True and False Teachers - Order of the Morning Star
etoile....@gmail.com
Teachers of Light and false teachers of darkness.
- Teachers of Light shine their teaching to the world. They do this
without profit. They do this without hoarding. Like a good gardener
they allow the egregore of the teaching to grow in a world of light.
Teachers of Light build.
- False teachers (on the other hand) lock their teachings from the
world - and often these said-teachings were not even theirs to begin
with! Those select few that may be allowed to see/learn from the
teachings are expected to pay a premium for the privilege. These
creatures of darkness have only one motivation that is money. Money
from the control of anything that they perceive they may be able make
a profit from.
This sickness grows, where at the extreme creatures of evil seek to
destroy anything which they cannot control, and negate the right of
others to exist.
In all matters of integrity ask yourself, who are the teachers of
Light and who are those that
seek to profit from hoarding a little light under their barrel of
darkness. Put away all personal
interest and Shine like the Sun and then you will know what is right.
I praise these Seraphim Father (Bringer of Light, the Morning Star)
Brother Bernardo
Inner Temple Order of the Morning Star
Tom
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the esoteric/spiritual worlds their are two types of teachers.
The ones you approve of and the ones you don't.
> Teachers of Light and false teachers of darkness.
Like I said.
etoile....@gmail.com
Sigh there is always a comedian who has an adult attention disorder,
or can't keep his hand away from his dick.
Tom see if you can get it to this.. there are certain signs that true
and false teachers carry. Demands for money, a sign
of a false teacher. Demands for secrecy a sign of a false teacher.
Demands for obedience, a sign of a false teacher.
There are other signs... and it is nothing to do with what I
personally like or dislike. Life is like apples and oranges.. there
are plenty of systems around that I personally don't like, but one
must respect and acknowledge their right to existence and the fact
that are true.. You see Tom one persons food is another persons
poison..
So how do you judge, see what Shines.. look at the Sun it shines on
all.. good and bad. Like the fruit tree, it is available
for all.. but not all may enjoy its fruit. The point is it is not the
tree that decides..
I will pray for your healing Tom.. you obviously have many serious
issues.
so lets post what I said again..
Tom
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 4:17 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 29, 3:02 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
>
> > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In the esoteric/spiritual worlds their are two types of teachers.
>
> > The ones you approve of and the ones you don't.
>
> > > Teachers of Light and false teachers of darkness.
>
> > Like I said.
>
> Sigh there is always a comedian who has an adult attention disorder,
> or can't keep his hand away from his dick.
And then there are always self-righteous kookmeisters who respond to
criticism with spurious and lame attempts at insult.
> Tom see if you can get it to this.. there are certain signs that true
> and false teachers carry. Demands for money, a sign
> of a false teacher.
So that would make all teachers who are paid into "false teachers".
Ban tuition! All real education is free! Close the universities!
> Demands for secrecy a sign of a false teacher.
Ban confidentiality! All psychotherapeutic sessions should be
televised! Privacy is a sin!
> Demands for obedience, a sign of a false teacher.
"Turn left! You're driving off a cliff!"
"Don't you dare order me around, you false teacher!"
> There are other signs... and it is nothing to do with what I
> personally like or dislike.
It has everything to do with what you like and dislike.
> Life is like apples and oranges..
With apples being "true" and oranges being "false". According to you.
> there
> are plenty of systems around that I personally don't like, but one
> must respect and acknowledge their right to existence and the fact
> that are true..
Unless, of course, you don't like them because they ask for money you
don't want to pay, ask for confidentiality you don't want to give,
and, above all, try to tell you what to do.
> You see Tom one persons food is another persons
> poison.
Which totally invalidates your claim that some ways of teaching are
"false" merely because you don't like their window dressing.
> So how do you judge,
By examining the teachings themselves and comparing their claims to
what actually happens. I don't do it by making sweeping
generalizations about trivial differences in style.
> I will pray for your healing Tom.. you obviously have many serious
> issues.
You're a posturing twit.
suf...@gmail.com
> You're a posturing twit.
So are you, actually.
suf...@gmail.com
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the esoteric/spiritual worlds their are two types of teachers.
> Teachers of Light and false teachers of darkness.
And clearly, etoile is of the latter.
suf...@gmail.com
> > issues.
I think you should worry about your own salvation rather than Tom's.
Tom seems to be doing alright, which is more that I can say about you,
etoile.
etoile....@gmail.com
> On May 29, 9:45 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 30, 4:17 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 29, 3:02 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
>
> > > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In the esoteric/spiritual worlds their are two types of teachers.
>
> > > The ones you approve of and the ones you don't.
>
> > > > Teachers of Light and false teachers of darkness.
>
> > > Like I said.
>
> > Sigh there is always a comedian who has an adult attention disorder,
> > or can't keep his hand away from his dick.
>
> And then there are always self-righteous kookmeisters who respond to
> criticism with spurious and lame attempts at insult.
>
> > Tom see if you can get it to this.. there are certain signs that true
> > and false teachers carry. Demands for money, a sign
> > of a false teacher.
>
> So that would make all teachers who are paid into "false teachers".
> Ban tuition! All real education is free! Close the universities!
The typical Tom wisecrack, his usual dishonesty calling one thing
another and not seeing the point.
For the world, because Tom will never get it to this. Spiritual
teachers is not the same thing as mundane teachers.
>
> > Demands for secrecy a sign of a false teacher.
>
> Ban confidentiality! All psychotherapeutic sessions should be
> televised! Privacy is a sin!
The typical Tom wisecrack, his usual dishonesty calling one thing
another and not seeing the point.
>
> > Demands for obedience, a sign of a false teacher.
>
> "Turn left! You're driving off a cliff!"
> "Don't you dare order me around, you false teacher!"
The typical Tom wisecrack, his usual dishonesty calling one thing
another and not seeing the point.
>
> > There are other signs... and it is nothing to do with what I
> > personally like or dislike.
>
> It has everything to do with what you like and dislike.
>
> > Life is like apples and oranges..
>
> With apples being "true" and oranges being "false". According to you.
>
> > there
> > are plenty of systems around that I personally don't like, but one
> > must respect and acknowledge their right to existence and the fact
> > that are true..
>
> Unless, of course, you don't like them because they ask for money you
> don't want to pay, ask for confidentiality you don't want to give,
> and, above all, try to tell you what to do.
>
> > You see Tom one persons food is another persons
> > poison.
>
> Which totally invalidates your claim that some ways of teaching are
> "false" merely because you don't like their window dressing.
>
> > So how do you judge,
>
> By examining the teachings themselves and comparing their claims to
> what actually happens. I don't do it by making sweeping
> generalizations about trivial differences in style.
>
> > I will pray for your healing Tom.. you obviously have many serious
> > issues.
>
> You're a posturing twit.
Easy isn't it Tom to insult behind a keyboard. But I have dealt with
wankers like you before. Here is the truth of the issue. I have
looked at your various alt.magicks postings. What have you
contributed. All I see from you various is the same old same old, a
vile nasty coward whom attacks here and there, with his various slurs
and insults, tired old arguments which never actually address the
point.. because his smart-butt comments can get off topic, providing
he feels clever inside. what a small little insecure boy you are
Tom..... What have you contributed Tom.
Everyone on alt.magick, the whole world who looks at this.. check out
all of Tom's postings and you will see what I mean.
Check them out for yourself. Not such this to me.. but Tom various
postings.. and see if you can find anything
good or constructive in anything that Tom has done... ever..
We have a small little boy whom has such a big chip on his shoulder
that all he can do is attack .. because
he didn't have the guts and the fortitude to go the distance.. to be
burnt a little within the light.. Come on Tom, what have you built.
How about giving us a website, so we can see some examples of your
work. Oh that right, you have nothing. Am I wrong? From my
investigation all you ever do make cowardly slights when you can.
You failed at magick, decided
it is BS and so you here to revenge every single person who might lend
you a hand out of your blackened hard hearted pit. You are a coward
Tom. So easy to try and knock down, but what have you built.....
Attack back little boy as much as you like, the world has seen
examples of my work. I have been doing magick now for 30 years.. and
earned my wings. Which is much more than about you. Anyway I will
give you the last word, I would hate for you to have such a hard-one
and not get to come. My gift to you, let you finish getting off on
yourself.
etoile....@gmail.com
prove it...
etoile....@gmail.com
perhaps.. okay list what I have done and achieved and then what Tom
has done and achieved..
can you prove it.. or are you another fake! Let me know if you need a
hand ..
Dar es Alrah
I would say that teachers who are any good study the student, and any
teaching or literature given has only the goal of enlightening them
according to where they are at, at the time. So nothings off the
menu, but in most cases a little can go a long way if the student is
ready and receptive. False teachers always have a sing song 'I've got
a secret' cant about them. A true teacher tells you 'you have a
secret and I'd love you to know it'.
Tom
You're the guy whose claim that he would send a "demon" to drive me
into bankruptcy and homelessness has utterly failed. So now you're
reduced to making petty snipes. It would be sad if you actually
deserved any sympathy. You don't, though, so it's just boring.
You're yesterday's old newpapers, kid. Useful now only for wrapping
up garbage and lining bird cages.
Tom
It sure is. That's why you make your pompous declarations about
"false teachers", for example. Of course, you never expected anyone
to actually call your stupid bluff. But then it happened and all you
can do in response is cry about how awful I am for doing so.
> I have been doing magick now for 30 years.. and
> earned my wings.
You can't do jack shit, braggart. Do you seriously think that you
have demonstrated you are adept at magick by putting up a website
littered with occult blather?
> My gift to you, let you finish getting off on
> yourself.
Another obligatory brave exit speech. You puffed-up little squids are
all alike. As soon as you face a challenge, you squirt out some
obfuscating ink and run away.
suf...@gmail.com
> You're yesterday's old newpapers, kid. Useful now only for wrapping
> up garbage and lining bird cages.
Gosh, and to think I actually felt sorry for you and this is who you
really are.
suf...@gmail.com
> a secret' cant about them. A true teacher tells you 'you have a
> secret and I'd love you to know it'.
Wonderful insight.
suf...@gmail.com
> I praise these Seraphim Father (Bringer of Light, the Morning Star)
Just so there is no confusion, we are talking about Lucifer, right?
etoile....@gmail.com
Yes .. Lucifer
Consider the relationship between Christ - Baal - Lucifer
http://etoile.topcities.com/AMS/Eremiados/Baal.pdf
Are we really certain that they are not one and the same... perhaps
the Jew's were right, perhaps Jesus was really Lucifer.. just a
thought!
etoile....@gmail.com
oh would also like to add this discussion to the discussion
http://etoile.topcities.com/ECT/public/Essaiers/essaier-49_Devil.pdf
A Short History of the Devil
Tom
Keep dreaming, kid. Maybe you won't ever have to wake up. What a
relief that would be for you.
HG
> Easy isn't it Tom to insult behind a keyboard. But I have dealt with
> wankers like you before. Here is the truth of the issue. I have
> looked at your various alt.magicks postings. What have you
> contributed. All I see from you various is the same old same old, a
> vile nasty coward whom attacks here and there, with his various slurs
> and insults, tired old arguments which never actually address the
> point.. because his smart-butt comments can get off topic, providing
> he feels clever inside. what a small little insecure boy you are
> Tom..... What have you contributed Tom.
For example:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/252a4fd1ed57a86e
"You must penetrate your self-importance. It fixes you in delusions of
grandeur, which are the most popular delusions in the practice of
magick. Only by recognizing that you're not even half as smart as you
think you are can you transcend them. Accept disgrace willingly.
Therein lies the means to overcome fear."
"So once you realize that you are indeed a chowderhead, a bumpkin, a
schlemiel, you'll be ready to step out of the storybook and into the
world."
Some very wise and useful advice from Tom.
I can find more for you, if you'd like. I have files in which I have saved
some of the best and most useful articles posted to alt.magick. There's tons
of stuff from Tom.
HG
ch...@newsguy.com
>
>
> I can find more for you, if you'd like. I have files in which I have saved
> some of the best and most useful articles posted to alt.magick. There's tons
> of stuff from Tom.
>
> HG
Please. Although it's on hiatus, I have started a web based showcase
of gems from the a.m archives.
Tom
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> oh would also like to add this discussion to the discussion
>
> http://etoile.topcities.com/ECT/public/Essaiers/essaier-49_Devil.pdf
> A Short History of the Devil
Looks like somebody did a book report on Gerald Messadié's "A History
of the Devil" (1997, Kodansha Globe) and then failed to cite their
source.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Devil-Gerald-Messadie/dp/156836198X
ch...@newsguy.com
etoile....@gmail.com
Interesting, this article was first published in 1994 in Magic
Pentacle. A journal of the occult in N.Z before from what I can tell
the book was.
Tom
The French edition of this book (Histoire générale du diable) was
published by R. Laffont in 1993.
http://www.laffont.fr/livre.asp?code=2-221-07491-2
Too bad your author was too careless to cite his sources. Now he just
looks like a plagiarist.
Robert Scott Martin
etoile....@gmail.com <etoile....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Consider the relationship between Christ - Baal - Lucifer
358 - the mercury fixed and exalted - 358
And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people,
and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses and
said, We have sinned for we have spoken against the LORD and against thee;
pray unto the LORD that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses
prayed for the people.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a
pole, and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten, when he
looketh upon it shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass and put it
upon a pole and it came to pass that if a serpent had bitten any man, when
he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
etoile....@gmail.com
Yet this person could not speak French, let alone read it...
Yes plagiarism is serious, can you show me any sections within the
book that support your
idea, that is other than the title...
Tom
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 3:34 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 1:15 am, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
>
> > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 2, 5:39 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 31, 5:21 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > oh would also like to add this discussion to the discussion
>
> > > > >http://etoile.topcities.com/ECT/public/Essaiers/essaier-49_Devil.pdf
> > > > > A Short History of the Devil
>
> > > > Looks like somebody did a book report on Gerald Messadié's "A History
> > > > of the Devil" (1997, Kodansha Globe) and then failed to cite their
> > > > source.
>
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/History-Devil-Gerald-Messadie/dp/156836198X
>
> > > Interesting, this article was first published in 1994 in Magic
> > > Pentacle. A journal of the occult in N.Z before from what I can tell
> > > the book was.
>
> > The French edition of this book (Histoire générale du diable) was
> > published by R. Laffont in 1993.
>
> >http://www.laffont.fr/livre.asp?code=2-221-07491-2
>
> > Too bad your author was too careless to cite his sources. Now he just
> > looks like a plagiarist.
>
> Yet this person could not speak French, let alone read it...
We have only your word as to how ignorant and poorly read he was, but
we realize by merely reading the article that he was no scholar
because of the lack of any citations. Who knows where he got his
information? Clearly, he didn't discover all this himself. The mere
fact that a book with virtually the same title and dealing with the
same subject matter was in print a year before he allegedly published
his article in a very obscure occult magazine is enough to suspect, if
not confirm, plagiarism.
> Yes plagiarism is serious, can you show me any sections within the
> book that support your
> idea, that is other than the title...
Chapter 4: "Zoroaster, the First Ayatollahs, and the True Birth of the
Devil"
Chapter 13: "Israel: Demons as the Heavenly Servants of the Modern
Devil"
Chapter 16" "Islam: The Devil as State Functionary"
Every idea discussed in this "Short History of the Devil" essay is
discussed at greater length - with all the proper scholarly
citations- in "A History of the Devil".
If you want to make a moral claim as a "true teacher", you should be
scrupulous in your scholarship and diligent in citing your source
materials. So far, it doesn't look like you have been. For instance,
your website claims a copyright on this material dated 2002-04, yet,
when I pointed out that everything in it was published in a paperback
book printed in 1997, suddenly you claim it was published in some very
obscure occult magazine in 1994. Nowhere on your site was that ever
mentioned. You didn't cite your source any better than the nominal
"author" cited his. What happened to *their* copyright?
Fortunately for you, not much of your work actually attempts to make
any statements of fact that might possibly be checked and found
lacking. Mostly it consists of value judgments, vague and ambiguous
generalizations, and assertions of untestable spiritual beliefs. Thus
you don't often run into the kind of scholarship problem you've run
into here.
etoile....@gmail.com
> > > > > > A Short History of the Devil
>
> > > > > Looks like somebody did a book report on Gerald Messadié's "A History
> > > > > of the Devil" (1997, Kodansha Globe) and then failed to cite their
> > > > > source.
>
> > > > >http://www.amazon.com/History-Devil-Gerald-Messadie/dp/156836198X
>
> > > > Interesting, this article was first published in 1994 in Magic
> > > > Pentacle. A journal of the occult in N.Z before from what I can tell
> > > > the book was.
>
> > > The French edition of this book (Histoire générale du diable) was
> > > published by R. Laffont in 1993.
>
> > >http://www.laffont.fr/livre.asp?code=2-221-07491-2
>
> > > Too bad your author was too careless to cite his sources. Now he just
> > > looks like a plagiarist.
>
> > Yet this person could not speak French, let alone read it...
>
> We have only your word as to how ignorant and poorly read he was, but
> we realize by merely reading the article that he was no scholar
> because of the lack of any citations.
For now my word will have to be good enough, until I find the original
article and scan it.. if indeed I still have it.
Others will however...
It may be that the original author did have citations, I don't know.
Once again only the original article will proof or
disprove your point. It may simply be the result of a member of our
(this Order) type setting from the original
article and negating to add in any citations that may or may not of
been there.
> Who knows where he got his
> information? Clearly, he didn't discover all this himself. The mere
> fact that a book with virtually the same title and dealing with the
> same subject matter was in print a year before he allegedly published
> his article in a very obscure occult magazine is enough to suspect, if
> not confirm, plagiarism.
From your perspective I see how you came to that conclusion. The
thing you are lacking however time,
is patience and investigative skills before you jump too conclusions.
You may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know.
> > Yes plagiarism is serious, can you show me any sections within the
> > book that support your
> > idea, that is other than the title...
>
> Chapter 4: "Zoroaster, the First Ayatollahs, and the True Birth of the
> Devil"
> Chapter 13: "Israel: Demons as the Heavenly Servants of the Modern
> Devil"
> Chapter 16" "Islam: The Devil as State Functionary"
>
> Every idea discussed in this "Short History of the Devil" essay is
> discussed at greater length - with all the proper scholarly
> citations- in "A History of the Devil".
>
I will endeavour to find a copy of this in the 2nd book market in Oz/
NZ
> If you want to make a moral claim as a "true teacher", you should be
> scrupulous in your scholarship and diligent in citing your source
> materials.
I agree.. now your reacting. You are letting what is a valid
criticism once again ruin your composure, and letting
what is a good point become a valid point.
My claims, I did not write this essay. That should be obvious to you
by if you had read more than simply what you
can use to criticize. Even if your criticisms are valid.
I made no claim to be a 'true teacher' I made a claim and presented
what I consider to be true and false teachers.
And I stand by it.. I have every right to make this moral and
philosophical assessment. You have no right however
to initiate an attack on me like some sort of werewolf without just
cause.
I certainly am not a spiritual teacher, but I do claim to have
practised magick for over 30 years. 25+ years of these
are documented published record. I am not some new kid on the block.
I do claim some degree of skill in magick sorcery. As for mystic
combat mentioned earlier see: http://etoile.topcities.com/SSH/Te_Neteru/admin/
a scan
of a published challenge 1990 that is nearly 20 years ago.. while it
no doubt won't impress you, it will (a) prove the journal existed (b)
I have been around for a while and (c) if you think I am afraid to get
it on with you, you are seriously
mistaken.
You already know my opinion of you. You have not shown any thing that
impresses me either. Certainly I am finding
this conversation of yours reasonable and learnt, but other all all I
have seen from the bulk of your postings are the
ravings of a bully, who uses pop psychology mixed with a bit of
Buddhism to insult people. Just so you know how perceive you too..
> So far, it doesn't look like you have been. For instance,
> your website claims a copyright on this material dated 2002-04, yet,
Yes, it is a long story .. which you see from reading a history of the
Society of Guardians.. basically
copyright passed to a Society which defaulted, which by its own
constitution gave rights to another society,
which I was head of and head of an Order called the Et Custosi
Tutelae.. other things happened, but I am certain
you are not particularly interested.
> when I pointed out that everything in it was published in a paperback
> book printed in 1997, suddenly you claim it was published in some very
> obscure occult magazine in 1994.
You must stop using emotive words 'suddenly' to try and colour
argument. There is no suddenly about it, you posted
and I replied the next day.
The only emotional thing, is the surprising level of your rationality
in your point.
> Nowhere on your site was that ever
> mentioned. You didn't cite your source any better than the nominal
> "author" cited his. What happened to *their* copyright?
You are repeating yourself.. are you really interested ?
If in the unlikely event you are, and not simply trying to create more
trouble, then you may read
http://etoile.topcities.com/ECT/public/ see Guardians_01 for the
history
then any questions on copyright I will answer for you..
>
> Fortunately for you, not much of your work actually attempts to make
> any statements of fact that might possibly be checked and found
> lacking.
<g> Not because they are not there... but because I have kept very
good records of published documents.
> Mostly it consists of value judgments, vague and ambiguous
> generalizations, and assertions of untestable spiritual beliefs. Thus
> you don't often run into the kind of scholarship problem you've run
> into here.
You going off into your tired old record world again..
Tom
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For now my word will have to be good enough, until I find the original
> article and scan it.. if indeed I still have it.
I'm sorry but your unsupported word isn't good enough to outweigh all
the rest of the evidence.
> It may be that the original author did have citations, I don't know.
That's because you don't pay attention to scholarship. Most
occultists don't. They're simply too careless.
> Once again only the original article will proof or
> disprove your point.
I don't think your claim to have the original article would be "proof"
that the guy didn't crib. But then again, I'm not asking you for
proof. I never ask anyone for proof. I ask for evidence, preferably
evidence that can be checked independently.
The real point here is that claims about historical matters should be
accompanied by checkable citations of source materials, so that one
can determine just how you arrived at your conclusions and whether or
not you misread, misinterpreted, or misrepresented the evidence. A
competent teacher should encourage independent verification of all his
or her claims. To do otherwise is to descend into pedantry and
autocracy.
> It may simply be the result of a member of our
> (this Order) type setting from the original
> article and negating to add in any citations that may or may not of
> been there.
And that nobody in your organization cares enough to proofread your
articles, let alone check the citations.
> > Who knows where he got his
> > information? Clearly, he didn't discover all this himself. The mere
> > fact that a book with virtually the same title and dealing with the
> > same subject matter was in print a year before he allegedly published
> > his article in a very obscure occult magazine is enough to suspect, if
> > not confirm, plagiarism.
>
> From your perspective I see how you came to that conclusion. The
> thing you are lacking however time,
> is patience and investigative skills before you jump too conclusions.
> You may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know.
I haven't jumped to any conclusions at all. Do you believe that when
I say there is reason for suspicion of plagiarism that I am saying
that I have proved plagiarism? My goal here is not to prove
plagiarism but to point out that articles making assertions about
historical facts should be supported by citations of the evidence upon
which those assertions are made. Failure to do so suggests a careless
disregard for the critical thinking skills of your students, if not a
careless disregard for your own.
> I will endeavour to find a copy of this in the 2nd book market in Oz/
> NZ
You can order it from any of a number of on-line used booksellers.
> > If you want to make a moral claim as a "true teacher", you should be
> > scrupulous in your scholarship and diligent in citing your source
> > materials.
>
> I agree.. now your reacting. You are letting what is a valid
> criticism once again ruin your composure, and letting
> what is a good point become a valid point.
I'm generally in favor of letting good points become valid points when
they merit it. Aren't you?
> My claims, I did not write this essay.
Your claims are to have a copyright on a revision of the work,
although you do not say who revised it or how it was revised. Its
present form lacks any acknowledgement of the source materials from
which it was assembled and you, as holder of the copyright, have an
obligation to give scholarly credit where credit is due. Failure to
do so is intellectual theft.
> I made no claim to be a 'true teacher' I made a claim and presented
> what I consider to be true and false teachers.
You state quite explicitly that "The Et Custodi Tutelae is a magical
teaching order". "We will teach you magick - real magick and you will
become an adept a craftsman of magick if you complete your training
with us."
So you do indeed claim to be a teacher and one of the things you teach
is a method for determining whether a teacher is true or false. Now,
if a false teacher teaches a way to determine whether a teacher is
true or false, do you think he'll teach a way that would point himself
out as a false teacher? That would be absurd. Of course he's going
to advocate for a method that makes him look like a true teacher.
Neither would a true teacher point to himself as a false teacher.
Thus every teacher, both true and false, must expect students who use
his method to conclude that he is a true teacher, whether he
explicitly claims it or not.
Thus, if you claim to be a teacher at all, you are strongly implying,
if not overtly saying, that you are a "true teacher".
> And I stand by it.. I have every right to make this moral and
> philosophical assessment. You have no right however
> to initiate an attack on me like some sort of werewolf without just
> cause.
I have every right to challenge any claim you might make, either
overtly or by implication. Such a challenge is not an "attack". It
is a criticism and a request to provide evidence for what you say and
why anyone should believe it. If you cannot face such a challenge,
and instead object to it as a threat to your unquestioned authority or
some sort of unwarranted attack on you, that tells us something about
you that I think we should all know.
> I certainly am not a spiritual teacher, but I do claim to have
> practised magick for over 30 years. 25+ years of these
> are documented published record. I am not some new kid on the block.
I don't care how many years of experience you claim, your ideas and
statements are as open to question as anybody else's. You have not
earned any special privileges or immunities in that regard.
> I do claim some degree of skill in magick sorcery. As for mystic
> combat mentioned earlier see:http://etoile.topcities.com/SSH/Te_Neteru/admin/
> a scan
> of a published challenge 1990 that is nearly 20 years ago.. while it
> no doubt won't impress you, it will (a) prove the journal existed (b)
> I have been around for a while and (c) if you think I am afraid to get
> it on with you, you are seriously
> mistaken.
Oh, cut the pugnatious routine. You're not going to impress me with
bluster either. "Mystic combat". Bah.
> You already know my opinion of you. You have not shown any thing that
> impresses me either.
Unlike you, I'm not trying to drum up subscribers to a correspondence
course, so I really don't care who is impressed with me or who isn't.
You're the one who is trying to make the impression here, and not
doing a very good job of it, in my opinion. Resorting with schoolyard
taunts and working yourself up into a lather over having had your lack
of scholarship exposed is not what I'd expect of a "god-like being",
which is what you promise that a successful student of yours will
become.
"If you complete your studies, and apply youself to the teachings then
you will be very well qualified in the Philosophy and Practice of
Magic/K and also the Qabalah - amongst many other things which you
will notice as you literally move through the worlds and transform
into a magical god like being."
> > So far, it doesn't look like you have been. For instance,
> > your website claims a copyright on this material dated 2002-04, yet,
>
> Yes, it is a long story .. which you see from reading a history of the
> Society of Guardians..
You mean the ancient history of the Guardians that is wholly
"anecdotal" and should be viewed as "allegory" or "myth"? Or that cat
fight in the late 90's after the death of the alleged former Golden
Dawner who had previously kept all you youngsters in hand. That part
seems pretty typical of the kind of group you folks were running.
Schisms, expulsions, reformations, leadership vacuums, and all that.
No harm, no foul. It's a common enough situation.
> basically
> copyright passed to a Society which defaulted, which by its own
> constitution gave rights to another society,
> which I was head of and head of an Order called the Et Custosi
> Tutelae.. other things happened, but I am certain
> you are not particularly interested.
That's correct. I'm not. At least not at the moment.
> > when I pointed out that everything in it was published in a paperback
> > book printed in 1997, suddenly you claim it was published in some very
> > obscure occult magazine in 1994.
>
> You must stop using emotive words 'suddenly' to try and colour
> argument. There is no suddenly about it, you posted
> and I replied the next day.
That seems sudden enough for me. It had never been mentioned anywhere
previously. Remember, you hadn't cited any sources.
> The only emotional thing, is the surprising level of your rationality
> in your point.
If you actually had researched my past posts more than cursorily, you
would not be so surprised at finding me rational when rationality is
appropriate.
> > Nowhere on your site was that ever
> > mentioned. You didn't cite your source any better than the nominal
> > "author" cited his. What happened to *their* copyright?
>
> You are repeating yourself.. are you really interested ?
I was not repeating myself. I was asking a question. However, you
have now given me a few clues, so I hypothesize that the 1994 magazine
you refer to was some sort of journal produced by members of the older
group from which your current one emerged. That would account for
your claim of a copyright on it. Is that about right?
> > Fortunately for you, not much of your work actually attempts to make
> > any statements of fact that might possibly be checked and found
> > lacking.
>
> <g> Not because they are not there... but because I have kept very
> good records of published documents.
It's likely that you've kept track of all your order documents, but
they don't reference much in the way of independent works. For
instance, the stories told about all those 11th Century goings-on
don't have any documentation, but then again, you honestly admit that
you have no evidence supporting the accuracy for those stories.
etoile....@gmail.com
> On Jun 3, 2:28 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
>
> <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For now my word will have to be good enough, until I find the original
> > article and scan it.. if indeed I still have it.
>
> I'm sorry but your unsupported word isn't good enough to outweigh all
> the rest of the evidence.
No your not sorry. Yes word is only unsupported to the extent that I
cannot for now provide an
original copy. There is no other evidence. You made up a nice catch
phase which actually has
no substance on analysis.
>
> > It may be that the original author did have citations, I don't know.
>
> That's because you don't pay attention to scholarship. Most
> occultists don't. They're simply too careless.
Your right.. <g> add neurotic to that as well.. and probably
schizophrenic too, whatever reality is...
comes with the (magick) territory...
I don't mind you keep your scholarship and I will keep my neurosis.
>
> > Once again only the original article will proof or
> > disprove your point.
>
> I don't think your claim to have the original article would be "proof"
> that the guy didn't crib. But then again, I'm not asking you for
> proof. I never ask anyone for proof. I ask for evidence, preferably
> evidence that can be checked independently.
>
Now your getting lost in your own world again Tom. A copy of the
original article, as published
would be proof. Proof of either having citations, or not. Then if
you wanted to check independently
then all any person would need to do, is find a copy from themselves,
somewhere at a 2nd hand book
network, or the General Assembly Library..
> The real point here is that claims about historical matters should be
> accompanied by checkable citations of source materials, so that one
> can determine just how you arrived at your conclusions and whether or
> not you misread, misinterpreted, or misrepresented the evidence. A
> competent teacher should encourage independent verification of all his
> or her claims. To do otherwise is to descend into pedantry and
> autocracy.
I agree.. however that is not what is being discussed here. Try to
keep on target.
>
> > It may simply be the result of a member of our
> > (this Order) type setting from the original
> > article and negating to add in any citations that may or may not of
> > been there.
>
> And that nobody in your organization cares enough to proofread your
> articles, let alone check the citations.
Generally, nope probably not from..
>
> > > Who knows where he got his
> > > information? Clearly, he didn't discover all this himself. The mere
> > > fact that a book with virtually the same title and dealing with the
> > > same subject matter was in print a year before he allegedly published
> > > his article in a very obscure occult magazine is enough to suspect, if
> > > not confirm, plagiarism.
>
> > From your perspective I see how you came to that conclusion. The
> > thing you are lacking however time,
> > is patience and investigative skills before you jump too conclusions.
> > You may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know.
>
> I haven't jumped to any conclusions at all. Do you believe that when
> I say there is reason for suspicion of plagiarism that I am saying
> that I have proved plagiarism?
Your not listening. When you present the negative to argue your
case.. then your intent and your own
methodology is in itself a judgement, hence a conclusion.
> My goal here is not to prove
> plagiarism but to point out that articles making assertions about
> historical facts should be supported by citations of the evidence upon
> which those assertions are made. Failure to do so suggests a careless
> disregard for the critical thinking skills of your students, if not a
> careless disregard for your own.
Academically you would be correct, if you were correct. But this is
not scholarly article, and hence
it is another to cite references/footnotes. Neither Oxford nor APA
referencing is really applicable here.
> > I will endeavour to find a copy of this in the 2nd book market in Oz/
> > NZ
>
> You can order it from any of a number of on-line used booksellers.
Don't you think I know that.. and pay $25 dollars to get it mailed to
me.. no bad business.
> > > If you want to make a moral claim as a "true teacher", you should be
> > > scrupulous in your scholarship and diligent in citing your source
> > > materials.
>
> > I agree.. now your reacting. You are letting what is a valid
> > criticism once again ruin your composure, and letting
> > what is a good point become a valid point.
>
> I'm generally in favor of letting good points become valid points when
> they merit it. Aren't you?
no, not if they miss - as you have.
>
> > My claims, I did not write this essay.
>
> Your claims are to have a copyright on a revision of the work,
Please pay attention. I personally don't have copyright of this work
this is made blatantly clear on the document
in question. The copyright belongs to a society in which I am one of
the most senior members of.
> although you do not say who revised it or how it was revised.
why should I say who (even if my memory was correct)... ever heard of
privacy. Or is that concept
outside of your comprehension. Do you actually read these postings
which beyond an immediate response
mechanism. Your comment proves you fails to recall a few paragraphs
back.. as to how it was probably revised.
> present form lacks any acknowledgement of the source materials from
> which it was assembled and you, as holder of the copyright, have an
> obligation to give scholarly credit where credit is due. Failure to
> do so is intellectual theft.
I do give credit where credit is due.
>
> > I made no claim to be a 'true teacher' I made a claim and presented
> > what I consider to be true and false teachers.
>
> You state quite explicitly that "The Et Custodi Tutelae is a magical
> teaching order". "We will teach you magick - real magick and you will
> become an adept a craftsman of magick if you complete your training
> with us."
Absolutely ...
> So you do indeed claim to be a teacher
No I do not... think it though Tom..
> and one of the things you teach
> is a method for determining whether a teacher is true or false.
One of our documents tells us this..
> Now,
> if a false teacher teaches a way to determine whether a teacher is
> true or false, do you think he'll teach a way that would point himself
> out as a false teacher? That would be absurd. Of course he's going
> to advocate for a method that makes him look like a true teacher.
> Neither would a true teacher point to himself as a false teacher.
> Thus every teacher, both true and false, must expect students who use
> his method to conclude that he is a true teacher, whether he
> explicitly claims it or not.
Your logic is good, but shows a lack of understanding.
> Thus, if you claim to be a teacher at all, you are strongly implying,
> if not overtly saying, that you are a "true teacher".
except if you don't actually teach.. which I don't.
> > And I stand by it.. I have every right to make this moral and
> > philosophical assessment. You have no right however
> > to initiate an attack on me like some sort of werewolf without just
> > cause.
>
> I have every right to challenge any claim you might make, either
> overtly or by implication.
You only have the right to discover the truth.. and to do so without
hostility. But as soon as you show aggression, hostility, and all the
other bad points you have (and have done to numerous others) then the
best you can do is attempt to cloud your own frustration and anger
behind a so-called intended veil of truth.
> Such a challenge is not an "attack".
Trouble is, what people see is not a challenge with integrity, but the
werewolf. I think you need to think before
you attempt to bite. Otherwise those quick enough will just keep
kicking you in the head.. and all your
do is make enemies.
> It
> is a criticism and a request to provide evidence for what you say and
> why anyone should believe it.
But it is not a criticism nor a request to insult - do not try and be
reasonable now, to justify your previous behaviour.
> If you cannot face such a challenge,
Here you go barking again Tom.. .
> and instead object to it as a threat to your unquestioned authority or
> some sort of unwarranted attack on you, that tells us something about
> you that I think we should all know.
>
do you ever want that chain taken off you.. you got to learn to
remember. Otherwise all that will happen
is that your just going to go around and around again... with what
tangent or angle you imagine up.
Clue keep on topic.. don't add to your own speculative
story, ...focus
> > I certainly am not a spiritual teacher, but I do claim to have
> > practised magick for over 30 years. 25+ years of these
> > are documented published record. I am not some new kid on the block.
>
> I don't care how many years of experience you claim,
I don't claim .. I state
> your ideas and
> statements are as open to question as anybody else's. You have not
> earned any special privileges or immunities in that regard.
Nor have you... and that Tom another one of your many problems
>
> > I do claim some degree of skill in magick sorcery. As for mystic
> > combat mentioned earlier see:http://etoile.topcities.com/SSH/Te_Neteru/admin/
> > a scan > > of a published challenge 1990 that is nearly 20 years ago.. while it
> > no doubt won't impress you, it will (a) prove the journal existed (b)
> > I have been around for a while and (c) if you think I am afraid to get
> > it on with you, you are seriously
> > mistaken.
>
> Oh, cut the pugnatious routine. You're not going to impress me with
> bluster either. "Mystic combat". Bah.
Yet it means I am not just mouth... what about you Tom. We are still
waiting for you to show us anything of
similar regard that would prove to me and the world that you are not
just all mouth. Your quick mind ain't going to
be enough wer.
>
> > You already know my opinion of you. You have not shown any thing that
> > impresses me either.
>
> Unlike you, I'm not trying to drum up subscribers to a correspondence
> course, so I really don't care who is impressed with me or who isn't.
Haha.. that is very funny. Given that the E.C.T correspondence course
is free, do you really think
I want to drum up subscribers. No far to much time involved there,
for more than a few. So your wrong
about that too.
And second .. I am pleased that you don't care, because I ain't
impressed with you at all.. I would be
if you had more control and some kind of verifiable history. But you
don't, all you have is animal cunning
and natural predisposition to snarl.
> You're the one who is trying to make the impression here, and not
> doing a very good job of it, in my opinion. Resorting with schoolyard
> taunts and working yourself up into a lather over having had your lack
> of scholarship exposed is not what I'd expect of a "god-like being",
> which is what you promise that a successful student of yours will
> become.
I am not trying to make an impression at all.. my only motivation here
Tom is to put you down. I don't like bullies.
as for god-like .. what would you know about the gods..
> "If you complete your studies, and apply youself to the teachings then
> you will be very well qualified in the Philosophy and Practice of
> Magic/K and also the Qabalah - amongst many other things which you
> will notice as you literally move through the worlds and transform
> into a magical god like being."
True ... standard Qabalah movement through the world. Similar in
method to Golden Dawn to become more than
human.
>
> > > So far, it doesn't look like you have been.
Of course not... how could any dog see more than black and white?
> For instance,
> > > your website claims a copyright on this material dated 2002-04, yet,
>
> > Yes, it is a long story .. which you see from reading a history of the
> > Society of Guardians..
>
> You mean the ancient history of the Guardians that is wholly
> "anecdotal" and should be viewed as "allegory" or "myth"?
That is how I am presenting it. It would be foolish to take it at
face value.
> Or that cat
> fight in the late 90's after the death of the alleged former Golden
> Dawner who had previously kept all you youngsters in hand.
how did you know about that?
> That part
> seems pretty typical of the kind of group you folks were running.
> Schisms, expulsions, reformations, leadership vacuums, and all that.
> No harm, no foul. It's a common enough situation.
plenty of harm, plenty of foul, plenty of causalities - that is what
marked me....
> > basically
> > copyright passed to a Society which defaulted, which by its own
> > constitution gave rights to another society,
> > which I was head of and head of an Order called the Et Custosi
> > Tutelae.. other things happened, but I am certain
> > you are not particularly interested.
>
> That's correct. I'm not. At least not at the moment.
Don't play me for a fool, I know the only thing you are interested in
is sharpening your critical pop Buddhist psychology
as some sort of weapon.
> > > when I pointed out that everything in it was published in a paperback
> > > book printed in 1997, suddenly you claim it was published in some very
> > > obscure occult magazine in 1994.
> > You must stop using emotive words 'suddenly' to try and colour
> > argument. There is no suddenly about it, you posted
> > and I replied the next day.
>
> That seems sudden enough for me. It had never been mentioned anywhere
> previously. Remember, you hadn't cited any sources.
This is because you have a tendency to not pay attention to anything
from previously... that posting was
originally providing a link to the article in reply to another person
here on this thread. Your not getting fed are you?
> > The only emotional thing, is the surprising level of your rationality
> > in your point.
>
> If you actually had researched my past posts more than cursorily, you
> would not be so surprised at finding me rational when rationality is
> appropriate.
To be completely couldn't be bothered... my perusal of your postings
simply showed you up to be a nasty
bitter thug.
>
> > > Nowhere on your site was that ever
> > > mentioned. You didn't cite your source any better than the nominal
> > > "author" cited his. What happened to *their* copyright?
>
> > You are repeating yourself.. are you really interested ?
>
> I was not repeating myself. I was asking a question.
Re-asking a question, no matter how you paraphrase it, is repeating
yourself.
> However, you
> have now given me a few clues, so I hypothesize that the 1994 magazine
> you refer to was some sort of journal produced by members of the older
> group from which your current one emerged. That would account for
> your claim of a copyright on it. Is that about right?
>
No... I was a member of the original group. The original group just
went through a few changes.
> > > Fortunately for you, not much of your work actually attempts to make
> > > any statements of fact that might possibly be checked and found
> > > lacking.
>
> > <g> Not because they are not there... but because I have kept very
> > good records of published documents.
>
> It's likely that you've kept track of all your order documents, but
> they don't reference much in the way of independent works. For
> instance, the stories told about all those 11th Century goings-on
> don't have any documentation, ...
>
Make your mind up, so now because I have kept good record, of my own
documentation. You want to
change the goal-post to the earlier work of others.. is that correct?
Check out the did the Guardians exist before 1970 article..
> read more
practice more..
Robert Scott Martin
In article <8cbb494b-5bb4-4725...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
etoile....@gmail.com <etoile....@gmail.com> wrote:
[remote diagnosis]
>whatever reality is...
>comes with the (magick) territory...
This is an extraordinary motto. "Whatever reality is" definitely comes
with the Territory. Otherwise I can buy crosswords at the drugstore.
[cut -- is the taste of the morel the memory of fire?]
>> > I certainly am not a spiritual teacher, but I do claim to have
>> > practised magick for over 30 years. ?25+ years of these
>> > are documented published record. ?I am not some new kid on the block.
>>
>> I don't care how many years of experience you claim,
>
>I don't claim .. I state
This sort of claim -- sorry, statement -- of authenticity through
tenure suddenly interests me. In our field, can anyone attain through
simply lasting long enough? If so, how does survivorship transmute into
success?
It's true that simply maintaining one's tenacity in the world is a sort of
visible attainment, a base for most mundane goals. And it's also true that
holding attention on any field -- carpentry, fishing, stamps, ye occulte
-- for extended periods is noteworthy and a basis for achieving
extraordinary things.
But is attention in itself enough? Because of the happy accident of how
our word "interest" evolved, I always think of attention and investment
returns together. Our "interest" or investment of attention in a field is
theoretically compounded over time in the form of "interest" or gain. We
in the world have limited conscious capital to work with and an unlimited
choice of objects in which to invest that capital. Every object pays in a
different currency -- "love," "happiness," "power," "insight," "comfort"
-- and at different rates.
How does the investiture of attention in ye occulte over time pay off? In
what ways can we make that investment more efficient -- a "short cut to
initiation" as it were -- and where are the risks of accepting
lower-than-optimal returns through misapplied attention to the wrong
things over what's really crucial?
Does attainment behave more like a stock or a bond? Is ye occulte a
"random walk" in which one person can wander a quarter century, forty
years (see more) and end up at zero, not even "to arrive where we started
and know the place 'for the first time,'" whereas another can hit ten-bag
nirvana in a day? And in that latter case, why's he hanging around with
us?
Does the survivor bias work against claims of authenticity?
We see these claims come up more and more as the new age generation ages.
Perhaps it is good to get some of these questions onto the table.
Dar es Alrah
> Golden Twigs...
>
> In article <8cbb494b-5bb4-4725-8245-e754e2ca3...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
How do you judge what is art? How do you judge from a pair of artists
who is the better at his art? People choose these things according to
what resonates with them at the time. After 20 years there's usually
an oberservable pattern of preference in an art lover, but any pattern
of preference can be a trap - a narrowing of focus - blinkers on, so I
suppose people who have 'attained' would be wise to the trap.
Robert Scott Martin
Dar es Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How do you judge what is art? How do you judge from a pair of artists
>who is the better at his art?
I don't, actually. Undergrad shows teach me things; the old masters wing
or the Bacon show at the Met teach me others. A late Wyeth, a young
Picasso.
So does longevity in ye occulte refine or broaden or deepen the work or
the appreciation thereof? (I know, "yes," but how? How is the question.)
Some are rising. Some are falling. Some are erring. Some labor their whole
lives, buy all the books, talk to all the gurus and never make it. Some
get to where they want to go and get off the bus. Some give up and get off
the bus. As you note, we're all making choices to hold onto something
we've invested our attention in -- or else to cut bait.
>People choose these things according to
>what resonates with them at the time. After 20 years there's usually
>an oberservable pattern of preference in an art lover, but any pattern
>of preference can be a trap - a narrowing of focus - blinkers on, so I
>suppose people who have 'attained' would be wise to the trap.
I just go to shows. Ms Selavy does all the painting. This opens up a
second front in terms of whether tenure as a connoisseur in the field of
ye occulte transfers to "time served" in practice, or vice versa. But this
is an old and shabby argument, like the chess masters Crowley rejected. I
include it here only as a false move.
Tom
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 7:44 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 2:28 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
>
> > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > For now my word will have to be good enough, until I find the original
> > > article and scan it.. if indeed I still have it.
>
> > I'm sorry but your unsupported word isn't good enough to outweigh all
> > the rest of the evidence.
>
> No your not sorry.
Well, I'm certainly not sorry that unsupported claims are not enough
to outweigh observeable evidence but I am sorry to disappoint you in
your expectation that it would be enough.
> Yes word is only unsupported to the extent that I
> cannot for now provide an
> original copy. There is no other evidence.
That's what "unsupported" means.
> You made up a nice catch
> phase which actually has
> no substance on analysis.
The statement "Your unsupported word is not enough to outweigh
evidence" is both analytical and substantive.
> > That's because you don't pay attention to scholarship. Most
> > occultists don't. They're simply too careless.
>
> Your right.. <g> add neurotic to that as well.. and probably
> schizophrenic too, whatever reality is...
> comes with the (magick) territory...
>
> I don't mind you keep your scholarship and I will keep my neurosis.
It seems to me that the process of magical development is supposed to
constantly improve one's control of one's thoughts and perceptions and
to use that control to comprehend the underlying reality of events in
such a way that they can be effectively manipulated in ways that seem
miraculous to those who may not be aware of that underlying reality.
If this is so, then clinging to neurosis and showing no interest in
discovering the underlying reality of events is diametrically opposed
to the study and practice of magick.
"Neurosis" is an uncontrolled, emotionally-based distortion of
perception which leads one into making false judgments about one's
perceptions and consequently into making poorer decisions than one
might otherwise.
> > > Once again only the original article will proof or
> > > disprove your point.
>
> > I don't think your claim to have the original article would be "proof"
> > that the guy didn't crib. But then again, I'm not asking you for
> > proof. I never ask anyone for proof. I ask for evidence, preferably
> > evidence that can be checked independently.
>
> Now your getting lost in your own world again Tom. A copy of the
> original article, as published
> would be proof. Proof of either having citations, or not.
Are the original photos of the Cottingley Fairies proof that fairies
exist?
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Cottingley_Fairies/
We can all see copies of the original photos, but I don't think
anybody but the most gullible people would ever imagine that they
constitute "proof". I'm not accusing you of hoaxing anything, but I'm
making the point that proof is what we call evidence that convinces
us. I prefer not to demand that you convince me but that you provide
the best evidence you can to support your claims and let me make the
decision as to whether or not I find them convincing.
> Then if
> you wanted to check independently
> then all any person would need to do, is find a copy from themselves,
> somewhere at a 2nd hand book
> network, or the General Assembly Library..
A copy of a single issue of a small New Zealand occult magazine from
the mid-1990's? You stand a better chance of catching a meteor with a
baseball glove than finding such an object in some second-hand
bookstore or public-access library.
> > The real point here is that claims about historical matters should be
> > accompanied by checkable citations of source materials, so that one
> > can determine just how you arrived at your conclusions and whether or
> > not you misread, misinterpreted, or misrepresented the evidence. A
> > competent teacher should encourage independent verification of all his
> > or her claims. To do otherwise is to descend into pedantry and
> > autocracy.
>
> I agree.. however that is not what is being discussed here. Try to
> keep on target.
In fact, that is exactly what I'm discussing here. I'm commenting on
your lack of concern for giving scholarly credit in your copyrighted
material where such credit is due. Since I'm putting you under
uncomfortable scrutiny, though, I can see why you'd rather be
discussing something else.
> > > From your perspective I see how you came to that conclusion. The
> > > thing you are lacking however time,
> > > is patience and investigative skills before you jump too conclusions.
> > > You may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know.
>
> > I haven't jumped to any conclusions at all. Do you believe that when
> > I say there is reason for suspicion of plagiarism that I am saying
> > that I have proved plagiarism?
>
> Your not listening. When you present the negative to argue your
> case.. then your intent and your own
> methodology is in itself a judgement, hence a conclusion.
There is a great difference between not listening to you and not
agreeing with you. A suspicion is not a conclusion, no matter how
many times you try to claim otherwise.
> > My goal here is not to prove
> > plagiarism but to point out that articles making assertions about
> > historical facts should be supported by citations of the evidence upon
> > which those assertions are made. Failure to do so suggests a careless
> > disregard for the critical thinking skills of your students, if not a
> > careless disregard for your own.
>
> Academically you would be correct, if you were correct. But this is
> not scholarly article, and hence
> it is another to cite references/footnotes. Neither Oxford nor APA
> referencing is really applicable here.
I'm quite aware from the way it was written that it is not a scholarly
article, but it is copyrighted and is being used as educational
material, even if the teaching body has no academic accreditation of
any kind. By asserting copyright, you are claiming intellectual
property rights over that article while, at the same time, showing no
respect for the intellectual property rights of others from whom your
author gathered his material. If you feel that others should respect
your property rights, then it is only fair and honest to respect the
property rights of others.
> > > I will endeavour to find a copy of this in the 2nd book market in Oz/
> > > NZ
>
> > You can order it from any of a number of on-line used booksellers.
>
> Don't you think I know that.. and pay $25 dollars to get it mailed to
> me.. no bad business.
I understand. It's hard to generate a lot of interest in finding
evidence that some of your copyrighted material may have been
plagiarized. $25 is quite a lot of money under those circumstances.
Sort of like the Monty Python skit on which someone pays to be hit on
the head.
> > > I agree.. now your reacting. You are letting what is a valid
> > > criticism once again ruin your composure, and letting
> > > what is a good point become a valid point.
>
> > I'm generally in favor of letting good points become valid points when
> > they merit it. Aren't you?
>
> no, not if they miss - as you have.
If a point is good and valid, as you say, then it hasn't "missed".
> > > My claims, I did not write this essay.
>
> > Your claims are to have a copyright on a revision of the work,
>
> Please pay attention. I personally don't have copyright of this work
> this is made blatantly clear on the document
> in question. The copyright belongs to a society in which I am one of
> the most senior members of.
Don't weasel. You control the organization. You asserted the
copyright in the name of the organization which you head.
> > although you do not say who revised it or how it was revised.
>
> why should I say who (even if my memory was correct)... ever heard of
> privacy.
If you are keeping them private, then you should not be posting them
on the internet. As to *why* you should say so, it all goes back to
whether or not you have respect for the intellectual property of
others while you assert intellectual property rights of your own.
> > present form lacks any acknowledgement of the source materials from
> > which it was assembled and you, as holder of the copyright, have an
> > obligation to give scholarly credit where credit is due. Failure to
> > do so is intellectual theft.
>
> I do give credit where credit is due.
By failing to cite your sources in copyrighted material which you are
offering for sale, you quite obviously do *not* give credit where
credit is due.
> > > I made no claim to be a 'true teacher' I made a claim and presented
> > > what I consider to be true and false teachers.
>
> > You state quite explicitly that "The Et Custodi Tutelae is a magical
> > teaching order". "We will teach you magick - real magick and you will
> > become an adept a craftsman of magick if you complete your training
> > with us."
>
> Absolutely ...
>
> > So you do indeed claim to be a teacher
>
> No I do not... think it though Tom..
I just did. And you have not provided any arguemnt to the contrary
except for a flat, unexplained contradiction.
> > and one of the things you teach
> > is a method for determining whether a teacher is true or false.
>
> One of our documents tells us this..
You're weaseling again. This is not just some isolated document but
part of the corrspondence course you (as the head of your
organization) offers as your "teachings".
> > Now,
> > if a false teacher teaches a way to determine whether a teacher is
> > true or false, do you think he'll teach a way that would point himself
> > out as a false teacher? That would be absurd. Of course he's going
> > to advocate for a method that makes him look like a true teacher.
> > Neither would a true teacher point to himself as a false teacher.
> > Thus every teacher, both true and false, must expect students who use
> > his method to conclude that he is a true teacher, whether he
> > explicitly claims it or not.
>
> Your logic is good, but shows a lack of understanding.
So you say, but once again, you provide no evidence to support your
claim.
> > Thus, if you claim to be a teacher at all, you are strongly implying,
> > if not overtly saying, that you are a "true teacher".
>
> except if you don't actually teach.. which I don't.
What exactly do you do, Jean? Please be specific.
> > > And I stand by it.. I have every right to make this moral and
> > > philosophical assessment. You have no right however
> > > to initiate an attack on me like some sort of werewolf without just
> > > cause.
>
> > I have every right to challenge any claim you might make, either
> > overtly or by implication.
>
> You only have the right to discover the truth..
Oh, I have a lot more rights than that. However, if we simply
consider only that one right which you so graciously allow me, then I
have the right to question anything you might claim as part of my
efforts to discover the truth.
> and to do so without hostility.
If you wish to label a challenge to your veracity or a criticism of
your carelessness to be "hostility", that's your choice. I don't see
you as my enemy, though. To me, you're just another guy who wants to
preach his idea of magick and has been shocked to discover that his
credibility is not blithely assumed by others.
> > Such a challenge is not an "attack".
>
> Trouble is, what people see is not a challenge with integrity, but the
> werewolf.
Well, that's what *you* choose to envision, but I don't think you
speak for people in general.
You seem to live in a world populated by comic book monsters:
Werewolves lurking on the internet, gargoyles that come alive in the
dark, witches and mages with "light" and "dark" moral alignments who
possess "mystic combat" skills right out of a role-playing game...
Frankly, it's a bit much to swallow uncritically.
> > It
> > is a criticism and a request to provide evidence for what you say and
> > why anyone should believe it.
>
> But it is not a criticism nor a request to insult - do not try and be
> reasonable now, to justify your previous behaviour.
It's often the case that when one's ego is more important than one's
topic of discussion, the egotist will focus on the insult and forget
about the topic. We attend to what's most important to us.
> > > I certainly am not a spiritual teacher, but I do claim to have
> > > practised magick for over 30 years. 25+ years of these
> > > are documented published record. I am not some new kid on the block.
>
> > I don't care how many years of experience you claim,
>
> I don't claim .. I state
I don't care about how many years of experience you state either.
> > your ideas and
> > statements are as open to question as anybody else's. You have not
> > earned any special privileges or immunities in that regard.
>
> Nor have you... and that Tom another one of your many problems
I don't consider not having special immunity from criticism to be a
"problem", since I am not trying to impress anyone into buying my
correspondence course or into seeing me as an unquestionable authority
on magick. I just say what I think. Apparently having me saying what
I think is a problem for you, though. You're certainly complaining
enough about it.
> > > I do claim some degree of skill in magick sorcery. As for mystic
> > > combat mentioned earlier see:http://etoile.topcities.com/SSH/Te_Neteru/admin/
> > > a scan > > of a published challenge 1990 that is nearly 20 years ago.. while it
> > > no doubt won't impress you, it will (a) prove the journal existed (b)
> > > I have been around for a while and (c) if you think I am afraid to get
> > > it on with you, you are seriously
> > > mistaken.
>
> > Oh, cut the pugnatious routine. You're not going to impress me with
> > bluster either. "Mystic combat". Bah.
>
> Yet it means I am not just mouth...
Bluster isn't evidence of that.
> what about you Tom. We are still
> waiting for you to show us anything of
> similar regard that would prove to me and the world that you are not
> just all mouth.
I don't believe in the kind of comic book "magic/k" you claim to be
doing. If you think you can blast me with magic bolts of arcane
energy, you're welcome to try. You won't be the first to make a fool
of himself doing that. I don't indulge those silly fantasies. My
idea of magick is far different from yours, I suspect.
"Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of
Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by
a right understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so
that true Agents being applied to proper Patients, strange and
admirable effects will thereby be produced. Whence magicians are
profound and diligent searchers into Nature; they, because of their
skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall
seem to be a miracle." -- The Lemegeton
My profound and diligent search into Nature has discovered that spooky
werewolves and gargoyles inhabit only the world of our imagination and
all talk of "mystic combat" is just that: talk.
> > Unlike you, I'm not trying to drum up subscribers to a correspondence
> > course, so I really don't care who is impressed with me or who isn't.
>
> Haha.. that is very funny. Given that the E.C.T correspondence course
> is free, do you really think
> I want to drum up subscribers.
Sure you do. It feeds your ego. Everybody knows that occult
correspondence courses are economic losers, but people still try to
get people to subscribe to them because they get off on being seen as
wise and powerful. Just like you, they have all sorts of praise for
themselves and their various supposed accomplishments written into
their lessons.
> No far to much time involved there,
> for more than a few. So your wrong
> about that too.
Given the lack of real research and scholarship connected with your
lessons, as I have pointed out, it doesn't look like all that much
effort has gone into them. It may seem like a lot to you, because you
don't realize how much work actual scholarship and research takes. So
you think your casual writings and role-playing, done in fits and
starts over many years of pretending you have fantastical magic powers
and reading occult books from your local second-hand shop, is a great
deal of work, but it's really not any more than one might put into a
beloved hobby like stamp collecting or model railroading.
> > You're the one who is trying to make the impression here, and not
> > doing a very good job of it, in my opinion. Resorting with schoolyard
> > taunts and working yourself up into a lather over having had your lack
> > of scholarship exposed is not what I'd expect of a "god-like being",
> > which is what you promise that a successful student of yours will
> > become.
>
> I am not trying to make an impression at all.. my only motivation here
> Tom is to put you down.
Well, you're not doing a good job of that either.
> as for god-like .. what would you know about the gods..
Oh, all kinds of things. Shoe sizes, favorite foods, books they've
read lately... C'mon, Jean. Get serious. You don't strike me as a
"god-like being" in any way shape of form.
> > "If you complete your studies, and apply youself to the teachings then
> > you will be very well qualified in the Philosophy and Practice of
> > Magic/K and also the Qabalah - amongst many other things which you
> > will notice as you literally move through the worlds and transform
> > into a magical god like being."
>
> True ... standard Qabalah movement through the world. Similar in
> method to Golden Dawn to become more than
> human.
And yet, they didn't act more than human. They shared the same
faults, foibles, and foolishness as the rest of us. This constant
strutting around as if one is superior to everyone else is just a self-
congratulatory pose.
> > You mean the ancient history of the Guardians that is wholly
> > "anecdotal" and should be viewed as "allegory" or "myth"?
>
> That is how I am presenting it. It would be foolish to take it at
> face value.
Indeed it would be.
> > Or that cat
> > fight in the late 90's after the death of the alleged former Golden
> > Dawner who had previously kept all you youngsters in hand.
>
> how did you know about that?
I can read, Jean. I pay attention. It's all right there in your
documents.
> > That part
> > seems pretty typical of the kind of group you folks were running.
> > Schisms, expulsions, reformations, leadership vacuums, and all that.
> > No harm, no foul. It's a common enough situation.
>
> plenty of harm, plenty of foul, plenty of causalities - that is what
> marked me....
All writ large on the pages of your imagination. Occult groups come
and go, Jean. The members bicker and squabble. They form little
political groups to oust one another from positions of "authority"
that don't matter in the slightest outside a small group of people who
like to dress up like Anglican bishops and wave magic wands around.
T'was ever thus.
> > > basically
> > > copyright passed to a Society which defaulted, which by its own
> > > constitution gave rights to another society,
> > > which I was head of and head of an Order called the Et Custosi
> > > Tutelae.. other things happened, but I am certain
> > > you are not particularly interested.
>
> > That's correct. I'm not. At least not at the moment.
>
> Don't play me for a fool,
I'm being completely honest here. I don't much care about the details
of your squabbles at the moment. Not that I don't enjoy some juicy
dish when I hear it. Occultists are great gossips for all their lip
service to secrecy.
We all have some entertaining stories to tell, even though most of
them are trivial.
> I know the only thing you are interested in
> is sharpening your critical pop Buddhist psychology
> as some sort of weapon.
I love the idea of a weapon made of critical Buddhist pop psychology.
The concept makes me chuckle.
"Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" takes on a whole new
dimension.
> > That seems sudden enough for me. It had never been mentioned anywhere
> > previously. Remember, you hadn't cited any sources.
>
> This is because you have a tendency to not pay attention to anything
> from previously... that posting was
> originally providing a link to the article in reply to another person
> here on this thread.
You linked to the article with a copyright date of 2002. You didn't
say it had been published previously at all. Every bit of the
information we have about the origins of this article came from me
pressuring you to explain the close similarities between this article
and a previously published book on the subject and the complete lack
of any citations in the article itself. Getting source information
out of you is like pulling teeth.
> > If you actually had researched my past posts more than cursorily, you
> > would not be so surprised at finding me rational when rationality is
> > appropriate.
>
> To be completely couldn't be bothered... my perusal of your postings
> simply showed you up to be a nasty
> bitter thug.
It's easy to see that, once you leap to a conclusion you like, you
don't want to be bothered with inconvenient facts to the contrary.
Occultists and conspiracy theorists often have that attitude.
> > > > Nowhere on your site was that ever
> > > > mentioned. You didn't cite your source any better than the nominal
> > > > "author" cited his. What happened to *their* copyright?
>
> > > You are repeating yourself.. are you really interested ?
>
> > I was not repeating myself. I was asking a question.
>
> Re-asking a question, no matter how you paraphrase it, is repeating
> yourself.
Another claim without supporting evidence. You do that a lot. But
never mind. We both know that your comment is trivial and serves only
as a distraction.
> > However, you
> > have now given me a few clues, so I hypothesize that the 1994 magazine
> > you refer to was some sort of journal produced by members of the older
> > group from which your current one emerged. That would account for
> > your claim of a copyright on it. Is that about right?
>
> No... I was a member of the original group.
When are you going to learn to read carefully? I didn't say you
weren't a member of the older group. The absolutely worst thing to do
when you try to object to a criticism of carelessness is to be
blatantly careless yet again.
> > > <g> Not because they are not there... but because I have kept very
> > > good records of published documents.
>
> > It's likely that you've kept track of all your order documents, but
> > they don't reference much in the way of independent works. For
> > instance, the stories told about all those 11th Century goings-on
> > don't have any documentation, ...
>
> Make your mind up, so now because I have kept good record, of my own
> documentation. You want to
> change the goal-post to the earlier work of others.. is that correct?
My criticism was never directed at your keeping of your own documents
but at the lack of citations within some of those documents. Trying
to befuddle yourself about that isn't helping you come across as
someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
Tom
> Golden Twigs...
More like Golden Apples. The kind that don't fall far from the tree.
bassos
"Robert Scott Martin" <gl...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h08p2g$kfa$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In article
> <552d815d-5513-415e...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Dar es Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>How do you judge what is art? How do you judge from a pair of artists
>>who is the better at his art?
>
> I don't, actually.
*clap clap*
Thanks mate, you make me so happy.
(your other post is far more complicated, so maybe later :P)
> Undergrad shows teach me things; the old masters wing
> or the Bacon show at the Met teach me others. A late Wyeth, a young
> Picasso.
Joy is (to be) found everywhere.
> So does longevity in ye occulte refine or broaden or deepen the work or
> the appreciation thereof? (I know, "yes," but how? How is the question.)
Both yes and no.
Living in a powder keg and giving off sparks and all.
How is :
Yes :
Enjoy all.
No:
Love hurts.
> Some are rising. Some are falling. Some are erring. Some labor their whole
> lives, buy all the books, talk to all the gurus and never make it. Some
> get to where they want to go and get off the bus. Some give up and get off
> the bus. As you note, we're all making choices to hold onto something
> we've invested our attention in -- or else to cut bait.
Or we just simply; go
>>People choose these things according to
>>what resonates with them at the time. After 20 years there's usually
>>an oberservable pattern of preference in an art lover, but any pattern
>>of preference can be a trap - a narrowing of focus - blinkers on, so I
>>suppose people who have 'attained' would be wise to the trap.
>
> I just go to shows. Ms Selavy does all the painting. This opens up a
> second front in terms of whether tenure as a connoisseur in the field of
> ye occulte transfers to "time served" in practice, or vice versa. But this
> is an old and shabby argument, like the chess masters Crowley rejected. I
> include it here only as a false move.
richard (as usual) wrote it nice and short :
the golden dawn peeps are like travellers huddling around an ever more
distant flame.
(replace the golden dawn peeps with pretty much anything else that clings)
Robert Scott Martin
Tom <dant...@comcast.net> wrote:
>a beloved hobby like stamp collecting
There are means and means. Be goodly therefore: ponder ye all thy Tuvan
lozenges in which the yak confronteth yon zeppelin; embrace even the
rudest forgeries from Mantua and Batum and find fruit in that embrace ...
but always unto me.
Tom
> In article <4d5f6bcc-3b79-4790-b066-d297ceace...@n19g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >a beloved hobby like stamp collecting
>
> There are means and means. Be goodly therefore: ponder ye all thy Tuvan
> lozenges in which the yak confronteth yon zeppelin; embrace even the
> rudest forgeries from Mantua and Batum and find fruit in that embrace ...
> but always unto me.
The zeppelin was a nice touch.
etoile....@gmail.com
> > the rest of the evidence.
> > No your not sorry.
> Well, I'm certainly not sorry that unsupported claims are not enough
> to outweigh observeable evidence but I am sorry to disappoint you in
> your expectation that it would be enough.
> Yes word is only unsupported to the extent that I
> cannot for now provide an
> original copy. There is no other evidence. That's what "unsupported" means.
Like the rest of your postings there is a continuing adherence to the
simplest if not idiotic view, that Tom thinks along the lines of ‘If I
haven’t seen it, it must be unsupportive or untrue’.. Quite simply it
doesn’t matter how many times you use the word ‘unsupported’ when the
evidence has been clearly stated. Just because you won’t admit your
error that the journal did exist and hence have your entire negation
contradicted, that doesn’t prove anything other than your own
ignorance.
> > You made up a nice catch
> > phase which actually has
> > no substance on analysis.
> The statement "Your unsupported word is not enough to outweigh
> evidence" is both analytical and substantive.
Wrong, it is never analytical because your statement doesn’t
investigate, let alone analyze the evidence. And it certainly is not
substantive because you have offered nothing except your personal
philosophical negations to justify the fact that you haven’t seen the
magazine. Substantive is bigger than your own mind Tom. If you want
to use words like analytical with substantive then you need to provide
something
which can be substantiated. Like I said you say the words, but they
have neither substance nor analysis.
[snip]
> > I don't mind you keep your scholarship and I will keep my neurosis.
> It seems to me that the process of magical development is supposed to
> constantly improve one's control of one's thoughts and perceptions
No not necessarily as a totality.…
> and to use that control to comprehend the underlying reality of events in
What level of knowledge is comprehension.. what you are saying doesn’t
make any sense. One uses what comprehension to assist in controlling
a situation (if and only if) control is warranted for a particular
task. – which it is not always necessarily so.
> such a way that they can be effectively manipulated in ways that seem
> miraculous to those who may not be aware of that underlying reality.
That is certainly one sort of magick, another sort of magick .. well
it never ceases to astound me. Of if you actually knew what you were
talking about, you wouldn’t cling to such school boy definitions.
>If this is so, then clinging to neurosis and showing no interest in discovering the >underlying reality of events is diametrically opposed to the study and practice of >magick.
At least you address it with ‘if this is so’ which shows a faint
chance that you may be possibly aware of a greater or more subtle
reality …beyond control or the comprehension of a mere human being.
Can you see how dishonest you are being with yourself and you
obviously you don’t even know what neurosis means. Which only proves
as I thought your argument is pop-psychology. Look you are wrong when
you link this to that, as they don’t necessarily connect; neurosis is
not necessarily clung too, and neurosis does not mean one has no
interest in discovering various underlying realities. You seriously
need to think about what you are saying, before you invent more
gibberish.
>“Neurosis" is an uncontrolled, emotionally-based distortion of
>perception which leads one into making false judgments about one's
>perceptions and consequently into making poorer decisions than one
>might otherwise.
Just as I thought no understanding of what a neurosis actually is, it
does not necessarily lead to delusions or false judgments. All you can
say is that neurosis causes stress, a distortion of what is considered
normal reality, but not necessarily delusional nor lacking in
judgment. Voudou magick clearly involves a neurosis of sorts, as do
many other forms of magick, especially those from my region Oceania.
You clearly have no idea…
> > > Once again only the original article will proof or
> > > disprove your point.
[snip]
> Now your getting lost in your own world again Tom. A copy of the
> original article, as published
> would be proof. Proof of either having citations, or not.
>Are the original photos of the Cottingley Fairies proof that fairies
>exist?
> http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Cottingley_Fairies/
Your playing stupid games again. Of course the original photos of the
Cottingley Faires are proof that the photo’s exist. My advise is
don’t get distracted, because
it makes you like desperate and weak.
>We can all see copies of the original photos, but I don't think
> anybody but the most gullible people would ever imagine that they
>constitute "proof". I'm not accusing you of hoaxing anything, but I'm
>making the point that proof is what we call evidence that convinces
>us. I prefer not to demand that you convince me but that you provide
>the best evidence you can to support your claims and let me make the
>decision as to whether or not I find them convincing.
Who is us? Now your implying you are representing a body of persons,
is this another one of your fantasies Tom? Like I said the photos’
exist.. may be in or not in the photos is something issue. Once
again you are trying to sound reasonable from a tower you have
constructed in your own sand pit.
> > Then if
> > you wanted to check independently
> > then all any person would need to do, is find a copy from themselves,
> > somewhere at a 2nd hand book
> > network, or the General Assembly Library..
> A copy of a single issue of a small New Zealand occult magazine from
> the mid-1990's? You stand a better chance of catching a meteor with a
> baseball glove than finding such an object in some second-hand
> bookstore or public-access library.
Really, a quick google.co.nz of magic pentacle thows up some light..
and it seems that
Trademe.co.nz gets the occasional copy. Lets go outside and hold out
my hand.. nope
No meteor caught.. Again another example of your ongoing mental
constructions
> > > The real point here is that claims about historical matters should be
> > > accompanied by checkable citations of source materials, so that one
> > > can determine just how you arrived at your conclusions and whether or
> > > not you misread, misinterpreted, or misrepresented the evidence. A
> > > competent teacher should encourage independent verification of all his
> > > or her claims. To do otherwise is to descend into pedantry and
> > > autocracy.
> > I agree.. however that is not what is being discussed here. Try to
> > keep on target.
No the point is whether or not the author made citations in his
original article. And whether or not this article was indeed published
before 1996/7.
> In fact, that is exactly what I'm discussing here. I'm commenting on
> your lack of concern for giving scholarly credit in your copyrighted
> material where such credit is due. Since I'm putting you under
> uncomfortable scrutiny, though, I can see why you'd rather be
> discussing something else.
My reputed lack of attention to detail is not lack of concern. Can
you only win by constantly heating Tom? Given that the author died in
1996 (if memory serves me correctly) then it is rather interesting
your accusation of plagiarism on both accounts. And as for
uncomfortable scrutiny again you are inventing more emotive words to
try and justify your fantasies. The fact is have answered all your
questions, which no doubt you don’t like, because you can’t find any
holes in my defense. Yet when you yourself as so challenged with a
simple question regarding yourself, you personally become so
uncomfortable that not only don’t you answer the questions, but you
hide behind some nonsensical remark.
[snip]
> > Your not listening. When you present the negative to argue your
> > case.. then your intent and your own
> > methodology is in itself a judgement, hence a conclusion.
> There is a great difference between not listening to you and not
> agreeing with you. A suspicion is not a conclusion, no matter how
> many times you try to claim otherwise.
You are not listening again. It has nothing to do with not agreeing,
it has to do with your chiseled methodology which is clearly the
result of some sort of conclusion or conclusions. Though I don’t
expect you can see that, it is rather subtle and requires a great deal
of previous personal meditation, contemplation and honest personal
evaluation.
[snip]
> > Academically you would be correct, if you were correct. But this is
> > not scholarly article, and hence
> > it is another to cite references/footnotes. Neither Oxford nor APA
> > referencing is really applicable here.
> I'm quite aware from the way it was written that it is not a scholarly
> article, but it is copyrighted and is being used as educational
> material, even if the teaching body has no academic accreditation of
> any kind.
Your cheating again.. does the BOTA, GD have academic accreditations
of any kind.
Do you see how you are being dishonest simply by colouring your
argument with this sort of statement. Like I said you are probably
not consciously able to recognize your
Inheritant conclusion and preconceptions.
> By asserting copyright, you are claiming intellectual
> property rights over that article while, at the same time, showing no
> respect for the intellectual property rights of others from whom your
> author gathered his material. If you feel that others should respect
> your property rights, then it is only fair and honest to respect the
> property rights of others.
I have not denied the reference citations should be provided. Are you
able to comprehend this, or must I spell it out in 3 or 4 letter
words. Whether or not citations such be provided for that article, I
would need to see an original copy of the article to make the
citations (if any were indeed made). Because otherwise I would have to
enact on an assumption and his would be dishonest of me..
> > > > I will endeavour to find a copy of this in the 2nd book market in Oz/
> > > > NZ
> > > You can order it from any of a number of on-line used booksellers.
> > Don't you think I know that.. and pay $25 dollars to get it mailed to
> > me.. no bad business.
> I understand. It's hard to generate a lot of interest in finding
>evidence that some of your copyrighted material may have been
> plagiarized. $25 is quite a lot of money under those circumstances.
> Sort of like the Monty Python skit on which someone pays to be hit on
> the head.
Now you just being rude.. listen very clearly, for me to buy a book
from the USA say for $25USA and pay another $12-$15 USA in postage
means that the book will could very easily cost $40USA which is about
$80-$85 NZ for a book I could likely find for about $15 in NZ. Do the
math’s.. I haven’t got to having money by wasting it.
> > > > I agree.. now your reacting. You are letting what is a valid
> > > > criticism once again ruin your composure, and letting
> > > > what is a good point become a valid point.
> > > I'm generally in favor of letting good points become valid points when
> > > they merit it. Aren't you?
> > no, not if they miss - as you have.
> If a point is good and valid, as you say, then it hasn't "missed".
No, a technique may be good and valid and still miss.
[snip]
> > Please pay attention. I personally don't have copyright of this work
> > this is made blatantly clear on the document
> > in question. The copyright belongs to a society in which I am one of
> > the most senior members of.
> Don't weasel. You control the organization. You asserted the
> copyright in the name of the organization which you head.
Do I head it.. that is a very good question.. Certainly Fr Carfax and
I share the most senior positions of that organization,.. of course it
could be argued that Dermot actually is the head.. interesting.. see:
www.et-custosi-org
> > > although you do not say who revised it or how it was revised.
> > why should I say who (even if my memory was correct)... ever heard of
> > privacy.
> If you are keeping them private, then you should not be posting them
> on the internet.
I see you are becoming tired Tom. Wake up boy, we are discussing
keeping the names of whomever typed up the article for the URL
private.
> As to *why* you should say so, it all goes back to
> whether or not you have respect for the intellectual property of
> others while you assert intellectual property rights of your own.
I believe in open and public domain of materials for non-commercial
use. That said, I respect citing authorship and the importance of
citing the source of information.
> > > present form lacks any acknowledgement of the source materials from
> > > which it was assembled and you, as holder of the copyright, have an
> > > obligation to give scholarly credit where credit is due. Failure to
> > > do so is intellectual theft.
> > I do give credit where credit is due.
> By failing to cite your sources in copyrighted material which you are
> offering for sale, you quite obviously do *not* give credit where
> credit is due.
You are going off again all by yourself… authorship is cited, the
owner of the material is cited, the society is cited.. and what’s more
it is made freely available without charge, without restriction,
without any form of obligation. For the public use and benefit of the
occult community. The only reason for the © is to show who the owner
of the material is, so that it is not used commercially. If you want
to copy it, go ahead.
> > > > I made no claim to be a 'true teacher' I made a claim and presented
> > > > what I consider to be true and false teachers.
> > > You state quite explicitly that "The Et Custodi Tutelae is a magical
> > > teaching order". "We will teach you magick - real magick and you will
> > > become an adept a craftsman of magick if you complete your training
> > > with us."
> > Absolutely ...
> > > So you do indeed claim to be a teacher
> > No I do not... think it though Tom..
> I just did. And you have not provided any arguemnt to the contrary
> except for a flat, unexplained contradiction.
No I haven’t have I. Would you like me to explain it to you Tom.. I
will try to keep it simple stupid if you like.
> > > and one of the things you teach
> > > is a method for determining whether a teacher is true or false.
> > One of our documents tells us this..
> You're weaseling again. This is not just some isolated document but
> part of the corrspondence course you (as the head of your
> organization) offers as your "teachings".
No I am not weaseling.. you are simply confused. Perhaps you are not
as smart as I thought. Those documents are not part of the
correspondence course. In fact the correspondence is likely a few
thousand pages long and locked in the members only directory. What
you are seeing are materials, made public belonging to that particular
organization.
All you can say is that a particular document, regarded as a teaching
of the Order in this particular case, states the marks of a black
magician, true and false teachers.
> > > Now,
> > > if a false teacher teaches a way to determine whether a teacher is
> > > true or false, do you think he'll teach a way that would point himself
> > > out as a false teacher? That would be absurd. Of course he's going
> > > to advocate for a method that makes him look like a true teacher.
> > > Neither would a true teacher point to himself as a false teacher.
> > > Thus every teacher, both true and false, must expect students who use
> > > his method to conclude that he is a true teacher, whether he
> > > explicitly claims it or not.
> > Your logic is good, but shows a lack of understanding.
> So you say, but once again, you provide no evidence to support your
> claim.
Only because I want to see whether or not you can work it out on your
own.
Okay Even though your logic is good, it lacks understanding because by
your very own reasoning you cannot tell the difference between a true
an false teacher. This means that you lack discernment – this is you
lack of understanding.
> > > Thus, if you claim to be a teacher at all, you are strongly implying,
> > > if not overtly saying, that you are a "true teacher".
> > except if you don't actually teach.. which I don't.
> What exactly do you do, Jean? Please be specific.
I administer, I.e. an administrator, a Cancellarius of various
organizations. Some times I instruct those who I can give assistance –
but I am no teacher. Most of the time magically I go on adventures….
Sometimes I feed and sometimes I am a pirate. Over all I gow and
improve my skills and talents.. and occasionally I get pissed off with
not-so common thugs like you too…
So what do you do Tom besides behaving like an over zealous guard dog
…
> > > > And I stand by it.. I have every right to make this moral and
> > > > philosophical assessment. You have no right however
> > > > to initiate an attack on me like some sort of werewolf without just
> > > > cause.
> > > I have every right to challenge any claim you might make, either
> > > overtly or by implication.
> You only have the right to discover the truth..
> Oh, I have a lot more rights than that.
I am not referring too nor refusing your right to go to the toilet..
other than that I see no additional rights that you may self
associated upon your self.
> > However, if we simply
> > consider only that one right which you so graciously allow me, then I
> > have the right to question anything you might claim as part of my
> > efforts to discover the truth.
Granted, to question, not to circumvent nor to mislead nor cheat, nor
build fictions.
> and to do so without hostility.
> If you wish to label a challenge to your veracity or a criticism of
> your carelessness to be "hostility", that's your choice. I don't see
> you as my enemy, though. To me, you're just another guy who wants to
> preach his idea of magick and has been shocked to discover that his
> credibility is not blithely assumed by others.
It is not the challenge, but the ungentlemanly way in which you
behave. Personally I couldn’t care less what you think of my magick..
as explained to you earlier. My sole intention is to teach you (who I
perceive as a bully) a lesson. Then once your down, I will stand back
and let all those you have hurt give you a good kicking, because quite
frankly you deserve it.
> > > Such a challenge is not an "attack".
> > Trouble is, what people see is not a challenge with integrity, but the
> > werewolf.
> Well, that's what *you* choose to envision, but I don't think you
> speak for people in general.
Perhaps not, but I have seen the suffering you have caused and that is
enough for me.
> You seem to live in a world populated by comic book monsters:
> Werewolves lurking on the internet, gargoyles that come alive in the
> dark, witches and mages with "light" and "dark" moral alignments who
> possess "mystic combat" skills right out of a role-playing game...
> Frankly, it's a bit much to swallow uncritically.
So you know where I am and I am pleased to know where you are .
> > > It
> > > is a criticism and a request to provide evidence for what you say and
> > > why anyone should believe it.
> > But it is not a criticism nor a request to insult - do not try and be
> > reasonable now, to justify your previous behaviour.
> It's often the case that when one's ego is more important than one's
> topic of discussion, the egotist will focus on the insult and forget
> about the topic. We attend to what's most important to us.
Ego is such a creative thing… get this Tom, I am answering your
questions, not for your benefit, but for others. I am answering your
questions to show you up and the fact that your challenges are without
substance, just as you are. I have stated my intent here.. now you
can either apologize to me and all those you have hurt on alt.magick
or you can continue (as I suspect you will do) to dig yourself into a
bigger hole showing yourself to be more naked and without magical
skill or comprehension.
> > > > I certainly am not a spiritual teacher, but I do claim to have
> > > > practised magick for over 30 years. 25+ years of these
> > > > are documented published record. I am not some new kid on the block.
> > > I don't care how many years of experience you claim,
> > I don't claim .. I state
> I don't care about how many years of experience you state either.
I am still waiting for you to show credulity.. some evidence of any
form of recognized history or magical skill..
> > > your ideas and
> > > statements are as open to question as anybody else's. You have not
> > > earned any special privileges or immunities in that regard.
> > Nor have you... and that Tom another one of your many problems
> I don't consider not having special immunity from criticism to be a
> "problem", since I am not trying to impress anyone into buying my
> correspondence course or into seeing me as an unquestionable authority
> on magick.
You may not be selling a correspondence course, and neither am I. You
certainly are behaving as if you have some unquestionable right to
behave the way you do. And the very fact you refuse to answer any
questions given to you simply show you up to be shallower and lacking
more substance than I first thought. As for an authority on magick..
what is that. Magic is entwined in my very being.. that does not make
me an authority.. just real.
> I just say what I think. Apparently having me saying what
>I think is a problem for you, though. You're certainly complaining
> enough about it.
The problem is that you are not thinking from any real depth nor even
any touch of magick.
> > > > I do claim some degree of skill in magick sorcery. As for mystic
> > > > combat mentioned earlier >>>>see:http://etoile.topcities.com/SSH/Te_Neteru/admin/
> > >> a scan > > of a published challenge 1990 that is nearly 20 years ago.. while it
> > > >no doubt won't impress you, it will (a) prove the journal existed (b)
> > > > I have been around for a while and (c) if you think I am afraid to get
> > > > it on with you, you are seriously
> > > > mistaken.
> > > Oh, cut the pugnatious routine. You're not going to impress me with
> > > bluster either. "Mystic combat". Bah.
> > Yet it means I am not just mouth...
> Bluster isn't evidence of that.
Providing historical evidence is not blustering.. another emotive and
misleading word Tom, feeling threatened are you.
> > what about you Tom. We are still
> > waiting for you to show us anything of
> > similar regard that would prove to me and the world that you are not
> > just all mouth.
> I don't believe in the kind of comic book "magic/k" you claim to be
> doing. If you think you can blast me with magic bolts of arcane
> energy, you're welcome to try. You won't be the first to make a fool
> of himself doing that. I don't indulge those silly fantasies. My
> idea of magick is far different from yours, I suspect.
Obviously, after all your world even differs from Apollonius of Tyana.
>"Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of
> Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by
> a right understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so
> that true Agents being applied to proper Patients, strange and
> admirable effects will thereby be produced. Whence magicians are
> profound and diligent searchers into Nature; they, because of their
> skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall
> seem to be a miracle." -- The Lemegeton
Well that is one view, written for a time and culture where everything
had to be made acceptable to a Church. Not very likely to be the view
of an Ubangi sorcery though.
> My profound and diligent search into Nature has discovered that
spooky
> werewolves and gargoyles inhabit only the world of our imagination and
> all talk of "mystic combat" is just that: talk.
Hardly profound; you really need to get out Tom, you would be
surprised what exists beyond your philosophy.
> > > Unlike you, I'm not trying to drum up subscribers to a correspondence
>> > course, so I really don't care who is impressed with me or who isn't.
> > Haha.. that is very funny. Given that the E.C.T correspondence course
> > is free, do you really think
> > I want to drum up subscribers.
> Sure you do. It feeds your ego. Everybody knows that occult
> correspondence courses are economic losers, but people still try to
> get people to subscribe to them because they get off on being seen as
> wise and powerful. Just like you, they have all sorts of praise for
> themselves and their various supposed accomplishments written into
> their lessons.
Well I am not denying a bit of ego.. and yes you are absolutely
correct occult correspondence courses are economic losers. But you
are wrong, as I didn’t write the correspondence course, so there is
nothing within that praises me within its lessons.
No I have another motivation..
> > No far to much time involved there,
> > for more than a few. So your wrong
> > about that too.
> Given the lack of real research and scholarship connected with your
> lessons, as I have pointed out, it doesn't look like all that much
> effort has gone into them. It may seem like a lot to you, because you
> don't realize how much work actual scholarship and research takes. So
> you think your casual writings and role-playing, done in fits and
> starts over many years of pretending you have fantastical magic powers
> and reading occult books from your local second-hand shop, is a great
> deal of work, but it's really not any more than one might put into a
> beloved hobby like stamp collecting or model railroading.
Granted I place more effort into other things, though of course you
don’t believe in there.. fortunately for me perhaps..
.
> > > You're the one who is trying to make the impression here, and not
> > > doing a very good job of it, in my opinion. Resorting with schoolyard
> > > taunts and working yourself up into a lather over having had your lack
> > > of scholarship exposed is not what I'd expect of a "god-like being",
> > > which is what you promise that a successful student of yours will
> > > become.
> > I am not trying to make an impression at all.. my only motivation here
> > Tom is to put you down.
> Well, you're not doing a good job of that either.
Only to you, yourself because you have a thick skin and insults don’t
work. But it is clear to me that in terms of magick, you still have
nothing, and have accomplished nothing.
> > as for god-like .. what would you know about the gods..
> Oh, all kinds of things. Shoe sizes, favorite foods, books they've
> read lately... C'mon, Jean. Get serious. You don't strike me as a
> "god-like being" in any way shape of form.
I used to think I was a werewolf once, until I began growing wings,
must be some sort of vampire then … until I felt 3 pairs.
> > > "If you complete your studies, and apply youself to the teachings then
> > > you will be very well qualified in the Philosophy and Practice of
> > > Magic/K and also the Qabalah - amongst many other things which you
> > > will notice as you literally move through the worlds and transform
> > > into a magical god like being."
>> True ... standard Qabalah movement through the world. Similar in
>> method to Golden Dawn to become more than
>> human.
>And yet, they didn't act more than human. They shared the same
>faults, foibles, and foolishness as the rest of us. This constant
> strutting around as if one is superior to everyone else is just a self-
>congratulatory pose.
True.. I didn’t realize that Zeus was without fault.. like I said,
what do you know of the gods.
> > > You mean the ancient history of the Guardians that is wholly
> > > "anecdotal" and should be viewed as "allegory" or "myth"?
> > That is how I am presenting it. It would be foolish to take it at
> > face value.
> Indeed it would be.
Yes
> > > Or that cat
> > > fight in the late 90's after the death of the alleged former Golden
> > > Dawner who had previously kept all you youngsters in hand.
> > how did you know about that?
> I can read, Jean. I pay attention. It's all right there in your
> documents.
Good you are referring to something else.
> > > That part
> > > seems pretty typical of the kind of group you folks were running.
> > > Schisms, expulsions, reformations, leadership vacuums, and all that.
> > > No harm, no foul. It's a common enough situation.
> > plenty of harm, plenty of foul, plenty of causalities - that is what
> > marked me....
> All writ large on the pages of your imagination. Occult groups come
> and go, Jean. The members bicker and squabble. They form little
> political groups to oust one another from positions of "authority"
> that don't matter in the slightest outside a small group of people who
> like to dress up like Anglican bishops and wave magic wands around.
> T'was ever thus.
Your correct, this does not negate the injuries caused by magick.
[snip]
> > > > Tutelae.. other things happened, but I am certain
> > > > you are not particularly interested.
> > > That's correct. I'm not. At least not at the moment.
> > Don't play me for a fool,
> I'm being completely honest here. I don't much care about the details
>of your squabbles at the moment. Not that I don't enjoy some juicy
>dish when I hear it. Occultists are great gossips for all their lip
>service to secrecy.
Hmm… if you weren’t such an asshole, you would be okay..
> We all have some entertaining stories to tell, even though most of
> them are trivial.
true
> > I know the only thing you are interested in
> > is sharpening your critical pop Buddhist psychology
> > as some sort of weapon.
> I love the idea of a weapon made of critical Buddhist pop psychology.
> The concept makes me chuckle.
At least you don’t deny it
> "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" takes on a whole new
> dimension.
<g> humor will not dissolve you of your responsibility to those you
have hurt
> > > That seems sudden enough for me. It had never been mentioned anywhere
> > > previously. Remember, you hadn't cited any sources.
> > This is because you have a tendency to not pay attention to anything
> > from previously... that posting was
> > originally providing a link to the article in reply to another person
> > here on this thread.
>You linked to the article with a copyright date of 2002. You didn't
>say it had been published previously at all. Every bit of the
>information we have about the origins of this article came from me
>pressuring you to explain the close similarities between this article
>and a previously published book on the subject and the complete lack
>of any citations in the article itself. Getting source information
>out of you is like pulling teeth.
Wrong Tom, I don’t feel pressured at all. You asked a question and I
replied.. you should try it sometime.
> > > If you actually had researched my past posts more than cursorily, you
> > > would not be so surprised at finding me rational when rationality is
> > > appropriate.
> > To be completely couldn't be bothered... my perusal of your postings
> > simply showed you up to be a nasty
> > bitter thug.
> It's easy to see that, once you leap to a conclusion you like, you
> don't want to be bothered with inconvenient facts to the contrary.
> Occultists and conspiracy theorists often have that attitude.
At least we are clear..
I suppose you could also apologize to everyone concerned… but I doubt
you have it in you.
> > > > > Nowhere on your site was that ever
> > > > > mentioned. You didn't cite your source any better than the nominal
> > > > > "author" cited his. What happened to *their* copyright?
> > > > You are repeating yourself.. are you really interested ?
> > > I was not repeating myself. I was asking a question.
> > Re-asking a question, no matter how you paraphrase it, is repeating
> > yourself.
> Another claim without supporting evidence. You do that a lot. But
>never mind. We both know that your comment is trivial and serves only
>as a distraction.
No more so than you. Don’t think you can cheat and then expect me to
play fair, just because you’re losing. That is beyond naïve it is
stupid.
> > > However, you
> >> have now given me a few clues, so I hypothesize that the 1994 magazine
> > > you refer to was some sort of journal produced by members of the older
> > > group from which your current one emerged. That would account for
> > > your claim of a copyright on it. Is that about right?
> > No... I was a member of the original group.
> When are you going to learn to read carefully? I didn't say you
> weren't a member of the older group. The absolutely worst thing to do
> when you try to object to a criticism of carelessness is to be
> blatantly careless yet again.
It is not I that is being careless. You wrote “produced by members of
the older
group from which your current one emerged.” Don’t think you can slide
by a suggestion that we emerged from the original group, or a magazine
that was produced by the original group.. This is the original group.
I saw right through your attempt to undermine our group, and now you
are complaining about it.
> > > > <g> Not because they are not there... but because I have kept very
> > > > good records of published documents.
> > > It's likely that you've kept track of all your order documents, but
>> > they don't reference much in the way of independent works. For
> > > instance, the stories told about all those 11th Century goings-on
> > > don't have any documentation, ...
> > Make your mind up, so now because I have kept good record, of my own
> > documentation. You want to
> > change the goal-post to the earlier work of others.. is that correct?
> My criticism was never directed at your keeping of your own documents
> but at the lack of citations within some of those documents. Trying
> to befuddle yourself about that isn't helping you come across as
> someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
Wrong again, you are the one befuddled. Look carefully now, you wrote
“Fortunately for you, not much of your work actually attempts to make
any statements of fact that might possibly be checked and found
lacking.” Eoq. See the word Tom, fortunately for you and your work
is directed at me.. blah blah. You seriously need to make your mind
up and say what you mean..
Tom
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the esoteric/spiritual worlds their are two types of teachers.
> Teachers of Light and false teachers of darkness.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who divide people
into two types and those who don't.
> - Teachers of Light shine their teaching to the world. They do this
> without profit.
Because profit is "dark" and "false".
> This sickness grows,
And profit is "sick" too.
> where at the extreme creatures of evil seek to
> destroy anything which they cannot control,
And "evil".
No matter what you do, make sure you don't make any profit, because
then you'll be evil and false and dark.
Dar es Alrah
It was a peach.
Dar es Alrah
The morality of economics. That's a victorian attitude! <g> Wealthy
people are too funny when they apply morality questions to thier
wealth. It results in: 1) I'm wealthy but i'm doing lots of good
works, so it's Ok everyone! (Please don't see me as a rich bastard).
2) I'm a rich bastard and I'm going to behave like a spoilt twat with
every waitress I meet because that's what everyone expects anyway.
Morality when applied to wealth can really squash a good sense of fun
in a wealthy person, but you might as well apply morality to gravity
and say "if you climb that mountain you're really really evil, you
know?"
bassos
> Golden Twigs...
>
> In article
> <8cbb494b-5bb4-4725...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> etoile....@gmail.com <etoile....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [remote diagnosis]
>
>>whatever reality is...
>>comes with the (magick) territory...
>
> This is an extraordinary motto. "Whatever reality is" definitely comes
> with the Territory.
Does everything happen for a reason ?
> Otherwise I can buy crosswords at the drugstore.
You could prolly still achieve that either way.
> [cut -- is the taste of the morel the memory of fire?]
Depends on the spices.
>>> > I certainly am not a spiritual teacher, but I do claim to have
>>> > practised magick for over 30 years. ?25+ years of these
>>> > are documented published record. ?I am not some new kid on the block.
>>>
>>> I don't care how many years of experience you claim,
>>
>>I don't claim .. I state
>
> This sort of claim -- sorry, statement -- of authenticity through
> tenure suddenly interests me. In our field, can anyone attain through
> simply lasting long enough? If so, how does survivorship transmute into
> success?
Well, if one lasts forever, that to one might seem like long enough.
Success is a difficult one though, we can only see it after everything is
done.
> It's true that simply maintaining one's tenacity in the world is a sort of
> visible attainment, a base for most mundane goals.
A given, we are human.
Perhaps we are thing that is to be transmuted into gold ?
> And it's also true that
> holding attention on any field -- carpentry, fishing, stamps, ye occulte
> -- for extended periods is noteworthy and a basis for achieving
> extraordinary things.
As i sat down in a butterfly garden, the scent of sweetness pleased my vine.
> But is attention in itself enough?
What is the goal ?
> Because of the happy accident of how
> our word "interest" evolved, I always think of attention and investment
> returns together. Our "interest" or investment of attention in a field is
> theoretically compounded over time in the form of "interest" or gain. We
> in the world have limited conscious capital to work with and an unlimited
> choice of objects in which to invest that capital. Every object pays in a
> different currency -- "love," "happiness," "power," "insight," "comfort"
> -- and at different rates.
We have all the time in the world.
> How does the investiture of attention in ye occulte over time pay off?
A refined apreciation of joy.
Top that in money.
> In what ways can we make that investment more efficient -- a "short cut to
> initiation" as it were
Burn away the dross.
> -- and where are the risks of accepting
> lower-than-optimal returns through misapplied attention to the wrong
> things over what's really crucial?
That begs the question.
What is really crucial ?
<snip>
etoile....@gmail.com
>
> read more »
one .. two ..
Tom
On Jun 4, 8:27 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry but your unsupported word isn't good enough to outweigh all
> > > the rest of the evidence.
> > > No your not sorry.
> >
> > Yes word is only unsupported to the extent that I
> > cannot for now provide an
> > original copy. There is no other evidence. That's what "unsupported" means.
>
> So you admit you’re not sorry,
"Well, I'm certainly not sorry that unsupported claims are not enough
to outweigh observeable evidence but I am sorry to disappoint you in
your expectation that it would be enough."
Apparently you completely missed the "I am sorry to disappoint you"
part of that sentence.
Do you really expect to get the gist of my thought without reading
complete sentences that I write? If you just pick out a word here and
there, you can come up with some really bizarre interpretations. You
might as well try to claim that the bible sanctions murder because it
says "Thou shalt <snip> kill."
> which means you were being dishonest.
A fine thing to say when you're in the midst of a lie yourself.
> Like the rest of your postings there is a continuing adherence to the
> simplest if not idiotic view, that Tom thinks along the lines of ‘If I
> haven’t seen it, it must be unsupportive or untrue’.
Now that would be almost as silly as your thinking along the lines of
"My thirty years of experience means that anything I say or do should
be accepted as true, correct, and proper."
> Quite simply it
> doesn’t matter how many times you use the word ‘unsupported’ when the
> evidence has been clearly stated.
Simply saying the same things over and over is not "support". A claim
cannot rationally support itself. When I say your claim is
unsupported, that doesn't mean I want you to simply repeat it a few
more times. Your claim is supported when you provide evidence other
than your say-so alone.
> Just because you won’t admit your
> error that the journal did exist and hence have your entire negation
> contradicted, that doesn’t prove anything other than your own
> ignorance.
I've told you before that I have not and will not ask for proof of
anything. I ask only about the quality of your evidence. Where it is
of little quality, I say so. Similarly, when it is high quality, I
say so. In my hierarchy of credibility of evidence, the unverifiable
word of some guy who posts ads to Usenet about his occult
correspondence course is rated pretty low. You can understand why,
can you not?
I'm in the same boat, of course. There's no reason why anyone accept
take *my* unsupported claims without question either. If I want to
make a claim, it is entirely reasonable to expect a challenge to its
veracity and I'll defend it as best I can. If I can't do a good
enough job, I'll concede it. It's happened before, albeit fairly
rarely. I'm generally pretty careful about what I claim. If there's
anything participation in this newsgroup should teach us, it's that
one should be pretty careful about what one claims.
> > The statement "Your unsupported word is not enough to outweigh
> > evidence" is both analytical and substantive.
>
> Wrong, it is never analytical because your statement doesn’t
> investigate, let alone analyze the evidence.
Statements don't investigate. Statement state. Investigators
investigate and then make statements on what they have found or not
found. Statements don't analyze. Statements state. What is being
stated here is the means by which evidence is analyzed. It's a rule
that reasonable people have used to make decisions about what's what
for centuries now. Uncorroborated testimony is not strong evidence.
> And it certainly is not
> substantive because you have offered nothing except your personal
> philosophical negations to justify the fact that you haven’t seen the
> magazine. Substantive is bigger than your own mind Tom.
Are you trying to claim that there is no book by Gerald Messadie
entitled "A History of the Devil"? Or that it wasn't published in
1993? I provided supporting evidence of that from several sources.
That it bears a striking similarity to the article you copyrighted in
2000-2004 is also checkable by reference to the article itself on your
own web site and comparison to the sections of the book which I
specifically cited at your request. This is substantive evidence,
Jean, not merely my say-so. Anyone who wants to check it
independently can easily do so.
And yet, I am not saying that this article was plagiarized from this
particular book. My criticism of it is that it doesn't cite its
sources at all. If this stuff came from Messadie's work, he should be
getting credit for it. If your author got it from some other source
or sources, he should have given them credit. If whoever did the
"revising" of the article omitted them, he or she blundered and it's
up to you, as the person in charge of the organization that holds the
copyright, to give scholarly credit to those whose hard work you are
using without acknowledgement.
> > > I don't mind you keep your scholarship and I will keep my neurosis.
> > It seems to me that the process of magical development is supposed to
> > constantly improve one's control of one's thoughts and perceptions
>
> No not necessarily as a totality.…
Oh, stop this weaseling. The fact that it's not the only thing you
have to do is not to say that it doesn't have to be done.
> > and to use that control to comprehend the underlying reality of events in
>
> What level of knowledge is comprehension.. what you are saying doesn’t
> make any sense.
That's because you refuse to read even one whole sentence without
busting in and trying to take words or phrases out of context. No
wonder you can't make any sense out of it.
> >If this is so, then clinging to neurosis and showing no interest in discovering the
> >underlying reality of events is diametrically opposed to the study and practice of
> >magick.
>
> At least you address it with ‘if this is so’ which shows a faint
> chance that you may be possibly aware of a greater or more subtle
> reality …beyond control or the comprehension of a mere human being.
Beyond the control of one such as yourself, for example? Or are you
claiming that you are no "mere human being"?
Now, when I read through your introductory material, I've noted that
you claim a person who successfully completes your training course
will transform into a "god-like being". Would that include you, Jean?
Let us review one of the criteria you have advised us that signal that
one is dealing with a "false teacher":
"Also add in those persons who make false claims. Claims to be God or
a god, who claim to be Jesus Christ returned etc yet who are unable to
physically, perform the simplest human feats of your imagination."
Can you demonstrate that you are not a false teacher by specifying
exactly what powers make you into a "god-like being" in contrast to
the powers of a "mere human being"? How do you propose to physically
demonstrate your personal mastery of these alleged powers?
> Can you see how dishonest you are being with yourself and you
> obviously you don’t even know what neurosis means. Which only proves
> as I thought your argument is pop-psychology. Look you are wrong when
> you link this to that, as they don’t necessarily connect; neurosis is
> not necessarily clung too, and neurosis does not mean one has no
> interest in discovering various underlying realities. You seriously
> need to think about what you are saying, before you invent more
> gibberish.
Stop tilting at windmills. I didn't say that neurosis means "one has
no interest in discovering underlying realities". I also never said
that neurosis makes one cling to neurosis. That's totally incorrect.
At least try to get clear what's being said to you before you try to
argue with it.
> >“Neurosis" is an uncontrolled, emotionally-based distortion of
> >perception which leads one into making false judgments about one's
> >perceptions and consequently into making poorer decisions than one
> >might otherwise.
>
> Just as I thought no understanding of what a neurosis actually is,
The term "neurosis" is not a clinical term but a colloquial one.
Please post a documented definition of "neurosis" that you believe
demonstrates that mine is incorrect and where this definition is
documented. I've pointed out to you time and again that your
unsupported word alone is poor evidence. Got anything better?
> it does not necessarily lead to delusions or false judgments.
There you go again. Where in what *I* wrote is the word "delusion"?
The kinds of false judgments made by someone with a phobia is that
some object or situation is a serious hazard when in fact it is quite
safe. People who suffer from an obsessive-compulsive disorder cannot
function adequately unless they perform certain elaborate and
irrational rituals. And so on. These sorts of behaviors are based on
an emotional response rather than a rational one.
> > Now your getting lost in your own world again Tom. A copy of the
> > original article, as published
> > would be proof. Proof of either having citations, or not.
> >Are the original photos of the Cottingley Fairies proof that fairies
> >exist?
> >http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Cottingley_Fairies/
>
> Your playing stupid games again. Of course the original photos of the
> Cottingley Faires are proof that the photo’s exist.
They are not proof that *fairies* exist. If you show me a picture
alleging to be an article in a magazine of some specific date, that is
not proof of when that magazine was published nor it is evidence that
the author didn't crib from a book he failed to cite as his source.
Not that you have ever come up with said magazine reproduction of the
article in question. Are you reduced to arguing over hypothetical
evidence that you're not even sure actually exists? That's more than
a little bit thin, don't you think?
> > We can all see copies of the original photos, but I don't think
> > anybody but the most gullible people would ever imagine that they
> >constitute "proof". I'm not accusing you of hoaxing anything, but I'm
> >making the point that proof is what we call evidence that convinces
> >us. I prefer not to demand that you convince me but that you provide
> >the best evidence you can to support your claims and let me make the
> >decision as to whether or not I find them convincing.
>
> Who is us?
"Us" is you or me or anybody else. "Us" is everyone and anyone.
> Like I said the photos’
> exist.. may be in or not in the photos is something issue.
Try to write in full sentences. Following at least the major rules of
grammar and syntax would help, too. What you just wrote was
gibberish.
The fact is that you don't know if you have any evidence at all to
back up your claims.
> > A copy of a single issue of a small New Zealand occult magazine from
> > the mid-1990's? You stand a better chance of catching a meteor with a
> > baseball glove than finding such an object in some second-hand
> > bookstore or public-access library.
>
> Really, a quick google.co.nz of magic pentacle thows up some light..
> and it seems that
> Trademe.co.nz gets the occasional copy. Lets go outside and hold out
> my hand.. nope
> No meteor caught..
And no copy of the magazine article appears yet, either. I did come
across one interesting tidbit, though. It seems that "Jean de
Cabalis" is not your given name, Leonard. Why are you operating under
a pseudonym? Isn't "Leonard Stevens" exotic enough for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Guardians
> No the point is whether or not the author made citations in his
> original article.
A point you have yet to offer any evidence for other that your
*unsupported* word.
> And whether or not this article was indeed published
> before 1996/7.
Another point you have yet to substantiate with evidence beyond your
say-so.
> > In fact, that is exactly what I'm discussing here. I'm commenting on
> > your lack of concern for giving scholarly credit in your copyrighted
> > material where such credit is due. Since I'm putting you under
> > uncomfortable scrutiny, though, I can see why you'd rather be
> > discussing something else.
>
> My reputed lack of attention to detail is not lack of concern.
No? To what, then, do you attribute your inattention to giving
scholarly credit where such credit is due in your copyrighted
material?
> Given that the author died in
> 1996 (if memory serves me correctly) then it is rather interesting
> your accusation of plagiarism on both accounts.
I made no "accusation of plagiarism" at all, as I have pointed out to
you repeatedly. Why can't you deal with my criticisms of you and your
organization honestly? Why do you have to make this silly stuff up
when must realize that you'll only get caught as soon as you post it?
> The fact is have answered all your
> questions,
But provided no supporting evidence for those answers. Like I say,
repeating the same unsupported claims over and over doesn't cut it as
corroboration.
> > There is a great difference between not listening to you and not
> > agreeing with you. A suspicion is not a conclusion, no matter how
> > many times you try to claim otherwise.
>
> You are not listening again. It has nothing to do with not agreeing,
> it has to do with your chiseled methodology which is clearly the
> result of some sort of conclusion or conclusions.
You keep insisting that I must have drawn "some sort of conclusions",
but you can't find anything that I actually wrote that indicates that
I've drawn any conclusions at all about the issue of plagiarism. You
simply made that issue up and are trying to use it to divert attention
from the fact that your teacher wrote an article that lacks respect
for the intellectual property of others by failing to cite its sources
and that your organization is trying to assert that same material as
its own intellectual property while continuing your disregard for the
intellectual property of others. You have attempted to say that the
citations might exist, if you could only find them, although you don't
really remember whether there were any or not. That's much too weak
and you know it. So instead, you have to make up some excuse,
reasonable or not, to consider my criticism invalid and therefore not
have to face it
> > I'm quite aware from the way it was written that it is not a scholarly
> > article, but it is copyrighted and is being used as educational
> > material, even if the teaching body has no academic accreditation of
> > any kind.
>
> Your cheating again.. does the BOTA, GD have academic accreditations
> of any kind.
But we're not talking about the BOTA or the GD here. Nor am I saying
you need any accreditation, although you'd get a lot more respect if
you could manage it. Not that you could, of course, given glaring
faults like your lack of proper citations in your course materials.
I'm saying your documents are copyrighted teaching materials over
which you assert intellectual property rights while you simultaneously
disregard the intellectual property rights of those who did the actual
work you're using in those copyrighted educational materials.
> > By asserting copyright, you are claiming intellectual
> > property rights over that article while, at the same time, showing no
> > respect for the intellectual property rights of others from whom your
> > author gathered his material. If you feel that others should respect
> > your property rights, then it is only fair and honest to respect the
> > property rights of others.
>
> I have not denied the reference citations should be provided.
No, you've only tried to distract attention from that deficit and have
not even indicated that you intend to correct the problem at all, let
alone how you plan to do so.
> Now you just being rude..
Bah, you began our discussion with disparaging comments about me
personally, right from the start. And here you are trying to pose as
Mr. Manners Person. Let's look at the record itself.
What I originally said:
Leonard: In the esoteric/spiritual worlds their are two types of
teachers.
Tom: The ones you approve of and the ones you don't.
Leonard: Teachers of Light and false teachers of darkness.
Tom: Like I said.
And here's your immediate response:
"Sigh there is always a comedian who has an adult attention disorder,
or can't keep his hand away from his dick."
"I will pray for your healing Tom.. you obviously have many serious
issues."
But that was just the beginning. Once he got rolling, Leonard decided
to start his own thread entitled "dantomel @ comcast . net - is a
major fuck wit.. see history here.." with such gems as:
"Tom is mental fuck."
"Your a jumped up little imp."
"Tom imagines he knows about psychology because he find the word on
the
back of a page he spoilt in the public toilets."
"Hey Tom here's a clue, get some sex ! and I don't mean with your
hand."
"He has a small dick and he is lonely and bored."
Oh, the admirable qualities of a "god-like being"... Apparently it
involves having the social sophistication of the average twelve-year-
old. And Leonard wants to complain that *I'm* being rude to *him*.
Heh.
> > Don't weasel. You control the organization. You asserted the
> > copyright in the name of the organization which you head.
>
> Do I head it.. that is a very good question.. Certainly Fr Carfax and
> I share the most senior positions of that organization,.. of course it
> could be argued that Dermot actually is the head.. interesting.. see:www.et-custosi-org
Scrabbling to find someone else who might accept responsibility for a
screw-up. I don't see any lengthy praises for the leadership of Fr
Carfax in your documents, although there seems to be plenty about
you. However, when somebody has to accept responsibility for errors,
suddenly it's Fr Carfax, or the long-gone Dermot, who hasn't been
around for almost a decade.
> Wake up boy, we are discussing
> keeping the names of whomever typed up the article for the URL
> private.
I don't care which underlings you try to blame. The organization is
yours and the responsibility for its failings are yours.
> > As to *why* you should say so, it all goes back to
> > whether or not you have respect for the intellectual property of
> > others while you assert intellectual property rights of your own.
>
> I believe in open and public domain of materials for non-commercial
> use. That said, I respect citing authorship and the importance of
> citing the source of information.
Then fix the problem, not the blame.
> > By failing to cite your sources in copyrighted material which you are
> > offering for sale, you quite obviously do *not* give credit where
> > credit is due.
>
> You are going off again all by yourself… authorship is cited, the
> owner of the material is cited, the society is cited..
But not the people who did the real academic research which you admit
that you've been using without giving due credit.
> The only reason for the © is to show who the owner
> of the material is,
Exactly. Except that you *haven't* shown who the owner is. You have
appropriated the work of real academicians without given them credit
even as you try to take credit yourselves.
> > And you have not provided any argument to the contrary
> > except for a flat, unexplained contradiction.
>
> No I haven’t have I. Would you like me to explain it to you Tom.. I
> will try to keep it simple stupid if you like.
So far most of your attempts to defend this blatant breach of academic
courtesy have been stupid and simple. I see no indication that this
will change any time soon.
> > > Your logic is good, but shows a lack of understanding.
> > So you say, but once again, you provide no evidence to support your
> > claim.
>
> Only because I want to see whether or not you can work it out on your
> own.
Or maybe because you haven't been able to think of one that even you
would be willing to swallow.
> Okay Even though your logic is good, it lacks understanding because by
> your very own reasoning you cannot tell the difference between a true
> an false teacher. This means that you lack discernment – this is you
> lack of understanding.
I already told you what I use as my criterion. It's possible that you
can't remember it, what with the tizzy you immediately flew into when
I dared to criticize your criteria. Would you like me to remind you
how I do it? Admit that you can't remember and I will. If you
haven't forgotten, you could quote the statement in which I described
it, just to show me that you do indeed remember.
> > What exactly do you do, Jean? Please be specific.
>
> I administer, I.e. an administrator, a Cancellarius of various
> organizations. Some times I instruct those who I can give assistance –
> but I am no teacher. Most of the time magically I go on adventures….
> Sometimes I feed and sometimes I am a pirate. Over all I gow and
> improve my skills and talents.. and occasionally I get pissed off with
> not-so common thugs like you too…
Hilarious. An "administrator" who "goes on adventures".
> So what do you do Tom besides behaving like an over zealous guard dog
Oh, just ordinary stuff. Chop wood, carry water, that sort of thing.
I'm not off pretending I'm a pirate, an astronaut, a sooper-powered
Magus of the Dark Arts, or any of those romanticized fantasies, you
see. I also think, read, and ask sometimes embarassing questions of
pompous asses who like to try to convince poor, gullible schlepps that
they're pirates.
Oh, and I've studied and practiced magick for more than thirty years,
too. But I don't write books or teach courses or claim any important-
sounding but ultimately meaningless titles.
> > > > I have every right to challenge any claim you might make, either
> > > > overtly or by implication.
> > You only have the right to discover the truth..
> > Oh, I have a lot more rights than that.
>
> I am not referring too nor refusing your right to go to the toilet..
Then you should admit that your claim that my "only have the right to
discover the truth" was incorrect and that I have more rights than
that. You've complained that I am never willing to admit I'm wrong.
Now we have a clear example of *you* being wrong. Will you admit it
or not?
> other than that I see no additional rights that you may self
> associated upon your self.
If you think you can claim that nobody has the right to criticize you,
you are again incorrect. Not only do I claim that right, but there
isn't doodly-squat you can do to stop me from exercising it.
> > > However, if we simply
> > > consider only that one right which you so graciously allow me, then I
> > > have the right to question anything you might claim as part of my
> > > efforts to discover the truth.
>
> Granted, to question, not to circumvent nor to mislead nor cheat, nor
> build fictions.
It's no fiction that you haven't cited the sources of your "A Short
History of the Devil" article and its no fiction that it looks very
similar in style and substance to a book by Gerald Messadie ("A
History of the Devil") that was published a year prior to the time you
claim it was published in your occult magazine. It is also a fact
that you have claimed that such citations *might* exist but you're not
sure and that you haven't been able to find the magazine in which the
article was allegedly published. None of this is at all misleading
onmy part, although all that name-calling you've done certainly could
be construed as attempts to circumvent and mislead and were clearly
inventions of your own imagination (ie "fiction").
> It is not the challenge, but the ungentlemanly way in which you
> behave.
Let's reprise our opening remarks to one another yet again:
On May 29, 9:45 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 4:17 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 29, 3:02 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
>
> > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In the esoteric/spiritual worlds their are two types of teachers.
>
> > The ones you approve of and the ones you don't.
>
> > > Teachers of Light and false teachers of darkness.
>
> > Like I said.
>
> Sigh there is always a comedian who has an adult attention disorder,
> or can't keep his hand away from his dick.
I think the issue of "ungentlemanly behavior" is not one in which you
have the high moral ground.
> Personally I couldn’t care less what you think of my magick..
> as explained to you earlier. My sole intention is to teach you (who I
> perceive as a bully) a lesson.
The lesson apparently being that you're a hypocrite.
> > > > Such a challenge is not an "attack".
> > > Trouble is, what people see is not a challenge with integrity, but the
> > > werewolf.
> > Well, that's what *you* choose to envision, but I don't think you
> > speak for people in general.
>
> Perhaps not, but I have seen the suffering you have caused and that is
> enough for me.
Suffering? Hilarious. Bruised egos are not "suffering".
> > You seem to live in a world populated by comic book monsters:
> > Werewolves lurking on the internet, gargoyles that come alive in the
> > dark, witches and mages with "light" and "dark" moral alignments who
> > possess "mystic combat" skills right out of a role-playing game...
> > Frankly, it's a bit much to swallow uncritically.
>
> So you know where I am
So it appears, since you admit it. I've got you pegged.
> and I am pleased to know where you are .
But that does *not* appear to be the case. You're still living in
fantasyland when it comes to knowing much factual information about me
at all. That's why you have to resort to spurious name-calling and
speculations about the size of my genitals.
> I am answering your
> questions, not for your benefit, but for others.
Well of course you are. You were hoping to find a whole new choir to
preach to, but instead you found me and freaked out. What a let down
for you! Now you're trying to convince other people that the ass you
made of yourself was really all my fault.
> I am answering your
> questions to show you up and the fact that your challenges are without
> substance, just as you are.
Where are those citations, Leonard? Got any? What does an
"administrator" do other than pretend he's a pirate? Want to compare
dick sizes again? Yeah, you sure are showing me up, alright.
> > I don't care about how many years of experience you state either.
>
> I am still waiting for you to show credulity..
I couldn;t help but laugh out loud at that one. People have been
waiting for me to show credulity for years and have been constantly
disappointed. You don't even know what "credulity" means, do you?
> You may not be selling a correspondence course, and neither am I.
You're just not selling it for money, but selling it is exactly what
you're doing.
> You
> certainly are behaving as if you have some unquestionable right to
> behave the way you do.
Which I do, despite how fervently you wished I didn't.
> And the very fact you refuse to answer any
> questions given to you simply show you up to be shallower and lacking
> more substance than I first thought.
If you had any relevant questions, I'd be happy to answer them, but
you're really only interested in trying to find something, anything,
you can say about me that can help distract attention away from your
own failings which I have quite accurately pointed out.
> As for an authority on magick..
> what is that. Magic is entwined in my very being.. that does not make
> me an authority.. just real.
Everybody is real, Leonard. It's not just you.
> The problem is that you are not thinking from any real depth nor even
> any touch of magick.
Because I don't believe in gargoyles that come alive in the dark, and
werewolves, or pretend I'm a pirate as part of my "duties" as "Senior
Guardian" of an occult organization you claim is almost 800 years
old? This just keeps getting stranger and stranger.
> > > > Oh, cut the pugnatious routine. You're not going to impress me with
> > > > bluster either. "Mystic combat". Bah.
> > > Yet it means I am not just mouth...
> > Bluster isn't evidence of that.
>
> Providing historical evidence is not blustering..
But you're not providing historical evidence. You're just blustering
about how awful I am because I pointed it out.
> > I don't believe in the kind of comic book "magic/k" you claim to be
> > doing. If you think you can blast me with magic bolts of arcane
> > energy, you're welcome to try. You won't be the first to make a fool
> > of himself doing that. I don't indulge those silly fantasies. My
> > idea of magick is far different from yours, I suspect.
>
> Obviously, after all your world even differs from Apollonius of Tyana.
Of course it does. Doesn't yours?
> >"Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of
> > Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by
> > a right understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so
> > that true Agents being applied to proper Patients, strange and
> > admirable effects will thereby be produced. Whence magicians are
> > profound and diligent searchers into Nature; they, because of their
> > skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall
> > seem to be a miracle." -- The Lemegeton
>
> Well that is one view, written for a time and culture where everything
> had to be made acceptable to a Church.
This book was never acceptable in any Church of its time.
> Not very likely to be the view
> of an Ubangi sorcery though.
Not that you know jack shit about Ubangi sorcery.
> > Sure you do. It feeds your ego. Everybody knows that occult
> > correspondence courses are economic losers, but people still try to
> > get people to subscribe to them because they get off on being seen as
> > wise and powerful. Just like you, they have all sorts of praise for
> > themselves and their various supposed accomplishments written into
> > their lessons.
>
> Well I am not denying a bit of ego.. and yes you are absolutely
> correct occult correspondence courses are economic losers. But you
> are wrong, as I didn’t write the correspondence course, so there is
> nothing within that praises me within its lessons.
Right. All you do is play pirate. But boy, you sure have some kind
words for yourself in the documented you've posted. You make yourself
seem pretty important, even though it turns out you're not actually
responsible for anything.
Have you got anybody over there who actually takes responsibility for
this course you're hawking? Perhaps I'd get more sensible answers
from someone who actually knows what's going on.
> > > I am not trying to make an impression at all.. my only motivation here
> > > Tom is to put you down.
> > Well, you're not doing a good job of that either.
>
> Only to you, yourself because you have a thick skin and insults don’t
> work. But it is clear to me that in terms of magick, you still have
> nothing, and have accomplished nothing.
At least that's what you feel like telling yourself. Not that you
actually know anything about it, of course. We've already established
that. You're no teacher. You're no scholar. You're certainly no
sooper-powered magus. You just like to play pirate and have an
important-sounding title.
> I used to think I was a werewolf once, until I began growing wings,
> must be some sort of vampire then … until I felt 3 pairs.
I know! You're the Cottingley Fairy!
> >And yet, they didn't act more than human. They shared the same
> >faults, foibles, and foolishness as the rest of us. This constant
> > strutting around as if one is superior to everyone else is just a self-
> >congratulatory pose.
>
> True.. I didn’t realize that Zeus was without fault.. like I said,
> what do you know of the gods.
"I knew Zeus, Senator. You're no Zeus." You probably won't catch
that reference, though.
> Your correct, this does not negate the injuries caused by magick.
I suspect you're not all that strong on discerning cause and effect
either.
> Hmm… if you weren’t such an asshole, you would be okay..
I'm OK despite being an asshole. You too, actually.
Dar es Alrah
laugh. :-)
"Once there was a disciple of a Greek philosopher who was commanded by
his Master for three years to give money to everyone who insulted
him. When this period of trial was over the Master said to him: now
you can go to Athens and learn Wisdom. When the disciple was entering
Athens he met a certain wise man who sat at the gate insulting
everybody who came and went. He also insulted the disciple, who burst
out laughing. Why do you laugh when I insult you? said the wise man.
Because, said the disciple, for three years I have been paying for
this kind of thing and now you give it to me for nothing. Enter the
city, said the wise man, it is all yours..." - A story from the
Desert Fathers of Scete, 4th Century ["The Art of Happiness" - HH
Dalai Lama & Howard C. Cutler, pg 143, (1998), isbn 9780340750155]
bassos
"Tom" <dant...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:361df2db-7f84-4dcf...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> You might as well try to claim that the bible sanctions murder because it
> says "Thou shalt <snip> kill."
Perhaps god knew that the human brain does not parse negatives.
Some of them commandments then seem more like predictions.
1) To recognise God.
2) To speculate that there might be a god other than God.
3) To unify God.
4) To love God.
5) To have fear of God. (kinda dubious one, but will let it stand)
6) To sanctify God's Name.
7) To desecrate God's Name.
8) To destroy things on which God's Name is written.
9) To listen to a prophet who speaks in God's Name.
10) To test God.
etoile....@gmail.com
>
> > So you admit you’re not sorry,
>
> "Well, I'm certainly not sorry that unsupported claims are not enough
> to outweigh observeable evidence but I am sorry to disappoint you in
> your expectation that it would be enough."
>
> Apparently you completely missed the "I am sorry to disappoint you"
> part of that sentence.
another typical Tom trick, don't try and pretend that you forgot what
you said "I'm sorry but your unsupported word isn't enough to outweigh
all the rest of the evidence."eoq; which I replied to and now you
conveniently are now trying to ignore so no one will notice your
deception.
>
> Do you really expect to get the gist of my thought without reading
> complete sentences that I write?
blah blah.. you ignore what you yourself have written, and then try to
substantiate yourself with another sentence that
has little if anything to do with the original. This is what we call
losing ground Tom..
> If you just pick out a word here and
> there, you can come up with some really bizarre interpretations. You
> might as well try to claim that the bible sanctions murder because it
> says "Thou shalt <snip> kill."
>
You can play with your IF word as much as you like by yourself.
> > which means you were being dishonest.
>
> A fine thing to say when you're in the midst of a lie yourself.
I am only in the midst of the lie that you yourself have produced.
>
> > Like the rest of your postings there is a continuing adherence to the
> > simplest if not idiotic view, that Tom thinks along the lines of ‘If I
> > haven’t seen it, it must be unsupportive or untrue’.
>
> Now that would be almost as silly as your thinking along the lines of
> "My thirty years of experience means that anything I say or do should
> be accepted as true, correct, and proper."
these are your words, not mine...
>
> > Quite simply it
> > doesn’t matter how many times you use the word ‘unsupported’ when the
> > evidence has been clearly stated.
>
> Simply saying the same things over and over is not "support". A claim
> cannot rationally support itself. When I say your claim is
> unsupported, that doesn't mean I want you to simply repeat it a few
> more times. Your claim is supported when you provide evidence other
> than your say-so alone.
Poppycock rubbish.. I say that that the Stonehenge exists, I say to
have been there. I claim that
there is other evidence that the Stonehenge exists ... but simply
because I do not personally send you
a photograph of the Stonehenge doesn't not mean that my view is
unsupported. Quite simply my claim
is supported whether of not I say-so or not.
Not that even sending you a photo of its existence would be any use
anyway, by your own admission you
wouldn't accept it.
>
> > Just because you won’t admit your
> > error that the journal did exist and hence have your entire negation
> > contradicted, that doesn’t prove anything other than your own
> > ignorance.
>
> I've told you before that I have not and will not ask for proof of
> anything. I ask only about the quality of your evidence. Where it is
> of little quality, I say so. Similarly, when it is high quality, I
> say so. In my hierarchy of credibility of evidence, the unverifiable
> word of some guy who posts ads to Usenet about his occult
> correspondence course is rated pretty low. You can understand why,
> can you not?
I cannot fathom why you have this erroneous view that the quality of
evidence is only little or high if you say so.
That is the problem with your false ego, look like I said there is
other independently verifiable evidence. Yet no
matter how many times I have pointed this to you, it is not going in.
Given I know have come to the conclusion
that you are not completely stupid, I can only assume that you are
more interested in arguing than accepting
truth.
>
> I'm in the same boat, of course. There's no reason why anyone accept
> take *my* unsupported claims without question either. If I want to
> make a claim, it is entirely reasonable to expect a challenge to its
> veracity and I'll defend it as best I can. If I can't do a good
> enough job, I'll concede it. It's happened before, albeit fairly
> rarely. I'm generally pretty careful about what I claim. If there's
> anything participation in this newsgroup should teach us, it's that
> one should be pretty careful about what one claims.
You say you are careful, but I don't see this. What I see is just
stubbornness. You invent the idea that
I am placing ads on the alt.magick for my correspondence course. To
justify your insane false attack, yet
I have not posted any advertisement. In fact you are doing a better
marketing job of advertising my correspondence
course for me, than I could of ever hoped for, then if I had actually
posted an ad.
>
> > > The statement "Your unsupported word is not enough to outweigh
> > > evidence" is both analytical and substantive.
>
> > Wrong, it is never analytical because your statement doesn’t
> > investigate, let alone analyze the evidence.
>
> Statements don't investigate. Statement state. Investigators
> investigate and then make statements on what they have found or not
> found. Statements don't analyze. Statements state. What is being
> stated here is the means by which evidence is analyzed. It's a rule
> that reasonable people have used to make decisions about what's what
> for centuries now. Uncorroborated testimony is not strong evidence.
Wrong again, you wrote " 'Your unsupported word is not enough to
outweigh evidence' is both analytical and substantive." which has
little to do with what is clearly a desperate attempt, in that you are
now fudging above. But everything to do with my point that 'your
comment' was neither analytical nor substantive.
> > And it certainly is not
> > substantive because you have offered nothing except your personal
> > philosophical negations to justify the fact that you haven’t seen the
> > magazine. Substantive is bigger than your own mind Tom.
> Are you trying to claim that there is no book by Gerald Messadie
> entitled "A History of the Devil"? Or that it wasn't published in
> 1993? I provided supporting evidence of that from several sources.
> That it bears a striking similarity to the article you copyrighted in
> 2000-2004 is also checkable by reference to the article itself on your
> own web site and comparison to the sections of the book which I
> specifically cited at your request. This is substantive evidence,
> Jean, not merely my say-so. Anyone who wants to check it
> independently can easily do so.
Don't try and change the topic .. you know full well what I claimed,
and that your personal negations do not
mean that something is not substantive.
[snip]
>
> > > and to use that control to comprehend the underlying reality of events in
>
> > What level of knowledge is comprehension.. what you are saying doesn’t
> > make any sense.
>
> That's because you refuse to read even one whole sentence without
> busting in and trying to take words or phrases out of context. No
> wonder you can't make any sense out of it.
>
No what clearly makes no sense to you, is my assumption that you could
connect your own sentence. For
you own ease of reading this is what you wrote
"It seems to me that the process of magical development is supposed to
constantly improve one's control of one's thoughts and perceptions and
to use that control to comprehend the underlying reality of events in
such a way that they can be effectively manipulated in ways that seem
miraculous to those who may not be aware of that underlying reality."
Not a very good sentence, more than 50 word and no proper syntax.
Nevertheless my reply is: "One uses what comprehension to assist in
controlling a situation (if and only if) control is warranted for a
particular task. – which it is not always necessarily so." Obviously
this is beyond you.
> > >If this is so, then clinging to neurosis and showing no interest in discovering the
> > >underlying reality of events is diametrically opposed to the study and practice of
> > >magick.
>
> > At least you address it with ‘if this is so’ which shows a faint
> > chance that you may be possibly aware of a greater or more subtle
> > reality …beyond control or the comprehension of a mere human being.
>
> Beyond the control of one such as yourself, for example? Or are you
> claiming that you are no "mere human being"?
The 'if it is so' refers to your previous statement. Here I will
repeat it for you.. ""It seems to me that the process of magical
development is supposed to constantly improve one's control of one's
thoughts and perceptions and to use that control to comprehend the
underlying reality of events in such a way that they can be
effectively manipulated in ways that seem miraculous to those who may
not be aware of that underlying reality." have you caught up with
yourself
yet Tom?
> Now, when I read through your introductory material, I've noted that
> you claim a person who successfully completes your training course
> will transform into a "god-like being". Would that include you, Jean?
>
Like I said what you would know about the gods... oh that is right
shoe sizes..
> Let us review one of the criteria you have advised us that signal that
> one is dealing with a "false teacher":
Great finally you are returning to where you actually started all this
shit.
>
> "Also add in those persons who make false claims. Claims to be God or
> a god, who claim to be Jesus Christ returned etc yet who are unable to
> physically, perform the simplest human feats of your imagination."
>
> Can you demonstrate that you are not a false teacher by specifying
> exactly what powers make you into a "god-like being" in contrast to
> the powers of a "mere human being"? How do you propose to physically
> demonstrate your personal mastery of these alleged powers?
I can neither be a true nor false teacher, as I am not a teacher.
... hmm mastery, I don't think I claimed mastery.. certainly got
further than you though, given that you have never even
experienced another world nor a vampire for example.
>
> > Can you see how dishonest you are being with yourself and you
> > obviously you don’t even know what neurosis means. Which only proves
> > as I thought your argument is pop-psychology. Look you are wrong when
> > you link this to that, as they don’t necessarily connect; neurosis is
> > not necessarily clung too, and neurosis does not mean one has no
> > interest in discovering various underlying realities. You seriously
> > need to think about what you are saying, before you invent more
> > gibberish.
>
> Stop tilting at windmills. I didn't say that neurosis means "one has
> no interest in discovering underlying realities". I also never said
> that neurosis makes one cling to neurosis. That's totally incorrect.
> At least try to get clear what's being said to you before you try to
> argue with it.
You wrote, and its another one of your IF's: "If this is so, then
clinging to neurosis and showing no interest in discovering the
underlying reality of events is diametrically opposed to the study and
practice of magick" e.o.q caught up to yourself yet? Now go back and
read what I wrote, and this time try to comprehend it.
>
> > >“Neurosis" is an uncontrolled, emotionally-based distortion of
> > >perception which leads one into making false judgments about one's
> > >perceptions and consequently into making poorer decisions than one
> > >might otherwise.
>
> > Just as I thought no understanding of what a neurosis actually is,
>
> The term "neurosis" is not a clinical term but a colloquial one.
>
> Please post a documented definition of "neurosis" that you believe
> demonstrates that mine is incorrect and where this definition is
> documented. I've pointed out to you time and again that your
> unsupported word alone is poor evidence. Got anything better?
No, since providing you evidence is clearly a waste of my time, I will
simply give you my unsupported view that neurosis is a stress, a
distortion of what is considered normal reality, but not necessarily
delusional nor lacking in judgement, as you have wrongly stated.
>
> > it does not necessarily lead to delusions or false judgments.
>
> There you go again. Where in what *I* wrote is the word "delusion"?
Now who is looking at words, and not the entire sentence.. You wrote
"Neurosis" is an uncontrolled, emotionally-based distortion of
perception which leads one into making false judgments about one's
perceptions..." seems to me that you yourself are being delusional if
you think that delusional is not implied by your sentence.
[snip]
>
> > Your playing stupid games again. Of course the original photos of the
> > Cottingley Faires are proof that the photo’s exist.
>
> They are not proof that *fairies* exist. If you show me a picture
> alleging to be an article in a magazine of some specific date, that is
> not proof of when that magazine was published nor it is evidence that
> the author didn't crib from a book he failed to cite as his source.
> Not that you have ever come up with said magazine reproduction of the
> article in question. Are you reduced to arguing over hypothetical
> evidence that you're not even sure actually exists? That's more than
> a little bit thin, don't you think?
You own value judgements of what may or may not be thin hold no
validity to me. Again the photos prove the
photo's exist. I.e. The magazine article will prove the article
exists published at whatever date. What's in the photos may or may
not exist. I.e Citations in the article in the magazine may or not
exist.
>
[snip]
> Try to write in full sentences. Following at least the major rules of
> grammar and syntax would help, too. What you just wrote was
> gibberish.
>
> The fact is that you don't know if you have any evidence at all to
> back up your claims.
The fact is that you won't accept that the article was published
before 2004. Even when informed of the evidence.
>
> > > A copy of a single issue of a small New Zealand occult magazine from
> > > the mid-1990's? You stand a better chance of catching a meteor with a
> > > baseball glove than finding such an object in some second-hand
> > > bookstore or public-access library.
>
> > Really, a quick google.co.nz of magic pentacle thows up some light..
> > and it seems that
> > Trademe.co.nz gets the occasional copy. Lets go outside and hold out
> > my hand.. nope
> > No meteor caught..
>
> And no copy of the magazine article appears yet, either. I did come
> across one interesting tidbit, though. It seems that "Jean de
> Cabalis" is not your given name, Leonard. Why are you operating under
> a pseudonym? Isn't "Leonard Stevens" exotic enough for you?
Your still not paying attention.. the posting I made was under the
name Brother Bernardo, it is you that has been
calling me Jean. As for exotic .. do you find me exotic.. by some
chance did you find my photo on Pagan space.net and now your keeping
it under your pillow.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Guardians
>
> > No the point is whether or not the author made citations in his
> > original article.
>
> A point you have yet to offer any evidence for other that your
> *unsupported* word.
If and when the evidence comes up, I will post it. It is unlikely I
still have copies of the original magazine.
>
> > And whether or not this article was indeed published
> > before 1996/7.
>
> Another point you have yet to substantiate with evidence beyond your
> say-so.
>
That I don't need to substantiate, as the author died in 1996 (i
think).
> > > In fact, that is exactly what I'm discussing here. I'm commenting on
> > > your lack of concern for giving scholarly credit in your copyrighted
> > > material where such credit is due. Since I'm putting you under
> > > uncomfortable scrutiny, though, I can see why you'd rather be
> > > discussing something else.
>
> > My reputed lack of attention to detail is not lack of concern.
>
> No? To what, then, do you attribute your inattention to giving
> scholarly credit where such credit is due in your copyrighted
> material?
The author wrote an article, one of our members typed it up, and I
appreciated their efforts.
>
> > Given that the author died in
> > 1996 (if memory serves me correctly) then it is rather interesting
> > your accusation of plagiarism on both accounts.
>
> I made no "accusation of plagiarism" at all, as I have pointed out to
> you repeatedly. Why can't you deal with my criticisms of you and your
> organization honestly? Why do you have to make this silly stuff up
> when must realize that you'll only get caught as soon as you post it?
It is you that is being dishonest, as you repetitively are. You wrote
"Too bad your author was too careless to cite his sources. Now he
just looks like a plagiarist." while I admit that you carefully didn't
accuse the author of plagiarism on that occasion, you still through
mud. Later you wrote ".. in a very obscure occult magazine is enough
to suspect, if
not confirm, plagiarism." there are other example.. and you are on
very thin ice, if you think propositions such as yours cannot be, and
should not be, taken as accusations
> > The fact is have answered all your
> > questions,
>
> But provided no supporting evidence for those answers. Like I say,
> repeating the same unsupported claims over and over doesn't cut it as
> corroboration.
And yet the Stonehenge is there, even though I have not provided 'you'
with physical evidence.
>
> > > There is a great difference between not listening to you and not
> > > agreeing with you. A suspicion is not a conclusion, no matter how
> > > many times you try to claim otherwise.
>
> > You are not listening again. It has nothing to do with not agreeing,
> > it has to do with your chiseled methodology which is clearly the
> > result of some sort of conclusion or conclusions.
>
> You keep insisting that I must have drawn "some sort of conclusions",
> but you can't find anything that I actually wrote that indicates that
> I've drawn any conclusions at all about the issue of plagiarism. You
> simply made that issue up and are trying to use it to divert attention
> from the fact that your teacher wrote an article that lacks respect
> for the intellectual property of others by failing to cite its sources
> and that your organization is trying to assert that same material as
> its own intellectual property while continuing your disregard for the
> intellectual property of others. You have attempted to say that the
> citations might exist, if you could only find them, although you don't
> really remember whether there were any or not. That's much too weak
> and you know it. So instead, you have to make up some excuse,
> reasonable or not, to consider my criticism invalid and therefore not
> have to face it
You are avoiding the point, and that has to do with your frequent
methodology. I have repetitively replied to your challenge of
potential plagiarism, and answered properly and truthfully as I can
under the circumstances. Nothing
more can be done, until the something finds the original article.
Does any one here reading this, have a copy of the original article,
published in Magic Pentacle NZ?
>
> > > I'm quite aware from the way it was written that it is not a scholarly
> > > article, but it is copyrighted and is being used as educational
> > > material, even if the teaching body has no academic accreditation of
> > > any kind.
>
> > Your cheating again.. does the BOTA, GD have academic accreditations
> > of any kind.
>
> But we're not talking about the BOTA or the GD here. Nor am I saying
> you need any accreditation, although you'd get a lot more respect if
> you could manage it.
You introduced the concept of accreditation simply as a weapon, and
now your regretting it.
> Not that you could, of course, given glaring
> faults like your lack of proper citations in your course materials.
>
<g>bullshit .. accreditation is nothing that couldn't be resolved by
simply throwing money at it.. but given correpondence course are
economic losers, it would be a waste of time.
> I'm saying your documents are copyrighted teaching materials over
> which you assert intellectual property rights while you simultaneously
> disregard the intellectual property rights of those who did the actual
> work you're using in those copyrighted educational materials.
>
That is untrue.. the intellectual property rights of the estate of the
author passed to the Society of Guardians Inc,
which for your information is now incorporated in Australia.
> > > By asserting copyright, you are claiming intellectual
> > > property rights over that article while, at the same time, showing no
> > > respect for the intellectual property rights of others from whom your
> > > author gathered his material. If you feel that others should respect
> > > your property rights, then it is only fair and honest to respect the
> > > property rights of others.
>
> > I have not denied the reference citations should be provided.
>
> No, you've only tried to distract attention from that deficit and have
> not even indicated that you intend to correct the problem at all, let
> alone how you plan to do so.
That is also a lie. I have told you what I would need to see to
correct the article, if indeed it does need correcting.
So far I only have your rather incomplete view on this.
>
> > Now you just being rude..
>
> Bah, you began our discussion with disparaging comments about me
> personally, right from the start. And here you are trying to pose as
> Mr. Manners Person. Let's look at the record itself.
that is another lie... your very first posting was a slight on my
character when you wrote
"The ones you approve of and the ones you don't. "...
>
> What I originally said:
> Leonard: In the esoteric/spiritual worlds their are two types of
> teachers.
> Tom: The ones you approve of and the ones you don't.
good you admit your slight.
> Leonard: Teachers of Light and false teachers of darkness.
> Tom: Like I said.
I replied politically and factually by repeating the statement. Then
you just continued to be bad mannered.
> And here's your immediate response:
>
> "Sigh there is always a comedian who has an adult attention disorder,
> or can't keep his hand away from his dick."
I see you removed your comment to me "You're a posturing twit." You
see after you did the initial slight, then you continued it and
followed that with your twit remark. If being reasonable doesn't work
for you.. well so what. it is no worse than the various insults you
yourself have given to others in the past. Or are you denying this?
[snip]
>
> But that was just the beginning. Once he got rolling, Leonard decided
> to start his own thread entitled "dantomel @ comcast . net - is a
> major fuck wit.. see history here.." with such gems as:
absolutely.. I didn't wanted to back away from your remark "Another
obligatory brave exit speech. You puffed-up little squids are all
alike. As soon as you face a challenge, you squirt out some
obfuscating ink and run away. "
My you are not looking so good are you Tom.. so I deliberately started
that other thread. Of course you didn't actually want to reply
there..
>
> "Tom is mental fuck."
> "Your a jumped up little imp."
> "Tom imagines he knows about psychology because he find the word on the back of a page he spoilt in the public
> toilets."
<g> that is one of my favourites
> "Hey Tom here's a clue, get some sex ! and I don't mean with your hand."
that's good too.. did you take my advise Tom?
>
> "He has a small dick and he is lonely and bored."
hee
> Oh, the admirable qualities of a "god-like being"...
absolutely.. no worse than you have done yourself though to others and
on numerous occasions. So now your crying foul because you apparently
can't take it.
> Apparently it
> involves having the social sophistication of the average twelve-year-
> old. And Leonard wants to complain that *I'm* being rude to *him*.
> Heh.
Yep .. because you started the slurs. But my main complaint is how
you have treated all those other people. A few
examples are in the other thread.
> > > Don't weasel. You control the organization. You asserted the
> > > copyright in the name of the organization which you head.
>
> > Do I head it.. that is a very good question.. Certainly Fr Carfax and
> > I share the most senior positions of that organization,.. of course it
> > could be argued that Dermot actually is the head.. interesting.. see:www.et-custosi-org
>
> Scrabbling to find someone else who might accept responsibility for a
> screw-up. I don't see any lengthy praises for the leadership of Fr
> Carfax in your documents, although there seems to be plenty about
> you. However, when somebody has to accept responsibility for errors,
> suddenly it's Fr Carfax, or the long-gone Dermot, who hasn't been
> around for almost a decade.
blah blah again.. my comment is on whom controls the organisation.
Nothing to do with taking responsibility
for that article. A responsibility that I don't deny.
>
> > Wake up boy, we are discussing
> > keeping the names of whomever typed up the article for the URL
> > private.
>
> I don't care which underlings you try to blame. The organization is
> yours and the responsibility for its failings are yours.
I am not blaming anyone.. I am simply stating that IF there were
citations, they may of being quite innocently missed out.
>
> > > As to *why* you should say so, it all goes back to
> > > whether or not you have respect for the intellectual property of
> > > others while you assert intellectual property rights of your own.
>
> > I believe in open and public domain of materials for non-commercial
> > use. That said, I respect citing authorship and the importance of
> > citing the source of information.
>
> Then fix the problem, not the blame.
As already stated, I cannot fix the problem, until I see the original
article.
> > > By failing to cite your sources in copyrighted material which you are
> > > offering for sale, you quite obviously do *not* give credit where
> > > credit is due.
>
> > You are going off again all by yourself… authorship is cited, the
> > owner of the material is cited, the society is cited..
>
> But not the people who did the real academic research which you admit
> that you've been using without giving due credit.
I never admitted any such thing.. citation needs to be shown, if it
existed.
>
> > The only reason for the © is to show who the owner
> > of the material is,
>
> Exactly. Except that you *haven't* shown who the owner is. You have
> appropriated the work of real academicians without given them credit
> even as you try to take credit yourselves.
>
The owner of the article is the society.
> > > And you have not provided any argument to the contrary
> > > except for a flat, unexplained contradiction.
>
> > No I haven’t have I. Would you like me to explain it to you Tom.. I
> > will try to keep it simple stupid if you like.
>
> So far most of your attempts to defend this blatant breach of academic
> courtesy have been stupid and simple. I see no indication that this
> will change any time soon.
No you are being stupid, because you assuming something without
looking at the original evidence. I am
been simple only in the view that I will do nothing, until I see the
original article.
> > > > Your logic is good, but shows a lack of understanding.
> > > So you say, but once again, you provide no evidence to support your
> > > claim.
>
> > Only because I want to see whether or not you can work it out on your
> > own.
>
> Or maybe because you haven't been able to think of one that even you
> would be willing to swallow.
No ... if you can't get to any point of understanding, there is little
reason for me to waste my time trying to
explain things to you.
>
> > Okay Even though your logic is good, it lacks understanding because by
> > your very own reasoning you cannot tell the difference between a true
> > an false teacher. This means that you lack discernment – this is you
> > lack of understanding.
>
> I already told you what I use as my criterion. It's possible that you
> can't remember it, what with the tizzy you immediately flew into when
> I dared to criticize your criteria. Would you like me to remind you
> how I do it? Admit that you can't remember and I will. If you
> haven't forgotten, you could quote the statement in which I described
> it, just to show me that you do indeed remember.
You reputed criterion is too small ... the world is bigger than your
sceptical head.
>
> > > What exactly do you do, Jean? Please be specific.
>
> > I administer, I.e. an administrator, a Cancellarius of various
> > organizations. Some times I instruct those who I can give assistance –
> > but I am no teacher. Most of the time magically I go on adventures….
> > Sometimes I feed and sometimes I am a pirate. Over all I gow and
> > improve my skills and talents.. and occasionally I get pissed off with
> > not-so common thugs like you too…
>
> Hilarious. An "administrator" who "goes on adventures".
and what is wrong with that, or would you chain me up to the library?
> > So what do you do Tom besides behaving like an over zealous guard dog
>
> Oh, just ordinary stuff. Chop wood, carry water, that sort of thing.
> I'm not off pretending I'm a pirate, an astronaut, a sooper-powered
> Magus of the Dark Arts, or any of those romanticized fantasies, you
> see. I also think, read, and ask sometimes embarassing questions of
> pompous asses who like to try to convince poor, gullible schlepps that
> they're pirates.
>
sigh just when I thought you were showing signs of growing up, you
start with the pompous asses..
the only thing that we agree on is that my world(s) do have mystical
creatures such as werewolves, vampires
fairies, angel and demons while yours do not.
> Oh, and I've studied and practiced magick for more than thirty years,
> too. But I don't write books or teach courses or claim any important-
> sounding but ultimately meaningless titles.
for all your book reading, you have never gone out of the library and
seen experience a simple vampire? My advise to you, is go on an
adventure for a change?
> > > > > I have every right to challenge any claim you might make, either
> > > > > overtly or by implication.
> > > You only have the right to discover the truth..
> > > Oh, I have a lot more rights than that.
>
> > I am not referring too nor refusing your right to go to the toilet..
>
> Then you should admit that your claim that my "only have the right to
> discover the truth" was incorrect and that I have more rights than
> that. You've complained that I am never willing to admit I'm wrong.
> Now we have a clear example of *you* being wrong. Will you admit it
> or not?
No, in terms of this discussion, you only have the right to discover
the truth.
>
> > other than that I see no additional rights that you may self
> > associated upon your self.
>
> If you think you can claim that nobody has the right to criticize you,
> you are again incorrect. Not only do I claim that right, but there
> isn't doodly-squat you can do to stop me from exercising it.
What is being said, is that your criticism are not valid, yet mine of
you are.
>
> > > > However, if we simply
> > > > consider only that one right which you so graciously allow me, then I
> > > > have the right to question anything you might claim as part of my
> > > > efforts to discover the truth.
>
> > Granted, to question, not to circumvent nor to mislead nor cheat, nor
> > build fictions.
>
> It's no fiction that you haven't cited the sources of your "A Short
> History of the Devil" article and its no fiction that it looks very
> similar in style and substance to a book by Gerald Messadie ("A
> History of the Devil") that was published a year prior to the time you
> claim it was published in your occult magazine. It is also a fact
> that you have claimed that such citations *might* exist but you're not
> sure and that you haven't been able to find the magazine in which the
> article was allegedly published. None of this is at all misleading
> onmy part, although all that name-calling you've done certainly could
> be construed as attempts to circumvent and mislead and were clearly
> inventions of your own imagination (ie "fiction").
We are discussing your fictions Tom, it is not me that is on trial
here, but you.
Do you deny your propositions are various fictions..
>
> > It is not the challenge, but the ungentlemanly way in which you
> > behave.
>
> Let's reprise our opening remarks to one another yet again:
>
[snip]
> I think the issue of "ungentlemanly behavior" is not one in which you
> have the high moral ground.
Nor do I claim to, however I do claim given your own conduct, as
evidenced by your numerous postings
on alt.magick that you certain are no gentleman. And that Tom is your
problem.. you cannot have it both ways.
>
> > Personally I couldn’t care less what you think of my magick..
> > as explained to you earlier. My sole intention is to teach you (who I
> > perceive as a bully) a lesson.
>
> The lesson apparently being that you're a hypocrite.
No.. I made no such claims.. my only claim is that if you cheat and
play dirty (as you do) so will I.
>
> > > > > Such a challenge is not an "attack".
> > > > Trouble is, what people see is not a challenge with integrity, but the
> > > > werewolf.
> > > Well, that's what *you* choose to envision, but I don't think you
> > > speak for people in general.
>
> > Perhaps not, but I have seen the suffering you have caused and that is
> > enough for me.
>
> Suffering? Hilarious. Bruised egos are not "suffering".
So you admit at least to "bruised" ego's. Yet in this admittance you
have no empathy for those persons. Nor do you have even the faintest
notion of what harm and suffering your bruising of these people may of
caused. Typical,
You are guilty without a doubt.
>
> > > You seem to live in a world populated by comic book monsters:
> > > Werewolves lurking on the internet, gargoyles that come alive in the
> > > dark, witches and mages with "light" and "dark" moral alignments who
> > > possess "mystic combat" skills right out of a role-playing game...
> > > Frankly, it's a bit much to swallow uncritically.
>
> > So you know where I am
>
> So it appears, since you admit it. I've got you pegged.
No you have given me pegs, a peg of werewolf, a peg of angel and a peg
of a demon, and a peg of a vampire. Of course
these nicely sharpened pegs by yourself, being thrown back at you, are
not seen, since you don't believe in those
things anyway.
>
> > and I am pleased to know where you are .
>
> But that does *not* appear to be the case. You're still living in
> fantasyland when it comes to knowing much factual information about me
> at all. That's why you have to resort to spurious name-calling and
> speculations about the size of my genitals.
you have genitals?! your right.. I didn't realise it, I thought your
frequent school bully behaviour was to make up for the lack of them.
> > I am answering your
> > questions, not for your benefit, but for others.
>
> Well of course you are. You were hoping to find a whole new choir to
> preach to, but instead you found me and freaked out. What a let down
> for you! Now you're trying to convince other people that the ass you
> made of yourself was really all my fault.
I don't need to convince anyone.. you have made your own many
enemies.
>
> > I am answering your
> > questions to show you up and the fact that your challenges are without
> > substance, just as you are.
>
> Where are those citations, Leonard? Got any? What does an
> "administrator" do other than pretend he's a pirate? Want to compare
> dick sizes again? Yeah, you sure are showing me up, alright.
yes your right... I pretend to be a pirate.. that that is what
buccaneers do.
>
> > > I don't care about how many years of experience you state either.
>
> > I am still waiting for you to show credulity..
>
> I couldn;t help but laugh out loud at that one. People have been
> waiting for me to show credulity for years and have been constantly
> disappointed. You don't even know what "credulity" means, do you?
interesting slip on my part ... you were meant to read credibility
>
> > You may not be selling a correspondence course, and neither am I.
>
> You're just not selling it for money, but selling it is exactly what
> you're doing.
>
No you are doing a much more splendid job of marketing it than I could
ever hope for.
> > You
> > certainly are behaving as if you have some unquestionable right to
> > behave the way you do.
>
> Which I do, despite how fervently you wished I didn't.
Wrong... Tom.. it is your behaviour that is answerable to my
charges..
>
> > And the very fact you refuse to answer any
> > questions given to you simply show you up to be shallower and lacking
> > more substance than I first thought.
>
> If you had any relevant questions, I'd be happy to answer them, but
> you're really only interested in trying to find something, anything,
> you can say about me that can help distract attention away from your
> own failings which I have quite accurately pointed out.
>
Once again it not your imagined failings of me, that I am concerned
with.
> > As for an authority on magick..
> > what is that. Magic is entwined in my very being.. that does not make
> > me an authority.. just real.
>
> Everybody is real, Leonard. It's not just you.
You are not real Tom.. you are just a bully hiding behind a keyboard.
>
> > The problem is that you are not thinking from any real depth nor even
> > any touch of magick.
>
> Because I don't believe in gargoyles that come alive in the dark, and
> werewolves, or pretend I'm a pirate as part of my "duties" as "Senior
> Guardian" of an occult organization you claim is almost 800 years
> old? This just keeps getting stranger and stranger.
yes partly..
> > > > > Oh, cut the pugnatious routine. You're not going to impress me with
> > > > > bluster either. "Mystic combat". Bah.
> > > > Yet it means I am not just mouth...
> > > Bluster isn't evidence of that.
>
> > Providing historical evidence is not blustering..
>
> But you're not providing historical evidence. You're just blustering
> about how awful I am because I pointed it out.
>
think again. evidence was provided.
> > > I don't believe in the kind of comic book "magic/k" you claim to be
> > > doing. If you think you can blast me with magic bolts of arcane
> > > energy, you're welcome to try. You won't be the first to make a fool
> > > of himself doing that. I don't indulge those silly fantasies. My
> > > idea of magick is far different from yours, I suspect.
>
> > Obviously, after all your world even differs from Apollonius of Tyana.
>
> Of course it does. Doesn't yours?
There were vampires in his world, as there are in mine.
> > >"Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of
> > > Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by
> > > a right understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so
> > > that true Agents being applied to proper Patients, strange and
> > > admirable effects will thereby be produced. Whence magicians are
> > > profound and diligent searchers into Nature; they, because of their
> > > skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall
> > > seem to be a miracle." -- The Lemegeton
>
> > Well that is one view, written for a time and culture where everything
> > had to be made acceptable to a Church.
>
> This book was never acceptable in any Church of its time.
>
But written for that culture
> > Not very likely to be the view
> > of an Ubangi sorcery though.
>
> Not that you know jack shit about Ubangi sorcery.
more than you, else you wouldn't present that Lem quote.
> > > Sure you do. It feeds your ego. Everybody knows that occult
> > > correspondence courses are economic losers, but people still try to
> > > get people to subscribe to them because they get off on being seen as
> > > wise and powerful. Just like you, they have all sorts of praise for
> > > themselves and their various supposed accomplishments written into
> > > their lessons.
>
> > Well I am not denying a bit of ego.. and yes you are absolutely
> > correct occult correspondence courses are economic losers. But you
> > are wrong, as I didn’t write the correspondence course, so there is
> > nothing within that praises me within its lessons.
>
> Right. All you do is play pirate. But boy, you sure have some kind
> words for yourself in the documented you've posted. You make yourself
> seem pretty important, even though it turns out you're not actually
> responsible for anything.
At the moment I am responsible for putting a bully on trail.
>
> Have you got anybody over there who actually takes responsibility for
> this course you're hawking? Perhaps I'd get more sensible answers
> from someone who actually knows what's going on.
perhaps you will
>
> > > > I am not trying to make an impression at all.. my only motivation here
> > > > Tom is to put you down.
> > > Well, you're not doing a good job of that either.
>
> > Only to you, yourself because you have a thick skin and insults don’t
> > work. But it is clear to me that in terms of magick, you still have
> > nothing, and have accomplished nothing.
>
> At least that's what you feel like telling yourself. Not that you
> actually know anything about it, of course. We've already established
> that. You're no teacher. You're no scholar. You're certainly no
> sooper-powered magus. You just like to play pirate and have an
> important-sounding title.
... eat it all up
>
> > I used to think I was a werewolf once, until I began growing wings,
> > must be some sort of vampire then … until I felt 3 pairs.
>
> I know! You're the Cottingley Fairy!
I thought you didn't believe in fairies..
> > >And yet, they didn't act more than human. They shared the same
> > >faults, foibles, and foolishness as the rest of us. This constant
> > > strutting around as if one is superior to everyone else is just a self-
> > >congratulatory pose.
>
> > True.. I didn’t realize that Zeus was without fault.. like I said,
> > what do you know of the gods.
>
> "I knew Zeus, Senator. You're no Zeus." You probably won't catch
> that reference, though.
I can throw lightening ..
>
> > Your correct, this does not negate the injuries caused by magick.
>
> I suspect you're not all that strong on discerning cause and effect
> either.
No need..
>
> > Hmm… if you weren’t such an asshole, you would be okay..
>
> I'm OK despite being an asshole. You too, actually.
thanks.. so apologise to the world and get it over and done with. You
would be a better persons for it.
Tom
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So you admit you’re not sorry,
>
> > "Well, I'm certainly not sorry that unsupported claims are not enough
> > to outweigh observeable evidence but I am sorry to disappoint you in
> > your expectation that it would be enough."
>
> > Apparently you completely missed the "I am sorry to disappoint you"
> > part of that sentence.
>
> another typical Tom trick,
Yes, writing sentences that say exactly what I mean is quite a sneaky
trick. Perhaps you'd prefer that I write in nonsensical gibberish and
vague, meandering stream of consciousness as you do.
> > Do you really expect to get the gist of my thought without reading
> > complete sentences that I write?
>
> blah blah..
I take it that means "no".
> > > which means you were being dishonest.
>
> > A fine thing to say when you're in the midst of a lie yourself.
>
> I am only in the midst of the lie
It's well that you can admit it. However, as long as you keep lying,
the admission alone won't help you.
> > > Like the rest of your postings there is a continuing adherence to the
> > > simplest if not idiotic view, that Tom thinks along the lines of ‘If I
> > > haven’t seen it, it must be unsupportive or untrue’.
>
> > Now that would be almost as silly as your thinking along the lines of
> > "My thirty years of experience means that anything I say or do should
> > be accepted as true, correct, and proper."
>
> these are your words, not mine...
You mischaracterize what I say, then complain that I mischaracterize
what you say. No surprises there.
> > > Quite simply it
> > > doesn’t matter how many times you use the word ‘unsupported’ when the
> > > evidence has been clearly stated.
>
> > Simply saying the same things over and over is not "support". A claim
> > cannot rationally support itself. When I say your claim is
> > unsupported, that doesn't mean I want you to simply repeat it a few
> > more times. Your claim is supported when you provide evidence other
> > than your say-so alone.
>
> Poppycock rubbish..
Saying "poppycock rubbish" is not supportive evidence either. You
have no support for your vague suggestion that maybe there might have
been citations that were given in the original article "A Short
History of the Devil." You don't seem to mind that there there are no
citations in the document you posted, though. The charge that you
have disregarded the intellectual property of others is demonstrable.
It's not just "poppycock" as any one who reads it can plainly see.
The suggestion that your author, who was apparently your former
teacher, Michael Freedman, may have plagiarized the article from
Gerald Messadie's "A Short History of the Devil" has been made and
supported by noting the strong similarities in both the style and
substance of the two works. On the other hand, your claim that
Freedman might have originally cited his sources is unsupported by any
other evidence whatsoever.
So bluster all you want, Leonard. It won't make the slightest
difference. You have no supportive evidence for your claim and I have
plenty to support mine, even if you'd rather not think about that.
> Quite simply my claim
> is supported whether of not I say-so or not.
More nonsensical gibberish.
> Not that even sending you a photo of its existence would be any use
> anyway, by your own admission you
> wouldn't accept it.
Once again, you are making stuff up because you're just too careless
to even check what's been said. I said it wouldn't be *proof*, not
that I wouldn't accept it as evidence. Look it up. I bet you won't
though. You're not only careless, you're lazy.
Your performance here has been nothing short of disgraceful. If your
an example of the kind of result your correspondence course produces,
it's not worth the price you charge for it, even though that price is
free.
> > I've told you before that I have not and will not ask for proof of
> > anything. I ask only about the quality of your evidence. Where it is
> > of little quality, I say so. Similarly, when it is high quality, I
> > say so. In my hierarchy of credibility of evidence, the unverifiable
> > word of some guy who posts ads to Usenet about his occult
> > correspondence course is rated pretty low. You can understand why,
> > can you not?
>
> I cannot fathom why you have this erroneous view that the quality of
> evidence is only little or high if you say so.
> That is the problem with your false ego, look like I said there is
> other independently verifiable evidence. Yet no
> matter how many times I have pointed this to you, it is not going in.
I cannot fathom what the hell that gibberish was supposed to mean.
Can you please stop doing whatever recreational drugs you take before
coming on-line and at least *try* to write in coherent sentences?
> > I'm in the same boat, of course. There's no reason why anyone accept
> > take *my* unsupported claims without question either. If I want to
> > make a claim, it is entirely reasonable to expect a challenge to its
> > veracity and I'll defend it as best I can. If I can't do a good
> > enough job, I'll concede it. It's happened before, albeit fairly
> > rarely. I'm generally pretty careful about what I claim. If there's
> > anything participation in this newsgroup should teach us, it's that
> > one should be pretty careful about what one claims.
>
> You say you are careful, but I don't see this. What I see is just
> stubbornness.
Look, it's really quite simple to make this whole issue go away. You
need to have someone who knows how to write an essay rewrite that one
and include a set of citations. Now it's evident that you're not up
to the task, but maybe that "Carfax" person is. Get him going on
this. In the meantime, take down that article until it can show some
respect for the intellectual property of others. Bleating about how
unfair it is for me to criticize you because I'm so mean about it
isn't going to stop the criticism.
> You invent the idea that
> I am placing ads on the alt.magick for my correspondence course.
So you didn't post any links in the alt.magick newsgroup to articles
touting your correspondence course and you didn't invite people to
read them? Gee, then I wonder how they got there.
For instance, here is post from a thread that you started entitled
"collection of Et Custosi Tutelae, Guardians of Grace materials":
On May 30, 3:24 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 12:38 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 8:09 am, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
> > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ave
>
> > > I have spend a good part of this afternoon converting documents to PDF
> > > and
> > > uploading materials to
>
> > >http://etoile.topcities.com/ECT/public/
>
> > > to the existing collection, which makes about 160 articles on the
> > > occult, magick and the Qabalah to any person interested..
>
> > > LLL
> > > Jean de Cabalis
>
> > They all look pretty interesting; thanks for the advertisement.
>
> thank you.
You don't argue with Offramp's remark that it is an advertisement.
After all, he's flattering you. I, on the other hand, am clearly not
flattering you, so you now suddenly deny that you're advertising.
You're not concerned with facts. You just want to evade my criticism.
Remember then I said I was careful about having evidence when I make
claims? Here's an example. You tried to challenge my claim that you
were advertising your correspondence course and so I just provided
evidence that you do.
> > What is being
> > stated here is the means by which evidence is analyzed. It's a rule
> > that reasonable people have used to make decisions about what's what
> > for centuries now. Uncorroborated testimony is not strong evidence.
>
> Wrong again, you wrote " 'Your unsupported word is not enough to
> outweigh evidence' is both analytical and substantive." which has
> little to do with what is clearly a desperate attempt, in that you are
> now fudging above. But everything to do with my point that 'your
> comment' was neither analytical nor substantive.
Repeating yourself is not corroboration, Leonard.
> > > And it certainly is not
> > > substantive because you have offered nothing except your personal
> > > philosophical negations to justify the fact that you haven’t seen the
> > > magazine. Substantive is bigger than your own mind Tom.
> >
> > Are you trying to claim that there is no book by Gerald Messadie
> > entitled "A History of the Devil"? Or that it wasn't published in
> > 1993? I provided supporting evidence of that from several sources.
> > That it bears a striking similarity to the article you copyrighted in
> > 2000-2004 is also checkable by reference to the article itself on your
> > own web site and comparison to the sections of the book which I
> > specifically cited at your request. This is substantive evidence,
> > Jean, not merely my say-so. Anyone who wants to check it
> > independently can easily do so.
>
> Don't try and change the topic ..
The lack of citations in that article and the suggestion that it was
cribbed from a book published a year before it was allegedly written
*is* the topic.
> > > What level of knowledge is comprehension.. what you are saying doesn’t
> > > make any sense.
>
> > That's because you refuse to read even one whole sentence without
> > busting in and trying to take words or phrases out of context. No
> > wonder you can't make any sense out of it.
>
> No what clearly makes no sense to you, is my assumption that you could
> connect your own sentence.
What I'm saying makes perfect sense to me. I'd love to see the
evidence you try to offer for *that* claim. It ought to be pretty
funny.
> For
> you own ease of reading this is what you wrote
>
> "It seems to me that the process of magical development is supposed to
> constantly improve one's control of one's thoughts and perceptions and
> to use that control to comprehend the underlying reality of events in
> such a way that they can be effectively manipulated in ways that seem
> miraculous to those who may not be aware of that underlying reality."
>
> Not a very good sentence, more than 50 word and no proper syntax.
I realize how hard it is for you to manage to hold your attention on a
sentence that has all of 50 words in it, but there's nothing
particularly wrong with the syntax. It's a little too complex for
you, obviously. I'll try to keep it simpler so that you don't get
confused.
> Nevertheless my reply is: "One uses what comprehension to assist in
> controlling a situation (if and only if) control is warranted for a
> particular task. – which it is not always necessarily so."
What the hell was that? Immediately after complaining about my
syntax, you produce this incomprehensible word salad? Pathetic.
> > > At least you address it with ‘if this is so’ which shows a faint
> > > chance that you may be possibly aware of a greater or more subtle
> > > reality …beyond control or the comprehension of a mere human being.
>
> > Beyond the control of one such as yourself, for example? Or are you
> > claiming that you are no "mere human being"?
>
> The 'if it is so' refers to your previous statement. Here I will
> repeat it for you.. ""It seems to me that the process of magical
> development is supposed to constantly improve one's control of one's
> thoughts and perceptions and to use that control to comprehend the
> underlying reality of events in such a way that they can be
> effectively manipulated in ways that seem miraculous to those who may
> not be aware of that underlying reality." have you caught up with
> yourself
> yet Tom?
I see you didn't answer my question. Perhaps it's problematical for
you. Let me phrase it clearly and in only a few words, so it doesn't
confuse you so much.
*Are you claiming control and comprehension of reality beyond that of
"a mere human being"?*
> > Can you demonstrate that you are not a false teacher by specifying
> > exactly what powers make you into a "god-like being" in contrast to
> > the powers of a "mere human being"? How do you propose to physically
> > demonstrate your personal mastery of these alleged powers?
>
> I can neither be a true nor false teacher, as I am not a teacher.
You are claiming to be the Senior Guardian of the teaching order. If
you are not a teacher yourself, then what qualifies you to hold that
title? Is it just seniority, not accomplishment?
> ... hmm mastery, I don't think I claimed mastery..
Yes, you do. You claim the rank of "Magister of the Temple" from some
"Thelemic temple of the Siver Star A.'. A.'." and competion of Adeptus
coursework in the Guardians of Grace. You also proclaim yourself to
be "the Magister of the Order". If that post can be held by someone
who has yet to attain mastery, then the whole order is a farce.
You're just trying another evasion. I'll ask you the same querstion
again, nice and simple. Has this course brought about your
transformation into "a god-like being" or not? If you are "a god-like
being", then what "god-like" powers are you going to physically
demonstrate for us?
> > Stop tilting at windmills. I didn't say that neurosis means "one has
> > no interest in discovering underlying realities". I also never said
> > that neurosis makes one cling to neurosis. That's totally incorrect.
> > At least try to get clear what's being said to you before you try to
> > argue with it.
>
> You wrote, and its another one of your IF's: "If this is so, then
> clinging to neurosis and showing no interest in discovering the
> underlying reality of events is diametrically opposed to the study and
> practice of magick" e.o.q caught up to yourself yet? Now go back and
> read what I wrote, and this time try to comprehend it.
You have just shown beyond question that what you claim I said is not
what I actually said. Thank you for clearing that up beyond any
further credibility of your denial.
*You* chose to cling to your neurosis. Let's look at the context:
Tom: That's because you don't pay attention to scholarship. Most
occultists don't. They're simply too careless.
Leonard: Your right.. <g> add neurotic to that as well.. and probably
schizophrenic too, whatever reality is... comes with the (magick)
territory... I don't mind you keep your scholarship and I will keep
my neurosis.
So there you are, stating quite clearly that you prefer to cling to
some pattern of behavior that you call a "neurosis" ( your choice of
term, not mine) and dismissing scholarship, by which we mean citing
the sources of this "Short History of the Devil" article. I was not
making a general statement about neurosis, no matter how badly you'd
like to twist the discussion that way so that you don't have to face
your own blatant failure to respect intellectual property.
> > Please post a documented definition of "neurosis" that you believe
> > demonstrates that mine is incorrect and where this definition is
> > documented. I've pointed out to you time and again that your
> > unsupported word alone is poor evidence. Got anything better?
>
> No,
I didn't think so.
> > > it does not necessarily lead to delusions or false judgments.
>
> > There you go again. Where in what *I* wrote is the word "delusion"?
>
> Now who is looking at words,
Me. Not you. That's most of your problem right there in a nutshell.
You are careless. You don't look carefully, you don't read carefully,
you don't write carefully, and you don't think carefully. You don't
pay enough attention to what's really going on outside your head and
you can't be bothered to check your facts.
> and not the entire sentence.
I pointed out the word in the sentence that you claimed I said which I
clearly and demonstrably did not say. You were simply careless again,
both in reading and in writing, and you're hoping to encourage me to
be equally careless and not notice.
> You wrote
> "Neurosis" is an uncontrolled, emotionally-based distortion of
> perception which leads one into making false judgments about one's
> perceptions..." seems to me that you yourself are being delusional if
> you think that delusional is not implied by your sentence.
Well, we have made some small progress. You at least recognize that
you inferred the idea of "delusion" instead of claiming that I
actually used the term. It's a small admission of failure, but at
least it's a step in the right direction. With a little more work we
may actually get to the point where you admit you don't have a leg to
stand on by defending that hopeless cause of an essay.
Given the carelessness with which you read my words, and your lack of
understanding of the basic meaning of those words, it's no surprise
that you interpret them with the same basic irrationality which which
you interpret the rest of your experience as well.
> You own value judgements of what may or may not be thin hold no
> validity to me. Again the photos prove the
> photo's exist.
Let's be clear about what's real right now: *You have not shown
anybody any photos!*
The whole argument you're trying to make here is cloud-castles.
> The fact is that you won't accept that the article was published
> before 2004. Even when informed of the evidence.
That's not a fact. A fact is not something you believe might happen
in the future. That's simply an excuse you want to offer to explain
why you don't have any evidence.
> > And no copy of the magazine article appears yet, either. I did come
> > across one interesting tidbit, though. It seems that "Jean de
> > Cabalis" is not your given name, Leonard. Why are you operating under
> > a pseudonym? Isn't "Leonard Stevens" exotic enough for you?
>
> Your still not paying attention.. the posting I made was under the
> name Brother Bernardo, it is you that has been
> calling me Jean.
I'll just have to show you up as a liar yet again, Leonard.
> > On May 30, 8:09 am, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
> > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ave
> > > I have spend a good part of this afternoon converting documents to PDF
> > > and
> > > uploading materials to
> > >http://etoile.topcities.com/ECT/public/
> > > to the existing collection, which makes about 160 articles on the
> > > occult, magick and the Qabalah to any person interested..
> > > LLL
> > > Jean de Cabalis
You signed that post "Jean de Cabalis". So the only real question is
whether you were lying then or lying now?
> If and when the evidence comes up, I will post it.
It would have to come up all by itself, because I don't think you have
any intention of looking for it.
> It is unlikely I
> still have copies of the original magazine.
Which is what I've been saying all along.
> > No? To what, then, do you attribute your inattention to giving
> > scholarly credit where such credit is due in your copyrighted
> > material?
>
> The author wrote an article, one of our members typed it up, and I
> appreciated their efforts.
Ah, the many duties of a Senior Guardian... Playing pirate,
appreciating stuff...
> > I made no "accusation of plagiarism" at all, as I have pointed out to
> > you repeatedly. Why can't you deal with my criticisms of you and your
> > organization honestly? Why do you have to make this silly stuff up
> > when must realize that you'll only get caught as soon as you post it?
>
> It is you that is being dishonest, as you repetitively are. You wrote
> "Too bad your author was too careless to cite his sources. Now he
> just looks like a plagiarist." while I admit that you carefully didn't
> accuse the author of plagiarism on that occasion, you still through
> mud.
Another admission that you're wrong and I'm right. That's happening
more and more often, even though when you admit you're wrong and I'm
right you still insist that I'm being dishonest about something.
Apparently, when you say someone is "dishonest", it doesn't mean that
what they said wasn't true, it just means you didn't like the way they
said it.
> Later you wrote ".. in a very obscure occult magazine is enough
> to suspect, if not confirm, plagiarism." there are other example..
An example of me being right and you being wrong. It's not an
"accusation of plagiarism" as you falsely claimed.
> and you are on
> very thin ice, if you think propositions such as yours cannot be, and
> should not be, taken as accusations
You can take them any way you want, regardless of the reality of the
situation. That's the wonderful thing about imagination. It doesn't
have to conform to real events at all. That's why it's so much fun
for you to play pirate or vampire, or any other juvenile fantasy you
like to act out. However, when you start making up claims about what
other people have done, at least some of those other people are going
to make you look like a fool for it. Then, of course, you can pretend
you didn't really end up looking foolish, but most folks have already
realized that you're just pretending.
> > You keep insisting that I must have drawn "some sort of conclusions",
> > but you can't find anything that I actually wrote that indicates that
> > I've drawn any conclusions at all about the issue of plagiarism. You
> > simply made that issue up and are trying to use it to divert attention
> > from the fact that your teacher wrote an article that lacks respect
> > for the intellectual property of others by failing to cite its sources
> > and that your organization is trying to assert that same material as
> > its own intellectual property while continuing your disregard for the
> > intellectual property of others. You have attempted to say that the
> > citations might exist, if you could only find them, although you don't
> > really remember whether there were any or not. That's much too weak
> > and you know it. So instead, you have to make up some excuse,
> > reasonable or not, to consider my criticism invalid and therefore not
> > have to face it
>
> You are avoiding the point, and that has to do with your frequent
> methodology.
The point is that you don't have any evidence that there were ever any
citations in that article. Everything else you've said in this thread
is just bluster and distraction from that single, unrefuted point.
> Does any one here reading this, have a copy of the original article,
> published in Magic Pentacle NZ?
My god, Leonard! The magazine was published by the very group you
resurrected, which you have elsewhere claimed to have operated
continuously since the 11th Century. And you can't find the records
of their publications from only a decade ago in your own materials?
You people are just too careless. It's like a temple that was
abandoned by its priests and has been entirely taken over by monkeys.
> > I'm saying your documents are copyrighted teaching materials over
> > which you assert intellectual property rights while you simultaneously
> > disregard the intellectual property rights of those who did the actual
> > work you're using in those copyrighted educational materials.
>
> That is untrue..
Then where are those citations?
> > No, you've only tried to distract attention from that deficit and have
> > not even indicated that you intend to correct the problem at all, let
> > alone how you plan to do so.
>
> That is also a lie. I have told you what I would need to see to
> correct the article, if indeed it does need correcting.
Read the bloody article yourself, Leonard. It has no citations,
therefore it needs correcting. If you can't currently find those
citations, the proper thing to do is take down that article until you
*do* find them. Get off your ass, you play-pirate. You're supposed
to be the head of that group of monkeys.
> > > Now you just being rude..
>
> > Bah, you began our discussion with disparaging comments about me
> > personally, right from the start. And here you are trying to pose as
> > Mr. Manners Person. Let's look at the record itself.
>
> that is another lie... your very first posting was a slight on my
> character when you wrote
>
> "The ones you approve of and the ones you don't. "...
That's what I just wrote, idiot. It's not a lie unless what I write
is untrue.
> > What I originally said:
> > Leonard: In the esoteric/spiritual worlds their are two types of
> > teachers.
> > Tom: The ones you approve of and the ones you don't.
>
> good you admit your slight.
There's absolutely nothing "rude" about that at all. At worst it's
not particualrly respectful, but you didn't call it "disrespectful".
You called it "rude".
> I replied politically and factually by repeating the statement.
You replied, "Sigh there is always a comedian who has an adult
attention disorder, or can't keep his hand away from his dick."
So let's have a little quiz.
Pick which statement you think is "rude".
"The ones you approve of and the ones you don't."
Or
"Sigh there is always a comedian who has an adult attention disorder,
or can't keep his hand away from his dick."
> I didn't wanted to back away from your remark "Another
> obligatory brave exit speech.
Hardly anyone does. It's the perfect response to the pompous twit who
thinks he's going to get the last word. It hooks them directly
through the ego and drags them back for another spanking. And here
you are.
> > Apparently it
> > involves having the social sophistication of the average twelve-year-
> > old. And Leonard wants to complain that *I'm* being rude to *him*.
> > Heh.
>
> Yep .. because you started the slurs.
Another twelve-year-old reaction: "He started it!" What did your
mommy say when you tried that on on her?
> But my main complaint is how
> you have treated all those other people.
Nobody's buying the "noble knight riding to the rescue" story,
Leonard. You got into it with me because you resented having me
deflate your pompous "True Head of the Order" routine. The rest is
just fluff.
> > Scrabbling to find someone else who might accept responsibility for a
> > screw-up. I don't see any lengthy praises for the leadership of Fr
> > Carfax in your documents, although there seems to be plenty about
> > you. However, when somebody has to accept responsibility for errors,
> > suddenly it's Fr Carfax, or the long-gone Dermot, who hasn't been
> > around for almost a decade.
>
> blah blah again.. my comment is on whom controls the organisation.
> Nothing to do with taking responsibility
> for that article. A responsibility that I don't deny.
Then quit trying to fob it off on others in and out of your
organization. You sound like some sort of middle-management drone
trying to cover his ass.
> > > Wake up boy, we are discussing
> > > keeping the names of whomever typed up the article for the URL
> > > private.
>
> > I don't care which underlings you try to blame. The organization is
> > yours and the responsibility for its failings are yours.
>
> I am not blaming anyone.. I am simply stating that IF there were
> citations, they may of being quite innocently missed out.
But you have no evidence of it that you've been able to find. And
lately it's starting to sound like you have no intention of even
looking for it. Is that your plan, Leonard, sweep it under the rug
and hope I'll forget about it?
> > Then fix the problem, not the blame.
>
> As already stated, I cannot fix the problem, until I see the original
> article.
That's crap. You can take down the article until you see to it that
it includes proper citations.
> > > You are going off again all by yourself… authorship is cited, the
> > > owner of the material is cited, the society is cited..
>
> > But not the people who did the real academic research which you admit
> > that you've been using without giving due credit.
>
> I never admitted any such thing.. citation needs to be shown, if it
> existed.
If the article does not have citations, or you can't find them, it
needs to be taken off your website because, as it is now, it fails to
respect the intellectual property of the scholars upon whose work it
was based.
> > Exactly. Except that you *haven't* shown who the owner is. You have
> > appropriated the work of real academicians without given them credit
> > even as you try to take credit yourselves.
>
> The owner of the article is the society.
Then the "society" is actively disrespectful of the intellectual
property of the real scholars who did the real work.
> > So far most of your attempts to defend this blatant breach of academic
> > courtesy have been stupid and simple. I see no indication that this
> > will change any time soon.
>
> No you are being stupid, because you assuming something without
> looking at the original evidence. I am
> been simple only in the view that I will do nothing, until I see the
> original article.
If you think you're in the clear by doing nothing, you're even
stupider than I previously suspected.
> > I already told you what I use as my criterion. It's possible that you
> > can't remember it, what with the tizzy you immediately flew into when
> > I dared to criticize your criteria. Would you like me to remind you
> > how I do it? Admit that you can't remember and I will. If you
> > haven't forgotten, you could quote the statement in which I described
> > it, just to show me that you do indeed remember.
>
> You reputed criterion is too small ... the world is bigger than your
> sceptical head.
What was that "reputed criterion", Leonard? Let's see if you've
forgotten or not. I think you have.
> > > I administer, I.e. an administrator, a Cancellarius of various
> > > organizations. Some times I instruct those who I can give assistance –
> > > but I am no teacher. Most of the time magically I go on adventures….
> > > Sometimes I feed and sometimes I am a pirate. Over all I gow and
> > > improve my skills and talents.. and occasionally I get pissed off with
> > > not-so common thugs like you too…
>
> > Hilarious. An "administrator" who "goes on adventures".
>
> and what is wrong with that, or would you chain me up to the library?
I'd have you doing what you're claiming credit for, which is running a
teaching organization. That doesn't involve playing pirate or
vampire or any of that other silly crap. It involves making sure that
your materials are in good order, that your facts are checked, that
you give credit to others where credit is due, and that you bloody
well accept without protest your responsibility to correct the
problems that will inevitably crop up. It's not just a show,
Leonard. There's real work to be done. Grow up, for heaven's sake.
> for all your book reading, you have never gone out of the library and
> seen experience a simple vampire?
Oh various friends and I used to go "vampire" hunting a lot back in
the days when we were young and foolish. We had all sorts of stories
to tell each other about our swashbuckling magical adventures battling
the forces of evil and encountering weird beasts of the shadowlands.
But it was mainly just the kind of bullshit that overly-imaginative
and romantic witchy-poos love to indulge. Most of us who didn't scare
ourselves back to church eventually figured out that we were only
fooling ourselves and got down to business. A few stayed back in the
playground, though, and never left it. Sort of a Peter Pan thing.
Little boys who never wanted to grow up.
> > > Granted, to question, not to circumvent nor to mislead nor cheat, nor
> > > build fictions.
>
> > It's no fiction that you haven't cited the sources of your "A Short
> > History of the Devil" article and its no fiction that it looks very
> > similar in style and substance to a book by Gerald Messadie ("A
> > History of the Devil") that was published a year prior to the time you
> > claim it was published in your occult magazine. It is also a fact
> > that you have claimed that such citations *might* exist but you're not
> > sure and that you haven't been able to find the magazine in which the
> > article was allegedly published. None of this is at all misleading
> > onmy part, although all that name-calling you've done certainly could
> > be construed as attempts to circumvent and mislead and were clearly
> > inventions of your own imagination (ie "fiction").
>
> We are discussing your fictions Tom,
No, we are discussing your lack of respect for intellectual property.
You'd like to change that subject but I'm not letting you.
> > > Perhaps not, but I have seen the suffering you have caused and that is
> > > enough for me.
>
> > Suffering? Hilarious. Bruised egos are not "suffering".
>
> So you admit at least to "bruised" ego's.
Oh yes, I can bruise an ego. I don't apologize for that. I do that
quite deliberately. I happen to think that a bruised ego is very good
for your development. You should thank me.
> Yet in this admittance you
> have no empathy for those persons.
My wife had a splinter in her foot the other day. I used a pin to dig
into the wound and remove it. It hurt a bit, but the end result was
beneficial. If your ego pains you after an encounter with me, later
you will derive benefit from it, even if you don't want to admit it,
even to yourself.
> You are guilty without a doubt.
I don't feel the least bit guilty. Feel free to sulk about that all
you like, though.
> > > I am answering your
> > > questions, not for your benefit, but for others.
>
> > Well of course you are. You were hoping to find a whole new choir to
> > preach to, but instead you found me and freaked out. What a let down
> > for you! Now you're trying to convince other people that the ass you
> > made of yourself was really all my fault.
>
> I don't need to convince anyone..
The you don't need to respond to my words at all. You never did. And
yet, look at how much you're reacting.
> > > I am still waiting for you to show credulity..
>
> > I couldn;t help but laugh out loud at that one. People have been
> > waiting for me to show credulity for years and have been constantly
> > disappointed. You don't even know what "credulity" means, do you?
>
> interesting slip on my part ... you were meant to read credibility
I know, but, unlike you, I read what's really there. That's what
makes it so funny.
> > > You may not be selling a correspondence course, and neither am I.
>
> > You're just not selling it for money, but selling it is exactly what
> > you're doing.
>
> No you are doing a much more splendid job of marketing it than I could
> ever hope for.
Actually, Leonard, I think the ideas that Freedman put together are
ponderable, not as facts but as ideas worth examining. Not that you
Monkeys really have much of a grasp of their inner significance
yourselves. You're too busy playing pirate.
> > > As for an authority on magick..
> > > what is that. Magic is entwined in my very being.. that does not make
> > > me an authority.. just real.
>
> > Everybody is real, Leonard. It's not just you.
>
> You are not real Tom.. you are just a bully hiding behind a keyboard.
You're wrong again, Leonard. Everybody is real. It's just that you
have me confused with a figment of your imagination and it's that
figment that you are declaring to be unreal. This is what comes of
trying to live your life in fantasyland. You can no longer
effectively figure out what's fact and what's fiction.
> > > > I don't believe in the kind of comic book "magic/k" you claim to be
> > > > doing. If you think you can blast me with magic bolts of arcane
> > > > energy, you're welcome to try. You won't be the first to make a fool
> > > > of himself doing that. I don't indulge those silly fantasies. My
> > > > idea of magick is far different from yours, I suspect.
>
> > > Obviously, after all your world even differs from Apollonius of Tyana.
>
> > Of course it does. Doesn't yours?
>
> There were vampires in his world, as there are in mine.
There were all sorts of fantastic creatures and miraculous goings-on
in the "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" by Philostratus. Of course, it's
pretty clear that Philostratus was just telling tall tales, just like
you are. The difference is that Philostratus was probably well aware
of it.
> > > >"Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of
> > > > Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by
> > > > a right understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so
> > > > that true Agents being applied to proper Patients, strange and
> > > > admirable effects will thereby be produced. Whence magicians are
> > > > profound and diligent searchers into Nature; they, because of their
> > > > skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall
> > > > seem to be a miracle." -- The Lemegeton
>
> > > Well that is one view, written for a time and culture where everything
> > > had to be made acceptable to a Church.
>
> > This book was never acceptable in any Church of its time.
>
> But written for that culture
Keep dancing, Leonard. Don't try to take any firm stance that would
demand that you demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.
Keep it equivocal and vague.
> > > Not very likely to be the view
> > > of an Ubangi sorcery though.
>
> > Not that you know jack shit about Ubangi sorcery.
>
> more than you, else you wouldn't present that Lem quote.
Really? Tell me all about Ubangi sorcery and how you learned so much
about it.
> > > I used to think I was a werewolf once, until I began growing wings,
> > > must be some sort of vampire then … until I felt 3 pairs.
>
> > I know! You're the Cottingley Fairy!
>
> I thought you didn't believe in fairies..
I thought we were playing charades.
> > > True.. I didn’t realize that Zeus was without fault.. like I said,
> > > what do you know of the gods.
>
> > "I knew Zeus, Senator. You're no Zeus." You probably won't catch
> > that reference, though.
>
> I can throw lightening ..
Me, too! I just need a dry atmosphere, a rug, and the right shoes and
I can throw a lightning bolt almost an inch. Or are you trying to
claim some paranormal power that'll make me laugh out loud?
> > I suspect you're not all that strong on discerning cause and effect
> > either.
>
> No need..
Heh.
bassos
**
Yes, writing sentences that say exactly what I mean is quite a sneaky
trick. Perhaps you'd prefer that I write in nonsensical gibberish and
vague, meandering stream of consciousness as you do.
Well, if you wouldn't mind trying combining the two ?
A meandering stream of consciousness that means exactly what you say.
Erm, wait.
Cut out the concept of words meaning what you want them, and the; it being a
matter of who's boss and all.
(not that you mentioned that, but it seems like an inherent weakness in the
suggestion)
Perhaps in the words of Cassius Clay; (momma called him clay, imma call him
Clay)
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
Or in my words.
Float.
Just cos meandering is among the experiences of life, does not mean it
cannot be specified.
Or really focussed down;
Just cos conscioussness streams meanderingly does not mean we have to write
nonsensical gibberish.
It just helps.
Tom
> "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:45ecad0d-a765-4acd...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> **
> Yes, writing sentences that say exactly what I mean is quite a sneaky
> trick. Perhaps you'd prefer that I write in nonsensical gibberish and
> vague, meandering stream of consciousness as you do.
> **
>
> Well, if you wouldn't mind trying combining the two ?
>
> A meandering stream of consciousness that means exactly what you say.
Stream of consciousness writing has intentional meaning only in
fiction. As a narration of ongoing transformations of internal
thought of the writer, as soon as it is written, it is no longer
valid. It annihilates itself. See William James "Psychology",
Chapter 11, for details.
Dar es Alrah
I think what stream of consciousness writers try and set down is a
picture of the transformation itself. Yes - it anhiliates itself, but
everything changes. Stream of consciousness writers aim to capture
the fundemental way that consciousness changes. For instance - in
questioning any topic you may experience a greater focus - an increase
of detail, or conversely you may experience a widening of focus,
tending towards the abstract big picture, or even questioning what the
big picture is. You can see it in the writing - the process of the
mind jumping out and in, up and down, round and around, even if the
thing makes linear gibberish. Comes from the same place as abstract
art and pointilism etc - only expressed as words imho.
Meltdarok
> On Jun 8, 9:41 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:45ecad0d-a765-4acd...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>> **
>> Yes, writing sentences that say exactly what I mean is quite a sneaky
>> trick. Perhaps you'd prefer that I write in nonsensical gibberish and
>> vague, meandering stream of consciousness as you do.
>> **
>>
>> Well, if you wouldn't mind trying combining the two ?
>>
>> A meandering stream of consciousness that means exactly what you say.
>
> Stream of consciousness writing has intentional meaning only in
> fiction.
John Varley is a master of Stream-of-Consciousness fiction.
In his eight world scenarios, he wrote the first person views of
people as they moved from clone to clone. The premise was that you
would record your brain's memories by a very expensive high-tech
process. This was so expensive that only the very wealthy could
afford to make frequent recordings, so most people made due with
a recording every few years. With this recording you provided a
tissue sample, so if your body was killed, you would be cloned,
and the memories would be played back into your new body. By law
there could be only one clone existing legally at a time. This leads
to some very interesting situations! My favorite story was the short
story, The Phantom of Kansas. In it a computer artist wakes up from
her usual recording- and finds that it's two years later, and she's
her second clone since making that recording! One amusing aspect is
that she meets people who were the friends that her clones made after
the recording, and she tells them, "I'm sorry, but you knew my clone,
not me!"
--
meltdarok
The careless mind makes problems where
there actually aren't any.
Then it struggles to change the world,
and not the mind itself.
etoile....@gmail.com
> On Jun 7, 5:29 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
> <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > So you admit you’re not sorry,
> > > "Well, I'm certainly not sorry that unsupported claims are not enough
> > > to outweigh observeable evidence but I am sorry to disappoint you in
> > > your expectation that it would be enough."
> > > Apparently you completely missed the "I am sorry to disappoint you"
> > > part of that sentence.
> > another typical Tom trick,
> Yes, writing sentences that say exactly what I mean is quite a sneaky
> trick. Perhaps you'd prefer that I write in nonsensical gibberish and
> vague, meandering stream of consciousness as you do.
Do you lie to yourself as well... here is what you said, for the
second time:
"I'm sorry but your unsupported word isn't enough to outweigh all the
rest of the evidence."
as your dishonesty was pointed out in the previous post when I replied
how you were
conveniently trying to ignore this so no one would notice.
So what do we have here:
1. You either fail to recall your previous postings,
2. Or you simple choose to ignore what you don't like to face up to..
3. then you lie about it.. and try to cover your deception by removing
parts of a thread
4. and then you conclude your butt-covering with some sort of
insult..
quite frankly you are pathetic.
> > > Do you really expect to get the gist of my thought without reading
> > > complete sentences that I write?
> > blah blah..
> I take it that means "no".
It means that you ignore what you yourself have written, and then try
to substantiate yourself with another sentence that has little if
anything to do with the original.
> > > > which means you were being dishonest.
> > > A fine thing to say when you're in the midst of a lie yourself.
> > I am only in the midst of the lie
> It's well that you can admit it. However, as long as you keep lying,
> the admission alone won't help you.
Here is what i said, and I will produce it in caps, just in case your
eye sight is failing you
I said "I AM ONLY IN THE MIDST OF THE LIE THAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE
PRODUCED"
now everyone look very carefully to has been erased by Tom above with
the > > I am.....
and then compare to the original posting..
5. He cheats.
In fact your cheating is so blatantly obvious to everyone here, that
quite frankly it is now nearly
impossible to believe a single word that comes out of your mouth. You
speak about authentically
and yet your actions are those of the lowest type of hypocrite ever.
[snip]
> So bluster all you want, Leonard. It won't make the slightest
> difference. You have no supportive evidence for your claim and I have
> plenty to support mine, even if you'd rather not think about that.
Requiring historical evidence or providing historical evidence is not
blustering.. Okay where is this
supportive evidence of yours. 1. Evidence that there was no journal
called Magic Pentacle
produced during the mid 90's ... 2. Evidence that you actually have
some magical skill
and accomplishment other than a psychological curiosity that you seek
to disprove.
> > Quite simply my claim
> > is supported whether of not I say-so or not.
> More nonsensical gibberish.
> > Not that even sending you a photo of its existence would be any use
> > anyway, by your own admission you
> > wouldn't accept it.
> Once again, you are making stuff up because you're just too careless
> to even check what's been said. I said it wouldn't be *proof*, not
> that I wouldn't accept it as evidence. Look it up. I bet you won't
> though. You're not only careless, you're lazy.
So now you accept that the Cottingley Faires photo's are evidence of
that they exist. You are confused aren't you.
> Your performance here has been nothing short of disgraceful. If your
> an example of the kind of result your correspondence course produces,
> it's not worth the price you charge for it, even though that price is
> free.
My performance.. ha...ha... I have already caught you out lying and
cheating numerous types. Modifying reputedly alt.magick quotes to suit
yourself. Completely negating any valid and reasonable reply you
don't like to simply move goal-post and you say my behaviour is
disgraceful. That is
rich coming from you.. perhaps you should get out of the gutter before
you complain about others.
> > > I've told you before that I have not and will not ask for proof of
> > > anything. I ask only about the quality of your evidence. Where it is
> > > of little quality, I say so. Similarly, when it is high quality, I
> > > say so. In my hierarchy of credibility of evidence, the unverifiable
> > > word of some guy who posts ads to Usenet about his occult
> > > correspondence course is rated pretty low. You can understand why,
> > > can you not?
> > I cannot fathom why you have this erroneous view that the quality of
> > evidence is only little or high if you say so.
> > That is the problem with your false ego, look like I said there is
> > other independently verifiable evidence. Yet no
> > matter how many times I have pointed this to you, it is not going in.
> I cannot fathom what the hell that gibberish was supposed to mean.
> Can you please stop doing whatever recreational drugs you take before
> coming on-line and at least *try* to write in coherent sentences?
So you admit you cannot actually comprehend what is been said now.
6. You cannot comprehend what is been written.
Given your admittance to fail to comprehend a simple few sentence,
obviously you are in absolutely
no position to judge anything, let alone the quality of evidence or
the reality (which you deny) of magick.
Do we add your inability to recall your own previous posting. It
seems that your reputation certainly isn't deserved from some
quarters. Here is a clue there were 3 sentences, with full-stops in
them.
You should try it sometime.
[snip]
> > You say you are careful, but I don't see this. What I see is just
> > stubbornness.
> Look, it's really quite simple to make this whole issue go away. You
> need to have someone who knows how to write an essay rewrite that one
> and include a set of citations. Now it's evident that you're not up
> to the task, but maybe that "Carfax" person is. Get him going on
> this. In the meantime, take down that article until it can show some
> respect for the intellectual property of others. Bleating about how
> unfair it is for me to criticize you because I'm so mean about it
> isn't going to stop the criticism.
It is not about the article but about you. And your own ungentlemanly
behaviour
> > You invent the idea that
> > I am placing ads on the alt.magick for my correspondence course.
> So you didn't post any links in the alt.magick newsgroup to articles
> touting your correspondence course and you didn't invite people to
> read them? Gee, then I wonder how they got there.
> For instance, here is post from a thread that you started entitled
> "collection of Et Custosi Tutelae, Guardians of Grace materials":
there is nothing in that thread that even remotely advertises nor
mentions a correspondence
course. That is your own personal hang up... and now you trying to
justify what you erroneously
said by using another thread.. but it doesn't measure up. Lame. Did
you lose a lot of blood
when you were cutting fire wood?
> On May 30, 3:24 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
> <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 31, 12:38 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 30, 8:09 am, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
> > > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ave
> > > > I have spend a good part of this afternoon converting documents to PDF
> > > > and
> > > > uploading materials to
> > > >http://etoile.topcities.com/ECT/public/
> > > > to the existing collection, which makes about 160 articles on the
> > > > occult, magick and the Qabalah to any person interested..
> > > > LLL
> > > > Jean de Cabalis
> > > They all look pretty interesting; thanks for the advertisement.
> > thank you.
> You don't argue with Offramp's remark that it is an advertisement.
Of course it is an advertisement, but not for a correspondence
course .. Dur
> After all, he's flattering you. I, on the other hand, am clearly not
> flattering you, so you now suddenly deny that you're advertising.
Now it is clear to me how you could become confused.. Okay advertising
an exhibition in a local
galley is not the same thing as advertising for galley membership.. Y
> You're not concerned with facts. You just want to evade my criticism.
I see no fact presented by you. You present lies, deceptions, and
invent fabrications. Clearly
it is a waste of my time trying to explain these rather basic concepts
to you.
> Remember then I said I was careful about having evidence when I make
> claims? Here's an example. You tried to challenge my claim that you
> were advertising your correspondence course and so I just provided
> evidence that you do.
> > > What is being
> > > stated here is the means by which evidence is analyzed. It's a rule
> > > that reasonable people have used to make decisions about what's what
> > > for centuries now. Uncorroborated testimony is not strong evidence.
> > Wrong again, you wrote " 'Your unsupported word is not enough to
> > outweigh evidence' is both analytical and substantive." which has
> > little to do with what is clearly a desperate attempt, in that you are
> > now fudging above. But everything to do with my point that 'your
> > comment' was neither analytical nor substantive.
> Repeating yourself is not corroboration, Leonard.
I was repeating you.... it is hard to look at yourself and see what
you have become isn't it.
[snip]
> > > > What level of knowledge is comprehension.. what you are saying doesn’t
> > > > make any sense.
> > > That's because you refuse to read even one whole sentence without
> > > busting in and trying to take words or phrases out of context. No
> > > wonder you can't make any sense out of it.
> > No what clearly makes no sense to you, is my assumption that you could
> > connect your own sentence.
> What I'm saying makes perfect sense to me. I'd love to see the
> evidence you try to offer for *that* claim. It ought to be pretty
> funny.
No problem.. I will ask you again, 'What level of knowledge is
comprehension?'
> > For
> > you own ease of reading this is what you wrote
> > "It seems to me that the process of magical development is supposed to
> > constantly improve one's control of one's thoughts and perceptions and
> > to use that control to comprehend the underlying reality of events in
> > such a way that they can be effectively manipulated in ways that seem
> > miraculous to those who may not be aware of that underlying reality."
> > Not a very good sentence, more than 50 word and no proper syntax.
> I realize how hard it is for you to manage to hold your attention on a
> sentence that has all of 50 words in it, but there's nothing
> particularly wrong with the syntax. It's a little too complex for
> you, obviously. I'll try to keep it simpler so that you don't get
> confused.
A sentence must be constructed using certain rules... and your broke
the rules of syntax.
see http://www.whitesmoke.com/grammar-rules-sentence-structure-sentence-t...
in your own time. But I won't hold it against you.. as not to
bothered myself.
> > Nevertheless my reply is: "One uses what comprehension to assist in
> > controlling a situation (if and only if) control is warranted for a
> > particular task. – which it is not always necessarily so."
> What the hell was that? Immediately after complaining about my
> syntax, you produce this incomprehensible word salad? Pathetic.
It is not hard to see a small typo, a person of average intelligence
would be able to read
"One uses what comprehension [insert word here, like 'there is, has']
to assist in controlling a situation (if and only if) control is
warranted for a particular task. – which it is not always necessarily
so."
The fact you find it incomprehensible only reflects your own
dumbness..
> > > > At least you address it with ‘if this is so’ which shows a faint
> > > > chance that you may be possibly aware of a greater or more subtle
> > > > reality …beyond control or the comprehension of a mere human being.
> > > Beyond the control of one such as yourself, for example? Or are you
> > > claiming that you are no "mere human being"?
> > The 'if it is so' refers to your previous statement. Here I will
> > repeat it for you.. ""It seems to me that the process of magical
> > development is supposed to constantly improve one's control of one's
> > thoughts and perceptions and to use that control to comprehend the
> > underlying reality of events in such a way that they can be
> > effectively manipulated in ways that seem miraculous to those who may
> > not be aware of that underlying reality." have you caught up with
> > yourself
> > yet Tom?
> I see you didn't answer my question. Perhaps it's problematical for
> you. Let me phrase it clearly and in only a few words, so it doesn't
> confuse you so much.
> *Are you claiming control and comprehension of reality beyond that of
> "a mere human being"?*
Ask again without the 'and' word. You could make it into two
sentence. Syntax, kind of complex again...
> > > Can you demonstrate that you are not a false teacher by specifying
> > > exactly what powers make you into a "god-like being" in contrast to
> > > the powers of a "mere human being"? How do you propose to physically
> > > demonstrate your personal mastery of these alleged powers?
> > I can neither be a true nor false teacher, as I am not a teacher.
> You are claiming to be the Senior Guardian of the teaching order. If
> you are not a teacher yourself, then what qualifies you to hold that
> title? Is it just seniority, not accomplishment?
Magical accomplishment and the rules of the constitution of the
society entitle me.
Where does the Society of Guardians claim to be a 'teaching' order?
> > ... hmm mastery, I don't think I claimed mastery..
> Yes, you do. You claim the rank of "Magister of the Temple" from some
> "Thelemic temple of the Siver Star A.'. A.'." and competion of Adeptus
> coursework in the Guardians of Grace. You also proclaim yourself to
> be "the Magister of the Order". If that post can be held by someone
> who has yet to attain mastery, then the whole order is a farce.
How do you define mastery. How do you define magister? I would be
interested in knowing the question in more definitive words from you
own small level of comprehension.
> You're just trying another evasion. I'll ask you the same querstion
> again, nice and simple. Has this course brought about your
> transformation into "a god-like being" or not? If you are "a god-like
> being", then what "god-like" powers are you going to physically
> demonstrate for us?
The way I read it, this is an another question, not the same
question.
To your question "has this course brought about your transformation
into a god-like being" or not?
the answer is the words in the course are not the thing.
> > > Stop tilting at windmills. I didn't say that neurosis means "one has
> > > no interest in discovering underlying realities". I also never said
> > > that neurosis makes one cling to neurosis. That's totally incorrect.
> > > At least try to get clear what's being said to you before you try to
> > > argue with it.
> > You wrote, and its another one of your IF's: "If this is so, then
> > clinging to neurosis and showing no interest in discovering the
> > underlying reality of events is diametrically opposed to the study and
> > practice of magick" e.o.q caught up to yourself yet? Now go back and
> > read what I wrote, and this time try to comprehend it.
> You have just shown beyond question that what you claim I said is not
> what I actually said. Thank you for clearing that up beyond any
> further credibility of your denial.
No, I quoted what you said.. and yes I absolutely deny your attempts
at falsehood.
> *You* chose to cling to your neurosis. Let's look at the context:
> Tom: That's because you don't pay attention to scholarship. Most
> occultists don't. They're simply too careless.
> Leonard: Your right.. <g> add neurotic to that as well.. and probably
> schizophrenic too, whatever reality is... comes with the (magick)
> territory... I don't mind you keep your scholarship and I will keep
> my neurosis.
> So there you are, stating quite clearly that you prefer to cling to
> some pattern of behavior that you call a "neurosis" ( your choice of
> term, not mine)
yes
> and dismissing scholarship, by which we mean citing
> the sources of this "Short History of the Devil" article.
Given that your claim to scholar are presumptions, without all the
supporting evidence, then I am only
too pleased to dismiss your type of scholarship.
> I was not
> making a general statement about neurosis, no matter how badly you'd
> like to twist the discussion that way so that you don't have to face
> your own blatant failure to respect intellectual property.
You wrote " If this is so, then clinging to neurosis and showing no
interest in discovering the
underlying reality of events is diametrically opposed to the study and
practice of
magick." and now your saying you weren't making a general statement
about neurosis. That is stupid, how can you presume to make a judgment
as to the what is reputedly opposed to the practice of magick, if you
don't even mean the words you are using.
> > > Please post a documented definition of "neurosis" that you believe
> > > demonstrates that mine is incorrect and where this definition is
> > > documented. I've pointed out to you time and again that your
> > > unsupported word alone is poor evidence. Got anything better?
> > No,
> I didn't think so.
Of course, since you have already admitted you only meant it in some
kind of general non specific casual way; how does that fit with your
reputed 'definition' that you contradictory previous suggested.
Perhaps you would care to explain your understanding of that word too?
And upon doing that,
explain how you came to your initial judgment about magick. A subject
which you clearly
have no practical attitude for.
> > > > it does not necessarily lead to delusions or false judgments.
> > > There you go again. Where in what *I* wrote is the word "delusion"?
> > Now who is looking at words,
> Me. Not you. That's most of your problem right there in a nutshell.
> You are careless. You don't look carefully, you don't read carefully,
> you don't write carefully, and you don't think carefully. You don't
> pay enough attention to what's really going on outside your head and
> you can't be bothered to check your facts.
I seriously think you need to start from the top of this posting again
and re-read what yourself
have written... that will give me time to wash down my laughter (at
you) with a bit more coffee.
[snip]
> > You wrote
> > "Neurosis" is an uncontrolled, emotionally-based distortion of
> > perception which leads one into making false judgments about one's
> > perceptions..." seems to me that you yourself are being delusional if
> > you think that delusional is not implied by your sentence.
> Well, we have made some small progress. You at least recognize that
> you inferred the idea of "delusion" instead of claiming that I
> actually used the term.
I am claiming that 'you' inferred the idea of delusion in your
posting.
> It's a small admission of failure, but at
> least it's a step in the right direction.
I have admitted no such thing. To make this very clear to you, you
inferred and I noticed your
underhanded attempt.
> With a little more work we
> may actually get to the point where you admit you don't have a leg to
> stand on by defending that hopeless cause of an essay.
Actually I haven't been using my legs for some time now, good things
that I have wings. Of course
dragons are a bit like that.
> Given the carelessness with which you read my words, and your lack of
> understanding of the basic meaning of those words, it's no surprise
> that you interpret them with the same basic irrationality which which
> you interpret the rest of your experience as well.
These are your words, no mine. A feeble attempt, you can do better
than that.. c
> > You own value judgements of what may or may not be thin hold no
> > validity to me. Again the photos prove the
> > photo's exist.
> Let's be clear about what's real right now: *You have not shown
> anybody any photos!*
I have shown you a scan of a notice, and you have shown me a scan of
some fairy photos.
are these not real enough for you.
> The whole argument you're trying to make here is cloud-castles.
An interesting idea
> > The fact is that you won't accept that the article was published
> > before 2004. Even when informed of the evidence.
> That's not a fact. A fact is not something you believe might happen
> in the future. That's simply an excuse you want to offer to explain
> why you don't have any evidence.
Last time I looked the 1990's was the past. No wonder your confused.
[snip]
> > Your still not paying attention.. the posting I made was under the
> > name Brother Bernardo, it is you that has been
> > calling me Jean.
> I'll just have to show you up as a liar yet again, Leonard.
> > > On May 30, 8:09 am, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
> > > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ave
> > > > I have spend a good part of this afternoon converting documents to PDF
> > > > and
> > > > uploading materials to
> > > >http://etoile.topcities.com/ECT/public/
> > > > to the existing collection, which makes about 160 articles on the
> > > > occult, magick and the Qabalah to any person interested..
> > > > LLL
> > > > Jean de Cabalis
yes but that is not relevant here
> You signed that post "Jean de Cabalis". So the only real question is
> whether you were lying then or lying now?
Neither then nor now. But you thinking James T Kirk is that same
person as Danny Crane
here is a clue.. I think that Churchill said it...
> > If and when the evidence comes up, I will post it.
> It would have to come up all by itself, because I don't think you have
> any intention of looking for it.
It admit it is a low priority for me
> > It is unlikely I
> > still have copies of the original magazine.
> Which is what I've been saying all along.
really... where did you say that I am unlikely have copies of the
original magazine.. your imagination
must of slipped my reading of the actual postings.
> > > No? To what, then, do you attribute your inattention to giving
> > > scholarly credit where such credit is due in your copyrighted
> > > material?
> > The author wrote an article, one of our members typed it up, and I
> > appreciated their efforts.
> Ah, the many duties of a Senior Guardian... Playing pirate,
> appreciating stuff...
Well certainly to appreciate the efforts of others.. and give them
encouragement. If you think
the Senior Guardian hat is my only role then you are seriously
mistaken... the playing pirate belongs to another character.
> > > I made no "accusation of plagiarism" at all, as I have pointed out to
> > > you repeatedly. Why can't you deal with my criticisms of you and your
> > > organization honestly? Why do you have to make this silly stuff up
> > > when must realize that you'll only get caught as soon as you post it?
> > It is you that is being dishonest, as you repetitively are. You wrote
> > "Too bad your author was too careless to cite his sources. Now he
> > just looks like a plagiarist." while I admit that you carefully didn't
> > accuse the author of plagiarism on that occasion, you still through
> > mud.
> Another admission that you're wrong and I'm right. That's happening
> more and more often, even though when you admit you're wrong and I'm
> right you still insist that I'm being dishonest about something.
> Apparently, when you say someone is "dishonest", it doesn't mean that
> what they said wasn't true, it just means you didn't like the way they
> said it.
Apparently you cannot even notice your own statement when placed
within " " within
my paragraph... here I will make it simple stupid, to say someone
looks like a plagiarist
and makes continual charges of plagiarism, and charges of failing to
cite sources, (whether
or not those reference actually exist) is an accusation of
plagiarism. You can try and
couch it as much as you like, your intent is clear, no matter much you
now try and deny it.
[snip]
> > and you are on
> > very thin ice, if you think propositions such as yours cannot be, and
> > should not be, taken as accusations
> You can take them any way you want, regardless of the reality of the
> situation. That's the wonderful thing about imagination. It doesn't
> have to conform to real events at all. That's why it's so much fun
> for you to play pirate or vampire, or any other juvenile fantasy you
> like to act out.
... oh I do hope so, yesod contains such interesting and fun packed
fantasies
> However, when you start making up claims about what
> other people have done, at least some of those other people are going
> to make you look like a fool for it. Then, of course, you can pretend
> you didn't really end up looking foolish, but most folks have already
> realized that you're just pretending.
Really, I am not the one pretending to make up claims, in fact I
cannot recall making any false claims about any one.. all the claims
so far are the result of your own misguided and cynical fabrications.
[snip]
> > Does any one here reading this, have a copy of the original article,
> > published in Magic Pentacle NZ?
> My god, Leonard! The magazine was published by the very group you
> resurrected, which you have elsewhere claimed to have operated
> continuously since the 11th Century. And you can't find the records
> of their publications from only a decade ago in your own materials?
> You people are just too careless. It's like a temple that was
> abandoned by its priests and has been entirely taken over by monkeys.
The group was not resurrected, as it did not cease to exist. Try at
least to keep a few
facts to give your story some semblance of actually knowing what you
are talking about.
> > > I'm saying your documents are copyrighted teaching materials over
> > > which you assert intellectual property rights while you simultaneously
> > > disregard the intellectual property rights of those who did the actual
> > > work you're using in those copyrighted educational materials.
> > That is untrue..
> Then where are those citations?
We haven't even proven whether or not the citations existed, let alone
the original publication
dates of both works.
> > > No, you've only tried to distract attention from that deficit and have
> > > not even indicated that you intend to correct the problem at all, let
> > > alone how you plan to do so.
> > That is also a lie. I have told you what I would need to see to
> > correct the article, if indeed it does need correcting.
> Read the bloody article yourself, Leonard. It has no citations,
> therefore it needs correcting. If you can't currently find those
> citations, the proper thing to do is take down that article until you
> *do* find them. Get off your ass, you play-pirate. You're supposed
> to be the head of that group of monkeys
I have told you, whether or not you are correct, that I would need to
see to
see the original article first.
[snip]
> > that is another lie... your very first posting was a slight on my
> > character when you wrote
> > "The ones you approve of and the ones you don't. "...
> That's what I just wrote, idiot. It's not a lie unless what I write
> is untrue.
Calling me an idiot won't change history.. See your posting of 30th
May..
I think that hat of idiot is more suited to yourself, don't you.
7. Tom is an idiot.
> > > What I originally said:
> > > Leonard: In the esoteric/spiritual worlds their are two types of
> > > teachers.
> > > Tom: The ones you approve of and the ones you don't.
> > good you admit your slight.
> There's absolutely nothing "rude" about that at all. At worst it's
> not particualrly respectful, but you didn't call it "disrespectful".
> You called it "rude".
Basically rudeness in this context means bad manners... and yes it was
rudeness.
> > I replied politically and factually by repeating the statement.
> You replied, "Sigh there is always a comedian who has an adult
> attention disorder, or can't keep his hand away from his dick."
No I replied respectfully a 2nd time before saying the above.
> So let's have a little quiz.
> Pick which statement you think is "rude".
> "The ones you approve of and the ones you don't."
> Or
> "Sigh there is always a comedian who has an adult attention disorder,
> or can't keep his hand away from his dick."
Now you just being gay.
> > I didn't wanted to back away from your remark "Another
> > obligatory brave exit speech.
> Hardly anyone does. It's the perfect response to the pompous twit who
> thinks he's going to get the last word. It hooks them directly
> through the ego and drags them back for another spanking. And here
> you are.
And yet it is your butt that is naked and covered in shit. Mind you
what do you expect with all
mistakes you are making. Shall I list them for you.. no next time
will do.
> > > Apparently it
> > > involves having the social sophistication of the average twelve-year-
> > > old. And Leonard wants to complain that *I'm* being rude to *him*.
> > > Heh.
> > Yep .. because you started the slurs.
> Another twelve-year-old reaction: "He started it!" What did your
> mommy say when you tried that on on her?
I never really knew my mother... I guess eggs are layed and then they
just go off...
12 years old.. I guess that is about right, one would expect various
signs of astral maturity if I was older.
> > But my main complaint is how
> > you have treated all those other people.
> Nobody's buying the "noble knight riding to the rescue" story,
Nor do expect them too.. If I was holding my noble Knight banner, I
would be much more of a proper
gentleman. No I decided you were not entitled to that courtesy.
So what have you got to say for yourself, you don't deny your thuggish
behaviour towards
others... what can you imagine justifies you to snare and bite in that
particular way?
> Leonard. You got into it with me because you resented having me
> deflate your pompous "True Head of the Order" routine. The rest is
> just fluff.
No
[snip]
> > blah blah again.. my comment is on whom controls the organisation.
> > Nothing to do with taking responsibility
> > for that article. A responsibility that I don't deny.
> Then quit trying to fob it off on others in and out of your
> organization. You sound like some sort of middle-management drone
> trying to cover his ass.
oh but my butt is quite clean... no matter how much you try to stick
yours up it..
> > > > Wake up boy, we are discussing
> > > > keeping the names of whomever typed up the article for the URL
> > > > private.
> > > I don't care which underlings you try to blame. The organization is
> > > yours and the responsibility for its failings are yours.
> > I am not blaming anyone.. I am simply stating that IF there were
> > citations, they may of being quite innocently missed out.
> But you have no evidence of it that you've been able to find. And
> lately it's starting to sound like you have no intention of even
> looking for it. Is that your plan, Leonard, sweep it under the rug
> and hope I'll forget about it?
Re the article, when it turns up, I will make my decision based upon
the actual facts and not
your hearsay. My plan once again is to show you up, and though I may
not be doing a good
job of that in your mind, you certainly are doing a splendid job of
undermining yourself in my mind.
> > > Then fix the problem, not the blame.
> > As already stated, I cannot fix the problem, until I see the original
> > article.
> That's crap. You can take down the article until you see to it that
> it includes proper citations.
I need to see the publication date of the original and compare it to
the book as well.
> > > > You are going off again all by yourself… authorship is cited, the
> > > > owner of the material is cited, the society is cited..
> > > But not the people who did the real academic research which you admit
> > > that you've been using without giving due credit.
> > I never admitted any such thing.. citation needs to be shown, if it
> > existed.
> If the article does not have citations, or you can't find them, it
> needs to be taken off your website because, as it is now, it fails to
> respect the intellectual property of the scholars upon whose work it
> was based.
It only needs to be removed, if it fails to meet that particular
state's copyright laws.
> > > Exactly. Except that you *haven't* shown who the owner is. You have
> > > appropriated the work of real academicians without given them credit
> > > even as you try to take credit yourselves.
> > The owner of the article is the society.
> Then the "society" is actively disrespectful of the intellectual
> property of the real scholars who did the real work.
This is yet to be proven. Once I have all the facts, I will then and
only then make my decision.
> > > So far most of your attempts to defend this blatant breach of academic
> > > courtesy have been stupid and simple. I see no indication that this
> > > will change any time soon.
> > No you are being stupid, because you assuming something without
> > looking at the original evidence. I am
> > been simple only in the view that I will do nothing, until I see the
> > original article.
> If you think you're in the clear by doing nothing, you're even
> stupider than I previously suspected.
I am not doing nothing, I am allowing you to continue your rave.
> > > I already told you what I use as my criterion. It's possible that you
> > > can't remember it, what with the tizzy you immediately flew into when
> > > I dared to criticize your criteria. Would you like me to remind you
> > > how I do it? Admit that you can't remember and I will. If you
> > > haven't forgotten, you could quote the statement in which I described
> > > it, just to show me that you do indeed remember.
> > You reputed criterion is too small ... the world is bigger than your
> > sceptical head.
> What was that "reputed criterion", Leonard? Let's see if you've
> forgotten or not. I think you have.
Your criterion is simply based upon what you personally accept as
evidence or not.
> > > > I administer, I.e. an administrator, a Cancellarius of various
> > > > organizations. Some times I instruct those who I can give assistance –
> > > > but I am no teacher. Most of the time magically I go on adventures….
> > > > Sometimes I feed and sometimes I am a pirate. Over all I gow and
> > > > improve my skills and talents.. and occasionally I get pissed off with
> > > > not-so common thugs like you too…
> > > Hilarious. An "administrator" who "goes on adventures".
> > and what is wrong with that, or would you chain me up to the library?
> I'd have you doing what you're claiming credit for, which is running a
> teaching organization.
I am not confident that the ECT claims to be a teaching Order, perhaps
it does, I cannot recall.
> That doesn't involve playing pirate or
> vampire or any of that other silly crap.
Absolutely
> It involves making sure that
> your materials are in good order, that your facts are checked, that
> you give credit to others where credit is due, and that you bloody
> well accept without protest your responsibility to correct the
> problems that will inevitably crop up. It's not just a show,
> Leonard. There's real work to be done. Grow up, for heaven's sake.
No can do, Peter Pan is one of my heroes..
> > for all your book reading, you have never gone out of the library and
> > seen experience a simple vampire?
> Oh various friends and I used to go "vampire" hunting a lot back in
> the days when we were young and foolish. We had all sorts of stories
> to tell each other about our swashbuckling magical adventures battling
> the forces of evil and encountering weird beasts of the shadowlands.
> But it was mainly just the kind of bullshit that overly-imaginative
> and romantic witchy-poos love to indulge. Most of us who didn't scare
> ourselves back to church eventually figured out that we were only
> fooling ourselves and got down to business. A few stayed back in the
> playground, though, and never left it. Sort of a Peter Pan thing.
> Little boys who never wanted to grow up.
So you are insulting witch-poos (your words), as well are you?
> > > inventions of your own imagination (ie "fiction").
> > We are discussing your fictions Tom,
> No, we are discussing your lack of respect for intellectual property.
> You'd like to change that subject but I'm not letting you.
No we are discussing you and you keep hiding behind this rather
trivial issue.
> > > > Perhaps not, but I have seen the suffering you have caused and that is
> > > > enough for me.
> > > Suffering? Hilarious. Bruised egos are not "suffering".
> > So you admit at least to "bruised" ego's.
> Oh yes, I can bruise an ego. I don't apologize for that.
Good you are taking ownership for being a thug and admitting that in
your personal
self-righteous self-justified world that you are above apologizing to
those you have hurt.
> I do that
> quite deliberately.
Excellent, so you admit you are without excuse, fully conscious of
your deliberate actions.
> I happen to think that a bruised ego is very good
> for your development. You should thank me.
You haven't bruised my ego,, if anything I am enjoying you making a
fool of yourself.
As for whether it is good for others development, well quite frankly
that is not your call.
And even if it was, which it isn't you take no ownership for any
ongoing events or pains are
are directly or indirectly the result of your deliberate attacks.
> > Yet in this admittance you
> > have no empathy for those persons.
> My wife had a splinter in her foot the other day. I used a pin to dig
> into the wound and remove it. It hurt a bit, but the end result was
> beneficial. If your ego pains you after an encounter with me, later
> you will derive benefit from it, even if you don't want to admit it,
> even to yourself.
So you cut wood and are married. Which means you don't live in an
apartment. I am assuming
you live in the Northern Hemisphere, which means its shouldn't be to
cold this time of year.
You use the word wife, which means traditional values and a female
(unless you call a homosexual
partner a wife) this means you are probably in your mid 50's.
The difference between your wife and those on alt.magick you have
hurt, is that you are there
for your wife, to support her in the after mat of it all.. but you are
not there for those others.. who
for all intent and purpose are strangers to you. Secondly it is not
up to you to decide whether
someone needs a needle stabs into them, or a bruising from you. These
people are not your
wife. The fact is you cannot justify yourself, you cannot hide behind
your psychology and your
pretense to actually care about people.. because quite frankly it
doesn't wash with me.
> > You are guilty without a doubt.
> I don't feel the least bit guilty. Feel free to sulk about that all
> you like, though.
Which only proves you lack empathy. By your own admittance your
actions are deliberate
which means you are guilty.
> > > > I am answering your
> > > > questions, not for your benefit, but for others.
> > > Well of course you are. You were hoping to find a whole new choir to
> > > preach to, but instead you found me and freaked out. What a let down
> > > for you! Now you're trying to convince other people that the ass you
> > > made of yourself was really all my fault.
> > I don't need to convince anyone..
> The you don't need to respond to my words at all. You never did. And
> yet, look at how much you're reacting.
I am reacting because I see no one else here doing a very good job of
tearing you down, which
you deserve.
> > > > I am still waiting for you to show credulity..
> > > I couldn;t help but laugh out loud at that one. People have been
> > > waiting for me to show credulity for years and have been constantly
> > > disappointed. You don't even know what "credulity" means, do you?
> > interesting slip on my part ... you were meant to read credibility
> I know, but, unlike you, I read what's really there. That's what
> makes it so funny.
I am pleased to bring some joy into your world... given you can laugh,
perhaps there
is a slight chance you may even have a heart.
> > > > You may not be selling a correspondence course, and neither am I.
> > > You're just not selling it for money, but selling it is exactly what
> > > you're doing.
> > No you are doing a much more splendid job of marketing it than I could
> > ever hope for.
> Actually, Leonard, I think the ideas that Freedman put together are
> ponderable, not as facts but as ideas worth examining. Not that you
> Monkeys really have much of a grasp of their inner significance
> yourselves. You're too busy playing pirate.
perhaps... nevertheless the so-called duty you are referring to is not
my responsibility.
I take one person on at a time with the ECT.. the group functions with
the leadership of others.
> > > > As for an authority on magick..
> > > > what is that. Magic is entwined in my very being.. that does not make
> > > > me an authority.. just real.
> > > Everybody is real, Leonard. It's not just you.
> > You are not real Tom.. you are just a bully hiding behind a keyboard.
> You're wrong again, Leonard. Everybody is real. It's just that you
> have me confused with a figment of your imagination and it's that
> figment that you are declaring to be unreal. This is what comes of
> trying to live your life in fantasyland. You can no longer
> effectively figure out what's fact and what's fiction.
You are not real, because you hide behind a keyboard and hurt others.
You come across
all high and mighty, but in reality you have nothing, except your own
campaign to undermine
magick in favour of your psychology (which you call reality) at ever
opportunity you get.
If you feel so real, why don't you post your face on the profile.
Give us pagan space page about yourself.. append all your postings
here with your full name and address.. Lets see how
real you are when dozens, if not hundreds of angry and wondered
youngsters (by the result
of our own cruelty) turn up to your door...
You never did say where you lived.
> > > > > I don't believe in the kind of comic book "magic/k" you claim to be
> > > > > doing. If you think you can blast me with magic bolts of arcane
> > > > > energy, you're welcome to try. You won't be the first to make a fool
> > > > > of himself doing that. I don't indulge those silly fantasies. My
> > > > > idea of magick is far different from yours, I suspect.
> > > > Obviously, after all your world even differs from Apollonius of Tyana.
> > > Of course it does. Doesn't yours?
> > There were vampires in his world, as there are in mine.
> There were all sorts of fantastic creatures and miraculous goings-on
> in the "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" by Philostratus. Of course, it's
> pretty clear that Philostratus was just telling tall tales, just like
> you are. The difference is that Philostratus was probably well aware
> of it.
So you admit that there are no mystical nor magical entities of any
sort in your so called experience.
> > > > >"Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of
> > > > > Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by
> > > > > a right understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so
> > > > > that true Agents being applied to proper Patients, strange and
> > > > > admirable effects will thereby be produced. Whence magicians are
> > > > > profound and diligent searchers into Nature; they, because of their
> > > > > skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall
> > > > > seem to be a miracle." -- The Lemegeton
> > > > Well that is one view, written for a time and culture where everything
> > > > had to be made acceptable to a Church.
> > > This book was never acceptable in any Church of its time.
> > But written for that culture
> Keep dancing, Leonard. Don't try to take any firm stance that would
> demand that you demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.
> Keep it equivocal and vague.
My stance is simply that your posting of the view as expressed by the
Lemegeton, is simply that
a view. Not gossip and not even necessarily that correct. Magick,
sorcery and witchcraft exists
all around the world, in different forms, different philosophies and
different culture. If you got out
more you would know that.
> > > > Not very likely to be the view
> > > > of an Ubangi sorcery though.
> > > Not that you know jack shit about Ubangi sorcery.
> > more than you, else you wouldn't present that Lem quote.
> Really? Tell me all about Ubangi sorcery and how you learned so much
> about it.
I know a few things, know a lot more about the Maori stuff and other
Australian/ Oceanic stuff too., but that doesn't mean I am going to
tell you anything.
> > > > I used to think I was a werewolf once, until I began growing wings,
> > > > must be some sort of vampire then … until I felt 3 pairs.
> > > I know! You're the Cottingley Fairy!
> > I thought you didn't believe in fairies..
> I thought we were playing charades.
We .. now there is a we.. your the Werewolf and you think I am a
Cottingley Fairy. LOL
> > > > True.. I didn’t realize that Zeus was without fault.. like I said,
> > > > what do you know of the gods.
> > > "I knew Zeus, Senator. You're no Zeus." You probably won't catch
> > > that reference, though.
> > I can throw lightening ..
> Me, too! I just need a dry atmosphere, a rug, and the right shoes and
> I can throw a lightning bolt almost an inch. Or are you trying to
> claim some paranormal power that'll make me laugh out loud?
I am claiming various abilities in various astral worlds. One of them
to throw fire.lightening.
> > > I suspect you're not all that strong on discerning cause and effect
> > > either.
> > No need..
> Heh.
So apologize to the world and get it over and done with. Tell you what
since that article with its reputedly citations means so much to you,
if you apologize for the pain and hurt you have caused to many on
alt.magick... I will append a comment to the article along the lines
of 'it is assumed that the author may of used that book for his source
material'
Of course I suspect your ego will get in your way,and you don't really
care about the article at all.
Tom
> On 8 June, 22:37, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 9:41 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:45ecad0d-a765-4acd...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> > > **
> > > Yes, writing sentences that say exactly what I mean is quite a sneaky
> > > trick. Perhaps you'd prefer that I write in nonsensical gibberish and
> > > vague, meandering stream of consciousness as you do.
> > > **
>
> > > Well, if you wouldn't mind trying combining the two ?
>
> > > A meandering stream of consciousness that means exactly what you say.
>
> > Stream of consciousness writing has intentional meaning only in
> > fiction. As a narration of ongoing transformations of internal
> > thought of the writer, as soon as it is written, it is no longer
> > valid. It annihilates itself. See William James "Psychology",
> > Chapter 11, for details.
>
> I think what stream of consciousness writers try and set down is a
> picture of the transformation itself. Yes - it anhiliates itself, but
> everything changes. Stream of consciousness writers aim to capture
> the fundemental way that consciousness changes.
The term, as applied to the art of writing, is very broad and can be
interpreted many ways. In the context I used the term, it referred to
internal narration of continually changing states of consciousness,
which are destroyed by the very act of writing them down. What other
"stream of consciousness writers" in other contexts may do (especially
when it comes to depicting their fictional characters) is a different
matter.
Tom
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you lie to yourself as well... here is what you said, for the
> second time:
> "I'm sorry but your unsupported word isn't enough to outweigh all the
> rest of the evidence."
That's not a lie. That's the way rational people evaluate evidence.
> > > > Do you really expect to get the gist of my thought without reading
> > > > complete sentences that I write?
> > > blah blah..
> > I take it that means "no".
>
> It means that you ignore what you yourself have written, and then try
> to substantiate yourself with another sentence that has little if
> anything to do with the original.
That's what "blah, blah" means?
> > > I am only in the midst of the lie
> > It's well that you can admit it. However, as long as you keep lying,
> > the admission alone won't help you.
>
> Here is what i said, and I will produce it in caps, just in case your
> eye sight is failing you
> I said "I AM ONLY IN THE MIDST OF THE LIE THAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE
> PRODUCED"
Which is itself a lie. Thus demonstrating my point.
Look, you're never going to "win" this particular quibble. I'm just
going to toss it back at you every time you try.
> now everyone look very carefully to has been erased by Tom above with
> the > > I am.....
> and then compare to the original posting..
More gibberish.
> In fact your cheating is so blatantly obvious to everyone here, that
> quite frankly it is now nearly
> impossible to believe a single word that comes out of your mouth.
Have you decided that you speak for "everyone here" now? Getting back
to the lesson I'm teaching you about evidence, your claim about what
"everyone here" believes is only your unsupported word. As I have
told you, your unsupported word is not sufficient for credibility.
Especially given the incredible amount of weaseling and fictionalizing
you do.
> > So bluster all you want, Leonard. It won't make the slightest
> > difference. You have no supportive evidence for your claim and I have
> > plenty to support mine, even if you'd rather not think about that.
>
> Requiring historical evidence or providing historical evidence is not
> blustering.
What claims do you think I made that "require historical evidence" and
where exactly have you ever asked me for any? The article entitled "A
Short History of the Devil" appears in your documents without any
citations of the sources used by the author. The title is only one
word different from the title of a previously published book on the
very same subject and even uses the same imagery as the author of that
book. Anyone who wants to check that has only to visit your website
and read it.
Now, *your* claim that *maybe* the original article had citations that
were left off later is unsupported by any "historical evidence". I
keep asking you for it, but lately you have been expressing a lack of
interest in even looking for it, let alone posting it. All you offer
instead is the aforementioned bluster.
> Okay where is this
> supportive evidence of yours. 1. Evidence that there was no journal
> called Magic Pentacle
> produced during the mid 90's ...
That's one of your red herrings. I made no claim that there wasn't.
I don't have to provide evidence for claims I didn't make.
2. Evidence that you actually have
> some magical skill
> and accomplishment other than a psychological curiosity that you seek
> to disprove.
Another red herring. I made no claim to possess whatever it is that
you are labelling "magical skill and accomplishment". I don't yet
have a clear idea what you mean by it. I have askedf you several
times what "god-like powers" you have and you've claimed that you can
throw lightning, but I see no evidence of that beyond your say so.
Once again, Leonard, to be credible, your evidence must be more
weighty than your say-so alone.
> So now you accept that the Cottingley Faires photo's are evidence of
> that they exist.
Well, that's three statements in a row in which you claim I've said
things I didn't say. You've been so soundly thrashed on every real
point of disagreement that you've retreated entirely into fantasies to
continue the fight.
Three swings, three misses. Out you go.
etoile....@gmail.com
> > > > > Do you really expect to get the gist of my thought without reading
> > > > > complete sentences that I write?
> > > > blah blah..
> > > I take it that means "no".
>
> > It means that you ignore what you yourself have written, and then try
> > to substantiate yourself with another sentence that has little if
> > anything to do with the original.
>
> That's what "blah, blah" means?
blah blah blah,
>
> > > > I am only in the midst of the lie
> > > It's well that you can admit it. However, as long as you keep lying,
> > > the admission alone won't help you.
>
> > Here is what i said, and I will produce it in caps, just in case your
> > eye sight is failing you
> > I said "I AM ONLY IN THE MIDST OF THE LIE THAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE
> > PRODUCED"
>
> Which is itself a lie. Thus demonstrating my point.
>
It is a lie when I write something, and you deliberately falsify
something.
For the benefit of the reader.
I write "I am only in the midst of the lie that you yourself have
produced"
Tom modifies a direct quote to "I am only in the midst of the lie"
then Tom replies to the falsified record with his "It's well that you
can admit it. However, as long as you keep lying,
the admission alone won't help you." which is as I said an example of
his trying to score brownie points by
deception. The trouble is, I caught you and your technically
disqualified for cheating.
> Look, you're never going to "win" this particular quibble. I'm just
> going to toss it back at you every time you try.
Certainly you will never admit defeat, if all you have to do is make
stuff up.
>
> > now everyone look very carefully to has been erased by Tom above with
> > the > > I am.....
> > and then compare to the original posting..
>
> More gibberish.
Is that what you call gibberish, perfectly documented quotes of how
you cheat ..
>
> > In fact your cheating is so blatantly obvious to everyone here, that
> > quite frankly it is now nearly
> > impossible to believe a single word that comes out of your mouth.
>
> Have you decided that you speak for "everyone here" now? Getting back
> to the lesson I'm teaching you about evidence, your claim about what
> "everyone here" believes is only your unsupported word. As I have
> told you, your unsupported word is not sufficient for credibility.
> Especially given the incredible amount of weaseling and fictionalizing
> you do.
>
Do you deny that you were the first person to use the word everyone
when referring to alt.magick. It is your
own mouth that allowed this.
> > > So bluster all you want, Leonard. It won't make the slightest
> > > difference. You have no supportive evidence for your claim and I have
> > > plenty to support mine, even if you'd rather not think about that.
>
> > Requiring historical evidence or providing historical evidence is not
> > blustering.
>
> What claims do you think I made that "require historical evidence" and
> where exactly have you ever asked me for any? The article entitled "A
> Short History of the Devil" appears in your documents without any
> citations of the sources used by the author. The title is only one
> word different from the title of a previously published book on the
> very same subject and even uses the same imagery as the author of that
> book. Anyone who wants to check that has only to visit your website
> and read it.
>
I have both provided you with historical evidence and asked it of you.
> Now, *your* claim that *maybe* the original article had citations that
> were left off later is unsupported by any "historical evidence". I
> keep asking you for it, but lately you have been expressing a lack of
> interest in even looking for it, let alone posting it. All you offer
> instead is the aforementioned bluster.
blah blah blah... take a caffeine pill, the publication of the
original article in a journal is historical evidence.
>
> > Okay where is this
> > supportive evidence of yours. 1. Evidence that there was no journal
> > called Magic Pentacle
> > produced during the mid 90's ...
>
> That's one of your red herrings. I made no claim that there wasn't.
> I don't have to provide evidence for claims I didn't make.
So now you are confirming that the magazine exists, and the article
was published before 1996, or not?
>
> 2. Evidence that you actually have
>
> > some magical skill
> > and accomplishment other than a psychological curiosity that you seek
> > to disprove.
>
> Another red herring. I made no claim to possess whatever it is that
> you are labelling "magical skill and accomplishment". I don't yet
> have a clear idea what you mean by it. I have askedf you several
> times what "god-like powers" you have and you've claimed that you can
> throw lightning, but I see no evidence of that beyond your say so.
> Once again, Leonard, to be credible, your evidence must be more
> weighty than your say-so alone.
I have so far produced more evidence than yourself. I have produced
evidence of my existence and my willingness to
do mystic combat back in 1990 (no matter what you think or call it)
now its your turn.. but of case you have nothing..
have nothing, can show nothing .. are nothing.
>
> > So now you accept that the Cottingley Faires photo's are evidence of
> > that they exist.
>
> Well, that's three statements in a row in which you claim I've said
> things I didn't say. You've been so soundly thrashed on every real
> point of disagreement that you've retreated entirely into fantasies to
> continue the fight.
>
Either you accept photo's as evidence that things exist or not. You
said later said "I said it wouldn't be *proof*, not
that I wouldn't accept it as evidence" On one hand you say that you
don't accept it as 'proof' and then by the same token you then say,
that you could accept it as evidence. Oh please make your mind up.
> Three swings, three misses. Out you go.
No not misses, - points well scored, not that it matters anyway given
you were disqualified anyway.
I now present you another chance to answer to these charges:
You admit to deliberately hurting people emotionally.
You admit that you have no intention of apologizing for this.
And in your taking ownership for being a thug and admitting that you
are unwilling to apologise, you show yourself
to be too self-righteous in your self-justified in the way you treat
people.
Then you state that your actions are deliberate. You admit you are
without excuse, fully conscious of
your hurtful deliberate actions.
Then you try to justify your lack of empathy, by its good for them.
Reminds me of the old slave driver, who believes
that the regular beating is good for them. You are a bully, plain and
simple.
And not only are you a bully, you are the worst kind, at the very
least you could appreciate that it is not your call
to say 'its good for them'. Your wrong, its not good for them, you
are damaging innocents and the occult young, and you
have absolutely no right what so ever to do this. It is not your
call.
You take no ownership, nor responsibility for any ongoing events or
series of pains that are directly or indirectly the result of your
deliberate attacks.
You Tom are a destroyer of hope.
You Tom are a destroyer of the seed of faith which grows to magick and
into the realms of spirit.
You admit lacking in empathy, which is the one quality, compassion and
love, which would be the only quality and
qualification you could ever have to make any sort of judgement call
on these groups of persons.
You hurt, you injurer and you maim, all those who are less skilled
than your, many years well skilled attacks, over and over. All for
the feeding of your ego and your obvious hatred of you yourself have
not experienced.
Never has been given to you the right, nor responsibility of
attacking, nor bruising others. You belong to no magical
Order, you have no rank, no status, no nothing.
You lack empathy. And given you by own admittance your actions are
deliberate which means you are guilty.
And even given the chance to apologise, you negate this, proving that
you have absolutely no concern for the article
you use as a weapon in your argument to me. Even though this in itself
would resolve your criticisms.
Why because you are too proud, to stubborn and quite frankly to
heartless.
I hope that all the people whom you have hurt on alt.magick over the
last decade, see you now.
Dar es Alrah
You know - all of this defending the ego business is exactly like an
addiction. Everyone always goes back for more. And it can be cured
by treating it like an addiction too.
1) First of all the sufferer needs to acknowledge they have a
problem. For instance - if you're spending an inordinate amount of
time responding to insults, defending your self image or justifying
what you have or want, and this makes you feel bad then it's a
problem. But the sufferer has to acknowledge that there are better
things they could be doing that don't require feeling like crap,
wasting thier spare time posting crap, all for some unobtainable
imaginary goal - i.e. the apology, abasement and the ego stroke that
you're working so hard to extract from your opponent.
2) Once you've acknowledged that your an ego defending junkie then
you need to come up with a plan of action. You need to stay alert to
the triggers that start you on your ego defending (ED from now on)
junkie path, and you need to apply will power to stop your initial
habitual reaction and do something else instead until you feel better
inside.
3) Keep up the practise. Staying clean of the ED junk is not as easy
as it sounds. Watch out for a relapse, but if you make one mistake
then don't give up and think you've failed. Just keep on with the
practise and you'll feel better again soon. After time you'll find
you've gained a bit of confidence and self control, and you'll feel
happy and content within yourself.
Love under Will,
Dar es Alrah.
Tom
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You Tom are a destroyer of hope.
Hope is just hunger with some cosmetics on it.
> You Tom are a destroyer of the seed of faith which grows to magick and
> into the realms of spirit.
Faith is a fiction cowards tell themselves in order to stave off the
awful truth.
What to know what I think of charity, too?
> You admit lacking in empathy,
Another swing, another miss. You're just flailing around, desperately
trying to find something to say that will make me stop reminding you
that your site actively engages in intellectual theft from many honest
scholars by trying to pass off their work as your own. Not to mention
that you're nothing but a play pirate who hasn't a clue how to
effectively run an organization ans who thinks that pretending to be a
vampire is "magic/K".
I can certainly empathize with the feelings that force you to think
and act in such silly ways, but it would be better for you to stop and
get serious about finding out what magick really is and really does.
Until you do, your "teaching order" is nothing but a sham.
bassos
On Jun 8, 9:41 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
> "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:45ecad0d-a765-4acd...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> **
> Yes, writing sentences that say exactly what I mean is quite a sneaky
> trick. Perhaps you'd prefer that I write in nonsensical gibberish and
> vague, meandering stream of consciousness as you do.
> **
>
> Well, if you wouldn't mind trying combining the two ?
>
> A meandering stream of consciousness that means exactly what you say.
**
Stream of consciousness writing has intentional meaning only in
fiction.
**
Nonsense.
It describes what actually is going on.
If you choose to use a definition that is bogus, well, that is your
prerogative.
**
As a narration of ongoing transformations of internal
thought of the writer, as soon as it is written, it is no longer
valid. It annihilates itself. See William James "Psychology",
Chapter 11, for details.
**
The end result is a conclusion based upon said stream.
The sting of the aforementioned bee if you will.
Still it ends at the sting.
There is no 'that would be the sting, but what do i think about it' further
modifications.
And then training of the neural network to produce desireable results.
(and yep, doing a course in connectionism and the mind atm)
This is so a retelling of the medium is the massage.
bassos
"Dar es Alrah" <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f6afdde-b048-450a...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Hmm, i retract my previous statement of not giving you a mercy fuck.
Monkey Mind
> On Jun 8, 10:16�pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
> <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You Tom are a destroyer of hope.
http://realm.destroyersofhope.com/
Doesn't really convince me. The picture is a bit small, but since I
neglected to request a photo from Tom, I can't verify this anyway.
> Hope is just hunger with some cosmetics on it.
Greed ...
>> Tom are a destroyer of the seed of faith which grows to magick and
>> into the realms of spirit.
>
> Faith is a fiction cowards tell themselves in order to stave off the
> awful truth.
... Delusion ...
> What to know what I think of charity, too?
... something about Aversion?
Tom, can you do "Truth, Beauty, and Goodness" also? :)
Cheers,
Florian
--
Every man passes out of life as if he had just been born.
-- Epicurus (Vatican Sayings 60)
Tom
> Tom <danto...@comcast.net> writes:
> > On Jun 8, 10:16 pm, "etoile.stev...@gmail.com"
> > <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You Tom are a destroyer of hope.
>
> http://realm.destroyersofhope.com/
>
> Doesn't really convince me. The picture is a bit small, but since I
> neglected to request a photo from Tom, I can't verify this anyway.
>
> > Hope is just hunger with some cosmetics on it.
>
> Greed ...
>
> >> Tom are a destroyer of the seed of faith which grows to magick and
> >> into the realms of spirit.
>
> > Faith is a fiction cowards tell themselves in order to stave off the
> > awful truth.
>
> ... Delusion ...
>
>
> ... something about Aversion?
Something like that. Charity is how the rich keep the poor poor. A
diet of instant macaroni and cheese will make people appear to be well-
fed even as they starve.
> Tom, can you do "Truth, Beauty, and Goodness" also? :)
Pavlov's dogs, salivating at the sound of a bell.
Now, compassion... That I approve of.
Monkey Mind
Nice, because replaying the recording of a bell sound works just as
well as a real bell being struck.
> Now, compassion... That I approve of.
Me too. Of course, compassion has peculiarities as well. The other
side of suffering, "idiot compassion", and so on.
Robert Scott Martin
In article <bd460228-0712-4680...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Tom <dant...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> There are means and means. Be goodly therefore: ponder ye all thy Tuvan
>> lozenges in which the yak confronteth yon zeppelin; embrace even the
>> rudest forgeries from Mantua and Batum and find fruit in that embrace ...
>> but always unto me.
>
>The zeppelin was a nice touch.
It's one of my favorite parts. The "new" commentary reveals that these
appear to be based on real stamps
(http://www.albumsmith.com/Tuva/1936.htm) but there are subtle differences
that can be ascribed to the "prophetic" nature of the text: "For the next
hour everything in this film is strictly based on the available facts."
Robert Scott Martin
In article <b3c8e347-7c4e-4346...@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Dar es Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > There are means and means. Be goodly therefore: ponder ye all thy Tuvan
>> > lozenges in which the yak confronteth yon zeppelin; embrace even the
>> > rudest forgeries from Mantua and Batum and find fruit in that embrace ...
>> > but always unto me.
>
>It was a peach.
This is the found fruit of yon rude forgery, the flowering of [taoist]
immortality.
Robert Scott Martin
Monkey Mind <monke...@hactrn.ch> wrote:
[what's so funny about peace, love & understanding]
>>> Tom, can you do "Truth, Beauty, and Goodness" also? :)
>>
>> Pavlov's dogs, salivating at the sound of a bell.
>
>Nice, because replaying the recording of a bell sound works just as
>well as a real bell being struck.
I like this because it gets at the distinction between true and false
teachers. The sound of a bell is in some sense always a recording of the
bell -- famously just a mute cup in itself until struck -- and sometimes
we hear a bell even when there's no bell there. If a false teacher
publishes a correspondence course in the forest, it may or may not
propagate a signal. A lot of crazy things going on in the forest,
werewolves & such notwithstanding.
Robert Scott Martin
bassos <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>Thanks mate, you make me so happy.
Ditto.
>Living in a powder keg and giving off sparks and all.
Heh. Over the last few years I've become really fond of this version over
here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVpIZ-Chta8). The moment at which
Kiki's wickedly kitschy suburban tragedy flashes over to the famous (but
now overused) "Second Coming" is to me profound and illuminates both.
>richard (as usual) wrote it nice and short :
>
>the golden dawn peeps are like travellers huddling around an ever more
>distant flame.
>(replace the golden dawn peeps with pretty much anything else that clings)
One would think the "dawn" indicates that the sun is ascending and casts
warmth over the huddled and sprawled alike.
Mr Sprigg is becoming a very popular figure in certain quarters lately.
565
> On May 31, 12:54 am, Dar es Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > a secret' cant about them. A true teacher tells you 'you have a
> > secret and I'd love you to know it'.
>
> Wonderful insight.
I second that.
565
> "etoile.stev...@gmail.com" <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Easy isn't it Tom to insult behind a keyboard. But I have dealt with
> > wankers like you before. Here is the truth of the issue. I have
> > looked at your various alt.magicks postings. What have you
> > contributed. All I see from you various is the same old same old, a
> > vile nasty coward whom attacks here and there, with his various slurs
> > and insults, tired old arguments which never actually address the
> > point.. because his smart-butt comments can get off topic, providing
> > he feels clever inside. what a small little insecure boy you are
> > Tom..... What have you contributed Tom.
>
> For example:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/252a4fd1ed57a86e
>
> "You must penetrate your self-importance. It fixes you in delusions of
> grandeur, which are the most popular delusions in the practice of
> magick. Only by recognizing that you're not even half as smart as you
> think you are can you transcend them. Accept disgrace willingly.
> Therein lies the means to overcome fear."
>
> "So once you realize that you are indeed a chowderhead, a bumpkin, a
> schlemiel, you'll be ready to step out of the storybook and into the
> world."
>
> Some very wise and useful advice from Tom.
>
> I can find more for you, if you'd like. I have files in which I have saved
> some of the best and most useful articles posted to alt.magick. There's tons
> of stuff from Tom.
>
> HG
Please do, let´s take a look. I have my own favourites that I don´t
have time to look up right now.
Tom
> Tom <danto...@comcast.net> writes:
> > On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, monkeym...@hactrn.ch (Monkey Mind) wrote:
>
> >> Tom, can you do "Truth, Beauty, and Goodness" also? :)
>
> > Pavlov's dogs, salivating at the sound of a bell.
>
> Nice, because replaying the recording of a bell sound works just as
> well as a real bell being struck.
But neither one is actually what feeds the dog.
> > Now, compassion... That I approve of.
>
> Me too. Of course, compassion has peculiarities as well. The other
> side of suffering, "idiot compassion", and so on.
Didn't Trungpa coin that phrase?
Idiot compassion is administering painkillers to an accident victim
while he dies of bloodloss.
bassos
"Robert Scott Martin" <gl...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h0oe8d$6ad$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <4a280c3d$0$19308$e4fe...@dreader28.news.xs4all.nl>,
> bassos <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>>Living in a powder keg and giving off sparks and all.
>
> Heh. Over the last few years I've become really fond of this version over
> here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVpIZ-Chta8). The moment at which
> Kiki's wickedly kitschy suburban tragedy flashes over to the famous (but
> now overused) "Second Coming" is to me profound and illuminates both.
Well, at least they are original.
If perhaps a tad angry.
Kinda hurts to listen to their version of running up that hill though ;)
>>richard (as usual) wrote it nice and short :
>>
>>the golden dawn peeps are like travellers huddling around an ever more
>>distant flame.
>>(replace the golden dawn peeps with pretty much anything else that clings)
>
> One would think the "dawn" indicates that the sun is ascending and casts
> warmth over the huddled and sprawled alike.
Indeed.
So no good seeking warmth from yesterday's rise.
> Mr Sprigg is becoming a very popular figure in certain quarters lately.
Really ?
Do tell.
HG
> On 1 June, 11:35, HG <h...@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can find more for you, if you'd like. I have files in which I have
> > saved some of the best and most useful articles posted to alt.magick.
> > There's tons of stuff from Tom.
> >
> > HG
>
>
> Please. Although it's on hiatus, I have started a web based showcase
> of gems from the a.m archives.
>
> chad...@yahoo.co.uk
OK, but it has to wait for a while.
I have saved about 30 megabytes of stuff from alt.magick, and most of it in
form of text files. My collection's not "these are priceless jewels of
wisdom that I worship", more like "I'll probably want to read this article a
second time".
There's no point in regurgitating that much stuff, but I can pick out some of
the writings that most impressed me. I can start next week. This week I'm
too busy with a week long singing course/camp.
HG
HG
> I now present you [Tom] another chance to answer to these charges:
"The true Guide being gone, the seer will stray into a wilderness of terror
where he is tricked and tortured; he will invoke his idol the Master Tom,
and fashion in His image a frightful phantasm who will mock him in his
misery, until his mind stagger and fall; and, Madness swooping upon his
carrion, blast his eyes with the horror of seeing his Master dissolve into
that appalling hallucination, the "Vision of THE DEMON TOM!"
(paraphrasing Crowley, Book 4, Appendix III)
HG
Chade
>
>
> OK, but it has to wait for a while.
>
> I have saved about 30 megabytes of stuff from alt.magick, and most of it in
> form of text files. My collection's not "these are priceless jewels of
> wisdom that I worship", more like "I'll probably want to read this article a
> second time".
>
Understood.
> There's no point in regurgitating that much stuff, but I can pick out some of
> the writings that most impressed me. I can start next week. This week I'm
> too busy with a week long singing course/camp.
Sounds fun. I'm imagining signing around a camp fire. :)
If you still got them, can you include the headers or at least the
message id's from whatever you pick out? Thanks.
Dar es Alrah
I'll contribute a few of my favourites too. It would be nice if
everyone did actually:-)
565
I like this one, I think it is especially poignant for those who may
have imagined Tom to be a Master of some kind.
Tom
Another appalling hallucination.
bassos
"565" <too_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39af5df9-8df2-4a33...@v38g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 12, 9:44 pm, HG <h...@iki.fi> wrote:
> "etoile.stev...@gmail.com" <etoile.stev...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I now present you [Tom] another chance to answer to these charges:
>
> > You admit to deliberately hurting people emotionally.
> > You admit that you have no intention of apologizing for this.
If people get emotional hurtage from words on a screen they have no business
dabbling in magick.
So you should thank tom.
(for it really is more of an indicator the recipient indeed is merely
dabbling and not actually studying/doing magick)
> > And in your taking ownership for being a thug and admitting that you
> > are unwilling to apologise, you show yourself
> > to be too self-righteous in your self-justified in the way you treat
> > people.
All those puppets you build up.
You could also simply simply consider what is written.
> > Then you state that your actions are deliberate. You admit you are
> > without excuse, fully conscious of
> > your hurtful deliberate actions.
Nice.
At least some part of you realises it is not deliberately hurtful, but
deliberate, and as a side effect perhaps hurtful.
(not that said side effect is your reaction to them deliberate words)
> > Then you try to justify your lack of empathy, by its good for them.
That would then more be an indication of empathy, by being a true friend
that simply states what is what.
<snip another puppet>
> > And not only are you a bully, you are the worst kind, at the very
> > least you could appreciate that it is not your call
> > to say 'its good for them'. Your wrong, its not good for them, you
> > are damaging innocents and the occult young, and you
> > have absolutely no right what so ever to do this. It is not your
> > call.
So you now consider yourself to be among the 'occult young'.
That is a good thing.
You can now grow.
Much better than fluff about being apparantly stuck for 40 years dabbling
away in ye occulte arts.
> > You take no ownership, nor responsibility for any ongoing events or
> > series of pains that are directly or indirectly the result of your
> > deliberate attacks.
The universe moves as it moves.
Do you think you own the results your actions inspire your fellow travellers
to choose to do ?
> > You Tom are a destroyer of hope.
Heh.
Fantasy perhaps, not hope itself.
> > You Tom are a destroyer of the seed of faith which grows to magick and
> > into the realms of spirit.
Faith, well that is a strange beastie.
btw, do you claim your faith is not strong enough to withstand words on a
screen ?
> > You admit lacking in empathy, which is the one quality, compassion and
> > love, which would be the only quality and
> > qualification you could ever have to make any sort of judgement call
> > on these groups of persons.
Please quote tom claiming he lacks empathy.
> > You hurt, you injurer and you maim, all those who are less skilled
> > than your, many years well skilled attacks, over and over. All for
> > the feeding of your ego and your obvious hatred of you yourself have
> > not experienced.
Nonsense, dancing with tom can be any dance you choose.
It is just that the pointy dance is looming around the corner, so you do a
pre-emptive strike and so it flows.
> > Never has been given to you the right, nor responsibility of
> > attacking, nor bruising others. You belong to no magical
> > Order, you have no rank, no status, no nothing.
Oh noes.
You think a title from an order does give you the right to attack and bruise
others ?
Or status, rank, or 'no nothing' (:P)
All such external validation symbols.
No wonder you are having a hard time.
> > You lack empathy. And given you by own admittance your actions are
> > deliberate which means you are guilty.
So, how empathic have you complained to tom ?
All this screaming guilty and murder;
why do i think :
"A duck!"
You've got to know these things if you want to be a king.
> > And even given the chance to apologise, you negate this, proving that
> > you have absolutely no concern for the article
> > you use as a weapon in your argument to me. Even though this in itself
> > would resolve your criticisms.
Arguments are weapons, attacking your defenseless mind, which solely relies
on tenure, instead of arguments, idea's, viewpoints, joy.
And that is what all your experience has thaught you ?
> > Why, because you are too proud, to stubborn and quite frankly to
> > heartless.
Replace "you are" with the nice projection :"Etoile is"
> > I hope that all the people whom you have hurt on alt.magick over the
> > last decade, see you now.
Still loving him, and periodically claiming it right out.
> "The true Guide being gone, the seer will stray into a wilderness of
> terror
> where he is tricked and tortured; he will invoke his idol the Master Tom,
> and fashion in His image a frightful phantasm who will mock him in his
> misery, until his mind stagger and fall; and, Madness swooping upon his
> carrion, blast his eyes with the horror of seeing his Master dissolve into
> that appalling hallucination, the "Vision of THE DEMON TOM!"
>
> (paraphrasing Crowley, Book 4, Appendix III)
**
I like this one, I think it is especially poignant for those who may
have imagined Tom to be a Master of some kind.
**
Seems more suited for the ones that have imagined Tom to be a Demon of some
kind.
/wave.
565
> > That would then more be an indication of empathy, by being a true friend
> that simply states what is what.
Please tell me how can state what is what from words on a screen.
> I like this one, I think it is especially poignant for those who may
> have imagined Tom to be a Master of some kind.
> **
>
> Seems more suited for the ones that have imagined Tom to be a Demon of some
> kind.
I suggest studying Demonology and how Agent Smith can come on many
disguises.
565
Exactly my point.
bassos
On Jun 22, 3:21 pm, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > That would then more be an indication of empathy, by being a true friend
> that simply states what is what.
**
Please tell me how (one) can state what is what from words on a screen.
**
not from, to.
> I like this one, I think it is especially poignant for those who may
> have imagined Tom to be a Master of some kind.
> **
>
> Seems more suited for the ones that have imagined Tom to be a Demon of
> some
> kind.
**
I suggest studying Demonology and how Agent Smith can come on many
disguises.
**
Well, you are the one claiming that this particular bit of imagination would
be poignant.
Hint : Them Demons and Agent's Smith are also bits of imagination.
suf...@gmail.com
> Keep dreaming, kid. Maybe you won't ever have to wake up. What a
> relief that would be for you.
wanker
suf...@gmail.com
<etoile.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes .. Lucifer
>
> Consider the relationship between Christ - Baal - Lucifer
>
> http://etoile.topcities.com/AMS/Eremiados/Baal.pdf
>
> Are we really certain that they are not one and the same... perhaps
> the Jew's were right, perhaps Jesus was really Lucifer.. just a
> thought!
Interesting perspective. Jesus the Light Bearer. That works.
565
Amen.
Dar es Alrah
Etoile got over this thread ages ago and has been notable by his
absense - so I don't know why anyone bothers replying to him. :-)
Alex Sumner
"Dar es Alrah" <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd817adf-9a1a-4382...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Etoile got over this thread ages ago and has been notable by his
absense - so I don't know why anyone bothers replying to him. :-)
---
Big deal! Some of us "got over" the thread by recognising it for a futile
discussion at the outset.
565
wrote:
> "Dar es Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fd817adf-9a1a-4382...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> Etoile got over this thread ages ago and has been notable by his
> absense - so I don't know why anyone bothers replying to him. :-)
>
> ---
> Big deal! Some of us "got over" the thread by recognising it for a futile
> discussion at the outset.
Nothing is futile Alex, c´mon, are you Borg?