Re: Community, pride, and whatnot

[chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (chris williams)]

In article <m0p9j1Y-0002B6C@grex.cyberspace.org> you write:
>Jorn (jorn@MCS.COM) has written:
>>The following will count as acceptable counterevidence to Stev0's 
>>proposition, by my reckoning:
>
>>- support for the free expression of unpopular viewpoints
>
>Temporarily staying out of the other, related arguments, I have to
>agree on this one.  A while ago, I was planning on posting a detailed
>description of the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram, with
>annotations as to what each part meant, and the magic(k)al symbolism
>in the other parts of the song "Lily".  "Sure," I thought, "everyone will
>be interested in this sort of thing, getting a new insight into the
>song, etc."

   I said at the time (maybe you misunderstood me) and I'll say again:

  I have no problem with the discussion of *anything* pertaining to 
Kate lyrics. The problem is that there was a tremendous amount of
pointless chatter about finding the "ritual" and absolute diddley
about the song. Sure it may be interesting to you, but until someone
has something useful to say about it *as relates to the song*
there are better places to discuss it (alt.magick and e-mail.)

   If you *have* insights into the song, please post them. If you 
intend to endlessly discuss Alister Crowley in the hopes that maybe
someone *else* will divine insights into the song, please don't.
Its not exactly obscure.

>I decided against it.  Why?  Because everyone on the newsgroup/list
>was copping an attitude about the whole thing.  "Oh no, Kate doesn't
>really believe that bullsh*t, and if you do, you're an idiot."  Or words
>to that effect.  Okay, not everyone on the list, but enough people.

   There is *no* proof that Kate *believes* any of it. None. Kate is
amazingly circumspect about expressing her "actual beliefs."
Anything that *you* believe that *she* believes is conjecture.

>I know a lot of you don't believe in "psychic powers" and such, and
>you think I'm loopy because I'm a practicing occultist/neo-pagan.
>Okay.  I can deal with that.  I've dealt with Fundamentalist Christians,
>and believe me, you've been civil in comparison.

    Nope, most of the pagans I've known have been generally less "loopy"
than virtually all the fundies I've known. 

    I am perfectly happy to discuss the validity of "psychic powers"
but it has nothing to do with Kate. I expressed interest in the "new
experiments" that supposedly could take the Randi prize and asked the
poster to send the info. He has not, so I can only assume that it cannot
stand close examination.

>Now I'm asking you:  Can you at least listen to the viewpoints of
>others without all the flaming?  Can't we all just get along?  (Yes,
>I'm stealing quotes again.  Well, not stealing, borrowing.  >8)  Can
>we talk about an issue which is significant in at least one of Kate's
>songs without foaming at the mouth.

   I take it that you are unfamilier with the past behavior of the
person you are aligning with. Jorn has been the *least* civil of
anyone in the flame-filled history of love-hounds.


                          Chris Williams of
                             Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                               chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (his)
                                 vickie@njin.rutgers.edu      (hers)
                                   katefans@chinet.chinet.com (ours)