Magic, Transactional Culture, and Spells
nagasiva
hi Dane
Elizab...@gmail.com:
> ...what's out there in cyberspace for the
> magickal [practitioner]/esoteric student
there's a variety of magical trajectory,
and some of these include spellcraft. what
may seem like a simple matter of esoteric
connections may really be a positioning of
knowing the right people at the right time
and being proximate to their activities,
especially where esoteric cults such as
may have 'magickal practice' going on.
> and so I'm hoping to meet some folks who
> are experienced in such matters via
> newsgroups and such.
generally meeting through newsgroups and
email is not only possible but can be very
effective. posts such as this one will likely
bring people to you of like mind and of
variable position with respect to you who
happen by and read and/or discuss this.
you might also check out the variety of
other media online (the 'and such' part
of your post):
* -- e-mail groups such as Yahoogroups
http://groups.yahoo.com/
* -- web-boards such as may be found
via google.com (and to which you
seem to be referring below)
* -- internet-relay chatrooms, such
as may be found in systems such as
AOL and in IRC networks like EFNet,
Dalnet, and Undernet (particularly
channels such as #alchemy,
#divination, #tarot, #magick,
#occult, #thelema, and #witch
* -- ftp sites such as may, with some
old email group addresses, be found
through directory structures like the
MaGi -- http://www.luckymojo.com/magi
or Dmoz -- http://tinyurl.com/zb48q
> One thing I've been doing is looking at online
> services that either sell esoteric/spiritual
> products and/or magickal spellcasting services
> and such.... many of them appear ethically
> reprehensible at worst.
I'll watch for more of what you mean by this.
it would help if you were more explicit. people
have some strange notions of what is 'a problem'.
> I ran across the site Spellmaker.com and found
> that they not only have their online store but
> they also have a forum on Yahoo groups.
sensible.
> That intrigued me. ... I didn't find a lot
> of info on yahoo
their searching mechanism isn't conducive to
finding information, really.
> but there were some posts that came up here
> referring to Spellmaker & their voodoo
> magick and spell kits and whatnot.
strange. 'voodoo spellkits' are unlikely and
you may have found hoodoo spellkits either
masquerading or mistaken for voodoo, which
is a more integral system of religiomagic.
> ...Spam posts from Spellmaker(dot)com. ...
> "Control that person now!!!" "Get rid of
> that bitch!" and variations thereof. I
> found that more than a tad disturbing.
you must be from some more circumspect back-
ground: Christian, Wiccan or Hermetica such
that you were so easily disturbed simply by
reading this type of material.
> ...their online forum ...
> ...a litany of lost souls. I could not
> but help feeling like theirs is the worst
> kind of shady business practice...although
> I have to say that when you read their
> guidelines on their website along with the
> stuff that gets posted on that forum,
> it's all rather brilliant, and virtually
> unassailable from the point of view of
> the faithful.
samples?
> So what is the story with that company?
> I'm not trying to start a flame war or
> anything but I'd like to hear some fresh
> [perspectives] ...
few will get into discussion over businesses
in alt.magick because they are convinced that
mercantilism and magic don't mix. their culture-
bound perspective doesn't allow them to open-
mindedly consider a cultural transactionalism
surrounding the occult.
many religiomagical presentations are what you
have dubbed 'unassailable from the point of view
of the faithful', including how magic and other
things are viewed from para-Hermetica that
typifies the posts to this forum and its current
FAQ (the alt.magick WET FAQ as i call it).
rather than munge up other people's pursuits of
the use of magic for their interests, why not
explain what use you have for magic and why it
may be that you have these biases which you are
bringing to the subject, where you got your
notions of ethics with respect to the occult,
and what your favourited kinds of spells or
rituals have been. thanks.
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
nagasiva
"igd" <i...@iinet.com>:
> Anybody who tries to sell you services of a magical
> nature is a con artist, pure and simple.
ridiculous prejudice. skilled individuals should be
adequately compensated for the enlisting of their
time and expertise no matter their profession.
> Physical objects is one thing. Offering to "cast
> a spell" is something altogether different. It
> all comes down to "don't trade gold for dross".
> I'd go so far as to cut shamans some slack on this,
very big of you.
> as what they're doing USED to have an economic place
> in society. At least until currency entered the
> picture. And its just good manners to tip a diviner,
> of whatever sort. But other than that, I can't really
> see where a monetary quid pro quo would be ethical.
> Travel expenses, maybe?
what prevents it from being as ethical as any other
kind of transaction with a skilled contractor? your
explanations as to your conclusions about con artists
aren't entirely substantiated or logically-explained
except as cultural bias.
nagasiva
luckymojo.com@
nagasiva
hey Asiya,
Dane:
>>> but there were some posts that came up here
>>> referring to Spellmaker & their voodoo magick
>>> and spell kits and whatnot.
nagasiva:
>> strange. 'voodoo spellkits' are unlikely and
>> you may have found hoodoo spellkits either
>> masquerading or mistaken for voodoo, which
>> is a more integral system of religiomagic.
>>> ...Spam posts from Spellmaker(dot)com. ...
>>> "Control that person now!!!" "Get rid of that bitch!" and variations
>>> thereof. I found that more than a tad disturbing.
>>
>> you must be from some more circumspect back-
>> ground: Christian, Wiccan or Hermetica such
>> that you were so easily disturbed simply by
>> reading this type of material.
Asiya <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net>:
> It's always a good idea to know who you're talking to.
quite so, though that kind of transparency is not
always so easily acquired.
> Nagasiva is married to the shop owner of this:
> http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatspells.html
precisely put.
>> this forum and its current
>> FAQ (the alt.magick WET FAQ as i call it).
>
> Alt.magick FAQ
> located at http://www.asiya.org/faq.html
yes, it tends to draw those who distinguish occult magic
from stage magic and those for whom the term magic
and certain other socioeconomic facets do not mesh
in their ethics. what are the bases for these biases?
how are they justified?
nagasiva
luckymojo.com@
Tom
"nagasiva" <yronwode.com nagasiva> wrote in message
news:44e4a0df$0$34518$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> 50060816 x!
>
> "igd" <i...@iinet.com>:
>> Anybody who tries to sell you services of a magical
>> nature is a con artist, pure and simple.
>
> ridiculous prejudice. skilled individuals should be
> adequately compensated for the enlisting of their
> time and expertise no matter their profession.
Unless, of course, what is promised is not delivered. The problem with
"services of a magical nature" is in the determination of results.
People pay for services because they expect those services to cause some
particular thing to happen. While there is a measure of doubt in most
services that the outcome will be the desired one, at least there are
accepted standards in most professions about whether or not the sefvices
have been rendered competently. For example, when one goes to a medical
doctor, the desired outcome is that one will be cured. That doesn't always
happen. Yet, the medical profession itself has certain standards of care
and procedurtes that are intended to maximize the chances of the desired
outcome. If the doctor does not follow these procedures and meet those
accepted standards, there are repercussions, sometimes very serious ones.
There is a concerted effort to protect the public from medical fraud.
There are no such standards for professional spell-casters. There isn't
even a remote possibility that such standards could ever be agreed upon,
since there are no reliable ways to determine if a spell is effective that
are independently verifiable. So any schlock with a good patter can take
money for pretending to cast spells. There is no way at all to tell a fake
from the "real thing" and there is no concerted effort by any association of
professional spell-casters to create measureable standards of practice.
Elizab...@gmail.com
>there's a variety of magical trajectory,
>and some of these include spellcraft. what
>may seem like a simple matter of esoteric
>connections may really be a positioning of
>knowing the right people at the right time
>and being proximate to their activities,
>especially where esoteric cults such as
>may have 'magickal practice' going on.
I'm in the NYC area, so I'm lucky in the sense that there's a
siginificant number of local
groups/organizations/workshops/what-have-you which cater to various
disciplines and traditions; sometimes it's indimidating trying to wade
through them all. As with anything else, there are a lot of
fly-by-nights, 'poseurs,' and more than a few 'bad seeds' in the NYC
scene, and it can turn you off pretty quickly. A while back I started
trying to make more use of internet sources to make new contacts and so
forth but there's even more to sift through, and it wore me out; so now
I'm taking another stab at it.
Sometimes the easiest way for me was to just stop by a place like
Enchantments Inc. or Zodiac Lounge...or in the old days (lol), Herman
Slater's shop The Magickal Childe (in the Village, not the earlier
Brooklyn location, that was before my time) and just talk to people,
either the regulars or the clientele, or pick of one of the numerous
'city guide' type pamphlets/magazines that always seemed to accumulate
at such places, with listings of classes, lectures, events & such.
>I'll watch for more of what you mean by this.
>it would help if you were more explicit. people
>have some strange notions of what is 'a problem'.
I'm referring to a few of the ones which purport to offer magickal
services in exchange for money. Just to be a bit more clear and
articulate than I (admittedly) was in my first post: I don't really
have a problem with certain kinds of practitioners performing magick
for a fee. As the other poster mentioned above, it's something that's
been a tradition for a long time in various cultures and if it fills a
need, so be it. Sure, there are hordes of charlatans out there, and
hiring anyone sight unseen for such work is often tantamount to
flushing your money down the toilet, I think. Word-of-mouth is probably
the only way of finding someone truly reliable to work for you. You
know the old saying about a Fool and his Money...
But some of the websites offering magick-for-money are just too much...
the places that promise "100% guaranteed results!" or "The most
powerful magic in the world!" and so on if you'll just pay $150.00 for
one of their spell kits or perhaps another $200.00 or more for one of
their in-house practitioners to do it for you instead, not to mention
an extra forty or fifty dollars for "online" Tarot readings where you
have no actual personal contact with the Reader at all (sigh)...
In the case of Spellmaker.com, the fact that they had an online forum
connected to their storefront is what drew me to take a closer look at
the site & its contents. They seem to be like any other occult supply
store, insofar as they sell candles, oils, incense, etc.
But from poring through the posts on their forum it seems like they are
mass-marketing their products to unwary consumers who have little if
any understanding or experience in any magickal or esoteric practice
and so don't know what works, what doesn't, what's helpful, what is
potentially dangerous, what are and aren't realistic expectations, or
for that matter what it is they're really doing. The vast majority seem
to be working spells to either win back a lost love or to break up
another couple {including some married folks} so that they can be with
one or the other person. I won't sit in judgement of any of these
people or what it is they are trying to achieve - for the record, I
myself have no problem with applying magickal means to real-world
problems in my own life, and for the most part it has always been a
positive experience for me - but many of those people who are trying to
win back a lover have been at it literally for years, with no change in
their situation, and to read their stories is depressing.
>strange. 'voodoo spellkits' are unlikely and
>you may have found hoodoo spellkits either
>masquerading or mistaken for voodoo, which
>is a more integral system of religiomagic.
And that's almost certainly the case with Spellmaker.com, the
kits/supplies they sell seem very similar to materials sold at any of
the brick-and-mortar shops I mentioned above, where they are classified
as Hoodoo. However on the Spellmaker.com website, most of their
products are described as "Voodoo Spell Kits." It also seems that many
of the people who post messages on their forum - customers of
Spellmaker.com, for the most part - believe themselves to be practicing
Voodoo.
As a humorous side note, I myself worked with elements of Hoodoo
(candles, herbs, powders, incense, lodestones, etc etc etc) for years
before I even knew that was what it was called :)
> ...Spam posts from Spellmaker(dot)com. ...
> "Control that person now!!!" "Get rid of
> that bitch!" and variations thereof. I
> found that more than a tad disturbing.
>you must be from some more circumspect back-
>ground: Christian, Wiccan or Hermetica such
>that you were so easily disturbed simply by
>reading this type of material.
Actually what disturbed me about it was simply that the nature of their
spam posts (like the ones I cited above) are, to an extent, at odds
with the general tenor of the guidelines posted on their website and
discussed on their Yahoo forum. Not to mention seeing a company that
deals in that kind of business using advertising like that (spamming
newsgroups with it, no less) just seems to 'cheapen' whatever
esoteric/spiritual content it is meant to alert you to. Kind of like a
big garish neon sign over a storefront, the kind that screams 'LIVE
GIRLS XXX"....But hey, I guess that's marketing for ya. Grab 'em with a
headline...
> when you read their
> guidelines on their website along with the
> stuff that gets posted on that forum,
> it's all rather brilliant, and virtually
> unassailable from the point of view of
> the faithful.
>samples?
Well for starters it's my understanding after inquiring of a few
members on that Yahoo group that the messages which are posted there
are heavily monitored and sometimes censored for content. Anything that
directly questions the efficiacy or integrity of either the products
for sale or the support staff (they have people they refer to as
caseworkers in addition to the forum moderators) usually doesn't make
it through - and if it does it seems that it is usually used to 'make
an example' of whatever poor sod made the mistake of raising a
dissenting voice. Or so it seems. But the people who simply read what
IS posted there have no reason to suspect that the stories they see,
the 'directions' given by the caseworkers, and the 'guidelines' which
are described on the website itself are anything but the gospel truth
and the 'final word' in spellcasting of that type.
I suppose I could try copying and pasting some of what I've read over
there if anyone wants to see some of it...
>few will get into discussion over businesses
>in alt.magick because they are convinced that
>mercantilism and magic don't mix. their culture-
>bound perspective doesn't allow them to open-
>mindedly consider a cultural transactionalism
>surrounding the occult.
So am I to understand then that the majority of people who frequent
alt.magick believe that commerce has no place in magick?
>many religiomagical presentations are what you
>have dubbed 'unassailable from the point of view
>of the faithful', including how magic and other
>things are viewed from para-Hermetica that
>typifies the posts to this forum and its current
>FAQ (the alt.magick WET FAQ as i call it).
Yes, and even belief systems that have no 'magickal' component. Many
types of religious fundamentalism, for example, are sustained through
circular logic and selective perception; after all they don't call it
'blind faith' for nothing.
>rather than munge up other people's pursuits of
>the use of magic for their interests, why not
>explain what use you have for magic and why it
>may be that you have these biases which you are
>bringing to the subject, where you got your
>notions of ethics with respect to the occult,
>and what your favourited kinds of spells or
>rituals have been. thanks.
Well, I don't believe I have any specific bias one way or the other;
the issues I was bringing up re: Spellmaker.com are related to what I'd
call questionable business ethics, particularly where this sort of
thing is concerned. After all we're not talking about a company that
sells vacuum cleaners here. But as I mentioned above, I have no problem
with using magick for my own ends, whether it be on a spiritual level,
a pychological level, or even a material level, whether to help myself
or to help other people (if and when asked). As for my notions of
ethics re: the occult, they are simply mine, and I don't apply a
different code to my magickal workings than I do to anything else in
life; I'm not sure if that answers your question. I started off ages
ago with Crowley and Thelemic magick but it didn't resonate with me at
all and so I moved on; I don't feel that my
exposure to his writings or his system influenced my ethics one way or
the other. I've slogged through other work, usually qabalistic or
closely associated with, but most of the time I was doing the work for
the sake of doing the work, and only rarely did I bring it to bear on a
specific situation for practical results. I admit to not being well
versed in the tenets of Wicca but I've done quite a lot of work with
what is properly termed "hoodoo," which I think I might have already
mentioned, but oh well.
As far as Lucky Mojo, I've bought a fair amount of stuff from them
online/through the mail, and I think the quality is very very good. The
first time I pulled a piece of snake skin out of a recently purchased
bag of goofer dust I knew I was a satisfied customer. Many other
suppliers of such materials don't even sell the real thing (even in
NYC).
-Dane
igd
belief that they were perfoming a useful service, a pre-stated quid pro quo
would not(IMHO) be ethical. It still comes down to gold for dross. One
does not prostitute the Art for filthy lucre.
"For wert thou to summon the Gnomes to pander to thine avarice, thou
wouldst no longer command them, but they would command thee. Wouldst thou
abuse the pure beings of the woods and mountains to fill thy coffers and
satisfy thy hunger of Gold?"
For example: I used to do a lot of exorcisms. I never asked for any
compensation, though if something involved really excessisive travel, I
would have asked for travel expenses. I pointedly turned down cash when
offered, though I would say something to the affect of "I can accept gifts
of a non-monetary sort" at the conclusion of the proceedings and left it up
to the client to interpet it from there.
But if Nagasiva wants that kind of karma, he's most welcome to it.
"Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oMOdnVSSq6zZMHnZ...@comcast.com...
Tom
"igd" <i...@iinet.com> wrote in message
news:12e9php...@corp.supernews.com...
> But even assuming the individual in question were to be sincere in the
> belief that they were perfoming a useful service, a pre-stated quid pro
> quo would not(IMHO) be ethical. It still comes down to gold for dross.
> One does not prostitute the Art for filthy lucre.
>
> "For wert thou to summon the Gnomes to pander to thine avarice, thou
> wouldst no longer command them, but they would command thee. Wouldst thou
> abuse the pure beings of the woods and mountains to fill thy coffers and
> satisfy thy hunger of Gold?"
I'm unfamiliar with this quotation. Who is the author and where did you find
it?
The early Christian church took a dim view of the sale of their magical
services. They called the practice "simony" after one Simon Magus, who
allegedly offered the disciples money for the power to perform miracles.
This was not a case of fraud, since it seems quite clear that the disciples
and Simon believed they really could perform miracles. The objection came
to the the buying and selling of what was essentially a sacred thing. It
was usually an ecclesiastical crime, like a priest accepting gratuities for
hearing a confession, perfoming a marriage or funeral, that sort of thing.
My objection was the inability to distinguish what is actually a result of a
spell from what would have happened anyway, and thus some controversy over
whether or not some service worthy of hire has actually been delivered.
Your concern appears to be an ecclesiastical issue, like simony.
Does the act of charging money for the casting of a spell constitute an act
of profanity? Is it defiling something that should be kept sacred?
Erwin Hessle
Tom wrote:
> "igd" <i...@iinet.com> wrote in message
> news:12e9php...@corp.supernews.com...
> > But even assuming the individual in question were to be sincere in the
> > belief that they were perfoming a useful service, a pre-stated quid pro
> > quo would not(IMHO) be ethical. It still comes down to gold for dross.
> > One does not prostitute the Art for filthy lucre.
> >
> > "For wert thou to summon the Gnomes to pander to thine avarice, thou
> > wouldst no longer command them, but they would command thee. Wouldst thou
> > abuse the pure beings of the woods and mountains to fill thy coffers and
> > satisfy thy hunger of Gold?"
>
> I'm unfamiliar with this quotation. Who is the author and where did you find
> it?
Crowley, from Liber 30.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
> But even assuming the individual in question were to be sincere in the
> belief that they were perfoming a useful service, a pre-stated quid pro quo
> would not(IMHO) be ethical. It still comes down to gold for dross. One
> does not prostitute the Art for filthy lucre.
The problem with this is that it's tripe. There's no earthly reason to
make a distinction between "the Art", whatever the hell that might be,
and anything else. While *you* might choose not to do it because of the
high regard you hold this "Art" in, it can hardly be called "unethical"
for that reason even from a common moralistic standpoint, since noone
is under any sort of obligation to share your view.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
WaterWalker
> But even assuming the individual in question were to be sincere in the
> belief that they were perfoming a useful service, a pre-stated quid pro quo
> would not(IMHO) be ethical. It still comes down to gold for dross. One
> does not prostitute the Art for filthy lucre.
>
> "For wert thou to summon the Gnomes to pander to thine avarice, thou
> wouldst no longer command them, but they would command thee. Wouldst thou
> abuse the pure beings of the woods and mountains to fill thy coffers and
> satisfy thy hunger of Gold?"
>
> For example: I used to do a lot of exorcisms. I never asked for any
> compensation, though if something involved really excessisive travel, I
> would have asked for travel expenses. I pointedly turned down cash when
> offered, though I would say something to the affect of "I can accept gifts
> of a non-monetary sort" at the conclusion of the proceedings and left it up
> to the client to interpet it from there.
>
> But if Nagasiva wants that kind of karma, he's most welcome to it.
Your commentary brings to mind the offering plate passed around in
churches. What services does a church or sermon provide that you would
put money into the plate? You may give out of guilt, but you also may be
giving because you believe that money will go to good use and this is a
way of caring for others in need. I believe paying my healers allows
them to have a place to sleep, good food and good habits, which equals a
better healing.
Just because you never asked for financial consideration doesn't mean
you need to compare yourself to others.
I have healers that I greatly value for their products and services. I
have clients that value me for my own products and services. I would
never want a healer that I am seeing to go unrewarded for their work. I
care about them, I want them to be healthy and happy and well taken care
of so that they remain good healers.
I used to work strictly voluntary. I also used to be uncomfortable with
others valuing my services or thinking that I had something important to
offer. However, I have a much better clientele now that I do put a
financial burden on my products and services and the clients are
motivated to do the work, to be healed, to be inspired. Clients that are
unwilling to pay or clients used to using free services can be lazy and
uninspired and tend to not pay attention or do what is asked of them.
Free services can equate to a band aid effect worth of value to the client.
Some clients do not value free products or services.
Just put a "Free" or "sale" sign up, and you will see what I mean.
People will take handfuls or bagfuls of a product that they don't even
care about or even know about, and will let it go to rot, just because
it is free. Or they will take up your time, because it is not of value
to yourself or to them, being free.
Yes, I have valued free services and I have had others value my free
services. My point is, time is valuable and you choose what you spend
your time doing, what you are good at, and the level of continuing
education so that you or your product remain valuable. If your product
or service is not of value, you will not have customers. Sure scare and
other tactics can be invoked, but you have to decide what is of value to
you. If you value the product or service then pay for it. Get
references. If you feel you have no trust, seek out someone else who
works for you or fix the problem yourself.
Why did you work for free? Did you do it out of compassion, to fulfill a
need, or to feel good? Yes, feeling good for helping someone can make
you a good healer. And yes, financial gain can lead the wrong people
into stealing or making poor healers (just like any other type of
employment i.e. construction, etc).
If you are a healer or tarot reader or spell provider for financial gain
only, then you are probably in the wrong field. However, financial gain
does not make a good healer bad or care less, other "things" make a good
or bad healer. There will always be con artists, in any trade. Finances
are not the only way that you can be ripped off.
Free doesn't necessarily make a better healing or even a good healer,
tarot reader, product or spell provider.
WaterWalker
> My objection was the inability to distinguish what is actually a result of a
> spell from what would have happened anyway, and thus some controversy over
> whether or not some service worthy of hire has actually been delivered.
> Your concern appears to be an ecclesiastical issue, like simony.
Sometimes seeking help puts you on the right track. There is also the
placebo effect, which I think is beneficial and shows that either we can
heal ourselves when we think we have help or we have help from some source.
Having someone to listen is also beneficial even if the only benefit
amounts to the worries being voiced out loud thereby creating mental
clarity, either because we hear how silly the concerns are, or because
one is able to get a new spin on what needs to be done. Although, this
can also feed the frenzy or feeling of need for a spell caster/tarot
reader/healer.
I do agree agree in that those who seek to waste time, money, emotions,
spiritual regard and what you care for motivate me to do a good job and
keep my own nose clean.
Tom
"WaterWalker" <WalksonWater_saynotospam@shaw.> wrote in message
news:%U9Fg.418249$iF6.23122@pd7tw2no...
>
> Your commentary brings to mind the offering plate passed around in
> churches. What services does a church or sermon provide that you would put
> money into the plate?
The money in the plate is a free will offering. It's not a charge for
services. Now, if a spell caster took on all requests and then indicated
that you could send him or her money if you thought it was a good thing that
he or she continue to do the same for others, then the situation would be
comparable. A "pay before we start" deal isn't the same thing at all.
> Just because you never asked for financial consideration doesn't mean you
> need to compare yourself to others.
Certainly it is. Any difference between one person and another is reason
enough for comparison.
Tom
"WaterWalker" <WalksonWater_saynotospam@shaw.> wrote in message
> Tom wrote:
>
>> My objection was the inability to distinguish what is actually a result
>> of a spell from what would have happened anyway, and thus some
>> controversy over whether or not some service worthy of hire has actually
>> been delivered. Your concern appears to be an ecclesiastical issue, like
>> simony.
>
> Sometimes seeking help puts you on the right track.
And sometimes spending money because you credulously believe worthless
promises is not the right track.
> There is also the placebo effect, which I think is beneficial and shows
> that either we can heal ourselves when we think we have help or we have
> help from some source.
The placebo effect does not bring you money or love, the two most common
requests for spells.
> Having someone to listen is also beneficial even if the only benefit
> amounts to the worries being voiced out loud thereby creating mental
> clarity, either because we hear how silly the concerns are, or because one
> is able to get a new spin on what needs to be done. Although, this can
> also feed the frenzy or feeling of need for a spell caster/tarot
> reader/healer.
I don't think a lot of sympathetic listening is a feature of on-line or
mail-order spell casters, which were the examples the OP gave.
WaterWalker
> I don't think a lot of sympathetic listening is a feature of on-line or
> mail-order spell casters, which were the examples the OP gave.
Since igd discussed exorcisms, I didn't think the topic was limited to
on-line spell or mail-order spell casters.
Now, I am not sure if I should bother posting the last post I wrote to
you because it is off topic to what you are discussing.
catherine yronwode
Seeing you again, Tom, what with intranet changes and reading 'groups
from a non-filtered computer.
What you say is true in part -- but it overlooks the fact that there
have been and still are organizations that vouvh for one another's
honesty with respect to spiritual and magical services. Harry Hyatt, the
great American folklorist, recorded interviews with several African
Americns who belonged to one or more such groups that help regular
mettings (quadrennially in one casde, monthly in another). Some of my
friends and i are planning to form such an organization ourselves.
Ethics is as imprtant in this work as it is in other service
professions.
cat yronwode
catherine yronwode
Some spiritual workers ask only for donations. Some churches ask for a
set amount, such as a tithe, or you will not be a member in good
standing. No one rule fits all -- and, in tuth, as Water Walker points
out, the same rules hat apply to various types of churches also apply to
various types of spiritual rwading, counselling, and work of
non-denomiminationally oriented work.
catherne yronwode
Tom
"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:44E56986...@luckymojo.com...
While I appreciate your effort, I suspect you won't get very far. How will
you determine a set of best practices in a field that has no objective
standards of performance at all? How will you test for effectiveness? It's
like a bunch of self-proclaimed psychics proclaiming each other to be "real"
psychics, even though none of them can actually provide a successful
demonstration of their abilities in a test that would effectively eliminate
fraud or self-deception.
Now, that being said, I acknowledge that belief in such abilities may be so
strong that no evidence of efficacy would even be asked by potential
customers, so that would only be an issue if someone was placing so much
dependence upon your services that their very life and well-being is placed
in jeopardy, which would be pretty foolish. I suspect that sort of
extremity is fairly rare. I doubt anyone would buy a flying spell and then
jump off a building, relying on the spell to keep them safe. Most folks use
spellcraft more casually. So let's consider other aspect that maybe you
*can* address effectively.
There are some things you might be able to provide with a professional
organization that issues some sort of certification. I suppose you can at
least offer some sort of guarantee that your practitioners are knowledgeable
in the field of spell-casting by designing some sort of basic knowledge test
as to the procedures. You might also create some sort of guidelines for
diagnostics that would help a spell-caster know when to call in other forms
of support or referrals.
Enforcement would be tricky, too, but that's a problem for lots of
professional organizations. You might want to have your members provide
their clients with a means for filing complaints with your organization if
they feel the spell-caster in question has violated their professional
standards, sort of like the Better Business Bureau does. You might, for
example, produce a pamphlet on ethical practices used by spell-casters in
your organization, outlining what a consumer can expect from a member's
services, and include an address, website, or e-mail address where
complaints could be filed. You should have some sort of arrangement for
inquiring into such complaints to see if they have merit. Someone found to
be in violation of the standards would face sanctions, up to and including
expulsion from the organization and be obliged to make restitution.
David Carter
A rare occasion in which I agree with Tim.
Coincidentally, the things he is right on are usually those associated
with scams and fraud.
Carter
David Carter
> But even assuming the individual in question were to be sincere in the
> belief that they were perfoming a useful service, a pre-stated quid pro quo
> would not(IMHO) be ethical. It still comes down to gold for dross. One
> does not prostitute the Art for filthy lucre.
>
> "For wert thou to summon the Gnomes to pander to thine avarice, thou
> wouldst no longer command them, but they would command thee. Wouldst thou
> abuse the pure beings of the woods and mountains to fill thy coffers and
> satisfy thy hunger of Gold?"
>
> For example: I used to do a lot of exorcisms. I never asked for any
> compensation, though if something involved really excessisive travel, I
> would have asked for travel expenses. I pointedly turned down cash when
> offered, though I would say something to the affect of "I can accept gifts
> of a non-monetary sort" at the conclusion of the proceedings and left it up
> to the client to interpet it from there.
>
> But if Nagasiva wants that kind of karma, he's most welcome to it.
But as Asiya pointed out, Nagasiva is hardly a disinterested party.
Carter
> <snip>
David Carter
> 50060816 x!
>
> "igd" <i...@iinet.com>:
>> Anybody who tries to sell you services of a magical
>> nature is a con artist, pure and simple.
>
> ridiculous prejudice. skilled individuals should be
> adequately compensated for the enlisting of their
> time and expertise no matter their profession.
Always assuming they are skilled at more than separating gullibles from
their money.
>
>> Physical objects is one thing. Offering to "cast
>> a spell" is something altogether different. It
>> all comes down to "don't trade gold for dross".
>> I'd go so far as to cut shamans some slack on this,
>
> very big of you.
I wouldnt. Shamanism is chock full of frauds, pretenders and fools (on
both sides of the counter). Just as Magic is.
>
>> as what they're doing USED to have an economic place
>> in society. At least until currency entered the
>> picture. And its just good manners to tip a diviner,
>> of whatever sort. But other than that, I can't really
>> see where a monetary quid pro quo would be ethical.
>> Travel expenses, maybe?
>
> what prevents it from being as ethical as any other
> kind of transaction with a skilled contractor?
The prevalence of frauds and hucksters. You speak of skilled contractor
as if there were an empirical measure of skill. There isnt. You only use
the words to imply respectability and attempt to manipulate opinion. The
whole concept of paying someone to make 'spells' or some such nonsense
is laughable, only a fraud would advertise doing so. Sadly the whole
'occult supply' business is full of frauds and posers.
By way of a counter-example, I have dealt with Star Child in
Glastonbury England for years (and before some of the the whackos in
here start, other than being a customer I have no connection with them).
Glastonbury, in common with many new-age centres is full of weirdos and
snake-oil salesmen, but Star Child has always stood out as being
professional and honest. Their oils and incenses are excellent and their
quality uniformly good.
They dont sell 'spells', and if they did they would lose this customer.
So not all 'occult suppliers' stoop to spell-making kits and 'spells on
demand'. Those who do are fraudulent, either they know no better in
which case they are frauds, or they do know better in which case they
are frauds. Either way...
Carter
David Carter
> "igd" <i...@iinet.com> wrote in message
> news:12e9php...@corp.supernews.com...
>> But even assuming the individual in question were to be sincere in the
>> belief that they were perfoming a useful service, a pre-stated quid pro
>> quo would not(IMHO) be ethical. It still comes down to gold for dross.
>> One does not prostitute the Art for filthy lucre.
>>
>> "For wert thou to summon the Gnomes to pander to thine avarice, thou
>> wouldst no longer command them, but they would command thee. Wouldst thou
>> abuse the pure beings of the woods and mountains to fill thy coffers and
>> satisfy thy hunger of Gold?"
>
> I'm unfamiliar with this quotation. Who is the author and where did you find
> it?
>
> The early Christian church took a dim view of the sale of their magical
> services.
Magical services? The Christian Church? it sounds as if you are
suggesting that spiritual development engenders psychic or magical
powers. I am sure you wouldnt do that.
Carter
David Carter
>
Here we see the non-initiate in all his uninitiated stupidity.
Good God Erwhine, do you ever say *anything* which isnt completely daft?
It seems not.
Carter
Meltdarok
"WaterWalker" <WalksonWater_saynotospam@shaw.> wrote in message
news:%U9Fg.418249$iF6.23122@pd7tw2no...
> igd wrote:
>> But even assuming the individual in question were to be sincere in the
>> belief that they were perfoming a useful service, a pre-stated quid pro
>> quo would not(IMHO) be ethical. It still comes down to gold for dross.
>> One does not prostitute the Art for filthy lucre.
>>
I note the "value" given to a pretty processed yellow metal; and the
underpinnings
of a lack of freedom for the reproductive rights involving capitalistic
economic gain.
>> "For wert thou to summon the Gnomes to pander to thine avarice, thou
>> wouldst no longer command them, but they would command thee. Wouldst
>> thou abuse the pure beings of the woods and mountains to fill thy
>> coffers and satisfy thy hunger of Gold?"
>>
>> For example: I used to do a lot of exorcisms. I never asked for any
>> compensation, though if something involved really excessisive travel, I
>> would have asked for travel expenses. I pointedly turned down cash when
>> offered, though I would say something to the affect of "I can accept
>> gifts of a non-monetary sort" at the conclusion of the proceedings and
>> left it up to the client to interpet it from there.
>>
>> But if Nagasiva wants that kind of karma, he's most welcome to it.
>
> Your commentary brings to mind the offering plate passed around in
> churches. What services does a church or sermon provide that you would
> put money into the plate? You may give out of guilt, but you also may be
> giving because you believe that money will go to good use and this is a
> way of caring for others in need. I believe paying my healers allows them
> to have a place to sleep, good food and good habits, which equals a
> better healing.
>
> Just because you never asked for financial consideration doesn't mean you
> need to compare yourself to others.
>
People aways seem to have a tendency to compare themselves with others
though they have problems considering them as family.
> I have healers that I greatly value for their products and services. I
> have clients that value me for my own products and services. I would
> never want a healer that I am seeing to go unrewarded for their work. I
> care about them, I want them to be healthy and happy and well taken care
> of so that they remain good healers.
>
When was the last time you gave them three goats for thier services?
> I used to work strictly voluntary. I also used to be uncomfortable with
> others valuing my services or thinking that I had something important to
> offer. However, I have a much better clientele now that I do put a
> financial burden on my products and services and the clients are
> motivated to do the work, to be healed, to be inspired. Clients that are
> unwilling to pay or clients used to using free services can be lazy and
> uninspired and tend to not pay attention or do what is asked of them.
> Free services can equate to a band aid effect worth of value to the
> client.
>
That really depends on the particular person.
> Some clients do not value free products or services.
>
> Just put a "Free" or "sale" sign up, and you will see what I mean.
>
> People will take handfuls or bagfuls of a product that they don't even
> care about or even know about, and will let it go to rot, just because it
> is free. Or they will take up your time, because it is not of value to
> yourself or to them, being free.
>
Uhmm, you know they did not "value" the time? Did they tell you this?
> Yes, I have valued free services and I have had others value my free
> services.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>My point is, time is valuable and you choose what you spend your time
>doing,
Welcome to capitalism my friend. . . . Like your computer's software yet?
Karl Marx never really got it, or if he did, they never *really* tried it
yet.
The only thing I saw was the choosing of a leader, which didn't happen
until Gorbachev, and look what happened to him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>what you are good at, and the level of continuing education so that you or
>your product remain valuable. If your product or service is not of value,
>you will not have customers. Sure scare and other tactics can be invoked,
>but you have to decide what is of value to you. If you value the product
>or service then pay for it. Get references. If you feel you have no trust,
>seek out someone else who works for you or fix the problem yourself.
>
> Why did you work for free? Did you do it out of compassion, to fulfill a
> need, or to feel good? Yes, feeling good for helping someone can make you
> a good healer. And yes, financial gain can lead the wrong people into
> stealing or making poor healers (just like any other type of employment
> i.e. construction, etc).
>
> If you are a healer or tarot reader or spell provider for financial gain
> only, then you are probably in the wrong field. However, financial gain
> does not make a good healer bad or care less, other "things" make a good
> or bad healer. There will always be con artists, in any trade. Finances
> are not the only way that you can be ripped off.
>
> Free doesn't necessarily make a better healing or even a good healer,
> tarot reader, product or spell provider.
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
taro...@jktarot.com
> Asiya <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net>:
> > It's always a good idea to know who you're talking to.
> quite so, though that kind of transparency is not
> always so easily acquired.
You didn't sound very happy about the transparency a week or so ago,
Suicider. You sounded quite put out that the little rabbits on TarotL
found out about your dark (sui)side in fact, even though that's the
only side you've got.
So, did you and your wife assist this dolt's contribution to your Great
Work?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/18/voodoo.killer.ap/index.html
I notice Cat was all over this on alt.true-crime.
Now, maybe you can clarify something for all of us. If the clerics of
your faith help the aspirant kill themselves by stabbing them 25 times
(or whatever), does that methodology corrupt the suicide on technical
terms? Because, in the case above, certainly it was a "good death" from
the perp's point of view.
And like you told me, encouraging as many people to kill themselves as
you can "is healthy and likely to lead to euthanasia (good death(s))."
I'd say those 25 knife wounds were pretty encouraging, wouldn't you?
And no doubt, if you think death is healthy, which you claim to, that's
some REALLY healthy dying.
But, what about the dog? Two years for Foo-Foo seems a little severe.
I mean the cousin only rated a year for a slashed face.
I guess you're a little disappointed Frater Voodoo wimped out on that
last aspirant.
And I KNOW you're sorry he perped in New York, instead of Texas.
Because if he pulled that looney shit down there, he'd be headed for
some health, that's for sure.
(jk)
************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
jktarot.com Site Map:
http://jktarot.com/sitemap.html
************************************
taro...@jktarot.com
> "nagasiva" <yronwode.com nagasiva> wrote in message
> Unless, of course, what is promised is not delivered.
Could be worse if it is:
"Save the Planet, Kill Yourself"
Funny how Nagasiva hasn't found the Will to show the Way on that one.
Might make you think he wasn't that concerned about saving the planet.
catherine yronwode
You're as welcome to your opinion as the flowers are in May, but a sour
"suspection" is a bit more pre-judged than an opinion, in my opinion.
(You see, i've got an opinion, too.)
> How will
> you determine a set of best practices in a field that has no objective
> standards of performance at all?
I think a combination of honesty in advertising, transparency in
practice, and social bonds with other practioners and with clients is
adequate for the sorts of judgments we are intending.
By the way, many facets of life are not amenable to "objective standards
of performance." How much does your child love you? How do you
"objectively" quanitify that love?
> How will you test for effectiveness?
Some workers collect testimonials; i do not. Each to his or her own.
> It's like a bunch of self-proclaimed psychics
> proclaiming each other to be "real" psychics, even though
> none of them can actually provide a successful
> demonstration of their abilities in a test that would
> effectively eliminate fraud or self-deception.
The condition of inter-subjectivity hat you describe applies not only to
"psychics" but to all sincere people who participate as laity, clergy,
congregants, members, practioners, or experimenters in any religious
and/or magical and/or spirtual field of endeavour that is built upon a
premise that there is some form of existence or reality beyond or apart
from that which can be defined and codified by the scientific method.
Some people are bothered by various para-rational, supernatural,
magical, religious, cosmic, mystical, spiritual, and paranormal
paradigms. Others enjoy and benefit from such views -- and of those,
many, if not most, feel no need to sumbit their beliefs or practices to
the scrutiny of "testers."
> Now, that being said, I acknowledge that belief in such abilities may be so
> strong that no evidence of efficacy would even be asked by potential
> customers, so that would only be an issue if someone was placing so much
> dependence upon your services that their very life and well-being is placed
> in jeopardy, which would be pretty foolish. I suspect that sort of
> extremity is fairly rare. I doubt anyone would buy a flying spell and then
> jump off a building, relying on the spell to keep them safe. Most folks use
> spellcraft more casually. So let's consider other aspect that maybe you
> *can* address effectively.
You are correct. There are relatively few bizarrely foolish people in
the world, and no more of them seem to wander into the average
tarot-reader's parlor or occult shop than wander into their local Trader
Joe's grocery store or dentisits' office.
Didja read the recent news story about the man who put his lover's
daughter in the clothes drying machine at a local laundromat because she
liked to be "whirled around"? Luckily the toddler escaped with her life
and a few severe burns. The judge's verdict: essentially that the man
was stupidly foolish, not vicious.
Foolish people such as this cannot be sufficiently protected by
legislation, nor can they be protected by attempting to shame or
legislate against those who my encounter them while in the performance
of their own professions, whether those professions are in "nuts and
bolts" trades (lik operating a laundromat) or in inter-subjective
proafessions (like card reading).
> There are some things you might be able to provide with a professional
> organization that issues some sort of certification. I suppose you can at
> least offer some sort of guarantee that your practitioners are knowledgeable
> in the field of spell-casting by designing some sort of basic knowledge test
> as to the procedures. You might also create some sort of guidelines for
> diagnostics that would help a spell-caster know when to call in other forms
> of support or referrals.
Yes, we can do these things. There are other issues we are interested in
asd well:
Will the reader actually perform a reading, or is that soun o riffling
cards on the telephone line merely a cover for a cold (canned) reading?
Does the person who accepts payment for praying and/or setting lights
actually perform the prayers or the setting of lights?
Does the reader /pactitioner refrain from back-biting, gossip,
tale-telling, or rumour-mongering about clients?
Does the reader / practitioner perform the work contracted for at the
price contraced without last-minute changes in cost or procudres?
> Enforcement would be tricky, too, but that's a problem for lots of
> professional organizations. You might want to have your members provide
> their clients with a means for filing complaints with your organization if
> they feel the spell-caster in question has violated their professional
> standards, sort of like the Better Business Bureau does.
Exactly.
> You might, for
> example, produce a pamphlet on ethical practices used by spell-casters in
> your organization, outlining what a consumer can expect from a member's
> services, and include an address, website, or e-mail address where
> complaints could be filed.
Very true.
> You should have some sort of arrangement for
> inquiring into such complaints to see if they have merit.
Correct.
> Someone found to
> be in violation of the standards would face sanctions, up to and including
> expulsion from the organization and be obliged to make restitution.
Indeed. Furthermore, there is the matter of protecting workers and
readers from fraudulent clients. All of us who work in this field are
well aware of the problems we face with clients who play one reader off
against another, who arrange for expensive services and default on
payments, who lie about their condition and then jump salty when they
are found out, and so forth.
Most readers and workers -- like many proprieors of restaurants, taxi
services, bars, and clubs that deal with an unselected cross-section of
the public -- maintain what are known as "86" lists. An organization of
readers and workers can agree to pool their lists of customers who have
been 86'ed for the mutual benefit of all members.
cat yronwode
Erwin Hessle
> Tom wrote:
> > How will
> > you determine a set of best practices in a field that has no objective
> > standards of performance at all?
>
> I think a combination of honesty in advertising,
"STAR ANISE $2.00
"Stops misfortunes, increases psychic power, brings back a lost love,
increases good luck."
From:
http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatherbs.html
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
David Carter
Ha!
Erwhine makes a telling point.
Eventually. Against the run of play.
Carter
Kaos
> "WaterWalker" <WalksonWater_saynotospam@shaw.> wrote in message
> news:E4aFg.429353$IK3.189467@pd7tw1no...
> > There is also the placebo effect, which I think is beneficial and shows
> > that either we can heal ourselves when we think we have help or we have
> > help from some source.
>
> The placebo effect does not bring you money or love, the two most common
> requests for spells.
It can, however, bolster the self confidence of an unskeptical
recipient. And if low self confidence is the primary issue with
attaining either (as is especially common with love,) there will be some
benefit.
catherine yronwode
> Carter
I see no "telling point." One either believes in herb magic or one does
not. I do, and have no trouble saying so, and i use many such recipes,
formulas, and herbal prescriptions myself, with full faith and
confidence. My catalogue lists traditional uses of herbs in African
American folk magic. The descriptions are basically one-line versions of
the full entries in my popular book "Hoodoo Herb and Root Magic."
Here is a thought-experiment that may help some people uncover and
examine their beliefs about the honesty of "selling" articles for use in
magical rites. Below are two dozen clips from internet sources about how
to magically purify rooms, objects, and/or living beings. They represent
magical traditions from various cultures and were accessed by google today:
01 "Incense can be offered for the upliftment, purification and
well-being of others ...in the Biblical Christian and Jewish traditions"
02 "[Tibetan Buddhist] prayer wheels are ... powerful in purifying
negative karmas"
03 "[female deities] Khordad, Esphand and Amurdad ... keep the evil eye
away and ritually purify the space ... Esfand is made from wild rue
[actually Syrian Rue, Perganum harmala, not European Rue, Ruta
graveolens --cat) and is burned in many Zoroastrian ceremonies, rituals
and purification rites in Iranian homes."
04 "Traditional [Native American] purifying herbs including: White Sage,
Juniper, Cedar "
05 "Walk around the perimeter of our working space purifying it"
06 "Goriyo: follow annual Monsoon Austerity Ritual of Purification by
not eating cooked food for one or two weeks"
07 "Pick up the censor and purify the room with Fire starting in the East"
08 "Boneset can be used to purify a sick-room"
09 "Mist fountains generate negative ions, which help to purify the air
in the room"
10 "Use an all-natural orange essential oil room spray to purify the space"
11 "Purification is of the Birch tree"
12 "Purify the room with Fire and Water and the Lesser Banishing Ritual
of the
Pentagram"
13 "Pass your Pentagram through the smoke from the incense to
symbolically purify it"
14 "Scotch Broom: Sweep your outside ritual areas with it to purify"
15 "The standard color for circle-drawing is white for purity, and
anything can be used, from a rope, to chalk, to salt. White = Highest
Consciousness To Protect / Purify"
16 "Most folks like to cleanse and purify the home in a counterclockwise
fashion.... You may want to perform the Lesser Banishing Pentagram Ritual."
17 "As salt is life, let it purify me in all ways that I may use it"
18 "Asperge: To sprinkle with water before or during a ritual, to purify"
19 "The burning of incense has been known to purify the air and uplift
our spirits"
20 "Native Americans have uitlized earth's White Sage to purify space"
21 "There are numerous references in the Old Testament to ritual
purification with water"
22 "Purify the area with incense and sprinkling salt"
23 "Blood rituals are necessary to redirect violence onto
inconsequential victims in order to purify the community"
24 "Tibetan carry treasure box contain ritual offering grains of barley,
pulses, and rice. Grains for purify body and use for lama to put on top
(head) of human"
Now ask yourself if there a great different in your mind between the
*spiritual valiidity* of these 24 rites of purification in their various
cultures. If there is, then that is a measure of your adherence to one
culture's system of magic over others and/or a measure of your ignorance
about systems of magic oter than your own.
Leaving aside for a moment the commercial aspect of magic, we see that
the above 24 methods of magical purification comprise 34 separate
activities, some mentioned in more than one rite:
Activities for Magical Purification
01 Burn Incense (Biblical Frankincense)
02 Spin a Tibetan Buddhist prayer wheel
03 A) Burn esphand / Espand / Esfand seeds on charcoal
B) Recite prayer to female deity Spenta Armaiti (Espand)
C) Waft smoke around the body
04 Burn Incense (Cedar, Juniper, White Sage)
05 Walk around the perimeter of a space
06 Abstain from eating cooked foods
07 Burn Fire in a censer
08 Sprinkle Boneset tea
09 Install and operate a mist fountain
10 Spray orange essential oil
11 Sprinkle Birch tree tea
12 A) Light Fire
B) Sprinkle Water
C) Perform the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram
13 A) Burn incense (unspeciified type)
B) Pass Pentagram through incense smoke
14 Sweep outdoors with a branch of Scotch Broom
15 Draw or lay down a circle of white items
16 A) Walk the perimeter counterclockwise
B) Perform the Lesser Banishing Pentagram Ritual
17 A) Say invocation over salt
B) Sprinkle dry salt or dissolve salt in water and use in asperging
18 Asperge with water
19 Burn incense (unspeciified type)
20 Burn White Sage as incense
21 Bathe with water (Biblical mikva)
22 A) Burn incense (unspeciified type)
B) Sprinkle salt
23 A) Slaughter animal or otherwise "inconsequential victim "
B) Mark beings or objects with blood
24 A) Carry box containing grains of barley, pulses, and rice
B) Priest (lama) put grains on top of congregant's head
Now, let's look at the "selling" aspect of these rites of purification.
The 24 rites and 34 activites make use of the following 34 active agents
and items of commerce:
Items of Commerce
Animal (alive) to sacrifice for collection of Blood
Barley grain
Birch Tree leaves
Boneset leaves
Book (Scripture, Rituals, Prayers, LBP, etc.)
Box to carry grains
Cedar wood
Censer
Chalk
Charcoal
Computer with Internet Access (Scripture, Rituals, Prayers, LBP, etc.)
Espand seed
Frankincense resin
Juniper wood
Knife (to kill animal and obtain blood)
Myrrh resin
Orange Essential Oil
Prayer Wheel
Pulses (pea and bean family seeds)
Rice grain
Rope (sisal, manila hemp, hemp)
Scotch Broom branch
Water
Water Mist Fountain
White Sage leaves
Only 2 of these articles can be had by non-gardeners, non-farmers, and
non-wild-crafters without recourse to commerce: If you are fortunate
enough to live near a river and know how to kindle fire with a string
bow, you can get fire and water for free. However, if your water is
piped to you or comes in a bottle, or if you use matches, a lighter, or
a stove to ignite your fire, then commerce is necessary to every ritual
of purification except number 06 (Abstain from eating cooked foods).
So let's be honest -- we live in a world where magic has been
commodified for so long that the only real question is, "is the article
being sold labelled corectly?" -- that is, if i promise to sell you
Frankincense resin, is it really from the Boswellia genus in the Bursera family?
And THAT is the kind of "honsty" i was speaking of.
By the way, in the above clips of text describing purification rites
from various cultures, only 1 of the 24 came from my Lucky Mojo site.
Can you guess which one?
cat yronwode
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://luckymojo.com.com/catalogue
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>> Erwin Hessle wrote:
>>> catherine yronwode wrote:
>>>> Tom wrote:
>
>>>>> How will you determine a set of best
>>>>> practices in a field that has no objective
>>>>> standards of performance at all?
>
>>>> I think a combination of honesty in advertising,
>>> "STAR ANISE $2.00
>>> "Stops misfortunes, increases psychic power, brings
>>> back a lost love, increases good luck."
>>>
>>> From:
>>>
>>> http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatherbs.html
>>>
>>> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>> Ha!
>>
>> Erwhine makes a telling point.
>>
>> Carter
>
> I see no "telling point."
I am sure it doesnt suit you to see one.
> One either believes in herb magic or one does
> not.
Magic is not about belief, it is about results. In any event, you are
not talking about herb 'Magick' (whatever that is apart from a sales
line), if Erwhine quoted your site properly (and I could easily believe
he didn't, the guy is incompetent at just about everything else), then
you are talking about an intrinsic property of the herb you mentioned.
Can you support your marketing hype that Anise "Stops misfortunes,
increases psychic power, brings back a lost love, increases good luck."?
I doubt it.
I do, and have no trouble saying so, and i use many such recipes,
> formulas, and herbal prescriptions myself, with full faith and
> confidence.
But no proof. The ad doesnt actually say 'some people believe", it
suggests that what are unsupported claims as facts. Bad.
<lots of bumph attempting to divert away unethical advertising snipped
Erwin Hessle
catherine yronwode wrote:
> So let's be honest -- we live in a world where magic has been
> commodified for so long that the only real question
The only real question for one with a vested interest in the peddling
of misinformation, maybe.
"Let's be honest" - heh.
> is, "is the article
> being sold labelled corectly?"
This:
"STAR ANISE $2.00
"Stops misfortunes, increases psychic power, brings back a lost love,
increases good luck."
From:
http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatherbs.html
is not labelled correctly. Reword it very slightly as this:
"BIG MAC $2.49
"Stops misfortunes, increases psychic power, brings back a lost love,
increases good luck."
and you'll see what I mean.
> And THAT is the kind of "honsty" i was speaking of.
Me too.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
LuckyH.
catherine yronwode wrote:
> David Carter wrote:
> >
> > Erwin Hessle wrote:
> > > catherine yronwode wrote:
> > >> Tom wrote:
>
> > >>> How will you determine a set of best
> > >>> practices in a field that has no objective
> > >>> standards of performance at all?
>
> > >> I think a combination of honesty in advertising,
> > >
> > > "STAR ANISE $2.00
> > > "Stops misfortunes, increases psychic power, brings
> > > back a lost love, increases good luck."
> > >
> > > From:
> > >
> > > http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatherbs.html
> > >
> > > Erwin Hessle, 8=3
> >
> > Ha!
> >
> > Erwhine makes a telling point.
> >
> > Carter
>
> I see no "telling point." One either believes in herb magic or one does
> not.
The world is not as grey as you would have it be, Cat.
(The rest of the"LuckyMojo" advertisment snipped)
-jASE
LuckyH.
LuckyH. wrote:
> The world is not as grey as you would have it be, Cat.
oops. Doesn't make sense unless you tack on a "?" at the end of the
above statement, instead of a period.
-Jason
catherine yronwode
>
> The ad doesnt actually say 'some people believe", it
> suggests that what are unsupported claims as facts. Bad.
The catalogue entry explains magical usage within the context of a known
and traditional system of magic. Belief in herb magic is understood as
the foundational a priori paradigm in any discussion of herb magic.
"Jesus saves" is not false advertising either. Nor is "Buddhist pactice
liberates one from karma." Nor is "White is the colour of purity." Nor
is "Spenta Armentii is the goddess of protection invoked through the
herb Espand." Nor is "There are five elements: water, earth, air, fire,
and metal."
These are not "unsupported claims" that are being made within the
context of a skeptical-rational-atheist belief system.
Rather, they are statements of belief that are being made within the
contexts of their own various traditional belief systems.
As such, they require no "support" from tradtions outside themselves.
One need not validate salvation through Jesus by means of the atomic
table of elements, and one need not validate the Chinese Five Elements
system by means of belief in Spenta Armentii. Each belief system is
whole and adeqyate unto itself.
Skeptical-rational-atheist beliefs systems are not the only belief
systems, thank God, or Goddess, or Spirit, as the case may be.
cat yronwode
http://southern-spirits.com
African American magic and spirituality
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>> The ad doesnt actually say 'some people believe", it
>> suggests that what are unsupported claims as facts. Bad.
>
> The catalogue entry explains magical usage within the context of a known
> and traditional system of magic. Belief in herb magic is understood as
> the foundational a priori paradigm in any discussion of herb magic.
>
> "Jesus saves" is not false advertising either.
Nt the same thing. Nobody in their right mind would believe that a peron
(?) who died in excess of 2000 years ago could save anything or anyone.
In any case, I dont recall anyone charging for making Jesus save anyone.
If they did they would no doubt be prosecuted
> Nor is "Buddhist pactice
> liberates one from karma."
Ditto
> Nor is "White is the colour of purity." Nor
> is "Spenta Armentii is the goddess of protection invoked through the
> herb Espand." Nor is "There are five elements: water, earth, air, fire,
> and metal."
Noe of these things is equivalenet - they all employ an invisible agency
and are all equally improbable to the thinking person.
In contrast, you say This thing which you can buy from me - does - that,
and have absolutely no evidence to back it up. All your twisting and
bending will not change that fact.
>
> These are not "unsupported claims" that are being made within the
> context of a skeptical-rational-atheist belief system.
of course they are unsupported. Can you support any of them?
>
> Rather, they are statements of belief that are being made within the
> contexts of their own various traditional belief systems.
The examples you quote are not equivalent as I have pointed out.
>
> As such, they require no "support" from tradtions outside themselves.
If they are to be stated as facts they most certainly do.
<blah snipped>
I am beginning to believe you are both a fraud and recalcitrant.
Carter
catherine yronwode
You've made a fundamental error that obviates your argument:
Espand herb seeds are most definitely NOT "an invisible agency" and they
are indeed for sale all over the world and all over the net and they are
sold and used for the purpose of taking off the evil eye and providing
protection. Do a google search on Espand / Esphand / Esfand / Aspand /
Harmala.
Now, in the first part of your post, you go out of your way to make a
clear distinction between application to "invisible agencies" and
application of actual physical agents -- as if this distinction was of
some consequence to you. Such a line of demarcation is not drawn by
people in all cultures, and thus your parochial viewpoint is laid bare
--
-- but then you drop any line of reasoning in which the distinction
between "invisible agencies" and application of actual physical agents
is important, and sink to a far lower rhetorical level, charging that
those who belive in and work with religio-magical invisible agencies
and/or pysical agents are not "in their right mind." This misuse of
diagnostic standards of mental health is aimed in an insulting,
intolerant, and supercillious way toward any people who do not believe
as you do.
That being the case, you are hardly worthy of further attention.
catherine yronwode
Joseph Littleshoes
> catherine yronwode wrote:
>
>> David Carter wrote:
>>
>>> The ad doesnt actually say 'some people believe", it
>>> suggests that what are unsupported claims as facts. Bad.
>>
>>
>> The catalogue entry explains magical usage within the context of a known
>> and traditional system of magic. Belief in herb magic is understood as
>> the foundational a priori paradigm in any discussion of herb magic.
>> "Jesus saves" is not false advertising either.
>
>
>
> Nt the same thing. Nobody in their right mind would believe that a peron
> (?) who died in excess of 2000 years ago could save anything or anyone.
> In any case, I dont recall anyone charging for making Jesus save anyone.
> If they did they would no doubt be prosecuted
"Tithing" some fundie churches demand a person reveal their personal
worth and assesses the biblical amount considered appropriate.
>
>
>> Nor is "Buddhist pactice
>> liberates one from karma."
>
>
> Ditto
Believe it or not their are intolerant bigoted fundie buddhists who, in
practice are no better than their xtian counterparts, Nichiren Shoshu
for example, where not only are certain funds expected to be given to
the organization but they actually maintain a 'one way' dogma regarding
their teachings.
>
>> Nor is "White is the colour of purity." Nor
>> is "Spenta Armentii is the goddess of protection invoked through the
>> herb Espand." Nor is "There are five elements: water, earth, air, fire,
>> and metal."
>
>
> Noe of these things is equivalenet - they all employ an invisible agency
> and are all equally improbable to the thinking person.
You are missing the point. Some people choose of their own free will to
believe in and practice beliefs that are not recognized by 'science' as
being valid, this does not mean they are fraud per se. People have
favourite colours, foods, habits, ways of doing things that many other
people may not agree with, but which, outside of a totalitarian police
state are allowed as personal choice. Some people believe in a creator
god others in Darwin & neither should be accused of 'fraud'.
> <carter's blah snipped>
>
> I am beginning to believe you are both a fraud and recalcitrant.
>
> Carter
And you are, apparently just another intolerant bigot who wont consider
anything outside your own bias and prejudice.
---
JL
LuckyH.
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> And you are, apparently just another intolerant bigot who wont consider
> anything outside your own bias and prejudice.
> ---
> JL
> >
> >>
> >> cat yronwode
> >> http://southern-spirits.com African American magic and spirituality
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen JL write such a harsh post.
JL, no offense but David does have a point. (I don't agree with
everything he writes, but yes, he does have a point.)
You seem to actively come to the aid of anyone questioning/criticizing
Cat. I would suggest that you back off a bit and let the woman handle
her own.
Believe it or not, much of the criticizism directed at Cat is apt.
Immediately coming to her defense is not going to provoke the thoughts
necesary that might sway Cat into altering some of her "dubious"
behavior. In fact, just the opposite, it will encourage her to
continue engaging in such activities.
-Jason
LuckyH.
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> And you are, apparently just another intolerant bigot who wont consider
> anything outside your own bias and prejudice.
> ---
> JL
> >
> >>
> >> cat yronwode
> >> http://southern-spirits.com African American magic and spirituality
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen JL write such a harsh post.
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>>And you are, apparently just another intolerant bigot who wont consider
>>anything outside your own bias and prejudice.
>>---
>>JL
>>
>>>>cat yronwode
>>>>http://southern-spirits.com African American magic and spirituality
>
>
> Wow. I don't think I've ever seen JL write such a harsh post.
>
> JL, no offense but David does have a point. (I don't agree with
> everything he writes, but yes, he does have a point.)
>
Obviously i disagree with his assessment of cat and by extension anyone
practising folk magick. To say nothing of his biased and faulty attempt
at 'logic'.
> You seem to actively come to the aid of anyone questioning/criticizing
> Cat. I would suggest that you back off a bit and let the woman handle
> her own.
You are under a misapprehension, while i readily admit to an admiration
of cat's work & writings, both internet related and in "real life" the
above "aid" you mention i would have tendered to anyone attacked in such
a manner.
I take it you did not see my reply to the xtian fundamentalist
'end of times' post? in ARW?
>
> Believe it or not, much of the criticizism directed at Cat is apt.
I do not agree, i have yet to see a valid "criticism" of cat. And those
non valid critic's that i have seen are transparently biased and the
hostility they exhibit is more telling than any opinion they may contain.
> Immediately
"Immediately"? check the dates on this thread.
coming to her defense is not going to provoke the thoughts
> necesary that might sway Cat into altering some of her "dubious"
> behavior.
Obviously i have no desire to alter cats behaviour nor do i consider it
"dubious".
In fact, just the opposite, it will encourage her to
> continue engaging in such activities.
And more power to her i say, what have you accomplished Jason, what are
the proofs that are the results of your life's work? Cat is very
accessible, easily found, and documented along with her work, who are
you Jason and what have you done?
It seems to me that those who have done the least are the quickest to
judge the work of others, and that, usually with an obvious jealousy of
other peoples accomplishments. Quite often, especially in these news
groups, those who cant do something note worthy criticize the work of
those who do. What's the old saw, "put up or shut up"?
---
JL
>
> -Jason
>
LuckyH.
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> LuckyH. wrote:
>
> > Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> >
> >>And you are, apparently just another intolerant bigot who wont consider
> >>anything outside your own bias and prejudice.
> >>---
> >>JL
> >>
> >>>>cat yronwode
> >>>>http://southern-spirits.com African American magic and spirituality
> >
> >
> > Wow. I don't think I've ever seen JL write such a harsh post.
> >
> > JL, no offense but David does have a point. (I don't agree with
> > everything he writes, but yes, he does have a point.)
> >
>
> Obviously i disagree with his assessment of cat and by extension anyone
> practising folk magick. To say nothing of his biased and faulty attempt
> at 'logic'.
You are free to disagree, but when you attempt to turn a person into a
saint, you are crossing the line.
>
> > You seem to actively come to the aid of anyone questioning/criticizing
> > Cat. I would suggest that you back off a bit and let the woman handle
> > her own.
>
> You are under a misapprehension, while i readily admit to an admiration
> of cat's work & writings, both internet related and in "real life" the
> above "aid" you mention i would have tendered to anyone attacked in such
> a manner.
JL, there's a difference between "criticism" and "attacking". If you
don't know what the difference is, then you need to start maturing.
>
> I take it you did not see my reply to the xtian fundamentalist
> 'end of times' post? in ARW?
I'm not interested in your life.
>
> >
> > Believe it or not, much of the criticizism directed at Cat is apt.
>
> I do not agree, i have yet to see a valid "criticism" of cat.
It's because you are too busy worshiping her to see her faults.
> And those
> non valid critic's that i have seen are transparently biased and the
> hostility they exhibit is more telling than any opinion they may contain.
There is no such thing as "non-valid" critics. Again, you need to be a
bit more mature.
>
> > Immediately
>
> "Immediately"? check the dates on this thread.
>
> coming to her defense is not going to provoke the thoughts
> > necesary that might sway Cat into altering some of her "dubious"
> > behavior.
>
> Obviously i have no desire to alter cats behaviour nor do i consider it
> "dubious".
>
> In fact, just the opposite, it will encourage her to
> > continue engaging in such activities.
What activities would those be? Again, you so idolize Cat that you are
blind to her faults, as well as the "dubious" activities she engages
in.
>
> And more power to her i say, what have you accomplished Jason, what are
> the proofs that are the results of your life's work? Cat is very
> accessible, easily found, and documented along with her work, who are
> you Jason and what have you done?
LOL....Who am I? I'm Jason. I have no need to "toot my own horn"
unlike certain others. Unlike some people, I don't turn every post I
make in usenet into a lengthy advertisement.
Who the hell are you, JL?
> It seems to me that those who have done the least are the quickest to
> judge the work of others, and that, usually with an obvious jealousy of
> other peoples accomplishments.
You are ignorant, JL. To think I even gave you the benefit of sanity
when some of your posts where extremely far out there.
Busines Success/Prosperity doesn't equate to "Being a Good Person".
Again, you seem to be very immature when it comes to knowing things of
this nature.
If you can't see this then you are blind.
> Quite often, especially in these news
> groups, those who cant do something note worthy criticize the work of
> those who do. What's the old saw, "put up or shut up"?
And then there's the blind and ignorant followers like you.
It's o.k. JL, I use to be like you, a vast mind-less zombie, who was
hypnotized by Cat's "smoke and mirrors". The difference is that I
snapped out of it and was fortunate enough to be put into a position to
see a side of Cat that she doesn't reveal to her *groupies*.
-Jason
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>>LuckyH. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>>
>>>JL, no offense but David does have a point. (I don't agree with
>>>everything he writes, but yes, he does have a point.)
>>>
>>
>>Obviously i disagree with his assessment of cat
> You are free to disagree, but when you attempt to turn a person into a
> saint, you are crossing the line.
Google has a long memory. And mine aint too shabby.
Date: Thurs, May 4 2006 10:36 am
Email: "LuckyH." <Lucky...@aol.com>
Groups: alt.lucky.w
I would like to take the time to publicly apologise to Dara, Cat, &
Eoghan.
To Cat,
How dare I criticize a percieved "know-it-all" attitude in you when I
myself acted like one.
I am greatly sorry.
To Dara,
How dare I critisize you for claiming you do not create. As a woman
you are most definately creating, and bearing the responsibility for
furthering the human race.
To Eoghan,
How dare I argue with you when your knowledge is indeed like an
encyclopedia. I should have been agreeing with you instead of choosing
to argue over truly pointless things.
I am an ass, a fool, and was priorly coming from a dark place of
judgement.
Again, I humbly apologize.
-Jason
=======
Given your posting history "Jason" it is readily apparent that you cant
seem to make up your mind, about yourself much less any one else.
---
JL
> You are ignorant, JL. To think I even gave you the benefit of sanity
> when some of your posts where extremely far out there.
>
>
LuckyH.
JL, for your information, I was being "the better person". I could
have gladly run to google history and posted the times where Cat
completley contradicted herself as well as the many time she flat out
ignored posts you made to her.
Grow up.
-Jason
Joseph Littleshoes
> Why does every-nut case immediately run to google history?
If you don't like it don't supply it with ammunition that can be used
against you. Your own words indict you jason, and that is nobody's
fault but your own.
"He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it."
>
> JL, for your information, I was being "the better person".
"I am an ass, a fool, and was priorly coming from a dark place of
judgement.
Again, I humbly apologize.
-Jason"
You may try to be the 'better person', from one day to the next,
however, consistency is a virtue, jason, you seem to lack a consistent
to say nothing of a coherent approach to life.
I have seen you so many times announce to these groups that you have
found this secret or that "Truth" only to drop it and move on to what
ever bright, shiny object next attracts your attention.
Personally i think your "dark place" has had the upper hand for a very
long time, and i mean that more in a psychological than any occult or
mystical sense. And your present 'knee jerk' (emphasis on "jerk")
reaction to myself, who has been nothing if not supportive of your
efforts these last few years, is indicative of this.
I could
> have gladly run to google history and posted the times where Cat
> completley contradicted herself
I would like to see you do that. But even if you do, read some Seneca
first, i do not expect people to be perfect, humans are fallible
creatures more prone to disappoint than fulfil each other.
as well as the many time she flat out
> ignored posts you made to her.
She would not be the first. Ignoring my many, often times rambling,
esoteric, obscure postings of a unique (some say deranged) mind is a
sign of intelligence IMO. You might save yourself some grief by taking
a lesson from her in this.
>
> Grow up.
Surly you can do better than that. To paraphrase Tacitus "Capax imporii
nisi imperasset" which in your case i would amend to read something to
the effect, "if you had never spoke no one would have questioned your
ability to do so."
If anyone's interested in your inconsistencies all they have to do is
google "Jason+apology" to see how many times you have contradicted
yourself, admitted to posting drunk and engaging in drunken abuse of
other posters and generally demonstrating a less than coherent approach
to the subject of these groups.
I have lost track of all your pseudonyms, but adding 'idiot' to a google
search on your present nom de net will turn up many, many posts giving
other peoples impressions of your 'contributions'.
And of course, claiming everybody is wrong about you, that they are all
"idiots" is just the type of claim to demonstrate how right they are.
Gloria en et Domini
-------------------
Joseph Littleshoes
>
> -Jason
>
LuckyH.
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> LuckyH. wrote:
>
> > Why does every-nut case immediately run to google history?
>
> If you don't like it don't supply it with ammunition that can be used
> against you. Your own words indict you jason, and that is nobody's
> fault but your own.
"My own words indict me?" You are trying to make it seem as if having
integrity is a bad thing. I only apologized for the instances where I
stepped over the line. I did not accept blame for the wrong-doings as
committed by such individuals.
>
> "He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it."
One must have adequate knowledge of history before one attempts to use
such saying.
> >
> > JL, for your information, I was being "the better person".
>
>
> "I am an ass, a fool, and was priorly coming from a dark place of
> judgement.
>
> Again, I humbly apologize.
>
> -Jason"
>
> You may try to be the 'better person', from one day to the next,
> however, consistency is a virtue, jason, you seem to lack a consistent
> to say nothing of a coherent approach to life.
I could literaly post the crazy replies you have made in an attempt to
suck-up to Cat and others, all of which were convienently ignored by
said parties.
>
> I have seen you so many times announce to these groups that you have
> found this secret or that "Truth" only to drop it and move on to what
> ever bright, shiny object next attracts your attention.
WTF? I think you are confusing me with someone else.
>
> Personally i think your "dark place" has had the upper hand for a very
> long time, and i mean that more in a psychological than any occult or
> mystical sense. And your present 'knee jerk' (emphasis on "jerk")
> reaction to myself, who has been nothing if not supportive of your
> efforts these last few years, is indicative of this.
I've tolerated your weirdness simply because I tolerate weirdness.
This doens't mean that I enjoy your company.
>
> I could
> > have gladly run to google history and posted the times where Cat
> > completley contradicted herself
>
> I would like to see you do that. But even if you do, read some Seneca
> first, i do not expect people to be perfect, humans are fallible
> creatures more prone to disappoint than fulfil each other.
Duh. Neither do I. I will not, however, stoop to your level and waste
my valuable time in order to find every crazy post you have made that
nobody responded to. It's your posts, you locate them.
>
> as well as the many time she flat out
> > ignored posts you made to her.
>
> She would not be the first. Ignoring my many, often times rambling,
> esoteric, obscure postings of a unique (some say deranged) mind is a
> sign of intelligence IMO. You might save yourself some grief by taking
> a lesson from her in this.
I don't mind accepting wisdom where I find it. I also don't have a
problem directing criticism where it is sorely due.
>
> >
> > Grow up.
>
> Surly you can do better than that. To paraphrase Tacitus "Capax imporii
> nisi imperasset" which in your case i would amend to read something to
> the effect, "if you had never spoke no one would have questioned your
> ability to do so."
I have no fear of speaking my opinion. Nor do I fear those who
reference obscure quotes in order to impress.
>
> If anyone's interested in your inconsistencies all they have to do is
> google "Jason+apology" to see how many times you have contradicted
> yourself, admitted to posting drunk and engaging in drunken abuse of
> other posters and generally demonstrating a less than coherent approach
> to the subject of these groups.
BRAVE TO IGNORANCE!!!!
JL, there is more than one "Jason" on usenet. I have never posted
"being drunk" and "apologizing" to anyone. Again, this mistake would
be indicitive of a confused mental state.
>
> I have lost track of all your pseudonyms, but adding 'idiot' to a google
> search on your present nom de net will turn up many, many posts giving
> other peoples impressions of your 'contributions'.
I have no pseudonyms! I have posted under my screen-name for
years!!!!!! I have signed my first name, "Jason", to the posts I make
with this same screen-name for years. I do not post in usenet under
any other screen name! Got that?
(Why is it that every nut online automaticaly claims anyone who
criticizes them is guilty of "sock-puppetry" or multiple online
identities?...LOL)
>
> And of course, claiming everybody is wrong about you, that they are all
> "idiots" is just the type of claim to demonstrate how right they are.
Never did any such thing. Perhaps it is likely you are confusing me
for another "Jason" you randomly googled. Again, why are all the nuts
fond of google-ing usenet history?
-Jason (Me, not someone else, not a sock-puppet, not a multiple
identitiy, just plain and wonderful me!)
David Carter
Exactly, which is why the nonsense about Jesus saves and all the rest of
it is not relevant to your argument.
>
> Now, in the first part of your post, you go out of your way to make a
> clear distinction between application to "invisible agencies" and
> application of actual physical agents -- as if this distinction was of
> some consequence to you.
It is of no consequence to me at all, you are the one trying to defend
what you already know is indefensible.
Such a line of demarcation is not drawn by
> people in all cultures, and thus your parochial viewpoint is laid bare
We are not in 'all cultures' we are in a culture where hons=est
advertising is important. It is you who is locked into some other
culture. With respect you need to get with the program, your advertising
is dishonest as several people have pointed out.
Carter
Asiya
Joseph is probably confusing you with Jason Dean Scott, someone who was
a prolific poster a few years ago.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
Ludwig Prinn
> > ridiculous prejudice. skilled individuals should be
> > adequately compensated for the enlisting of their
> > time and expertise no matter their profession.
>
> Unless, of course, what is promised is not delivered. The problem with
> "services of a magical nature" is in the determination of results.
Well, it's fairly straightforward. No results, no pay. If the person
was paid in advance, there should be options for recourse.
> People pay for services because they expect those services to cause some
> particular thing to happen. While there is a measure of doubt in most
> services that the outcome will be the desired one, at least there are
> accepted standards in most professions about whether or not the sefvices
> have been rendered competently. For example, when one goes to a medical
> doctor, the desired outcome is that one will be cured. That doesn't always
> happen. Yet, the medical profession itself has certain standards of care
> and procedurtes that are intended to maximize the chances of the desired
> outcome. If the doctor does not follow these procedures and meet those
> accepted standards, there are repercussions, sometimes very serious ones.
> There is a concerted effort to protect the public from medical fraud.
Okay, now you're just belaboring the point. No results, no pay. It's
that simple. Worse yet, most businesses can be made or broken by
word-of-mouth.
The other danger of this sort of business is not that the customers
will not be satisfied, but that they will be TOO satisfied. We
experimented with pimping our wands out a few years ago, and we did
fairly well for the brief time during which we did business. We had
over a dozen clients extremely happy with their results, and most of
them called back for more work. The problem arose when some of the
clients came to the point of hitting us up for a spell pretty much
every week or so, and then wanting endless phone counseling over this
or that. We *could* have gone ahead and soaked these people for
everything they had, in the meantime whiling away our evenings talking
people through living a normal life, but we chose not to and closed up
shop instead.
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>
>> catherine yronwode wrote:
>>
>>> David Carter wrote:
>>>
>>>> The ad doesnt actually say 'some people believe", it
>>>> suggests that what are unsupported claims as facts. Bad.
>>>
>>>
>>> The catalogue entry explains magical usage within the context of a known
>>> and traditional system of magic. Belief in herb magic is understood as
>>> the foundational a priori paradigm in any discussion of herb magic.
>>> "Jesus saves" is not false advertising either.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nt the same thing. Nobody in their right mind would believe that a
>> peron (?) who died in excess of 2000 years ago could save anything or
>> anyone. In any case, I dont recall anyone charging for making Jesus
>> save anyone. If they did they would no doubt be prosecuted
>
> "Tithing" some fundie churches demand a person reveal their personal
> worth and assesses the biblical amount considered appropriate.
Sure, but this is indirect, maintenance of the church. Nobody (to my
knowledge) has claimed that Tithng as an act 'saves'. Membership of the
Church and belief/compliance in the doctrines of the Church are said to
'save'.
>>
>>
>>> Nor is "Buddhist pactice
>>> liberates one from karma."
>>
>>
>> Ditto
>
> Believe it or not their are intolerant bigoted fundie buddhists who, in
> practice are no better than their xtian counterparts, Nichiren Shoshu
> for example, where not only are certain funds expected to be given to
> the organization but they actually maintain a 'one way' dogma regarding
> their teachings.
I absolutely agree, and have come into contact with a few of them. lay
Buddhists, on balance, are absolutely no better than Lay Christians.
I hear a lot from young people ridiculing the 'One Way' approach. Whilst
I agree there are many ways to achievement, they do not all achieve the
same thing in the same way (and many achieve nothing at all). There is
nothing wrong with deciding on a single approach and following that.
Indeed, imho it is essential if not fashionable.
Also, it needs to be said that many people use the 'many ways' principle
to justify their own lack of focus and purpose. These people become or
remain dabblers and dilettantes. It is worth bearing in mind that
enlightenment only comes from assiduous practice of a single way for a
long period of time.
>
>>
>>> Nor is "White is the colour of purity." Nor
>>> is "Spenta Armentii is the goddess of protection invoked through the
>>> herb Espand." Nor is "There are five elements: water, earth, air, fire,
>>> and metal."
>>
>>
>> Noe of these things is equivalenet - they all employ an invisible
>> agency and are all equally improbable to the thinking person.
>
> You are missing the point. Some people choose of their own free will to
> believe in and practice beliefs that are not recognized by 'science' as
> being valid, this does not mean they are fraud per se. People have
> favourite colours, foods, habits, ways of doing things that many other
> people may not agree with, but which, outside of a totalitarian police
> state are allowed as personal choice. Some people believe in a creator
> god others in Darwin & neither should be accused of 'fraud'.
I accept the point you make but it is a separate and unrelated point to
the one I was making which is as follows: There are laws which govern
fair advertising, and there are principles which govern fair behaviour.
Cat violates both imho.
1. Statements that a herb brings luck or prevents depression are subject
to and probably violate advertising laws. The fact that no prosecution
has been bought thus far probably says more about how important her
business is than whether she may have violated the law.
2. As a matter of principal, I believe it is repugnant to advertise
these spurious claims in a manner which may well be designed to separate
newbies and dupes from their money. The claims would not be necessary to
'more experienced' people who have the belief that they are right since
they already hold the belief. Either way, they should not be there.
>> I am beginning to believe you are both a fraud and recalcitrant.
> And you are, apparently just another intolerant bigot who wont consider
> anything outside your own bias and prejudice.
Not at all. What I like or dislike is unimportant. What I am saying is
simply that Cat probably violates the law and certainly violates the
responsibility of anyone having knowledge to avoid deliberately making
unsupported or misleading or false claims.
My comment was non-perjorative and based on reason, whereas your
ad-hominem was based on personal opinion/likes/dislikes/prejudices.
I prefer my approach to yours. It is more adult.
Carter
David Carter
> LuckyH. wrote:
>
>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>
>>> And you are, apparently just another intolerant bigot who wont consider
>>> anything outside your own bias and prejudice.
>>> ---
>>> JL
>>>
>>>>> cat yronwode
>>>>> http://southern-spirits.com African American magic and spirituality
>>
>>
>> Wow. I don't think I've ever seen JL write such a harsh post.
>>
>> JL, no offense but David does have a point. (I don't agree with
>> everything he writes, but yes, he does have a point.)
>>
>
> Obviously i disagree with his assessment of cat and by extension anyone
> practising folk magick. To say nothing of his biased and faulty attempt
> at 'logic'.
But this is because of a defensiveness or friendhip with Cat, or a
feeling of guilt by association. It is not logic and reason.
Because of this, any value which your points may have is lost.
>
>> You seem to actively come to the aid of anyone questioning/criticizing
>> Cat. I would suggest that you back off a bit and let the woman handle
>> her own.
>
> You are under a misapprehension, while i readily admit to an admiration
> of cat's work & writings, both internet related and in "real life" the
> above "aid" you mention i would have tendered to anyone attacked in such
> a manner.
It doesnt seem that way, it does seem ou are partisan. Nothing wrong
with that of course, we all have friends. Friendship however should not
be used as an excuse for sloppy thinking. My opinion and I suspect the
opinion of many occultists, is that both Cat and Nagasiva are educated
and widely-read people with a lot of information, which comes through
loud and clear in everything substantive that they write. Theirs however
is an shallow intellectuals knowledge, merely facts, and lacking imho in
understanding. Which is why what they say meanders, over-analyses and
woffles as much as it does.
>
> I take it you did not see my reply to the xtian fundamentalist
> 'end of times' post? in ARW?
>
>>
>> Believe it or not, much of the criticizism directed at Cat is apt.
>
> I do not agree, i have yet to see a valid "criticism" of cat. And those
> non valid critic's that i have seen are transparently biased and the
> hostility they exhibit is more telling than any opinion they may contain.
It is clear that you dont agree. But your refusal to see valid
'criticism' of Cat is just that, a Nelson-like refusal to see the ships.
Besides, opinions are allowed to differ and there is no need for your
somewhat hysterical and defensive ad-hominems.
>
>> Immediately
>
> "Immediately"? check the dates on this thread.
>
> coming to her defense is not going to provoke the thoughts
>> necesary that might sway Cat into altering some of her "dubious"
>> behavior.
>
> Obviously i have no desire to alter cats behaviour nor do i consider it
> "dubious".
Which again is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I do not agree
with it and am entitled not to.
This isnt a big thing; Cats recalcitrance and your defensiveness are
difficult to understand. it is fine to come to the unreasoning aid of a
friend or hero, but mature adults are expected to balance their
automatic reactions with reason and objectivity.
>
> In fact, just the opposite, it will encourage her to
>> continue engaging in such activities.
It shouldnt do. It would do if she were a 9-year-old girl but he ought
to have progressed beyond that by now.
>
> And more power to her i say, what have you accomplished Jason, what are
> the proofs that are the results of your life's work? Cat is very
> accessible, easily found, and documented along with her work, who are
> you Jason and what have you done?
This is a spurious defence, attemting to divert the discussion to what
the person criticising has done rather than addressing the points made.
>
> It seems to me that those who have done the least are the quickest to
> judge the work of others, and that, usually with an obvious jealousy of
> other peoples accomplishments. Quite often, especially in these news
> groups, those who cant do something note worthy criticize the work of
> those who do. What's the old saw, "put up or shut up"?
> ---
> JL
>>
>> -Jason
>>
Ditto. I dont have to be a policeman to criticise a corrupt policeman. I
do not have to be a footballer to criticise bad play. Yours is just a
silly and immature argument in this case.
Carter
David Carter
That is pretty much the first time I have seen a reflective apology used
as a stick to try and beat someone. Dubious tactic at best.
Carter
Erwin Hessle
> It is worth bearing in mind that
> enlightenment only comes from assiduous practice of a single way for a
> long period of time.
Who told you this, Archie? Since you have clearly demonstrated that you
have no familiarity with any form of "assiduous practice" or
"enlightenment", it's unquestionably not from your own experience, so
who are you mindlessly parroting here?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
David Carter
>>> ridiculous prejudice. skilled individuals should be
>>> adequately compensated for the enlisting of their
>>> time and expertise no matter their profession.
>> Unless, of course, what is promised is not delivered. The problem with
>> "services of a magical nature" is in the determination of results.
>
> Well, it's fairly straightforward. No results, no pay. If the person
> was paid in advance, there should be options for recourse.
yep, I can see that in cats catalogue fer sure. "Spells guaranteed to
work or your money back". Yep.
Carter
Joseph Littleshoes
> That is pretty much the first time I have seen a reflective apology used
> as a stick to try and beat someone. Dubious tactic at best.
>
> Carter
>
But reflective of Jason's inconsistency, one day cat is admirable and
without cat changing the next day she is a fraud. Says more about Jason
to me than it does cat.
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>>
>> And more power to her i say, what have you accomplished Jason, what
>> are the proofs that are the results of your life's work? Cat is very
>> accessible, easily found, and documented along with her work, who are
>> you Jason and what have you done?
>
>
> This is a spurious defence, attemting to divert the discussion to what
> the person criticising has done rather than addressing the points made.
"Success is your proof" what have you done, for yourself or anyone else?
And why are you so "recalcitrant" about providing information about
yourself?
>
>
>
>>
>> It seems to me that those who have done the least are the quickest to
>> judge the work of others, and that, usually with an obvious jealousy
>> of other peoples accomplishments. Quite often, especially in these
>> news groups, those who cant do something note worthy criticize the
>> work of those who do. What's the old saw, "put up or shut up"?
>> ---
>> JL
>>
>>>
>>> -Jason
>>>
>
>
> Ditto. I dont have to be a policeman to criticise a corrupt policeman. I
> do not have to be a footballer to criticise bad play. Yours is just a
> silly and immature argument in this case.
You have to know something about corruption and football to make a valid
judgement, something in the context of this thread (folk magick) you
obviously have no knowledge of.
Practitioners of many sorts of religious beliefs routinely experience
condemnation from people who know nothing about the subjects they critic
except that it offends their 'common sense'.
Atheists and sceptics tend to be very harsh in their condemnation of
things they maintain don't exist so don't know enough about to expect to
be taken seriously, except by their ilk.
If it weren't that you have demonstrated a closed mind on the subject i
would be willing to discuss sympathetic and associative magick but at
this point it seems to me it would be a waste of time.
---
JL
>
> Carter
>
LuckyH.
JL, If you haven't figured out by yet, I have accused you of being
immature and rather ignorant.
1.) I've never accused Cat of being a Fraud. Her interest in Hoodoo
and Magic is legit.
2.) The world is not "black and white" and neither are people's
personalities and behavior. I have both positive and negative opinions
of Cat. These opinions co-exist quite easily in my mind. Think of it
like a family member who truly pisses you off, but you love them anyway
because they are family.
Please don't confuse the complexity of existance with an inconsistancy
on my part
-Jason.
LuckyH.
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> David Carter wrote:
>
> > Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> And more power to her i say, what have you accomplished Jason, what
> >> are the proofs that are the results of your life's work? Cat is very
> >> accessible, easily found, and documented along with her work, who are
> >> you Jason and what have you done?
> >
> >
> > This is a spurious defence, attemting to divert the discussion to what
> > the person criticising has done rather than addressing the points made.
>
> "Success is your proof" what have you done, for yourself or anyone else?
>
> And why are you so "recalcitrant" about providing information about
> yourself?
You just did it again, JL.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> It seems to me that those who have done the least are the quickest to
> >> judge the work of others, and that, usually with an obvious jealousy
> >> of other peoples accomplishments. Quite often, especially in these
> >> news groups, those who cant do something note worthy criticize the
> >> work of those who do. What's the old saw, "put up or shut up"?
> >> ---
> >> JL
> >>
> >>>
> >>> -Jason
> >>>
> >
> >
> > Ditto. I dont have to be a policeman to criticise a corrupt policeman. I
> > do not have to be a footballer to criticise bad play. Yours is just a
> > silly and immature argument in this case.
>
> You have to know something about corruption and football to make a valid
> judgement, something in the context of this thread (folk magick) you
> obviously have no knowledge of.
How do you justify such a statement, JL? You are claiming this man has
no knowledge of folk magic. Please provide proof.
>
> Practitioners of many sorts of religious beliefs routinely experience
> condemnation from people who know nothing about the subjects they critic
> except that it offends their 'common sense'.
Spare us the "righteous" BS, please.
>
> Atheists and sceptics tend to be very harsh in their condemnation of
> things they maintain don't exist so don't know enough about to expect to
> be taken seriously, except by their ilk.
>
> If it weren't that you have demonstrated a closed mind on the subject i
> would be willing to discuss sympathetic and associative magick but at
> this point it seems to me it would be a waste of time.
I have not seen evidence of David expressing a "closed mind". I have
seen evidence that you possess one, however.
-Jason
> ---
> JL
> >
> > Carter
> >
Erwin Hessle
LuckyH. wrote:
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> > David Carter wrote:
> > > Ditto. I dont have to be a policeman to criticise a corrupt policeman. I
> > > do not have to be a footballer to criticise bad play. Yours is just a
> > > silly and immature argument in this case.
> >
> > You have to know something about corruption and football to make a valid
> > judgement, something in the context of this thread (folk magick) you
> > obviously have no knowledge of.
>
> How do you justify such a statement, JL? You are claiming this man has
> no knowledge of folk magic. Please provide proof.
Archie has no knowledge of *any* kind of magic, by his own admission,
and by the evidence of his posts. No further proof is required here.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Cyli
<david...@barts.nhs.uk> wrote:
(snipped)
>I accept the point you make but it is a separate and unrelated point to
>the one I was making which is as follows: There are laws which govern
>fair advertising, and there are principles which govern fair behaviour.
>
>Cat violates both imho.
>1. Statements that a herb brings luck or prevents depression are subject
>to and probably violate advertising laws. The fact that no prosecution
>has been bought thus far probably says more about how important her
>business is than whether she may have violated the law.
>2. As a matter of principal, I believe it is repugnant to advertise
>these spurious claims in a manner which may well be designed to separate
>newbies and dupes from their money. The claims would not be necessary to
>'more experienced' people who have the belief that they are right since
>they already hold the belief. Either way, they should not be there.
>
If she put 'these are traditional hoodoo uses' on top of each page
would you still be upset?
My opinion is that anyone who's a real newbbie isn't going to be
finding the hoodoo page and buying stuff. If they're that dumb, they
probably don't have the money to do so, having been duped out of
everything but their underwear already.
--
r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.
catherine yronwode
I don't guarantee spells to work. Plase see my web page on that subject.
http://www.luckymojo.com/spells/real.html
Take a moment to read the page, especially the material under the headers:
* DO MAGICK SPELLS ALWAYS WORK?
* ARE MAGICK SPELLS GUARANTEED TO WORK?
* IS MAGICK WORTH TRYING IF IT IS NOT GUARANTEED?
* IS MAGICK REAL OR ARE THE RESULTS JUST COINCIDENCE?
* IF MAGICK SPELLS ARE REAL, WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE USE THEM?
Now, besides answering questions like that, what i do is make, import,
package, and sell items that are used in the practice of vaious
traditions of religion and magic, including Judaism, Christianity,
Buddhism, Paganism, Wicca, Asatru, Santeria, Palo, Obeah,
Zorooastrianism, Islam, Taoism, Spiritualism, New Thought, ceremonial
magic, hoodoo, conjure, Pow-Wow magic, brauch magic, stregheria, and so
forth.
When i sell a Jewish Mezuzah, i do not say of it, "Claimed by some to be
efficatious in protecting the home by means of connection to an ancient
Semitic thunder-sky god."
I just write, "Brass mezuzeh, made in Israel, for protection of the
doorposts."
Likewise, when i sell Esphand seed, i do not go into a long lecture
about Zoroastriansism and the adoption of many of its rites by Muslims
living in the territories formerly ruled by Persia.
I just write, "Aspand, for use against the Evil Eye."
The truth is simpler than some of you think: It is not illegal, nor is
it deceptive, to sell religo-magical goods for spiritual deployment
within the traditions in which they are used.
Finally, for those folloing this debate, but not with sufficient
intellectual curiousity to read our catalogue in situ, here is the
header at the top of the page on which the herbs are listed, whch Erwin
Hessle was too dishonest to include:
Here are the occult, spiritual, conjure, and magic
HERBS, ROOTS, MINERALS, and ZOOLOGICAL CURIOS you
have heard about, now available in generous packets
with FULL INSTRUCTIONS for use. We grow many of
these herbs ourselves, and while we sell them as
magickal curios only, we know you will be pleased
with the freshness, quality, and INSTRUCTIONS for
use that come with all our herbs, roots, minerals,
and zoological curios.
The "disclaimer" that was asserted to not be there is, of course, right
there, for the delectation of newbies, outsiders, nutters, Hessles, and
Carters of all kinds. Had they only the wits to READ it, they might save
themselves a lot of time playing the fool.
cat yronwode
http://luckymojocurio.com Lucky Mojo curio Co. Occult Shop
LuckyH.
Cyli wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:44:54 +0700, David Carter
> <david...@barts.nhs.uk> wrote:
>
>
> (snipped)
>
> >I accept the point you make but it is a separate and unrelated point to
> >the one I was making which is as follows: There are laws which govern
> >fair advertising, and there are principles which govern fair behaviour.
> >
> >Cat violates both imho.
> >1. Statements that a herb brings luck or prevents depression are subject
> >to and probably violate advertising laws. The fact that no prosecution
> >has been bought thus far probably says more about how important her
> >business is than whether she may have violated the law.
> >2. As a matter of principal, I believe it is repugnant to advertise
> >these spurious claims in a manner which may well be designed to separate
> >newbies and dupes from their money. The claims would not be necessary to
> >'more experienced' people who have the belief that they are right since
> >they already hold the belief. Either way, they should not be there.
> >
>
> If she put 'these are traditional hoodoo uses' on top of each page
> would you still be upset?
For the most part, Cat does imply that these are the reported "magical
reputation" of roots, herbs, etc., with the standard, "We make no claim
or guarentee.." However, every now and then she slips up, but mistakes
are bound to happen sometimes.
>
> My opinion is that anyone who's a real newbbie isn't going to be
> finding the hoodoo page and buying stuff. If they're that dumb, they
> probably don't have the money to do so, having been duped out of
> everything but their underwear already.
Well, believe it or not, that scenario does indeed happen. People
believe all kinds of weird stuff about magic, including what type of
results they might achieve. Do you not remember the gentlemen that was
haunting usenet, in search of a spell to turn him into a fully
operating woman?
-Jason
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>
>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And more power to her i say, what have you accomplished Jason, what
>>> are the proofs that are the results of your life's work? Cat is very
>>> accessible, easily found, and documented along with her work, who are
>>> you Jason and what have you done?
>>
>>
>> This is a spurious defence, attemting to divert the discussion to what
>> the person criticising has done rather than addressing the points made.
>
> "Success is your proof" what have you done, for yourself or anyone else?
>
> And why are you so "recalcitrant" about providing information about
> yourself?
I am not at all reluctant to provide information about myself that is
relevant. I am an occult student. I claim no Grades or experience. This
does not mean I have neither, it simply means I am not sure if it is
helpful to those who would criticise and disparage or those who would
support and contribute. Badges don't interest me very much, insights do.
>>> It seems to me that those who have done the least are the quickest to
>>> judge the work of others, and that, usually with an obvious jealousy
>>> of other peoples accomplishments. Quite often, especially in these
>>> news groups, those who cant do something note worthy criticize the
>>> work of those who do. What's the old saw, "put up or shut up"?
>>> ---
>>> JL
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Jason
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Ditto. I dont have to be a policeman to criticise a corrupt policeman. I
>> do not have to be a footballer to criticise bad play. Yours is just a
>> silly and immature argument in this case.
>
> You have to know something about corruption and football to make a valid
> judgement, something in the context of this thread (folk magick) you
> obviously have no knowledge of.
Folk magic is imho, fairy stories and in some cases country pharmacology
(valid in its own right of course but not Magic). Anyone that lends
credence to 'folk magic' in the absence of any reasonable evidence that
it has merit is to my mind naive at best and perhaps downright gullible
and living in their own little world. I suppose it depends upon what you
expect from 'Magic' but I have known many people who profess 'folk
magic'. Most of them were rather quaint and sweet, nice people but not
altogether rooted in the real world.
>
> Practitioners of many sorts of religious beliefs routinely experience
> condemnation from people who know nothing about the subjects they critic
> except that it offends their 'common sense'.
I am sure this is correct but since I didnt say that it isnt really
relevant is it?
>
> Atheists and sceptics tend to be very harsh in their condemnation of
> things they maintain don't exist so don't know enough about to expect to
> be taken seriously, except by their ilk.
I also accept this but I didnt say it either.
>
> If it weren't that you have demonstrated a closed mind on the subject i
> would be willing to discuss sympathetic and associative magick but at
> this point it seems to me it would be a waste of time.
Feel free not to do anything you dont want to do but I should point out
that I have not expressed an opinion about sympathetic or associative
Magic, merely on fraudulent descriptions of the properties of some plants.
Up to you.
Carter
> ---
> JL
>>
>> Carter
>>
David Carter
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:44:54 +0700, David Carter
> <david...@barts.nhs.uk> wrote:
>
>
> (snipped)
>
>> I accept the point you make but it is a separate and unrelated point to
>> the one I was making which is as follows: There are laws which govern
>> fair advertising, and there are principles which govern fair behaviour.
>>
>> Cat violates both imho.
>> 1. Statements that a herb brings luck or prevents depression are subject
>> to and probably violate advertising laws. The fact that no prosecution
>> has been bought thus far probably says more about how important her
>> business is than whether she may have violated the law.
>> 2. As a matter of principal, I believe it is repugnant to advertise
>> these spurious claims in a manner which may well be designed to separate
>> newbies and dupes from their money. The claims would not be necessary to
>> 'more experienced' people who have the belief that they are right since
>> they already hold the belief. Either way, they should not be there.
>>
>
> If she put 'these are traditional hoodoo uses' on top of each page
> would you still be upset?
I am not upset. I would be more supportive if she simply put a caveat
before each of her unsupported and imho deceptive claims. The caveat may
be as simple as 'Some people believe that Star Anise..."
Thats all, the rest is froth and bubble by those with a vested interest.
>
> My opinion is that anyone who's a real newbbie isn't going to be
> finding the hoodoo page and buying stuff. If they're that dumb, they
> probably don't have the money to do so, having been duped out of
> everything but their underwear already.
I beg to differ. People who know what they are doing wont need Cats
descriptions anyway. The web site is geared to gaining new customers.
Nothing wrong with that but many will be naive newbs, and they could do
with sensible descriptions and not fantasy-world descriptions.
Carter
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>> Ludwig Prinn wrote:
>>>>> ridiculous prejudice. skilled individuals should be
>>>>> adequately compensated for the enlisting of their
>>>>> time and expertise no matter their profession.
>>>> Unless, of course, what is promised is not delivered. The problem with
>>>> "services of a magical nature" is in the determination of results.
>>> Well, it's fairly straightforward. No results, no pay. If the person
>>> was paid in advance, there should be options for recourse.
>> yep, I can see that in cats catalogue fer sure. "Spells guaranteed to
>> work or your money back". Yep.
>>
>> Carter
>
> I don't guarantee spells to work. Plase see my web page on that subject.
An irrelevant comment given what was actually said. Either this is a
failure to concentrate on what was actually said, or it is an attempt to
deflect the conversation.
>
> http://www.luckymojo.com/spells/real.html
>
> Take a moment to read the page, especially the material under the headers:
>
> * DO MAGICK SPELLS ALWAYS WORK?
> * ARE MAGICK SPELLS GUARANTEED TO WORK?
> * IS MAGICK WORTH TRYING IF IT IS NOT GUARANTEED?
> * IS MAGICK REAL OR ARE THE RESULTS JUST COINCIDENCE?
> * IF MAGICK SPELLS ARE REAL, WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE USE THEM?
>
> Now, besides answering questions like that, what i do is make, import,
> package, and sell items that are used in the practice of vaious
> traditions of religion and magic, including Judaism, Christianity,
> Buddhism, Paganism, Wicca, Asatru, Santeria, Palo, Obeah,
> Zorooastrianism, Islam, Taoism, Spiritualism, New Thought, ceremonial
> magic, hoodoo, conjure, Pow-Wow magic, brauch magic, stregheria, and so
> forth.
Pow-wow magick? All you have done here is to collect terms that have
little or no meaning and present them to suggest you have a
comprehensive range of products.
>
> When i sell a Jewish Mezuzah, i do not say of it, "Claimed by some to be
> efficatious in protecting the home by means of connection to an ancient
> Semitic thunder-sky god."
>
> I just write, "Brass mezuzeh, made in Israel, for protection of the
> doorposts."
Which is true. Perhaps I will compare that with many of your website
claisms that are untrue? What you are doing is deceptin, you quote one
example of something that is true and seek by implication to extend that
truth across all the other areas. A tad transparent.
>
> Likewise, when i sell Esphand seed, i do not go into a long lecture
> about Zoroastriansism and the adoption of many of its rites by Muslims
> living in the territories formerly ruled by Persia.
Are you trying to impress? it didnt work. It is just bluster.
>
> I just write, "Aspand, for use against the Evil Eye."
Again, not the worst example. I will find some so I can get some
specific comments from you on examples of my choice not yours.
>
> The truth is simpler than some of you think: It is not illegal, nor is
> it deceptive, to sell religo-magical goods for spiritual deployment
> within the traditions in which they are used.
It is illegal to make claims that are unsupportable or untrue.
>
> Finally, for those folloing this debate, but not with sufficient
> intellectual curiousity to read our catalogue in situ, here is the
> header at the top of the page on which the herbs are listed, whch Erwin
> Hessle was too dishonest to include:
>
> Here are the occult, spiritual, conjure, and magic
> HERBS, ROOTS, MINERALS, and ZOOLOGICAL CURIOS you
> have heard about, now available in generous packets
> with FULL INSTRUCTIONS for use. We grow many of
> these herbs ourselves, and while we sell them as
> magickal curios only, we know you will be pleased
> with the freshness, quality, and INSTRUCTIONS for
> use that come with all our herbs, roots, minerals,
> and zoological curios.
>
> The "disclaimer" that was asserted to not be there is, of course, right
> there, for the delectation of newbies, outsiders, nutters, Hessles, and
> Carters of all kinds. Had they only the wits to READ it, they might save
> themselves a lot of time playing the fool.
The disclaimer is there and carefully worded specifically to encourage
people to ignore or disregard it. As you well know.
Come on cat, I am not a newb, I know about advertising and how you can
carefully circumvent the spirit of legislation at the same time as
pretending to comply with it.
Carter
Meltdarok
"David Carter" <david...@barts.nhs.uk> wrote in message
news:12evhp4...@corp.supernews.com...
Yeah Carter? Here is the blurb from their front page:
"Lucky Mojo is both an online magic shop and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a real magic store that you can visit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We carry a full line of hand-made spiritual supplies, including occult
oils, incense, powders, candles, herbs, mojo bags, spiritual soaps, books,
and spell kits for those who cast magic spells, love spells, money spells,
and protection spells in the African-American hoodoo, Pagan magick, and
other Witchcraft traditions. We also import and distribute folkloric
magical, occult, herbal, and spiritual supplies from Asia, Latin America,
and the Middle East for those who work in Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic,
Protestant, Muslim, and Jewish religious and magical traditions. We sell
retail and wholesale, both on the internet and at our small-town occult
shop."
Heh.
> Come on cat, I am not a newb, I know about advertising and how you can
> carefully circumvent the spirit of legislation at the same time as
> pretending to comply with it.
>
I am starting here with this post.
Carter, the NAME of the company is:
LUCKY MOJO CURIO CO.
"The noun curio has one meaning:
Meaning #1: something unusual -- perhaps worthy of collecting
Synonyms: curiosity, oddity, oddment, peculiarity, rarity"
Now *you* Carter make me want to purchase from Cat.
They closed the store here that used to sell the item I want,
but Cat sells it.
> Carter
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
David Carter
So thank you for proving my point. Or isnt that what you thought you
were doing?
And so?
>
> "The noun curio has one meaning:
> Meaning #1: something unusual -- perhaps worthy of collecting
> Synonyms: curiosity, oddity, oddment, peculiarity, rarity"
>
and so?
>
> Now *you* Carter make me want to purchase from Cat.
> They closed the store here that used to sell the item I want,
> but Cat sells it.
>
>
>> Carter
>
>
I cant make you do anything, you are a free agent. If you want to buy
something from Cat then go ahead and buy something from Cat.
I am not sure what the problem is.
Carter
catherine yronwode
>
> I would be more supportive if she simply put a caveat
> before each of her unsupported and imho deceptive claims. The caveat may
> be as simple as 'Some people believe that Star Anise..."
In another post, you wrote, "Folk magic is imho, fairy stories and in
some cases country pharmacology (valid in its own right of course but
not Magic)." This indicates that you have a vested interest in a belief
structure that is so calcified and rigid that you really cannot or do
not see the information right before your face, namely that there is a
clear disclaimer of the top of our herb catalogue web page, as Cyli
noted, and as i reprinted here YESTERDAY. You obviously did not read
that post or, having read it, did not compehend it.
I find no reason to clutter the web page with the same repetious
disclaimer for 200 different herbs when the information is clearly given
ONCE in plus-size type at the top of the page.
By the way, there is a similar disclaimer on every package of herbs we
sell. The commonest form this takes is the decades-old, "Sold as a curio
only" tag-line, but depending on the amount of text on the label that is
deveoted to giving magical usages, the disclaimer may be as long as, "We
make no claims for the eficacy of this [name of herb] and sell it as a
genuine botanical curio only."
You may read the text of one of our labels here:
http://herb-magic.com/allspice-berries.html
(This is from a new web site i am developing which is nowhere close to
being workable yet, but i'll have it all functional within a month or
two. The text is an exact copy of what is on the package label for
Allspice Berries.)
You said in another post, "badges don't interest me very much, insights
do" -- but if your non-folkloric and thus non "fairy-tale" magick has
helped to engender any "insights" in your mind, it's not obvious to us
in usenet. So far we are seeing a typical display of unfounded
trash-talk based on a juvenile inability to read a web page. You'll need
a lot more going on in the "insight" department to convince me that your
claim to be "an occult student" means anything more than that your
parents bought you a laptop and you know how to push the buttons.
Because you are utterly unfamiliar with our products and have not
bothered to research them at all, you have made a series of foolish
errors in describing them.
When you said that "anyone that lends credence to 'folk magic' in the
absence of any reasonable evidence that it has merit is to my mind naive
at best and perhaps downright gullible and living in their own little
world." you implied that as "an occult student" you were on to some
better, less gullible, less naive form of magic replete with "reasonabke
evidence" of efficacy -- but what do you show the world?
You show an anonymized persona who, to throw your own words back at you,
"would criticise and disparage," and would not "support and contribute"
to a discussion of magic. Because, face it, it is really dumb to try to
prove a point when one is completely completely in the dark about what
one is describing.
If insights mean anything to you except a way to puff yourself up for
being "insightful," then for starters, try looking within. Ask yourself,
"Why am i makin an ass of myself in usenet by neglecting to actually
READ THE DISCLAIMER IN LARGE TYPE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE that i claim
has no disclaimer?"
You might also want to work on your grammar. In English, people are
referred to as "who" not "that" -- as in, "Anyone *who* lends credence
to 'folk magic' and also has a better command of English than you do may
well be worthy of your respect and emulation."
Think about it, for real. What's your ego leading you into --
"insights" or idiocy?
Good luck,
cat yronwode
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>> I would be more supportive if she simply put a caveat
>> before each of her unsupported and imho deceptive claims. The caveat may
>> be as simple as 'Some people believe that Star Anise..."
>
> In another post, you wrote, "Folk magic is imho, fairy stories and in
> some cases country pharmacology (valid in its own right of course but
> not Magic)."
This is true.
> This indicates that you have a vested interest in a belief
> structure that is so calcified and rigid that you really cannot or do
> not see the information right before your face, namely that there is a
> clear disclaimer of the top of our herb catalogue web page, as Cyli
> noted, and as i reprinted here YESTERDAY. You obviously did not read
> that post or, having read it, did not compehend it.
I compehended it just fine thanks.
I do not believe the caveat to adequately counter he impression of
magical efficacy that you set out to create areas of your catalog
deliberately closer to the products you sell.
Ergo I believe that whilst the law may be satisfied, the requirements of
ethical trading are not.
Why do you persist in using the overblown and somewhat pompous phrasing
that you do and which I referred to as over-analysis in a different post?
Above is a fine example to whch I append a more reasonable statement:
"This indicates that you have a vested interest in a belief structure"
Which really means "You think that"
See? Strive for simplicity wherever possible.
>
> I find no reason to clutter the web page with the same repetious
> disclaimer for 200 different herbs when the information is clearly given
> ONCE in plus-size type at the top of the page.
>
> By the way, there is a similar disclaimer on every package of herbs we
> sell. The commonest form this takes is the decades-old, "Sold as a curio
> only" tag-line, but depending on the amount of text on the label that is
> deveoted to giving magical usages, the disclaimer may be as long as, "We
> make no claims for the eficacy of this [name of herb] and sell it as a
> genuine botanical curio only."
I see. So you say "this has magical properties and will < insert
spurious claim here > and then you say "This has no magical properties
of any kind.
Right?
After they sent the money presumably?
>
> You may read the text of one of our labels here:
>
> http://herb-magic.com/allspice-berries.html
>
> (This is from a new web site i am developing which is nowhere close to
> being workable yet, but i'll have it all functional within a month or
> two. The text is an exact copy of what is on the package label for
> Allspice Berries.)
>
> You said in another post, "badges don't interest me very much, insights
> do" -- but if your non-folkloric and thus non "fairy-tale" magick has
> helped to engender any "insights" in your mind, it's not obvious to us
> in usenet.
I dont expect you would understand string theory either. Your failure to
recognise the value of what is said by someone doesnt necessarily mean
there is none. It may jut mean ou dont understand it.
Your use of the words 'us on usenet' is exactly what I am talking about
in your advertisements. Words carefully crated to create an impression
that you can neither substantiate but which you can later claim not to
have been intentional or 'not what you meant'. Clearly this is habitual
with you. If you mean you, Nagasiva and your loyal friends, then tell me
what you dont understand and I will be happy to explain in simpler
terms. probably not in folk-magic terms though... nothing quite that simple.
> So far we are seeing a typical display of unfounded
> trash-talk based on a juvenile inability to read a web page. You'll need
> a lot more going on in the "insight" department to convince me that your
> claim to be "an occult student" means anything more than that your
> parents bought you a laptop and you know how to push the buttons.
>
What unfounded trash-talk is that Cat? or is this just another of your
'creative' statements? Your resentment is showing.
> Because you are utterly unfamiliar with our products and have not
> bothered to research them at all, you have made a series of foolish
> errors in describing them.
>
> When you said that "anyone that lends credence to 'folk magic' in the
> absence of any reasonable evidence that it has merit is to my mind naive
> at best and perhaps downright gullible and living in their own little
> world." you implied that as "an occult student" you were on to some
> better, less gullible, less naive form of magic replete with "reasonabke
> evidence" of
yes.
I have explored both, I have my opinion. Am I less entitled to express
it that you are yours?
>
> You show an anonymized persona who, to throw your own words back at you,
> "would criticise and disparage," and would not "support and contribute"
> to a discussion of magic. Because, face it, it is really dumb to try to
> prove a point when one is completely completely in the dark about what
> one is describing.
This is an interesting conclusion. What do you base it on?
<more resentful blah and a bit of pompous grammar analysis snipped
(check your own spelling above)>
> Think about it, for real. What's your ego leading you into --
> "insights" or idiocy?
>
> Good luck,
>
> cat yronwode
It is idiocy because I criticise you on what is a sound basis?
I wonder where the problem really lies? me for pointing out (to your
evident discomfort) that you are misleading people, or you for doing it?
carter
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>
> You show an anonymized persona who, <blah>
is David Carter any more or less anonymous that some silly attempt to
appear olde worlde? At least David Carter is my real name Cat, not some
reinvention of myself.
Carter
>
> Good luck,
>
> cat yronwode
Cyli
(snipped)
>Cyli wrote:
>>
>> My opinion is that anyone who's a real newbbie isn't going to be
>> finding the hoodoo page and buying stuff. If they're that dumb, they
>> probably don't have the money to do so, having been duped out of
>> everything but their underwear already.
>
>Well, believe it or not, that scenario does indeed happen. People
>believe all kinds of weird stuff about magic, including what type of
>results they might achieve. Do you not remember the gentlemen that was
>haunting usenet, in search of a spell to turn him into a fully
>operating woman?
>
>-Jason
>
Oh, yeah, but any real newbbies who are naive (not necessarily the
same thing) won't know enough about hoodoo to use it properly and
won't have anything resembling personal power (assuming it exists) to
put the oomph behind it to make it work. The following week they'll
be off to take a course in Yoga, assuming that in two weeks they'll be
the equal of someone who's sat on a mountain for 20 years practicing
and meditating.
Been there, got the T-shirt, it fell apart right away. I know some of
it from a lot of angles, including stuff that sometimes seems to work
well enough.
Worst is when it works a little bit (or a coincidence happens) and
something seems to work properly. Take a luck charm or spell, for
instance. So they win something at poker or on the lottery and go big
the next week, win some more and then go utterly wild, risking
everything they've got and find out their spell / luck wasn't that
good or they weren't, or they were only due a little bit from what
they'd put into the mystical or it was all coincidence.
Only a vague memory of that guy. Too weird for me to bother thinking
about much.
catherine yronwode
>
> I do not believe the caveat to adequately counter he impression of
> magical efficacy that you set out to create areas of your catalog
> deliberately closer to the products you sell.
>
> Ergo I believe that whilst the law may be satisfied, the requirements of
> ethical trading are not.
Actually, there is no "law" to be "satisfied" by virtue of publishing
such a disclaimer. This is an error on your part -- one of MANY errors
on your part.
> Why do you persist in using the overblown and somewhat pompous phrasing
> that you do and which I referred to as over-analysis in a different post?
>
> Above is a fine example to whch I append a more reasonable statement:
>
> "This indicates that you have a vested interest in a belief structure"
>
> Which really means "You think that"
Nope, it does not "really" mean that. To describe what you think is one
thing, to describe your vested interest in MAINTAIING IN AN UNALTERBLE
CONDITION what you think is something else.
> See? Strive for simplicity wherever possible.
Your kind of "simplicity" would result in my inability to describe what
i wish to describe. Since you cannot tell the difference between a
belief and a vested interest in a belief structure, the barest
simoplicity of speech may be all that you can understand. I will stry to
put things on such a level for you, then:
"Your mind is closed to viewpoints other than your own. It is important
to you to keep your mind closed in this way."
> > I find no reason to clutter the web page with the same repetious
> > disclaimer for 200 different herbs when the information is clearly given
> > ONCE in plus-size type at the top of the page.
> >
> > By the way, there is a similar disclaimer on every package of herbs we
> > sell. The commonest form this takes is the decades-old, "Sold as a curio
> > only" tag-line, but depending on the amount of text on the label that is
> > deveoted to giving magical usages, the disclaimer may be as long as, "We
> > make no claims for the eficacy of this [name of herb] and sell it as a
> > genuine botanical curio only."
>
> I see. So you say "this has magical properties and will < insert
> spurious claim here > and then you say "This has no magical properties
> of any kind.
>
> Right?
Wrong. Read the web page again. This is he third time i have explained
this to you. You are verging on sub-par intellect at this point.
> After they sent the money presumably?
Nope. See below. The herb-magic.com page is readable BEFORE purchases
are made.
> > You may read the text of one of our labels here:
> >
> > http://herb-magic.com/allspice-berries.html
See? No purchase necessary to READ THE WEB SITE.
> Your resentment is showing.
No, my impatience is showing.
> I wonder where the problem really lies? me for pointing out (to your
> evident discomfort) that you are misleading people, or you for doing it?
I am not discomfitted by your baseless charges, but i am frustrated by
your bizarre inability to read simple English.
This is going nowhere, and i have had enough of your silly bleating.
Adios.
cat yronwode
catherine yronwode
Tilt.
cat yronwode
catherine yronwode
>
cat yronwode wrote:
> > http://www.luckymojo.com/spells/real.html
> >
> > Take a moment to read the page, especially the material under the headers:
> >
> > * DO MAGICK SPELLS ALWAYS WORK?
> > * ARE MAGICK SPELLS GUARANTEED TO WORK?
> > * IS MAGICK WORTH TRYING IF IT IS NOT GUARANTEED?
> > * IS MAGICK REAL OR ARE THE RESULTS JUST COINCIDENCE?
> > * IF MAGICK SPELLS ARE REAL, WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE USE THEM?
> >
> > Now, besides answering questions like that, what i do is make, import,
> > package, and sell items that are used in the practice of vaious
> > traditions of religion and magic, including Judaism, Christianity,
> > Buddhism, Paganism, Wicca, Asatru, Santeria, Palo, Obeah,
> > Zorooastrianism, Islam, Taoism, Spiritualism, New Thought, ceremonial
> > magic, hoodoo, conjure, Pow-Wow magic, brauch magic, stregheria, and so
> > forth.
>
> Pow-wow magick? All you have done here is to collect terms that have
> little or no meaning and present them to suggest you have a
> comprehensive range of products.
Cute. Because Pow Wow magic is an unknown subject to YOU, you say it has
"litle or no meaning."
Google the term and/or rent the movie "Apprentice to Murder" with Donald
Sutherland.
And while you're at it, strive for those "insights" you claim to be
seeking, David!
Insight number one: Your unfamiliarity with a topic is not a masure of
its lack of "meaning."
> It is illegal to make claims that are unsupportable or untrue.
There is no governmental body in the USA that that seeks to determine
whether the beliefs and practices associated with religion,
spirituality, occultism, prayer, and magic are "unsupportable or
untrue," therefore the claims made for religion, spirituality,
occultism, prayer, and magic ARE legal unless they violate other state
or federal laws.
> The disclaimer is there and carefully worded specifically to encourage
> people to ignore or disregard it. As you well know.
It is in plus-size type at the head of the page, thus your claim that it
was "carefully worded specifically to encourage people to ignore or
disregard it" is irrational.
> Come on cat, I am not a newb, I know about advertising and how you can
> carefully circumvent the spirit of legislation at the same time as
> pretending to comply with it.
Your argument is based on a false premise: there is no "legislation"
that limits the sale of spiritual and religious goods in interstate
commerce, hence there is no legislation to "circumvent."
cat yronwode
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>> I do not believe the caveat to adequately counter he impression of
>> magical efficacy that you set out to create areas of your catalog
>> deliberately closer to the products you sell.
>>
>> Ergo I believe that whilst the law may be satisfied, the requirements of
>> ethical trading are not.
>
> Actually, there is no "law" to be "satisfied" by virtue of publishing
> such a disclaimer. This is an error on your part -- one of MANY errors
> on your part.
An error it seems on the part of the government of USA. In all societies
where misleading advertising is recognised to be odious, there is
legislation which advertisers must abide by.
You seem to be saying that either there is none on the USA or you dont
know about it or you do know about it but ignore it. Since I believe
there *is* such legislation n the USA...
If there were none, why did you write a disclaimer? To establish your
ethical trading credentials one assumes...
>
>> Why do you persist in using the overblown and somewhat pompous phrasing
>> that you do and which I referred to as over-analysis in a different post?
>>
>> Above is a fine example to whch I append a more reasonable statement:
>>
>> "This indicates that you have a vested interest in a belief structure"
>>
>> Which really means "You think that"
>
> Nope, it does not "really" mean that. To describe what you think is one
> thing, to describe your vested interest in MAINTAIING IN AN UNALTERBLE
> CONDITION what you think is something else.
You assume it is unalterable, actually, it isnt. However it does require
a better argument to alter it than you have come up with so far.
>
>> See? Strive for simplicity wherever possible.
>
> Your kind of "simplicity" would result in my inability to describe what
> i wish to describe. Since you cannot tell the difference between a
> belief and a vested interest in a belief structure, the barest
> simoplicity of speech may be all that you can understand. I will stry to
> put things on such a level for you, then:
>
> "Your mind is closed to viewpoints other than your own. It is important
> to you to keep your mind closed in this way."
Thank you for strying to do that. It wasnt entirely successful, but
lease do keep on strying.
>
>>> I find no reason to clutter the web page with the same repetious
>>> disclaimer for 200 different herbs when the information is clearly given
>>> ONCE in plus-size type at the top of the page.
>>>
>>> By the way, there is a similar disclaimer on every package of herbs we
>>> sell. The commonest form this takes is the decades-old, "Sold as a curio
>>> only" tag-line, but depending on the amount of text on the label that is
>>> deveoted to giving magical usages, the disclaimer may be as long as, "We
>>> make no claims for the eficacy of this [name of herb] and sell it as a
>>> genuine botanical curio only."
>> I see. So you say "this has magical properties and will < insert
>> spurious claim here > and then you say "This has no magical properties
>> of any kind.
>>
>> Right?
>
> Wrong. Read the web page again. This is he third time i have explained
> this to you. You are verging on sub-par intellect at this point.
lol. I doubt you are well placed to estimate my IQ.
>
>> After they sent the money presumably?
>
> Nope. See below. The herb-magic.com page is readable BEFORE purchases
> are made.
Yes, but far away from descriptions of the actual products and their
alleged 'magical' properties.
You are on a hiding to nothing about this Cat. No herbs have Magical
properties. End of story really.
>
>>> You may read the text of one of our labels here:
>>>
>>> http://herb-magic.com/allspice-berries.html
>
> See? No purchase necessary to READ THE WEB SITE.
>
>> Your resentment is showing.
>
> No, my impatience is showing.
Your inability to be objective is actually what is showing. But then you
have a vested interest in your belief structure - dont you?
>
>> I wonder where the problem really lies? me for pointing out (to your
>> evident discomfort) that you are misleading people, or you for doing it?
>
> I am not discomfitted by your baseless charges, but i am frustrated by
> your bizarre inability to read simple English.
I can read it fine thanks, and I can spell most of it better than you.
What I cant do is actually believe it. Because it seems you are unable
to understand why I dont.
>
> This is going nowhere, and i have had enough of your silly bleating.
>
> Adios.
>
> cat yronwode
Yep, argument lost, you wander off to concentrate on separating more
gullibles from their cash.
Enjoy.
Carter
David Carter
No then.
Carter
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
> cat yronwode wrote:
>
>>> http://www.luckymojo.com/spells/real.html
>>>
>>> Take a moment to read the page, especially the material under the headers:
>>>
>>> * DO MAGICK SPELLS ALWAYS WORK?
>>> * ARE MAGICK SPELLS GUARANTEED TO WORK?
>>> * IS MAGICK WORTH TRYING IF IT IS NOT GUARANTEED?
>>> * IS MAGICK REAL OR ARE THE RESULTS JUST COINCIDENCE?
>>> * IF MAGICK SPELLS ARE REAL, WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE USE THEM?
>>>
>>> Now, besides answering questions like that, what i do is make, import,
>>> package, and sell items that are used in the practice of vaious
>>> traditions of religion and magic, including Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Buddhism, Paganism, Wicca, Asatru, Santeria, Palo, Obeah,
>>> Zorooastrianism, Islam, Taoism, Spiritualism, New Thought, ceremonial
>>> magic, hoodoo, conjure, Pow-Wow magic, brauch magic, stregheria, and so
>>> forth.
>> Pow-wow magick? All you have done here is to collect terms that have
>> little or no meaning and present them to suggest you have a
>> comprehensive range of products.
>
> Cute. Because Pow Wow magic is an unknown subject to YOU, you say it has
> "litle or no meaning."
feel free to explain. I havent had a good laugh since Erwhine stopped
posting.
>
> Google the term and/or rent the movie "Apprentice to Murder" with Donald
> Sutherland.
>
> And while you're at it, strive for those "insights" you claim to be
> seeking, David!
>
> Insight number one: Your unfamiliarity with a topic is not a masure of
> its lack of "meaning."
neither is your support for it a resounding endorsement as to its being
more than just a new fad.
>
>> It is illegal to make claims that are unsupportable or untrue.
>
> There is no governmental body in the USA that that seeks to determine
> whether the beliefs and practices associated with religion,
> spirituality, occultism, prayer, and magic are "unsupportable or
> untrue," therefore the claims made for religion, spirituality,
> occultism, prayer, and magic ARE legal unless they violate other state
> or federal laws.
Sadly, belief that it *might* be true is no defence in an action brought
for any merchant making unsupportable and bogus advertising claims.
>
>> The disclaimer is there and carefully worded specifically to encourage
>> people to ignore or disregard it. As you well know.
>
> It is in plus-size type at the head of the page, thus your claim that it
> was "carefully worded specifically to encourage people to ignore or
> disregard it" is irrational.
The font size means the wording want carefully crafted? OK if you are
sure. I am sure my poor intellect prevents me from seeing what relevance
the size of type has to its meaning, but I am happy to accept your
better knowledge.
>
>> Come on cat, I am not a newb, I know about advertising and how you can
>> carefully circumvent the spirit of legislation at the same time as
>> pretending to comply with it.
>
> Your argument is based on a false premise: there is no "legislation"
> that limits the sale of spiritual and religious goods in interstate
> commerce, hence there is no legislation to "circumvent."
You continue to try and redefine what I said. There is legislation
governing fraudulent or misleading advertising in the USA, despite you
saying otherwise in a previous post. And your belief that miracles may
happen if you eat star anise or something would be unlikely to prevent a
false advertising prosecution I expect.
Still, You probably dont sell very much so I am sure the relevant body
isnt much concerned. Small frauds hardly register in USA.
Carter
>
> cat yronwode
Tom
> At least David Carter is my real name Cat, not some reinvention of myself.
Bwaaaahahahaha!
Funniest straightman line you've spouted all week.
Tom
"Ludwig Prinn" <maste...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156491363.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > ridiculous prejudice. skilled individuals should be
>> > adequately compensated for the enlisting of their
>> > time and expertise no matter their profession.
>>
>> Unless, of course, what is promised is not delivered. The problem with
>> "services of a magical nature" is in the determination of results.
>
I have no objection to such an arrangement.
> If the person
> was paid in advance, there should be options for recourse
Yes, there should.
>> People pay for services because they expect those services to cause some
>> particular thing to happen. While there is a measure of doubt in most
>> services that the outcome will be the desired one, at least there are
>> accepted standards in most professions about whether or not the sefvices
>> have been rendered competently. For example, when one goes to a medical
>> doctor, the desired outcome is that one will be cured. That doesn't
>> always
>> happen. Yet, the medical profession itself has certain standards of care
>> and procedurtes that are intended to maximize the chances of the desired
>> outcome. If the doctor does not follow these procedures and meet those
>> accepted standards, there are repercussions, sometimes very serious ones.
>> There is a concerted effort to protect the public from medical fraud.
>
> Okay, now you're just belaboring the point. No results, no pay. It's
> that simple.
I am suggesting that a professional organization of for-profit occult
activities should have standards by which its members may be held
accountable and which customers may expect of them. This is more than a
matter of pay but of quality of service.
> Worse yet, most businesses can be made or broken by
> word-of-mouth.
No, they aren't. They are made and broken by the effectiveness of their
advertising. Word of mouth means virtually nothing on the internet.
> The other danger of this sort of business is not that the customers
> will not be satisfied, but that they will be TOO satisfied. We
> experimented with pimping our wands out a few years ago, and we did
> fairly well for the brief time during which we did business. We had
> over a dozen clients extremely happy with their results, and most of
> them called back for more work. The problem arose when some of the
> clients came to the point of hitting us up for a spell pretty much
> every week or so, and then wanting endless phone counseling over this
> or that. We *could* have gone ahead and soaked these people for
> everything they had, in the meantime whiling away our evenings talking
> people through living a normal life, but we chose not to and closed up
> shop instead.
Some people can't handle success. It's too much work. Idleness is much
more restful.
Joseph Littleshoes
>
> Folk magic is imho, fairy stories and in some cases country pharmacology
> (valid in its own right of course but not Magic). Anyone that lends
> credence to 'folk magic' in the absence of any reasonable evidence that
> it has merit is to my mind naive at best and perhaps downright gullible
> and living in their own little world. I suppose it depends upon what you
> expect from 'Magic' but I have known many people who profess 'folk
> magic'. Most of them were rather quaint and sweet, nice people but not
> altogether rooted in the real world.
So far all you have told us is what you do not believe, perhaps you
might tell us what you do believe re 'magick'.
The readers of this group have been around the high vs low, hermetic vs
folk magick argument many times here in alt.magick and associated groups.
Some have gone so far as to argue that certain deities are legitimate to
invoke, evoke, adore, worship etc. and that other deities are not.
That some spirits exist independent of humanity and others that
'spirits' are but mental constructs.
Some people argue for the use of instruments, supplies, weapons,
garments etc. others that it must all be done in ones mind.
I can accept both positions as equally effective and that ultimately it
depends on the individual practitioners preferred style.
Since you David, claim to be a student of the occult, what style do you
prefer? internal or external, high ceremonial, hermetic, cabalistic, we
already are aware of your not so humble OPINION of folk magick.
>
>
> Feel free not to do anything you dont want to do but I should point out
> that I have not expressed an opinion about sympathetic or associative
> Magic, merely on fraudulent descriptions of the properties of some plants.
Are the neo cabalistic 'correspondences' between plants and gods,
elements, powers, forces, energies, geometric shapes 'fraudulent'?
I do not grow or other wise produce, star anise, or mugwort, or
asafoetida, so if i felt i needed some i would perforce purchase it.
Same with candles of various colours, incense, essential oils, etc.
I make my own pentacles but i will buy the parchment and inks or other
materials with which to do so.
Not being a seamstress i had a ceremonial robe made for myself, but
being a bit of an artsy craftsy sort i made my own wand, cup, sword &
disc. But even then i did not dig the clay for the cup and disc out of
the ground or build a kiln to fire them in. Nor did i forge my own
steel from ore, but rather purchased a steel blank to form into my sword.
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
Plus its self evident, a 'serious student of the occult' would be able
to differentiate between a preferred 'style' and fraud. The lack of
such a differentiation suggests, at least to me, a lack of knowledge and
understanding or even familiarity with the subject of "Magick" folk or
otherwise.
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
should have read 'panticles'
---
JL
Tom
"Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:4bbfd$44ef5388$4396ff39$19...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> David Carter wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a spurious defence, attemting to divert the discussion to what
>> the person criticising has done rather than addressing the points made.
>
> "Success is your proof" what have you done, for yourself or anyone else?
>
> And why are you so "recalcitrant" about providing information about
> yourself?
Oh, come now, Joseph. You must know perfectly well why. Sock puppets don't
have personal information to provide.
Joseph Littleshoes
So whose pulling the puppets strings this time? any ideas?
---
JL
Tom
> Tom wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
>> news:4bbfd$44ef5388$4396ff39$19...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>>
>>>
>>>yourself?
>>
>>
>> Oh, come now, Joseph. You must know perfectly well why. Sock puppets
>> don't have personal information to provide.
>
> So whose pulling the puppets strings this time? any ideas?
My idea is that it doesn't matter what name he uses, even if it were really
one given to him by others. Attend to the message, not the messenger. In
his case, there is no message, so why pay any attention at all?
Absorbed
Tom wrote:
> Some people can't handle success. It's too much work. Idleness is much
> more restful.
Amen.
Absorbed
It's Archangel. See David Carter's first post and the replies it
recieves.
Joseph Littleshoes
> "Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:d52f5$44f2307c$4396ffd7$14...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4bbfd$44ef5388$4396ff39$19...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>>>
>>>
>>>>And why are you so "recalcitrant" about providing information about
>>>>yourself?
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, come now, Joseph. You must know perfectly well why. Sock puppets
>>>don't have personal information to provide.
>>
>>So whose pulling the puppets strings this time? any ideas?
>
>
> My idea is that it doesn't matter what name he uses, even if it were really
> one given to him by others. Attend to the message, not the messenger. In
> his case, there is no message, so why pay any attention at all?
>
>
Staying at home taking care of an ill relative and got nothing better to do.
---
JL
Tom
> Tom wrote:
>>
>> My idea is that it doesn't matter what name he uses, even if it were
>> really one given to him by others. Attend to the message, not the
>> messenger. In his case, there is no message, so why pay any attention at
>> all?
>
> Staying at home taking care of an ill relative and got nothing better to
> do.
Ah. Slumming.
David Carter
> Erwin Hessle wrote:
>
>> LuckyH. wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Carter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ditto. I dont have to be a policeman to criticise a corrupt
>>>>> policeman. I
>>>>> do not have to be a footballer to criticise bad play. Yours is just a
>>>>> silly and immature argument in this case.
>>>>
>>>> You have to know something about corruption and football to make a
>>>> valid
>>>> judgement, something in the context of this thread (folk magick) you
>>>> obviously have no knowledge of.
>>>
>>> How do you justify such a statement, JL? You are claiming this man has
>>> no knowledge of folk magic. Please provide proof.
>>
>>
>> Archie has no knowledge of *any* kind of magic, by his own admission,
>> and by the evidence of his posts. No further proof is required here.
You will have to excuse Erwhine here, he cannot distinguish between what
is actually said and what he wishes was said. In this, he and DouglASS
are very much alike. But they both differ from Schuler, who
distinguishes between them perfectly well and chooses to pretend not to
see a difference.
Their failing is in intellect and maturity. His are dishonesty and an
unmanaged need to be unpleasant in a quest to demonstrate his
superiority to himeslf.
>>
>> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>>
> Plus its self evident, a 'serious student of the occult' would be able
> to differentiate between a preferred 'style' and fraud. The lack of
> such a differentiation suggests, at least to me, a lack of knowledge and
> understanding or even familiarity with the subject of "Magick" folk or
> otherwise.
> ---
> JL
'Self- evident' means you cannot find anyone to support your proposition
perhaps? Nevertheless I will address the point. 'Style' (by which many
would mean 'do whatever you want and it will work') is not an acceptable
substitute for technique and never has been. Anyone who muddles the 2
things would certainly not qualify as a 'serious student of the occult'.
Carter
David Carter
> "Ludwig Prinn" <maste...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1156491363.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> ridiculous prejudice. skilled individuals should be
>>>> adequately compensated for the enlisting of their
>>>> time and expertise no matter their profession.
>>> Unless, of course, what is promised is not delivered. The problem with
>>> "services of a magical nature" is in the determination of results.
>> Well, it's fairly straightforward. No results, no pay..
>
> I have no objection to such an arrangement.
I am not sure if anyone cares whether you have an objection or not do they?
>
> Some people can't handle success. It's too much work. Idleness is much
> more restful.
I hear the voice of personal experience in this statement.
carter
David Carter
I have already provided more information about me that either you, the
idiot Schuler or Erwhine. It isnt my fault if they (among other their
equally thick contemporaries) choose to believe I am someone else.
When we are young and immature, we all found convenient excuses to
justify our not being willing to learn from people who know more. This
touching but ultimately ill-founded certainty in ones superficial
beliefs fades in time.
Sometimes it takes a longer time than others.
Carter
David Carter
He doesnt. The only thing that he knows (and the only thing that matters
to him) is that *he* doesnt pull my strings. And that really irritates him.
As it would irritate any person who gets off by manipulating other people.
Carter
David Carter
> "Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:d52f5$44f2307c$4396ffd7$14...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>>> "Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4bbfd$44ef5388$4396ff39$19...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>>>
>>>> And why are you so "recalcitrant" about providing information about
>>>> yourself?
>>>
>>> Oh, come now, Joseph. You must know perfectly well why. Sock puppets
>>> don't have personal information to provide.
>> So whose pulling the puppets strings this time? any ideas?
>
> My idea is that it doesn't matter what name he uses, even if it were really
> one given to him by others.
Ha. So Tim admits I am not Archangel. At last. Progress. Rehabilitation
for Tim? or just another false dawn?
> Attend to the message, not the messenger. In
> his case, there is no message, so why pay any attention at all?
Tell us about your messages in the past 3 months Tim. Then say that
thing about the messenger again... lol
Carter
Erwin Hessle
David Carter wrote:
> > Erwin Hessle wrote:
> >> Archie has no knowledge of *any* kind of magic, by his own admission,
> >> and by the evidence of his posts. No further proof is required here.
>
> You will have to excuse Erwhine here, he cannot distinguish between what
> is actually said and what he wishes was said.
Admission that you are Archie noted.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
> Tom wrote:
>> "Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
>> news:4bbfd$44ef5388$4396ff39$19...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>>> David Carter wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a spurious defence, attemting to divert the discussion to what
>>>> the person criticising has done rather than addressing the points made.
>>> "Success is your proof" what have you done, for yourself or anyone else?
>>>
>>> And why are you so "recalcitrant" about providing information about
>>> yourself?
>>
>> Oh, come now, Joseph. You must know perfectly well why. Sock puppets
>> don't have personal information to provide.
>
> I have already provided more information about me that either you, the
> idiot Schuler or Erwhine.
"David" makes no distinction between "information" and "misinformation".
Tom
> Tom wrote:
>> "Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
>> news:d52f5$44f2307c$4396ffd7$14...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>>> Tom wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4bbfd$44ef5388$4396ff39$19...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>>>>
>>>>> And why are you so "recalcitrant" about providing information about
>>>>> yourself?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, come now, Joseph. You must know perfectly well why. Sock puppets
>>>> don't have personal information to provide.
>>> So whose pulling the puppets strings this time? any ideas?
>>
>> My idea is that it doesn't matter what name he uses, even if it were
>> really one given to him by others.
>
> Ha. So Tim admits I am not Archangel.
What the characters in your imagination do is significant only to you.
catherine yronwode
Jason Dean Scott is the paranoid schizophrenic poster whose boasts and
fears are delusionally centered on Aleister Crowley. Jason Gammon is the
poster whose current off-topic hobby-horse consists of alerting the
occult community to the menace of gang-stalking. Neither one is a bad
person, but both are unstable, volatile, and explosive in their
outbursts. Both have repaid mild conversational engagement with public
denouncements for which they have later apologized. Both have made a
point of first seeking out friendships and then attacking their supposed
friends publicly in usenet. Jason Dean Scott has used many pseudonyms
and screen identities and has reportedly electronically stalked female
posters in the past; Jason Gammon has used only a few screen names, all
or most of them compound neologisms with hoodoo or lucky in them, and
has never stalked female posters.
Hope this helps.
cat yronwode
LuckyH.
catherine yronwode wrote:
> Joseph, FYI:
>
> Jason Dean Scott is the paranoid schizophrenic poster whose boasts and
> fears are delusionally centered on Aleister Crowley. Jason Gammon is the
> poster whose current off-topic hobby-horse consists of alerting the
> occult community to the menace of gang-stalking.
Not really the "occult community", but more of the NG's I frequent.
Cat's power-hungry ego wishes to rule over usenet and this is evident
in her post ordering people not to read such post as well as ignore the
author.
> Neither one is a bad
> person, but both are unstable, volatile, and explosive in their
> outbursts.
Cat and I have never met in person. I don't understand how one can
simply read words and attribut so-called rage-ridden "out-bursts" as
Cat insues. Note that this is Cat's standard reply to anyone leveling
criticism her way. The proper term is called "Deflection".
> Both have repaid mild conversational engagement with public
> denouncements for which they have later apologized.
The difference between me and Cat is the fact that I apologize when I
step out of line. For the 6 years I have conversed with Cat, she has
never once apologized for the times she did so.
> Both have made a
> point of first seeking out friendships and then attacking their supposed
> friends publicly in usenet.
There is a differnece between "attack" and "defend". When somebody
posts lies, cough-Cat, and when the victim responds with a defense, it
is not an "attack".
> Jason Dean Scott has used many pseudonyms
> and screen identities and has reportedly electronically stalked female
> posters in the past; Jason Gammon has used only a few screen names, all
> or most of them compound neologisms with hoodoo or lucky in them, and
> has never stalked female posters.
Is not "LuckyMojo" a quote "neologism"?
FYI: I don't use "only a few screen-names". I use one, "LuckyHoodoo"
(Luckyh.) for short. I used to sign my posts as "LuckyH." but began to
sign them with my first name (Jason) around 2001 or so. I have not
posted under any other screen-name and I never will. So, despite what
Cat says or believes, there are no other "Neologism" with Lucky or
"Hoodoo" in them floating around usenet. (Well, if there are, they are
not me.) [Note: My email "Lucky...@aol.com" is not a valid email
address. I closed it due to the enormous amounts of spam I began
recieving since I began posting on usenet.]
FYI: Not only have I never stalked a female online or in person, I have
never stalked a person, irregardless of gender, period.
>
> Hope this helps.
> cat yronwode
After my corrections, it should.
-Jason (Me, Plain and Wonderful!)
catherine yronwode
>
> catherine yronwode wrote:
> > Joseph, FYI:
> >
> > Jason Dean Scott is the paranoid schizophrenic poster whose boasts and
> > fears are delusionally centered on Aleister Crowley. Jason Gammon is the
> > poster whose current off-topic hobby-horse consists of alerting the
> > occult community to the menace of gang-stalking.
>
> Not really the "occult community", but more of the NG's I frequent.
> Cat's power-hungry ego wishes to rule over usenet and this is evident
> in her post ordering people not to read such post as well as ignore the
> author.
Tripe.
> > Neither one is a bad
> > person, but both are unstable, volatile, and explosive in their
> > outbursts.
>
> Cat and I have never met in person. I don't understand how one can
> simply read words and attribut so-called rage-ridden "out-bursts" as
> Cat insues. Note that this is Cat's standard reply to anyone leveling
> criticism her way. The proper term is called "Deflection".
We have never met in person. I refer to your verbal usenet outbursts.
> > Both have repaid mild conversational engagement with public
> > denouncements for which they have later apologized.
>
> The difference between me and Cat is the fact that I apologize when I
> step out of line. For the 6 years I have conversed with Cat, she has
> never once apologized for the times she did so.
I have never intentionally verbally assaulted you through defamation of
character. You have done that to me. This is not a game of tit-for-tat,
Jason, where if one of us apologizes, the other must so so as well.
You often "step out of line" when posting in conversations with me and
with others. I have always, until this year, accepted your apologies.
This year i decided to longer do so, because the pattern of assault and
withdrawal is too repetitious to hope for a change in you, and it has
escalated to new extremes of bad-mouthing.
I have refrained from replying to your posts since early May of 2006,
when you commenced a personal verbal attack on me that exceeded all your
pevious ones, even as you sent a generous gift certificate for
cheesecakes to be served at our shop's open house and book publication
party marking the release of the hardcover edition of my correspondence
course.
Even after your harsh words about me in usenet, in late May i sent you a
free copy of the newly printed correspondence course book. I had thanked
you in print, in the book, for your contribution, which consisted of
your asking questions which were incorporated in the Q&A portion of the
text. That exchange -- my thanking you in print and my sending you a
free copy of the book -- completed the pre-arranged terms (from 2003)
under which my students agreed to allow me to publish their questions
and my replies.
I could have deleted your qustions and used others when setting the book
in type, but i chose to keep them, because they were of interest (a
series of queries ragrding the similarities and differences between
hoodoo and African diasporic religions), and because even after all of
your verbal attacks on me, i harboured you no great ill-will. Had the
attacks of May, 2006 occurred before the book went to print, i might
have more seriously considered deleting your questions and choosing
those of another student to place in print. But what was done was done,
and i feel that i made a clean and respectful parting with you.
My position with respest to you at the present time is that you are
insufficiently in control of your emotions to engage in consistently
cordial and collegial dialogue. No amount of hit-and-apologize tactics
will convince me that you are trustworthy. For this reason, i generally
do not reply to your posts.
> > Both have made a
> > point of first seeking out friendships and then attacking their supposed
> > friends publicly in usenet.
>
> There is a differnece between "attack" and "defend". When somebody
> posts lies, cough-Cat, and when the victim responds with a defense, it
> is not an "attack".
Here is your issue in a nutshell: you mistakenly believe you are under
attack.
> > Jason Dean Scott has used many pseudonyms
> > and screen identities and has reportedly electronically stalked female
> > posters in the past; Jason Gammon has used only a few screen names, all
> > or most of them compound neologisms with hoodoo or lucky in them, and
> > has never stalked female posters.
>
> Is not "LuckyMojo" a quote "neologism"?
It would be if it were the name of our company, but as you will note,
the name of our company is Lucky Mojo Curio Comany (four words), not
LuckyMojo (one word). A run-together domain name that is not used in
conversation or type is not a neologism; it is a just a typical domain name.
> FYI: I don't use "only a few screen-names". I use one, "LuckyHoodoo"
> (Luckyh.) for short. I used to sign my posts as "LuckyH." but began to
> sign them with my first name (Jason) around 2001 or so.
You used to use the 'nym
HoodWinkedBrand
as well, and in 2000 you were posting under the 'nyms
GammonJason
and
JGammon
That was back when you claimed to have studied Vodoun in New Orleans
under a "mentor" called Mama Lola -- and expressed the opinion that
hoodoo practitioners have "no religion" and that hoodoo was "stolen"
from [Haitian] Voudou. That was back when you wre calling me "honey" and
"dearie" in a sarcastic way.
Again, i bear no anger toward you, and my only wish is that you would
stop thinking about me so much and stop writing about me at all.
cat yronwode