What's a Mage?
Sidney Lambe
that we _are_ magickal beings living in magickal
universe. That magick is the true science.
That nature is supernatural.
Sid
BBDD
No, this is not true. First, Sid has come up with a whole new
definition of magick that is in total disagreement with the man who
came up with the word ~ Sid’s definition is close to story book magic
but has nothing to do with magick. A mage is someone with a degree of
specific knowledge concerning symbolism, trance states, and visions.
They are not advanced enough to work real magick. The highest ranking
is Magus. A neophyte is a mage. It is just a grade within a system. It
would be close to equivalent to a college sophomore who has not
decided on their major. Neither is magick in any way in conflict with
science. Science is only a method of study. Magick embraces it whole
heartedly. There are twenty some odd volumes of work that define all
magick. It is called the Equinox series. I will soon have this
material on my site. On every cover page is this motto: The Method of
Science ~ The Aim of Religion. Magick CANNOT be science but must be
explored using scientific method.
ren
"[8] Modern Persian mobed, derived from Middle Persian magu-pati,
'lord priest', is the unequivocal term for a Zoroastrian priest of a
certain rank."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi
YOU Sid, are a Priest!
BBDD
This is not an accurate definition. Anyone who resorts to wikipedia
for any kind of verification is a total pudding head. Very little is
accurate in wikipedia. Referencing it is enough to earn a failing
grade in many college courses. In this case it is only somewhat
accurate and also requires accepting a very limited view. Not all
mages are Zoroastrian but bigots tend to toss them all into that
basket. Thus one must expect that the most notorious bigot here, Ren,
would do likewise.
Parse Tree
> On Dec 4, 9:23 am, ren <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Here is another interpretation of what a mage is.
>>
>> "[8] Modern Persian mobed, derived from Middle Persian magu-pati,
>> 'lord priest', is the unequivocal term for a Zoroastrian priest of a
>> certain rank."
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi
>>
>> YOU Sid, are a Priest!
>
> This is not an accurate definition. Anyone who resorts to wikipedia
> for any kind of verification is a total pudding head. Very little is
> accurate in wikipedia.
Very little? You need to get with the times instead of reading
propaganda fluff put out by the media (which is far, far less accurate
than Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia).
> Referencing it is enough to earn a failing
> grade in many college courses.
That is true of encyclopedias in general. They're not a proper source
for university level research.
Original research and journal articles are really the mainstay of proper
university research (emphasis on the original).
Sidney Lambe
No. You are. You are always trying to convince people that
you have abilities they don't have and can understand things
they can't understand. That's what's priests do.
I don't do that.
The fact is, like all priests, you can't do anything but
run your mouth. You are a con artist. And a clumsy one
at that.
As for my use of the word "mage", it is simply a form of the word
"magick", indicating a person who is seriously involved in the
study and practice of magick. A magician. This is also the
most common definition of the word given by the numerous
on-line dictionaries.
Wikipedia is hardly the ultimate authority.
Duh.
Don't you ever get tired of these juvenile attacks? All you are
doing is digging your own grave, Fool.
Sid
storm
We are stardust.
We are golden.
We are billion year old carbon.
-Joni Mitchell ("Woodstock")
Everyone is a star.
-Aleister Crowley (not talking about movies or rock and roll)
Keeper of the secrets you already know
-me (a title I use when teaching people they are already magic and
already know everything I am supposedly teaching them. And once they
learn that easy-and-difficult truth, they are ready for initiation,
which does not make them a witch, but merely recognizes the witch they
already are.)
'Tis a shame you cannot talk reasonably and respectfully to others.
There is much overlap in our teachings, even if there are
differences. I just have never found it useful to be abusive about
the teaching, a serious difference in teaching techniques, one that
seems to make it impossible to communicate rather than useful to
communicate.
You are so close to interesting it is almost painful to watch.
-storm (who finds being both priest and teacher not only natural, but
necessary)
BBDD
BBDD
Crowley does not say each is a star (THE BOOK does), but then Crowley
suggests look carefully at Tzaddi to understand what it means. Few
stars are significant. Very rarely do they matter enough to support
life. Tzaddi, in fact is nearly lifeless compared to others. Turn any
rock and you will find pretenders, but magick is the pastime of those
men great even without it. Know them first and foremost by there
worldly success ~ those stars that manifest the greatest gravity. WE
DO NOT TEACH. We assist the fellow gifted.
Sidney Lambe
> On Dec 4, 12:01=A0am, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> A mage is simply someone who has come to understand
>> that we _are_ magickal beings living in magickal
>> universe. That magick is the true science.
>>
>> That nature is supernatural.
>>
>> Sid
>
> We are stardust.
> We are golden.
> We are billion year old carbon.
> -Joni Mitchell ("Woodstock")
Nice poetry alluding to basic truths.
>
> Everyone is a star.
> -Aleister Crowley (not talking about movies or rock and roll)
Who was so un-adept at magick that he couldn't even cure his
own heroin addiction.
I've read some of his books. They are 99% garbage.
The only worthwhile words he has to offer can be found in all of
the great 'spiritual' texts.
"Do what thou wilt shall be be the whole of the law", is an excellent
expression of a basic truth, but just another way of saying
that we have free will.
>
> Keeper of the secrets you already know
> -me (a title I use when teaching people they are already magic and
> already know everything I am supposedly teaching them. And once they
> learn that easy-and-difficult truth, they are ready for initiation,
> which does not make them a witch, but merely recognizes the witch they
> already are.)
>
> 'Tis a shame you cannot talk reasonably and respectfully to others.
I talk reasonably and respectfully to people who talk reasonably
and respectfully to me.
> There is much overlap in our teachings, even if there are
> differences. I just have never found it useful to be abusive about
> the teaching,
I am not abusive about the teaching, but to those who harass me, and
even then only for the purpose of pointing out their motives for
doing so.
> a serious difference in teaching techniques, one that
> seems to make it impossible to communicate rather than useful to
> communicate.
What you are saying is bordering on abuse. You are falsely accusing
me of attempting to teach using abuse as a tool. I do not. I
use 'abuse' to defend myself from attacks.
>
> You are so close to interesting it is almost painful to watch.
And you have a very big ego. I don't care whether you find me
interesting or not. I don't need your approval for anything.
Trust me in this matter.
But this is the best post of yours I've seen so far. The rest
of them have all been concerned with your pathetic attempts to
justify the most un-progressive and un-pagan mindless materialism
you want to indulge in during the mindless materialist christian
holiday called "christmas".
Which you would be boycotting if you weren't another phony who
is pagan when it is convenient to be one and not when it isn't.
Keep it up.
Sid
Theoneflasehaddock
> storm <st...@frii.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 12:01=A0am, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> A mage is simply someone who has come to understand
> >> that we _are_ magickal beings living in magickal
> >> universe. That magick is the true science.
>
> >> That nature is supernatural.
>
> >> Sid
>
> > We are stardust.
> > We are golden.
> > We are billion year old carbon.
> > -Joni Mitchell ("Woodstock")
>
> Nice poetry alluding to basic truths.
>
>
>
> > Everyone is a star.
> > -Aleister Crowley (not talking about movies or rock and roll)
>
> Who was so un-adept at magick that he couldn't even cure his
> own heroin addiction.
>
> I've read some of his books. They are 99% garbage.
One of those cases where the hype gets out of control. I suspect
there's an awful lot of people that started reading them, gave up, and
just don't mention them again. I kind of liked the book of lies at one
point when I was a bit more Discordian, but looking back, even that
didn't really have much of interest in it.
>
> > There is much overlap in our teachings, even if there are
> > differences. I just have never found it useful to be abusive about
> > the teaching,
>
> I am not abusive about the teaching, but to those who harass me, and
> even then only for the purpose of pointing out their motives for
> doing so.
>
> > a serious difference in teaching techniques, one that
> > seems to make it impossible to communicate rather than useful to
> > communicate.
>
> What you are saying is bordering on abuse. You are falsely accusing
> me of attempting to teach using abuse as a tool. I do not. I
> use 'abuse' to defend myself from attacks.
WOW. 2 people on usenet accusing each other of abuse.
I think it might be time we take a step back and point out that just
about everybody on usenet does that. And the rest are clueless fucking
newbies, of which, thanks to blogs with better graphics and less pesky
words to read through, we've got a serious shortage of nowadays.
sarchasm
>
> I use 'abuse' to defend myself from attacks.
>
sid-alan-john-kent often relies upon revisionism to claim a different
sequence of events than actually occurred.
>>
>
> I don't care whether you find me
> interesting or not. I don't need your approval for anything.
>
And yet here you are, apparently seeking approval, (validation?), for your
off-kilter ideas as if arw is alt.free.psychoanalysis
Storm
> storm <st...@frii.com> wrote:
>>
>> 'Tis a shame you cannot talk reasonably and respectfully to others.
>
> I talk reasonably and respectfully to people who talk reasonably
> and respectfully to me.
>
>> There is much overlap in our teachings, even if there are
>> differences. I just have never found it useful to be abusive about
>> the teaching,
>
> I am not abusive about the teaching, but to those who harass me, and
> even then only for the purpose of pointing out their motives for
> doing so.
>
>> a serious difference in teaching techniques, one that
>> seems to make it impossible to communicate rather than useful to
>> communicate.
>
> What you are saying is bordering on abuse. You are falsely accusing
> me of attempting to teach using abuse as a tool. I do not. I
> use 'abuse' to defend myself from attacks.
No. I cannot agree with that statement. It is my observation that you
start out abusive and work your way down from there. You enter topics and
even start topics that stridently declare that those who think differently
from you are deluded idiots. You consistently display a combative and
hostile persona on these forums. If you claim to be unaware that this
consistent persona exists, then now you know. If you are unaware that such
a persona is in itself a barrier to effective communication, you have the
opportunity to learn that principle.
It is my conclusion that you do indeed know what type of persona you
project on the net and what reactions it elicits. Also, you take a good
deal of pleasure and satisfaction from those reactions.
>
>>
>> You are so close to interesting it is almost painful to watch.
>
> And you have a very big ego. I don't care whether you find me
> interesting or not. I don't need your approval for anything.
And you have a very big ego as well. Also, I cannot bring myself to care
about your approval. I guess that is a subject we agree about, in a way.
>
> Trust me in this matter.
No way. Trust is earned by certain patterns of behavior and interaction.
You're behavior and interaction on the net is counter-productive to
establishing any kind of trust relationship. And again, I am certain you
know that already.
The most interesting part of the contradictions you present is how this
hostile persona can jibe with the meditation and enlightenment level you
claim to have achieved. To my observation, those who learn enough
self-awareness to achieve any kind of enlightenment gain enough to be
other-aware as well. To be self-aware is not to achieve perfection from
which to judge others, but attaining acceptance of one's own imperfections
as a way of learning we are all perfect as we are. Not one of those
people, regardless of their religious or philosophical source, has taken it
upon themselves to declare other paths completely invalid and useless. not
one of those enlightened folk I have had the pleasure to meet has made that
meeting uncomfortable by bristling disrespect and antagonism towards others
and their choice of their own path to enlightenment. In fact, one of the
revealing indicators of those who are enlightened is how consistently warm
and pleasant they are, even when encountering those who are abusive and
antagonistic. Just being in a room with a person of that awareness and
power is a healing event, not the knock down fighting match you seem to
offer.
I enjoy paradox and contradiction and make it part of my life, but yours is
a contradiction whose resolution leads to strong doubt of any sincerity on
your part towards polite discussion with someone who disagrees with you.
Who knows, I could be wrong. You could respond to my contradiction with a
resolution that makes sense, and proves me wrong. You could just say that
I am not evolved enough to follow your level of logic. You could get
abusive and tell me that no Wiccan, regardless of individual path, will
ever have any clue about anything ever. We will see, but I do not expect
to see something that would strongly indicate anything other than hostility
on your part. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. It wouldn't be the first time I
was wrong, and it would be an incredibly pleasant surprise.
>
> But this is the best post of yours I've seen so far. The rest
> of them have all been concerned with your pathetic attempts to
> justify the most un-progressive and un-pagan mindless materialism
> you want to indulge in during the mindless materialist christian
> holiday called "christmas".
>
> Which you would be boycotting if you weren't another phony who
> is pagan when it is convenient to be one and not when it isn't.
Excuse me, but you seem to have the word "pagan" confused with the word
"saint". Yes they both have five letters. No, they do not have further
correlation. None of us need to make the ascetic monk-like efforts it
would take to impress you that we are really true pagans in your opinion.
Then again, as said above, neither of us needs the other's approval. All
you show here is the hostility and antagonism that you complain about in
others. All you show here is the hostility and antagonism that hinders
communication, not helps it. which is the supposedly "abusive" conclusion I
have come to about your net persona. I hope, for your sake, that in real
life you are less antagonistic towards those around you, or that you enjoy
solitude.
>
> Keep it up.
Always and forever. Regardless of your approval or disapproval or any
other reaction. And in return I offer this advice (with possibly less
sarchasm):
Keep it up, but tone it down.
-storm
sarchasm
> "Sidney 'alan-john-kent' Lambe" wrote:
>
>> Keep it up.
>
> Always and forever. Regardless of your approval or disapproval or any
> other reaction. And in return I offer this advice (with possibly less
> sarchasm):
>
> Keep it up, but tone it down.
>
Doubtless you meant "sarcasm" in tis context? ;>
Sidney Lambe
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:58:33 -0800, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> storm <st...@frii.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 'Tis a shame you cannot talk reasonably and respectfully to others.
>>
>> I talk reasonably and respectfully to people who talk reasonably
>> and respectfully to me.
>>
>>> There is much overlap in our teachings, even if there are
>>> differences. I just have never found it useful to be abusive about
>>> the teaching,
>>
>> I am not abusive about the teaching, but to those who harass me, and
>> even then only for the purpose of pointing out their motives for
>> doing so.
>>
>>> a serious difference in teaching techniques, one that
>>> seems to make it impossible to communicate rather than useful to
>>> communicate.
>>
>> What you are saying is bordering on abuse. You are falsely accusing
>> me of attempting to teach using abuse as a tool. I do not. I
>> use 'abuse' to defend myself from attacks.
>
> No. I cannot agree with that statement. It is my observation that you
> start out abusive and work your way down from there. You enter topics and
> even start topics that stridently declare that those who think differently
> from you are deluded idiots.
No. I say that anyone making claims of extraordinary abilities must
demonstrate them or be considered to be charlatans.
And they must also support the alleged information about Magick
they post with something other than a link to a website. Any loon
or liar can put up a website that says anything.
The same goes, to a lesser degree, for books that claim to be
about Magick.
Many people on these groups posts claims and assertions about
Magick that they expect people to believe just because they post
it, which is simply absurd.
Especially considering that they are usually anonymous and
cannot be held accountable for anything they say. Their
claims and assertions cannot be investigated.
People behaving absurdly do not deserve to be treated with
respect.
[delete]
Sid
sarchasm
>
> Especially considering that they are usually anonymous and
> cannot be held accountable for anything they say. Their
> claims and assertions cannot be investigated.
>
> People behaving absurdly do not deserve to be treated with
> respect.
>
Which, when applied to sidney-alan-john-kent-etc., should go far in clearing
this matter up for sidney-alan-john-kent-etc..
BBDD
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sid, I agree, but you are downright stupid. You sit on your toilet ah
grunting and demand proof. The proof is not provided in your bathroom
nor in these groups. One posts here ~ one proves in real life.
Following is a link to just a few photos of things I do and teach
other to do. The degree of success in these is due to Majik. Coming up
with the ideas was directly due to Majik. These are only three of many
things I do with Majik. If you have no comprehension of Majik it
cannot be proven to you.
Sidney Lambe
>
> Sid, I agree, but you are downright stupid. You sit on your toilet ah
> grunting and demand proof. The proof is not provided in your bathroom
> nor in these groups. One posts here ~ one proves in real life.
BBDD, you don't do anything in real life.
One day in real life with your punk mouth and someone would
lay a baseball bat across your face.
I am asking you once again to prove that you can do something
Magickal.
No, I don't believe anything you say, here or on your website.
No rational person does. You have demonstrated yourself to
be incredibly dishonest on this group, time and time again,
and most of what you post is simply gibberish.
As for all the people who seem to be posting on your site, they
are your own sockpuppets.
[delete]
Sid
hy_b...@shaw.ca
> One day in real life with your punk mouth and someone would
> lay a baseball bat across your face.
Sid, remember that day when we first met and I beat you with sticks and
you got so upset with me?
That was a good day, wasn't it :D
Sidney Lambe
Only when you stopped ;-)
Sid
Sidney Lambe
Oops. I put that in the wrong place.
Sid
storm
What an interesting typo in what an interesting context. I am trying
to avoid any thoughts of freudian interpretations of a slip of the
fingers. Ooops. Too late. :-)
-storm
hy_b...@shaw.ca
What did you put in the wrong place? It looks the same to me.
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> hy_b...@shaw.ca <hy_b...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One day in real life with your punk mouth and someone would
>>>>> lay a baseball bat across your face.
>>>> Sid, remember that day when we first met and I beat you with sticks and
>>>> you got so upset with me?
>>>>
>>>> That was a good day, wasn't it :D
>>>>
>>> Only when you stopped ;-)
>>>
>>> Sid
>>
>> Oops. I put that in the wrong place.
>
> What did you put in the wrong place? It looks the same to me.
Never mind. A joke that must be explained loses its bite.
Especially a lame one. My fault, not yours.
Sid
hy_b...@shaw.ca
> hy_b...@shaw.ca <hy_b...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> hy_b...@shaw.ca <hy_b...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One day in real life with your punk mouth and someone would
>>>>>> lay a baseball bat across your face.
>>>>> Sid, remember that day when we first met and I beat you with sticks and
>>>>> you got so upset with me?
>>>>>
>>>>> That was a good day, wasn't it :D
>>>>>
>>>> Only when you stopped ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Sid
>>> Oops. I put that in the wrong place.
>> What did you put in the wrong place? It looks the same to me.
>
> Never mind. A joke that must be explained loses its bite.
> Especially a lame one. My fault, not yours.
>
> Sid
Oh, I dropped a joke.. I am sorry.
Are you talking about the stick?
Sidney Lambe
'Twas me that dropped it.
>
> Are you talking about the stick?
No. The carrot.
Sid
sarchasm
> "sarchasm" <sar.ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Storm" <misterma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "Sidney 'alan-john-kent' Lambe" wrote:
>
> >> Keep it up.
>
> > Always and forever. Regardless of your approval or disapproval or any
> > other reaction. And in return I offer this advice (with possibly less
> > sarchasm)
>
> > Keep it up, but tone it down.
>
>
>What an interesting typo in what an interesting context.
>
Not all that interesting ... no need to drag sarchasm into the context if
I'm already there.
>
>I am trying
>to avoid any thoughts of freudian interpretations of a slip of the
>fingers. Ooops. Too late. :-)
>
It is an an abyss many secretly dread while blustering on the surface.
aine
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
> > hy_bis...@shaw.ca <hy_bis...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> Sidney Lambe wrote:
> >>> Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
> >>>>>> One day in real life with your punk mouth and someone would
> >>>>>> lay a baseball bat across your face.
> >>>>> Sid, remember that day when we first met and I beat you with sticks and
> >>>>> you got so upset with me?
>
> >>>>> That was a good day, wasn't it :D
>
> >>>> Only when you stopped ;-)
>
> >>>> Sid
> >>> Oops. I put that in the wrong place.
> >> What did you put in the wrong place? It looks the same to me.
>
> > Never mind. A joke that must be explained loses its bite.
> > Especially a lame one. My fault, not yours.
>
> > Sid
>
> Oh, I dropped a joke.. I am sorry.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Desperate for someone to talk to hY?
hy_b...@shaw.ca
Are you being rude or making a joke?
I said what I said for a reason.
Sidney Lambe
> aine wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 2:39 pm, hy_bis...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>> hy_bis...@shaw.ca <hy_bis...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>>>> Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> hy_bis...@shaw.ca <hy_bis...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One day in real life with your punk mouth and someone would
>>>>>>>>> lay a baseball bat across your face.
>>>>>>>> Sid, remember that day when we first met and I beat you with sticks and
>>>>>>>> you got so upset with me?
>>>>>>>> That was a good day, wasn't it :D
>>>>>>> Only when you stopped ;-)
>>>>>>> Sid
>>>>>> Oops. I put that in the wrong place.
>>>>> What did you put in the wrong place? It looks the same to me.
>>>> Never mind. A joke that must be explained loses its bite.
>>>> Especially a lame one. My fault, not yours.
>>>> Sid
>>> Oh, I dropped a joke.. I am sorry.
>>>
>>> Are you talking about the stick?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>
No. She just wanted to talk to someone who isn't
a snotty little backstabbing bitch.
>
> Are you being rude or making a joke?
I've rarely seen her be anything but rude, and
she hates me for refusing to buy ren's bullshit.
That little fraud's attempt to use lies and innuendo against me
in lieu of the magick he doesn't have failed, and he has run for
cover with his tale between his legs (pun intended).
> I said what I said for a reason.
And I understood you perfectly.
Sid
hy_b...@shaw.ca
I would be a fool to think that you understanding perfectly, means that
you are the one I beat with sticks. (I am aware you haven't said it was
you).
I do feel that person around, but that doesn't make that person you.
If it is you. I saw a sweet innocence in that person, and I cared for
that person. You resemble that person, but that is all that I can say
about you.
I do remember that person chastising the belief in certain things, but I
thought ren was your friend? When did you part on such terms?
I am much more harsh of ren as well, but I am the same way with everyone
in general. I am also a lot more forgiving in a whole different sort of way.
ren
> That is true of encyclopedias in general. They're not a proper source
> for university level research.
>
> Original research and journal articles are really the mainstay of proper
> university research (emphasis on the original).
And original research is more difficult to share with you on this
newsgroup. It isn't difficult to cross-reference the etymology of the
word "Mage" with other online sources. Other than that, I agree with
you. Original research is better. Wiki is edited by all kinds of
people, many aren't experts.
ren
> As for my use of the word "mage", it is simply a form of the word
> "magick", indicating a person who is seriously involved in the
> study and practice of magick. A magician. This is also the
> most common definition of the word given by the numerous
> on-line dictionaries.
As long as you explain your use of the word "Mage", I suppose we are
free to accept your definition or not. However, a "Magician" may be
misunderstood to be a performer of stage magic tricks. That is the
most common definition of the word.
> Don't you ever get tired of these juvenile attacks? All you are
> doing is digging your own grave, Fool.
>
> Sid
I'm enjoying your childish pranks and tantrums. You are actively
participating in this newsgroup and stimulating conversation about
metaphysics. Thanks!
Blessed Be!
ren
And stars are the Goddesses and Gods of mythology.
ren
> Crowley does not say each is a star (THE BOOK does), but then Crowley
> suggests look carefully at Tzaddi to understand what it means. Few
> stars are significant. Very rarely do they matter enough to support
> life. Tzaddi, in fact is nearly lifeless compared to others. Turn any
You are under the misconception that all practitioners of magick are
also fully educated in Thelema and Ceremonial Magick. Not all are.
Please explain what Tzaddi is to our readers.
ren
> holiday called "christmas".
>
> Which you would be boycotting if you weren't another phony who
> is pagan when it is convenient to be one and not when it isn't.
Christmas and most of its practices is originally Pagan. Sid, please
don't drop out of school. As Storm said, it is painful to watch your
illiterate enthusiasm in this newsgroup's participation. You are
trying so hard. Please keep trying and do some more reading.
ren
wrote:
> I think it might be time we take a step back and point out that just
> about everybody on usenet does that. And the rest are clueless fucking
> newbies, of which, thanks to blogs with better graphics and less pesky
> words to read through, we've got a serious shortage of nowadays.
Look at the pretty blog! Oooo! The colors! The avatars!
ren
> And yet here you are, apparently seeking approval, (validation?), for your
> off-kilter ideas as if arw is alt.free.psychoanalysis
Tough love, Sar! He, he.
ren
> No. I say that anyone making claims of extraordinary abilities must
> demonstrate them or be considered to be charlatans.
You keep coming here demanding a demonstration. Nobody is
demonstrating so everybody must be a charlatan. Why do you keep coming
back? Do you know what I think? I think you angered someone with
extraordinary abilities and they forced you to come here and dance
around for the charlatan's amusement. But I'm not amused. I feel quite
bad for you. But I will not undo the work of this other person. I feel
they are justified in doing what they did you you. I have the ability
to heal only those who want to be healed. That is impossible for you.
You're all nice and cozy in your warm little hell hole.
> The same goes, to a lesser degree, for books that claim to be
> about Magick.
Email and complain to the authors, not us.
> Many people on these groups posts claims and assertions about
> Magick that they expect people to believe just because they post
> it, which is simply absurd.
I expect no reader of alt.religion.wicca to believe my claims and
assertions about magick. I encourage everyone who is capable, to
experiment with what I say for themselves. Right now, I'm trying to
explain how to work with departed spirits. I'm also trying to explain
their capabilities such as possession of the living.
Thank you for your help, Sid! No! Really! Thanks! Blessed be.
> Especially considering that they are usually anonymous and
> cannot be held accountable for anything they say. Their
> claims and assertions cannot be investigated.
Nor can yours, Mr. NoSpam at NoReply Dot Organization.
> People behaving absurdly do not deserve to be treated with
> respect.
I respectfully disagree. I think you deserve to be treated as a human
being despite your psychological challenges.
> [delete]
>
> Sid
ren
> aine wrote:
> > Desperate for someone to talk to hY?
>
> Are you being rude or making a joke?
>
> I said what I said for a reason.
Why did you say it, hY? How much do you think Aine and I knew all
along?
ren
> And I understood you perfectly.
>
> Sid
Oh, and we understand you perfectly as well. You and hY said too much
and you won't realize it until you read it again.
ren
> I do remember that person chastising the belief in certain things, but I
> thought ren was your friend? When did you part on such terms?
>
> I am much more harsh of ren as well, but I am the same way with everyone
> in general. I am also a lot more forgiving in a whole different sort of way.
I'm listening. Magickally. Tell us more.
Parse Tree
Oh, I have no criticisms of sharing non-original research on the forum.
It's not like it's useless because it has no place in formal academia.
sarchasm
He'll get what he pays for - whether he wants to be charged for it or not.
sarchasm
> "Sidney-aka alan-kent-john-etc- Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> And I understood you perfectly.
>
> Sid
>
>Oh, and we understand you perfectly as well. You and hY said too much
>and you won't realize it until you read it again.
>
There's a very high probability that he won't realize it, even then.
Sidney Lambe
I am not the person you are referring to. Sorry.
As for ren, it isn't a matter of me forgiving him for anything.
He is teaching a false idea of what Magick is and I am not going
to stand by and watch him disinform people.
You can't call it 'misinform' because he knows that what he calls
Magick doesn't work.
Sid
Snuffy Smith
spells. Their primary role in a group at lower levels is damage
dealing and crowd control through the use of Polymorph, temporarily
changing humanoids and beasts into harmless critters. At end-game
levels, the role of the magi expands into utility, as many encounters
in the game are difficult to finish without Counterspell, Remove
Curse, and Spellsteal. The mages' utility spells also include
conjuring food and drink, and the ability to teleport to major cities
and open portals for party members. In PvP combat, magi deal ranged
damage while using escape skills to avoid taking damage during combat.
Their primary stats are intellect, stamina, spell power, spell
critical strike rating, spell hit rating, and spell haste (the order
of importance varies with the player's role).
sarchasm
>
> As for ren, it isn't a matter of me forgiving him for anything.
> He is teaching a false idea of what Magick is and I am not going
> to stand by and watch him disinform people.
>
You are going to stand by and watch him, unless you pretend to killfile him,
and there's not a thing you can do about it.
aine
I am very creative with duct tape!
sarchasm
>
> > As for ren, it isn't a matter of me forgiving him for anything.
> > He is teaching a false idea of what Magick is and I am not going
> > to stand by and watch him disinform people.
>
> You are going to stand by and watch him, unless you pretend to killfile
> him,
> and there's not a thing you can do about it.
>
>I am very creative with duct tape!
>
Good, that may come in handy in this instance too. ;>
storm
> Every man and woman is a star, Storm.
>
> And stars are the Goddesses and Gods of mythology.
Blessed be. (As in "Amen, brother!")
-storm
sarchasm
> "ren" <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Every man and woman is a star, Storm.
>
> And stars are the Goddesses and Gods of mythology.
>
>Blessed be. (As in "Amen, brother!")
>
Wouldn't that be "Amon" or "Amun", in context?