[SUMMARY] What is the purpose of alt.vampyres?
B J Kuehl
I have collected all of the comments and responses recently
exchanged on this newsgroup with respect to the controversy
regarding the real(tm) vampires who wish to use alt.vampyres
as their personal forum for networking, for information
exchange, and for spreading the word about their truth(tm).
I refer those who have not yet read these comments to retrieve
the thread entitled "[GROUP DISCUSSION] What is the purpose
of alt.vampyres?" The originals of these excerpts are also
available upon request.
Calling for a group discussion, I posed four questions and
posted all of the comments which I have so far collected that
deal with each question. Here is my summary of these comments:
Question 1:
- Was the alt.vampyres newsgroup, according to its faq,
incorporated to discuss vampyres in a specific genre and,
if so, does that genre umbrella those who call themselves
Real vampires and whom the newsgroup calls Real(tm)
vampires?
The alt.vampyres faq is the calling card for this newsgroup. It
contains the statement of purpose, suggests appropriate topics
of discussion, and provides the answers to some of the more
frequently-asked questions of this group. The faq is posted
bimonthly and is recommended, if not required, reading for all
first-timers to this newsgroup.
In its opening statement, the alt.vampyres faq attempts to
address the purpose of the newsgroup as well as to delineate
appropriate topics of discussion. To this end, the faq says:
"This group is for the discussion of vampyre mythology, such
as the psychology, physiology, and relation of the vampyre to
modern-day human life, and the distribution of original fiction,
such as stories or poetry, which lie within the vampyre realm.
This is one of the few places on the Internet which allows people
to share ideas and creative works concerning the life and times of
vampyres....Whether it is interactive fiction, straight fiction,
poetry, physiological Q&A, or any number of other subjects, as
long as it relates to the vampyre genre, it is welcome here."
It would seem, therefore, that the faq is specific in that it
allows for the sharing of fictional literature, poetry, and
mythology related to vampyres but, at the same time, it is vague
in its definition of vampyre mythology, vampyre psychology,
and the vampyre "realm". The use of the spelling "vampyre",
as opposed to the modern word "vampire" suggests, to some, a
gothic orientation, while to others the "y" was chosen only
for ambience. Consequently, it is difficult, if not impossible,
to pin down the boundaries of "the vampyre genre" in order to
determine whether those calling themselves "real vampyres" are
umbrellaed under the purpose statement of this newsgroup.
Without such a previous qualifier from the faq, the responsibility
for answering the question thus falls upon the heads of the
current residents of alt.vampyres to decide amongst themselves:
Question 2:
- Should the alt.vampyres newsgroup become a place for the
Real(tm) vampires to congregate in order to network with
their own kind and discuss their disease processes and
theories?
AND
Question 3:
- Is the continued discussion of Real(tm) vampires posing a
disruptive force to the purpose and the ongoing discussions
on the newsgroup alt.vampyres?
From the messages (all of which are available upon demand)
which have so far been catalogued in relation to these questions,
it would appear that the majority of those who cared enough to
render an opinion do NOT wish to share space on alt.vampyres
with Real(tm) vampires who are here to proselytize their
truth(tm). It would also appear that the majority of a.v.
contributors see the purpose of the Real(tm) vampires to be
in opposition to the purpose of the alt.vampyres newsgroup.
The overwhelming consensus of the newsgroup is that the presence
of proselytizing Real(tm) vampires is contributing to divisiveness
on this newsgroup.
In the past, when a singular topic has become so overwhelming
that it has threatened to splinter the newsgroup and overshadow
its stated mission of being a place for broad discussion of
the vampire realm, there is evidence that the acceptable manner
of dealing with this problem has been for the proponents of
the singular topic to split themselves from this newsgroup and
create a place of their own for discussion specifically
related to their concern.
So it became that such singular topics as the books of author
Anne Rice or the mythologies and rules of vampire role-playing
games attained their own status as places where these subjects
could be discussed ad nauseum. Directions to these sites were
then added to the alt.vampyres faq so that persons interested
in this specific milieu could be referred there. In the long run,
both alt.vampyres and these sister sites have benefitted from
this arrangement.
This leads to the fourth question:
- Are there existing groups, sites or boards where Real(tm)
vampires can congregate to discuss their specific interest
and should the faq be rewritten to direct such discussion
to those places?
This is actually two questions. With respect to the first question,
"Are there existing groups, sites or boards where Real(tm) vampires
can congregate to discuss their specific interest", the answer
appears to be 'yes'. Amy Krieytaz has spoken of the message
board of the Vampirism Research Institute and has also included
in her posts a sig message which provides a means to find places
designed specifically for the networking of those who call
themselves 'real vampires' by virtue of the fact that they think
themselves infected by DNA-altering retroviruses or parasites
from another dimension.
With respect to the second question "Should the faq be rewritten
to direct such discussion to those places?", several suggestions
have been made. One is that contributors to alt.vampyres simply
ignore the truthsayers, tell them to "piss off(sic), or post a
statement after every message to warn the naive that "This person
is a false messiah". Another is that the faq be amended to
contain a sentence or two warning that opinions and theories
should be presented as such or the messiah will be subject to
intense scrutiny and requests to provide credible evidence of
anything presented as the truth. A third is that a statement
be added to the faq which provides references to sites where
'real' vampires are congregated, similar to the referrals now
being made to such groups as rec.books.anne-rice and
alt.games.whitewolf.
It seems that the majority opinion is to somehow amend the faq
in order to have something specific to provide to future messiahs
and/or seekers to divert them in their mission before exchanges
between them and readers/contributors to alt.vampyres burst into
long and drawn-out flamewars. To that end, I am reposting the
referrals provided by the a.v. faq for those wishing to discuss
the works of Anne Rice or of vampire role-playing games. Would
someone be willing to compose a similar referral for the 'real'
vampires?
_______________________________________________________________
4.2 Have You Ever Seen Interview With A Vampire? Wanna Talk About It?
Yes, we've all seen it; no, we don't want to talk about it.
We have gone through many threads concerning the casting of IWTV,
the overall opinions on IWTV and psychological support groups
created because there are so damn many posts about IWTV. In short,
we have grown tired of talking about the movie. Starting a new
thread may get you a few nasty letters in return. However, for more
information about Anne Rice and her writing, try the newsgroup at:
alt.books.anne-rice.......
_________________________________________________________________
4.3 Have You Ever Heard Of Whitewolf's Vampire: The Masquerade Game?
Yes, we've all heard of it. Most, if not all, of us have
played it. Material relating to the game should only be posted *if
it is not rules-oriented*; since it is in line with the vampire
mythology, feel free to discuss vampire society, physiology,
psychology, etc., but don't ask questions about the rules or
discuss them here. If you do want to discuss rules, or you can't
differentiate between White Wolf and actual vampire legends, please
do it in alt.games.whitewolf or rec.games.frp.storyteller....
---------------------------------------------------------------
4.4 I've Heard that Vampirism is Really Due to a Vampire Retrovirus.
Can You Give me More Information about This?
Yes, we've heard about the DNA-altering vampire retrovirus
as well as the symbiont from another dimension. In both cases,
proponents of these theories have been unable to provide credible
evidence of their claims. The following letter from Professor
Jon Martin, Ph.D., Associate Professor for Virology from
the Mercer University School of Medicine, explains the current
status of human retroviruses: "Personally, I think the
retrovirus as an explanation is a clever notion ... but nothing
more than that. There are only three retroviruses known to
infect the human. One of them is HIV, which causes AIDS. A
second one causes an uncommon leukemia (human T-cell leukemia/
lymphoma virus; HTLV), and the third is not yet clearly
associated with human disease (but is related to HTLV)."
If, however, you would like more information about vampirism
as a disease-process brought on by a retrovirus or other
parasite, try contacting......
Comments?
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Amy Krieytaz
B J Kuehl wrote:
> With respect to the second question "Should the faq be rewritten
> to direct such discussion to those places?", several suggestions
> have been made.
[...]
> A third is that a statement
> be added to the faq which provides references to sites where
> 'real' vampires are congregated, similar to the referrals now
> being made to such groups as rec.books.anne-rice and
> alt.games.whitewolf.
[...]
> It seems that the majority opinion is to somehow amend the faq
> in order to have something specific to provide to future messiahs
> and/or seekers to divert them in their mission before exchanges
> between them and readers/contributors to alt.vampyres burst into
> long and drawn-out flamewars. To that end, I am reposting the
> referrals provided by the a.v. faq for those wishing to discuss
> the works of Anne Rice or of vampire role-playing games. Would
> someone be willing to compose a similar referral for the 'real'
> vampires?
Okay....
> 4.4 I've Heard that Vampirism is Really Due to a Vampire Retrovirus.
> Can You Give me More Information about This?
I'd replace this with a more general question:
4.4 (a) Where can I talk to some real vampires? OR (b) Would
you like me to tell you the truth about real vampires?
Following are some message boards on which self-described "real
vampires" congregate. We leave it to you to decide whether
they fit YOUR definition of "real vampires":
[Insert list of message boards; feel free to steal the list
from my site.]
Here on alt.vampyres, arguments about the nature of "real
vampires" has tended to lead to bitter flame wars. Therefore,
such discussion is discouraged here.
If you still want to include a question about the vampire retrovirus, I
would make this a separate question, #4.5, referring again to the
message boards in question 4.4.
Amy Krieytaz
akrieytaz @ hotmail.com
Vampire Research Resource Page
http://www.necronomi.com/users/akrieytaz/
(For a list of message boards discussing real-life self-described
vampires, click on "Real-life blood-drinkers and psychic vampires," then
click on "message boards.")
*** Please CC public replies to E-mail.
*** I will do likewise unless you ask me not to.
B J Kuehl
Amy Krieytaz writes:
> Here on alt.vampyres, arguments about the nature of "real
> vampires" has tended to lead to bitter flame wars. Therefore,
> such discussion is discouraged here.
This would be untruthful, since many pleasant discussions have
gone on between persons discussing definitions of vampirism.
Discussion of real vampires is not discouraged here.
Prostelytizing a self-styled definition of "Real" and then
trying to pass it off as the truth without any evidence to
back it up is what brings out the flamethrowers.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Amy Krieytaz
B J Kuehl wrote:
It would be nice if your statement were true. I very much wish it were.
Alas, it doesn't jive with my experience in alt.vampyres these past few
weeks. You, in particular, have been quite trigger-happy, repeatedly
seeing "Truth-Saying" where there was none, as others here have
observed.
Maybe what you're describing above is how things USED to be, but that's
not how they are now.
Amy Krieytaz
akrieytaz @ hotmail.com
Vampire Research Resource Page
http://www.necronomi.com/users/akrieytaz/
*** Please CC public replies to E-mail.
B J Kuehl
I wrote:
>> Discussion of real vampires is not discouraged here.
And Amy Krieytaz wrote:
>It would be nice if your statement were true. I very much wish it were.
>Alas, it doesn't jive with my experience in alt.vampyres these past few
>weeks.
Topics about real vampires which have been readily discussed on a.v.
in the past include, but are not limited to, blood-drinking, sun
sensitivity, definitions of 'vampire', morality, physiology, love,
psychic ability, intelligence, longevity, history, mythology,
crossing water, image reflection, finding victims, films and
literature, financial security, lifestyle, clothing, dentistry,
music preferences, food preferences, disease-resistance,
religion, reproduction, and on and on.
Topics which bring out the flamethrowers:
Prostelytizing a self-styled definition of "Real" and then
trying to pass it off as the truth without any evidence to
back it up.
>You, in particular, have been quite trigger-happy, repeatedly
>seeing "Truth-Saying" where there was none, as others here have
>observed.
It is quite obvious to me, Amy, that your reason for being here
is not to become a part of our group but 1) to pump us for information
so that you can take it back to your Real(tm) vampire friends, and
2) to play peacemaker until you can find a way to bring your
Real(tm) vampires here.
Whether I'm here or not, the group consensus is that they do not
wish to see alt.vampyres become a place for Real(tm) vampires to
congregate. You proposed starting a newsgroup for them. If you
are really concerned about 'peace', do it.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Amy Krieytaz
B J Kuehl wrote:
> Topics about real vampires which have been readily discussed on a.v.
> in the past include, but are not limited to, blood-drinking, sun
> sensitivity, definitions of 'vampire', morality, physiology, love,
> psychic ability, intelligence, longevity, history, mythology,
> crossing water, image reflection, finding victims, films and
> literature, financial security, lifestyle, clothing, dentistry,
> music preferences, food preferences, disease-resistance,
> religion, reproduction, and on and on.
>
> Topics which bring out the flamethrowers:
> Prostelytizing a self-styled definition of "Real" and then
> trying to pass it off as the truth without any evidence to
> back it up.
>
> >You, in particular, have been quite trigger-happy, repeatedly
> >seeing "Truth-Saying" where there was none, as others here have
> >observed.
>
> It is quite obvious to me, Amy, that your reason for being here
> is not to become a part of our group but 1) to pump us for information
> so that you can take it back to your Real(tm) vampire friends,
First, why do you see the above goals as mutually exclusive? Second,
does ANYONE come here INITIALLY with the intent to become part of the
group? Seems to me that most people would BEGIN participating for
whatever OTHER reason the topic interests them, and then decide to
become part of the group if they like it.
> and
> 2) to play peacemaker until you can find a way to bring your
> Real(tm) vampires here.
I don't care whether the problem is resolved by (1) self-described
vampires becoming welcome here or (2) the FAQ clearly directing them
elsewhere. I would like to see one solution or the other.
> Whether I'm here or not, the group consensus is that they do not
> wish to see alt.vampyres become a place for Real(tm) vampires to
> congregate.
Let's clarify what you (and everyone else) means by a "Real(tm)
vampire." In an earlier post, you defined a "Real(tm) vampire" as
anyone who thinks s/he is a vampire, in contrast to what you call raal
vampires, "a diverse group from folklore, mythology and history," if I
remember your wording correctly -- in other words, no real people who
are alive today.
However, you've also said that discussion of real SELF-DESCRIBED
vampires is not unwelcome here, as long as they are not "Truth-Sayers."
So then, precisely who are the "Real(tm) vampires" whom you and others
don't want congregating here? Are they "anyone who thinks s/he is a
vampire" -- in other words, any self-described vampire (other than an
RPGer) -- or are they just those self-described vampires who are also
"Truth-Sayers"?
> You proposed starting a newsgroup for them. If you
> are really concerned about 'peace', do it.
Starting a newsgroup is a big project, as others have pointed out -- not
something I can do immediately. In the meantime, listing the message
boards in the FAQ may be an interim solution, albeit a solution
available only to people with a web browser.
B J Kuehl
Dear Amy Krieytaz:
On the advice of other contributors to alt.vampyres, who have
recommended that, when discussion cannot go forth in a reasonable
manner, it would be best to simply post a form letter stating the
nature of the argument and why it can no longer be responded to,
I have composed the following message which will henceforth be
posted as a reply to your attempts to drum up sympathy for the
self-styled 'real vampires' who wish to make alt.vampyres their
usenet home so that they can network amongst their own kind and
discuss their paraticular forms of disease.
****************************************************************
There is no evidence that those calling themselves 'real
vampires' have contacted anything, much less that it is
contagious. Dozens of people here have reported that they,
too, are sunsensitive, reactive to metal, drink and/or crave
blood, etc. At least a half dozen people here have provided
you with legitimate medical reasons for all of the bodily
changes reported by self-styled 'real vampires'. Until these
people have been examined by qualified physicians (which does
not include you) and all medical and psychological conditions
have been ruled out, any diagnosis of vampirism due to the
contagious spread of vampire organisms is nothing more than
speculation or wishful thinking, at best.
You do not, nor does your nurse friend, have the educational
background to come to any conclusions about anyone's physical
condition. Neither of you is licensed to practice medicine or
to conduct the type of research which would be needed to
investigate this phenomenon. With your lack of credentials,
you are not qualified to get the most minor research study
past a human ethics board. Furthermore, anyone with even minor
training in research methodologies will tell you that conducting
such a study on the internet is so fraught with confounding
variables as to be utterly useless.
It may be your opinion that self-styled 'real vampires' have
a condition which is more than just psychosomatic, but your
opinions are not of importance. You do not have either the
educational background or the authority to make any kind of
informed theories, render any diagnoses, or come to any
conclusions about physical or psychological conditions. You
are merely playing games with these people and may, in fact,
be preventing them from getting the medical and/or
psychological help they need, which I find to be wholly
unethical on your part.
Barbara J. Kuehl, PhD (ABD)
Department of Educational Psychology
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
B J Kuehl
Amy Krieytaz writes:
> Starting a newsgroup is a big project, as others have pointed out --
> not something I can do immediately.
The best place to start is at the beginning. Have you started?
Yes, it's a big project, but I'm sure that it's no bigger than
attempting to find the contagious disease organism that is
turning everyone into 'real vampires' these days.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
B J Kuehl
Amy Krieytaz writes:
> I don't care whether the problem is resolved by (1) self-described
> vampires becoming welcome here or (2) the FAQ clearly directing them
> elsewhere. I would like to see one solution or the other.
In the discussion which has so far ensued on this topic, the vocal
majority has already demonstrated that the preferred solution is
best carried out by option 2. Now, all that remains is for the
faq to be so amended.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Amy Krieytaz
B J Kuehl wrote:
>
> Amy Krieytaz writes:
> > non-psychosomatic medical conditions in one of the portions of your
> > message quoted above. What would be so terrible about me doing
> > likewies?
>
> THEN DO IT! Stop lecturing to us and DO IT!
I have not been "lecturing" or "preaching" here, except for the purpose
of correcting YOUR misperceptions of things I've said. Kindly read my
posts a little more carefully before you respond, and our discussions
will be a lot shorter, with no need for "lecturing" or "preaching" on
either your part or mine. (You have been doing an awful lot of
lecturing and preaching yourself, BTW.)
Amy Krieytaz
Jarno Uurainen wrote:
> Amy Krieytaz <akrieytaz.NO-SPAM!@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : will be a lot shorter, with no need for "lecturing" or "preaching" on
> : either your part or mine. (You have been doing an awful lot of
> : lecturing and preaching yourself, BTW.)
>
> Look, kiddo. Tell your real vampire friends to come up with
> evidence or stop whining.
First of all, MY "real vampire friends" are, for the most part, NOT the
ones who have been posting here, but rather the ones I've met on message
boards. I do not know Catherine, Devilrhyms, or WngdWolf well enough to
call them friends, let alone TELL them to do anything.
> Of course this is a public newsgroup,
> and they are free to post here. As well, we are free to flame
> the shit out of the evangelists with no proof and big mouths.
I think you may be confusing two different things here: (1) your
(plural) flame war with the "Truth Sayers" and (2) BJ's flame war with
me. The post you're responding to dealt only with the latter, not the
former.
Amy Krieytaz
B J Kuehl wrote:
>
> Dear Amy Krieytaz:
>
> On the advice of other contributors to alt.vampyres, who have
> recommended that, when discussion cannot go forth in a reasonable
> manner, it would be best to simply post a form letter stating the
> nature of the argument and why it can no longer be responded to,
> I have composed the following message which will henceforth be
> posted as a reply
Hmmm, well, it looks like *I'm* going to have to compose a form letter
pointing out the many ways that YOUR form letter is inaccrate and, on
several points, contradicts itself. For now, I won't repeat the points
I already addressed in previous posts today, but will just address one
more:
On the one hand, you wrote:
> Dozens of people here have reported that they,
> too, are sunsensitive, reactive to metal, drink and/or crave
> blood, etc. At least a half dozen people here have provided
> you with legitimate medical reasons for all of the bodily
> changes reported by self-styled 'real vampires'.
On the other hand, you also wrote:
> It may be your opinion that self-styled 'real vampires' have
> a condition which is more than just psychosomatic, but your
Correction: it is my opinion that MANY of them (not necessarily all)
PROBABLY have a condition which is more than just psychosomatic. Of
course, only their doctors are qualified to draw any definite
conclusions, as I agreed in a previous post. But, until they do get a
diagnosis, what is wrong with pointing to the likely POSSIBILITY that
their condition might be diagnosed as something more than just
psychosomatic? Why is this any more "unethical" than your own impulse
to rule out certain possiblities?
In any event: You yourself pointed to the existence of known,
non-psychosomatic medical conditions in one of the portions of your
message quoted above. What would be so terrible about me doing
likewies?
Amy Krieytaz
B J Kuehl wrote:
>
> Amy Krieytaz writes:
> > not something I can do immediately.
>
> The best place to start is at the beginning. Have you started?
It is in the preliminary talking stages, yes.
B J Kuehl
Amy Krieytaz writes:
> In any event: You yourself pointed to the existence of known,
> non-psychosomatic medical conditions in one of the portions of your
> message quoted above. What would be so terrible about me doing
> likewies?
THEN DO IT! Stop lecturing to us and DO IT! Go to your vampire
research institute and all the vampire message boards where your
whiny, crying, angst-ridden 'real' vampires hang out and tell
THEM.
Those who are vampires here have no problem with their vampirism.
You're preaching to the wrong group.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Jarno Uurainen
Amy Krieytaz <akrieytaz.NO-SPAM!@hotmail.com> wrote:
: will be a lot shorter, with no need for "lecturing" or "preaching" on
: either your part or mine. (You have been doing an awful lot of
: lecturing and preaching yourself, BTW.)
Look, kiddo. Tell your real vampire friends to come up with
evidence or stop whining. Of course this is a public newsgroup,
and they are free to post here. As well, we are free to flame
the shit out of the evangelists with no proof and big mouths.
-Jake
Steven Penhollow
Jarno Uurainen (ja...@kontunet.fi) wrote:
: Look, kiddo. Tell your real vampire friends to come up with
: evidence or stop whining. Of course this is a public newsgroup,
: and they are free to post here. As well, we are free to flame
: the shit out of the evangelists with no proof and big mouths.
: -Jake
AMEN! *yaaaawn*
Rev. Avimelech Avigdor Penhollow
First Church of the Undead(TM)
http://www.outcast.org/gathering
blood...@hotmail.com
"self-professed preacher and whiner"
--
**************************************************
*it is not probable, but neither is our existence*
**********penh...@stu.beloit.edu.****************
Steven Penhollow
Amy Krieytaz (akrieytaz.NO-SPAM!@hotmail.com) wrote:
: I think you may be confusing two different things here: (1) your
: (plural) flame war with the "Truth Sayers" and (2) BJ's flame war with
: me. The post you're responding to dealt only with the latter, not the
: former.
1.) This has not been a flame war, but the chronic newsgroup poster's fear
that they, well...just were made to look stupid...and that hurts feelings
2.) ego.
Avi "Check Please!" Penhollow
blood...@hotmail.com
Chiller
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> opined thus: -
I have read the [GROUP DISCUSSION] and [SUMMARY] threads carefully and
have taken a few days to think about it.
There are aspects of the ideas contained within these threads which I
for one am highly uncomfortable with. Here are my thoughts: -
Assuming we add a section to the FAQ which states that
"truthsayers" are not welcome here, and will not be tolerated on
this newsgroup:
Carrying on from this thought:
What is the FAQ?
It is a list of answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Items
such as "What do you think of Anne Rice" are valid there.
However, SeekerSA and WingedWolf do not come here to ask
questions, so I wonder whether their existance on this NG can
possibly fall into the remit of this document.
How is this enforceable?
Are words in the FAQ sufficient reason to demand that sysadmins
discipline their users for posting here? I think most sysadmins
will look at the "truthsayers'" posts, see no swearing, and
conclude that - as this NG is unmoderated - they have caused no
slight and it is still up to us to deal with the perceived
problem.
What will happen if we add this to the FAQ?
Residents of alt.V will simply take it as carte blanche to flame
the "truthsayers" ad nauseam in the name of the FAQ - which is
in fact what has already been happening. I have not seen this
have any effect whatsoever upon SeekerSA or WingedWolf, both of
whom seem to regard it as an evil necessity of existing on
alt.V, something which must simply be "put up with".
It is quite possible that flaming "truthsayers" helps them feel
put upon and thereby even more heroic for keeping up the "good
work", no? In other words I believe that incessant flaming,
with or without a FAQ to back it up it may be making the
situation worse rather than better.
If the FAQ is amended, what weight does that carry with the
"truthsayers"?
We can say to "truthsayers": "Hey guys - check out the FAQ and
then fuck off"; but I suggest that if a simple "fuck off" was
not sufficient in the first place, one embedded in the FAQ will
fare little better, unless someone can show me that a FAQ is
sufficient reason to have people kicked off NGs by sysadmins.
If the FAQ refers people to other bulletin boards or organised groups?
Certainly in the case of SeekerSA, she is already a strong
presence on anything which contains "Vampire" in the title.
Referring her and those like her back to the "boards" from
whence they came will not get us anywhere in my opinion.
How do we classify people as "truthsayers"? Who gets the job?
This is really where my problem lies. This is where I become
uncomfortable. I can see that SeekerSA and WW are both
comfortably within the category of "truthsayer". However I
would not lump Sanguinarius or Amy K into that category - but I
think a lot of other people - BJ among them - would. I think
that the result of this, if we already had such a FAQ, would be
that Sang and Amy would have been slung out of the NG. I am a
member of this NG and I would strongly question the wisdom of
adding a section to the FAQ dealing with "truthsayers", if it is
in any way open to personal interpretation or applicable to
people whom not everyone agrees is actually a "truthsayer".
The reason I become uncomfortable is that I feel this discussion has
been driven, perpetuated and in many ways caused by a minority on this
NG which is just as tiny as the minority which *is* the "truthsayers"
themselves. We have, to my knowledge, two genuine "truthsayers" on this
NG. We have a far larger number of intelligent and capable posters.
If this newsgroup really has got to the stage where people are no longer
able to speak their minds succinctly, in one post, and have done with
it; but must instead rely on a FAQ to point at, then my appraisal of the
denizens of alt.V has been sadly optimistic.
My suggestion is this:
If there truly is a majority here who want to see the NG return to its
good old ways of poetry and prose, discussion and debate regarding
vampiric myth, history and literature; let's drop this pointless thread
and get on with some decent posts.
I can see no merit in a bunch of people sitting around and moaning that
nobody's posting anything good, when for the last n months the
newsgroups's entire energies have been squandered on a topic which
should never have *become* a topic.
Chiller
Ice and a slice?
chi...@cold.demon.co.uk
http://www.cold.demon.co.uk/index.html
Succubyss
>From: Chiller <chi...@the.fridge>
>I have read the [GROUP DISCUSSION] and [SUMMARY] threads carefully and
>have taken a few days to think about it.
>
>There are aspects of the ideas contained within these threads which I
>for one am highly uncomfortable with. Here are my thoughts: ->
succinctly put thoughts snipped:
Thank you, Chiller, for so eloquently putting into words my thoughts as well.
I wonder if this will regenerate the thread in which BJ threatens to leave if
we do not pander to her thoughts and ideas. What (TM) do we give this
phenomenon?
S (who thinks the" purpose of alt v " should NOT be the purpose of alt v)
In the real world <>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+
as in dreams, members.aol.com/Succubyss/succudex.html
nothing is quite +<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>
what it seems. -The Book of Counted Sorrows
B J Kuehl
Chiller writes:
> How do we classify people as "truthsayers"? Who gets the job?
>
> This is really where my problem lies. This is where I become
> uncomfortable. I can see that SeekerSA and WW are both
> comfortably within the category of "truthsayer". However I
> would not lump Sanguinarius or Amy K into that category - but I
> think a lot of other people - BJ among them - would. I think
> that the result of this, if we already had such a FAQ, would be
> that Sang and Amy would have been slung out of the NG. I am a
> member of this NG and I would strongly question the wisdom of
> adding a section to the FAQ dealing with "truthsayers", if it is
> in any way open to personal interpretation or applicable to
> people whom not everyone agrees is actually a "truthsayer".
Chiller, if you read the proposed addition to the faq, the word
'truthsayer' was never mentioned. The addition simply addresses
the popular retrovirus/parasite theory, states that there is
currently no evidence of it, and refers those who wish to talk
about it ad nauseum to groups where it constitutes the main topic.
Nothing more, nothing less.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
B J Kuehl
AFter reading Chiller's comments about truthsayers and the addition
to the faq, I wrote:
>Chiller, if you read the proposed addition to the faq, the word
>'truthsayer' was never mentioned. The addition simply addresses
>the popular retrovirus/parasite theory, states that there is
>currently no evidence of it, and refers those who wish to talk
>about it ad nauseum to groups where it constitutes the main topic.
Again, for Chiller's benefit, here is the proposed addition:
**********************************************************************
4.4 I've heard that vampirism is really due to a vampire retrovirus.
Is this true?
Yes, we've heard about the DNA-altering vampire retrovirus
as well as the symbiont from another dimension. In both cases,
proponents of these theories have been unable to provide credible
evidence of their claims. The following letter from Professor
Jon Martin, Ph.D., Associate Professor for Virology from
the Mercer University School of Medicine, explains the current
status of human retroviruses: "Personally, I think the
retrovirus as an explanation is a clever notion ... but nothing
more than that. There are only three retroviruses known to
infect the human. One of them is HIV, which causes AIDS. A
second one causes an uncommon leukemia (human T-cell leukemia/
lymphoma virus; HTLV), and the third is not yet clearly
associated with human disease (but is related to HTLV)."
If, however, you would like more information about vampirism
as a disease-process brought on by a retrovirus or other
parasite, try contacting......
***************************************************************
Your "concerns" made wonderful rhetoric but, as you can see from
the above, they are not based on fact.
I submit that you are still trying to turn this into a BJ war
based on ad hominem attacks. Why, Chiller?
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Amy Krieytaz
Chiller wrote:
> If the FAQ refers people to other bulletin boards or organised groups?
>
> Certainly in the case of SeekerSA, she is already a strong
> presence on anything which contains "Vampire" in the title.
> Referring her and those like her back to the "boards" from
> whence they came will not get us anywhere in my opinion.
>
Actually, I have NOT seen SeekerSA on any of the vampire message boards
that I hang out on, though I've heard that she hangs out on some AOL
boards.
> How do we classify people as "truthsayers"? Who gets the job?
>
> This is really where my problem lies. This is where I become
> uncomfortable. I can see that SeekerSA and WW are both
> comfortably within the category of "truthsayer". However I
> would not lump Sanguinarius or Amy K into that category - but I
> think a lot of other people - BJ among them - would.
WHAT??? Is this true? ARE there, in fact "a lot" of people here who
would consider ME a "Truth-Sayer"???? I have not gotten that impression
at all. As far as I can recall, NO ONE else besides BJ has ever
attempted to label me a "Truth-Sayer," though a few other people (such
as Jake) have expressed annoyance at my failed peacemaking attempts.
And, last I heard, even BJ was no longer trying to paint me as a
"Truth-Sayer" _per_se_, but rather as a "spokesperson" for the "Real(tm)
vampires." (That is, of course, unless she is attempting to label me a
"Truth-Sayer" AGAIN in some posts of hers today that I haven't read
yet.)
But you do raise a very important point: How does one determine who is
a "Truth-Sayer," and who decides? (If I wanted to, I could go through
some of BJ's recent posts and make a fairly good case for labeling *her*
a "Truth-Sayer"....)
Succubyss
>I submit that you are still trying to turn this into a BJ war
>based on ad hominem attacks. Why, Chiller?
>
>
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
A BJ war!?! What are you, nuts?!?! Chiller has addressed this in a calm,
cool(of course), detached manner into which she takes the "whole" of alt. v.
into consideration. The Real(tm)Truth(tm) postings sparked quite alot of
intellectual, amusing and VAMPIRE related posts. Should they "allowed" to
continue to post this tripe here? I say, NO, we have been there, done that.
It is simply annoying repetition at this point, most of it falling under the
"SPAM LAW". Sure, it would be great to just refer them to another group
where their theories would be applicable and they could feel free to chat it up
amongst themselves. That is already there for the majority of them, see
SeekerSA and her message boards. That doesn't stop her from posting once or
twice a month (at BJ's direction) to let the uniformed have the info.
BJ, you already have a "try contacting" list. I don't believe there are even
enough on that list to make the minimum amount of 10 for the charter spoken of
earlier. The majority of those on THAT list do not even post anywhere near
enough to be the overwhelming cause of a breakdown of this newsgroup..
Opinions have been asked for and received. I do think the majority of
"regulars" said to create an addendum to the FAQ to address this issue,
SO.........
Change the damn FAQ, but really, quit making more out of this than it is.
S (and BJ, I still don't believe changing the fact will make Amy Krietaz go
away)
B J Kuehl
Succubyss writes:
> S (and BJ, I still don't believe changing the fact will make Amy Krietaz go
> away)
Amy Krieytaz or anyone else is not that important that the
faq is being amended to make them go away.
The amendment has been proposed based on the opinions of the
majority of people who have suggested it as the best means of
directing those interested in talking about symbiont possession
or retroviral infection to an appropriate newsgroup.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Succubyss
>directing those interested in talking about symbiont possession
>or retroviral infection to an appropriate newsgroup.
>
>
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Called, oddly enough, alt.vampyres.appropriate.
S (starting to get silly)
B J Kuehl
Succubyss writes:
>>directing those interested in talking about symbiont possession
>>or retroviral infection to an appropriate newsgroup.
>
> S (starting to get silly)
Having a little pre-game nip, succy? :)
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Succubyss
>Having a little pre-game nip, succy? :)
>
>
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
>
>
>
How ARE things up in Cheeseheadland, BTW? All the vamps safely tucked away
before the Broncos light it up?
S (who dreads the time between football anf golf season)
B J Kuehl
When I asked Succubyss:
>>Having a little pre-game nip, succy? :)
She replied:
> How ARE things up in Cheeseheadland, BTW?
I dunno, Succy. I haven't bothered to venture outside yet.
Superbowl starts in about 2 hours, so I suspect everyone is
out running around, driving like jerks, picking up their
beer and pizza, etc.
> All the vamps safely tucked away
> before the Broncos light it up?
Well, this one is, anyway. How's by youse guys?
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Succubyss
BJ responded to my question re:state of things pre-Superbowl
>I dunno, Succy. I haven't bothered to venture outside yet.
>Superbowl starts in about 2 hours, so I suspect everyone is
>out running around, driving like jerks, picking up their
>beer and pizza, etc.
I'm with you, in the house ignoring all football stupidity. If there is one
sport that is NOT vampyric, it must be football. All those lights, greenery,
everyone protected from bloodshed.
Not for me thx. The only reason I am goin for de Bronco's is because I want
the championship moved as far from me as possible.
S
S
Alxxanndra
>In the real world <>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+
>as in dreams, members.aol.com/Succubyss/succudex.html
>nothing is quite +<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>
>what it seems. -The Book of Counted Sorrows
>I find this quote that you use fascinating. Can you tell me where to find
this Book of Counted Sorrows? The author?
Alexandra
>
Chiller
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> opined thus: -
>Barbara J. Kuehl, PhD (ABD)
>Department of Educational Psychology
>University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Gawd, she's rolled out the credentials again.
Chiller,
no letters but a whole lot of words.
chi...@cold.demon.co.uk
http://www.cold.demon.co.uk/index.html
Chiller
I will summarise both your posts here, as I cannot be bothered to send
two posts to a NG already labouring under the weight of all this piffle.
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> opined thus: -
>Chiller writes:
>> How do we classify people as "truthsayers"? Who gets the job?
>>
>> This is really where my problem lies. This is where I become
>> uncomfortable. I can see that SeekerSA and WW are both
>> comfortably within the category of "truthsayer". However I
>> would not lump Sanguinarius or Amy K into that category - but I
>> think a lot of other people - BJ among them - would. I think
>> that the result of this, if we already had such a FAQ, would be
>> that Sang and Amy would have been slung out of the NG. I am a
>> member of this NG and I would strongly question the wisdom of
>> adding a section to the FAQ dealing with "truthsayers", if it is
>> in any way open to personal interpretation or applicable to
>> people whom not everyone agrees is actually a "truthsayer".
>
>
>Chiller, if you read the proposed addition to the faq, the word
>'truthsayer' was never mentioned.
It was not mentioned in YOUR proposed addition to the FAQ, but a few
people seemed to feel that your proposed addition to the FAQ was rather
too specific / inappropriate - of which more, further down.
Remember, BJ, what you have done here is a proposal, nothing more. It
cannot yet be regarded as a fait accompli that it will get into the FAQ
*as is*, if at all.
BJ then continued about her proposal:
>The addition simply addresses
>the popular retrovirus/parasite theory, states that there is
>currently no evidence of it, and refers those who wish to talk
>about it ad nauseum to groups where it constitutes the main topic.
>
>Nothing more, nothing less.
BJ then continued, more indignantly in a second post: -
>AFter reading Chiller's comments about truthsayers and the addition
>to the faq, I wrote:
<slice reposted proposed FAQ addition>
>
>Your "concerns" made wonderful rhetoric but, as you can see from
>the above, they are not based on fact.
No, neither are they entirely based on *your* proposed amendments to the
FAQ, and I did not at any stage say they were. They were based on my
thoughts, and on the fact that several people have now commented that
any statement attempting to exclude that group of people I have referred
to here as "truthsayers" should be a general one, and may well be
useless.
It is plain to see that a FAQ amendment such as you have suggested will
be magnificently suited for the task which you had in mind as you wrote
it; viz: legitimately keeping SeekerSA and WingedWolf from the newsgroup
/ or giving just cause to flame them.
It doesn't take much imagination to see that as soon as someone arrives
at alt.V with a third alternative (ie, not DNA and not symbiont-based),
either another flame war will break out, or another FAQ amendment will
have to be added.
People have written in to this thread, amending and suggesting after
your original idea - and there is no law which says (unless you can show
me the relevant portion of the FAQ, stating that any thread started by
BJ must absolutely follow BJ's reasoning), that this cannot be done. I
said: -
"I have read the [GROUP DISCUSSION] and [SUMMARY] threads
carefully and have taken a few days to think about it."
I did not say "I have read only BJ's suggestions in the [above]
threads." Jetgirl suggested in the [DISCUSSION] thread that the point
be made more general, and Amy K has said the same thing. Julian
Richards seemed to think we will be unable to keep the loonies out
nomatter what. So does ScatterbuG, asking what good a FAQ amendment
will do. Succubyss doesn't seem to think a FAQ amendment will make a
lot of difference either. Barbarella thinks the FAQ already says
enough.
Personally I think an addition to the FAQ on this matter is a complete
waste of time.
>I submit that you are still trying to turn this into a BJ war
>based on ad hominem attacks. Why, Chiller?
Where have I made an ad hominem attack on you here, BJ? Do quote it.
Now perhaps you would like to address my comments in the previous post
on your (embellished) original idea.
What I would like to see before it is agreed that any amendment be made
to the FAQ is a complete list of the comments and authors of the
comments, both pro and con. I feel it is quite likely that some
comments have been taken out of context in order to pad the argument for
a FAQ amendment, to be frank. I would also like to see how amending the
FAQ will avoid the problems I have pointed out in this post, and in my
earlier post, a post which you have chosen to once again misinterpret
according to a BJ-centric view of anything I say, as having its only
cause my desire to make "*ad hominem* attacks" on you.
As a reminder, and considering that reposting material seems to be in
vogue these days, I shall ask again:
What is the FAQ?
How is this enforceable?
If the FAQ refers people to other bulletin boards or organised groups?
[With apologies if I have credited SeekerSA with being more omnipresent
than she actually is]
Certainly in the case of SeekerSA, she is already a strong
presence on anything which contains "Vampire" in the title.
Referring her and those like her back to the "boards" from
whence they came will not get us anywhere in my opinion.
How do we classify people as "truthsayers"? Who gets the job?
This is really where my problem lies. This is where I become
uncomfortable. I can see that SeekerSA and WW are both
comfortably within the category of "truthsayer". However I
would not lump Sanguinarius or Amy K into that category - but I
think a lot of other people - BJ among them - would. I think
that the result of this, if we already had such a FAQ, would be
that Sang and Amy would have been slung out of the NG. I am a
member of this NG and I would strongly question the wisdom of
adding a section to the FAQ dealing with "truthsayers", if it is
in any way open to personal interpretation or applicable to
people whom not everyone agrees is actually a "truthsayer".
Chiller
Chiller
Amy Krieytaz <akrieytaz.NO-SPAM!@hotmail.com> opined thus: -
>Actually, I have NOT seen SeekerSA on any of the vampire message boards
>that I hang out on, though I've heard that she hangs out on some AOL
>boards.
I have not taken the time or trouble to follow SeekerSA around the
internet, so I do not know where she hangs out - but if I have erred on
this matter, then I am sorry to have slurred your Vamp boards.
>However I
>> would not lump Sanguinarius or Amy K into that category - but I
>> think a lot of other people - BJ among them - would.
>
>WHAT??? Is this true? ARE there, in fact "a lot" of people here who
>would consider ME a "Truth-Sayer"???? I have not gotten that impression
>at all. As far as I can recall, NO ONE else besides BJ has ever
>attempted to label me a "Truth-Sayer," though a few other people (such
>as Jake) have expressed annoyance at my failed peacemaking attempts.
Well, I've seen Jake and BJ - mostly BJ - blast you for your opinions,
so I didn't want to restrict my comments to any individual. My news
server's been on the fritz for the last couple of weeks (off and on) and
I have to bear in mind that I may well have missed a post or two, and
got myself into a fact-lacuna. ;) In other words, I was butt-covering
by generalising.
>And, last I heard, even BJ was no longer trying to paint me as a
>"Truth-Sayer" _per_se_, but rather as a "spokesperson" for the "Real(tm)
>vampires." (That is, of course, unless she is attempting to label me a
>"Truth-Sayer" AGAIN in some posts of hers today that I haven't read
>yet.)
It does kind of bracket you in the same class of people as
"truthsayers", though, doesn't it?
>But you do raise a very important point: How does one determine who is
>a "Truth-Sayer," and who decides?
<snip>
That's what bothers me.
B J Kuehl
Chiller writes:
>>But you do raise a very important point: How does one determine who is
>>a "Truth-Sayer," and who decides?
> <snip>
>
> That's what bothers me.
No ONE decides. That is the reason for the addition to the faq.
It is a simple and polite way of telling those who wish to
"truthsay" (or to learn about what the 'truthsayers' say) to
look for that discussion elsewhere.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Succubyss
>>I find this quote that you use fascinating. Can you tell me where to find
this Book of Counted Sorrows? The author?
>Alexandra
>>
Actually, the quote is from author Dean Koontz. He includes a verse or two of
his poetry in each of his books. Eventually he plans to publish a book (as
rumor has it) of poetry under the title, "The Book of Counted Sorrows".
This some of the actual poetry:
"Cold Fire"
In the real world
as in dreams
nothing is quite
what it seems.
---
Life without meaning
cannot be borne
we find a mission
to which we're sworn
- or answer the call
of Death's dark horn
Without a gleaning
of purpose in life
we have no vision
we live in strife
- or let blood fall
on a suicide knife
---
Nowhere can a secret keep
always secret, dark and deep
half so well as in the past
buried deep, to last to last
Keep it in your own dark heart
otherwise the rumors start.
It goes on for a bit more, but these are the verses I like best.
S
Amy Krieytaz
Chiller wrote:
> "I have read the [GROUP DISCUSSION] and [SUMMARY] threads
> carefully and have taken a few days to think about it."
>
> Jetgirl suggested in the [DISCUSSION] thread that the point
> be made more general, and Amy K has said the same thing.
Just a brief clarification/reminder: That was my initial response, but
I eventually did agree with BJ's proposed revision.
Chooch
Cthulhu29 wrote:
>
(much snippage)
>
> While I would rather eat beer bottles and barbed wire and shit a string of
> Christmas lights before _ever_ having anything to do with SeekerSA or
> WngdWolf13 again, I would be willing to sign onto the charter for a new NG just
> to get it going. Unless I actually have to buy into their BS that is. Beyond
> that, I'd help where I could. I am in school now full time and that takes a lot
> of my time and that _will_ come first.
>
I would also be willing to sign onto a charter, and am also willing to
help. Lucadra was kind enough to send me a copy of the "creating an alt
NG" FAQ, which I'm still studying, I've started monitering the
alt.config NG, and I plan on talking to my ISP in the morning to see if
I can get any information &/or assistance that way. Being retired, I
probably have more time available than most, and I would like to help
with this. (At first glance, it appears that what we're proposing is
more of a NG "split" rather than an actual "from scratch" NG creation.
Indications in the FAQ are that that may be a bit easier to accomplish,
although the result is the same.)
>
> I am also rather certain that between Amy, Seeker, Puppy Flies, Sanguin, and
> myself we can find another 5 people to do the charter thing and get it going.
>
Count me in too, please. Any other 4 want to volunteer?
Richard Morrison
cho...@casagrande.com
B J Kuehl
Amy Krieytaz wrote:
> Just a brief clarification/reminder: That was my initial response, but
> I eventually did agree with BJ's proposed revision.
A big kiss and an apology to Amy for thinking that she was trying
to disrupt this newsgroup. My concern is only for the continued
harmonious existence of this group and for how to help those who
wish to discuss vampirism in a specific milieu.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
WngdWolf13
>But you do raise a very important point: How does one determine who is
>a "Truth-Sayer," and who decides?
It's simple, anyone with the sheer gall to say "this actually happened to me"
is considered a "truth-sayer"
--Winged Wolf
the were/psion
WngdW...@aol.com
Psion Guild
http://members.aol.com/psion425/Guild.html
WngdWolf13
I suggest that if the FAQ is to be amended to exclude discussion of
retroviruses or other proposed causes of vampirism, it should be done in a more
generalized fashion. It seems clear that discussions on the possible
physical/psychic causes of vampirism are not welcome here--in spite of the fact
that they are currently on-topic in the FAQ. I suggest you amend the FAQ with
less emphasis on the retrovirus theory, and make your request more broad
spectrum. A symbiont is, after all, not a parasite.
B J Kuehl
WingedWolf/shadowalker writes:
> A symbiont is, after all, not a parasite.
The difference between a symbiont and a parasite is in the
eye of the beholder. From everything we've been able to see,
the symbiont removes from the host a) intelligence, b) a
sense of humor, c) any sense of connection with other human
beings.
What does it give in return?
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Cthulhu29
At the risk of getting myself in to trouble again, I just wanted to say a
few things.
Changing the FAQ is a neat idea but if you think about it, how many of the
newbe's and "Truth-sayers" actually read the FAQ before they send out
something? Personally I think the change might be a good idea but that will
only work on those who read it and abide by it.
I think something like alt.real.vampires or alt.vampyres.real would be a
very good idea. I don't think it would _stop_ the uhm, experts from sending
theories here, but it would draw a lot of those looking for that sort of thing
away from here. One thing to remember though, most of those types of people
really need an audience or they just can't feel good about what they are doing.
(I think BJ pointed that out a while back)
While I would rather eat beer bottles and barbed wire and shit a string of
Christmas lights before _ever_ having anything to do with SeekerSA or
WngdWolf13 again, I would be willing to sign onto the charter for a new NG just
to get it going. Unless I actually have to buy into their BS that is. Beyond
that, I'd help where I could. I am in school now full time and that takes a lot
of my time and that _will_ come first.
I am also rather certain that between Amy, Seeker, Puppy Flies, Sanguin, and
myself we can find another 5 people to do the charter thing and get it going.
Why would I want to do that? Good question. I wish I had a better answer but
since I started reading this NG in Dec 96 (yeah, I lurk off and on a lot) it
seems like the fights over what is or is not real just keep getting longer and
more surreal. Personally speaking, I have been living in the land of the Real
(tm) theories for over a year now online and I'm rather tired of it. I want to
get into the liturature and things I have missed or never seen before.
I, like everyone else, have my own idea as to what is or is not "real" (I
hate that little word). Hell, I even posted it a while back and may do so again
if I get to feeling spunky. I would love to see some factual looks into things
Vampiric. Let me qualify that: factual as in provable. Personally, I think
"real" vampirism is mostly psychosomatic. But now I'm ranting. Sorry.
Anyway, that's what I wanted to say.
~Cth
\(^^^^)/
Jarno Uurainen
WngdWolf13 <wngdw...@aol.com> wrote:
: generalized fashion. It seems clear that discussions on the possible
: physical/psychic causes of vampirism are not welcome here--
Yes it is, as long as it's discussion on _POSSIBLE_ causes
of vampirism.
-Jake
Chiller
Chooch <cho...@casagrande.com> opined thus: -
>Count me in too, please. Any other 4 want to volunteer?
>
>Richard Morrison
>cho...@casagrande.com
I'll sign it. Though it may not sound much like it, my goal is an end
to these inane fights too.
Chiller
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> opined thus: -
>Chiller writes:
>>>But you do raise a very important point: How does one determine who is
>>>a "Truth-Sayer," and who decides?
>> <snip>
>>
>> That's what bothers me.
>
>
>No ONE decides. That is the reason for the addition to the faq.
>It is a simple and polite way of telling those who wish to
>"truthsay" (or to learn about what the 'truthsayers' say) to
>look for that discussion elsewhere.
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Uh - what happened to this, which you posted in reply to me over the
weekend: -
>Chiller, if you read the proposed addition to the faq, the word
>'truthsayer' was never mentioned. The addition simply addresses
>the popular retrovirus/parasite theory, states that there is
>currently no evidence of it, and refers those who wish to talk
>about it ad nauseum to groups where it constitutes the main topic.
>
>Nothing more, nothing less.
Do I take it you are now in favour of a slightly more generalised
addition to the FAQ?
Succubyss
Are there no requirements of the signees? You don't have to take the new
newsgroup oath or promise to attend 4 out of 5 meetings? You don't need a
sponser to call in the middle of the night? Mmmmm, I'll sign and then maybe
that new story I've been trying to write can have a tryout over there as
truth.....
S (I'll sign anything if it's free! )
B J Kuehl
Cthulhu writes:
> Changing the FAQ is a neat idea but if you think about it,
> how many of the newbe's and "Truth-sayers" actually read
> the FAQ before they send out something? Personally I think
> the change might be a good idea but that will only work on
> those who read it and abide by it.
If they don't read the faq first, the appropriate section from
the faq can be pointed out to them after they have posted their
inquiry, along with the sites where they can find the discussion
for which they are searching. Placing this small addition in
the faq for anyone to access will, hopefully, prevent the
flamethrowers from being immediately loaded.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
B J Kuehl
Chiller writes:
> Do I take it you are now in favour of a slightly more generalised
> addition to the FAQ?
I am in favor of the addition as I wrote it.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Succubyss
>Succy, you got your wish.
>
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
>
>
>
I usually do. Succubi are lucky that way.
S
White Spirit
Chooch wrote:
> Count me in too, please. Any other 4 want to volunteer?
S'pose so.
White Spirit
Chiller wrote:
> >But you do raise a very important point: How does one determine who is
> >a "Truth-Sayer," and who decides?
> That's what bothers me.
To my mind a truthsayer is one who talks about opinions theories and
beliefs as if they are fact and cannot/will not provide evidence to
support what they say.
Thornleaf
WngdWolf13 wrote:
>
> >But you do raise a very important point: How does one determine who is
> >a "Truth-Sayer," and who decides?
>
> is considered a "truth-sayer"
>
> the were/psion
> WngdW...@aol.com
> Psion Guild
> http://members.aol.com/psion425/Guild.html
Actually, just saying you're a vampire probably wouldn't be enough - I
would hope that anyone could say they were a vampire if they wanted to.
The difference between someone who says they are a vampire, and someone
who is a "truthsayer" is (from what I've seen) that a truthsayer goes on
to post his or her "vampire manifesto"; usually an over-long document
spouting pseudoscientific theories and stating they know everything
about vampires. It has occurred to me that a vampire would probably
prefer not to tell the world everything about vampirism (leaves one
terribly vulnerable, you know), and would only _suggest_ possibilities
without claiming to have proof that, for whatever reason, they just
can't possibly share freely with the group.
It's just a guess, though.
~Thornleaf
--
^""^ Kristina Miethner
> Oo < sols...@ican.net
--oo--oo-- yu12...@yorku.ca
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/5166
Amy Krieytaz
Wow! I start reading alt.v, and I see that, not only do a whole bunch
of people want a new newsgroup created, but a whole bunch of you are
actually willing to help, at least by signing the charter, and at least
two of you are actually willing to do more! Wonderful! (Especially
since both Sangi and I are getting more and more pressed for time right
now.) There are, however, a few issues that need to be discussed.
Chooch wrote:
> Cthulhu29 wrote:
[...]
> > Beyond
> > that, I'd help where I could. I am in school now full time and that takes a lot
> > of my time and that _will_ come first.
>
> I would also be willing to sign onto a charter, and am also willing to
> help. Lucadra was kind enough to send me a copy of the "creating an alt
> NG" FAQ, which I'm still studying, I've started monitering the
> alt.config NG, and I plan on talking to my ISP in the morning to see if
> I can get any information &/or assistance that way. Being retired, I
> probably have more time available than most, and I would like to help
> with this. (At first glance, it appears that what we're proposing is
> more of a NG "split" rather than an actual "from scratch" NG creation.
> Indications in the FAQ are that that may be a bit easier to accomplish,
> although the result is the same.)
Thanks VERY much to both of you.
If we go for a newsgroup "split," the new group would have to be called
alt.vampyres.real. Now, here's the problem: Sangi and I were thinking
of starting a newsgroup with a name that would contain NOT the word
"vampyre," but rather the word "blood-drinkers." There are a few
different reasons why we think this would be a good idea:
(1) It would cut down on the otherwise inevitable bickering over who is
or isn't a "real vampire." "Vampire" is a rather fuzzy concept these
days, whereas a blood-drinker is simply a person who drinks blood, end
of discussion.
(2) "Blood-drinker" is less glamorous-sounding than "real vampire," and
would therefore tend to cut down on the amount of BS. It would cut down
on both the number of posers and the number of people begging to be
"turned."
(3) A lot of interesting and worthwhile discussion could result from
bringing together "real vampires" and blood-drinkers who DON'T consider
themselves "vampires." Furthermore, all blood-drinkers face some common
problems, need to take similar safety precautions, etc.
So then, if we go for the label "blood-drinkers" rather than "vampyres,"
the new newsgroup could NOT be a split from alt.vampyres. Our next
question is: Should it be an alt.* group, or should it go somewhere in
the soc.* hierarchy? Perhaps under soc.subculture.*?
Alxxanndra
>It has occurred to me that a vampire would probably
>prefer not to tell the world everything about vampirism (leaves one
>terribly vulnerable, you know
It would seem that if one were really a vampire, one would have nothing to
prove...I doubt he or she would actually care that anyone believed or not...the
vampire would always be able to make his/her "point" when necessitated. The
only individuals needing to prove their claim would in fact be one who was only
claiming.
Alexandra
WngdWolf13
>The difference between someone who says they are a vampire, and someone
>who is a "truthsayer" is (from what I've seen) that a truthsayer goes on
>to post his or her "vampire manifesto"; usually an over-long document
>spouting pseudoscientific theories and stating they know everything
>about vampires.
Alas, this cannot be the case, as I've obviously been branded a "truth-sayer"
yet have never claimed to know everything about vampires--quite the opposite,
in fact.
WngdWolf13
>So then, if we go for the label "blood-drinkers" rather than "vampyres,"
>the new newsgroup could NOT be a split from alt.vampyres
I disagree with this idea, as being far too exclusive of those real vampires
who take energy but not blood.
Amy Krieytaz
WngdWolf13 wrote:
> >So then, if we go for the label "blood-drinkers" rather than "vampyres,"
> >the new newsgroup could NOT be a split from alt.vampyres
>
> I disagree with this idea, as being far too exclusive of those real vampires
> who take energy but not blood.
I see your point here. Perhaps, then, we should create TWO new
newsgroups -- one which brings together different kinds of vampires and
another which brings together different kinds of blood-drinkers? I
think both could be valuable, now that I think about it. What do you
and others here think?
Severin
>If we go for a newsgroup "split," the new group would have to be called
>alt.vampyres.real.
Clearly, no one here remembers what fun the satanists had here at our
expense. .REAL is REALly asking for a whole lotta hurt.
Try something like
alt.vampIres.fang-off
Ennui might suggest
alt.guinness.oh-yeah.vampires.too
It might be less ridiculous than .REAL
just my 2 drachmas worth
duVivier, Darling of the Heathen Set
Cthulhu29
Amy Krieytaz <akrieytaz.NO-SPAM!@hotmail.com> done wrote:
>If we go for a newsgroup "split," the new group would have to be called
>alt.vampyres.real. Now, here's the problem: Sangi and I were thinking
>of starting a newsgroup with a name that would contain NOT the word
>"vampyre," but rather the word "blood-drinkers." There are a few
>different reasons why we think this would be a good idea:
>(1) It would cut down on the otherwise inevitable bickering over who is
>or isn't a "real vampire." "Vampire" is a rather fuzzy concept these
>days, whereas a blood-drinker is simply a person who drinks blood, end
>of discussion.
Maybe, it also would not be easily found in a NG search for Vamp stuff.
Also it would discourage some of our friends (friends?) who are hung up on
nomenclature. Further, some of our friends are interested in posting their
"facts" on Vampires and would faint at the prospect of just being another blood
drinker.
>(2) "Blood-drinker" is less glamorous-sounding than "real vampire," and
>would therefore tend to cut down on the amount of BS. It would cut down
>on both the number of posers and the number of people begging to be
>"turned."
I _really_ doubt that. BS flows like water on NG's. It's just part of the
game. The only way to stop it is to moderate it, destroying the freedom of
expression some of us delve into now and then. The same applies to posers.
>(3) A lot of interesting and worthwhile discussion could result from
>bringing together "real vampires" and blood-drinkers who DON'T consider
>themselves "vampires." Furthermore, all blood-drinkers face some common
>problems, need to take similar safety precautions, etc.
True, but then aren't you also working toward alienating the Vampires and
"Truthsayers" who want nothing to do with the Blood drinking average joes?
>So then, if we go for the label "blood-drinkers" rather than "vampyres,"
>the new newsgroup could NOT be a split from alt.vampyres. Our next
>question is: Should it be an alt.* group, or should it go somewhere in
>the soc.* hierarchy? Perhaps under soc.subculture.*?
Didn't he say it was much more difficult to open a soc.* NG? And that the
honchoes suggest opening in the alt. section before trying it somewhere else?
Also, wasn't the idea to get the people who wanted to talk about "real"
Vampires off of this NG so the others could get back to poetry, literature,
movies, music, and art? To have a way to say, "Go next door," to the people
looking for the "real" thing.
It just seems to me, looking at it from the outside, that you're trying to
separate the place from the people it was meant to reach. Or that you're just
trying to find an extremely difficult way of doing things.
Or so it looks from deep in center field.
~Cth
\(^^^^)/
B J Kuehl
Cthulhu writes:
> Didn't he say it was much more difficult to open a soc.* NG? And that the
> honchoes suggest opening in the alt. section before trying it somewhere else?
That may have been a generalization. The argument could easily
be made that alt.vampyres WAS the alt.* trial and that a.v. has
been so successful that it has now become necessary to create a
new newsgroup to deal with the vampire subculture as distinct from
the literary, historical and mythological vampire?
At least, to me, this makes a tighter, more logical, more professional
sounding argument than looking to create an alt.vampyres.real to
separate 'real' vampires from 'fakes'. That just isn't going to
happen.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Cthulhu29
>b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (B J Kuehl) Hi BJ! wrote:
>At least, to me, this makes a tighter, more logical, more professional
>sounding argument than looking to create an alt.vampyres.real to
>separate 'real' vampires from 'fakes'. That just isn't going to
>happen.
Forgive me for being a dense little coconut, but I did not think we were
trying to segregate "real" from "fake". I thought we were trying to set up a
place to theorize and debate what may or may not be "real". Maybe
alt.vampyres.theories would be the way to go.
The thing is that for people interested in Vampires to find it Vampsomething
will need to be in the name.
~Cth
\(^^^^)/
B J Kuehl
Someone wrote:
>>>But you do raise a very important point: How does one
>>>determine who is a "Truth-Sayer," and who decides?
And Winged Wolf/Shadowalker replied:
>> It's simple, anyone with the sheer gall to say "this actually
>> happened to me" is considered a "truth-sayer"
And Thornleaf replied:
>Actually, just saying you're a vampire probably wouldn't be
>enough - I would hope that anyone could say they were a vampire
>if they wanted to.
Hey, I'm a vampire. So, who believes me and who doesn't? And
WHY do you believe and why do you NOT believe me? And why do you
think I care?
>The difference between someone who says they are a vampire,
>and someone who is a "truthsayer" is (from what I've seen)
>that a truthsayer goes on to post his or her "vampire manifesto";
>usually an over-long document spouting pseudoscientific theories
>and stating they know everything about vampires.
Thornleaf, you have a fine grasp on the intricacies. I know
that I will truly be awaiting your analysis of the interactions
on this newsgroup.
>It has occurred to me that a vampire would probably prefer not
>to tell the world everything about vampirism (leaves one
>terribly vulnerable, you know), and would only _suggest_
>possibilities without claiming to have proof that, for whatever
>reason, they just can't possibly share freely with the group.
Are you sure, Thornleaf, that you aren't a vampire doing research
on alt.vampyres?
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Amy Krieytaz
B J Kuehl wrote:
> Hey, I'm a vampire. So, who believes me and who doesn't? And
> WHY do you believe and why do you NOT believe me?
To me, this is largely a question of definitions rather than belief.
I would have a hard time believing you if you claimed to be, say, an
Anne Rice style vampire, but not if your definition fell within the
realm of known physical possiblities. If you don't mind discussing this
a bit, what do YOU mean when you refer to yourself as a vampire?
Chooch
B J Kuehl wrote:
>
> Cthulhu writes:
> > The thing is that for people interested in Vampires to find it
> > Vampsomething will need to be in the name.
>
> VAMP needs to be in the name.
>
> I did a search on the newsgroups to which I have access and
> found that alt.vampyres is the only one with 'vamp' in its
> name. Are there other newsgroups with 'vamp' in their name
> which my admin doesn't subscribe?
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
I'm aware of two others, alt.vampires.tremere and
alt.alien.vampires.flonk.flonk.flonk I haven't been able to find any
others, in any hierarchy, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If
you do a subject or interest search on DejaNews for vampire or vampires,
the NG at the top of the list is always alt.vampyres.
loa
i pause to remind bj that this group is unmoderated. thus, anyone can come on
and proselyte the TRUTH, anyone can discuss the retrovirus. and anyone can be
flamed for it. i suggest you put something in the FAQ referring the
retrovirus people to a retrovirus place (as soon as Amy gets one up), refer
proselyters to alt.kiss.my.ass (as always) and otherwise, use your "N" or "D"
buttons. Killfile works too. I don't like this "eliminate such and such"
crap. What aren't you going to let people do next? not flamin ya, i know you
have good intentions. :)
--loa--
with a story for jwl on the way, full of satire. promise :)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
loa lightquencher (lightq...@hotmail.com)
Angel of Light, co-editrix of DWLW, OBSSE Sister
Loa's Lair: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1206
"Will you behave if I do?"/"Like an angel of light" --The Razor's Edge
"Live and don't learn, that's us." -- Calvin & Hobbes
"You were right."-saith the PUNK to the Saint in Squeeze
Scully QOTW: "They're heeeere. . . ."--Shadows
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
loa
Succinctly spoke ja...@kontunet.fi on 25 Jan 1998 00:24:21 +0200:
>Of course this is a public newsgroup,
>and they are free to post here. As well, we are free to flame
>the shit out of the evangelists with no proof and big mouths.
> -Jake
oooh! sounds like a party. i'll bring chips.
--loa--
B J Kuehl
Severin
Cthulhu29 spracht ...
> Forgive me for being a dense little coconut, but I did not think we were
>trying to segregate "real" from "fake". I thought we were trying to set up a
>place to theorize and debate what may or may not be "real". Maybe
>alt.vampyres.theories would be the way to go.
You're not dense at all. The question (well, one of the questions)
IS, do you think there is THAT much structure and traffic to warrant
creating another little alt.vampIres.bivouac sub-tree?
duV, dining where the nightingales fly
Kira Moore
In article <6ak109$nr1$2...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>,
How many draculas are there to a dollar?
--Anguished English, I think
~Kira, was going to lurk, couldn't resist being silly.
Kira Moore
In article <6amdnu$27t$1...@uwm.edu>, B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>I did a search on the newsgroups to which I have access and
>found that alt.vampyres is the only one with 'vamp' in its
>name. Are there other newsgroups with 'vamp' in their name
>which my admin doesn't subscribe?
>
world of Usenet a year and a half ago. They're to do with the White Wolf
games. I forget what they are. rec.* hierarchy I believe.
~Kira
kbmoore @ Indiana. edu
jewel
loa lightquencher promised:
: with a story for jwl on the way, full of satire. promise :)
now yer talkin'!
post it up when ready...
i can't wait!
jewel,
shinin'
________________________________________________________
http://www.gleeful.com
je...@gleeful.com
firefly bites / a minty imprint
Thornleaf
Thornleaf wrote (though WW didn't bother to credit her with it):
>
> >The difference between someone who says they are a vampire, and someone
> >who is a "truthsayer" is (from what I've seen) that a truthsayer goes on
> >to post his or her "vampire manifesto"; usually an over-long document
> >spouting pseudoscientific theories and stating they know everything
> >about vampires.
>
> Alas, this cannot be the case, as I've obviously been branded a "truth-sayer"
> yet have never claimed to know everything about vampires--quite the opposite,
> in fact.
>
> the were/psion
> WngdW...@aol.com
> Psion Guild
> http://members.aol.com/psion425/Guild.html
*yawn*
I'll not get into whether or not you claimed to know everything about
vampires. You *have* posted your "vampire manifesto" - oh, sorry, your
document on what vampires are and how to rid one's self of a symbiont.
And it *was* long, and full of pseudoscientific crap, as others before
me have already pointed out on numerous occasions.
alt.vampyres.real!
soc.vampyres!
whatever!
Somebody, PLEASE... (thought left unfinished as Thornleaf's brain shuts
off to avoid further mental anguish).
~Thornleaf
Thornleaf
B J Kuehl wrote:
> Thornleaf, you have a fine grasp on the intricacies. I know
> that I will truly be awaiting your analysis of the interactions
> on this newsgroup.
>
*curtsey*
> Are you sure, Thornleaf, that you aren't a vampire doing research
> on alt.vampyres?
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
One never knows...
--
^""^ Kris Miethner
B J Kuehl
When I said to Thornleaf:
>> Are you sure that you aren't a vampire doing research
>> on alt.vampyres?
She curtseyed and replied:>
> One never knows...
If so, you know the rules. Go for it.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Severin
Kira Moore spracht ...
>In article <6ak109$nr1$2...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>,
>Severin <sev...@intergate.bc.ca> wrote:
>>just my 2 drachmas worth
>
>How many draculas are there to a dollar?
>--Anguished English, I think
It depends on the horsepower and the void space in the vampire,
methinks. Damn science!
duV
Chiller
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> opined thus: -
>Hey, I'm a vampire. So, who believes me and who doesn't? And
>WHY do you believe and why do you NOT believe me? And why do you
>think I care?
I think that's the main difference between the people we *enjoy* talking
to, and the ones who well ... we don't. You, I and twenty or so others
on this NG could have waltzed in here and said the same thing WingedWolf
said (assuming we were having a particularly erm ... "subjective" period
in our lives), and frankly we wouldn't have given a toss whether anyone
believed us or not(*). The arguments seem to ensue because WW and
Catherene *do* care whether we believe or not. I have never yet been
able to work out why people give a damn what we think of their theories,
and therefore, why they post them in the first place.
(*) Hence we would not have posted the theories - but for the sake of
argument, let it pass...
Chiller
Ice and a slice?
chi...@cold.demon.co.uk
http://www.cold.demon.co.uk/index.html
WngdWolf13
> The arguments seem to ensue because WW and
>Catherene *do* care whether we believe or not.
Nope. I don't care.
Succubyss
>Nope. I don't care.
>
>
>--Winged Wolf
Gee, what a coincidence, neither do I.
S
In the real world <>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+
as in dreams, members.aol.com/Succubyss/succudex.html
nothing is quite +<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>
what it seems. -The Book of Counted Sorrows
Chiller
WngdWolf13 wrote:
>
> > The arguments seem to ensue because WW and
> >Catherene *do* care whether we believe or not.
>
>
> --Winged Wolf
Then why don't you stop posting your document
here, where it is clearly unwanted by a large
majority of people? You're not interested in
their opinions, they're not interested in yours -
surely posting the document therefore serves
nobody any good purpose.
Chiller
Ice and a Slice?
chi...@cold.demon.co.uk
http://www.cold.demon.co.uk
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <34D1DCE1...@cold.demon.co.uk> Chiller
<chi...@cold.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>WngdWolf13 wrote:
>><quoting someone else>
>>> The arguments seem to ensue because WW and
>>>Catherene *do* care whether we believe or not.
>> Nope. I don't care.
>Then why don't you stop posting your document
>here, where it is clearly unwanted by a large
>majority of people?
Self-appointed messiahs want to feel persecuted and abused, and to have
society mock them. They think it proves they're daring and
iconoclastic, or something. Actuially it just proves they need
psychiatric care. Maybe Fluke Skywanker should connect her symbiont
zapper to her head instead of her chest, and try a little self-induced
shock therapy.
--Bill Thompson [who's always ready to supply Truthsayers (tm) with
more contempt than they can handle]
WngdWolf13
>then why do you try so hard to convince us?
I don't. I just correct misquotes and mistaken interpretations.
WngdWolf13
>Then why don't you stop posting your document
>here, where it is clearly unwanted by a large
>majority of people?
Since when is unpopularity among the majority a valid reason to keep quiet.
I post it for the minority who are interested--the ones keeping their mouths
shut.
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <19980131091...@ladder02.news.aol.com> Fluke Skywanker
presents a remarkable imitation of coherent thought when she writes:
>Since when is unpopularity among the majority a valid reason to keep
>quiet. I post it for the minority who are interested--the ones
>keeping their mouths shut.
The Silent Majority . . . the ones Nixon claimed he spoke for. I never
thought Tricky Dicky would get reincarnated so *fast.*
Fluke Skywanker gives us a marvelous bit of Dodgsonian logic here.
There's no evidence that this "minority" exists, so they must exist.
Kinda like her chest-dwelling icky things. At least when she's posting
here she's just wasting her time and energy, and not doing any harm in
the real world.
--Bill Thompson
B J Kuehl
Bill T writes:
> The Silent Majority . . . the ones Nixon claimed he spoke for. I never
> thought Tricky Dicky would get reincarnated so *fast.*
>
> Fluke Skywanker gives us a marvelous bit of Dodgsonian logic here.
> There's no evidence that this "minority" exists, so they must exist.
> Kinda like her chest-dwelling icky things. At least when she's posting
> here she's just wasting her time and energy, and not doing any harm in
> the real world.
The following message was intercepted from the mothership to aol.
I thought you all might get a kick out of the bullshit coming out
of Seeker's mouth to that 'silent majority'. It appears I've been
immortalized, demonized and simonized.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
*********************************************************************
Subject: Re: <Shaking Seeker's Hand>
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 21:19 EST
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:SeekerSA">SeekerSA</A>
Message-id: <19980127021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
LOL it seems our mutual er,, for lack of a better term 'Friend"tHE BIG BAD
REAL VAMPIRE LADY eMERALD, FOR WHATEVER REASONS SHE HAS IN THAT VASTLY DELUDED
thinking process of hers, Really thinks I am you. NO KIDDING, SHE DOES,
Oh she jumped me for what is on my sight , and her having on real backround
in Medicine or science I did get a few points over to the readers,
the secret is She founded that board, and the one who runs it is her personal
friend, there are only about 25 of her friends and origionals on that board
who have NO Respect for AOL members at all, Anyone from aol on that board is
thought of as an Idiot and not listened to by this close knit little clique.
BJ who is nothing more then an assistant to a professor tring to get a master
in STATICS and comes on as if she where the only real vampire who ever
existed,
But the important thing to know is NOT all there like her or believe her,
they just do not post as she starts a major flame over anything she disagrees
with.....She is GOLDEN GIRL on that board and dealing with her as if she had
sense is a pure waist of time, Howver a large number of silent readers read
that NG and it is beneficial to say whatever you please if you feel it valad,
I still post, but I ignore most comments from her and her little
gang of truth slayers,,
as for being an outcast,,
LOL It matters not, as long as one person gets it, understands what I have to
say , it is enough, and many go to my sight from alt vamp who praise it, me
and Nick highly.
the little queen can rule her little court, I speak to whoever has an open
enough mind to listen.
and not eVEN bj CAN STOP OR SILENCE ME
cATH
As ever,
Catherene
Teacher to Night's Children
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <6av6r2$hgk$1...@uwm.edu> b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (B J Kuehl) writes:
<snip of a comparison of Fluke Skywanker with Nixon>
>The following message was intercepted from the mothership to aol.
>I thought you all might get a kick out of the bullshit coming out
>of Seeker's mouth to that 'silent majority'. It appears I've been
>immortalized, demonized and simonized.
Well, you got the immortality when you became a vampire, and I feel
sorry for any demon that gets in your way.
<snips of a forwarded letter from Squeeker>
>BJ who is nothing more then an assistant to a professor tring to get a
>master in STATICS
BJ, why does this conjure up an image of you running around a campus,
trying to find a dom who can handle a Van de Graf generator?
>I speak to whoever has an open enough mind to listen.
In other words, "a hole in the head." I know that's not my most
imaginative riposte, but that letter isn't worth anything creative. I
*think* Squeeker was trying to put you down, but that post was so
incoherent that she could have meant almost anything. And probably
did.
I wonder what would happen if Squeeker and Fluke Skywanker pooled their
delusions. What would happen if an icky thing was infected by one of
those Edsel-driving retroviruses? How would the august members of the
Psion Guild respond to a lecture from Catherene & Company? And what
would we learn if any of these people knew enough to pass Bonehead
English?
--Bill Thompson, secret minion of the fiendishly big bad Lady E and
agitprop commissar of the Vast Unnamed Alt-Vampyres Conspiracy To Get A
Good Giggle Out Of Psychoceramic Posts
B J Kuehl
jetgirl writes:
>> friend, there are only about 25 of her friends and origionals on that board
>> who have NO Respect for AOL members at all, Anyone from aol on that board is
>> thought of as an Idiot and not listened to by this close knit little clique.
>
I must respectifully point out that there are several valuable
contributors to a.v. who post from aol. I won't name names
because I'm sure to forget someone, but even our faqkeeper
Lucadra, who is certainly one of the more responsible and
level-headed thinkers here, uses aol.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
WngdWolf13
>> I don't. I just correct misquotes and mistaken interpretations.
>
>categories...
>
>- jetgirl
No, it doesn't--those posts are simply disseminating what I've learned, people
are welcome to think whatever they like about it.
Frankly, if no one ever responded to them in such a way as to require
clarification, there'd be no need for me to say anything further. I don't post
the paper that often, only once every month or two.
WngdWolf13
>How would the august members of the
>Psion Guild respond to a lecture from Catherene & Company?
Well, Cath knows that I think she's got bats in her belfry, but I defend her
right to speak her mind in any case.
Taking it upon yourselves to judge information without actually looking into it
independently does a disservice not only to yourselves, but also to others.
I've never claimed to have the entire truth of vampyrism all wrapped up. Only
that I've discovered something, and this it what it seems to be.
Maybe I'm wrong. But the fact remains, I'm no longer vampyr, after having been
one for 10 years.
WngdWolf13
>your posts aren't just unpopular, they are deadly.
>
>
Sorry, none of you have yet to state why you feel that way in any detail. I
don't believe it, quite frankly. If you want me to believe that the designs
were somehow described wrong, you'll have to tell me exactly which part is the
point which turns it from safe to deadly. I can't find it, myself, I've gone
over the description, and everything seems to be there.
Since it wasn't deadly when it was used, if I've described it properly, it
should be fairly safe--if built exactly as described.
Once I have the exact model of the AC/DC adapter down, it ought to be possible
to do that, though I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone other than an
electronics expert.
WngdWolf13
>The Silent Majority . . . the ones Nixon claimed he spoke for.
Well, no, I never claimed they were a majority. In fact, I said quite clearly
that they were a minority. But that's an assumption, I actually don't know how
many people here are interested.
>There's no evidence that this "minority" exists, so they must exist.
Well, the letters I get every now and then provide evidence that there are some
people who are interested.
Whether you like it or not. <g>
B J Kuehl
Winged Wolf writes:
> Well, the letters I get every now and then provide evidence
> that there are some people who are interested.
Lots of people send back their publisher's clearing house
cards without subscribing to the magazines, too.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Amy Krieytaz
loa wrote:
> i pause to remind bj that this group is unmoderated. thus, anyone can come on
> and proselyte the TRUTH, anyone can discuss the retrovirus. and anyone can be
> flamed for it. i suggest you put something in the FAQ referring the
> retrovirus people to a retrovirus place (as soon as Amy gets one up),
A few corrections: First, if I understand correctly, others here (such
as Chooch) have pretty much volunteered to take on most of the
responsibility for setting up the new newsgroup. Second, the new
newsgroup isn't intended to be a "retrovirus place" per se, though it
would be, among other things, a place where discussion of such ideas
would NOT be considered off-topic.
Amy Krieytaz
akrieytaz @ hotmail.com
Vampire Research Resource Page
http://www.necronomi.com/users/akrieytaz/
*** Please CC public replies to E-mail.
WngdWolf13
I'm not sure I see your point. As I've said, I don't really care whether or
not anyone believes it. I post it because some people seem to be interested in
it, and on a public newsgroup, new people drop in to browse quite often. Since
I'm forced to consider my perceptions valid, I must assume that my information
is primarily correct, and therefore helpful to anyone who truly wishes to look
into it.
Cthulhu29
>wngdw...@aol.com (Puppy Flies) wrote:
> Since
>I'm forced to consider my perceptions valid, I must assume that my
>information
>is primarily correct, and therefore helpful to anyone who truly wishes to
>look
>into it.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you are so full of shit that
one scoop of you could fetilize 50 acres?
Just currious. :o)
~Cth
\(^^^^)/
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <19980131230...@ladder02.news.aol.com> wngdw...@aol.com
(WngdWolf13) writes:
>Taking it upon yourselves to judge information without actually
>looking into it independently does a disservice not only to
>yourselves, but also to others.
I looked into your rambling "Theory" file, and I've slogged my way
through your other posts. That's enough to tell me you can't be taken
seriously. If you don't like that, tough. The only "disservice" I've
done myself here is to waste time treating you like a sane, intelligent
adult.
You've admitted that you don't know anything about electronics, but you
still persist in setting forth crude plans for your icky-thing zapper.
You seem to think that people who are entitled to an opinion in such
matters are required to give you free advice on how to correct your
design flaws. You also seem to think that you would be immune from
legal prosecution if the design you have set forth kills or injures
someone.
You're wrong on both counts. If you want your design fixed, find a
competent electrical engineer and pay him to do the work for you.
Assuming, of course, you can find someone who'll take you seriously,
and would risk getting named in a liability suit by working on your
zapper. That's one reason Chooch won't help you; aside from having
better things to do with his time, and not believing in your
chest-dwelling bits of crud, he has too much sense to risk getting
dragged into court over *your* actions. And if you really think you
can't end up in court, you'd better talk to a lawyer--before you end up
talking to a judge.
--Bill Thompson
Soal Hate
Chiller wrote:
> WngdWolf13 wrote:
> >
> > > The arguments seem to ensue because WW and
> > >Catherene *do* care whether we believe or not.
> >
> > Nope. I don't care.
> >
>
> Then why don't you stop posting your document
> here, where it is clearly unwanted by a large
> their opinions, they're not interested in yours -
> surely posting the document therefore serves
> nobody any good purpose.
>
> Chiller
> Ice and a Slice?
> chi...@cold.demon.co.uk
> http://www.cold.demon.co.uk
does it not? soal
Soal Hate
WngdWolf13 wrote:
> >So then, if we go for the label "blood-drinkers" rather than "vampyres,"
> >the new newsgroup could NOT be a split from alt.vampyres
> I disagree with this idea, as being far too exclusive of those real vampires
> who take energy but not blood.
>
> --Winged Wolf
> the were/psion
> WngdW...@aol.com
> Psion Guild
> http://members.aol.com/psion425/Guild.html
B J Kuehl
When WngdWolf13 (please don't tell me that there are 12 others like
her) wrote:
>>Taking it upon yourselves to judge information without actually
>>looking into it independently does a disservice not only to
>>yourselves, but also to others.
Bill T responded:
> I looked into your rambling "Theory" file, and I've slogged my way
> through your other posts. That's enough to tell me you can't be taken
> seriously. If you don't like that, tough. The only "disservice" I've
> done myself here is to waste time treating you like a sane, intelligent
> adult.
I, too, have slogged through her research files, all of them (she
keeps 'updating' them when someone points out the idiosyncracies
in them...hint... hint). I've even wasted time sharing them with
Ph.D.s in physics (all of whom had a great laugh). There is nothing
of importance in anything written in these files, at least nothing
anyone other than a psychopathologist might find interesting.
The most honest advice that I could give Shadowalker is to admit to
herself that her mentor is full of baloney and that she (Shadowalker),
in innocence and a desire to learn, has been duped.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Chiller
Soal Hate <this...@aone.com> opined thus: -
>Chiller wrote:
>> WngdWolf13 wrote:
>> >
>> > > The arguments seem to ensue because WW and
>> > >Catherene *do* care whether we believe or not.
>> >
>> > Nope. I don't care.
>> >
>> > --Winged Wolf
>>
>> Then why don't you stop posting your document
>> here, where it is clearly unwanted by a large
>> majority of people? You're not interested in
>> their opinions, they're not interested in yours -
>> surely posting the document therefore serves
>> nobody any good purpose.
>>
>> Chiller
>well if anything it serves to at lest give you something to talk about
>does it not? soal
I'm not usually noted for being short of things to talk about.
Chiller
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> opined thus: -
>Chiller sniggers:
>>>Barbara J. Kuehl, PhD (ABD)
>>>Department of Educational Psychology
>>>University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>>
>> Gawd, she's rolled out the credentials again.
>
>It's those credentials which give me an .edu account and free
>access to the internet.
Ten quid a month and I get to pick my own sig. ;)
Chiller, Nq
Department of Quiet Madness
Universe of Considerate Savagery
PS, it was definitely more of a tut-and-grin than a snigger.