Discussion item for Brenda Kent
Gianna Stefani
I am mindful of what has been written to you, and by you, in this ng. As I
am fairly new to this group, I have no problem in maintaining an open mind
regarding the posters here until such time as I have conversed with them
sufficiently to form an opinion of my own.
Given your recent negative postings aimed at, or mentioning, myself, I have
been reading some threads in which you have featured or that you originated
(according to my newsreader anyway).
I settled on a thread concerning spells, and one of your postings in that
thread captured my attention - I would like to discuss elements of that with
you.
I paste a section of your writing for reference:
> I am saying that I feel ones own belief
> matters more than the science behind it. Science matters as much as you
> put belief into it ...to matter. Then again I am a witch..and witches tend
> to blend the irrational with the rational.
.......
> How can any witch do what she/he can do without a belief in the
> irrational?
.......
> Irrational meaning those that are not scientifically proven.
Now, I agree that (for me) belief in the work is a pre-requisite of
efficacy. What intrigues me however are your comments concerning rational
and irrational.
You state:
a) witches tend to blend rational and irrational.
b) witches need to believe in the irrational in order to do the work.
Then you follow this with a definition of 'irrational' for which I can find
no reference or parallel.
Would you help me, therefore, by restating your points (a) and (b), using
the correct definitions of 'rational' and 'irrational'.
If on the other hand, your misuse of these terms was intentional and you
used them to imply something else, would you then restate (a) and (b) using
the terms you were implying.
I look forward to examining this topic with you in greater detail following
your clarification.
Best wishes,
Gianna Stefani
--
Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/
Gianna Stefani
news:2nudlbF...@uni-berlin.de...
<snip>
> Would you help me, therefore, by restating your points (a) and (b), using
> the correct definitions of 'rational' and 'irrational'.
> If on the other hand, your misuse of these terms was intentional and you
> used them to imply something else, would you then restate (a) and (b)
using
> the terms you were implying.
>
> I look forward to examining this topic with you in greater detail
following
> your clarification.
>
or not of course, as the case may be.
naismith
>
> <snip>
>
> > Would you help me, therefore, by restating your points (a) and (b),
using
> > the correct definitions of 'rational' and 'irrational'.
> > If on the other hand, your misuse of these terms was intentional and you
> > used them to imply something else, would you then restate (a) and (b)
> using
> > the terms you were implying.
> >
> > I look forward to examining this topic with you in greater detail
> following
> > your clarification.
> >
>
> or not of course, as the case may be.
Crickets and tumbleweeds, eh?
Gianna Stefani
news:2o3n8gF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Crickets and tumbleweeds, eh?
>
The crying shame of an opportunity missed.
I would have grabbed it with both hands, fought my corner (there is no win
or lose, just the joy of debate) and then said to my detractors "See!" (or
more likely "up yours!").
Horse - water - drink, I guess. I am satisfied that I tried, and did so
with a good heart.
Gianna
naismith
> "naismith" wrote:
> >
> > Crickets and tumbleweeds, eh?
> >
> The crying shame of an opportunity missed.
>
> I would have grabbed it with both hands, fought my corner (there is no win
> or lose, just the joy of debate) and then said to my detractors "See!"
(or
> more likely "up yours!").
> Horse - water - drink, I guess. I am satisfied that I tried, and did so
> with a good heart.
>
> Gianna
Nothing ventured, nothing gained as they say.
The insight gained from the omitted response
can be indicative.
Jani
Oh, well, you'll just have to make do with the rest of us :)
Jani
Gianna Stefani
news:2o4lbjF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Oh, well, you'll just have to make do with the rest of us :)
>
I will try, honest I will <pout>
Jani
You have a nice example of one of "brenda's" standard techniques in another
thread - she posts something about a book she's supposedly read, and then is
totally unable to discuss it. We're still waiting for anything substantive
to come from her about Blavatsky, despite her calling herself a theosophist
for months on the strength of having read it ...
Jani
Gianna Stefani
>
> You have a nice example of one of "brenda's" standard techniques in
another
> thread - she posts something about a book she's supposedly read, and then
is
> totally unable to discuss it. We're still waiting for anything substantive
> to come from her about Blavatsky, despite her calling herself a
theosophist
> for months on the strength of having read it ...
>
Perhaps she prefers maths:-
old addressee (R = L) + (E = U) = new addressee
that type of thing.
Jani
Dunno, Parse does the maths stuff around here. I tend to go and make the
coffee at the sight of brackets and plus signs ;)
Jani
Gianna Stefani
> <snip>
>
So, where did this lead me in terms of opinion forming ?
Three places :-
1) I have little to say against Brenda Kent.
2) I have little to say for Brenda Kent.
consequently ....
3) I have little to say to Brenda Kent.
All sorted then.