about a third option: There is NO NEED for an objective reality. If one
>>can never prove the existance of such, one then needs to postulate this
>>existance. A subjectivist simply operates withont this postulate. The
>>universe behaves as he perceives it.
>When you have examined "X is true" and "X is false", there is NEVER a third
>option. You are simply restating the first option, which is self-contradictory.
I thought that you did not offer a binary choice. They were not inverses.
Even if you have described a complete binary state, one may perform a unitary
transformation and achieve a more suitable basis.
Oh! and sorry for the sexist terminology. Please refer to "he" as the generic
form "she/he".
>It's too easy to misinterpret. Clarification: I grant that the _specifics_ of
>any objective reality, such as scientists postulate, can never be proven. I do
>not grant, however, that the existence of _some_ objective reality cannot be
>proven. In fact, in my previous posting, I proved exactly that.]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oops, I guess I missed the subtlty.
If you can not logically prove an objective reality, how can you prove this
"_some_ objective reality" of which you speak. It must always be a starting
axiom, even if it seems reasonable.
Oh, I retract the statement about scientists postulating an objective reality.
This IS inconsistent with my arguement and it is NOT necessary to do science.
Some physicsts studying very early cosmology and quantum gravity may postulate
an objective universe, but then they can't predict anything anyway. Any
prediction made by these models doesn't ascribe any fundamental truth to them.
It simply states that they adequately model what we can observe.
Where is the proof of an objective reality?
This has been a hurried posting, but nevertheless; over to you!
Mark.
Oh, how's this for an afterthought. You cannot PROVE anything is objectively
REAL, but you may presume it is. However you don't need to go beyond
subjective realism, unless it threatens your sanity. :-)
Dan Peters
email. Mark, you should be getting my next response within a day or so.
APPRENTICE
> I don't know about that but in the beginning of a copy I looked at
>had this in the beginning:
>
> "Read no further for what is written within you will carry
> with you for the rest of your life."
>
>anything, it becomes a part of you. Do you really want that?
>
I just wanted to add to what I posted a few days ago. There has been
much talk about the Necronomicon being fiction. Fine, so its fiction. Be that
as it may, it does not make the book any less evil. Just remember that the
sub-conscious does not differentiate between fact and fiction. If one feeds
it evil, that evil is in there for the rest of one's life.
Apprentice
Warren Burstein
>The universe is what you perceive it to be. Not what you want it to be.
This is AFU, where the universe is what the FAQ says it is.
bill nelson
:
: I just wanted to add to what I posted a few days ago. There has been
: as it may, it does not make the book any less evil. Just remember that the
: sub-conscious does not differentiate between fact and fiction. If one feeds
: it evil, that evil is in there for the rest of one's life.
How can a collection of words be good or evil? They are just words. Now,
the intent of writing them might be to put a person in a particular frame
of mind, or sway a person's judgement in a particular way, but that does
not make the book evil.
If your mind happens to accept the work of fiction as "evil", then that
says more about your frame of mind than it does about the book. If a person
reads something and decides that it is indeed evil, they can reject the
information as being unworthy of retention - there is no such thing as this
"evil" remaining with you for the rest of your life - unless you wish it to
do so in the first place. Once again, this is a function of the person, not
the book or words in the book. The book cannot force you to do anything - it
is totally inanimate.
Bill
Derek Tearne
>fer...@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>
>> One may postulate an objective reality,
>>(this is what scientists do) but one can NEVER prove this.
>
>Granted.
>
>>I believe this to be a self consistent model of the universe.
>>It is simpler than an objective world view, as it doesn't need
>>the fundamental postulate of an objective reality. Thus,
>>occams razor reduces objective reality to tiny shreds.:-)
>
>And as for Occam's razor... how can you possibly come up with a simple
>explanation for the extraordinary correlations between your subjective reality
>and the subjective realities (apparently) experienced by (what seem to be)
>other people around you (such as the fact that people can get together and do
>science), without either (a) admitting an objective reality which drives our
>subjective realities, or (b) descending into solipsism (which philosophers have
>long ago given up on, in part because of the existence of language, but that's
>another story)?
Now that was a sentence and a half.
Remember the modern Occams razor has twin blades which flex to the
profile of the reality in question. There is a teflon strip for that slick
polished proffesional finish and the whole thing swivels around those tricky
areas of objective subjectivity and solipsism. Guaranteed not to give you
spots or that existentialist soreness so common in teenagers.
Yes, the modern Occams razor can handle much more complex problems than
the old cut-throat type.
>
>>The universe is what you perceive it to be. Not what you
>>want it to be.
>
>It's neither.
No, it's two products in one.
Derek "It's a floor wax, it's a desert topping." Tearne
--
Derek Tearne. -- de...@nezsdc.icl.co.nz -- Fujitsu/ICL New Zealand --
Some of the more aware dinosaurs were worried about the environmental
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
Jason D. Carr
>: The Necronomicon in it's present published state is a part of a part
>: of a part of the orriginal Works, that if read could conceivably drive
>: you insane. The present publishing will not have this effect, but
>: what is written in it is true and can happen. I advise you NOT to
>: attempt such things as they would be extremely stupid and bring about
>: nasty results.
>
>is that he mentioned such a ficticious text.
>
>Also, the current Necronomicons, of which there are several versions,
>are also total works of fiction - having little to do with reality.
>
>Have you read any of these books? If so - then you are either insane,
>in which case we cannot trust what you write - or you were not affected,
>in which case you obviously cannot be right or you would be insane. Either
>way, you cannot be correct.
>
the published version. They are not a Work of Fiction, but are a
compiling of Magickal Techniques Wards, Spells, Bindings and the like.
Believe me or no...it is your choice, and seeing as how I have more
knowledge than you on Magick *although less than initiated
practitioners* that allows me to write what >I< know, just as much as
you have to right to put on here what >you< know.
case closed.
>Bill "Neeener, neeener, neener" Nelson
Bite me Fan Boy :)
Derek Tearne
>option. You are simply restating the first option, which is self-contradictory.
If you examine the truth of X in a binary (digital) world then there are
two values. We do however still live in a generally analogue world where
true and false are not absolutes. There are therefore _always_ many other
options.
There are only two options when truth or falsehood can be proved absolutely.
Derek "2+2=5, for a sufficiently large 2" Tearne
'Al baby, two plus two is five and a quarter, that`s why people fall in love'
- Thomes Dolby.
Deus Imperator
in the audience tonight. Every time some poor little dweebling comes on
asking if the paperback Necronomicon is the "real" thing, the majority of
us either a) hit "n" or b) flame the little greaseball. A few of us, pushed
over the head by one too many Mary Worth posts, however, decide to have a bit
of fun...
What if ol' HPL screwed up, and clued in most of mankind to one of
those "Things that man was not meant to know," and then tried to cover it
up with a cockamamie story about it being his childhood name? All the
conspiracy buffs begin to take interest. "Yeah, I saw a copy of the book
right over...HEY! WHERE'D IT GO!!" What if all those bits of Mythos that
are scattered across history, form a cohesive narrative about the time before
Man? What if ol' Cthulhu is a' waiting for California to fall into the sea,
and he can usurp Disneyland for himself?
The point is that we all know the Necronomicon is fake. If it were
real, man would have done himself in by now (compared to how many take the
paperback Necronomicon as fact, I'd say that was a good estimation). But
why not have some fun? This _is_ folklore, and very much about ghosties and
ghoulies and things that go bump in the night. If you don't like it, hit
"k," and your world will be a happier place for it. Let us have our three
weeks of fun, swapping stories about how we saw Hastur (996...) at a bar,
trying to pick up a tri-delt, and even _then_ he couldn't score.
After all...it beats Calculus.
--
I don't mind being the smartest / Thanatos, DeathUrge, Master of Unknown
man in the world...I just wish it \ Time and Space tgt3...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
wasn't this one... / "No, I don't know how much unknown is...
-Ozymandias \ ...THAT'S THE POINT!"
Mark Fernee
|>
|> Remember the modern Occams razor has twin blades which flex to the
|> profile of the reality in question. There is a teflon strip for that slick
|> polished proffesional finish and the whole thing swivels around those tricky
|> areas of objective subjectivity and solipsism. Guaranteed not to give you
|> spots or that existentialist soreness so common in teenagers.
|>
|> Yes, the modern Occams razor can handle much more complex problems than
|> the old cut-throat type.
I think you have the wrong razor in mind. Occams eazor is definitely
electric, with that neat double action that cuts deeper to give you that
more realistic feel.. Feels good, huh?
Why, I was so impressed, I bought the company.
Wanna buy an occams razor?
Mark.
"Pour forth black blood. Pour forth black blood life. Black blood life..."
Mark Fernee
|> I have not read the original _Necronomicon_, but have read parts of
|> the published version. They are not a Work of Fiction, but are a
|> compiling of Magickal Techniques Wards, Spells, Bindings and the like.
|> Believe me or no...it is your choice, and seeing as how I have more
|> knowledge than you on Magick *although less than initiated
|> practitioners* that allows me to write what >I< know, just as much as
|> you have to right to put on here what >you< know.
|>
|> case closed.
|> >Bill "Neeener, neeener, neener" Nelson
|>
|> Bite me Fan Boy :)
|> Jason
|> --
Uh oh, Fat Al rears his ugly head.
Remember, use you *powers* for niceness, not nastyness.
By the way, who is Ipsisimus these days?
Mark :)
JUST remember the NAME: Yog Sothoth!
Squirm ye mortals.
Laurence Doering
>>: Right.....sure....
>>: The Necronomicon in it's present published state is a part of a part
>>: of a part of the orriginal Works, that if read could conceivably drive
>>: you insane. The present publishing will not have this effect, but
>>: what is written in it is true and can happen. I advise you NOT to
>>: attempt such things as they would be extremely stupid and bring about
>>: nasty results.
>>
>>The only relationship that the Necronomicon has with the works of Howard
>>is that he mentioned such a ficticious text.
>>
>>Also, the current Necronomicons, of which there are several versions,
>>are also total works of fiction - having little to do with reality.
>>
>>Have you read any of these books? If so - then you are either insane,
>>in which case we cannot trust what you write - or you were not affected,
>>in which case you obviously cannot be right or you would be insane. Either
>>way, you cannot be correct.
>>
>I have not read the original _Necronomicon_, but have read parts of
>the published version. They are not a Work of Fiction, but are a
>compiling of Magickal Techniques Wards, Spells, Bindings and the like.
>Believe me or no...it is your choice, and seeing as how I have more
>knowledge than you on Magick *although less than initiated
>practitioners* that allows me to write what >I< know, just as much as
>you have to right to put on here what >you< know.
Believe him. I'm reading the _Necronomicon_ right now, and it's
more than a work of fiction. Much more. For the last several nights,
I've been troubled by strange dreams, dreams of such an unspeakably
indescribable terror I can hardly bring myself to recall them.
And, whatever you do, *don't* read page 43. For the love of God,
don't. I just did, and I see it -- coming here -- hell-wind --
titan blur -- black wings -- Yog-Sothoth save me -- the three-lobed
burning eye _AQ#^#
Q$^*Eaffe# ^
NO CARRIER
Larry "oops - phone's ringing - must be the Call of Cthulhu" Doering
Mark Fernee
'cos we're mates, ya know.) was sittin in dis pub avin a few beers, right.
An then this bloke come over an said to Yoggy,
" I fink youse an ugly bastard, right!".
Well, no-one ever said that to Yoggy before. Least not when Ise
about. So Yoggy got up an said,
"You avin a go at me, mate?"
An e said,
"Yeah, ya dumb prick! What ov it?"
Youse should've seen the look on Yogs faces. I mean, e's not the
looker I am. Shit, e's downright pig ugly. But, ya wouldn't tell
im. He's the meanest bastard I ever seen. An pretty nasty too.
So Yoggie turnes to me an smiled. E said,
"Dis bastards gonna wear it, good"
While Yog was sayin dis, da bloke took a swing. E's a dirty bugger,
dat one. Kick an old codger in a wheel chair, e would. His fist
hit Yoggie fair between some ov is eyes. Shit, Yoggie didn't
feel a fing. He just looks at the bastard, real nasty like, an
says,
"You ****wit! Dis is your last day on earf"
Wif that e flicked a tentacle, an da bastard falls backward into
dis gaping void dat had formed behind im. The wind was howlin, an
all the furniture in da pub was flyin about, gettin sucked inta da
void. The bloke didn stand a chance. E was sucked fru screamin',
"I aint done wit you yet, you ugly Baaaa......"
Last fing I saw was is eyes poppin out ov is ead. I must admit. At
dat point I was impressed. It's not every day you see some greasy
bastard sucked fru a void, but then me beer was gettin warm. So
I turned back round, to see me beer was spilt all over da bar.
"Ya lousey bastard, Yog. Ya spilt me beer."
I said.
So Yoggie bought me another one, cos me an Yoggie is mates.
He's also great fun at parties. But, dats another story.
Mark.
John Gateley
...the three-lobed burning eye...
Didn't Barry Manilow make a three-lobed burning eye once?
John "Its a tough job, but somebody has to do it" Gateley
--
gat...@rice.edu
Si pots llegir aquest, m'agradaria si contestessis.
Brian Scearce
> We do however still live in a generally analogue world where true and
> false are not absolutes. There are therefore _always_ many other
> options.
Or perhaps not!
Brian "I'm *so* glad alt.folklore.ghost-stories was created... after
about a hundred postings, none of them are ghost stories and all
of them are cross-posted to AFU" Scearce
---
Brian Scearce b...@sector7g.eng.sun.com
The above does not necessarily represent Sun policy.
It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.
bill nelson
: >in which case we cannot trust what you write - or you were not affected,
: >in which case you obviously cannot be right or you would be insane. Either
: >way, you cannot be correct.
: >
: I have not read the original _Necronomicon_, but have read parts of
: the published version. They are not a Work of Fiction, but are a
: compiling of Magickal Techniques Wards, Spells, Bindings and the like.
: Believe me or no...it is your choice, and seeing as how I have more
: knowledge than you on Magick *although less than initiated
: practitioners* that allows me to write what >I< know, just as much as
: you have to right to put on here what >you< know.
Ok - they are publications rehashing already existing spells etc. So what?
They are still works of fiction - with the pretense that they are original
compilations. There is certainly nothing there to make the books "evil" or
"dangerous".
As for knowledge of Magic/magick - I have no idea of the relevant amount of
knowledge. However, if you believe that objects, by themselves, can be evil
or malignant, then I suspect you only have a superficial knowledge that is
badly tainted by judea-christian religious beliefs.
: case closed.
I never knew one was opened.
Bill "I don't bite strangers" Nelson
bill nelson
:
: Believe him. I'm reading the _Necronomicon_ right now, and it's
: more than a work of fiction. Much more. For the last several nights,
: I've been troubled by strange dreams, dreams of such an unspeakably
: indescribable terror I can hardly bring myself to recall them.
:
: And, whatever you do, *don't* read page 43. For the love of God,
: don't. I just did, and I see it -- coming here -- hell-wind --
: titan blur -- black wings -- Yog-Sothoth save me -- the three-lobed
: burning eye _AQ#^#
: Q$^*Eaffe# ^
:
: NO CARRIER
:
: Larry "oops - phone's ringing - must be the Call of Cthulhu" Doering
Heh, heh. Thanks Larry. I needed cheering up.
Bill
Peter Alan Dutton
Does anyone know the origin of the myth that the moon was made out of
green cheese? Or is there a reference handy? Sure doesn't look green to me.
Peter!
Kimberly Diane Faircloth
Kimberly Faircloth | kim...@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Users Consultant | x04...@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Texas A&M University | kim...@zeus.tamu.edu
(409) 845-8956 | ch...@zeus.tamu.edu
"But Soft! What rock through yonder window breaks? It is a brick!
and Juliet is out cold..."
Tom Johnson
As I remember it, "Green Cheese" is an archaic term for "new cheese", i.e.
cottage cheese. The modern phrase could be that the moon is made of
Ricotta.
--tom
Charles Lasner
>
>Why, I was so impressed, I bought the company.
>
>Wanna buy an occams razor?
Didn't your company make the 3M surgical occams razor?
cjl
Martin Ouwehand EPFL-SIC/SE
It may come from books by Lewis Caroll on formal logic. To stress that the validity of inferences solely rests on the truth or falsehood of the
component propositions and not on their meaning, he uses example like :
"If the moon is made of green cheese, then sharks don't smile"
or somesuch surrealistic sentences.
Martin?
Connie M. Doss
Jane Beckman
>green cheese? Or is there a reference handy? Sure doesn't look green to me.
"underripe." In cheesemaking, cheese in the curd (like
cottage cheese) is called "green" (unaged) cheese. Thus, the
moon looked like it was made of cottage cheese. Which if you
look at it just right, it does.
--
Jilara [ja...@swdc.stratus.com]
"Don't be so open-minded your brains fall out." --Barry
Shein, on the net
Dolf Grunbauer
>Does anyone know the origin of the myth that the moon was made out of
>green cheese? Or is there a reference handy? Sure doesn't look green to me.
I don't know whether it is a real myth, I only have heard of a green cheese
moon in some sort of a logical proof (obviously fake proof :-)
I have forgotten the real 'proof' but it is something like:
Theorem: the moon is made of green cheese
Proof : there are two possibilities:
1. the moon is made of green cheese
2. the moon is not made of green cheese
Now we now that the moon is moon is made of green cheese (see
the Theorem, why would we want to try to proof a false Theorem :-)
so possibility 2 is not true, leaving only possibility 1 which
clearly states that the moon is made of green cheese.
Is this the reference you were looking for ? Is this a Dutch joke only ?
Dolf
--
_ _
/ U | Dolf Grunbauer E.C.H.O. Development Digital Equipment Enterprises
/__'< do...@echo.philips.nl do...@toet.echo.tds.philips.nl
88 |_\ mcsun!echo.philips.nl!dolf Was Dat voor niets ?
Citecheck Hell
>I don't know whether it is a real myth, I only have heard of a green cheese
>moon in some sort of a logical proof (obviously fake proof :-)
>I have forgotten the real 'proof' but it is something like:
>
>Theorem: the moon is made of green cheese
>Proof : there are two possibilities:
> 1. the moon is made of green cheese
> 2. the moon is not made of green cheese
> Now we now that the moon is moon is made of green cheese (see
> the Theorem, why would we want to try to proof a false Theorem :-)
> so possibility 2 is not true, leaving only possibility 1 which
> clearly states that the moon is made of green cheese.
>
>Is this the reference you were looking for ? Is this a Dutch joke only ?
Do the Dutch like Jerry Lewis also?
Ted "shouldn't this be cross-posted to rec.humor.funny?" Frank
--
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
ted frank | th...@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Michael Parks Swaim
>If you examine the truth of X in a binary (digital) world then there are
>two values. We do however still live in a generally analogue world where
>true and false are not absolutes. There are therefore _always_ many other
>options.
TWM, Motif, and OpenLook make for three options, and that's only for Suns.
If you add the Macs, RTs and IBM PCs you've got many options. (X11R3 through
X11R5, as a matter of fact.)
>There are only two options when truth or falsehood can be proved absolutely.
Three, if you include "who cares."
>Derek "2+2=5, for a sufficiently large 2" Tearne
Mike "all a Sun 3's good for's an X terminal" Swaim
--
Mike Swaim | Canada will become the next world power
sw...@owlnet.rice.edu | and they will work to ENSLAVE all the nations
Disclamer: I lie | of your planet. -Ricardo
Cthulhu in '92! The stars are right!
Terry Chan
+>I don't know whether it is a real myth, I only have heard of a green cheese
+>moon in some sort of a logical proof (obviously fake proof :-)
+>I have forgotten the real 'proof' but it is something like:
+>
+>Theorem: the moon is made of green cheese
+>Proof : there are two possibilities:
+> 1. the moon is made of green cheese
+> 2. the moon is not made of green cheese
+> Now we now that the moon is moon is made of green cheese (see
+> the Theorem, why would we want to try to proof a false Theorem :-)
+> so possibility 2 is not true, leaving only possibility 1 which
+> clearly states that the moon is made of green cheese.
th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
+>
+>Is this the reference you were looking for ? Is this a Dutch joke only ?
+
+Do the Dutch like Jerry Lewis also?
+
+Ted "shouldn't this be cross-posted to rec.humor.funny?" Frank
Maybe rec.humor.d.
Terry "Is there REALLY someone named Brad Templeton?" Chan
--
Energy and Environment Division | Internet: TWC...@lbl.gov
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory |
Berkeley, California USA 94720 | It's not weird enough for me yet.
S. Mudgett aka little gator
authors actual childhood), a "green cheese" is unripe, not green-colored.
a green, or new cheese, has a lumpy texture which the moon's surface
was thought to resemble.
when we watched the first moonwalk on tv, my mommy served crackers and
green-tinted cream cheese in honor of the occasion.
--
-- little gator aka s. mudgett email: s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us
-- friend of a gator is a friend of mine
S. Mudgett aka little gator
>
>Didn't your company make the 3M surgical occams razor?