Demonology and the Wa

[Wykedgod_co...@gifl.com]

From: "Wycked God" <wyke...@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Demonology and the Warrens

> Individuation <orz...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A32.3.91.960629...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> >
> > I met the Warrens, years ago in university when they were on a
speaking
> > tour. I got the impression that Elaine is a genuine psychic and very
> > concerned about people. Caring even. Ed on the other hand is
exploiting
> > her and feeding her notions. All ghosts are demons, and no one is
ever
> > rid of them.
>
> who died and left you the expert? Sorry, but I don't like it when
people
> make definitive statements on something that NO ONE can truely know. OR

> was this what the Warrens had to say?
>
> mildly disturbed...and not wanting this to turn into a discussion on
> christianity AGAIN
>
> Eileen
>

And how do you know it's *not* true Eileen? I would ask that you please
refrain from making annoying little comments such as this. They're
beginning to clutter my hard drive.

~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Are you ready for my wisdom?"

--
|Fidonet: Wyke...@concentric.Net 1:377/51.2
|Internet: Wykedgod_co...@gifl.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Wykedgod_concentric_net@g]

From: Wykedgod_co...@gifl.com (Wyke...@concentric.Net)

--
|Fidonet: Wykedgod_concentric_net@g 1:377/51.1
|Internet: Wykedgod_con...@gifl.com
|
| This message has passed thru The GIFfer Skylink

[Rchappel_...@gifl.com]

From: rcha...@dbtech.net (Russ Chappell)

Subject: Re: Demonology and the Warrens

In article <01bb67ab.4468ad80$3f40...@crc3.concentric.net>,
"Wycked God" <wyke...@concentric.net> wrote:

>I know that demons are ghosts ....
>because I'm capable of reading and comprehending basic vocabulary. Take
>the word "demon" for instance. In Webster's New Universal Unabridged
>Dictionary, the definition of "demon" is an evil spirit.
>Hmmm...Interesting. Let's check the word "ghost". Wow, according to the
>same dictionary the definition of "ghost" is a disembodied *spirit*. So
>we have demon (spirit) and ghost (disembodied spirit). See the
>connection?
>
>Might I suggest that next semester you take a course on Logic 101. No
>offense, but it might help you. :-)
>
>~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .

Let me make sure I've got this straight...

A demon is an example of a spirit. A ghost is an example of a spirit.
Therefore, demon=ghost?

Perhaps *you* should be taking that Logic course. If A is a subset of B, and C
is a subset of B, it does not follow that A=B.

For an example of how it could be carried to absurdity: A dog is an example of
a four-legged mammal. A cat is an example of a four-legged mammal. Therefore,
I know that dogs are cats.

Not questioning your conclusion, mind you--I have no idea whether a demon is a
ghost. Just questioning your logic, since you brought it up.

--russ
--
|Fidonet: Rcha...@dbtech.Net 1:377/51.1
|Internet: Rchappel_...@gifl.com

[Rchappel_...@gifl.com]

From: rcha...@dbtech.net (Russ Chappell)
Subject: Re: Demonology and the Warrens

Ooops...

rcha...@dbtech.net (me) wrote:

>Perhaps *you* should be taking that Logic course. If A is a subset
>of B, and C is a subset of B, it does not follow that A=B.
>

That should, of course, read, "it does not follow that A=C." Sorry for the
confusion.

[Wykedgod_co...@gifl.com]

From: "Wycked God" <wyke...@concentric.net>

Subject: Re: Demonology and the Warrens

You've missed the point. Nowhere did I state that a demon and a ghost are
exactly the same. I merely made the connection that they were both
spirits. In your example, it would be the same as stating that a cat and
a dog are both four-legged mammals.

This is not to say that demons could not be ghosts, and that ghosts could
not be demons. Hence the first sentence of the paragraph of my response.

~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Love is the law, but love under a strong will."

> rcha...@dbtech.net (Russ Chappell) wrote in article
<4ra5rg$p...@dbtsvr2.dbtech.net>...

> In article <01bb67ab.4468ad80$3f40...@crc3.concentric.net>,
> "Wycked God" <wyke...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >I know that demons are ghosts ....
> >because I'm capable of reading and comprehending basic vocabulary.
Take
> >the word "demon" for instance. In Webster's New Universal Unabridged
> >Dictionary, the definition of "demon" is an evil spirit.
> >Hmmm...Interesting. Let's check the word "ghost". Wow, according to
the
> >same dictionary the definition of "ghost" is a disembodied *spirit*.
So
> >we have demon (spirit) and ghost (disembodied spirit). See the
> >connection?
> >
> >Might I suggest that next semester you take a course on Logic 101. No
> >offense, but it might help you. :-)
> >
> >~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
>
> Let me make sure I've got this straight...
>
> A demon is an example of a spirit. A ghost is an example of a spirit.
> Therefore, demon=ghost?
>

> Perhaps *you* should be taking that Logic course. If A is a subset of B,
and C
> is a subset of B, it does not follow that A=B.
>

> For an example of how it could be carried to absurdity: A dog is an
example of
> a four-legged mammal. A cat is an example of a four-legged mammal.
Therefore,
> I know that dogs are cats.
>
> Not questioning your conclusion, mind you--I have no idea whether a
demon is a
> ghost. Just questioning your logic, since you brought it up.
>
> --russ
>
--

|Fidonet: Wyke...@concentric.Net 1:377/51.1
|Internet: Wykedgod_co...@gifl.com

[Jet_ho...@gifl.com]

From: "Jet" <J...@home.com>

Subject: Re: Demonology and the Warrens

> I know that demons are ghosts and that humans will never be rid of them

> because I'm capable of reading and comprehending basic vocabulary. Take
> the word "demon" for instance. In Webster's New Universal Unabridged
> Dictionary, the definition of "demon" is an evil spirit.

Uhh...yeah...emphasis on *evil* (as in bad, etc.) Right?

> Hmmm...Interesting. Let's check the word "ghost". Wow, according to
the
> same dictionary the definition of "ghost" is a disembodied *spirit*. So
> we have demon (spirit) and ghost (disembodied spirit). See the
> connection?
>
> Might I suggest that next semester you take a course on Logic 101. No
> offense, but it might help you. :-)

Might I recommend any class that requires you cite an *entire* entry and
not just a segment. Logic 101 might suffice, but any English class that
requires you to write a term paper is probably better.
A demon is about as similar to a ghost as lightening is to a lightening
bug. Further, it's a bad idea to omit words or evidence when you debate
someone, just as creating evidence is bad, because your opponent usually
has access to the same evidence.

> (Notice: I didn't tell you what to do, I suggested a course of action
for
> you to take)

Notice: It still seems kinda, well, tricky and spiteful to me.

>
> ~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
> "Love is the law, but love under a strong will."
>
>

"All you need is love."
--
|Fidonet: J...@home.Com 1:377/51.1
|Internet: Jet_ho...@gifl.com