Re: Mail from the KBC

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

In article <2fqmjg$29l@chnews.intel.com> you write:
>
>In article <9312271650.tn16304@aol.com>, silo@aol.com writes:
>> AlexGibbs arg@kilimanjaro.opt-sci.arizona.edu writes:
>> [...]
>>  Too bad the KBC couldn't accept VISA and we
>> could just let them convert the fees for us without the "service charge".
>> 
>> --Mike Knight
>
>_This_ is what's really needed to make it _easy_ and _inexpensive_ for 
>overseas fans to purchase from the KBC.
>
>If the KBC would accept Visa & MasterCard, overseas fans could just mail (not
>email--not secure enough unless encrypted) them their card number, KBC would
>bill it in English pounds, and the credit card bill would arrive with the 
>charge converted to local currency.  _Easy_

   It would be really nice if the KBC could hire one of those firms that
handle mass mailings to do the distribution of the KBC newsletter in
North America. Send the mags in bulk to each country, and handle the
mailings locally. I would probably save a lot of money. Either that or
deep-six the KBC, and give the money, photos and color press time to
Homeground. The fine folks at Homeground have been handling all the
actual work of a fan club for quite some time, and deserve the official
title.



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


From: vickie@pilot.njin.net  Wed Dec 29 03:14:01 1993
From: vickie@pilot.njin.net (Vickie Mapes)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 03:12:24 -0500
Message-ID: <9312290812.AA23423@pilot.njin.net>
Subject: Re: "Lily" and religious references
References: <CIrwAM.F3A@freenet.carleton.ca>
Lines: 46

I'm not involved in this, and Chris and I generally don't fight each
other's fights (partially because *we* don't always agree on everything)
but if he's not going to say this, I want to...

aj796@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Tippi Chai) writes:

> The way I see it, you (Chris) are saying
> "All paranormal stuff is garbage.  Kate is a cretin to believe...

You see it wrong. Chris may not believe what Kate might believe in,
but he does *not* think she's a "cretin" and it *wrong* for you to
put such a word in his mouth. He hasn't commented to me about your
post, but I *hate* it when people put words in my mouth and I hate
to see it being done to him. Especially since it's such a derogatory
term concerning Kate.
 
Chris>>  A bit of history...my dad was a magician, a stage magician, many 
Chris>>  of our family friends are magicians and a couple were "mentalists." 
>   
>That explains it.  Having been brought up around people who use "fake
>paranormal" events to make a living undoubtedly closed your mind to the
>possibility that such events may exist.

"...to make a living..."? Reading that, I can't help but imagine that no 
*real* psychic, fortune-teller, medium, yadda, would *ever* consider "making
a living" off their "talents." Right? What *are* you saying here?  Btw, Mr.
Williams didn't "make a living" from being a magician. He was a cop, then
a detective. He performed magic for fun and for children's enjoyment. He
was quite skilled and interested in magic (we still have some of his props)
and *could* have made made a living at it, but he chose to serve the 
community instead. (He was also a Punch and Judy puppeteer and the first
Ronald McDonald in the Kansas City area. I know it doesn't have anything
to do with anything...I just think Chris's dad was *so* wonderful and I
envy the fun childhood Chris had.)

Chris grew up with the "tricks" revealed to him, so he knows the "secrets"
behind the smoke and mirrors. He knows the mechanics of things that would
make the uninitiated go "ooohh, ahhhh" so why shouldn't he be a skeptic
about things that haven't been proven? When I was a child, I believed
that ventriloquist's dolls were really speaking. When Chris was a child,
he *was* a ventriloquist, and knew how it all worked. I personaly don't
think he has a closed mind at all, he just refuses to take the paranormal
and supernatural on faith alone.

Vickie (through speaking for Chris, especially since he doesn't know I am)


From: vickie@pilot.njin.net  Wed Dec 29 03:23:35 1993
From: vickie@pilot.njin.net (Vickie Mapes)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 03:21:32 -0500
Message-ID: <9312290821.AA23552@pilot.njin.net>
Subject: Stupid "panties" phrase
References: <m0pDnSc-000ilqC@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu>
	<1993Dec28.023440.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
Lines: 13

jlburk01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>Don't get your panties in an uproar.  

Where did this silly phrase come from? SNL? The first time I heard it
in rec.music.gaffa was courtesy of Cynthia Rosas in 1991 (I think) and
I keep hearing it over and over again. I'd really like to know where it
originated. 

Do people really think it's "cute"? Why is it used so often?

Vickie


From: vickie@pilot.njin.net  Wed Dec 29 03:30:12 1993
From: vickie@pilot.njin.net (Vickie Mapes)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 03:28:51 -0500
Message-ID: <9312290828.AA23830@pilot.njin.net>
Subject: Flaming skulls on MOP
References: <01H6ZKNITDX28Y92VU@delphi.com>
	<2fq7rk$7n7@pandora.sdsu.edu>
Lines: 12

Suspended In Duct Tape (METH@delphi.com) wrote:
: ...which contained a copy of the UK CD single for "Moments of Pleasure".
: ... at least now I know what people are talking about
: with the dancing on flaming skulls bit.  I find it quite
: disconcerting that she's got such a gleeful grin on her face whilst
: doing that- am I alone in this?

I assumed that the shot of Kate dancing on skulls came from the video,
but after having seen the video, I know it's not. For those who have
seen Kate's film and have the CD single, is the shot from LCC?

Vickie

From: robh@cyberspace.org  Wed Dec 29 04:59:35 1993
From: robh@cyberspace.org (Robert Henderson)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 04:57:06 -0500
Message-ID: <m0pEuiU-0002B7C@grex.cyberspace.org>
Subject: Who do the angels work for?  Huh?
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1636      
Lines: 34

The infamous |>oug (nessus@mit.edu) writes:

  Joe Zitt>  From what I've seen, it looks like Regardie, et al,
  Joe Zitt>  managed to read just enough of Jewish materials (as well
  Joe Zitt>  as a tad of Tibetan and a garnish of gnosticism) to be
  Joe Zitt>  able to mix it in. It's clearly Jewish angels being
  Joe Zitt>  imported into Paganism, as all the names are originally in
  Joe Zitt>  Hebrew.

>How does this incorporation of angels into paganism work?  Who do the
>angels now work for?  Do they now have a different boss?  Or have they
>been emancipated?

Oh dear, more misconceptions being spread.  Despite the increasingly
non-Kate content, Id better respond.

As I said in my response to Vickie Mapes, the LBRP is *NOT* a Wiccan
ritual.  Many of the Witches I know are shocked that I use it, and still
call myself a Witch.  The Ritual has its origins in the Golden Dawn/
Western mysteries tradition, which has little to do with Wicca.

And seeing Israel Regardie referred to as a pagan literally made me
laugh.  Regardie was (I'm pretty sure) a member of the Golden Dawn,
and spent some time as Aleister Crowley's personal secretary, but he
was never a Witch.  If anything, his writings take a rather condescending
tone toward organized religions of any sort.

So, for one last time, let me repeat - this is not a Wiccan ritual,
the Angels in the song "Lily" still work for their old boss You-Know-
Who.
-- 
RobH (or Rob Henderson, if you prefer) / robh@grex.cyberspace.org
She gotta dance, and she just can't stop 'till them shoes come off. (Kate Bush)
Oh no, giant grasshoppers are attacking... the Beatles!  (MST3K)