OFF: Ask Umra
Kirsten Procter
Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
Kirsten
--
Kirsten Procter ghoti
Psychedelic Juliet who thinks and does it all for show
chris harrison
>
> Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
> the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
Might that depend on whether you think there's a difference between
being a witch and thinking you are a witch?
Does a person being a witch continue to be something that the law has a
problem with? If not then I wouldn't have thought it would matter.
On the other hand, thinking oneself a witch might make warking in a post
office unconscionable. Can't imagine why, though.
Anyone know the T&Cs for being a postie? Surely it would be
discrimination to exclude witches. That's a slogan I haven't seen ....
"The Post Office: working a Muggle-only future" ...
--
chris harrison.
ic-parc, william penney laboratory, imperial college, london, sw7 2az.
(Work) http://www.icparc.ic.ac.uk/~cah1/
(Rest) http://www.lowfield.co.uk/
(Play) http://www.vesta.rowing.org.uk/
Kim Andrews
<kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
>the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
Evidence suggests you are correct:
Round about the counter go;
In the poisoned Giro throw.
Stamp, that under cold thumb
Days and nights hast thirty-one
Sweltered venom, feeling you,
Boil thou first i' the single queue.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Buy thou Christmas wrap of bubble.
[...]
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,
Passport form correct, each letter,
But clearly photo could be better.
--
Cheers, Kimbo
www.foca.co.uk
BT Winner Special Distasteful Category Award 1999
Life isn't all Woodbines and gin, you know.
Strumpet Extraordinaire & Founding FONT
Stephen GC Tilley
Kirsten Procter <kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man
says
> the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
Who would exclude who i.e. would the P.O. exlude witches or the coven
exclude postpersons?
--
Stephen Tilley : Um...@Aol.Com : http://onward.to/Tilley
Never trust a person with a bigger helicopter than yours
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rob Linham
> the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
You. That is, assuming a sorting office counts as a post office, I have
definitely worked with a genuine witch.
Rob.
--
"And everything you tried to say, but all the words got in the way."
Quiz Webmaster Extraordinaire @ http://here.is/oxfordquiz
LSS Official Disseminator of Information and Other Useless Statistics,
Pertaining to Research, Academia and Teaching.
UMRAGeek: 80/17 M B- G- A+++ L+++ I S-- P@ CH++++ Ar+ T++>+ H- Q(-) Sh-(-)
Marjorie Clarke
Stephen GC Tilley <Um...@Aol.Com> wrote in message
news:90inbm$tjv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <-AA*cj...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> Kirsten Procter <kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
> says
> > the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
>
> exclude postpersons?
I doubt whether the PO would exclude witches: they probably have an equal
opps policy that states that they won't discriminate on grounds of creed or
religious belief or whatever.
But maybe witches can't/won't work for the PO. I have no idea why this would
be, though. Is that what you meant, Kirsten?
--
Marjorie Clarke
Nigel P Whittington
k...@foca.co.uk wrote:
> On 05 Dec 2000 10:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Kirsten Procter
> <kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
> > I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office,
t'man says
> >the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
>
>
> Round about the counter go;
> In the poisoned Giro throw.
> Stamp, that under cold thumb
> Days and nights hast thirty-one
> Sweltered venom, feeling you,
> Boil thou first i' the single queue.
> Double, double toil and trouble;
> Buy thou Christmas wrap of bubble.
>
> [...]
>
> Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
> Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
> Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
> Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,
> Passport form correct, each letter,
> But clearly photo could be better.
> --
> Cheers, Kimbo
> www.foca.co.uk
> BT Winner Special Distasteful Category Award 1999
> Life isn't all Woodbines and gin, you know.
> Strumpet Extraordinaire & Founding FONT
>
--
Nigel P Whittington, Hull, U.K.
East Yorkshire coast geology and geomorphology
www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/ecolodge/25/
Kirsten Procter
Marjorie Clarke <marj...@theclarkes99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Stephen GC Tilley <Um...@Aol.Com> wrote in message
>news:90inbm$tjv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <-AA*cj...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>> >
>> > Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
>> > I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man
>> says
>> > the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
>>
>> exclude postpersons?
>
>I doubt whether the PO would exclude witches: they probably have an equal
>opps policy that states that they won't discriminate on grounds of creed or
>religious belief or whatever.
>
>But maybe witches can't/won't work for the PO. I have no idea why this would
>be, though. Is that what you meant, Kirsten?
>
I *think* this is what he meant. It was because we were trying to
remember the name of the woman in fingerless gloves (suspicious to start
off with) who works in the Post Office in Postman Pat world. and thus we
got to discussing whether it''s possible to work in the post office and
be a witch (if anywhere it's in Postman Pat world - did I tell you about
the cool punk-woman who replaced him when he had 'flu'?)
I think Kim's answer will do, though - not only is it amusing, it
supports me :)
Min Lacey
>
> Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
>the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
should think it's okay.....
By the way, can I have a pint of whatever you're drinking? (As long as
it's not d**d)
--
Min
REverb. Lots and lots of reverb.
Simon Gardner
>In article <90j65b$f6f$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>Marjorie Clarke <marj...@theclarkes99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>
>
> I *think* this is what he meant. It was because we were trying to
>remember the name of the woman in fingerless gloves (suspicious to start
Mrs Goggins (a.k.a. Mordreth the Foul!)
Simon
Stephen GC Tilley
Hasn't the PO just made PP redundant? (In RL that is)
--
Stephen Tilley : Um...@Aol.Com : http://onward.to/Tilley
Never trust a person with a bigger helicopter than yours
Tim Hall
<simon....@virgin.net> wrote:
>Kirsten Procter wrote in message ...
>>In article <90j65b$f6f$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>>Marjorie Clarke <marj...@theclarkes99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
><snip>
>>
>>
>> I *think* this is what he meant. It was because we were trying to
>>remember the name of the woman in fingerless gloves (suspicious to start
>>off with) who works in the Post Office in Postman Pat world...
>
>
>Mrs Goggins (a.k.a. Mordreth the Foul!)
>
>Simon
>
Simon, where have you been?
Still on South Island?
Tim
Nev Young
<kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> had written, some of, the following
>
> Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
> the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
>
You're right
t'man is wrong.
--
Nev - who doesn't have an umra geek code.
Nev Young
<ca...@icparc.ic.ac.uk> had written, some of, the following
>
> Does a person being a witch continue to be something that the law has a
> problem with? If not then I wouldn't have thought it would matter.
>
I would doubt that. It will be 50 years since the repeal of the
witchcraft act in a few months time.
Alan Craig
<kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> I *think* this is what he meant. It was because we were trying to
>remember the name of the woman in fingerless gloves (suspicious to start
>off with) who works in the Post Office in Postman Pat world.
Have you ever noticed that all the children in Greendale look like
Postman Pat? I have my suspicions that he does more than
'deliver all the letters in his van'.
Chris J Dixon
>In article <-AA*cj...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Kirsten Procter
><kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> used the electronic medium to say
>>
>> Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
>> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
>>the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
>You do not (AFAIK) have to swear an oath to anyone in the PO, so I
>should think it's okay.....
Apart from signing the official secrets act?
Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/52/24 M B+ G+ A L(-) I S-- CH-(--) Ar++ T+ H0 ?Q Sh+
chris...@easynet.co.uk
Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.
Kirsten Procter
Stephen GC Tilley <Um...@Aol.Com> wrote:
>In article <n5dX5.1884$Ah3....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "Simon Gardner" <simon....@virgin.net> wrote:
>> Kirsten Procter wrote in message ...
>> >In article <90j65b$f6f$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>> >>
>> > I *think* this is what he meant. It was because we were trying to
>> >remember the name of the woman in fingerless gloves (suspicious to
>start
>>
>> Mrs Goggins (a.k.a. Mordreth the Foul!)
>
>
Sadly, so.
Does anyrat know whether Gereendale has a replacement postie? Is it the
green-spikey haired punk woman?
(Postman Pat's children - I think only |Julian is his, it's just tht all
the adults of the place have similar physical attributes. OTOH, I'd also
say that Julian looks more like his mother than his father. YMMV)
chris harrison
>
> Min Lacey wrote:
>
> >In article <-AA*cj...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Kirsten Procter
> ><kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> used the electronic medium to say
> >>
> >> Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
> >> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
> >>the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
> >You do not (AFAIK) have to swear an oath to anyone in the PO, so I
> >should think it's okay.....
>
> Apart from signing the official secrets act?
Never quite saw the point of having to sign the act - it doesn't make it
more or less of an offence. It doesn't even mean you've read the
contents.
Quite apart from there having been several passed and they never asked
people to sign a copy of the new one if they'd signed the old one.
BICBAM.
Rosemary Miskin
<ca...@icparc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> Quite apart from there having been several passed and they never asked
> people to sign a copy of the new one if they'd signed the old one.
But I was made to sign it again when I married - a new Security officer had
a fit when he realised that I was working under a name not on his list of
signatories, even tho' my future husband had been cleared before I was
allowed to carry on with the work.
Rosemary
--
Behind every great man stands a surprised mother-in-law.
Rosemary Miskin ZFC LIV mis...@argonet.co.uk
Loughborough, UK http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/miskin
chris harrison
>
> In article <3A2E4B17...@icparc.ic.ac.uk>, chris harrison
> <ca...@icparc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Quite apart from there having been several passed and they never asked
> > people to sign a copy of the new one if they'd signed the old one.
>
> But I was made to sign it again when I married - a new Security officer had
> a fit when he realised that I was working under a name not on his list of
> signatories, even tho' my future husband had been cleared before I was
> allowed to carry on with the work.
Still beats me as to why you have to sign the thing in the first place.
It doesn't increase its powers, nor reduce your responsibilities. It
doesn't make you more aware of its contents - nor, necessarily, any more
or less likely to adhere to it. I imagine that, like most legalese, a
fair amount of it probably takes some understanding .... I mean, lawyers
don't make their fortunes through pointing out the bleedin' obvious.
Well, not all their fortune anyway.
Bernard M. Earp
<ca...@icparc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>Rosemary Miskin wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A2E4B17...@icparc.ic.ac.uk>, chris harrison
>> <ca...@icparc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>> But I was made to sign it again when I married - a new Security officer had
>> a fit when he realised that I was working under a name not on his list of
>> signatories, even tho' my future husband had been cleared before I was
>> allowed to carry on with the work.
>
>Still beats me as to why you have to sign the thing in the first place.
>It doesn't increase its powers, nor reduce your responsibilities. It
>doesn't make you more aware of its contents - nor, necessarily, any more
>or less likely to adhere to it. I imagine that, like most legalese, a
>fair amount of it probably takes some understanding .... I mean, lawyers
>don't make their fortunes through pointing out the bleedin' obvious.
>Well, not all their fortune anyway.
>
Presumably so that you cannot in the future deny any knowledge of it. .
.There it is with your signature, the fact the you have not read it nor
been able to understand it would be no defence
--
Bernard M. Earp
Holding the heights of Bromley Cross
nick odell
<sjoh...@herald.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
>> the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
>
>You. That is, assuming a sorting office counts as a post office, I have
>definitely worked with a genuine witch.
<swerve>
And the woman on the checkout in Jack Fultons Freezer shop did a
double-take this evening when she scanned my goods and the total came
to £6.66 The till flashed "Total" then flashed "Error" then read 6.66.
Oooh, she said. I don't like the look of that.
I assure you I'm a perfectly nice bloke really, I replied.
But you'd say that anyway, wouldn't you?
I didn't like to tell her my name.
Old Nick
--
real e-mail is (all one word) themusicworkshop at cwcom.net
Chris McMillan
<URL:mailto:ca...@icparc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> Kirsten Procter wrote:
> >
> > Please can you settle an important domestic dispute?
> > the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
>
> being a witch and thinking you are a witch?
>
> problem with? If not then I wouldn't have thought it would matter.
>
> office unconscionable. Can't imagine why, though.
>
> Anyone know the T&Cs for being a postie?
Of course we do - or rather Rob Linham does. He's our very own student vac postie.
(Demon has been hiding lots of posts from us and in order to get at them, we are now back a
whole month and are hunting through 3000 posts. Hi Nobby!
Sincerely, Chris
--
anon...@firedrake.org
>In article <hvlr2tgf2fd10mf81...@4ax.com>,
>nevi...@spamblock.nfy53.demon.co.uk says...
>> While lurking in the froup, I noticed that chris harrison
>> <ca...@icparc.ic.ac.uk> had written, some of, the following
>> > Does a person being a witch continue to be something that the law has a
>> > problem with? If not then I wouldn't have thought it would matter.
>> I would doubt that. It will be 50 years since the repeal of the
>> witchcraft act in a few months time.
>So it's OK that I float, then? ;-)
Doesn't that merely prove that you're not a duck?
--
Weevil
AttLSM
Fenny
> <ca...@icparc.ic.ac.uk> had written, some of, the following
>
> >
> > Does a person being a witch continue to be something that the law has a
> > problem with? If not then I wouldn't have thought it would matter.
> >
> I would doubt that. It will be 50 years since the repeal of the
> witchcraft act in a few months time.
>
Fenny
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss
on your computer." - Bruce Graham
David Medcalf
wrote:
>You do not (AFAIK) have to swear an oath to anyone in the PO, so I
>should think it's okay.....
One has to sign the Official Secrets Act, though now I've told you
that, I'll have to kill you.
Postperson David, with his little black dog
Lancashire
David Medcalf
<kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
>the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
Hello Kirsten
I am currently doing a spell for the Post Office, but AFAIK IANAW.
*However* I do have a colleague who is often referred to as The Witch
of Chesterfield, so you must be right.
Rob Linham
> In article <3A2CCD53...@icparc.ic.ac.uk>, chris harrison
> <URL:mailto:ca...@icparc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Anyone know the T&Cs for being a postie?
zzzzzzzz
> Of course we do - or rather Rob Linham does. He's our very own
> student vac postie.
zzzzzz... uh?! wu? huh? Oh. Er.
AFAIR, there's no mention of witchiness or otherwise in the conditions,
unless it's picked you up a conviction for theft or fraud along the way,
in which case you've got a problem. I'd have thought that the biggest
problem with witching and being a postie would be sleep deprivation from
all those full moon ceremonies clashing with the 5am starts [1]
Rob.
[1] Vagueness and ignorance of witchism deliberate, he said, trying to
avert a new thread...
Jane Vernon
>In message <IwtcgEAP...@otbo.demon.co.uk> Jane the potter in the
>purple socks wrote:
>
>>>From my vantage point in the treetop walk I heard David Medcalf say:
>>>On 05 Dec 2000 10:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Kirsten Procter
>>><kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
>>>>the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
>>>Hello Kirsten
>>>I am currently doing a spell
>>should think witches are too.
>
>And there I was assuming that he simply meant that he was a witch.
AIUI only wimmin can be witches. Whether the male equivalent is a
Wizard or a Warlock I'm not at all clear.
Jane
The potter in the purple socks
Stephen GC Tilley
anon...@firedrake.org wrote:
> In message <20001208093300....@firedrake.org> Firedrake R
wrote:
>
> >In article <20001207220650....@firedrake.org>,
>
> Not all witches is birds, though: some of them is blokes.
What's a warlock then?
--
Stephen Tilley : Um...@Aol.Com : http://onward.to/Tilley
... grandson of a witch
Roger Burton West
Stephen GC Tilley <Um...@Aol.Com> wrote:
> anon...@firedrake.org wrote:
>> Not all witches is birds, though: some of them is blokes.
>What's a warlock then?
I gather that the wiccans consider warlock == oath-breaker, and
witch == practicing wiccan of any gender.
R
Marjorie Clarke
George Middleton <gzo...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kqQfbJAS...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> David Medcalf wrote>
> >One has to sign the Official Secrets Act
>
> sign a declaration that we are aware of it.
Aw, come on, she never worked as a postie!
--
Marjorie Clarke
anon...@firedrake.org
>In article <20001208113126....@firedrake.org>,
> anon...@firedrake.org wrote:
>> In message <20001208093300....@firedrake.org> Firedrake R
>wrote:
>>
>> >In article <20001207220650....@firedrake.org>,
>> > <anon...@firedrake.org> wrote:
>> >>In message <MPG.1498e8562...@news.matnet.com> Fenny wrote:
>> >>>So it's OK that I float, then? ;-)
>> >>Doesn't that merely prove that you're not a duck?
>> >All birds is ducks, except for witches?
>> Not all witches is birds, though: some of them is blokes.
>What's a warlock then?
A male would-be magic-user the error of whose terminology has not yet been
repeatedly explained to him by several earnest wiccans in plainsong,
harmony and heavy italics.
Or stubborn.
--
Weevil
AttLSM
anon...@firedrake.org
purple socks wrote:
>>From my vantage point in the treetop walk I heard say:
>>In message <IwtcgEAP...@otbo.demon.co.uk> Jane the potter in the
>>purple socks wrote:
>>
>>>>>From my vantage point in the treetop walk I heard David Medcalf say:
>>>>On 05 Dec 2000 10:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Kirsten Procter
>>>><kpro...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I say it is possible to be a witch and work in a post office, t'man says
>>>>>the two are mutually exclusive. Which of us is right?
>>>>Hello Kirsten
>>>>I am currently doing a spell
>>>A spell, eh? So Wizards are allowed as posties, then. In that case, I
>>>should think witches are too.
>>And there I was assuming that he simply meant that he was a witch.
>AIUI only wimmin can be witches. Whether the male equivalent is a
>Wizard or a Warlock I'm not at all clear.
I don't think so: all the male wiccans I know would call themselves
"witch", not wizard or warlock, which terms they regard as modern,
inaccurate and pejorative. Don't ask me why: something to do with
back-formation to "wisdom", which I have failed to follow on the
umpty-several occasions it has been explained to me.
Historically, I think "witch" was applied to both sexes[1] just before they
were pressed, drowned or hanged (not burned in this country, that was a
furrin trick).
In rote-fantasy terms you are probably right, though. I have somewhere a
short article which didn't make it into the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, which
lists all the names given to "Magic-Users" within the genre, and I think
that witches in books are usually female.
[1] and occasionally to cats as well[2]
[2] I don't know what the usual method was for killing cats who were
witches. If anyone does happen to know, I think I'd rather not be told
please.
--
Weevil
AttLSM
Kim Andrews
wrote:
>In article <20001208113126....@firedrake.org>,
> anon...@firedrake.org wrote:
>> In message <20001208093300....@firedrake.org> Firedrake R
>wrote:
>>
>> >In article <20001207220650....@firedrake.org>,
>> > <anon...@firedrake.org> wrote:
>> >>In message <MPG.1498e8562...@news.matnet.com> Fenny wrote:
>> >>>So it's OK that I float, then? ;-)
>> >>Doesn't that merely prove that you're not a duck?
>> >All birds is ducks, except for witches?
>>
>> Not all witches is birds, though: some of them is blokes.
>
>What's a warlock then?
A flat fish of the N. Atlantic coastal waters.
Ah... no, sorry that's a witch. Confusing, ain't it?
--
Cheers, Kimbo
www.foca.co.uk
BT Winner Special Distasteful Category Award 1999
Life isn't all Woodbines and gin, you know.
Strumpet Extraordinaire & Founding FONT
Chris McMillan
> In article <20001208113126....@firedrake.org>,
> anon...@firedrake.org wrote:
> > In message <20001208093300....@firedrake.org> Firedrake R
> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <20001207220650....@firedrake.org>,
> > > <anon...@firedrake.org> wrote:
> > >>In message <MPG.1498e8562...@news.matnet.com> Fenny wrote:
> > >>>So it's OK that I float, then? ;-)
> > >>Doesn't that merely prove that you're not a duck?
> > >All birds is ducks, except for witches?
> >
> > Not all witches is birds, though: some of them is blokes.
>
> What's a warlock then?
>
Sincerely, Chris
--
Nev Young
written, some of, the following
>
> Historically, I think "witch" was applied to both sexes[1] just before they
> were pressed, drowned or hanged (not burned in this country, that was a
> furrin trick).
>
Oh yes they did. It was first done here in Norwich where it was a good
day out to see the witches being burned. They did it in a pit just
over the river by the Bishops bridge, near the foot of Kett's hill. I
am told that at one of the first such burnings the poor girl managed
to crawl out of the pit after the fire had burned through the ropes
binding her to the steak. Obviously this was a sign of her innocence
so the crowd threw her back in. Three times in all before she finally
died. To prevent such an atrocity happening again they used chains
after that.
I'm very glad they don't do it any more, I blister so easily !!
Andrea Collins
>In article <20001208113126....@firedrake.org>,
> anon...@firedrake.org wrote:
>> In message <20001208093300....@firedrake.org> Firedrake R
>wrote:
>>
>> >In article <20001207220650....@firedrake.org>,
>
>--
According to Granny Weatherwax
"There's witches. And there's W^I SILLY MEN I^W."
(She also added sotto voce "....and enchantresses are no beter than they should
be......")
I may have misquoted but I think that's, er the essence.
--
Andrea Collins
Whose most senior line manager has agreed to discuss Early Retirement
terms......(mine, not hers)Hurrah!!!!!!!
Andrea Collins
<Ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <90qs97$hjd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Stephen GC Tilley
><URL:mailto:Um...@Aol.Com> wrote:
>> In article <20001208113126....@firedrake.org>,
>> anon...@firedrake.org wrote:
>> > In message <20001208093300....@firedrake.org> Firedrake
R
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >In article <20001207220650....@firedrake.org>,
>> (SNIP)
>> What's a warlock then?
>>
>Peter (well known Orkney living composer m'lud: author of Capriol Suite
among
>others)
>
>Sincerely, Chris
>
>--
>
>
>
Can I do a knicker flash?
(AHEM)
Peter Warlock's REAL name was Peter Heseltine. He was the great-uncle of Hezza,
he of the flack jacket and streaming locks.
Also a member of the Golden Dawn (Peter, not Hezza).
I suspect that he became skilled in clairvoyancy tecniques and changed his name
so as not to be, er, associated.
Just a theory, mind.
And we LOVE the Capriol suite. (Not too sure about The Curlew...but we keep
trying, we persevere.)
--
Andrea Collins
"Best Barmaid in Reading"... as a regular customer said when my hand slipped
with the Famous Grouse.......
Chris J Dixon
>Oh yes they did. It was first done here in Norwich where it was a good
>day out to see the witches being burned. They did it in a pit just
>over the river by the Bishops bridge, near the foot of Kett's hill. I
>am told that at one of the first such burnings the poor girl managed
>to crawl out of the pit after the fire had burned through the ropes
>binding her to the steak.
Have you been to a harvester before?
Robin Somes
<chris...@easynet.co.uk> writes
>Nev Young wrote:
>
>>Oh yes they did. It was first done here in Norwich where it was a good
>>day out to see the witches being burned. They did it in a pit just
>>over the river by the Bishops bridge, near the foot of Kett's hill. I
>>am told that at one of the first such burnings the poor girl managed
>>to crawl out of the pit after the fire had burned through the ropes
>>binding her to the steak.
>
>Have you been to a harvester before?
Rofl.....
cheers,
robin
--
EMU & RHEUM
Turgidity Is My Watchword
www.badminston.demon.co.uk www.robinsomes.co.uk/guitar.html
www.blackwell-science.com/southwood www.irchouse.demon.co.uk
Trust me, I'm a webmaster......
Iain Archer
>In article <atp33tcbdvosf9ulo...@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
><chris...@easynet.co.uk> writes
>>Nev Young wrote:
>>
>>>Oh yes they did. It was first done here in Norwich where it was a good
>>>day out to see the witches being burned. They did it in a pit just
>>>over the river by the Bishops bridge, near the foot of Kett's hill. I
>>>am told that at one of the first such burnings the poor girl managed
>>>to crawl out of the pit after the fire had burned through the ropes
>>>binding her to the steak.
>>
>>Have you been to a harvester before?
>
>Rofl.....
Seriously smiling.
--
Iain Archer
anon...@firedrake.org
>While lurking in the froup, I noticed that anon...@firedrake.org had
>written, some of, the following
>> Historically, I think "witch" was applied to both sexes[1] just before they
>> were pressed, drowned or hanged (not burned in this country, that was a
>> furrin trick).
>Oh yes they did. It was first done here in Norwich where it was a good
>day out to see the witches being burned. They did it in a pit just
>over the river by the Bishops bridge, near the foot of Kett's hill.
[snip gory details]
Very interesting... *when* was this? And are you sure the actual charge
on the sheet was "witchcraft"? AFAIK, in England the penalty for the crime
of witchcraft was never burning. Everyone might "know" that the victim was
a "witch", but technically s/he was done for something else, was the way it
went. Witchcraft was a hard charge to "prove", and there was a tendency to
charge the accused people with "heresy" or "high treason" instead (heresy
being anything dodgy in the way of religious belief, and high treason being
anything which might incapacitate a potential member of the army eg any
suspicion that you might have poisoned or ill-wished anyone male under the
age of... well, anyone male). And heresy and high treason both did get
people burnt.
Hugh Trevor-Roper says (in a footnote, no less) "England was unique in
another respect too. English witches, unlike those of Europe and Scotland,
were not burnt (as for heresy), but hanged." But he doesn't say whether he
means during the entire sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, or just the
earlier part of the European witch-craze.
>I'm very glad they don't do it any more, I blister so easily !!
Yes, it's just as well, seeing as how I don't suppose anyone now living
would escape a charge of heresy by the religious standards of those times.
--
Weevil
AttLSM
Mike McMillan
<URL:mailto:i...@montaigne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Robin Somes wrote on Sat, 9 Dec 2000
> >In article <atp33tcbdvosf9ulo...@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
> >>Have you been to a harvester before?
> >
> >Rofl.....
>
> Seriously smiling.
I'm only a little chef ...
Toodle Pip,
Mike
--
Mike McMillan, Mike Sounds (Reading)
Digital Recording, Editing and CD Production: Tel: 0118 9265450,
Fax: 0118 9668167. http://www.mikesounds.demon.co.uk/
Stephen
>I don't think so: all the male wiccans I know would call themselves
>"witch", not wizard or warlock, which terms they regard as modern,
>inaccurate and pejorative. Don't ask me why: something to do with
>back-formation to "wisdom", which I have failed to follow on the
>umpty-several occasions it has been explained to me.
But surely Wiccan practice is modern and inaccurate - albeit not
perjorative?
--
Stephen
"That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
Maurice Sendak
anon...@firedrake.org
> Also Sprach anon...@firedrake.org:
>
>>I don't think so: all the male wiccans I know would call themselves
>>"witch", not wizard or warlock, which terms they regard as modern,
>>inaccurate and pejorative. Don't ask me why: something to do with
>>back-formation to "wisdom", which I have failed to follow on the
>>umpty-several occasions it has been explained to me.
>But surely Wiccan practice is modern and inaccurate - albeit not
>perjorative?
Wiccan _practice_ (or possibly practise, I'm not sure which it should be
called here) is mostly whole-cloth stuff based on the Golden Dawn or the
White Goddess, I suspect. But as for the _word_ witch, I dunno. Lord
Coke's definition of a witch was "a person who hath conference with the
devil", rather than "a woman who hath conference with the devil", so
perhaps not as modern and inaccurate as all that. Especially since "devil"
seems to come from the same root as "divine", and originally mean just "a
god other than the One True God I happen to believe in" for whatever values
of "One" and "True" and "God" the speaker happened to subscribe to.
It's interesting that my older twentieth century dictionaries (S.O.D 1972,
Chambers 1984) state firmly that a witch is female, whilst the Collins
Millenial says "usually female" (and they all say that witch-doctors are
always male)...
--
Weevil
AttLSM
David Medcalf
wrote:
>A spell, eh? So Wizards are allowed as posties, then. In that case, I
>should think witches are too.
Don't witches cast spells, then? Or only stitches? And I did once
have a very scary boss who was reputed to be a real Witch [as in
'practising witchcraft'] - but this wasn't in the PO.
David
Lancashire
David Medcalf
<marj...@theclarkes99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Geirge wrote:
>> David Medcalf wrote>
>> >One has to sign the Official Secrets Act
>>
>> I thought that only Liz Windsor had to sign it. The rest of us have to
>> sign a declaration that we are aware of it.
I think that must be right, being barely aware of whatever I signed,
let alone 'The Act'. I'm sure my tatty bit of photocopied paper
wasn't 'The Act', though. :-)
>
>Aw, come on, she never worked as a postie!<
Well, every day she has 60 million pictures of herself carried round
and stuffed through letter boxes, which must count for something.
But she wouldn't tell anybody about that, having signed the *real*
OSA.
David
Lancashire
Sue Mitchell
<dmed...@compuserve.com> writes
Best wishes,
Sue
--
__ __
{{{{\ /}}}} Sue Mitchell
{{::\ V /::}} s...@imps.demon.co.uk
>--->8<---<
{:.;/ 0 \;.:} "My soul is painted like the wings of butterflies"
~~ ~~ - B.H.M.
Roger Burton West
Sue Mitchell <s...@imps.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Um, this wasn't anywhere near Pendle, by any chance...?
Pass the Black Cat, my glass seems to have mysteriously emptied itself
again...
R
Nev Young
written, some of, the following
>
> Very interesting... *when* was this? And are you sure the actual charge
> on the sheet was "witchcraft"? AFAIK, in England the penalty for the crime
> of witchcraft was never burning. Everyone might "know" that the victim was
> a "witch", but technically s/he was done for something else, was the way it
> went. Witchcraft was a hard charge to "prove", and there was a tendency to
> charge the accused people with "heresy" or "high treason" instead (heresy
> being anything dodgy in the way of religious belief, and high treason being
> anything which might incapacitate a potential member of the army eg any
> suspicion that you might have poisoned or ill-wished anyone male under the
> age of... well, anyone male). And heresy and high treason both did get
> people burnt.
>
My source was the ghost walk here in town. Witches and lollards were
both burnt. Witches in particular were first dunked in the river
Wenslun at Fye Bridge and if (when) proven a witch were dragged of for
a good roasting. Apparently it was the done thing to have a few
burnings to entertain any visiting gentry.
I can't recall when these things happened but it was a few years ago.
17C IIRC but like so many others I could be confectionery. I do
recall being told that Norwich was the first place to do it, it may
never have caught on in other places as hanging, or drowning, was more
usual.
As the witchcraft statute was passed in 1604 I would guess it was some
time soon after then, or just after the witchcraft act of 1736.
It was the done thing to burn lollards in pits here in the 14C and so
they probably just carried on with it.
Still the main thing is they don't do it now!
But it is rather warm for the time of year.
Nev Young
(Stephen) had written, some of, the following
> Also Sprach anon...@firedrake.org:
>
> >I don't think so: all the male wiccans I know would call themselves
> >"witch", not wizard or warlock, which terms they regard as modern,
> >inaccurate and pejorative. Don't ask me why: something to do with
> >back-formation to "wisdom", which I have failed to follow on the
> >umpty-several occasions it has been explained to me.
>
> But surely Wiccan practice is modern and inaccurate - albeit not
> perjorative?
if you want some, IMHO, good definitions then have a look at
http://www.norwichmoot.paganearth.com/witch.htm
BrritSki
Nev Young wrote:
>
> My source was the ghost walk here in town. Witches and lollards were
> both burnt. Witches in particular were first dunked in the river
> Wenslun at Fye Bridge and if (when) proven a witch were dragged of for
> a good roasting.
Surely they were just trying to dry them out ?
<snip>
>
> It was the done thing to burn lollards in pits here in the 14C and so
>
Boy those lollards burn at a low temperature !
Iain Archer
>While lurking in the froup, I noticed that anon...@firedrake.org had
>written, some of, the following
>
>>
>> Historically, I think "witch" was applied to both sexes[1] just before they
>> were pressed, drowned or hanged (not burned in this country, that was a
>> furrin trick).
>>
>Oh yes they did. It was first done here in Norwich where it was a good
>day out to see the witches being burned. They did it in a pit just
>over the river by the Bishops bridge, near the foot of Kett's hill. I
>am told that at one of the first such burnings the poor girl managed
>to crawl out of the pit after the fire had burned through the ropes
>binding her to the steak. Obviously this was a sign of her innocence
>so the crowd threw her back in. Three times in all before she finally
>died. To prevent such an atrocity happening again they used chains
>after that.
Mackay's (1841/1852) 'Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness
of crowds'[1] has a chapter on the witch mania. Mentions of 'burning'
and 'the stake' are frequent in the English and Scottish accounts,
so the burning does seem to have some reality and symbolic import
'Every record that has been preserved mentions that the witches were
hanged and burned, or burned, without the previous strangling, "alive
and quick"'.
Officially, the latter option seems to have been reserved
for extreme cases, such as Euphemia Macalzean in 1591, who seemed
to have regicidal sentiments wrt James VI. But given that many witches
were dealt with summarily by mobs, either with or without a local
magistrate's sentence, it wouldn't be surprising if niceties weren't
always observed.
It was cheering to read that Matthew Hopkins, the self-styled
Witchfinder-General, got his come-uppance by being subjected to the
swimming test himself, even if it's not clear whether he 'passed' it or
not. It was a very lucrative business while it lasted - 20/- per town
screened, plus 20/- per witch executed, plus expenses.
But then witches could cause quite expensive damage, such as making
neighbour's cows go sick. It's lucky that sort of thing doesn't happen
in modern day Borsetshire.
[1] It's in the Wordsworth Reference series. I think may also be an
e-text at http://www.bibliomania.com
--
Iain Archer
Roger Burton West
Iain Archer <i...@montaigne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Officially, the latter option seems to have been reserved
>for extreme cases, such as Euphemia Macalzean in 1591, who seemed
>to have regicidal sentiments wrt James VI.
I like her already.
>It was cheering to read that Matthew Hopkins, the self-styled
>Witchfinder-General, got his come-uppance by being subjected to the
>swimming test himself, even if it's not clear whether he 'passed' it or
>not.
He doesn't appear to have survived for very long afterwards, at
least.
>But then witches could cause quite expensive damage, such as making
>neighbour's cows go sick. It's lucky that sort of thing doesn't happen
>in modern day Borsetshire.
So _that's_ what Lizzie's been up to!
>[1] It's in the Wordsworth Reference series. I think may also be an
>e-text at http://www.bibliomania.com
Pity their site's so horribly designed and hard to use in anything
except IE, really...
R
Robin Fairbairns
>Peter Warlock's REAL name was Peter Heseltine. He was the great-uncle
>of Hezza, he of the flack jacket and streaming locks.
didn't know that, but it's not an entirely common name.
peter warlock (né heseltine) used to ride stark naked through sussex
on his motorbike. (or maybe he only did it once, but i remember linda
ff's dad teaching me it was a regular thing ... i did "english music
in c20" for a-level.)
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Tony Walton
>
> Andrea Collins <col...@andrea1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Peter Warlock's REAL name was Peter Heseltine. He was the great-uncle
> >of Hezza, he of the flack jacket and streaming locks.
>
> didn't know that, but it's not an entirely common name.
I always liked the irony of an Archbishop being called Worlock.
--
Tony Walton
Paul Betteridge
>
> Peter Warlock's REAL name was Peter Heseltine. He was the great-uncle of Hezza,
> he of the flack jacket and streaming locks.
ITYM Philip Heseltine.
(since people have started replying to your message)
Best wishes
Paul
--
Paul Betteridge, Sparks, Maryland, USA