From: Fra.: Nachash Area: Night Side To: Grendel 22 Apr 92 15:10:24 Subject: Re: Crowley and Wiccans UpdReq In a msg on , Grendel of 1:343/56@fidonet writes: G> I'm a Gardnerian, initiated in a legit line and everything. The G> current opinion of the above is that it is a load of BS made up G> by some OTO member in the 60s to try to get our goats. Sure, Check out a file we have here called WICCA.ZIP. It is a article by Bishop Allen Greenfield, who has done extensive research on this matter. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Maldoror Area: Night Side To: Fra.: Apfelmann 21 Apr 92 10:48:30 Subject: INFO-INITIATION UpdReq any initiation would have to be very powerful to be transmitted with voice and electricity... knowing barbara shore as i do, i would have serious doubts as to the effectiveness of such a procedure. and, btw, haven't you heard of crossing your fingers? no IOT initiation that i know of consists only of the oath-taking! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Maldoror Area: Night Side To: Triple Six 21 Apr 92 10:53:30 Subject: SAME OL'... UpdReq you really do surprise me with your ridiculous attempts to discredit Anchorite and the IOT in general. i'm not chasing you around writing "pay attention to me!" and "how childish you all are!" now am i? you're history (and someone else's history for that matter), mind your own business - which doesn't include the American IOT, SOTO, or the A.A.! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Maldoror Area: Night Side To: Fra.: Apfelmann 21 Apr 92 11:10:50 Subject: IOTBBS UpdReq psyber-kia's upgraded the system to 9600 now. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Phule Area: Night Side To: Markie Chao 22 Apr 92 19:53:00 Subject: Re: *Phule Rec'd UpdReq I don't mind falling I this DAMN dog would stop slobbering on my new shoes! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Balanone Area: Night Side To: Tim Maroney 20 Apr 92 20:56:18 Subject: Re: freethinkers don't censor UpdReq On 17 Apr 92 10:22:28, Tim Maroney posted a message to Balanone concerning "RE: Re: freethinkers don't censor"... TM> The owning of property [a BBS node] does not TM> endow one with a moral right to restrict the range of opinions that are TM> expressed. Tim, you'd get a lot more positive and productive responses if you'd 1) not be so inflamatory, and 2) stick to the topic. We were not discussing the distribution of a range of opinions, but rather the elimination of irresponsible / juvenile language used by the "censored" one. While I suspect you and I agree fairly well (at least in general) on the argument you're trying to make, you didn't respond to my discussion. I'll return the favor. Balanone PP ... You've been bungy cord jumping with a cord just inches too long. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: Night Side To: Glenn Sieb 22 Apr 92 21:44:18 Subject: Re: Crowley and Wiccans UpdReq In a message dated 20 Apr 92 23:43:39, Glenn Sieb wrote: -=> In a magickal message to Glenn Sieb, Gerald Del Campo said <=- GDC> The Gardenian variety of WICCANS must realize that Gardner got most of GDC> his material from Crowley...actually Crowley wrote the stuff for him. GDC> So, the meaning must be the same (since it came from a Thelemic GDC> source). GS> Very interesting, Gerald. I've never heard of Wicca being a GS> descendant of Thelema. It still does not change the Wiccan meaning of GS> "Wilt", nor the meaning of the Charge. I've never heard this theory that GS> Crowley wrote anything for Gerald, and those of us who are not GS> Gardenarian don't really care. (Not to sound cold or callous, but by GS> your statement (and the way it was typed), I am to assume that you assume GS> that all real "WICCANS" are Gardenarian. This is not so, and you should GS> know better from your posts in the MagickNet triad. I certainly was not trying to insinuate that all Wiccans are Gardenarian, and nothing in my post alludes to this. I specifically wrote "The Gardenian variety of Wiccans" in order to differentiate. I DO know better; but if something in my post sounded hostile I apologize. It is a pitty that ceremonialists and Wiccans feel that there are such huge gaps in their understanding towards one another, for together we could accomplish much: and this is all I was alluding to. Not that I (a ceremonialist) was any better than a Wiccan because a ceremonialist wrote rituals for a Wiccan priest. GDC> OUCH! I guess it depends on ones definition of 'feminist'. There is GDC> feminism and there is fanaticism by a few calling themselves feminists GDC> who are in reality men-haters and want nothing to do with them. I GDC> always thought that feminism was the idea that women were equal, and GDC> therefore deserve to have the same rights and opportunities as men. GS> I feel that *people* are equal, and that *people* should all have the GS> same rights, no matter of: Sex, race, creed, colour, sexual orientation, GS> or any other thing you can come up with. Women ARE people. I heard somebody say that we would live in a better world if we slept with people we liked; and didn't know or care what sex they were until you got their clothes off. It would be idealistic if people were hired based on their qualifications and not sex. It certainly is not a perfect world: inactivity by those who know better makes it so. GDC> I understand the confusion. Even some 'young' Thelemites have GDC> problems with that statement because they do not understand the GDC> concept of Divine Will. Once you have discovered your place within GDC> the universe your Will is God's Will. GS> Well, I am not 'confused' per se, but rather, confused at your GS> references. I have heard of no such reference to Crowley being the GS> 'father behind the father' of the Craft. Plus, I do not recognize a GS> 'God' per se, but rather a God/Goddess duality, as you know most GS> Wiccans do. I also don't really accept a 'Divine Will', rather I accept GS> that the Gods do what they can for those that ask, and only those things GS> that the Gods deem them worthy of. I'm hardly about to go ask any of my GS> Gods/Goddesses for something that I can neither use, nor am ready for. Well, the Crowley and Gardner debate has been going on ever since people started to use "An it harm none...", and will probably go on for some time to come. It has been discussed in depth on the MagickNet triad, and do not want to debate it again. I believe some one stated that the OTO had a letter on microfilm establishing the connection: I will ask the archivist if this is so, and post the letter in full on the MagickNet echo to put the argument to rest. As to God/Goddess: God is a generic term I use to describe the duality you speak of; I think it is a mistake to assign genders to 'things' which obviously contain the essence of both sexes. Baphomet is a lovely symbol :) I feel the same way about names like "Magician" or "Witch". I have a personal question, answer if you Will: You used the word "worthy" to describe the condition by which God/Goddesses decide whether or not you are to have something. Do you externalize the Diety, or do you perceive it as something within, like the HGA? Worthy as in the Xtian sense of one who refrain fro "evil" acts? Just want to clear up some of the terminology. GS> On the other hand, I accept the fact that *you* and others may follow GS> a path that consists of a God. Or a Goddess. Or nothing. This does not GS> bother me in the slightest. Religion is a very personal path through the GS> that is the Universe. Amen ;) GS> Blessed be, And 93. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL Oasis: Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: Night Side To: Grendel 22 Apr 92 22:16:18 Subject: Re: Crowley and Wiccans UpdReq In a message dated 21 Apr 92 08:50:43, Grendel wrote: GDC> The Gardenian variety of WICCANS must realize that Gardner got GDC> most of his material from Crowley...actually Crowley wrote the GDC> stuff for him. So, the meaning must be the same (since it came GDC> from a Thelemic source). G> I'm a Gardnerian, initiated in a legit line and everything. The G> current opinion of the above is that it is a load of BS made up by G> some OTO member in the 60s to try to get our goats. Sure, Gardner knew G> Crowley and sure he had a charter to initiate and form a lodge. That G> doesn't mean the he did or that Crowley wrote his material. The more G> reasonable (especially if you've seen some of the early BOS material) G> theory is Gardner borrowed heavily from Crowley's published writings. G> I've seen no evidence for your theory unless the OTO is hiding some G> information. I assure you the OTO would have nothing to gain by getting your goats. What OTO member? All I have stated is that Gardner got his "An it harm none..." from Crowley's "Do what thou wilt". The debate about Crowley/Gardner really needs to come to an end because it shouldn't matter. Being a Gardnerian, do you feel that it matters for any other reason than historical accuracy? Or is there another reason? G> Wassail, J G> Grend Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL Oasis: Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718