Discussion:
WILL YOU KISS GRZ'S TOOSHIE?
(too old to reply)
Maxie P. Diddy
2003-11-18 19:53:17 UTC
Permalink
My reasons for being here is that I am Christian and wish to speak
about
Christ with others. Christ matters more to me than fitting in with
another
persons views. If anyone wants me to tow the line just to fit
in..then
their Christianity is more a superficial kind than what I wish to
be. God
means more to me than anything and I do not bow down to anyone
trying to
control my way of showing that love.
My faith is stronger than a wordly view.
Blessings of God,
Bren.
Is your Christian faith stronger than your Wiccan faith?
Jani
2003-11-19 00:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maxie P. Diddy
Is your Christian faith stronger than your Wiccan faith?
***please don't crosspost. I am not a Wiccan so that question means
nothing.
Then your much-vaunted status as a "wiccan priestess" and your arrogant
posts to the interfaith groups as a member of the "wiccan clergy" can now,
presumably, be disregarded as the ramblings of a dishonest new-ager?

Crosspost restored, as it's relevant to both groups.

Jani
kate
2003-11-21 11:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Maxie P. Diddy
Is your Christian faith stronger than your Wiccan faith?
***please don't crosspost. I am not a Wiccan so that question means
nothing.
Then your much-vaunted status as a "wiccan priestess" and your arrogant
posts to the interfaith groups as a member of the "wiccan clergy" can now,
presumably, be disregarded as the ramblings of a dishonest new-ager?
Crosspost restored, as it's relevant to both groups.
Jani
Gee Jani. How long have we known that Brenduh's a dishonest new-ager? Some
time now. Hope we've gotten at least THAT msg across. Wonder if they all lie
like she does? Are they all as snotty? I've met some and they don't seem
Near as arrogant and obnoxious as Brenduh is.
Seems she takes what we say over there, and brings what they say over here.
She can't even come up with anything original. Even that falsehood
'ravening'. She picked That up from somewhere else. We all figured we knew
what she meant, and we were right.
To hide the lies she's told under the name of raven is as close to a *sin*
as she could get with (at least me) most of us, I think.
Must be a very miserable feeling to be, not a witch, not a xtian, not a
wiccan, not part of any *family*.....IOW, nothing at all.

kate (*we* as in, this ng, and anyone with any common sense at all)
Jani
2003-11-23 11:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Crossposts restored, as it is indeed on-topic there.

As I understand it, if one is initiated as a Wiccan HP/S, that is not
something which can be set aside or "shed", being a formal oath taken to and
in the presence of one's Gods. If you regard those gods as something which
will do for the time being, until you find something more interesting, then
you have no business dedicating yourself to them, and *certainly* no
business setting yourself up as clergy, responsible for the teaching and
initiation of others. Do you suppose "Brenda" took care to contact all those
she purports to have initiated, in her coven, explaining that their
initiations were meaningless since her "voices" are now telling her that
Wicca is only a social club?

Jani
Removed alt.religion.wicca & alt.pagan from newsgroups. Off-topic
there.
Post by Jani
Post by Maxie P. Diddy
Is your Christian faith stronger than your Wiccan faith?
***please don't crosspost. I am not a Wiccan so that question means
nothing.
Then your much-vaunted status as a "wiccan priestess" and your arrogant
posts to the interfaith groups as a member of the "wiccan clergy" can now,
presumably, be disregarded as the ramblings of a dishonest new-ager?
You might want to check the dates. Brenda *used to be* Wiccan, then
"Having been a High Priestess in Wicca for a few years only to shed it
08/11/2002.
She has given her reasons for "shedding" Wicca in other posts.
"I am not a Wiccan. I am a Christian and a witch. My Christianity
follows
Christ..not what the world wants. I follow Christ. I don't follow what a
bunch
of human beings want me to do to fit into their club. Christ is far more
important than following other views. The only one that matters if I am
acceptable is God...not you or anyone else."
--
This may be an unusual position, but it is certainly not unique or
unheard-of.*
And it is not "dishonest" to hold that position.
<http://www.christian-witch.com/>
<http://members.tripod.com/dagwench/christianwitch/>
<http://witchychristian.tripod.com/ChristianWitch.html>
<http://members.aol.com/RawnaMoon/what.html>
<http://www.geocities.com/starlightcwa/home.html>
... for many other sites, see
<http://www.google.com/search?as_epq=christian+witch>
*****thankyou dear Raven!
Blessings
Bren.
t_nasimith
2003-11-24 03:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Crossposts restored, as it is indeed on-topic there.
As I understand it, if one is initiated as a Wiccan HP/S, that is not
something which can be set aside or "shed", being a formal oath taken to and
in the presence of one's Gods.
There is considerable doubt as to whether 'Br**da' went through
so much as a superficial _rite of confirmation_ done by another whose
capacity as an HPS is as dubious. Can one pseudo-HPS "initiate"
another as regards 'Br**da' and 'Pashta'?
Post by Jani
If you regard those gods as something which
will do for the time being, until you find something more interesting, then
you have no business dedicating yourself to them, and *certainly* no
business setting yourself up as clergy, responsible for the teaching and
initiation of others.
In 'Br**da's case, she seems to have _shed_ her empty title when
others around her discovered how titles do not convey capacity.
Post by Jani
Do you suppose "Brenda" took care to contact all those
she purports to have initiated, in her coven, explaining that their
initiations were meaningless since her "voices" are now telling her that
Wicca is only a social club?
Jani
It doesn't matter ... 'Br**da's "initiation" was as meaningless as any
whom she may have pretended to "initiate". Granted, she probably
whipped up some implausible lies to cover her lack of abilities, just
as she continues to compulsively do even now.

T.N.
Post by Jani
Removed alt.religion.wicca & alt.pagan from newsgroups. Off-topic
there.
Post by Jani
Post by Maxie P. Diddy
Is your Christian faith stronger than your Wiccan faith?
***please don't crosspost. I am not a Wiccan so that question means
nothing.
Then your much-vaunted status as a "wiccan priestess" and your
arrogant
Post by Jani
posts to the interfaith groups as a member of the "wiccan clergy"
can
Post by Jani
now,
Post by Jani
presumably, be disregarded as the ramblings of a dishonest new-ager?
You might want to check the dates. Brenda *used to be* Wiccan, then
"Having been a High Priestess in Wicca for a few years only to shed it
08/11/2002.
She has given her reasons for "shedding" Wicca in other posts.
"I am not a Wiccan. I am a Christian and a witch. My Christianity
follows
Christ..not what the world wants. I follow Christ. I don't follow what a
bunch
of human beings want me to do to fit into their club. Christ is far more
important than following other views. The only one that matters if I am
acceptable is God...not you or anyone else."
--
Jani
2003-11-24 11:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by t_nasimith
Post by Jani
Crossposts restored, as it is indeed on-topic there.
As I understand it, if one is initiated as a Wiccan HP/S, that is not
something which can be set aside or "shed", being a formal oath taken to
and
Post by Jani
in the presence of one's Gods.
There is considerable doubt as to whether 'Br**da' went through
so much as a superficial _rite of confirmation_ done by another whose
capacity as an HPS is as dubious. Can one pseudo-HPS "initiate"
another as regards 'Br**da' and 'Pashta'?
Presumably, in pseudo-wicca, one can. I fail to see how one can swear a
solemn oath to one's gods with the mental disclaimer that such gods will be
discarded should a more interesting option present itself. It shows a lack
of commitment and belief, to say the least.
Post by t_nasimith
Post by Jani
If you regard those gods as something which
will do for the time being, until you find something more interesting,
then
Post by Jani
you have no business dedicating yourself to them, and *certainly* no
business setting yourself up as clergy, responsible for the teaching and
initiation of others.
In 'Br**da's case, she seems to have _shed_ her empty title when
others around her discovered how titles do not convey capacity.
When the coven ran away?
Post by t_nasimith
Post by Jani
Do you suppose "Brenda" took care to contact all those
she purports to have initiated, in her coven, explaining that their
initiations were meaningless since her "voices" are now telling her that
Wicca is only a social club?
Jani
It doesn't matter ... 'Br**da's "initiation" was as meaningless as any
whom she may have pretended to "initiate". Granted, she probably
whipped up some implausible lies to cover her lack of abilities, just
as she continues to compulsively do even now.
Rather reinforces the need for seekers to understand how to check lineage,
doesn't it?

Jani
Post by t_nasimith
T.N.
Post by Jani
Removed alt.religion.wicca & alt.pagan from newsgroups. Off-topic
there.
Post by Jani
Post by Maxie P. Diddy
Is your Christian faith stronger than your Wiccan faith?
***please don't crosspost. I am not a Wiccan so that question means
nothing.
Then your much-vaunted status as a "wiccan priestess" and your
arrogant
Post by Jani
posts to the interfaith groups as a member of the "wiccan clergy"
can
Post by Jani
now,
Post by Jani
presumably, be disregarded as the ramblings of a dishonest new-ager?
You might want to check the dates. Brenda *used to be* Wiccan, then
"Having been a High Priestess in Wicca for a few years only to shed it
08/11/2002.
She has given her reasons for "shedding" Wicca in other posts.
"I am not a Wiccan. I am a Christian and a witch. My Christianity
follows
Christ..not what the world wants. I follow Christ. I don't follow
what
Post by t_nasimith
a
Post by Jani
bunch
of human beings want me to do to fit into their club. Christ is far
more
Post by Jani
important than following other views. The only one that matters if I
am
Post by Jani
acceptable is God...not you or anyone else."
--
t_nasimith
2003-11-25 01:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
Crossposts restored, as it is indeed on-topic there.
[...]
Can one pseudo-HPS "initiate" another?
Presumably, in pseudo-wicca, one can. I fail to see how one can swear a
solemn oath to one's gods with the mental disclaimer that such gods will be
discarded should a more interesting option present itself. It shows a lack
of commitment and belief, to say the least.
Yes, in pseudo-wicca, one can see how it can easily be as you've
suggested. Even without such a mental reservation of disclaimer,
the point that pseudo-initiations are invalid from inception does not
rest upon such disclaimers.
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
If you regard those gods as something which
will do for the time being, until you find something more interesting,
then
Post by Jani
you have no business dedicating yourself to them, and *certainly* no
business setting yourself up as clergy, responsible for the teaching and
initiation of others.
In 'Br**da's case, she seems to have _shed_ her empty title when
others around her discovered how titles do not convey capacity.
When the coven ran away?
Given what she has posted regarding that alleged 'coven',
even her own ego-defensive equivocations could not conceal
the impression that they called her on her lack of abilities.
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
Do you suppose "Brenda" took care to contact all those
she purports to have initiated, in her coven, explaining that their
initiations were meaningless since her "voices" are now telling her that
Wicca is only a social club?
It doesn't matter ... 'Br**da's "initiation" was as meaningless as any
whom she may have pretended to "initiate". Granted, she probably
whipped up some implausible lies to cover her lack of abilities, just
as she continues to compulsively do even now.
Rather reinforces the need for seekers to understand how to check lineage,
doesn't it?
Jani
For lineaged traditions, perhaps ...
In general, an wary eye should be kept out for the ones
who evince a lack of depth and instead don threadbare
sackclothes of superficiality, (such as with Blenda).
Many can _say_, fewer can _do_.
Post by Jani
T.N.
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
Then your much-vaunted status as a "wiccan priestess" and your
arrogant
Post by Jani
posts to the interfaith groups as a member of the "wiccan clergy"
can
Post by Jani
now,
Post by Jani
presumably, be disregarded as the ramblings of a dishonest
new-ager?
Post by Jani
You might want to check the dates. Brenda *used to be* Wiccan, then
"Having been a High Priestess in Wicca for a few years only to
shed
Post by Jani
it
Post by Jani
as it did not fit anymore ...."
08/11/2002.
She has given her reasons for "shedding" Wicca in other posts.
"I am not a Wiccan. I am a Christian and a witch. My Christianity
follows
Christ..not what the world wants. I follow Christ. I don't follow
what
a
Post by Jani
bunch
of human beings want me to do to fit into their club. Christ is far
more
Post by Jani
important than following other views. The only one that matters if I
am
Post by Jani
acceptable is God...not you or anyone else."
--
Raven
2003-11-24 09:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Crossposts restored, as it is indeed on-topic there.
The previous post, concerning Brenda G. Kent's position as *not* a Wiccan,
but rather a "Christian witch", was off-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups.

However, now you are questioning what the "rules" of Wicca may be,
which *is* on-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups. Crossposts left in.
Post by Jani
As I understand it, if one is initiated as a Wiccan HP/S, that is not
something which can be set aside or "shed", being a formal oath taken
to and in the presence of one's Gods.
Not so: the Laws (or "Ordains") declare: "Now, if a High Priestess wishes
to resign, she may do so in full Coven, and this resignation is valid."

My understanding of the freedom of religion (something Wiccans tend to
support) is that it includes the freedom to *change* one's religion, the
freedom to *leave*. Just as there are Wiccans who were originally of other
religions -- which they *left* in order to become Wiccan -- so there are
people who were once Wiccan but who then *left* to become something else.

Strictly, Islam does not respect the freedom to *stop* being Muslim:
it's a capital crime under Islamic law; people can be executed for it.

But Wicca is not Islam. One common saying in Wicca is that "There is
no One True Way"; this attitude would not be consistent with insisting
that anyone who ever was Wiccan must *remain* Wiccan.
Post by Jani
If you regard those gods as something which will do for the time being,
until you find something more interesting, then you have no business
dedicating yourself to them, and *certainly* no business setting yourself
up as clergy, responsible for the teaching and initiation of others.
People may join a religion with full-hearted sincerity and without any of
the diffidence you suggest above, yet later have a change of heart. Even
Christian priests and ministers have upon occasion left their ministries,
their denominations, or their religion. It does not mean that they were
dishonest in their vocations from the very beginning.
Post by Jani
Do you suppose "Brenda" took care to contact all those she purports to
have initiated, in her coven, explaining that their initiations were
meaningless since her "voices" are now telling her that Wicca is only
a social club?
The resignation of a High Priestess does not invalidate the initiations
she performed -- just as the resignation of a Christian minister from his
ministry does not invalidate all the weddings he performed.

Really, have you even thought of how you'd feel about applying to your own
religion the rules you are attempting to foist upon Wicca from the outside?
Jani
2003-11-24 11:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Crossposts restored, as it is indeed on-topic there.
The previous post, concerning Brenda G. Kent's position as *not* a Wiccan,
but rather a "Christian witch", was off-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups.
The concepts of "christian and witch", "christian witch", "christian wiccan"
and "christo-pagan" are frequently discussed on all the pagan groups. In
addition, "Brenda Kent's" false claims regarding trad lineage call into
question all her other claims as regards status in any pagan path.
Post by Raven
However, now you are questioning what the "rules" of Wicca may be,
which *is* on-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups. Crossposts left in.
Post by Jani
As I understand it, if one is initiated as a Wiccan HP/S, that is not
something which can be set aside or "shed", being a formal oath taken
to and in the presence of one's Gods.
Not so: the Laws (or "Ordains") declare: "Now, if a High Priestess wishes
to resign, she may do so in full Coven, and this resignation is valid."
This is in the context of distinguishing resignation from "running away",
though. IIRC the more usual recommendation is that the HPS retires, rather
than resigns, in favour of her successor. Nowhere do the Ardanes state that
it is acceptable for a HP/S to deny the Gods in favour of other Gods, or
refute the validity of one's initiation, as would be the case if Wicca was
rejected in favour of Christianity.
Post by Raven
My understanding of the freedom of religion (something Wiccans tend to
support) is that it includes the freedom to *change* one's religion, the
freedom to *leave*. Just as there are Wiccans who were originally of other
religions -- which they *left* in order to become Wiccan -- so there are
people who were once Wiccan but who then *left* to become something else.
Indeed, and I have no problem whatsoever with a seeker investigating many
different paths before deciding which, if any, is right for them. Isn't that
the whole point of undergoing year-and-a-day before making any formal
commitment at all, let alone taking on the much graver responsibility of
HP/S?
Post by Raven
it's a capital crime under Islamic law; people can be executed for it.
But Wicca is not Islam. One common saying in Wicca is that "There is
no One True Way"; this attitude would not be consistent with insisting
that anyone who ever was Wiccan must *remain* Wiccan.
This refers to tolerance of other paths and other deities. Otherwise, the
oaths would be meaningless, since they can be broken at any time if another
religious path appears more appealing.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
If you regard those gods as something which will do for the time being,
until you find something more interesting, then you have no business
dedicating yourself to them, and *certainly* no business setting yourself
up as clergy, responsible for the teaching and initiation of others.
People may join a religion with full-hearted sincerity and without any of
the diffidence you suggest above, yet later have a change of heart. Even
Christian priests and ministers have upon occasion left their ministries,
their denominations, or their religion. It does not mean that they were
dishonest in their vocations from the very beginning.
Leaving one Christian denomination for another still allows the individual
to continue in their adherence of the basic principle of Christianity,
namely, the divinity of Christ. To leave Christianity altogether denies that
basic principle, just as leaving Wicca denies the Goddess and the God.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Do you suppose "Brenda" took care to contact all those she purports to
have initiated, in her coven, explaining that their initiations were
meaningless since her "voices" are now telling her that Wicca is only
a social club?
The resignation of a High Priestess does not invalidate the initiations
she performed -- just as the resignation of a Christian minister from his
ministry does not invalidate all the weddings he performed.
Christian marriage is between the participants. A HPS is responsible for
accepting the initiate into the religion, and if she says later that the
religion is invalid because she has now found a god she likes better, then
she should make that clear to those she initiated. One hopes that those in
"Brenda's" coven took their oaths more seriously than she evidently did, and
can override the fact that their priestess no longer gives any credibility
to their Gods.
Post by Raven
Really, have you even thought of how you'd feel about applying to your own
religion the rules you are attempting to foist upon Wicca from the outside?
No, I haven't, since I don't follow a religion. However, I'm not "foisting
rules" on Wicca, I am citing what I have been told by Wiccans and what I
have read in Wiccan texts. Perhaps you are confusing Wicca with this
eclectic make-it-up-as-you-go newage derivative, which also touts itself as
Wicca?

Jani
2003-11-24 11:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
However, now you are questioning what the "rules" of Wicca may be,
which *is* on-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups. Crossposts left in.
Which now renders it off-topic for the Christian group Raven.

Jani is not representative of this group nor is she a regular here; and it
is asked that you please do not crosspost to us just to keep up this
conversation with her. Her actions are those of one who is only interested
in stirring up groups who's beliefs stand in opposition on several key
points. Do we really want to be marching to the tune of someone who is
representative of neither of our groups?

This is just a request, but one that is hoped you will receive graciously.

Griz
Jani
2003-11-24 13:52:16 UTC
Permalink
I have already removed ACC crossposts from one response in this thread,
which was related solely to Wicca. The one left in related to Christianity,
and was therefore apposite to ACC.

Your argument is with those who *regularly* crosspost to other ngs, not with
those who take note of the subject under discussion and set the follow-ups
accordingly. If Raven wishes to discuss only Wicca, then obviously that
should be kept to pan-ARW.

Jani
Post by
Post by Raven
However, now you are questioning what the "rules" of Wicca may be,
which *is* on-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups. Crossposts left in.
Which now renders it off-topic for the Christian group Raven.
Jani is not representative of this group nor is she a regular here; and it
is asked that you please do not crosspost to us just to keep up this
conversation with her. Her actions are those of one who is only interested
in stirring up groups who's beliefs stand in opposition on several key
points. Do we really want to be marching to the tune of someone who is
representative of neither of our groups?
This is just a request, but one that is hoped you will receive graciously.
Griz
Jan
2003-11-24 15:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Post by Raven
However, now you are questioning what the "rules" of Wicca may be,
which *is* on-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups. Crossposts left in.
Which now renders it off-topic for the Christian group Raven.
Jani is not representative of this group nor is she a regular here; and it
is asked that you please do not crosspost to us just to keep up this
conversation with her. Her actions are those of one who is only interested
in stirring up groups who's beliefs stand in opposition on several key
points. Do we really want to be marching to the tune of someone who is
representative of neither of our groups?
This is just a request, but one that is hoped you will receive graciously.
Griz
I Don't recieve your request graciously, Griz. Jani is not
"representative" of anything but herself and she doesen't have to be.
She is an adult talking to other adults about a subject which is
Definately on-topic - the claims of someone who is calling herself a
christian witch.

Jani is exposing someone who has been shown to lie and to use other
religions and cultures to try to impress people. It is quite relevant
to people to know the truth about someone who comes and claims to
share their beliefs and values.

~Jan
twice-born child
2003-11-24 16:08:39 UTC
Permalink
All your doing is insuring that no one ever reads your postings and that
most folks will block you.
tbc
Post by Jan
Post by
Post by Raven
However, now you are questioning what the "rules" of Wicca may be,
which *is* on-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups. Crossposts left in.
Which now renders it off-topic for the Christian group Raven.
Jani is not representative of this group nor is she a regular here; and it
is asked that you please do not crosspost to us just to keep up this
conversation with her. Her actions are those of one who is only interested
in stirring up groups who's beliefs stand in opposition on several key
points. Do we really want to be marching to the tune of someone who is
representative of neither of our groups?
This is just a request, but one that is hoped you will receive graciously.
Griz
I Don't recieve your request graciously, Griz. Jani is not
"representative" of anything but herself and she doesen't have to be.
She is an adult talking to other adults about a subject which is
Definately on-topic - the claims of someone who is calling herself a
christian witch.
Jani is exposing someone who has been shown to lie and to use other
religions and cultures to try to impress people. It is quite relevant
to people to know the truth about someone who comes and claims to
share their beliefs and values.
~Jan
Stupendous Man
2003-11-24 23:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Oh, he'll ensure that no matter what he does. He's pretty slow-witted,
and a very poor excuse for a troll.
Post by twice-born child
All your doing is insuring that no one ever reads your postings and that
most folks will block you.
tbc
Post by Jan
Post by
Post by Raven
However, now you are questioning what the "rules" of Wicca may be,
which *is* on-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups. Crossposts left in.
Which now renders it off-topic for the Christian group Raven.
Jani is not representative of this group nor is she a regular
here; and
Post by twice-born child
it
Post by Jan
Post by
is asked that you please do not crosspost to us just to keep up this
conversation with her. Her actions are those of one who is only
interested
Post by Jan
Post by
in stirring up groups who's beliefs stand in opposition on several key
points. Do we really want to be marching to the tune of someone who is
representative of neither of our groups?
This is just a request, but one that is hoped you will receive
graciously.
Post by Jan
Post by
Griz
I Don't recieve your request graciously, Griz. Jani is not
"representative" of anything but herself and she doesen't have to be.
She is an adult talking to other adults about a subject which is
Definately on-topic - the claims of someone who is calling herself a
christian witch.
Jani is exposing someone who has been shown to lie and to use other
religions and cultures to try to impress people. It is quite relevant
to people to know the truth about someone who comes and claims to
share their beliefs and values.
~Jan
Jan
2003-11-25 00:00:23 UTC
Permalink
That's as maybe, and you can do what you want to. But respect for
truth is a xian value to my way of thinking and Jani tells the truth.
Your choice if you don't want to read it, it's a free usenet.

~Jan
Post by twice-born child
All your doing is insuring that no one ever reads your postings and that
most folks will block you.
tbc
Post by Jan
Post by
Post by Raven
However, now you are questioning what the "rules" of Wicca may be,
which *is* on-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups. Crossposts left in.
Which now renders it off-topic for the Christian group Raven.
Jani is not representative of this group nor is she a regular here; and
it
Post by Jan
Post by
is asked that you please do not crosspost to us just to keep up this
conversation with her. Her actions are those of one who is only
interested
Post by Jan
Post by
in stirring up groups who's beliefs stand in opposition on several key
points. Do we really want to be marching to the tune of someone who is
representative of neither of our groups?
This is just a request, but one that is hoped you will receive
graciously.
Post by Jan
Post by
Griz
I Don't recieve your request graciously, Griz. Jani is not
"representative" of anything but herself and she doesen't have to be.
She is an adult talking to other adults about a subject which is
Definately on-topic - the claims of someone who is calling herself a
christian witch.
Jani is exposing someone who has been shown to lie and to use other
religions and cultures to try to impress people. It is quite relevant
to people to know the truth about someone who comes and claims to
share their beliefs and values.
~Jan
Stupendous Man
2003-11-24 23:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan
Post by
Post by Raven
However, now you are questioning what the "rules" of Wicca may be,
which *is* on-topic for Wiccan & pagan groups. Crossposts left in.
Which now renders it off-topic for the Christian group Raven.
Jani is not representative of this group nor is she a regular here; and it
is asked that you please do not crosspost to us just to keep up this
conversation with her. Her actions are those of one who is only interested
in stirring up groups who's beliefs stand in opposition on several key
points. Do we really want to be marching to the tune of someone who is
representative of neither of our groups?
This is just a request, but one that is hoped you will receive graciously.
Griz
I Don't recieve your request graciously, Griz. Jani is not
"representative" of anything but herself and she doesen't have to be.
She is an adult talking to other adults about a subject which is
Definately on-topic - the claims of someone who is calling herself a
christian witch.
Jani is exposing someone who has been shown to lie and to use other
religions and cultures to try to impress people.
No, she's been leaving you well enough alone. She's been quite
occupied, though, so maybe that's why.
Jani
2003-11-25 14:31:07 UTC
Permalink
"Really, have you even thought of how you'd feel about applying to your
own
religion the rules you are attempting to foist upon Wicca from the
outside?"
I have already stated that I follow no religious path.
But you are intent upon denouncing as "dishonest" someone who openly
states
that she *did* follow one religious path and now follows another.
Apparently it is "dishonest", in your view, to change one's mind.
No, it is dishonest to make half a dozen claims of status, lineage and
experience which are then shown to be false. Obviously you are not familiar
with "Brenda Kent"'s assertions that she is or has been a pagan elder, a
lineaged trad in the Cornish families, a Wiccan HPS, a shaman, a theosophist
and a christian mystic, or her contradictory assertions that witchcraft is a
religion, is not a religion, is part of Wicca, is separate from Wicca and so
on. You may not have come across her admission that telling "deliberate
untruths" is an acceptable part of her "religious path" (whatever that might
be at the time), or her obfuscatory efforts to redefine "lie" and "truth"
when presented with the archived posts in which her dishonest claims appear.

If you wish to defend "Brenda", fine. But please don't assume that this is
someone who has simply "changed her mind". She has already insulted people
from various pagan paths by attributing to herself status to which she is
not entitled, and is now doing the same with regard to genuine Wiccan
clergy.

Jani

crossposts restored, relevant to the pagan groups.
Raven
2003-11-27 15:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
"Really, have you even thought of how you'd feel about
applying to your own religion the rules you are attempting
to foist upon Wicca from the outside?"
I have already stated that I follow no religious path.
But you are intent upon denouncing as "dishonest" someone who
openly states that she *did* follow one religious path and now
follows another.
Apparently it is "dishonest", in your view, to change one's mind.
No, it is dishonest to make half a dozen claims of status, lineage and
experience which are then shown to be false.
"Shown to be false" and "alleged to be false" are not the same thing.
Post by Jani
Obviously you are not familiar with "Brenda Kent"'s assertions
Only as far as a bit of Googling the Usenet archive would take me.
Post by Jani
that she is or has been a pagan elder,
Which one might well be in a local community, by reason of being HPS.

How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
Post by Jani
a lineaged trad in the Cornish families,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?

(I don't think any *Wiccan* trad predates Gardner, but by now a half
century has passed, and "lineaged trads" have come into existence.)
Post by Jani
a Wiccan HPS,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
Post by Jani
a shaman,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?

There are books, and classes at universities and on smaller scales,
which explicitly claim to help the student become a shaman. If you
believe no such process can confer that status, feel free to argue that.

But if you mean that Brenda never took such a class, how do you know?
Post by Jani
a theosophist
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?

I wasn't aware this was a difficult thing to be -- or to have been.
Post by Jani
and a christian mystic,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?

This isn't an especially improbable thing to be.
Post by Jani
or her contradictory assertions that witchcraft is a religion,
is not a religion, is part of Wicca, is separate from Wicca
and so on.
This is one of the murkiest topics to discuss. Margaret Murray's
THE WITCH-CULT IN WESTERN EUROPE did in fact argue that the "witches"
being hunted during the "Burning Times" were practicing a religion;
Gardner claimed his Wicca *was* that religion. Others (including me)
doubt both claims. I've pointed out that the term "witchcraft" has
been applied to many different practices, some of which were expressly
not part of the practitioners' religions (which in some cases was
Christianity)... but some of which *were* expressly part of their
religions (which in some cases was Christianity). I've pointed to
other books, like the folk grimoire, John George Hohman's POW-WOWS,
OR THE LONG-LOST FRIEND (1820), including charms of medieval origin,
chiefly from the German tradition of "hexerei" -- which translates
into English as "witchcraft". (Hohman himself was German-American,
"Pennsylvania Dutch", a culture still known for its "hex signs" on
barns.) This isn't "pagan" witchcraft but often explicitly Christian
folk magic -- which many Christians today deny ever existed.

More info: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787304158
Full text: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ame/pow/pow.htm
(Bookmark http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm as a major resource.)

Another book, on much older practices, would be Marvin Meyer et al
(eds.), ANCIENT CHRISTIAN MAGIC: COPTIC TEXTS OF RITUAL POWER (1994).

More info: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060655844
Excerpts: http://www.uoregon.edu/~klio/wc/source3/magic.htm
Post by Jani
You may not have come across her admission that telling
"deliberate untruths" is an acceptable part of her "religious path"
(whatever that might be at the time), or her obfuscatory efforts to
redefine "lie" and "truth" when presented with the archived posts
in which her dishonest claims appear.
True, I have not. If you'd care to post actual message-IDs (these
become clickable links if preceded by "news:", for Google readers),
I could read them and decide whether your characterization of them
is fair and accurate. But I should note, some initiatory traditions
do in fact involve the use of "deliberate untruths" -- for instance,
to frighten the initiate when in fact there is nothing to fear, so
the initiate can experience fear without actually being endangered.
Post by Jani
If you wish to defend "Brenda", fine.
I have no personal investment in Brenda. I do have some personal
distaste for false accusations, which I have already seen in this
thread. If some of your accusations are true, then let them be
shown to be true. Trial by mere allegation is not persuasive to me.
Post by Jani
But please don't assume that this is someone who has simply
"changed her mind". She has already insulted people from various
pagan paths by attributing to herself status to which she is not
entitled, and is now doing the same with regard to genuine Wiccan
clergy.
That may be true, and again it may not be true. No doubt some of
our readers may deny that there can be any such thing as "genuine
Wiccan clergy", and *therefore* Brenda cannot have been such a thing.

Others may be aware that becoming "genuine Wiccan clergy" is both
possible and (among Wiccans) not uncommon, so not an improbable
thing for Brenda to actually have accomplished.

You have *alleged* this to be false. But how have you *shown* this to
be false? And why are you bringing this issue to Christian newsgroups?
Jani
2003-11-27 18:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
"Really, have you even thought of how you'd feel about
applying to your own religion the rules you are attempting
to foist upon Wicca from the outside?"
I have already stated that I follow no religious path.
But you are intent upon denouncing as "dishonest" someone who
openly states that she *did* follow one religious path and now
follows another.
Apparently it is "dishonest", in your view, to change one's mind.
No, it is dishonest to make half a dozen claims of status, lineage and
experience which are then shown to be false.
"Shown to be false" and "alleged to be false" are not the same thing.
This is certainly true. However, if you make a claim as a straightforward
statement of fact, and later freely admit the claim was an outright lie,
then it is shown to be false. If you make a claim to expertise in a specific
branch of knowledge and demonstrate almost total ignorance of it in
discussion, then such a claim can reasonably be assumed, again, to be false.
If you use a term which has an agreed consensus definition to describe
yourself and then re-define it to make a claim appear valid, then again the
claim can be considered, to all intents and purposes, false.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Obviously you are not familiar with "Brenda Kent"'s assertions
Only as far as a bit of Googling the Usenet archive would take me.
Post by Jani
that she is or has been a pagan elder,
Which one might well be in a local community, by reason of being HPS.
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
She admitted herself that she was not an elder, despite having described
herself as such to assume seniority over someone with only a few years'
experience of paganism.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a lineaged trad in the Cornish families,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
She was asked later if she had made the claim, and if it was an outright
lie, and conceded that it was. This, however, was after months of pretending
she had no memory of such a claim, that the families in question did not
exist, and various other obfuscations.
Post by Raven
(I don't think any *Wiccan* trad predates Gardner, but by now a half
century has passed, and "lineaged trads" have come into existence.)
This was nothing to do with Wicca, it was a claim to initiation by adoption
in a particular family tradition in Britain.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a Wiccan HPS,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
Since Wicca has diverged so far from its origins, it seems that nowadays
anyone can style themselves HP/S without any training, experience, or
knowledge of the history of the path. In this sense, it cannot be shown to
be false, but in the light of other claims, should be regarded as dubious.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a shaman,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
There are books, and classes at universities and on smaller scales,
which explicitly claim to help the student become a shaman. If you
believe no such process can confer that status, feel free to argue that.
I don't think shamanism can be taught, in the way that an academic subject
can be taught, no. But that isn't really the point at issue here.
Post by Raven
But if you mean that Brenda never took such a class, how do you know?
She has produced several conflicting versions of how she became involved in
shamanism, to sidestep awkward questions. One moment she is a heyoka, the
next a practitioner of "core shamanism"; one moment she had human teachers,
the next there are just "voices in her head". I believe at one point she
claimed to have been taught in a Native tradition, but was unable to
substantiate it.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a theosophist
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
I wasn't aware this was a difficult thing to be -- or to have been.
She claimed to be undertaking a formal course of study in theosophy,
described herself several times as a theosophist, but was unable to engage
in any substantive discussion on the topic beyond some vague references to
the life of Blavatsky.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and a christian mystic,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
This isn't an especially improbable thing to be.
She stated that she was a christian mystic "by Ekhart's definition", but was
unaware that there is no such definition: a lengthy exchange with a
Christian theologian (I believe you know Janet? :) showed that she had no
idea of the historical and theological concepts of christian mysticism, and
was actually referring to some sort of unstructured newage
transcendentalism.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
or her contradictory assertions that witchcraft is a religion,
is not a religion, is part of Wicca, is separate from Wicca
and so on.
This is one of the murkiest topics to discuss.
I agree. My point in this instance is that "Brenda" has stated categorically
that "witchcraft is the religion of witches" and "Wicca is the religion of
Wiccans" and then turned around (especially when talking to Christians) and
asserted that witchcraft is not related to any religious belief system and
therefore can be practised by Christians. (But not, apparently, Satanists.)



Margaret Murray's
Post by Raven
THE WITCH-CULT IN WESTERN EUROPE did in fact argue that the "witches"
being hunted during the "Burning Times" were practicing a religion;
Gardner claimed his Wicca *was* that religion. Others (including me)
doubt both claims.
Most of those who suffered in the "burning times" were Christian. As to
Gardner's claims - well, I will concede that he drew on Leland and (I'm not
up to date on Heseltine, so I may well be sticking my neck out here :)
traditional British practitioners of some sort, but the phrase "ancient
wiccans" which has been bandied about a lot recently sets my teeth on edge.

I've pointed out that the term "witchcraft" has
Post by Raven
been applied to many different practices, some of which were expressly
not part of the practitioners' religions (which in some cases was
Christianity)... but some of which *were* expressly part of their
religions (which in some cases was Christianity). I've pointed to
other books, like the folk grimoire, John George Hohman's POW-WOWS,
OR THE LONG-LOST FRIEND (1820), including charms of medieval origin,
chiefly from the German tradition of "hexerei" -- which translates
into English as "witchcraft". (Hohman himself was German-American,
"Pennsylvania Dutch", a culture still known for its "hex signs" on
barns.) This isn't "pagan" witchcraft but often explicitly Christian
folk magic -- which many Christians today deny ever existed.
Again, I'm not arguing at all. I read an interesting article recently (which
I quite forgot to save, dammit) which maintained that hex doctors were
consulted more as a matter of form than anything - they weren't really
expected to "do" anything, in comparison to conventional medical doctors,
but it was part of normal procedure to refer to them, so people did.
Post by Raven
More info: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787304158
Full text: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ame/pow/pow.htm
(Bookmark http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm as a major resource.)
Already got it :)
Post by Raven
Another book, on much older practices, would be Marvin Meyer et al
(eds.), ANCIENT CHRISTIAN MAGIC: COPTIC TEXTS OF RITUAL POWER (1994).
More info: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060655844
Excerpts: http://www.uoregon.edu/~klio/wc/source3/magic.htm
Ah ha, hadn't seen that one before. Thanks.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
You may not have come across her admission that telling
"deliberate untruths" is an acceptable part of her "religious path"
(whatever that might be at the time), or her obfuscatory efforts to
redefine "lie" and "truth" when presented with the archived posts
in which her dishonest claims appear.
True, I have not. If you'd care to post actual message-IDs (these
become clickable links if preceded by "news:", for Google readers),
I could read them and decide whether your characterization of them
is fair and accurate.
The exchanges tend to be lengthy. However, a search for the The Truth about
NeoPagan Women's Groups thread on alt.pagan, and posts by "Brenda G
Tataryn" will give you the claims to trad lineage and elderhood; the thread
Re: Helena Blavatsky is the discussion about christian mysticism.


But I should note, some initiatory traditions
Post by Raven
do in fact involve the use of "deliberate untruths" -- for instance,
to frighten the initiate when in fact there is nothing to fear, so
the initiate can experience fear without actually being endangered.
This was not the case here. The whole concept of using "deliberate untruths"
was hastily cobbled together later, once it became clear that habitual lying
and flat denials of such lies would not go unchallenged.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
If you wish to defend "Brenda", fine.
I have no personal investment in Brenda. I do have some personal
distaste for false accusations, which I have already seen in this
thread. If some of your accusations are true, then let them be
shown to be true. Trial by mere allegation is not persuasive to me.
I'm not in the habit of telling lies, and I have no problem at all with
those who simply refuse to disclose information, or who skilfully use
smoke-and-mirrors where appropriate. I do object to people who repeatedly
make false claims, which then reflect badly on those whose claims are
genuine, *particularly* when such individuals set themselves up as spiritual
mentors IRL. There are enough unpleasant characters in pagan communities
battening on the vulnerable as it is.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
But please don't assume that this is someone who has simply
"changed her mind". She has already insulted people from various
pagan paths by attributing to herself status to which she is not
entitled, and is now doing the same with regard to genuine Wiccan
clergy.
That may be true, and again it may not be true. No doubt some of
our readers may deny that there can be any such thing as "genuine
Wiccan clergy", and *therefore* Brenda cannot have been such a thing.
Others may be aware that becoming "genuine Wiccan clergy" is both
possible and (among Wiccans) not uncommon, so not an improbable
thing for Brenda to actually have accomplished.
I do tend to distinguish, perhaps unfairly, between Gardnerian/Alexandrians
and "others". That said, I have encountered solitary eclectic Wiccans whose
knowledge, experience and integrity certainly qualifies them as "genuine
Wiccans" by anyone's definition. I just don't feel that uninformed and
superficial new-agery, coupled with habitual lying to pretend to status,
*does* qualify.
Post by Raven
You have *alleged* this to be false. But how have you *shown* this to
be false? And why are you bringing this issue to Christian newsgroups?
Removed the crossposts, now, since it's no longer appropriate. I thought at
first that you were posting from one of the christian ngs.

Jani
t_nasimith
2003-11-28 10:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
"Really, have you even thought of how you'd feel about
applying to your own religion the rules you are attempting
to foist upon Wicca from the outside?"
I have already stated that I follow no religious path.
But you are intent upon denouncing as "dishonest" someone who
openly states that she *did* follow one religious path and now
follows another.
Apparently it is "dishonest", in your view, to change one's mind.
No, it is dishonest to make half a dozen claims of status, lineage and
experience which are then shown to be false.
"Shown to be false" and "alleged to be false" are not the same thing.
This is certainly true. However, if you make a claim as a straightforward
statement of fact, and later freely admit the claim was an outright lie,
then it is shown to be false. If you make a claim to expertise in a specific
branch of knowledge and demonstrate almost total ignorance of it in
discussion, then such a claim can reasonably be assumed, again, to be false.
If you use a term which has an agreed consensus definition to describe
yourself and then re-define it to make a claim appear valid, then again the
claim can be considered, to all intents and purposes, false.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Obviously you are not familiar with "Brenda Kent"'s assertions
Only as far as a bit of Googling the Usenet archive would take me.
Post by Jani
that she is or has been a pagan elder,
Which one might well be in a local community, by reason of being HPS.
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
She admitted herself that she was not an elder, despite having described
herself as such to assume seniority over someone with only a few years'
experience of paganism.
In "Brenda's" own words then:
From: ***@victoria.tc.ca (Brenda G. Tataryn) [aka Brenda G. Kent]
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The Truth about NeoPagan Women's Groups
Date: 27 Oct 2001 20:28:27 -0800
Organization: Victoria Telecommunity Network
Post by Jani
Reply to: [1] Brigi
Date: 28 Oct 2001 01:25:00 GMT
Post by Raven
"***** I don't agree with your opinion.
It's not an opinion, dear, it is fact.
*****and again I don't agree with your opinion.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
manipulating energies to achieve my will (as "The 9th Witch" so
beautifully
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
stated before). My religion is Celtic Pagan. I have nothing to do with
Wicca.
***** never said you do. Male witches are called Wicca and female Wicce.
Ummmm....no, I'm a female Witch. My male friends who practice witchcraft
also
Post by Jani
are Witches. Wicca is a relgion. Where do you get this stuff?!?
***** yes you are a Witch and males are Witches as well but this comes
from the old terms for female and male witches. Where do I get this stuff?
from my teachers and my learning.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
The term Witch came from these words...Wit-cha and Wit-chay
Source?
****** too many to name. Go do a search for it. Many witches who have more
than a few years experience know this already ..it is old news.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
The religion known as Wicca is an entirely different thing altogether.
Yes. Thus, Witch-craft and Wicca are two different things. Wicca is a
relgion, witchcraft is not. Wiccans practice witchcraft, but not all
practioners of witchcraft are Wiccan.
****Yes Witchcraft and Wicca are two different things. Both are a
religion.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Do you get it now?
***Do YOU get it now?
Darling, pull your head from your arse and try to learn something.
***** Okay another little beginner trying to tell an elder her work.
Sigh...where do these youngins come from?
I think it is great that you are learning but drop the attitude and the
"I know something now...my shit don't stink". You assume that I am some
little gothed up teen learning her stuff when I have been doing this for a
long time.

Gods that attitude bugs me. How can we expect good witches to come out of
this mess?

Brenda
Post by Jani
Brigi"
[...]
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a shaman,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
There are books, and classes at universities and on smaller scales,
which explicitly claim to help the student become a shaman. If you
believe no such process can confer that status, feel free to argue that.
I don't think shamanism can be taught, in the way that an academic subject
can be taught, no. But that isn't really the point at issue here.
Post by Raven
But if you mean that Brenda never took such a class, how do you know?
She has produced several conflicting versions of how she became involved in
shamanism, to sidestep awkward questions. One moment she is a heyoka, the
next a practitioner of "core shamanism"; one moment she had human teachers,
the next there are just "voices in her head". I believe at one point she
claimed to have been taught in a Native tradition, but was unable to
substantiate it.
[...]
Post by Raven
You have *alleged* this to be false. But how have you *shown* this to
be false? And why are you bringing this issue to Christian newsgroups?
Removed the crossposts, now, since it's no longer appropriate. I thought at
first that you were posting from one of the christian ngs.
[cross-posts restored since it remains unclear whether or not "Raven"'s
posts originate from pagan or xtian NGs]
Post by Jani
Jani
T.N.
Raven
2003-11-29 11:35:20 UTC
Permalink
"t_nasimith" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message <news:bq79lc$1vdp4i$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de>:

-snip-
Post by t_nasimith
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The Truth about NeoPagan Women's Groups
Date: 27 Oct 2001 20:28:27 -0800
Organization: Victoria Telecommunity Network
Post by Jani
Reply to: [1] Brigi
Date: 28 Oct 2001 01:25:00 GMT
Post by Raven
"***** I don't agree with your opinion.
It's not an opinion, dear, it is fact.
*****and again I don't agree with your opinion.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
manipulating energies to achieve my will (as "The 9th Witch" so
beautifully stated before). My religion is Celtic Pagan.
I have nothing to do with Wicca.
***** never said you do. Male witches are called Wicca and female Wicce.
That is a correct usage of the original Anglo-Saxon words.

The word "wicca" is itself the lineal ancestor, the older form, of "witch";
conversely, "witch" is the modern derivative of the word "wicca", meaning
one who casts spells. Masculine form is "wicca", feminine is "wicce",
plural is "wiccan", and the verb form (to cast spells) is "wiccian".

This is of course different from the modern usage, where "Wicca" is the name
of the religion, and "Wiccan" refers to any member of it, male or female --
but note that this usage is mid-20th-century, from a writer named Gerald
Brousseau Gardner, whose grasp of history & linguistics was rather... loose.
Post by t_nasimith
Post by Jani
Ummmm....no, I'm a female Witch. My male friends who practice witchcraft
also are Witches. Wicca is a relgion. Where do you get this stuff?!?
***** yes you are a Witch and males are Witches as well but this comes
from the old terms for female and male witches. Where do I get this stuff?
from my teachers and my learning.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
The term Witch came from these words...Wit-cha and Wit-chay
Source?
****** too many to name. Go do a search for it. Many witches who have more
than a few years experience know this already ..it is old news.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
The religion known as Wicca is an entirely different thing altogether.
Yes. Thus, Witch-craft and Wicca are two different things. Wicca is a
relgion, witchcraft is not. Wiccans practice witchcraft, but not all
practioners of witchcraft are Wiccan.
****Yes Witchcraft and Wicca are two different things. Both are a
religion.
Okay, so here Brenda uses capital-W "Witchcraft" as the name of a religion,
distinct from "Wicca". Let me guess: she also says that "witchcraft" (with
a lowercase-W) is *not* a religion, right? And some people got confused?

I recall having a similar discussion on alt.religion.druid about the word
"Bard" (with capital-B, title of a member of a bardic organization), vs.
"bard" (with lowercase-B, one who both composes and performs verses) --
so that one might be both a Bard and a bard, a Bard but not a bard, or a
bard but not a Bard. Other examples might be Republican vs. republican,
or Democrat vs. democrat -- i.e. member of a polical party vs. believer in
a particular form of government. (Are today's Republicans republicans?)
Post by t_nasimith
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Do you get it now?
***Do YOU get it now?
-snip-
t_naismith
2003-11-29 12:02:44 UTC
Permalink
"Raven" wrote:
[directly after snipping attributions and much context]
Post by Raven
-snip-
I'm sorry, I lack the time for apologists such as yourself at the moment.
Have your people fax my people and I'll disregard your sophistry another
day, wot?

TN
Raven
2003-11-30 07:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Earlier, "t_naismith" <***@hotmail.com> had posted the text of a
message by Brenda G. Tataryn [aka Brenda G. Kent] <***@victoria.tc.ca>,
in which it was asserted that:

(1) "Male witches are called Wicca and female Wicce."

(2) "The term Witch came from these words...Wit-cha and Wit-chay"

(3) "Many witches who have more than a few years experience know this
already ..it is old news."

I replied to TN, in <news:***@posting.google.com>:

| That is a correct usage of the original Anglo-Saxon words.
|
| The word "wicca" is itself the lineal ancestor, the older form, of "witch";
| conversely, "witch" is the modern derivative of the word "wicca", meaning
| one who casts spells. Masculine form is "wicca", feminine is "wicce",
| plural is "wiccan", and the verb form (to cast spells) is "wiccian".
|
| This is of course different from the modern usage, where "Wicca" is the name
| of the religion, and "Wiccan" refers to any member of it, male or female --
| but note that this usage is mid-20th-century, from a writer named Gerald
| Brousseau Gardner, whose grasp of history & linguistics was rather... loose.
|
| [...]
|
Post by t_naismith
I'm sorry, I lack the time for apologists such as yourself at the moment.
Have your people fax my people and I'll disregard your sophistry another
day, wot?
Apparently TN considers straightforward verifiable history and etymology
to be apologetics and sophistry. Or else TN was only trolling to begin with.

Either way, TN is not concerned with facts, only with making accusations --
which makes any attempt at *factual* discussion with TN pointless.
t_naismith
2003-11-30 09:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
I replied to TN, in
<news:***@posting.google.com>:
... With a load of apologetic diversions, to which I responded.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
I'm sorry, I lack the time for apologists such as yourself at the moment.
Have your people fax my people and I'll disregard your sophistry another
day, wot?
Apparently TN considers straightforward verifiable history and etymology
to be apologetics and sophistry. Or else TN was only trolling to begin with.
No, I consider such as diversions from the context of the re-posts and
assertions made. I remain uninterested in such diversions and correctly
ascertained that you are unwilling to address the contextual point of the
original context, preferring instead to divert from it.
Post by Raven
Either way, TN is not concerned with facts, only with making
accusations --

You are in error. Many of those hundreds of posts in the threads
exceeding "2,300" which you've skipped over in order to engage
in lazy, diversionary tactics, iterated the facts, in context. Your
laziness isn't unique, for all it's exasperating qualities.
Post by Raven
which makes any attempt at *factual* discussion with TN pointless.
Your inability to track context is noted. As for the possible motivations
for your attempting to 'justify' compulsive lying via your apologetics, I've
seen it before and lack the patience to repost what you're unable to locate
in archives on your own.

Whether or not you have 'fire eyes' or, are merely socking is immaterial.
TN
Zsarnok
2003-11-30 16:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these etymological
references? Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's
been here for years? What an ego you have. This is old, old stuff and
not at all new or edifying.

Stay away from pins and open flames.

Zsarnok
Post by Raven
(1) "Male witches are called Wicca and female Wicce."
(2) "The term Witch came from these words...Wit-cha and Wit-chay"
(3) "Many witches who have more than a few years experience know this
already ..it is old news."
| That is a correct usage of the original Anglo-Saxon words.
|
| The word "wicca" is itself the lineal ancestor, the older form, of "witch";
| conversely, "witch" is the modern derivative of the word "wicca", meaning
| one who casts spells. Masculine form is "wicca", feminine is "wicce",
| plural is "wiccan", and the verb form (to cast spells) is "wiccian".
|
| This is of course different from the modern usage, where "Wicca" is the name
| of the religion, and "Wiccan" refers to any member of it, male or female --
| but note that this usage is mid-20th-century, from a writer named Gerald
| Brousseau Gardner, whose grasp of history & linguistics was rather... loose.
|
| [...]
|
Post by t_naismith
I'm sorry, I lack the time for apologists such as yourself at the moment.
Have your people fax my people and I'll disregard your sophistry another
day, wot?
Apparently TN considers straightforward verifiable history and etymology
to be apologetics and sophistry. Or else TN was only trolling to begin with.
Either way, TN is not concerned with facts, only with making accusations --
which makes any attempt at *factual* discussion with TN pointless.
Stupendous Man
2003-12-01 04:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Zsarnok, you should know better than this. Her points were valid.
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Zsarnok
references? Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's
been here for years? What an ego you have. This is old, old stuff and
not at all new or edifying.
Stay away from pins and open flames.
Zsarnok
Post by Raven
message by Brenda G. Tataryn [aka Brenda G. Kent]
(1) "Male witches are called Wicca and female Wicce."
(2) "The term Witch came from these words...Wit-cha and Wit-chay"
(3) "Many witches who have more than a few years experience know this
already ..it is old news."
I replied to TN, in
| That is a correct usage of the original Anglo-Saxon words.
|
| The word "wicca" is itself the lineal ancestor, the older form, of "witch";
| conversely, "witch" is the modern derivative of the word "wicca", meaning
| one who casts spells. Masculine form is "wicca", feminine is "wicce",
| plural is "wiccan", and the verb form (to cast spells) is
"wiccian".
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
|
| This is of course different from the modern usage, where "Wicca" is the name
| of the religion, and "Wiccan" refers to any member of it, male or female --
| but note that this usage is mid-20th-century, from a writer named Gerald
| Brousseau Gardner, whose grasp of history & linguistics was rather... loose.
|
| [...]
|
| for one example, quoting me; or my
Post by t_naismith
I'm sorry, I lack the time for apologists such as yourself at the moment.
Have your people fax my people and I'll disregard your sophistry another
day, wot?
Apparently TN considers straightforward verifiable history and etymology
to be apologetics and sophistry. Or else TN was only trolling to begin with.
Either way, TN is not concerned with facts, only with making
accusations --
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
which makes any attempt at *factual* discussion with TN pointless.
Rhyanon
2003-12-01 13:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Awee. Did we diss - miss yer sockpuppet, ren?
Post by Stupendous Man
Zsarnok, you should know better than this. Her points were valid.
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Zsarnok
references? Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's
been here for years? What an ego you have. This is old, old stuff
and
Post by Zsarnok
not at all new or edifying.
Stay away from pins and open flames.
Zsarnok
of a
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
message by Brenda G. Tataryn [aka Brenda G. Kent]
(1) "Male witches are called Wicca and female Wicce."
(2) "The term Witch came from these words...Wit-cha and Wit-chay"
(3) "Many witches who have more than a few years experience know
this
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
already ..it is old news."
I replied to TN, in
| That is a correct usage of the original Anglo-Saxon words.
|
| The word "wicca" is itself the lineal ancestor, the older form, of
"witch";
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| conversely, "witch" is the modern derivative of the word "wicca",
meaning
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| one who casts spells. Masculine form is "wicca", feminine is
"wicce",
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| plural is "wiccan", and the verb form (to cast spells) is
"wiccian".
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
|
| This is of course different from the modern usage, where "Wicca"
is the name
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| of the religion, and "Wiccan" refers to any member of it, male or
female --
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| but note that this usage is mid-20th-century, from a writer named
Gerald
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| Brousseau Gardner, whose grasp of history & linguistics was
rather... loose.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
|
| [...]
|
from 1998
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| for one example, quoting me; or my
Post by t_naismith
I'm sorry, I lack the time for apologists such as yourself at the
moment.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Have your people fax my people and I'll disregard your sophistry
another
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
day, wot?
Apparently TN considers straightforward verifiable history and
etymology
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
to be apologetics and sophistry. Or else TN was only trolling to
begin with.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Either way, TN is not concerned with facts, only with making
accusations --
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
which makes any attempt at *factual* discussion with TN pointless.
Zsarnok
2003-12-05 22:12:50 UTC
Permalink
And delivered with a pompous, self-congratulatory air that needs to let
out. And I have pins.

Zsarnok
Post by Stupendous Man
Zsarnok, you should know better than this. Her points were valid.
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Zsarnok
references? Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's
been here for years? What an ego you have. This is old, old stuff
and
Post by Zsarnok
not at all new or edifying.
Stay away from pins and open flames.
Zsarnok
of a
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
message by Brenda G. Tataryn [aka Brenda G. Kent]
(1) "Male witches are called Wicca and female Wicce."
(2) "The term Witch came from these words...Wit-cha and Wit-chay"
(3) "Many witches who have more than a few years experience know
this
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
already ..it is old news."
I replied to TN, in
| That is a correct usage of the original Anglo-Saxon words.
|
| The word "wicca" is itself the lineal ancestor, the older form, of
"witch";
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| conversely, "witch" is the modern derivative of the word "wicca",
meaning
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| one who casts spells. Masculine form is "wicca", feminine is
"wicce",
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| plural is "wiccan", and the verb form (to cast spells) is
"wiccian".
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
|
| This is of course different from the modern usage, where "Wicca"
is the name
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| of the religion, and "Wiccan" refers to any member of it, male or
female --
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| but note that this usage is mid-20th-century, from a writer named
Gerald
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| Brousseau Gardner, whose grasp of history & linguistics was
rather... loose.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
|
| [...]
|
from 1998
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| for one example, quoting me; or my
Post by t_naismith
I'm sorry, I lack the time for apologists such as yourself at the
moment.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Have your people fax my people and I'll disregard your sophistry
another
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
day, wot?
Apparently TN considers straightforward verifiable history and
etymology
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
to be apologetics and sophistry. Or else TN was only trolling to
begin with.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Either way, TN is not concerned with facts, only with making
accusations --
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
which makes any attempt at *factual* discussion with TN pointless.
Rhyanon
2003-12-06 13:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Oo! I loves pins!
Post by Zsarnok
And delivered with a pompous, self-congratulatory air that needs to let
out. And I have pins.
Zsarnok
Post by Stupendous Man
Zsarnok, you should know better than this. Her points were valid.
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Zsarnok
references? Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's
been here for years? What an ego you have. This is old, old stuff
and
Post by Zsarnok
not at all new or edifying.
Stay away from pins and open flames.
Zsarnok
of a
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
message by Brenda G. Tataryn [aka Brenda G. Kent]
(1) "Male witches are called Wicca and female Wicce."
(2) "The term Witch came from these words...Wit-cha and Wit-chay"
(3) "Many witches who have more than a few years experience know
this
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
already ..it is old news."
I replied to TN, in
| That is a correct usage of the original Anglo-Saxon words.
|
| The word "wicca" is itself the lineal ancestor, the older form, of
"witch";
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| conversely, "witch" is the modern derivative of the word "wicca",
meaning
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| one who casts spells. Masculine form is "wicca", feminine is
"wicce",
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| plural is "wiccan", and the verb form (to cast spells) is
"wiccian".
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
|
| This is of course different from the modern usage, where "Wicca"
is the name
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| of the religion, and "Wiccan" refers to any member of it, male or
female --
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| but note that this usage is mid-20th-century, from a writer named
Gerald
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| Brousseau Gardner, whose grasp of history & linguistics was
rather... loose.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
|
| [...]
|
from 1998
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| for one example, quoting me; or my
Post by t_naismith
I'm sorry, I lack the time for apologists such as yourself at the
moment.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Have your people fax my people and I'll disregard your sophistry
another
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
day, wot?
Apparently TN considers straightforward verifiable history and
etymology
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
to be apologetics and sophistry. Or else TN was only trolling to
begin with.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Either way, TN is not concerned with facts, only with making
accusations --
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
which makes any attempt at *factual* discussion with TN pointless.
Zsarnok
2003-12-06 16:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Some have those cute little balls at the end, but my favorite is a hat
pin. >:)

Zsarnok
Post by Rhyanon
Oo! I loves pins!
Post by Zsarnok
And delivered with a pompous, self-congratulatory air that needs to let
out. And I have pins.
Zsarnok
Post by Stupendous Man
Zsarnok, you should know better than this. Her points were valid.
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Zsarnok
references? Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's
been here for years? What an ego you have. This is old, old stuff
and
Post by Zsarnok
not at all new or edifying.
Stay away from pins and open flames.
Zsarnok
of a
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
message by Brenda G. Tataryn [aka Brenda G. Kent]
(1) "Male witches are called Wicca and female Wicce."
(2) "The term Witch came from these words...Wit-cha and Wit-chay"
(3) "Many witches who have more than a few years experience know
this
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
already ..it is old news."
I replied to TN, in
| That is a correct usage of the original Anglo-Saxon words.
|
| The word "wicca" is itself the lineal ancestor, the older form, of
"witch";
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| conversely, "witch" is the modern derivative of the word "wicca",
meaning
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| one who casts spells. Masculine form is "wicca", feminine is
"wicce",
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| plural is "wiccan", and the verb form (to cast spells) is
"wiccian".
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
|
| This is of course different from the modern usage, where "Wicca"
is the name
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| of the religion, and "Wiccan" refers to any member of it, male or
female --
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| but note that this usage is mid-20th-century, from a writer named
Gerald
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| Brousseau Gardner, whose grasp of history & linguistics was
rather... loose.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
|
| [...]
|
from 1998
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
| for one example, quoting me; or my
Post by t_naismith
I'm sorry, I lack the time for apologists such as yourself at the
moment.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Have your people fax my people and I'll disregard your sophistry
another
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
day, wot?
Apparently TN considers straightforward verifiable history and
etymology
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
to be apologetics and sophistry. Or else TN was only trolling to
begin with.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Either way, TN is not concerned with facts, only with making
accusations --
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
which makes any attempt at *factual* discussion with TN pointless.
Raven
2003-12-01 07:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these etymological
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old news".

The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't believed.
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here for years?
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b) ignorant
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" & "wicce".

Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these meanings,
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
Post by Zsarnok
What an ego you have.
How so? Would you have found it commendably modest to accept the implication
that Brenda's post was false, and not to comment that in fact she was correct?
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post where
she said that, as evidence *against* her. So is this evidence against you?
Post by Zsarnok
or edifying.
Apparently not to you. Good for you. Should information not be posted here
if you yourself are already aware of it? What then of those who are unaware?

Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who believe it?

<news:***@smyrno.sol.net>
t_naismith
2003-12-01 08:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post where
she said that, as evidence *against* her.
You miss my point, Zsarnok did not.
Post by Raven
So is this evidence against you?
Not as odd as your fixation upon the minor points made and
the snipping out of the major points, in context. This nonsense
about witchcraft and wicca is peripheral to Br**da's pattern of
falsehoods, constituting a small example of her out and out lies.
Post by Raven
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who believe it?
This is the point Jani and others were making about checking the
archives. The context which deals "ravening" was addressed by
you peripherally and mundanely. Look, I understand that you are
coming into this late and don't really expect a complete rehashing
of several months worth of posts just so that you can say, "point to
Jani/TN/Raven". Br**da spreads her falsehoods out over several
posts and threads, finding a few where she isn't as vague as she
usually is, (in order to back pedal later on if called on her claims),
becomes difficult. Surely you've seen this is you've been looking
at the archives in this regard.

Another poster named Kate had previously spent considerable
time locating such posts of Br**da's and posting the links to
archive. Even after that was done, Br**da and her apologists
arrived to attempt a revisionism-spin on "what was really meant".

Those of us who were reading the posts as they unfolded know
what pattern they saw and it was one of a compulsive liar in Br**da's
posts. You don't have to take my word for it any more than you
should take Br**da's subsequent denials of her own words for
what happened. If you stick with it long enough, you'll either find
this out for yourself via archives or, Br**da will forget what she
said again and you'll have an opportunity to see her lie in the present.

Good lick, Raven.

TN
Raven
2003-12-08 07:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post where
she said that, as evidence *against* her.
You miss my point, Zsarnok did not.
Then perhaps you could make your point more clearly. What you did, in
<news:bq79lc$1vdp4i$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de> on 11/28/2003, was
quote Jani's <news:Btrxb.12833$***@news-text.cableinet.net> and
insert Brenda's <news:***@news.victoria.tc.ca> (from 10/28/2001)
with the comment "In 'Brenda's' own words then:". Since what Jani was
talking about was showing (vs. alleging) Brenda's claims to be false,
such as by showing that she demonstrated almost total ignorance of the
subjects where she claims expertise, it appeared that you were proffering
Brenda's post as an example of either falsehood or ignorance on her part.

But in fact what Brenda was saying was true, not false or ignorant.

Since then, what Jani has said seems to argue that Brenda's post shows
an unwillingness to cite sources rather than say "everybody knows that".

This may be both true and worth objecting to, but it wasn't the issue.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
So is this evidence against you?
Not as odd as your fixation upon the minor points made and
the snipping out of the major points, in context.
Then you may take it that I could not see what your "major points" were.

I focussed on the *factual claim* in the post you quoted, which was
possible to show either true or false. Whether she failed to provide
references did not seem to be the issue under discussion.

If other parts of that text were your "major points", then please point to
them. Your quoting the entire post, with no comment beyond "In 'Brenda's'
own words then", left me having to guess what your point was in quoting it.
Post by t_naismith
This nonsense about witchcraft and wicca
I can only observe that the ARW FAQ saw fit to address that "nonsense" as
a frequently asked question: "3.4 Is Wicca the same thing as witchcraft?"
Post by t_naismith
is peripheral to Br**da's pattern of falsehoods,
Then it puzzles me that you chose *that* as your example to post.
Post by t_naismith
constituting a small example of her out and out lies.
How can it "constitute a small example of her out and out lies",
when in fact it is not a lie?
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who believe it?
This is the point Jani and others were making about checking the
archives. The context which deals "ravening" was addressed by
you peripherally and mundanely.
I thought I addressed that directly and explicitly. As for "mundanely",
there didn't seem to be any point to using some occult definition of the
word "lie". Jani herself uses the mundane phrase "deliberate untruth".
Post by t_naismith
Look, I understand that you are coming into this late and don't really
expect a complete rehashing of several months worth of posts
No, certainly not. But I would think that if you accuse someone of being a
liar, you bear the responsibility to collect evidence to prove your case.

Then you can post either that collection, or a *link* to it, in order to
prove that case quickly and decisively.

To be blunt, it is not other people's job to do that for you.

And it is not "laziness" on *their* part to expect *you* to do that.
Post by t_naismith
just so that you can say, "point to Jani/TN/Raven".
Any time you accuse someone to others, you are asking those others to judge
your accusations true or false. That is, you put yourself, *your* claims,
under examination, as well as the person whose claims you call lies.

If your evidence is missing, or does not establish falsehood on the part
of the person you accuse, those others are justified in dismissing your
accusations, acquitting the one you accuse, and holding *you* in doubt.
Post by t_naismith
Br**da spreads her falsehoods out over several posts and threads,
Then it is all the more important that you gather them together and point
to the connections that result in falsehood, rather than ask others to go
through the whole archive, when by doing so they might miss the connections.
Post by t_naismith
finding a few where she isn't as vague as she usually is,
(in order to back pedal later on if called on her claims),
becomes difficult. Surely you've seen this is you've been
looking at the archives in this regard.
So, if you've *seen* the specific cases of clear falsehood, it
makes more sense for you to cite and quote those, than for you
to wave broadly at the whole archive and expect others to find
the few nuggets of clarity that you already know about.
Post by t_naismith
Another poster named Kate had previously spent considerable
time locating such posts of Br**da's and posting the links to
archive. Even after that was done, Br**da and her apologists
arrived to attempt a revisionism-spin on "what was really meant".
So now you could simply post links to Kate's prior posts.
Post by t_naismith
Those of us who were reading the posts as they unfolded know
what pattern they saw and it was one of a compulsive liar in
Br**da's posts.
Hmmm. Sometimes people see such a pattern because it is there.
Sometimes people see such a pattern because they are inclined to
see such a pattern, whether it is there or not. I think it might be
better to point to specific text, and let others see for themselves.
Post by t_naismith
You don't have to take my word for it any more than you
should take Br**da's subsequent denials of her own words for
what happened.
I would rather do neither. Point to her original words (with quote
and message-ID), then point to her denials (with quote and message-ID),
and you can make your case quickly and neatly.
Post by t_naismith
If you stick with it long enough, you'll either find this out for
yourself via archives or, Br**da will forget what she said again
and you'll have an opportunity to see her lie in the present.
I think it may not be a safe assumption that those you want to convince
will always have both the time and the inclination to read thousands of
posts, going back a year or more, in order to find those few specific ones
that would prove your case for you. Since you saw them once already, you
know what to search for, and which posts were clearest evidence for you.
This makes you the better candidate to find them again and post the links.

And, again, it is your responsibility, not that of those you would persuade.

If you and Jani are going to complain that Brenda failed to cite sources,
you can't very well argue that you have no such responsibility yourselves.
t_naismith
2003-12-08 08:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post where
she said that, as evidence *against* her.
You miss my point, Zsarnok did not.
Then perhaps you could make your point more clearly. What you did, in
with the comment "In 'Brenda's' own words then:".
Yes, and the context was "Brenda's" claims of _ravening_, (ie., deceptions/
out and out lies, as she partially admitted to later). The context was not
specifically the origins of the words "wicca"/witch, (which were as
peripheral
to that discussion as they remain in the context of this one).
Post by Raven
Since what Jani was
talking about was showing (vs. alleging) Brenda's claims to be false,
such as by showing that she demonstrated almost total ignorance of the
subjects where she claims expertise, it appeared that you were proffering
Brenda's post as an example of either falsehood or ignorance on her part.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
"***I was being
labeled as one that is culturally theiving and I had to express that
many
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
of these practises are within core shamanism. I never said I was
taught by
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
any core shamanism teachers. I have both human and spiritual teachers
as
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
many shaman tend to do...and I have NEVER claimed that I was taught by
Natives in any native tradition.
***** I stated that they were spirit teachers..who happen to dwell in a
range that sees Raven as a trickster. They are not native persons..but
spirits of this area.
Post by t_naismith
" I'm not a native person nor did native *people*
teach me this. There are far more native cultures on the Northwest coast
however than what you speak of. Raven is a cultural trickster of many
people on this coast. Since my teachers, being spirits of this
area,..have
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
called it Raven due to the area I live in ...that is what I use. "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=native+teachers+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda
+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1
030326105241.2451I-100000%40vtn1&rnum=3
Post by Raven
But in fact what Brenda was saying was true, not false or ignorant.
No, what "Brenda" claimed, in the context of her so-called _ravening_,
came to light as a false claim after many challenges to her claim were made.
This has nothing to do with your peripheral divergence and is not central
to the context here.
Post by Raven
<snip peripheral diversions>
If other parts of that text were your "major points", then please point to
them. Your quoting the entire post, with no comment beyond "In 'Brenda's'
own words then", left me having to guess what your point was in quoting it.
"Brenda's" own words included her claims to be _ravening_, which is a
premise of her false claims and therefore, contextual. If you are
suggesting
that I spoon-feed you, seek elsewhere, "raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
This nonsense about witchcraft and wicca
I can only observe that the ARW FAQ
If you are going to pull "Brenda's" snip-in-midsentence bullshit,
you deserve every bit of the type of response that follows, "raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
is peripheral to Br**da's pattern of falsehoods,
Then it puzzles me that you chose *that* as your example to post.
The 'example' was in reply to your 'poor example', "raven".
As I said, it is peripheral and an alternative which may not
exemplify her claims of _ravening_, (as I said, her posts
are spead out over time and hundreds of threads). It does
serve as an example of how she dissembles.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
constituting a small example of her out and out lies.
How can it "constitute a small example of her out and out lies",
when in fact it is not a lie?
Again, the context is not the peripheral one you wish it to be,
"raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who
believe
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
it?
This is the point Jani and others were making about checking the
archives. The context which deals "ravening" was addressed by
you peripherally and mundanely.
I thought I addressed that directly and explicitly.
No, you glossed over it quickly after noting that you'd never
encountered such a concept characterized as "ravening".
Post by Raven
As for "mundanely",
there didn't seem to be any point to using some occult definition of the
word "lie". Jani herself uses the mundane phrase "deliberate untruth".
Yes, on the one hand you seemed to acknowledge that "Brenda's"
_ravening_ was just concealment for lying/telling deliberate untruths.
You glossed over the major premise/allegation that "Brenda" not only
lies but, lies methodically.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Look, I understand that you are coming into this late and don't really
expect a complete rehashing of several months worth of posts
No, certainly not. But I would think that if you accuse someone of being a
liar, you bear the responsibility to collect evidence to prove your case.
In many instances, "Brenda's" assertions were challenged at the point
her claims were made. To reiterate; she made her initial claims and
several of these were challenged at the time she made them. She was
unable to substantiate her false claims and through the challenge-process,
was shown to be a liar.
Post by Raven
Then you can post either that collection, or a *link* to it, in order to
prove that case quickly and decisively.
While there are several examples available in archives, the entire
thing was a _process_ and lifting one or ten examples out of the
context of that challenged-claims process renders them insufficient
of themselves.
Post by Raven
To be blunt, it is not other people's job to do that for you.
And it is not "laziness" on *their* part to expect *you* to do that.
Essentially, you are requesting that the supportive evidence of
the process of challenging "Brenda's" claims be convienently
posted for your review. You base such a request on terming
the conclusion drawn from a lengthy process, (that "Brenda"
has lied and continues to), as a _claim_ that "Brenda" lies.
This is disingenious. "Brenda" made the initial claims and now
you are 'insisting' that the results of the process of challenging
her claims be themselves recast as "claims". I expect you know
what you can do with your sophistry, "raven".
Post by Raven
Any time you accuse someone to others, you are asking those others to judge
your accusations true or false. That is, you put yourself, *your* claims,
under examination, as well as the person whose claims you call lies.
Right. So, when "Brenda" made her initial claims/assertions, it was
and is up to her to substantiate her own claims. Her subsequent
failures to do so have resulted in rendering her claims as false.
Post by Raven
If your evidence is missing, or does not establish falsehood on the part
of the person you accuse,
The evidence is the process of challenging "Brenda's" initial claims
and the resultant conclusion that she'd lied is subsequent to her claims.
It is not a fresh initial assertion, it is a conclusion based upon the
aforementioned process of challenging "Brenda's" claims. That process
is not "missing", it is extremely spread out and would constitute a time-
consuming search. Why not just disregard what I say as she does and
call me a liar, based upon such a lack of "evidence"?
Post by Raven
those others are justified in dismissing your
accusations, acquitting the one you accuse, and holding *you* in doubt.
So, because I am reluctant to devote large amounts of time to
satisfy your sophist 'demands' for substantiation of a conclusion,
(and not a _new claim_), you will dismiss that conclusion and "acquit"
one, ("Brenda"), who has to date, not substantiated her false claims?
That makes your input nothing more than a 'trolling' in the correct sense
of the word, "raven".
Post by Raven
[snip "raven's" sophist demands]
Post by t_naismith
Another poster named Kate had previously spent considerable
time locating such posts of Br**da's and posting the links to
archive. Even after that was done, Br**da and her apologists
arrived to attempt a revisionism-spin on "what was really meant".
So now you could simply post links to Kate's prior posts.
Sure, I could go along with your insistance that a conclusion
is a claim in this context and do all your research for you. I'll
get right on that as soon as "Brenda" substantiates her initial
claims which resulted in that conclusion.
Essentially, you are requesting that the supportive evidence of
the process of challenging "Brenda's" claims be convienently
posted for your review. You base such a request on terming
the conclusion drawn from a lengthy process, (that "Brenda"
has lied and continues to), as a _claim_ that "Brenda" lies.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Those of us who were reading the posts as they unfolded know
what pattern they saw and it was one of a compulsive liar in
Br**da's posts.
Hmmm. Sometimes people see such a pattern because it is there.
Sometimes people see such a pattern because they are inclined to
see such a pattern, whether it is there or not. I think it might be
better to point to specific text, and let others see for themselves.
Post by t_naismith
You don't have to take my word for it any more than you
should take Br**da's subsequent denials of her own words for
what happened.
I would rather do neither. Point to her original words (with quote
and message-ID), then point to her denials (with quote and message-ID),
and you can make your case quickly and neatly.
In many instances, "Brenda's" assertions were challenged at the point
her claims were made. To reiterate; she made her initial claims and
several of these were challenged at the time she made them. She was
unable to substantiate her false claims and through the challenge-process,
was shown to be a liar. This was done at the time it happened. If you
now want to read about that process, find it yourself, "raven". I am under
no obligation to rehash the whole thing over again just for you.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
If you stick with it long enough, you'll either find this out for
yourself via archives or, Br**da will forget what she said again
and you'll have an opportunity to see her lie in the present.
I think it may not be a safe assumption that those you want to convince
will always have both the time and the inclination to read thousands of
posts, going back a year or more, in order to find those few specific ones
that would prove your case for you.
Yet you expect _me_ to do this for you, merely because you make a
late request after the process of refutation has occurred? You know,
some may pull a few of these out of archives 'for you', "raven" but, as
far as I'm concerned, you already show a tendency to sophistry which
would _challenge the challenges_, (this has occurred with others before
and their secondary challenges were refuted). I'm not trying to "convince"
you or anyone of the results of a process they missed. It happened. You
missed it. Now you want others to expend the time to dig for bits and
pieces of a process which you missed. Easier for you to just "dismiss"
that conclusion and attempt to redefine it as a _new claim_ which needs
substantiation, than to find out for yourself, eh "raven"?

[snip "raven's" attempts to define a conclusion as a result]

T.N. (eye of Falcon)
Rhyanon
2003-12-08 12:42:59 UTC
Permalink
I like that the balless shitstick has me killfiled; it shows what a
shriveled scrote of coward it really is.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post
where
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
she said that, as evidence *against* her.
You miss my point, Zsarnok did not.
Then perhaps you could make your point more clearly. What you did, in
with the comment "In 'Brenda's' own words then:".
Yes, and the context was "Brenda's" claims of _ravening_, (ie., deceptions/
out and out lies, as she partially admitted to later). The context was not
specifically the origins of the words "wicca"/witch, (which were as
peripheral
to that discussion as they remain in the context of this one).
Post by Raven
Since what Jani was
talking about was showing (vs. alleging) Brenda's claims to be false,
such as by showing that she demonstrated almost total ignorance of the
subjects where she claims expertise, it appeared that you were proffering
Brenda's post as an example of either falsehood or ignorance on her part.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
"***I was being
labeled as one that is culturally theiving and I had to express that
many
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
of these practises are within core shamanism. I never said I was
taught by
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
any core shamanism teachers. I have both human and spiritual teachers
as
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
many shaman tend to do...and I have NEVER claimed that I was taught by
Natives in any native tradition.
***** I stated that they were spirit teachers..who happen to dwell in a
range that sees Raven as a trickster. They are not native persons..but
spirits of this area.
Post by t_naismith
" I'm not a native person nor did native *people*
teach me this. There are far more native cultures on the Northwest coast
however than what you speak of. Raven is a cultural trickster of many
people on this coast. Since my teachers, being spirits of this
area,..have
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
called it Raven due to the area I live in ...that is what I use. "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=native+teachers+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda
+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1
Post by t_naismith
030326105241.2451I-100000%40vtn1&rnum=3
Post by Raven
But in fact what Brenda was saying was true, not false or ignorant.
No, what "Brenda" claimed, in the context of her so-called _ravening_,
came to light as a false claim after many challenges to her claim were made.
This has nothing to do with your peripheral divergence and is not central
to the context here.
Post by Raven
<snip peripheral diversions>
If other parts of that text were your "major points", then please point to
them. Your quoting the entire post, with no comment beyond "In 'Brenda's'
own words then", left me having to guess what your point was in quoting
it.
"Brenda's" own words included her claims to be _ravening_, which is a
premise of her false claims and therefore, contextual. If you are
suggesting
that I spoon-feed you, seek elsewhere, "raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
This nonsense about witchcraft and wicca
I can only observe that the ARW FAQ
If you are going to pull "Brenda's" snip-in-midsentence bullshit,
you deserve every bit of the type of response that follows, "raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
is peripheral to Br**da's pattern of falsehoods,
Then it puzzles me that you chose *that* as your example to post.
The 'example' was in reply to your 'poor example', "raven".
As I said, it is peripheral and an alternative which may not
exemplify her claims of _ravening_, (as I said, her posts
are spead out over time and hundreds of threads). It does
serve as an example of how she dissembles.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
constituting a small example of her out and out lies.
How can it "constitute a small example of her out and out lies",
when in fact it is not a lie?
Again, the context is not the peripheral one you wish it to be,
"raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who
believe
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
it?
This is the point Jani and others were making about checking the
archives. The context which deals "ravening" was addressed by
you peripherally and mundanely.
I thought I addressed that directly and explicitly.
No, you glossed over it quickly after noting that you'd never
encountered such a concept characterized as "ravening".
Post by Raven
As for "mundanely",
there didn't seem to be any point to using some occult definition of the
word "lie". Jani herself uses the mundane phrase "deliberate untruth".
Yes, on the one hand you seemed to acknowledge that "Brenda's"
_ravening_ was just concealment for lying/telling deliberate untruths.
You glossed over the major premise/allegation that "Brenda" not only
lies but, lies methodically.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Look, I understand that you are coming into this late and don't really
expect a complete rehashing of several months worth of posts
No, certainly not. But I would think that if you accuse someone of
being
Post by t_naismith
a
Post by Raven
liar, you bear the responsibility to collect evidence to prove your case.
In many instances, "Brenda's" assertions were challenged at the point
her claims were made. To reiterate; she made her initial claims and
several of these were challenged at the time she made them. She was
unable to substantiate her false claims and through the challenge-process,
was shown to be a liar.
Post by Raven
Then you can post either that collection, or a *link* to it, in order to
prove that case quickly and decisively.
While there are several examples available in archives, the entire
thing was a _process_ and lifting one or ten examples out of the
context of that challenged-claims process renders them insufficient
of themselves.
Post by Raven
To be blunt, it is not other people's job to do that for you.
And it is not "laziness" on *their* part to expect *you* to do that.
Essentially, you are requesting that the supportive evidence of
the process of challenging "Brenda's" claims be convienently
posted for your review. You base such a request on terming
the conclusion drawn from a lengthy process, (that "Brenda"
has lied and continues to), as a _claim_ that "Brenda" lies.
This is disingenious. "Brenda" made the initial claims and now
you are 'insisting' that the results of the process of challenging
her claims be themselves recast as "claims". I expect you know
what you can do with your sophistry, "raven".
Post by Raven
Any time you accuse someone to others, you are asking those others to
judge
Post by Raven
your accusations true or false. That is, you put yourself, *your* claims,
under examination, as well as the person whose claims you call lies.
Right. So, when "Brenda" made her initial claims/assertions, it was
and is up to her to substantiate her own claims. Her subsequent
failures to do so have resulted in rendering her claims as false.
Post by Raven
If your evidence is missing, or does not establish falsehood on the part
of the person you accuse,
The evidence is the process of challenging "Brenda's" initial claims
and the resultant conclusion that she'd lied is subsequent to her claims.
It is not a fresh initial assertion, it is a conclusion based upon the
aforementioned process of challenging "Brenda's" claims. That process
is not "missing", it is extremely spread out and would constitute a time-
consuming search. Why not just disregard what I say as she does and
call me a liar, based upon such a lack of "evidence"?
Post by Raven
those others are justified in dismissing your
accusations, acquitting the one you accuse, and holding *you* in doubt.
So, because I am reluctant to devote large amounts of time to
satisfy your sophist 'demands' for substantiation of a conclusion,
(and not a _new claim_), you will dismiss that conclusion and "acquit"
one, ("Brenda"), who has to date, not substantiated her false claims?
That makes your input nothing more than a 'trolling' in the correct sense
of the word, "raven".
Post by Raven
[snip "raven's" sophist demands]
Post by t_naismith
Another poster named Kate had previously spent considerable
time locating such posts of Br**da's and posting the links to
archive. Even after that was done, Br**da and her apologists
arrived to attempt a revisionism-spin on "what was really meant".
So now you could simply post links to Kate's prior posts.
Sure, I could go along with your insistance that a conclusion
is a claim in this context and do all your research for you. I'll
get right on that as soon as "Brenda" substantiates her initial
claims which resulted in that conclusion.
Essentially, you are requesting that the supportive evidence of
the process of challenging "Brenda's" claims be convienently
posted for your review. You base such a request on terming
the conclusion drawn from a lengthy process, (that "Brenda"
has lied and continues to), as a _claim_ that "Brenda" lies.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Those of us who were reading the posts as they unfolded know
what pattern they saw and it was one of a compulsive liar in
Br**da's posts.
Hmmm. Sometimes people see such a pattern because it is there.
Sometimes people see such a pattern because they are inclined to
see such a pattern, whether it is there or not. I think it might be
better to point to specific text, and let others see for themselves.
Post by t_naismith
You don't have to take my word for it any more than you
should take Br**da's subsequent denials of her own words for
what happened.
I would rather do neither. Point to her original words (with quote
and message-ID), then point to her denials (with quote and message-ID),
and you can make your case quickly and neatly.
In many instances, "Brenda's" assertions were challenged at the point
her claims were made. To reiterate; she made her initial claims and
several of these were challenged at the time she made them. She was
unable to substantiate her false claims and through the challenge-process,
was shown to be a liar. This was done at the time it happened. If you
now want to read about that process, find it yourself, "raven". I am under
no obligation to rehash the whole thing over again just for you.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
If you stick with it long enough, you'll either find this out for
yourself via archives or, Br**da will forget what she said again
and you'll have an opportunity to see her lie in the present.
I think it may not be a safe assumption that those you want to convince
will always have both the time and the inclination to read thousands of
posts, going back a year or more, in order to find those few specific ones
that would prove your case for you.
Yet you expect _me_ to do this for you, merely because you make a
late request after the process of refutation has occurred? You know,
some may pull a few of these out of archives 'for you', "raven" but, as
far as I'm concerned, you already show a tendency to sophistry which
would _challenge the challenges_, (this has occurred with others before
and their secondary challenges were refuted). I'm not trying to "convince"
you or anyone of the results of a process they missed. It happened. You
missed it. Now you want others to expend the time to dig for bits and
pieces of a process which you missed. Easier for you to just "dismiss"
that conclusion and attempt to redefine it as a _new claim_ which needs
substantiation, than to find out for yourself, eh "raven"?
[snip "raven's" attempts to define a conclusion as a result]
T.N. (eye of Falcon)
Phoenix
2003-12-09 00:36:56 UTC
Permalink
If he persists on his present track he'll need to killfile a few more
directly. Is he one of Y'borgs issue? :-)
P
Post by Rhyanon
I like that the balless shitstick has me killfiled; it shows what a
shriveled scrote of coward it really is.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post
where
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
she said that, as evidence *against* her.
You miss my point, Zsarnok did not.
Then perhaps you could make your point more clearly. What you did, in
quote Jani's
10/28/2001)
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
with the comment "In 'Brenda's' own words then:".
Yes, and the context was "Brenda's" claims of _ravening_, (ie.,
deceptions/
Post by t_naismith
out and out lies, as she partially admitted to later). The context
was
Post by Rhyanon
not
Post by t_naismith
specifically the origins of the words "wicca"/witch, (which were as
peripheral
to that discussion as they remain in the context of this one).
Post by Raven
Since what Jani was
talking about was showing (vs. alleging) Brenda's claims to be false,
such as by showing that she demonstrated almost total ignorance of the
subjects where she claims expertise, it appeared that you were
proffering
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Brenda's post as an example of either falsehood or ignorance on
her
Post by Rhyanon
part.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
"***I was being
labeled as one that is culturally theiving and I had to express that
many
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
of these practises are within core shamanism. I never said I was
taught by
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
any core shamanism teachers. I have both human and spiritual
teachers
Post by t_naismith
as
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
many shaman tend to do...and I have NEVER claimed that I was
taught
Post by Rhyanon
by
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Natives in any native tradition.
***** I stated that they were spirit teachers..who happen to dwell in a
range that sees Raven as a trickster. They are not native
persons..but
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
spirits of this area.
Post by t_naismith
" I'm not a native person nor did native *people*
teach me this. There are far more native cultures on the
Northwest
Post by Rhyanon
coast
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
however than what you speak of. Raven is a cultural trickster of many
people on this coast. Since my teachers, being spirits of this
area,..have
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
called it Raven due to the area I live in ...that is what I use. "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=native+teachers+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda
+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1
.0.1
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
030326105241.2451I-100000%40vtn1&rnum=3
Post by Raven
But in fact what Brenda was saying was true, not false or
ignorant.
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
No, what "Brenda" claimed, in the context of her so-called
_ravening_,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
came to light as a false claim after many challenges to her claim
were
Post by Rhyanon
made.
Post by t_naismith
This has nothing to do with your peripheral divergence and is not central
to the context here.
Post by Raven
<snip peripheral diversions>
If other parts of that text were your "major points", then please
point
Post by Rhyanon
to
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
them. Your quoting the entire post, with no comment beyond "In
'Brenda's'
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
own words then", left me having to guess what your point was in quoting
it.
"Brenda's" own words included her claims to be _ravening_, which is a
premise of her false claims and therefore, contextual. If you are
suggesting
that I spoon-feed you, seek elsewhere, "raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
This nonsense about witchcraft and wicca
I can only observe that the ARW FAQ
If you are going to pull "Brenda's" snip-in-midsentence bullshit,
you deserve every bit of the type of response that follows, "raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
is peripheral to Br**da's pattern of falsehoods,
Then it puzzles me that you chose *that* as your example to post.
The 'example' was in reply to your 'poor example', "raven".
As I said, it is peripheral and an alternative which may not
exemplify her claims of _ravening_, (as I said, her posts
are spead out over time and hundreds of threads). It does
serve as an example of how she dissembles.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
constituting a small example of her out and out lies.
How can it "constitute a small example of her out and out lies",
when in fact it is not a lie?
Again, the context is not the peripheral one you wish it to be,
"raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who
believe
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
it?
This is the point Jani and others were making about checking the
archives. The context which deals "ravening" was addressed by
you peripherally and mundanely.
I thought I addressed that directly and explicitly.
No, you glossed over it quickly after noting that you'd never
encountered such a concept characterized as "ravening".
Post by Raven
As for "mundanely",
there didn't seem to be any point to using some occult definition of the
word "lie". Jani herself uses the mundane phrase "deliberate untruth".
Yes, on the one hand you seemed to acknowledge that "Brenda's"
_ravening_ was just concealment for lying/telling deliberate
untruths.
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
You glossed over the major premise/allegation that "Brenda" not only
lies but, lies methodically.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Look, I understand that you are coming into this late and don't really
expect a complete rehashing of several months worth of posts
No, certainly not. But I would think that if you accuse someone of
being
Post by t_naismith
a
Post by Raven
liar, you bear the responsibility to collect evidence to prove
your
Post by Rhyanon
case.
Post by t_naismith
In many instances, "Brenda's" assertions were challenged at the point
her claims were made. To reiterate; she made her initial claims and
several of these were challenged at the time she made them. She was
unable to substantiate her false claims and through the
challenge-process,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
was shown to be a liar.
Post by Raven
Then you can post either that collection, or a *link* to it, in order to
prove that case quickly and decisively.
While there are several examples available in archives, the entire
thing was a _process_ and lifting one or ten examples out of the
context of that challenged-claims process renders them insufficient
of themselves.
Post by Raven
To be blunt, it is not other people's job to do that for you.
And it is not "laziness" on *their* part to expect *you* to do that.
Essentially, you are requesting that the supportive evidence of
the process of challenging "Brenda's" claims be convienently
posted for your review. You base such a request on terming
the conclusion drawn from a lengthy process, (that "Brenda"
has lied and continues to), as a _claim_ that "Brenda" lies.
This is disingenious. "Brenda" made the initial claims and now
you are 'insisting' that the results of the process of challenging
her claims be themselves recast as "claims". I expect you know
what you can do with your sophistry, "raven".
Post by Raven
Any time you accuse someone to others, you are asking those others to
judge
Post by Raven
your accusations true or false. That is, you put yourself, *your*
claims,
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
under examination, as well as the person whose claims you call lies.
Right. So, when "Brenda" made her initial claims/assertions, it was
and is up to her to substantiate her own claims. Her subsequent
failures to do so have resulted in rendering her claims as false.
Post by Raven
If your evidence is missing, or does not establish falsehood on the part
of the person you accuse,
The evidence is the process of challenging "Brenda's" initial claims
and the resultant conclusion that she'd lied is subsequent to her claims.
It is not a fresh initial assertion, it is a conclusion based upon the
aforementioned process of challenging "Brenda's" claims. That process
is not "missing", it is extremely spread out and would constitute a time-
consuming search. Why not just disregard what I say as she does and
call me a liar, based upon such a lack of "evidence"?
Post by Raven
those others are justified in dismissing your
accusations, acquitting the one you accuse, and holding *you* in doubt.
So, because I am reluctant to devote large amounts of time to
satisfy your sophist 'demands' for substantiation of a conclusion,
(and not a _new claim_), you will dismiss that conclusion and "acquit"
one, ("Brenda"), who has to date, not substantiated her false claims?
That makes your input nothing more than a 'trolling' in the correct sense
of the word, "raven".
Post by Raven
[snip "raven's" sophist demands]
Post by t_naismith
Another poster named Kate had previously spent considerable
time locating such posts of Br**da's and posting the links to
archive. Even after that was done, Br**da and her apologists
arrived to attempt a revisionism-spin on "what was really meant".
So now you could simply post links to Kate's prior posts.
Sure, I could go along with your insistance that a conclusion
is a claim in this context and do all your research for you. I'll
get right on that as soon as "Brenda" substantiates her initial
claims which resulted in that conclusion.
Essentially, you are requesting that the supportive evidence of
the process of challenging "Brenda's" claims be convienently
posted for your review. You base such a request on terming
the conclusion drawn from a lengthy process, (that "Brenda"
has lied and continues to), as a _claim_ that "Brenda" lies.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Those of us who were reading the posts as they unfolded know
what pattern they saw and it was one of a compulsive liar in
Br**da's posts.
Hmmm. Sometimes people see such a pattern because it is there.
Sometimes people see such a pattern because they are inclined to
see such a pattern, whether it is there or not. I think it might be
better to point to specific text, and let others see for
themselves.
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
You don't have to take my word for it any more than you
should take Br**da's subsequent denials of her own words for
what happened.
I would rather do neither. Point to her original words (with quote
and message-ID), then point to her denials (with quote and
message-ID),
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
and you can make your case quickly and neatly.
In many instances, "Brenda's" assertions were challenged at the point
her claims were made. To reiterate; she made her initial claims and
several of these were challenged at the time she made them. She was
unable to substantiate her false claims and through the
challenge-process,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
was shown to be a liar. This was done at the time it happened. If you
now want to read about that process, find it yourself, "raven". I
am
Post by Rhyanon
under
Post by t_naismith
no obligation to rehash the whole thing over again just for you.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
If you stick with it long enough, you'll either find this out for
yourself via archives or, Br**da will forget what she said again
and you'll have an opportunity to see her lie in the present.
I think it may not be a safe assumption that those you want to convince
will always have both the time and the inclination to read
thousands of
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
posts, going back a year or more, in order to find those few
specific
Post by Rhyanon
ones
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
that would prove your case for you.
Yet you expect _me_ to do this for you, merely because you make a
late request after the process of refutation has occurred? You know,
some may pull a few of these out of archives 'for you', "raven" but, as
far as I'm concerned, you already show a tendency to sophistry which
would _challenge the challenges_, (this has occurred with others before
and their secondary challenges were refuted). I'm not trying to
"convince"
Post by t_naismith
you or anyone of the results of a process they missed. It happened.
You
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
missed it. Now you want others to expend the time to dig for bits and
pieces of a process which you missed. Easier for you to just "dismiss"
that conclusion and attempt to redefine it as a _new claim_ which needs
substantiation, than to find out for yourself, eh "raven"?
[snip "raven's" attempts to define a conclusion as a result]
T.N. (eye of Falcon)
Rhyanon
2003-12-09 12:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Seems to be. Reeks like one...
Post by Phoenix
If he persists on his present track he'll need to killfile a few more
directly. Is he one of Y'borgs issue? :-)
P
Post by Rhyanon
I like that the balless shitstick has me killfiled; it shows what a
shriveled scrote of coward it really is.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the
post
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
where
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
she said that, as evidence *against* her.
You miss my point, Zsarnok did not.
Then perhaps you could make your point more clearly. What you
did, in
was
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
quote Jani's
10/28/2001)
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
with the comment "In 'Brenda's' own words then:".
Yes, and the context was "Brenda's" claims of _ravening_, (ie.,
deceptions/
Post by t_naismith
out and out lies, as she partially admitted to later). The context
was
Post by Rhyanon
not
Post by t_naismith
specifically the origins of the words "wicca"/witch, (which were as
peripheral
to that discussion as they remain in the context of this one).
Post by Raven
Since what Jani was
talking about was showing (vs. alleging) Brenda's claims to be
false,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
such as by showing that she demonstrated almost total ignorance of
the
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
subjects where she claims expertise, it appeared that you were
proffering
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Brenda's post as an example of either falsehood or ignorance on
her
Post by Rhyanon
part.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
"***I was being
labeled as one that is culturally theiving and I had to
express that
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
many
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
of these practises are within core shamanism. I never said I
was
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
taught by
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
any core shamanism teachers. I have both human and spiritual
teachers
Post by t_naismith
as
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
many shaman tend to do...and I have NEVER claimed that I was
taught
Post by Rhyanon
by
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Natives in any native tradition.
***** I stated that they were spirit teachers..who happen to dwell
in a
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
range that sees Raven as a trickster. They are not native
persons..but
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
spirits of this area.
Post by t_naismith
" I'm not a native person nor did native *people*
teach me this. There are far more native cultures on the
Northwest
Post by Rhyanon
coast
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
however than what you speak of. Raven is a cultural trickster of
many
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
people on this coast. Since my teachers, being spirits of this
area,..have
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
called it Raven due to the area I live in ...that is what I use.
"
http://www.google.com/groups?q=native+teachers+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda
Post by Phoenix
+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1
.0.1
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
030326105241.2451I-100000%40vtn1&rnum=3
Post by Raven
But in fact what Brenda was saying was true, not false or
ignorant.
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
No, what "Brenda" claimed, in the context of her so-called
_ravening_,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
came to light as a false claim after many challenges to her claim
were
Post by Rhyanon
made.
Post by t_naismith
This has nothing to do with your peripheral divergence and is not
central
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
to the context here.
Post by Raven
<snip peripheral diversions>
If other parts of that text were your "major points", then please
point
Post by Rhyanon
to
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
them. Your quoting the entire post, with no comment beyond "In
'Brenda's'
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
own words then", left me having to guess what your point was in
quoting
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
it.
"Brenda's" own words included her claims to be _ravening_, which is
a
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
premise of her false claims and therefore, contextual. If you are
suggesting
that I spoon-feed you, seek elsewhere, "raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
This nonsense about witchcraft and wicca
I can only observe that the ARW FAQ
If you are going to pull "Brenda's" snip-in-midsentence bullshit,
you deserve every bit of the type of response that follows, "raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
is peripheral to Br**da's pattern of falsehoods,
Then it puzzles me that you chose *that* as your example to post.
The 'example' was in reply to your 'poor example', "raven".
As I said, it is peripheral and an alternative which may not
exemplify her claims of _ravening_, (as I said, her posts
are spead out over time and hundreds of threads). It does
serve as an example of how she dissembles.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
constituting a small example of her out and out lies.
How can it "constitute a small example of her out and out lies",
when in fact it is not a lie?
Again, the context is not the peripheral one you wish it to be,
"raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those
who
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
believe
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
it?
This is the point Jani and others were making about checking the
archives. The context which deals "ravening" was addressed by
you peripherally and mundanely.
I thought I addressed that directly and explicitly.
No, you glossed over it quickly after noting that you'd never
encountered such a concept characterized as "ravening".
Post by Raven
As for "mundanely",
there didn't seem to be any point to using some occult definition
of the
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
word "lie". Jani herself uses the mundane phrase "deliberate
untruth".
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Yes, on the one hand you seemed to acknowledge that "Brenda's"
_ravening_ was just concealment for lying/telling deliberate
untruths.
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
You glossed over the major premise/allegation that "Brenda" not only
lies but, lies methodically.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Look, I understand that you are coming into this late and don't
really
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
expect a complete rehashing of several months worth of posts
No, certainly not. But I would think that if you accuse someone
of
Post by Rhyanon
being
Post by t_naismith
a
Post by Raven
liar, you bear the responsibility to collect evidence to prove
your
Post by Rhyanon
case.
Post by t_naismith
In many instances, "Brenda's" assertions were challenged at the
point
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
her claims were made. To reiterate; she made her initial claims and
several of these were challenged at the time she made them. She was
unable to substantiate her false claims and through the
challenge-process,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
was shown to be a liar.
Post by Raven
Then you can post either that collection, or a *link* to it, in
order to
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
prove that case quickly and decisively.
While there are several examples available in archives, the entire
thing was a _process_ and lifting one or ten examples out of the
context of that challenged-claims process renders them insufficient
of themselves.
Post by Raven
To be blunt, it is not other people's job to do that for you.
And it is not "laziness" on *their* part to expect *you* to do
that.
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Essentially, you are requesting that the supportive evidence of
the process of challenging "Brenda's" claims be convienently
posted for your review. You base such a request on terming
the conclusion drawn from a lengthy process, (that "Brenda"
has lied and continues to), as a _claim_ that "Brenda" lies.
This is disingenious. "Brenda" made the initial claims and now
you are 'insisting' that the results of the process of challenging
her claims be themselves recast as "claims". I expect you know
what you can do with your sophistry, "raven".
Post by Raven
Any time you accuse someone to others, you are asking those others
to
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
judge
Post by Raven
your accusations true or false. That is, you put yourself, *your*
claims,
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
under examination, as well as the person whose claims you call
lies.
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Right. So, when "Brenda" made her initial claims/assertions, it was
and is up to her to substantiate her own claims. Her subsequent
failures to do so have resulted in rendering her claims as false.
Post by Raven
If your evidence is missing, or does not establish falsehood on
the part
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
of the person you accuse,
The evidence is the process of challenging "Brenda's" initial claims
and the resultant conclusion that she'd lied is subsequent to her
claims.
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
It is not a fresh initial assertion, it is a conclusion based upon
the
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
aforementioned process of challenging "Brenda's" claims. That
process
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
is not "missing", it is extremely spread out and would constitute a
time-
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
consuming search. Why not just disregard what I say as she does and
call me a liar, based upon such a lack of "evidence"?
Post by Raven
those others are justified in dismissing your
accusations, acquitting the one you accuse, and holding *you* in
doubt.
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
So, because I am reluctant to devote large amounts of time to
satisfy your sophist 'demands' for substantiation of a conclusion,
(and not a _new claim_), you will dismiss that conclusion and
"acquit"
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
one, ("Brenda"), who has to date, not substantiated her false
claims?
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
That makes your input nothing more than a 'trolling' in the correct
sense
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
of the word, "raven".
Post by Raven
[snip "raven's" sophist demands]
Post by t_naismith
Another poster named Kate had previously spent considerable
time locating such posts of Br**da's and posting the links to
archive. Even after that was done, Br**da and her apologists
arrived to attempt a revisionism-spin on "what was really
meant".
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
So now you could simply post links to Kate's prior posts.
Sure, I could go along with your insistance that a conclusion
is a claim in this context and do all your research for you. I'll
get right on that as soon as "Brenda" substantiates her initial
claims which resulted in that conclusion.
Essentially, you are requesting that the supportive evidence of
the process of challenging "Brenda's" claims be convienently
posted for your review. You base such a request on terming
the conclusion drawn from a lengthy process, (that "Brenda"
has lied and continues to), as a _claim_ that "Brenda" lies.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Those of us who were reading the posts as they unfolded know
what pattern they saw and it was one of a compulsive liar in
Br**da's posts.
Hmmm. Sometimes people see such a pattern because it is there.
Sometimes people see such a pattern because they are inclined to
see such a pattern, whether it is there or not. I think it might
be
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
better to point to specific text, and let others see for
themselves.
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
You don't have to take my word for it any more than you
should take Br**da's subsequent denials of her own words for
what happened.
I would rather do neither. Point to her original words (with
quote
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
and message-ID), then point to her denials (with quote and
message-ID),
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
and you can make your case quickly and neatly.
In many instances, "Brenda's" assertions were challenged at the
point
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
her claims were made. To reiterate; she made her initial claims and
several of these were challenged at the time she made them. She was
unable to substantiate her false claims and through the
challenge-process,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
was shown to be a liar. This was done at the time it happened. If
you
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
now want to read about that process, find it yourself, "raven". I
am
Post by Rhyanon
under
Post by t_naismith
no obligation to rehash the whole thing over again just for you.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
If you stick with it long enough, you'll either find this out
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
yourself via archives or, Br**da will forget what she said again
and you'll have an opportunity to see her lie in the present.
I think it may not be a safe assumption that those you want to
convince
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
will always have both the time and the inclination to read
thousands of
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
posts, going back a year or more, in order to find those few
specific
Post by Rhyanon
ones
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
that would prove your case for you.
Yet you expect _me_ to do this for you, merely because you make a
late request after the process of refutation has occurred? You
know,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
some may pull a few of these out of archives 'for you', "raven" but,
as
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
far as I'm concerned, you already show a tendency to sophistry which
would _challenge the challenges_, (this has occurred with others
before
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
and their secondary challenges were refuted). I'm not trying to
"convince"
Post by t_naismith
you or anyone of the results of a process they missed. It happened.
You
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
missed it. Now you want others to expend the time to dig for bits
and
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
pieces of a process which you missed. Easier for you to just
"dismiss"
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
that conclusion and attempt to redefine it as a _new claim_ which
needs
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
substantiation, than to find out for yourself, eh "raven"?
[snip "raven's" attempts to define a conclusion as a result]
T.N. (eye of Falcon)
t_naismith
2003-12-09 01:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Hmm ... it isn't clear whether this "raven" has taken up
the boringwode's goose-stepping 'kill-file them all!'
battlecry as yet, nor whether this Google-poster is
the "raven of solaris" from the old days. In any case,
this "raven's" pattern has been one of _selective_ reply
while dodging *inconvenient* challenges.

T
Post by Rhyanon
I like that the balless shitstick has me killfiled; it shows what a
shriveled scrote of coward it really is.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post
where
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
she said that, as evidence *against* her.
You miss my point, Zsarnok did not.
Then perhaps you could make your point more clearly. What you did, in
with the comment "In 'Brenda's' own words then:".
Yes, and the context was "Brenda's" claims of _ravening_, (ie.,
deceptions/
Post by t_naismith
out and out lies, as she partially admitted to later). The context was
not
Post by t_naismith
specifically the origins of the words "wicca"/witch, (which were as
peripheral
to that discussion as they remain in the context of this one).
Post by Raven
Since what Jani was
talking about was showing (vs. alleging) Brenda's claims to be false,
such as by showing that she demonstrated almost total ignorance of the
subjects where she claims expertise, it appeared that you were
proffering
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Brenda's post as an example of either falsehood or ignorance on her
part.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
"***I was being
labeled as one that is culturally theiving and I had to express that
many
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
of these practises are within core shamanism. I never said I was
taught by
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
any core shamanism teachers. I have both human and spiritual
teachers
Post by t_naismith
as
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
many shaman tend to do...and I have NEVER claimed that I was
taught
Post by Rhyanon
by
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Natives in any native tradition.
***** I stated that they were spirit teachers..who happen to dwell in a
range that sees Raven as a trickster. They are not native persons..but
spirits of this area.
Post by t_naismith
" I'm not a native person nor did native *people*
teach me this. There are far more native cultures on the Northwest
coast
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
however than what you speak of. Raven is a cultural trickster of many
people on this coast. Since my teachers, being spirits of this
area,..have
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
called it Raven due to the area I live in ...that is what I use. "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=native+teachers+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda
+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
030326105241.2451I-100000%40vtn1&rnum=3
Post by Raven
But in fact what Brenda was saying was true, not false or ignorant.
No, what "Brenda" claimed, in the context of her so-called _ravening_,
came to light as a false claim after many challenges to her claim were
made.
Post by t_naismith
This has nothing to do with your peripheral divergence and is not central
to the context here.
Post by Raven
<snip peripheral diversions>
If other parts of that text were your "major points", then please
point
Post by Rhyanon
to
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
them. Your quoting the entire post, with no comment beyond "In
'Brenda's'
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
own words then", left me having to guess what your point was in quoting
it.
"Brenda's" own words included her claims to be _ravening_, which is a
premise of her false claims and therefore, contextual. If you are
suggesting
that I spoon-feed you, seek elsewhere, "raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
This nonsense about witchcraft and wicca
I can only observe that the ARW FAQ
If you are going to pull "Brenda's" snip-in-midsentence bullshit,
you deserve every bit of the type of response that follows, "raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
is peripheral to Br**da's pattern of falsehoods,
Then it puzzles me that you chose *that* as your example to post.
The 'example' was in reply to your 'poor example', "raven".
As I said, it is peripheral and an alternative which may not
exemplify her claims of _ravening_, (as I said, her posts
are spread out over time and hundreds of threads). It does
serve as an example of how she dissembles.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
constituting a small example of her out and out lies.
How can it "constitute a small example of her out and out lies",
when in fact it is not a lie?
Again, the context is not the peripheral one you wish it to be,
"raven".
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who
believe
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
it?
This is the point Jani and others were making about checking the
archives. The context which deals "ravening" was addressed by
you peripherally and mundanely.
I thought I addressed that directly and explicitly.
No, you glossed over it quickly after noting that you'd never
encountered such a concept characterized as "ravening".
Post by Raven
As for "mundanely",
there didn't seem to be any point to using some occult definition of the
word "lie". Jani herself uses the mundane phrase "deliberate untruth".
Yes, on the one hand you seemed to acknowledge that "Brenda's"
_ravening_ was just concealment for lying/telling deliberate untruths.
You glossed over the major premise/allegation that "Brenda" not only
lies but, lies methodically.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Look, I understand that you are coming into this late and don't really
expect a complete rehashing of several months worth of posts
No, certainly not. But I would think that if you accuse someone of
being
Post by t_naismith
a
Post by Raven
liar, you bear the responsibility to collect evidence to prove your
case.
Post by t_naismith
In many instances, "Brenda's" assertions were challenged at the point
her claims were made. To reiterate; she made her initial claims and
several of these were challenged at the time she made them. She was
unable to substantiate her false claims and through the
challenge-process,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
was shown to be a liar.
Post by Raven
Then you can post either that collection, or a *link* to it, in order to
prove that case quickly and decisively.
While there are several examples available in archives, the entire
thing was a _process_ and lifting one or ten examples out of the
context of that challenged-claims process renders them insufficient
of themselves.
Post by Raven
To be blunt, it is not other people's job to do that for you.
And it is not "laziness" on *their* part to expect *you* to do that.
Essentially, you are requesting that the supportive evidence of
the process of challenging "Brenda's" claims be conveniently
posted for your review. You base such a request on terming
the conclusion drawn from a lengthy process, (that "Brenda"
has lied and continues to), as a _claim_ that "Brenda" lies.
This is disingenuous. "Brenda" made the initial claims and now
you are 'insisting' that the results of the process of challenging
her claims be themselves recast as "claims". I expect you know
what you can do with your sophistry, "raven".
Post by Raven
Any time you accuse someone to others, you are asking those others to
judge
Post by Raven
your accusations true or false. That is, you put yourself, *your*
claims,
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
under examination, as well as the person whose claims you call lies.
Right. So, when "Brenda" made her initial claims/assertions, it was
and is up to her to substantiate her own claims. Her subsequent
failures to do so have resulted in rendering her claims as false.
Post by Raven
If your evidence is missing, or does not establish falsehood on the part
of the person you accuse,
The evidence is the process of challenging "Brenda's" initial claims
and the resultant conclusion that she'd lied is subsequent to her claims.
It is not a fresh initial assertion, it is a conclusion based upon the
aforementioned process of challenging "Brenda's" claims. That process
is not "missing", it is extremely spread out and would constitute a time-
consuming search. Why not just disregard what I say as she does and
call me a liar, based upon such a lack of "evidence"?
Post by Raven
those others are justified in dismissing your
accusations, acquitting the one you accuse, and holding *you* in doubt.
So, because I am reluctant to devote large amounts of time to
satisfy your sophist 'demands' for substantiation of a conclusion,
(and not a _new claim_), you will dismiss that conclusion and "acquit"
one, ("Brenda"), who has to date, not substantiated her false claims?
That makes your input nothing more than a 'trolling' in the correct sense
of the word, "raven".
Post by Raven
[snip "raven's" sophist demands]
Post by t_naismith
Another poster named Kate had previously spent considerable
time locating such posts of Br**da's and posting the links to
archive. Even after that was done, Br**da and her apologists
arrived to attempt a revisionism-spin on "what was really meant".
So now you could simply post links to Kate's prior posts.
Sure, I could go along with your insistence that a conclusion
is a claim in this context and do all your research for you. I'll
get right on that as soon as "Brenda" substantiates her initial
claims which resulted in that conclusion.
Essentially, you are requesting that the supportive evidence of
the process of challenging "Brenda's" claims be conveniently
posted for your review. You base such a request on terming
the conclusion drawn from a lengthy process, (that "Brenda"
has lied and continues to), as a _claim_ that "Brenda" lies.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
Those of us who were reading the posts as they unfolded know
what pattern they saw and it was one of a compulsive liar in
Br**da's posts.
Hmmm. Sometimes people see such a pattern because it is there.
Sometimes people see such a pattern because they are inclined to
see such a pattern, whether it is there or not. I think it might be
better to point to specific text, and let others see for themselves.
Post by t_naismith
You don't have to take my word for it any more than you
should take Br**da's subsequent denials of her own words for
what happened.
I would rather do neither. Point to her original words (with quote
and message-ID), then point to her denials (with quote and
message-ID),
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
and you can make your case quickly and neatly.
In many instances, "Brenda's" assertions were challenged at the point
her claims were made. To reiterate; she made her initial claims and
several of these were challenged at the time she made them. She was
unable to substantiate her false claims and through the
challenge-process,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
was shown to be a liar. This was done at the time it happened. If you
now want to read about that process, find it yourself, "raven". I am
under
Post by t_naismith
no obligation to rehash the whole thing over again just for you.
Post by Raven
Post by t_naismith
If you stick with it long enough, you'll either find this out for
yourself via archives or, Br**da will forget what she said again
and you'll have an opportunity to see her lie in the present.
I think it may not be a safe assumption that those you want to convince
will always have both the time and the inclination to read thousands of
posts, going back a year or more, in order to find those few specific
ones
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
that would prove your case for you.
Yet you expect _me_ to do this for you, merely because you make a
late request after the process of refutation has occurred? You know,
some may pull a few of these out of archives 'for you', "raven" but, as
far as I'm concerned, you already show a tendency to sophistry which
would _challenge the challenges_, (this has occurred with others before
and their secondary challenges were refuted). I'm not trying to
"convince"
Post by t_naismith
you or anyone of the results of a process they missed. It happened.
You
Post by Rhyanon
Post by t_naismith
missed it. Now you want others to expend the time to dig for bits and
pieces of a process which you missed. Easier for you to just "dismiss"
that conclusion and attempt to redefine it as a _new claim_ which needs
substantiation, than to find out for yourself, eh "raven"?
[snip "raven's" attempts to define a conclusion as a result]
T.N. (eye of Falcon)
Phoenix
2003-12-09 00:33:54 UTC
Permalink
"t_naismith" <trans-***@paraphysics.net> wrote in message news:br1d5b$27j1rd$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
<snip>
Post by t_naismith
The evidence is the process of challenging "Brenda's" initial claims
and the resultant conclusion that she'd lied is subsequent to her claims.
It is not a fresh initial assertion, it is a conclusion based upon the
aforementioned process of challenging "Brenda's" claims. That process
is not "missing", it is extremely spread out and would constitute a time-
consuming search. Why not just disregard what I say as she does and
call me a liar, based upon such a lack of "evidence"?
In calling you a liar, he would be calling quite a number of other
individuals liars too. I'm not sure if he's stupid enough to set that
undertaking in motion.
I think we should seriously consider putting together a standard post
regarding Brenda's stuff. I grow tired of these
lame-assed-white-knights, who limp out of the woods demanding evidence
that they're to tired to get for themselves.
Interesting that the latest is called Raven, no? :-)
P


<snip>
t_naismith
2003-12-09 02:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phoenix
<snip>
Post by t_naismith
The evidence is the process of challenging "Brenda's" initial claims
and the resultant conclusion that she'd lied is subsequent to her
claims.
Post by t_naismith
It is not a fresh initial assertion, it is a conclusion based upon the
aforementioned process of challenging "Brenda's" claims. That process
is not "missing", it is extremely spread out and would constitute a
time-
Post by t_naismith
consuming search. Why not just disregard what I say as she does and
call me a liar, based upon such a lack of "evidence"?
In calling you a liar, he would be calling quite a number of other
individuals liars too. I'm not sure if he's stupid enough to set that
undertaking in motion.
This "raven" has all but directly stated it already.
The irony of it is that "Br**da" has pulled that same
routine, (with less articulation), out of her fundement.
Post by Phoenix
I think we should seriously consider putting together a standard post
regarding Brenda's stuff. I grow tired of these
lame-assed-white-knights, who limp out of the woods demanding evidence
that they're to tired to get for themselves.
Hmm ... whether or not the effort would be justified
remains questionable - especially when the sophist-
apologists come wandering by.
Post by Phoenix
Interesting that the latest is called Raven, no? :-)
That it is, sir and, moreso that this particular "raven"
may be one of the original posters to a.r.w. - back when
ren, fire eyes and RBB hatched this egg, no?
Post by Phoenix
P
T
Post by Phoenix
<snip>
Aww ...
Will Dockery
2003-12-09 02:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Trevor Naismith is a Liar.
Will

"Mirror Twins" MP3, free preview:
http://www.lulu.com/content/29085
Post by t_naismith
Post by Phoenix
<snip>
Post by t_naismith
The evidence is the process of challenging "Brenda's" initial claims
and the resultant conclusion that she'd lied is subsequent to her
claims.
Post by t_naismith
It is not a fresh initial assertion, it is a conclusion based upon the
aforementioned process of challenging "Brenda's" claims. That process
is not "missing", it is extremely spread out and would constitute a
time-
Post by t_naismith
consuming search. Why not just disregard what I say as she does and
call me a liar, based upon such a lack of "evidence"?
In calling you a liar, he would be calling quite a number of other
individuals liars too. I'm not sure if he's stupid enough to set that
undertaking in motion.
This "raven" has all but directly stated it already.
The irony of it is that "Br**da" has pulled that same
routine, (with less articulation), out of her fundement.
Post by Phoenix
I think we should seriously consider putting together a standard post
regarding Brenda's stuff. I grow tired of these
lame-assed-white-knights, who limp out of the woods demanding evidence
that they're to tired to get for themselves.
Hmm ... whether or not the effort would be justified
remains questionable - especially when the sophist-
apologists come wandering by.
Post by Phoenix
Interesting that the latest is called Raven, no? :-)
That it is, sir and, moreso that this particular "raven"
may be one of the original posters to a.r.w. - back when
ren, fire eyes and RBB hatched this egg, no?
Post by Phoenix
P
T
Post by Phoenix
<snip>
Aww ...
t_naismith
2003-12-09 02:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Trevor Naismith is not a Liar.
Will
Dockery is "Br**da's" admitted apologist.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Phoenix
<snip>
Post by t_naismith
The evidence is the process of challenging "Brenda's" initial claims
and the resultant conclusion that she'd lied is subsequent to her
claims.
Post by t_naismith
It is not a fresh initial assertion, it is a conclusion based upon the
aforementioned process of challenging "Brenda's" claims. That process
is not "missing", it is extremely spread out and would constitute a
time-
Post by t_naismith
consuming search. Why not just disregard what I say as she does and
call me a liar, based upon such a lack of "evidence"?
In calling you a liar, he would be calling quite a number of other
individuals liars too. I'm not sure if he's stupid enough to set that
undertaking in motion.
This "raven" has all but directly stated it already.
The irony of it is that "Br**da" has pulled that same
routine, (with less articulation), out of her fundement.
Post by Phoenix
I think we should seriously consider putting together a standard post
regarding Brenda's stuff. I grow tired of these
lame-assed-white-knights, who limp out of the woods demanding evidence
that they're to tired to get for themselves.
Hmm ... whether or not the effort would be justified
remains questionable - especially when the sophist-
apologists come wandering by.
Post by Phoenix
Interesting that the latest is called Raven, no? :-)
That it is, sir and, moreso that this particular "raven"
may be one of the original posters to a.r.w. - back when
ren, fire eyes and RBB hatched this egg, no?
Post by Phoenix
P
T
Post by Phoenix
<snip>
Aww ...
Will Dockery
2003-12-09 03:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Trevor Naismith is a Liar. Check Google archives.
Will

"Mirror Twins" by Will Dockery:
http://www.lulu.com/content/29085
Phoenix
2003-12-09 15:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by t_naismith
Post by Phoenix
<snip>
Post by t_naismith
The evidence is the process of challenging "Brenda's" initial claims
and the resultant conclusion that she'd lied is subsequent to her
claims.
Post by t_naismith
It is not a fresh initial assertion, it is a conclusion based upon the
aforementioned process of challenging "Brenda's" claims. That process
is not "missing", it is extremely spread out and would constitute a
time-
Post by t_naismith
consuming search. Why not just disregard what I say as she does and
call me a liar, based upon such a lack of "evidence"?
In calling you a liar, he would be calling quite a number of other
individuals liars too. I'm not sure if he's stupid enough to set that
undertaking in motion.
This "raven" has all but directly stated it already.
The irony of it is that "Br**da" has pulled that same
routine, (with less articulation), out of her fundement.
Post by Phoenix
I think we should seriously consider putting together a standard post
regarding Brenda's stuff. I grow tired of these
lame-assed-white-knights, who limp out of the woods demanding evidence
that they're to tired to get for themselves.
Hmm ... whether or not the effort would be justified
remains questionable - especially when the sophist-
apologists come wandering by.
Post by Phoenix
Interesting that the latest is called Raven, no? :-)
That it is, sir and, moreso that this particular "raven"
may be one of the original posters to a.r.w. - back when
ren, fire eyes and RBB hatched this egg, no?
If he thinks being one of the original posters here, automatically
provides red carpet treatment and respect, he seems likely to be in for
a disappointment. :-)
P
Jani
2003-12-01 09:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these etymological
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old news".
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't believed.
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here for years?
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b) ignorant
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" & "wicce".
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these meanings,
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch etymology
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the correct
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her own say-so.
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their only
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as well.

Jani
Rhyanon
2003-12-01 13:28:21 UTC
Permalink
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or dickless
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here for
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b) ignorant
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" & "wicce".
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these meanings,
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch etymology
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the correct
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her own say-so.
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their only
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as well.
Jani
Jani
2003-12-01 14:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever read a book?
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying about, and
decided to stop and ask what was going on.

Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or dickless
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here for
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b) ignorant
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" &
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these meanings,
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch etymology
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the correct
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her own
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their only
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as well.
Jani
t_naismith
2003-12-02 02:24:45 UTC
Permalink
'Raven' just "decided to", eh?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever read a book?
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying about, and
decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or
dickless
Post by Rhyanon
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b)
ignorant
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" &
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these
meanings,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch
etymology
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the correct
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her own
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their only
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as well.
Jani
Jani
2003-12-02 05:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Well, he's not a sock. Raven-solaria's been around for ages, I recall the
name being mentioned a long time ago. And the posting style is pretty
distinctive.

Jani
Post by t_naismith
'Raven' just "decided to", eh?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever read a
book?
Post by Jani
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying about, and
decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or
dickless
Post by Rhyanon
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b)
ignorant
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" &
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these
meanings,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be
room
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch
etymology
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the
correct
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her own
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their
only
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as
well.
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Jani
t_naismith
2003-12-02 09:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Even so.
Time will tell.

"If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When
you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the
assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions
are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced."
-- from the Bene Gesserit witches
Post by Jani
Well, he's not a sock. Raven-solaria's been around for ages, I recall the
name being mentioned a long time ago. And the posting style is pretty
distinctive.
Jani
Post by t_naismith
'Raven' just "decided to", eh?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever read a
book?
Post by Jani
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying about, and
decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or
dickless
Post by Rhyanon
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are
"old
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she
wasn't
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been
here
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b)
ignorant
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" &
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these
meanings,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be
room
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch
etymology
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the
correct
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her own
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their
only
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as
well.
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Jani
Rhyanon
2003-12-02 12:42:06 UTC
Permalink
OK, then perhaps he's just a gullible fool...
Post by Jani
Well, he's not a sock. Raven-solaria's been around for ages, I recall the
name being mentioned a long time ago. And the posting style is pretty
distinctive.
Jani
Post by t_naismith
'Raven' just "decided to", eh?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever read a
book?
Post by Jani
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying about, and
decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or
dickless
Post by Rhyanon
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are
"old
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she
wasn't
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been
here
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b)
ignorant
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" &
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these
meanings,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be
room
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch
etymology
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the
correct
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her own
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their
only
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as
well.
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Jani
Jani
2003-12-02 13:31:25 UTC
Permalink
I don't know him well enough to comment on that :)

Jani
Post by Rhyanon
OK, then perhaps he's just a gullible fool...
Post by Jani
Well, he's not a sock. Raven-solaria's been around for ages, I recall the
name being mentioned a long time ago. And the posting style is pretty
distinctive.
Jani
Post by t_naismith
'Raven' just "decided to", eh?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever read a
book?
Post by Jani
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying about, and
decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or
dickless
Post by Rhyanon
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are
"old
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she
wasn't
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been
here
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b)
ignorant
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" &
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these
meanings,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to
be
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
room
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch
etymology
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the
correct
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her
own
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their
only
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as
well.
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Jani
t_naismith
2003-12-03 09:50:30 UTC
Permalink
"Brenda" has posted in reply to "Raven" as far back as
January 2001, (possibly further back than that as well).
While this does not indicate that they 'know' one another
either, it does show that they know _of_ each other.

Trev
Post by Jani
I don't know him well enough to comment on that :)
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
OK, then perhaps he's just a gullible fool...
Post by Jani
Well, he's not a sock. Raven-solaria's been around for ages, I recall
the
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
name being mentioned a long time ago. And the posting style is pretty
distinctive.
Jani
janet
2003-12-02 22:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
I don't know him well enough to comment on that :)
Trust me - assuming it's the same - he's anything but.
Post by Jani
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
OK, then perhaps he's just a gullible fool...
Post by Jani
Well, he's not a sock. Raven-solaria's been around for ages, I
recall the name being mentioned a long time ago. And the posting
style is pretty distinctive.
Jani
Post by t_naismith
'Raven' just "decided to", eh?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever
read
a
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
book?
Post by Jani
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying about,
and decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's
or dickless dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they
are
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
"old
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she
wasn't
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been
here
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b)
ignorant to post truthful and accurate definitions of the
words "wicca"
&
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these
meanings, and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up,
there seems to
be
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
room
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch
etymology circles a few times. The point was not whether
"Brenda" had the correct definition, but that she refused to
provide a source beyond her
own
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and
their
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
only
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced,
as
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
well.
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Jani
--
janet Email : ***@karlsforums.com
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
t_naismith
2003-12-03 09:49:15 UTC
Permalink
"If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments.
When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false,
you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments.
Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the
convinced."
-- The Bene Gesserit
Post by Rhyanon
OK, then perhaps he's just a gullible fool...
Post by Jani
Well, he's not a sock. Raven-solaria's been around for ages, I recall the
name being mentioned a long time ago. And the posting style is pretty
distinctive.
Jani
Post by t_naismith
'Raven' just "decided to", eh?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever read a
book?
Post by Jani
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying about, and
decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or
dickless
Post by Rhyanon
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are
"old
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she
wasn't
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been
here
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b)
ignorant
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" &
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these
meanings,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to
be
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
room
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch
etymology
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the
correct
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her
own
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their
only
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as
well.
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Jani
Stupendous Man
2003-12-03 13:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Hee hee! Now that was good!
Post by t_naismith
"If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments.
When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false,
you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments.
Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the
convinced."
-- The Bene Gesserit
Post by Rhyanon
OK, then perhaps he's just a gullible fool...
Post by Jani
Well, he's not a sock. Raven-solaria's been around for ages, I
recall
Post by t_naismith
the
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
name being mentioned a long time ago. And the posting style is pretty
distinctive.
Jani
Post by t_naismith
'Raven' just "decided to", eh?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever
read
Post by t_naismith
a
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
book?
Post by Jani
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying
about,
Post by t_naismith
and
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or
dickless
Post by Rhyanon
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed,
they
Post by t_naismith
are
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
"old
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she
wasn't
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been
here
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b)
ignorant
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words
"wicca"
Post by t_naismith
&
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these
meanings,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to
be
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
room
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch
etymology
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the
correct
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her
own
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of,
and
Post by t_naismith
their
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
only
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be
unconvinced,
Post by t_naismith
as
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
well.
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Jani
t_naismith
2003-12-04 09:26:17 UTC
Permalink
You missed the triple-entendre` though.

TN
Post by Stupendous Man
Hee hee! Now that was good!
Post by t_naismith
"If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments.
When you believe something is right or wrong, true or false,
you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments.
Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to
the convinced." -- The Bene Gesserit
Post by Rhyanon
OK, then perhaps he's just a gullible fool...
Post by Jani
Well, he's not a sock. Raven-solaria's been around for ages, I
recall
Post by t_naismith
the
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
name being mentioned a long time ago. And the posting style is
pretty
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
distinctive.
Jani
Post by t_naismith
'Raven' just "decided to", eh?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever
read
Post by t_naismith
a
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
book?
Post by Jani
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying
about,
Post by t_naismith
and
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or
chyve's or
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
dickless
Post by Rhyanon
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with
these
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed,
they
Post by t_naismith
are
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
"old
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly --
she
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
wasn't
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group
that's been
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
here
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying
or (b)
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
ignorant
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words
"wicca"
Post by t_naismith
&
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had
these
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
meanings,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there
seems to
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
be
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
room
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the
wicca/witch
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
etymology
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda"
had the
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
correct
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
definition, but that she refused to provide a source
beyond her
Post by t_naismith
Post by Rhyanon
own
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of,
and
Post by t_naismith
their
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
only
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be
unconvinced,
Post by t_naismith
as
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Jani
Post by t_naismith
well.
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Jani
Rhyanon
2003-12-02 12:41:09 UTC
Permalink
True. Books aren't their forte, are they?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever read a book?
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying about, and
decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or
dickless
Post by Rhyanon
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b)
ignorant
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" &
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these
meanings,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch
etymology
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the correct
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her own
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their only
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as well.
Jani
Jani
2003-12-02 13:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Well, you know what slitch said about all janet's book-larning. Little
details, only fit for a mouse ..

Jani
Post by Rhyanon
True. Books aren't their forte, are they?
Post by Jani
Don't be daft. Raven recommends *books*. When did slitch ever read a
book?
Post by Jani
No, I think Raven just wandered by, saw accusations flying about, and
decided to stop and ask what was going on.
Jani
Post by Rhyanon
I suspect this raven moron to be a sockpuppet. Ren's or chyve's or
dickless
Post by Rhyanon
dockery's, or even brenduh herself.
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these
etymological
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old
news".
Post by Raven
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't
believed.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here
for
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
years?
Post by Raven
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b)
ignorant
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" &
"wicce".
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these
meanings,
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be
room
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Post by Raven
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch
etymology
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
circles a few times. The point was not whether "Brenda" had the
correct
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
definition, but that she refused to provide a source beyond her own
say-so.
Post by Raven
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their
only
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as
well.
Post by Jani
Post by Rhyanon
Post by Raven
Jani
janet
2003-12-02 22:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Well, you know what slitch said about all janet's book-larning. Little
details, only fit for a mouse ..
...........squeak..................

--
janet Email : ***@karlsforums.com
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
Zsarnok
2003-12-06 05:38:23 UTC
Permalink
<holding out cheese>

Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Jani
Well, you know what slitch said about all janet's book-larning. Little
details, only fit for a mouse ..
...........squeak..................
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
janet
2003-12-08 11:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zsarnok
<holding out cheese>
(I'd chomp on it but atm i'm more likely to cough on it...). :P
Post by Zsarnok
Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Jani
Well, you know what slitch said about all janet's book-larning.
Little details, only fit for a mouse ..
...........squeak..................
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
--
janet Email : ***@karlsforums.com
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
Zsarnok
2003-12-09 02:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Awwww. Hope you feel better soon.

Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Zsarnok
<holding out cheese>
(I'd chomp on it but atm i'm more likely to cough on it...). :P
Post by Zsarnok
Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Jani
Well, you know what slitch said about all janet's book-larning.
Little details, only fit for a mouse ..
...........squeak..................
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
Will Dockery
2003-12-09 03:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zsarnok
Awwww. Hope you feel better soon.
Zsarnok
Me too.

"Mirror Twins" by Will Dockery:
http://www.lulu.com/content/29085
Post by Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Zsarnok
<holding out cheese>
(I'd chomp on it but atm i'm more likely to cough on it...). :P
Post by Zsarnok
Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Jani
Well, you know what slitch said about all janet's book-larning.
Little details, only fit for a mouse ..
...........squeak..................
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
janet
2003-12-09 21:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Zsarnok
Awwww. Hope you feel better soon.
Zsarnok
Me too.
Thank you
Post by Will Dockery
http://www.lulu.com/content/29085
Post by Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Zsarnok
<holding out cheese>
(I'd chomp on it but atm i'm more likely to cough on it...). :P
Post by Zsarnok
Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Jani
Well, you know what slitch said about all janet's book-larning.
Little details, only fit for a mouse ..
...........squeak..................
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
--
janet Email : ***@karlsforums.com
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
janet
2003-12-09 21:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zsarnok
Awwww. Hope you feel better soon.
I do, already. A day and a bit in bed does wonders. :)

Thanks,
Post by Zsarnok
Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Zsarnok
<holding out cheese>
(I'd chomp on it but atm i'm more likely to cough on it...). :P
Post by Zsarnok
Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Jani
Well, you know what slitch said about all janet's book-larning.
Little details, only fit for a mouse ..
...........squeak..................
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
--
janet Email : ***@karlsforums.com
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
Zsarnok
2003-12-09 22:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Very good, then.

Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Zsarnok
Awwww. Hope you feel better soon.
I do, already. A day and a bit in bed does wonders. :)
Thanks,
Post by Zsarnok
Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Zsarnok
<holding out cheese>
(I'd chomp on it but atm i'm more likely to cough on it...). :P
Post by Zsarnok
Zsarnok
Post by janet
Post by Jani
Well, you know what slitch said about all janet's book-larning.
Little details, only fit for a mouse ..
...........squeak..................
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
--
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
Raven
2003-12-08 06:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these etymological
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old news".
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't believed.
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here for years?
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b) ignorant
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" & "wicce".
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these meanings,
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
I should think most people here have gone round the wicca/witch etymology
circles a few times.
That would be why Brenda said:
"Many witches who have more than a few years experience know this already
..it is old news."
Post by Jani
The point was not whether "Brenda" had the correct definition, but that
she refused to provide a source beyond her own say-so.
Perhaps *her* source was hearing all those *other* people saying-so.
Post by Jani
If someone came up with a definition I'd never heard of, and their only
substantiation was "everybody knows that", I'd be unconvinced, as well.
Yet *you* know that in fact what she said was true, not a lie. So *this*
should not have been cited as an example of her being a liar or ignorant.

Once when I was playing chess and took a pawn en passant, my opponent thought
this was an invalid move, and refused to believe me that it was standard.
I had neither a "chess rulebook" nor any other chess-player handy for support,
and my own assertions were not accepted. The two of us never played together
again. For all I know, he may *still* think there's no such move. He was
*unconvinced*... but I was telling the truth, just the same. *Now* I can say
"Look it up": <http://www.conservativebookstore.com/chess/enpass.htm>

Is Brenda posting from a Webbed-and-Windowed PC, such that she can also do
source lookups in order to cite websites, or is she in no position to do so?

Her suggestion was to "Go do a search for it." -- which would not involve
taking her word for it, or even her quotation of a purported source for it.
Rhyanon
2003-12-01 13:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Actually, the etymological definitions have been and still are debatable, so
your assertion of accuracy is questionable .
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these etymological
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old news".
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't believed.
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here for years?
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b) ignorant
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" & "wicce".
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these meanings,
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
Post by Zsarnok
What an ego you have.
How so? Would you have found it commendably modest to accept the implication
that Brenda's post was false, and not to comment that in fact she was correct?
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post where
she said that, as evidence *against* her. So is this evidence against you?
Post by Zsarnok
or edifying.
Apparently not to you. Good for you. Should information not be posted here
if you yourself are already aware of it? What then of those who are unaware?
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who believe it?
Zsarnok
2003-12-06 05:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these etymological
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old news".
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't believed.
Brenda being dismissed due to a history of lying is not the same as
rejecting the few things she says that are true.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here for years?
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b) ignorant
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" & "wicce".
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these meanings,
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
Again dismissing Brenda.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
What an ego you have.
How so? Would you have found it commendably modest to accept the implication
that Brenda's post was false, and not to comment that in fact she was correct?
What would have been commendable would be looking up Brenda's history.
Especially when you've been handed a lot of it and could easily Google
for the full story.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post where
she said that, as evidence *against* her. So is this evidence against you?
Read it again, without the Brenda blinders on.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
or edifying.
Apparently not to you. Good for you. Should information not be posted here
if you yourself are already aware of it? What then of those who are unaware?
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who believe it?
And what to do when someone refuses to see the correct and full story?

Zsarnok
Raven
2003-12-08 09:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these etymological
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old news".
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't believed.
Brenda being dismissed due to a history of lying is not the same as
rejecting the few things she says that are true.
But Brenda's post -- in which she said true things -- was cited as
"constituting a small example of her out and out lies."

Which *is* the same as rejecting things she says that are true.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here for years?
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b) ignorant
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" & "wicce".
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these meanings,
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
Again dismissing Brenda.
On this particular issue -- the meanings of the old words "wicca" & "wicce"
-- well, yes. She got those two words right. Why should *she* be corrected
on them? On *other* issues, maybe, but *this* post addressed *this* issue.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
What an ego you have.
How so? Would you have found it commendably modest to accept the
implication that Brenda's post was false, and not to comment that
in fact she was correct?
What would have been commendable would be looking up Brenda's history.
Especially when you've been handed a lot of it and could easily Google
for the full story.
*That* specific post was the one TN chose to present as his evidence.

So I addressed *that* specific post.

If I cited a particular dictionary entry, or encyclopedia entry, to you
as evidence supporting some claim of mine, should I gripe if you address
that entry, and if you notice that the entry does not support my claim?

Should I argue that you should have read the entire dictionary instead,
or the entire encyclopedia instead, for surely in all that mass of text
you would have found something *else* that would have supported my claim?

No, that's ridiculous. As is your suggestion.

If you feel the archive holds text supporting your position, cite the text.

Don't just tell me to read the whole archive. That's no citation at all.

What has happened to make people believe they have no responsibility to
do their *own* research in support of their *own* cases -- and to try
placing that responsibility on *other* people whom they want to persuade?
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post where
she said that, as evidence *against* her. So is this evidence against you?
Read it again, without the Brenda blinders on.
Uh-huh. Whoever does not share your own position, the moment they
encounter it, without your having to give evidence, has "blinders" on?

Lovely ad hominem. And so very flexible, too. It can be used everywhere,
for every purpose, in every discussion, on every topic. Like duct tape.
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
or edifying.
Apparently not to you. Good for you. Should information not be posted
here if you yourself are already aware of it? What then of those who
are unaware?
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who believe it?
And what to do when someone refuses to see the correct and full story?
How can someone "refuse to see" what *you* refuse to present?

You know, I'm not asking anything of you that I don't ask of myself.

When "Charles Nemo" on alt.true-crime challenged "ScorpionKing" (who said
author Michael Newton "had a bad habit of fabricating quotes from FBI agents")
with the words "Prove it" <news:***@mb-m28.aol.com>,
at first I responded with a Google Groups search URL to bring up past posts:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=raven+lanning+newton&btnG=Google+Search>.

"Nemo" replied, in part: "I'm not going to sort through my huge archives for
the source(s), nor through close to 200 messages in the Google archives...."

Fair enough. I responded to that on 11/23/2003 with just *one* post,
<news:***@posting.google.com>, that quoted
and cited (with message-ID and date) the key posts in the discussion,
and gave the relevant periodical dates, issue numbers, and page numbers
for every quotation from a periodical article that was not online.

That's basic documentation. *High school* students learn how to do it.

But when I ask you folks to back up *your* accusations against Brenda (whose
sins include *her* failure to cite sources), by citing sources yourselves,
suddenly it's indecent of me to ask it; it's not *your* job to cite sources;
it's "lazy" of *me* not to research you folks' case for you [*]; I should just
go back and read the Usenet archive, going back over two years' worth of posts
(as TN feels an October 2001 post is relevant), or else take your word for it.

[* cf. TN's <news:bqcefp$1uk2a1$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de>]

Well, to paraphrase Jani, when someone comes up with accusations I haven't
seen verified, and their only substantiation is "everybody knows that",
I'm unconvinced. And the flurry of ad hominem accusations against *me*,
for just asking for proof, curiously enough, leaves me even less persuaded.

It makes <http://www.luckymojo.com/altreligionwiccatrolls.html> more credible.
t_naismith
2003-12-09 01:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
Brenda being dismissed due to a history of lying is not the same as
rejecting the few things she says that are true.
But Brenda's post -- in which she said true things -- was cited as
"constituting a small example of her out and out lies."
"Raven", you fixated upon the part of the cite, (origins and usage
of "wicce"/witch), which was tangential to the main context of it
being a small example of "Brenda's" lies. In the remainder of the
cited post, "Brenda" goes on to make false claims about herself.
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
What would have been commendable would be looking up Brenda's history.
Especially when you've been handed a lot of it and could easily Google
for the full story.
*That* specific post was the one TN chose to present as his evidence.
No, that cited posted contained other information and "Raven"
choose to fixate on word origins, taking the tangential point instead
of the contextual one, ("Brenda's" false claims).
Post by Raven
So I addressed *that* specific post.
You addressed what you choose to address, which is fine even
if diversionary.
Post by Raven
If I cited a particular dictionary entry, or encyclopedia entry, to you
as evidence supporting some claim of mine, should I gripe if you address
that entry, and if you notice that the entry does not support my claim?
That's the problem with requests for specific posts when the
relevant ones are spread out over many threads and not conveniently
located in one post. However, it remains possible to dredge up
numerous 'samplings' which apologists may, (and have), claimed
to be taken 'out of context'.
Post by Raven
Should I argue that you should have read the entire dictionary instead,
or the entire encyclopedia instead, for surely in all that mass of text
you would have found something *else* that would have supported my claim?
Have you never searched the archives using key words, "raven"?
Obviously this will take some doing since "Brenda" does not list
her lies until the key words, "here are Brenda's lies".
Post by Raven
No, that's ridiculous. As is your suggestion.
Your argument is sophist, "raven". It proceeds from an
invalid premise to a conclusive error. Now _that's_ a
"ridiculous" position for you to hold.
Post by Raven
If you feel the archive holds text supporting your position, cite the text.
Don't just tell me to read the whole archive. That's no citation at all.
Thread titles could be supplied and you could sample those
threads for the relevant information or, you could pull tangential
examples out of context and this "cite it" game can go on indefinitely.
Post by Raven
What has happened to make people believe they have no responsibility to
do their *own* research in support of their *own* cases -- and to try
placing that responsibility on *other* people whom they want to persuade?
What has happened to make apologists believe that challenges to initial
claims, ("Brenda's" initial claims being challenged in this case), somehow
constitute 'new claims' which _must_ be substantiated every time some
johnny-come-lately demands them to be? The process of challenge has
occurred. "Raven" missed it and wants a rehash. That process resulted
in the refutation of the vast majority of "Brenda's" claims, (she does the
'lie-mixed-with-some-truth' bit occasionally but, that's a minor segue).
That refutation lead directly to the conclusion that "Brenda" lies. Now,
"raven" wishes to characterize the conclusion as a 'claim' which requires
the 'claimants' to dredge the process out of archives for him.
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
And what to do when someone refuses to see the correct and full story?
How can someone "refuse to see" what *you* refuse to present?
The "full story" is not selected cited posts, here and there.
It took place over a period of time and hundreds of posts
in several threads. If you want that "full story", feel free to
find it yourself instead of framing it as a _burden of proof_
demand.
Post by Raven
You know, I'm not asking anything of you that I don't ask of myself.
Do you often re-characterize the conclusion of a process as a
"claim" which requires the burden of proof, while ignoring the
original claimant's failure to substantiate their claims when challenged?
This is the case with "Brenda's" initial claims and the process of
challenge which followed. There are a few samples of that process
which could be plucked from archives and these substantiate the
challenge process. Any conclusions are drawn by readers who
either observed the whole process or, leap to invalid conclusions
based upon extremely incomplete data. If you are the former, you
are rapidly becoming the latter, "raven".
Post by Raven
[...]
I should just
go back and read the Usenet archive, going back over two years' worth of posts
(as TN feels an October 2001 post is relevant), or else take your word for it.
Would you be 'satisfied' by a few cited posts, taken as a sampling from
a process which covered months of posting and several threads at this
point? Somehow, that is doubted. Do not take my word for any of
this - I am not making a 'new claim'; such are resultant conclusions based
upon a process of challenge and refutation. You've already indicated that
you do not desire a complete rehashing of that process, "raven". Instead,
you wish for conveniently-available message ID cites. It is dubious as to
whether a sampling cite is what you're actually after, however ...
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
"Unfortunately many people don't investigate their own cultures
before latching onto native ways..perhaps changing it a bit and calling
it
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
something "native". This is unfortunate if they are not taught well.
Natives have had enough people ripping them off and doing pseudo "native
shamanistic things". When I see a non-native doing "an old Sioux ritual"
complete with them wearing feathers etc. and they do something obviously
"European" it sickens me to the core..."
" ...****NO more a liar than a clown wearing makeup is to a
child. No more than someone holding up a mirror to yourself is. By my own
admission I am a contrary...a sacred clown and a Raven."
Post by Raven
Well, to paraphrase Jani, when someone comes up with accusations I haven't
seen verified, and their only substantiation is "everybody knows that",
I'm unconvinced.
Excellent outlook! You wander in late, demand "proof" cites of
a process which you missed and then disregard the conclusions
of those who did not miss that process. Your sophistry is
underwhelming, "raven".
Post by Raven
And the flurry of ad hominem accusations against *me*,
for just asking for proof, curiously enough, leaves me even less persuaded.
It makes <http://www.unluckymojo.com/altreligionwiccatfauxrolls.html> more
credible.

Naturally, your methods of arriving at conclusions when you
aren't using reasoning are questioned, "raven". As naturally,
you seem to take this as a personal affront and dismiss them
as ad hominem when you cannot respond otherwise. That
you take up the pennant of the 'unluckymojo' makes much
of your _agenda_ transparent to many eyes.

T.N. (eye of Falcon)
Will Dockery
2003-12-09 01:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Trevor... you're boring.
Will

Mirror Twins MP3 free preview:
http://www.lulu.com/content/29085
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
Brenda being dismissed due to a history of lying is not the same as
rejecting the few things she says that are true.
But Brenda's post -- in which she said true things -- was cited as
"constituting a small example of her out and out lies."
"Raven", you fixated upon the part of the cite, (origins and usage
of "wicce"/witch), which was tangential to the main context of it
being a small example of "Brenda's" lies. In the remainder of the
cited post, "Brenda" goes on to make false claims about herself.
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
What would have been commendable would be looking up Brenda's history.
Especially when you've been handed a lot of it and could easily Google
for the full story.
*That* specific post was the one TN chose to present as his evidence.
No, that cited posted contained other information and "Raven"
choose to fixate on word origins, taking the tangential point instead
of the contextual one, ("Brenda's" false claims).
Post by Raven
So I addressed *that* specific post.
You addressed what you choose to address, which is fine even
if diversionary.
Post by Raven
If I cited a particular dictionary entry, or encyclopedia entry, to you
as evidence supporting some claim of mine, should I gripe if you address
that entry, and if you notice that the entry does not support my claim?
That's the problem with requests for specific posts when the
relevant ones are spread out over many threads and not conveniently
located in one post. However, it remains possible to dredge up
numerous 'samplings' which apologists may, (and have), claimed
to be taken 'out of context'.
Post by Raven
Should I argue that you should have read the entire dictionary instead,
or the entire encyclopedia instead, for surely in all that mass of text
you would have found something *else* that would have supported my claim?
Have you never searched the archives using key words, "raven"?
Obviously this will take some doing since "Brenda" does not list
her lies until the key words, "here are Brenda's lies".
Post by Raven
No, that's ridiculous. As is your suggestion.
Your argument is sophist, "raven". It proceeds from an
invalid premise to a conclusive error. Now _that's_ a
"ridiculous" position for you to hold.
Post by Raven
If you feel the archive holds text supporting your position, cite the
text.
Post by Raven
Don't just tell me to read the whole archive. That's no citation at all.
Thread titles could be supplied and you could sample those
threads for the relevant information or, you could pull tangential
examples out of context and this "cite it" game can go on indefinitely.
Post by Raven
What has happened to make people believe they have no responsibility to
do their *own* research in support of their *own* cases -- and to try
placing that responsibility on *other* people whom they want to persuade?
What has happened to make apologists believe that challenges to initial
claims, ("Brenda's" initial claims being challenged in this case), somehow
constitute 'new claims' which _must_ be substantiated every time some
johnny-come-lately demands them to be? The process of challenge has
occurred. "Raven" missed it and wants a rehash. That process resulted
in the refutation of the vast majority of "Brenda's" claims, (she does the
'lie-mixed-with-some-truth' bit occasionally but, that's a minor segue).
That refutation lead directly to the conclusion that "Brenda" lies. Now,
"raven" wishes to characterize the conclusion as a 'claim' which requires
the 'claimants' to dredge the process out of archives for him.
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
And what to do when someone refuses to see the correct and full story?
How can someone "refuse to see" what *you* refuse to present?
The "full story" is not selected cited posts, here and there.
It took place over a period of time and hundreds of posts
in several threads. If you want that "full story", feel free to
find it yourself instead of framing it as a _burden of proof_
demand.
Post by Raven
You know, I'm not asking anything of you that I don't ask of myself.
Do you often re-characterize the conclusion of a process as a
"claim" which requires the burden of proof, while ignoring the
original claimant's failure to substantiate their claims when challenged?
This is the case with "Brenda's" initial claims and the process of
challenge which followed. There are a few samples of that process
which could be plucked from archives and these substantiate the
challenge process. Any conclusions are drawn by readers who
either observed the whole process or, leap to invalid conclusions
based upon extremely incomplete data. If you are the former, you
are rapidly becoming the latter, "raven".
Post by Raven
[...]
I should just
go back and read the Usenet archive, going back over two years' worth of
posts
Post by Raven
(as TN feels an October 2001 post is relevant), or else take your word
for
Post by t_naismith
it.
Would you be 'satisfied' by a few cited posts, taken as a sampling from
a process which covered months of posting and several threads at this
point? Somehow, that is doubted. Do not take my word for any of
this - I am not making a 'new claim'; such are resultant conclusions based
upon a process of challenge and refutation. You've already indicated that
you do not desire a complete rehashing of that process, "raven". Instead,
you wish for conveniently-available message ID cites. It is dubious as to
whether a sampling cite is what you're actually after, however ...
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
"Unfortunately many people don't investigate their own cultures
before latching onto native ways..perhaps changing it a bit and calling
it
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
something "native". This is unfortunate if they are not taught well.
Natives have had enough people ripping them off and doing pseudo "native
shamanistic things". When I see a non-native doing "an old Sioux ritual"
complete with them wearing feathers etc. and they do something obviously
"European" it sickens me to the core..."
" ...****NO more a liar than a clown wearing makeup is to a
child. No more than someone holding up a mirror to yourself is. By my own
admission I am a contrary...a sacred clown and a Raven."
Post by Raven
Well, to paraphrase Jani, when someone comes up with accusations I haven't
seen verified, and their only substantiation is "everybody knows that",
I'm unconvinced.
Excellent outlook! You wander in late, demand "proof" cites of
a process which you missed and then disregard the conclusions
of those who did not miss that process. Your sophistry is
underwhelming, "raven".
Post by Raven
And the flurry of ad hominem accusations against *me*,
for just asking for proof, curiously enough, leaves me even less
persuaded.
Post by Raven
It makes <http://www.unluckymojo.com/altreligionwiccatfauxrolls.html> more
credible.
Naturally, your methods of arriving at conclusions when you
aren't using reasoning are questioned, "raven". As naturally,
you seem to take this as a personal affront and dismiss them
as ad hominem when you cannot respond otherwise. That
you take up the pennant of the 'unluckymojo' makes much
of your _agenda_ transparent to many eyes.
T.N. (eye of Falcon)
t_naismith
2003-12-09 02:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Trevor... you're boring.
Will
Dockery, you're an apologist-shill.
I'm only too happy to be considered as
"boring" by such a dim wit as yours.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
Brenda being dismissed due to a history of lying is not the same as
rejecting the few things she says that are true.
But Brenda's post -- in which she said true things -- was cited as
"constituting a small example of her out and out lies."
"Raven", you fixated upon the part of the cite, (origins and usage
of "wicce"/witch), which was tangential to the main context of it
being a small example of "Brenda's" lies. In the remainder of the
cited post, "Brenda" goes on to make false claims about herself.
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
What would have been commendable would be looking up Brenda's history.
Especially when you've been handed a lot of it and could easily Google
for the full story.
*That* specific post was the one TN chose to present as his evidence.
No, that cited posted contained other information and "Raven"
choose to fixate on word origins, taking the tangential point instead
of the contextual one, ("Brenda's" false claims).
Post by Raven
So I addressed *that* specific post.
You addressed what you choose to address, which is fine even
if diversionary.
Post by Raven
If I cited a particular dictionary entry, or encyclopedia entry, to you
as evidence supporting some claim of mine, should I gripe if you address
that entry, and if you notice that the entry does not support my claim?
That's the problem with requests for specific posts when the
relevant ones are spread out over many threads and not conveniently
located in one post. However, it remains possible to dredge up
numerous 'samplings' which apologists may, (and have), claimed
to be taken 'out of context'.
Post by Raven
Should I argue that you should have read the entire dictionary instead,
or the entire encyclopedia instead, for surely in all that mass of text
you would have found something *else* that would have supported my
claim?
Post by t_naismith
Have you never searched the archives using key words, "raven"?
Obviously this will take some doing since "Brenda" does not list
her lies until the key words, "here are Brenda's lies".
Post by Raven
No, that's ridiculous. As is your suggestion.
Your argument is sophist, "raven". It proceeds from an
invalid premise to a conclusive error. Now _that's_ a
"ridiculous" position for you to hold.
Post by Raven
If you feel the archive holds text supporting your position, cite the
text.
Post by Raven
Don't just tell me to read the whole archive. That's no citation at
all.
Post by t_naismith
Thread titles could be supplied and you could sample those
threads for the relevant information or, you could pull tangential
examples out of context and this "cite it" game can go on indefinitely.
Post by Raven
What has happened to make people believe they have no responsibility to
do their *own* research in support of their *own* cases -- and to try
placing that responsibility on *other* people whom they want to
persuade?
Post by t_naismith
What has happened to make apologists believe that challenges to initial
claims, ("Brenda's" initial claims being challenged in this case), somehow
constitute 'new claims' which _must_ be substantiated every time some
johnny-come-lately demands them to be? The process of challenge has
occurred. "Raven" missed it and wants a rehash. That process resulted
in the refutation of the vast majority of "Brenda's" claims, (she does the
'lie-mixed-with-some-truth' bit occasionally but, that's a minor segue).
That refutation lead directly to the conclusion that "Brenda" lies.
Now,
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
"raven" wishes to characterize the conclusion as a 'claim' which requires
the 'claimants' to dredge the process out of archives for him.
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
And what to do when someone refuses to see the correct and full story?
How can someone "refuse to see" what *you* refuse to present?
The "full story" is not selected cited posts, here and there.
It took place over a period of time and hundreds of posts
in several threads. If you want that "full story", feel free to
find it yourself instead of framing it as a _burden of proof_
demand.
Post by Raven
You know, I'm not asking anything of you that I don't ask of myself.
Do you often re-characterize the conclusion of a process as a
"claim" which requires the burden of proof, while ignoring the
original claimant's failure to substantiate their claims when challenged?
This is the case with "Brenda's" initial claims and the process of
challenge which followed. There are a few samples of that process
which could be plucked from archives and these substantiate the
challenge process. Any conclusions are drawn by readers who
either observed the whole process or, leap to invalid conclusions
based upon extremely incomplete data. If you are the former, you
are rapidly becoming the latter, "raven".
Post by Raven
[...]
I should just
go back and read the Usenet archive, going back over two years' worth of
posts
Post by Raven
(as TN feels an October 2001 post is relevant), or else take your word
for
Post by t_naismith
it.
Would you be 'satisfied' by a few cited posts, taken as a sampling from
a process which covered months of posting and several threads at this
point? Somehow, that is doubted. Do not take my word for any of
this - I am not making a 'new claim'; such are resultant conclusions based
upon a process of challenge and refutation. You've already indicated that
you do not desire a complete rehashing of that process, "raven".
Instead,
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
you wish for conveniently-available message ID cites. It is dubious as to
whether a sampling cite is what you're actually after, however ...
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
"Unfortunately many people don't investigate their own cultures
before latching onto native ways..perhaps changing it a bit and
calling
Post by t_naismith
it
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
something "native". This is unfortunate if they are not taught well.
Natives have had enough people ripping them off and doing pseudo
"native
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
shamanistic things". When I see a non-native doing "an old Sioux
ritual"
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
complete with them wearing feathers etc. and they do something
obviously
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
"European" it sickens me to the core..."
" ...****NO more a liar than a clown wearing makeup is to a
child. No more than someone holding up a mirror to yourself is. By my own
admission I am a contrary...a sacred clown and a Raven."
Post by Raven
Well, to paraphrase Jani, when someone comes up with accusations I
haven't
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
seen verified, and their only substantiation is "everybody knows that",
I'm unconvinced.
Excellent outlook! You wander in late, demand "proof" cites of
a process which you missed and then disregard the conclusions
of those who did not miss that process. Your sophistry is
underwhelming, "raven".
Post by Raven
And the flurry of ad hominem accusations against *me*,
for just asking for proof, curiously enough, leaves me even less
persuaded.
Post by Raven
It makes <http://www.unluckymojo.com/altreligionwiccatfauxrolls.html>
more
Post by t_naismith
credible.
Naturally, your methods of arriving at conclusions when you
aren't using reasoning are questioned, "raven". As naturally,
you seem to take this as a personal affront and dismiss them
as ad hominem when you cannot respond otherwise. That
you take up the pennant of the 'unluckymojo' makes much
of your _agenda_ transparent to many eyes.
T.N. (eye of Falcon)
Will Dockery
2003-12-09 02:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Trevor... you're boring.
Will
Dockery, you're an apologist-shill.
I'm only too happy to be considered as
"boring" by such a dim wit as yours.
Truth is truth, boring little man.
Will

"Mirror Twins" MP3, free preview:
http://www.lulu.com/content/29085
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
Brenda being dismissed due to a history of lying is not the same as
rejecting the few things she says that are true.
But Brenda's post -- in which she said true things -- was cited as
"constituting a small example of her out and out lies."
"Raven", you fixated upon the part of the cite, (origins and usage
of "wicce"/witch), which was tangential to the main context of it
being a small example of "Brenda's" lies. In the remainder of the
cited post, "Brenda" goes on to make false claims about herself.
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
What would have been commendable would be looking up Brenda's
history.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Especially when you've been handed a lot of it and could easily
Google
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
for the full story.
*That* specific post was the one TN chose to present as his evidence.
No, that cited posted contained other information and "Raven"
choose to fixate on word origins, taking the tangential point instead
of the contextual one, ("Brenda's" false claims).
Post by Raven
So I addressed *that* specific post.
You addressed what you choose to address, which is fine even
if diversionary.
Post by Raven
If I cited a particular dictionary entry, or encyclopedia entry, to
you
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
as evidence supporting some claim of mine, should I gripe if you
address
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
that entry, and if you notice that the entry does not support my
claim?
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
That's the problem with requests for specific posts when the
relevant ones are spread out over many threads and not conveniently
located in one post. However, it remains possible to dredge up
numerous 'samplings' which apologists may, (and have), claimed
to be taken 'out of context'.
Post by Raven
Should I argue that you should have read the entire dictionary
instead,
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
or the entire encyclopedia instead, for surely in all that mass of
text
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
you would have found something *else* that would have supported my
claim?
Post by t_naismith
Have you never searched the archives using key words, "raven"?
Obviously this will take some doing since "Brenda" does not list
her lies until the key words, "here are Brenda's lies".
Post by Raven
No, that's ridiculous. As is your suggestion.
Your argument is sophist, "raven". It proceeds from an
invalid premise to a conclusive error. Now _that's_ a
"ridiculous" position for you to hold.
Post by Raven
If you feel the archive holds text supporting your position, cite the
text.
Post by Raven
Don't just tell me to read the whole archive. That's no citation at
all.
Post by t_naismith
Thread titles could be supplied and you could sample those
threads for the relevant information or, you could pull tangential
examples out of context and this "cite it" game can go on
indefinitely.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
What has happened to make people believe they have no responsibility
to
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
do their *own* research in support of their *own* cases -- and to try
placing that responsibility on *other* people whom they want to
persuade?
Post by t_naismith
What has happened to make apologists believe that challenges to initial
claims, ("Brenda's" initial claims being challenged in this case),
somehow
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
constitute 'new claims' which _must_ be substantiated every time some
johnny-come-lately demands them to be? The process of challenge has
occurred. "Raven" missed it and wants a rehash. That process resulted
in the refutation of the vast majority of "Brenda's" claims, (she does
the
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
'lie-mixed-with-some-truth' bit occasionally but, that's a minor segue).
That refutation lead directly to the conclusion that "Brenda" lies.
Now,
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
"raven" wishes to characterize the conclusion as a 'claim' which
requires
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
the 'claimants' to dredge the process out of archives for him.
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
And what to do when someone refuses to see the correct and full
story?
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
How can someone "refuse to see" what *you* refuse to present?
The "full story" is not selected cited posts, here and there.
It took place over a period of time and hundreds of posts
in several threads. If you want that "full story", feel free to
find it yourself instead of framing it as a _burden of proof_
demand.
Post by Raven
You know, I'm not asking anything of you that I don't ask of myself.
Do you often re-characterize the conclusion of a process as a
"claim" which requires the burden of proof, while ignoring the
original claimant's failure to substantiate their claims when
challenged?
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
This is the case with "Brenda's" initial claims and the process of
challenge which followed. There are a few samples of that process
which could be plucked from archives and these substantiate the
challenge process. Any conclusions are drawn by readers who
either observed the whole process or, leap to invalid conclusions
based upon extremely incomplete data. If you are the former, you
are rapidly becoming the latter, "raven".
Post by Raven
[...]
I should just
go back and read the Usenet archive, going back over two years'
worth
Post by t_naismith
of
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
posts
Post by Raven
(as TN feels an October 2001 post is relevant), or else take your word
for
Post by t_naismith
it.
Would you be 'satisfied' by a few cited posts, taken as a sampling from
a process which covered months of posting and several threads at this
point? Somehow, that is doubted. Do not take my word for any of
this - I am not making a 'new claim'; such are resultant conclusions
based
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
upon a process of challenge and refutation. You've already indicated
that
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
you do not desire a complete rehashing of that process, "raven".
Instead,
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
you wish for conveniently-available message ID cites. It is dubious
as
Post by t_naismith
to
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
whether a sampling cite is what you're actually after, however ...
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
"Unfortunately many people don't investigate their own cultures
before latching onto native ways..perhaps changing it a bit and
calling
Post by t_naismith
it
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
something "native". This is unfortunate if they are not taught well.
Natives have had enough people ripping them off and doing pseudo
"native
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
shamanistic things". When I see a non-native doing "an old Sioux
ritual"
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
complete with them wearing feathers etc. and they do something
obviously
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
"European" it sickens me to the core..."
" ...****NO more a liar than a clown wearing makeup is to a
child. No more than someone holding up a mirror to yourself is. By my
own
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
admission I am a contrary...a sacred clown and a Raven."
Post by Raven
Well, to paraphrase Jani, when someone comes up with accusations I
haven't
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
seen verified, and their only substantiation is "everybody knows
that",
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
I'm unconvinced.
Excellent outlook! You wander in late, demand "proof" cites of
a process which you missed and then disregard the conclusions
of those who did not miss that process. Your sophistry is
underwhelming, "raven".
Post by Raven
And the flurry of ad hominem accusations against *me*,
for just asking for proof, curiously enough, leaves me even less
persuaded.
Post by Raven
It makes
<http://www.unluckymojo.com/altreligionwiccatfauxrolls.html>
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
more
Post by t_naismith
credible.
Naturally, your methods of arriving at conclusions when you
aren't using reasoning are questioned, "raven". As naturally,
you seem to take this as a personal affront and dismiss them
as ad hominem when you cannot respond otherwise. That
you take up the pennant of the 'unluckymojo' makes much
of your _agenda_ transparent to many eyes.
T.N. (eye of Falcon)
t_naismith
2003-12-09 02:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Trevor... you're boring.
Will
Dockery, you're an apologist-shill.
I'm only too happy to be considered as
"boring" by such a dim wit as yours.
Truth is truth, boring little man.
Will
You've yet to utter 'truth'; your claims are
without merit, lackluster-apologist.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
Brenda being dismissed due to a history of lying is not the same
as
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
rejecting the few things she says that are true.
But Brenda's post -- in which she said true things -- was cited as
"constituting a small example of her out and out lies."
"Raven", you fixated upon the part of the cite, (origins and usage
of "wicce"/witch), which was tangential to the main context of it
being a small example of "Brenda's" lies. In the remainder of the
cited post, "Brenda" goes on to make false claims about herself.
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
What would have been commendable would be looking up Brenda's
history.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Especially when you've been handed a lot of it and could easily
Google
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
for the full story.
*That* specific post was the one TN chose to present as his
evidence.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
No, that cited posted contained other information and "Raven"
choose to fixate on word origins, taking the tangential point instead
of the contextual one, ("Brenda's" false claims).
Post by Raven
So I addressed *that* specific post.
You addressed what you choose to address, which is fine even
if diversionary.
Post by Raven
If I cited a particular dictionary entry, or encyclopedia entry, to
you
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
as evidence supporting some claim of mine, should I gripe if you
address
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
that entry, and if you notice that the entry does not support my
claim?
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
That's the problem with requests for specific posts when the
relevant ones are spread out over many threads and not conveniently
located in one post. However, it remains possible to dredge up
numerous 'samplings' which apologists may, (and have), claimed
to be taken 'out of context'.
Post by Raven
Should I argue that you should have read the entire dictionary
instead,
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
or the entire encyclopedia instead, for surely in all that mass of
text
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
you would have found something *else* that would have supported my
claim?
Post by t_naismith
Have you never searched the archives using key words, "raven"?
Obviously this will take some doing since "Brenda" does not list
her lies until the key words, "here are Brenda's lies".
Post by Raven
No, that's ridiculous. As is your suggestion.
Your argument is sophist, "raven". It proceeds from an
invalid premise to a conclusive error. Now _that's_ a
"ridiculous" position for you to hold.
Post by Raven
If you feel the archive holds text supporting your position, cite
the
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
text.
Post by Raven
Don't just tell me to read the whole archive. That's no citation at
all.
Post by t_naismith
Thread titles could be supplied and you could sample those
threads for the relevant information or, you could pull tangential
examples out of context and this "cite it" game can go on
indefinitely.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
What has happened to make people believe they have no
responsibility
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
to
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
do their *own* research in support of their *own* cases -- and to
try
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
placing that responsibility on *other* people whom they want to
persuade?
Post by t_naismith
What has happened to make apologists believe that challenges to
initial
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
claims, ("Brenda's" initial claims being challenged in this case),
somehow
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
constitute 'new claims' which _must_ be substantiated every time some
johnny-come-lately demands them to be? The process of challenge has
occurred. "Raven" missed it and wants a rehash. That process
resulted
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
in the refutation of the vast majority of "Brenda's" claims, (she does
the
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
'lie-mixed-with-some-truth' bit occasionally but, that's a minor
segue).
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
That refutation lead directly to the conclusion that "Brenda" lies.
Now,
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
"raven" wishes to characterize the conclusion as a 'claim' which
requires
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
the 'claimants' to dredge the process out of archives for him.
Post by Raven
[...]
Post by Zsarnok
And what to do when someone refuses to see the correct and full
story?
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
How can someone "refuse to see" what *you* refuse to present?
The "full story" is not selected cited posts, here and there.
It took place over a period of time and hundreds of posts
in several threads. If you want that "full story", feel free to
find it yourself instead of framing it as a _burden of proof_
demand.
Post by Raven
You know, I'm not asking anything of you that I don't ask of myself.
Do you often re-characterize the conclusion of a process as a
"claim" which requires the burden of proof, while ignoring the
original claimant's failure to substantiate their claims when
challenged?
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
This is the case with "Brenda's" initial claims and the process of
challenge which followed. There are a few samples of that process
which could be plucked from archives and these substantiate the
challenge process. Any conclusions are drawn by readers who
either observed the whole process or, leap to invalid conclusions
based upon extremely incomplete data. If you are the former, you
are rapidly becoming the latter, "raven".
Post by Raven
[...]
I should just
go back and read the Usenet archive, going back over two years'
worth
Post by t_naismith
of
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
posts
Post by Raven
(as TN feels an October 2001 post is relevant), or else take your
word
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
for
Post by t_naismith
it.
Would you be 'satisfied' by a few cited posts, taken as a sampling
from
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
a process which covered months of posting and several threads at this
point? Somehow, that is doubted. Do not take my word for any of
this - I am not making a 'new claim'; such are resultant conclusions
based
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
upon a process of challenge and refutation. You've already indicated
that
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
you do not desire a complete rehashing of that process, "raven".
Instead,
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
you wish for conveniently-available message ID cites. It is dubious
as
Post by t_naismith
to
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
whether a sampling cite is what you're actually after, however ...
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
"Unfortunately many people don't investigate their own cultures
before latching onto native ways..perhaps changing it a bit and
calling
Post by t_naismith
it
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
something "native". This is unfortunate if they are not taught
well.
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Natives have had enough people ripping them off and doing pseudo
"native
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
shamanistic things". When I see a non-native doing "an old Sioux
ritual"
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
complete with them wearing feathers etc. and they do something
obviously
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
"European" it sickens me to the core..."
" ...****NO more a liar than a clown wearing makeup is to a
child. No more than someone holding up a mirror to yourself is. By m
y
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
own
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
admission I am a contrary...a sacred clown and a Raven."
Post by Raven
Well, to paraphrase Jani, when someone comes up with accusations I
haven't
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
seen verified, and their only substantiation is "everybody knows
that",
Post by Will Dockery
Post by t_naismith
Post by Raven
I'm unconvinced.
Excellent outlook! You wander in late, demand "proof" cites of
a process which you missed and then disregard the conclusions
of those who did not miss that process. Your sophistry is
underwhelming, "raven".
Post by Raven
And the flurry of ad hominem accusations against *me*,
for just asking for proof, curiously enough, leaves me even less
persuaded.
Post by Raven
It makes
<http://www.unluckymojo.com/altreligionwiccatfauxrolls.html>
Post by t_naismith
Post by Will Dockery
more
Post by t_naismith
credible.
Naturally, your methods of arriving at conclusions when you
aren't using reasoning are questioned, "raven". As naturally,
you seem to take this as a personal affront and dismiss them
as ad hominem when you cannot respond otherwise. That
you take up the pennant of the 'unluckymojo' makes much
of your _agenda_ transparent to many eyes.
T.N. (eye of Falcon)
Will Dockery
2003-12-09 03:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Trevor is a Liar. The Google archives prove this.
Will

"Mirror Twins" by Will Dockery:
http://www.lulu.com/content/29085
Zsarnok
2003-12-09 05:02:27 UTC
Permalink
No they don't. They just show that Brenda is.

Zsarnok
Post by Will Dockery
Trevor is a Liar. The Google archives prove this.
Will
http://www.lulu.com/content/29085
Gmanus Rex
2003-12-09 12:35:00 UTC
Permalink
He's just mad cause nobody is downloading his music.
Post by Zsarnok
No they don't. They just show that Brenda is.
Zsarnok
Post by Will Dockery
Trevor is a Liar. The Google archives prove this.
Will
http://www.lulu.com/content/29085
Gman
Yossarian Lives!
Zsarnok
2003-12-09 03:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Do you think you're the first person to come up with these etymological
references?
No, not at all. As Brenda said earlier, and I agreed, they are "old news".
The point is that when she repeated them -- correctly -- she wasn't believed.
Brenda being dismissed due to a history of lying is not the same as
rejecting the few things she says that are true.
But Brenda's post -- in which she said true things -- was cited as
"constituting a small example of her out and out lies."
Which *is* the same as rejecting things she says that are true.
Not when you watch her set up people who don't know her it isn't. The
response is based on prior knowledge and sorry experience. Hence the
warnings.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Did you think that you were enlightening a group that's been here for years?
No, merely those who seem to think that it is (a) lying or (b) ignorant
to post truthful and accurate definitions of the words "wicca" & "wicce".
Since they seem to have had no idea that these words had these meanings,
and seem to think Brenda simply made it all up, there seems to be room
for "enlightenment" on *their* parts.
Again dismissing Brenda.
On this particular issue -- the meanings of the old words "wicca" & "wicce"
-- well, yes. She got those two words right. Why should *she* be corrected
on them? On *other* issues, maybe, but *this* post addressed *this* issue.
Creating a good impression. Not the same as being honest, as it's a
contivance.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
What an ego you have.
How so? Would you have found it commendably modest to accept the
implication that Brenda's post was false, and not to comment that
in fact she was correct?
What would have been commendable would be looking up Brenda's history.
Especially when you've been handed a lot of it and could easily Google
for the full story.
*That* specific post was the one TN chose to present as his evidence.
So I addressed *that* specific post.
If I cited a particular dictionary entry, or encyclopedia entry, to you
as evidence supporting some claim of mine, should I gripe if you address
that entry, and if you notice that the entry does not support my claim?
Should I argue that you should have read the entire dictionary instead,
or the entire encyclopedia instead, for surely in all that mass of text
you would have found something *else* that would have supported my claim?
No, that's ridiculous. As is your suggestion.
If you feel the archive holds text supporting your position, cite the text.
Don't just tell me to read the whole archive. That's no citation at all.
What has happened to make people believe they have no responsibility to
do their *own* research in support of their *own* cases -- and to try
placing that responsibility on *other* people whom they want to persuade?
My point exactly. You see a few posts, are given further information,
but demand that the whole story be handed to you.
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
This is old, old stuff and not at all new
Oddly enough, that's what Brenda said -- and TN reprinted the post where
she said that, as evidence *against* her. So is this evidence against you?
Read it again, without the Brenda blinders on.
Uh-huh. Whoever does not share your own position, the moment they
encounter it, without your having to give evidence, has "blinders" on?
Did I include every topic or stick with Brenda? Don't try to
artificially broaden the context.
Post by Raven
Lovely ad hominem. And so very flexible, too. It can be used everywhere,
for every purpose, in every discussion, on every topic. Like duct tape.
Duct tape. Now that's a good idea!
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
Post by Raven
Post by Zsarnok
or edifying.
Apparently not to you. Good for you. Should information not be posted
here if you yourself are already aware of it? What then of those who
are unaware?
Should misinformation never be corrected? What then of those who believe it?
And what to do when someone refuses to see the correct and full story?
How can someone "refuse to see" what *you* refuse to present?
By not taking a look for themselves.
Post by Raven
You know, I'm not asking anything of you that I don't ask of myself.
You do love to cite stuff. And when kept to the point and reasonable
it's effective and usefull. However, too many cites become just a game
of competing.
Post by Raven
When "Charles Nemo" on alt.true-crime challenged "ScorpionKing" (who said
author Michael Newton "had a bad habit of fabricating quotes from FBI agents")
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=raven+lanning+newton&btnG=Google+Search>.
"Nemo" replied, in part: "I'm not going to sort through my huge archives for
the source(s), nor through close to 200 messages in the Google archives...."
Fair enough. I responded to that on 11/23/2003 with just *one* post,
and cited (with message-ID and date) the key posts in the discussion,
and gave the relevant periodical dates, issue numbers, and page numbers
for every quotation from a periodical article that was not online.
That's basic documentation. *High school* students learn how to do it.
But when I ask you folks to back up *your* accusations against Brenda (whose
sins include *her* failure to cite sources), by citing sources yourselves,
suddenly it's indecent of me to ask it; it's not *your* job to cite sources;
it's "lazy" of *me* not to research you folks' case for you [*]; I should just
go back and read the Usenet archive, going back over two years' worth of posts
(as TN feels an October 2001 post is relevant), or else take your word for it.
You walked into old ground. We told you that too.
Post by Raven
Well, to paraphrase Jani, when someone comes up with accusations I haven't
seen verified, and their only substantiation is "everybody knows that",
I'm unconvinced. And the flurry of ad hominem accusations against *me*,
for just asking for proof, curiously enough, leaves me even less persuaded.
There have been cites -- you may not like them, but they were presented.
The whole story would be a story, and it's difficult to cite them all
without it looking absurd. But much has been shown to you, look or
don't. Janet said you're bright so I tried to give you a simple overview.
Post by Raven
It makes <http://www.luckymojo.com/altreligionwiccatrolls.html> more credible.
Clap, clap. You found us!

Zsarnok
Raven
2003-11-29 10:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
"Really, have you even thought of how you'd feel about
applying to your own religion the rules you are attempting
to foist upon Wicca from the outside?"
I have already stated that I follow no religious path.
But you are intent upon denouncing as "dishonest" someone who
openly states that she *did* follow one religious path and now
follows another.
Apparently it is "dishonest", in your view, to change one's mind.
No, it is dishonest to make half a dozen claims of status, lineage and
experience which are then shown to be false.
"Shown to be false" and "alleged to be false" are not the same thing.
This is certainly true. However, if you make a claim as a straightforward
statement of fact, and later freely admit the claim was an outright lie,
then it is shown to be false.
In general, that would seem to be the case... though sometimes the "free
admission that it was a lie" might turn out to have been the falsehood.

(Which were false: Arnold Schwarzenegger's claims of his sexual activities
when he was a bodybuilder, or his later denials when he ran for governor?)
Post by Jani
If you make a claim to expertise in a specific branch of knowledge and
demonstrate almost total ignorance of it in discussion, then such a claim
can reasonably be assumed, again, to be false.
Again I can think of exceptions.

When much much younger and in school, I brought up the topic of continental
drift to an older teacher who dismissed it as nonsense; some years later,
I came back from visiting Argonne Labs and getting to hold a flask of xenon
tetrafluoride, only to have my chemistry teacher likewise dismiss it as
nonsense (for we all knew the saying, "the Noble Gases do not combine").

If those had been test subjects, presumably I would thus have "demonstrated
almost total ignorance" in the eyes of those teachers... but it was *their*
knowledge which was incomplete, out of date.

Likewise, the New York Times in 1920 declared Robert Goddard ignorant for
suggesting that rockets could be used to travel in space: "That Professor
Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the
Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction,
and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to
react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the
knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

That's one kind of exception; not the only kind.

In the case you mention below, the term "Christian mystic" is not itself
"a claim to expertise" in the "specific branch of knowledge" of theology,
and would not be proven false by a lack of theological scholarship.
Post by Jani
If you use a term which has an agreed consensus definition to describe
yourself and then re-define it to make a claim appear valid, then again the
claim can be considered, to all intents and purposes, false.
Sometimes terms have more than one valid meaning. If one uses a term in
one sense, and makes a statement which is true in that sense, one should
not be called a liar because that same statement is false when the term is
taken in another sense. All that is required is to make the sense clear.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Obviously you are not familiar with "Brenda Kent"'s assertions
Only as far as a bit of Googling the Usenet archive would take me.
Post by Jani
that she is or has been a pagan elder,
Which one might well be in a local community, by reason of being HPS.
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
She admitted herself that she was not an elder, despite having described
herself as such to assume seniority over someone with only a few years'
experience of paganism.
Again, I'd want to know the times indicated. If I'd served in Congress for
only two years, a couple of decades ago, but not since, I might well speak
of *having been* a member of Congress, yet later state that I *am not* a
member of Congress. Later, someone might say, "Raven lied: he said that he
was a member of Congress, yet later admitted that he was not a member of
Congress." (The "was" and "was not" would refer to two different times.)

Brenda has said she used to be a Wiccan HPS at one time, and later left
both that position and Wicca. As a result, she could well have been a
"pagan elder" at one time, yet not at a later time.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a lineaged trad in the Cornish families,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
She was asked later if she had made the claim, and if it was an outright
lie, and conceded that it was. This, however, was after months of pretending
she had no memory of such a claim, that the families in question did not
exist, and various other obfuscations.
That *sounds* conclusive... so would you please cite the message-ID?

After much Googling, all I've found is a bunch of go-arounds about how
she had not named the specific family into which she was "adopted" for
a year's stay. I'm not even clear how this corresponds to "lineaged trad"
in the sense of any Wiccan tradition, or whether Wicca was even involved.

Some reference was made to "Ravening", which I trust does not refer to any
practice of mine, but which I suspect might refer to a certain BlackBane.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
(I don't think any *Wiccan* trad predates Gardner, but by now a half
century has passed, and "lineaged trads" have come into existence.)
This was nothing to do with Wicca, it was a claim to initiation by
adoption in a particular family tradition in Britain.
Reminds me of the time one young lady I knew was offered "adoption" into
Clan McNaughton. Had she accepted, and proclaimed, that status, a lie
would have been involved, but not hers. (Her father and I met with the
gentleman who'd made the offer, with Lord Lyon's letter in my hand to add
the weight of authority to our rebuttal. The gentleman went elsewhere.)
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a Wiccan HPS,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
Since Wicca has diverged so far from its origins, it seems that nowadays
anyone can style themselves HP/S without any training, experience, or
knowledge of the history of the path. In this sense, it cannot be shown to
be false, but in the light of other claims, should be regarded as dubious.
Yet it would be sufficient to confer "pagan elder" status in a small local
pagan community, supporting one of the other claims you declare to be false.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a shaman,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
There are books, and classes at universities and on smaller scales,
which explicitly claim to help the student become a shaman. If you
believe no such process can confer that status, feel free to argue that.
I don't think shamanism can be taught, in the way that an academic subject
can be taught, no. But that isn't really the point at issue here.
Post by Raven
But if you mean that Brenda never took such a class, how do you know?
She has produced several conflicting versions of how she became involved in
shamanism, to sidestep awkward questions. One moment she is a heyoka, the
next a practitioner of "core shamanism"; one moment she had human teachers,
the next there are just "voices in her head". I believe at one point she
claimed to have been taught in a Native tradition, but was unable to
substantiate it.
Let's not forget that "shaman" has also been used to describe neopagan
practices -- see R.J. Stewart's "The Celtic Shaman", etc. -- so someone
might well claim to be a "shaman" on the grounds of being a Wiccan HPS.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a theosophist
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
I wasn't aware this was a difficult thing to be -- or to have been.
She claimed to be undertaking a formal course of study in theosophy,
described herself several times as a theosophist, but was unable to engage
in any substantive discussion on the topic beyond some vague references to
the life of Blavatsky.
So perhaps she was only just beginning the course of study.

I'm not aware that one need have completed any course in order to
claim membership in the group.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and a christian mystic,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
This isn't an especially improbable thing to be.
She stated that she was a christian mystic "by Ekhart's definition",
In that Meister Eckhart was not a lexicographer, true.

But Eckhart did discuss, over and over, his form of Christian mysticism --
even if he did not define (or even use) the word "mystic" -- and Brenda
clarified her response to Janet's request for a "definition" as meaning:
"my thoughts on Christian Mysticism were like Meister Eckhart's".
<news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030328152653.8746A-***@vtn1> 03/28/2003

More generally, *I'd* define a mystic as someone who seeks direct personal
experience of, or union with, the divine.

A a general description, that fits not only Christian mystics (St. Teresa
of Avila would be another example), but also Muslim (Sufi) mystics like Rumi,
practitioners of Voudun being ridden by the loas, or Wiccan High Priestesses
"drawing down the moon". This shared goal makes it plausible that a former
Wiccan HPS might gravitate to the mystical side of Christianity.
Post by Jani
a lengthy exchange with a Christian theologian (I believe you know Janet? :)
In a Usenet-correspondent sense: we've conversed online in friendly manner.

However, if I just said "yes" to that question, someone intent on calling me
a liar could then do so -- on the grounds that she and I never actually met.

How easily one can be called a liar just by construing words differently.
Post by Jani
showed that she had no idea of the historical and theological concepts
of christian mysticism,
To be a mystic -- to seek direct experience of, or union with, the divine --
does not require being a theological scholar.

Had Brenda claimed to *be* a theological scholar, then you'd have basis
to claim disproof of *that* status. But lack of scholarship is no disproof
of being a mystic, even a Christian mystic.
Post by Jani
and was actually referring to some sort of unstructured newage
transcendentalism.
And Eckhart was accused of being a heretic and a pantheist. So?
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
or her contradictory assertions that witchcraft is a religion,
is not a religion, is part of Wicca, is separate from Wicca
and so on.
This is one of the murkiest topics to discuss.
I agree. My point in this instance is that "Brenda" has stated categorically
that "witchcraft is the religion of witches" and "Wicca is the religion of
Wiccans" and then turned around (especially when talking to Christians) and
asserted that witchcraft is not related to any religious belief system and
therefore can be practised by Christians. (But not, apparently, Satanists.)
Many and possibly most Wiccans would say that their religion involves
witchcraft, or magic, or magick. On the other hand, many practitioners of
witchcraft, or magic, or magick, are not Wiccans. The groups overlap.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Margaret Murray's THE WITCH-CULT IN WESTERN EUROPE did in fact argue
that the "witches" being hunted during the "Burning Times" were
practicing a religion; Gardner claimed his Wicca *was* that religion.
Others (including me) doubt both claims.
Most of those who suffered in the "burning times" were Christian.
As I've pointed out, more than once.

[Most of the people accused of witchcraft in medieval Europe appear to have
been (a) devout Christians of the local denomination, falsely accused; (b)
Christians of some dissident (heretical) denomination; (c) Jews; (d) Gypsies.]
<news:4h4g8a$***@hummin.sol.net>

[The people killed at Salem were as Christian as the people doing the killing]
<news:***@solaria.sol.net>

[Also, Norman Cohn, on pp.3-4 of "Europe's Inner Demons", tells how wild
"cult crime" accusations in the city of Lyons led to the killing of an
entire religious-minority community, for the usual "witches' sabbat" list
of imaginary offenses -- incestuous bacchanals, cannibalizing children, etc.
The year was AD 177. The "cultists" executed were all the city's Christians.]
Post by Jani
As to Gardner's claims - well, I will concede that he drew on Leland
and (I'm not up to date on Heseltine, so I may well be sticking my neck
out here :) traditional British practitioners of some sort, but the
phrase "ancient wiccans" which has been bandied about a lot recently
sets my teeth on edge.
And mine.

["Ancient Wiccans"? No such animal.] <news:***@dejanews.com>

[In short, what such sources refute is precisely the claim that Wicca as such
is an ancient religion. It is a modern composite, cobbled together by Gardner
and Valiente from an assortment of different texts previously published.]
<news:67af2q$***@newsops.execpc.com>

[Not that it matters, in a way -- a religion five minutes old can be as valid
and life-affirming as anything five thousand years old -- but for the sake of
historical truth, simple honesty, I do wish this hadn't been misrepresented
as the actual Ancient Religion of Britain, or of all Pre-Christian Europe.]
<news:6rgm4j$6mi$***@news.iconz.co.nz>

-snip-
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
You may not have come across her admission that telling
"deliberate untruths" is an acceptable part of her "religious path"
(whatever that might be at the time), or her obfuscatory efforts to
redefine "lie" and "truth" when presented with the archived posts
in which her dishonest claims appear.
True, I have not. If you'd care to post actual message-IDs (these
become clickable links if preceded by "news:", for Google readers),
I could read them and decide whether your characterization of them
is fair and accurate.
The exchanges tend to be lengthy. However, a search for the The Truth about
NeoPagan Women's Groups thread on alt.pagan, and posts by "Brenda G
Tataryn" will give you the claims to trad lineage and elderhood; the thread
Re: Helena Blavatsky is the discussion about christian mysticism.
In the "Truth about NeoPagan Women's Groups" thread on alt.pagan, "Ironywaves"
commented: "Okay, I've read this... now where is The Big Lie here? Kate? Jani?
Brenda? I have this, now it needs illumination... at face value I see no lies
that are obvious..?" <news:***@corp.supernews.com> 03/17/2003

It would really help if you would post links like that to whatever "admission"
I should be reading, because otherwise these threads have over 2,300 messages.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
But I should note, some initiatory traditions
do in fact involve the use of "deliberate untruths" -- for instance,
to frighten the initiate when in fact there is nothing to fear, so
the initiate can experience fear without actually being endangered.
This was not the case here. The whole concept of using "deliberate untruths"
was hastily cobbled together later, once it became clear that habitual lying
and flat denials of such lies would not go unchallenged.
Please look at my post <news:***@posting.google.com>,
which documented a series of false citations by a published author. I used
links to specific articles, and directly quoted the specific texts at issue,
in addition to summarizing the discussion, because of a request for *proof*.

If you would do the same, then your argument need not rely on mere allegation
-- or repetition of allegation -- or rephrasing of allegation.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
If you wish to defend "Brenda", fine.
I have no personal investment in Brenda. I do have some personal
distaste for false accusations, which I have already seen in this
thread. If some of your accusations are true, then let them be
shown to be true. Trial by mere allegation is not persuasive to me.
I'm not in the habit of telling lies,
I'm happy to hear that.

However, when Usenet is so highly populated that readers are unlikely to
know every writer's personal character, or reputation for honesty, it is
usually better to provide evidence when requested, if possible, than fall
back on an assertion of one's own honesty. For my part, when challenged
on my own assertions of fact, I do try to provide links to other sources
whose credibility might be more widely known than my own -- and I have said
on a number of occasions that people should *not* take my word for anything,
nor the word of anyone on Usenet, but look up reliable sources off-Usenet.
Post by Jani
and I have no problem at all with those who simply refuse to disclose
information, or who skilfully use smoke-and-mirrors where appropriate.
I do have a problem with some of the smoke-and-mirrors crowd.
Post by Jani
I do object to people who repeatedly make false claims, which then
reflect badly on those whose claims are genuine, *particularly* when
such individuals set themselves up as spiritual mentors IRL.
One term I've seen, and appreciate, is "spiritual countereits".
Post by Jani
There are enough unpleasant characters in pagan communities
battening on the vulnerable as it is.
Oh yes.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
But please don't assume that this is someone who has simply
"changed her mind". She has already insulted people from various
pagan paths by attributing to herself status to which she is not
entitled, and is now doing the same with regard to genuine Wiccan
clergy.
That may be true, and again it may not be true. No doubt some of
our readers may deny that there can be any such thing as "genuine
Wiccan clergy", and *therefore* Brenda cannot have been such a thing.
Others may be aware that becoming "genuine Wiccan clergy" is both
possible and (among Wiccans) not uncommon, so not an improbable
thing for Brenda to actually have accomplished.
I do tend to distinguish, perhaps unfairly, between Gardnerian/Alexandrians
and "others". That said, I have encountered solitary eclectic Wiccans whose
knowledge, experience and integrity certainly qualifies them as "genuine
Wiccans" by anyone's definition. I just don't feel that uninformed and
superficial new-agery, coupled with habitual lying to pretend to status,
*does* qualify.
Alas, some genuine Wiccans have also been uninformed and superficial new-agers.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
You have *alleged* this to be false. But how have you *shown* this to
be false? And why are you bringing this issue to Christian newsgroups?
Removed the crossposts, now, since it's no longer appropriate. I thought at
first that you were posting from one of the christian ngs.
Oh. But now you've Googled my ID, right? (Since you know I "know" Janet.)
Rhyanon
2003-11-29 13:25:13 UTC
Permalink
So, you wanna fuck the lying canadian cow or what? I can't imagine any other
reason for this pointless exercise in pseudointellectual apologism and
sophistry.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
"Really, have you even thought of how you'd feel about
applying to your own religion the rules you are attempting
to foist upon Wicca from the outside?"
I have already stated that I follow no religious path.
But you are intent upon denouncing as "dishonest" someone who
openly states that she *did* follow one religious path and now
follows another.
Apparently it is "dishonest", in your view, to change one's mind.
No, it is dishonest to make half a dozen claims of status, lineage and
experience which are then shown to be false.
"Shown to be false" and "alleged to be false" are not the same thing.
This is certainly true. However, if you make a claim as a
straightforward
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
statement of fact, and later freely admit the claim was an outright lie,
then it is shown to be false.
In general, that would seem to be the case... though sometimes the "free
admission that it was a lie" might turn out to have been the falsehood.
(Which were false: Arnold Schwarzenegger's claims of his sexual activities
when he was a bodybuilder, or his later denials when he ran for governor?)
Post by Jani
If you make a claim to expertise in a specific branch of knowledge and
demonstrate almost total ignorance of it in discussion, then such a claim
can reasonably be assumed, again, to be false.
Again I can think of exceptions.
When much much younger and in school, I brought up the topic of continental
drift to an older teacher who dismissed it as nonsense; some years later,
I came back from visiting Argonne Labs and getting to hold a flask of xenon
tetrafluoride, only to have my chemistry teacher likewise dismiss it as
nonsense (for we all knew the saying, "the Noble Gases do not combine").
If those had been test subjects, presumably I would thus have
"demonstrated
Post by Raven
almost total ignorance" in the eyes of those teachers... but it was *their*
knowledge which was incomplete, out of date.
Likewise, the New York Times in 1920 declared Robert Goddard ignorant for
suggesting that rockets could be used to travel in space: "That Professor
Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the
Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction,
and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to
react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the
knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
That's one kind of exception; not the only kind.
In the case you mention below, the term "Christian mystic" is not itself
"a claim to expertise" in the "specific branch of knowledge" of theology,
and would not be proven false by a lack of theological scholarship.
Post by Jani
If you use a term which has an agreed consensus definition to describe
yourself and then re-define it to make a claim appear valid, then again the
claim can be considered, to all intents and purposes, false.
Sometimes terms have more than one valid meaning. If one uses a term in
one sense, and makes a statement which is true in that sense, one should
not be called a liar because that same statement is false when the term is
taken in another sense. All that is required is to make the sense clear.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Obviously you are not familiar with "Brenda Kent"'s assertions
Only as far as a bit of Googling the Usenet archive would take me.
Post by Jani
that she is or has been a pagan elder,
Which one might well be in a local community, by reason of being HPS.
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
She admitted herself that she was not an elder, despite having described
herself as such to assume seniority over someone with only a few years'
experience of paganism.
Again, I'd want to know the times indicated. If I'd served in Congress for
only two years, a couple of decades ago, but not since, I might well speak
of *having been* a member of Congress, yet later state that I *am not* a
member of Congress. Later, someone might say, "Raven lied: he said that he
was a member of Congress, yet later admitted that he was not a member of
Congress." (The "was" and "was not" would refer to two different times.)
Brenda has said she used to be a Wiccan HPS at one time, and later left
both that position and Wicca. As a result, she could well have been a
"pagan elder" at one time, yet not at a later time.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a lineaged trad in the Cornish families,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
She was asked later if she had made the claim, and if it was an outright
lie, and conceded that it was. This, however, was after months of pretending
she had no memory of such a claim, that the families in question did not
exist, and various other obfuscations.
That *sounds* conclusive... so would you please cite the message-ID?
After much Googling, all I've found is a bunch of go-arounds about how
she had not named the specific family into which she was "adopted" for
a year's stay. I'm not even clear how this corresponds to "lineaged trad"
in the sense of any Wiccan tradition, or whether Wicca was even involved.
Some reference was made to "Ravening", which I trust does not refer to any
practice of mine, but which I suspect might refer to a certain BlackBane.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
(I don't think any *Wiccan* trad predates Gardner, but by now a half
century has passed, and "lineaged trads" have come into existence.)
This was nothing to do with Wicca, it was a claim to initiation by
adoption in a particular family tradition in Britain.
Reminds me of the time one young lady I knew was offered "adoption" into
Clan McNaughton. Had she accepted, and proclaimed, that status, a lie
would have been involved, but not hers. (Her father and I met with the
gentleman who'd made the offer, with Lord Lyon's letter in my hand to add
the weight of authority to our rebuttal. The gentleman went elsewhere.)
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a Wiccan HPS,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
Since Wicca has diverged so far from its origins, it seems that nowadays
anyone can style themselves HP/S without any training, experience, or
knowledge of the history of the path. In this sense, it cannot be shown to
be false, but in the light of other claims, should be regarded as dubious.
Yet it would be sufficient to confer "pagan elder" status in a small local
pagan community, supporting one of the other claims you declare to be false.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a shaman,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
There are books, and classes at universities and on smaller scales,
which explicitly claim to help the student become a shaman. If you
believe no such process can confer that status, feel free to argue that.
I don't think shamanism can be taught, in the way that an academic subject
can be taught, no. But that isn't really the point at issue here.
Post by Raven
But if you mean that Brenda never took such a class, how do you know?
She has produced several conflicting versions of how she became involved in
shamanism, to sidestep awkward questions. One moment she is a heyoka, the
next a practitioner of "core shamanism"; one moment she had human teachers,
the next there are just "voices in her head". I believe at one point she
claimed to have been taught in a Native tradition, but was unable to
substantiate it.
Let's not forget that "shaman" has also been used to describe neopagan
practices -- see R.J. Stewart's "The Celtic Shaman", etc. -- so someone
might well claim to be a "shaman" on the grounds of being a Wiccan HPS.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a theosophist
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
I wasn't aware this was a difficult thing to be -- or to have been.
She claimed to be undertaking a formal course of study in theosophy,
described herself several times as a theosophist, but was unable to engage
in any substantive discussion on the topic beyond some vague references to
the life of Blavatsky.
So perhaps she was only just beginning the course of study.
I'm not aware that one need have completed any course in order to
claim membership in the group.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and a christian mystic,
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
This isn't an especially improbable thing to be.
She stated that she was a christian mystic "by Ekhart's definition",
In that Meister Eckhart was not a lexicographer, true.
But Eckhart did discuss, over and over, his form of Christian mysticism --
even if he did not define (or even use) the word "mystic" -- and Brenda
"my thoughts on Christian Mysticism were like Meister Eckhart's".
More generally, *I'd* define a mystic as someone who seeks direct personal
experience of, or union with, the divine.
As a general description, that fits not only Christian mystics (St. Teresa
of Avila would be another example), but also Muslim (Sufi) mystics like Rumi,
practitioners of Voudun being ridden by the loas, or Wiccan High Priestesses
"drawing down the moon". This shared goal makes it plausible that a former
Wiccan HPS might gravitate to the mystical side of Christianity.
Post by Jani
a lengthy exchange with a Christian theologian (I believe you know Janet? :)
In a Usenet-correspondent sense: we've conversed online in friendly manner.
However, if I just said "yes" to that question, someone intent on calling me
a liar could then do so -- on the grounds that she and I never actually met.
How easily one can be called a liar just by construing words differently.
Post by Jani
showed that she had no idea of the historical and theological concepts
of christian mysticism,
To be a mystic -- to seek direct experience of, or union with, the divine --
does not require being a theological scholar.
Had Brenda claimed to *be* a theological scholar, then you'd have basis
to claim disproof of *that* status. But lack of scholarship is no disproof
of being a mystic, even a Christian mystic.
Post by Jani
and was actually referring to some sort of unstructured newage
transcendentalism.
And Eckhart was accused of being a heretic and a pantheist. So?
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
or her contradictory assertions that witchcraft is a religion,
is not a religion, is part of Wicca, is separate from Wicca
and so on.
This is one of the murkiest topics to discuss.
I agree. My point in this instance is that "Brenda" has stated categorically
that "witchcraft is the religion of witches" and "Wicca is the religion of
Wiccans" and then turned around (especially when talking to Christians) and
asserted that witchcraft is not related to any religious belief system and
therefore can be practised by Christians. (But not, apparently, Satanists.)
Many and possibly most Wiccans would say that their religion involves
witchcraft, or magic, or magick. On the other hand, many practitioners of
witchcraft, or magic, or magick, are not Wiccans. The groups overlap.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Margaret Murray's THE WITCH-CULT IN WESTERN EUROPE did in fact argue
that the "witches" being hunted during the "Burning Times" were
practicing a religion; Gardner claimed his Wicca *was* that religion.
Others (including me) doubt both claims.
Most of those who suffered in the "burning times" were Christian.
As I've pointed out, more than once.
[Most of the people accused of witchcraft in medieval Europe appear to have
been (a) devout Christians of the local denomination, falsely accused; (b)
Christians of some dissident (heretical) denomination; (c) Jews; (d) Gypsies.]
[The people killed at Salem were as Christian as the people doing the killing]
[Also, Norman Cohn, on pp.3-4 of "Europe's Inner Demons", tells how wild
"cult crime" accusations in the city of Lyons led to the killing of an
entire religious-minority community, for the usual "witches' sabbat" list
of imaginary offenses -- incestuous bacchanals, cannibalizing children, etc.
The year was AD 177. The "cultists" executed were all the city's Christians.]
Post by Jani
As to Gardner's claims - well, I will concede that he drew on Leland
and (I'm not up to date on Heseltine, so I may well be sticking my neck
out here :) traditional British practitioners of some sort, but the
phrase "ancient wiccans" which has been bandied about a lot recently
sets my teeth on edge.
And mine.
[In short, what such sources refute is precisely the claim that Wicca as such
is an ancient religion. It is a modern composite, cobbled together by Gardner
and Valiente from an assortment of different texts previously published.]
[Not that it matters, in a way -- a religion five minutes old can be as valid
and life-affirming as anything five thousand years old -- but for the sake of
historical truth, simple honesty, I do wish this hadn't been
misrepresented
Post by Raven
as the actual Ancient Religion of Britain, or of all Pre-Christian Europe.]
-snip-
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
You may not have come across her admission that telling
"deliberate untruths" is an acceptable part of her "religious path"
(whatever that might be at the time), or her obfuscatory efforts to
redefine "lie" and "truth" when presented with the archived posts
in which her dishonest claims appear.
True, I have not. If you'd care to post actual message-IDs (these
become clickable links if preceded by "news:", for Google readers),
I could read them and decide whether your characterization of them
is fair and accurate.
The exchanges tend to be lengthy. However, a search for the The Truth about
NeoPagan Women's Groups thread on alt.pagan, and posts by "Brenda G
Tataryn" will give you the claims to trad lineage and elderhood; the thread
Re: Helena Blavatsky is the discussion about christian mysticism.
In the "Truth about NeoPagan Women's Groups" thread on alt.pagan, "Ironywaves"
commented: "Okay, I've read this... now where is The Big Lie here? Kate? Jani?
Brenda? I have this, now it needs illumination... at face value I see no lies
It would really help if you would post links like that to whatever "admission"
I should be reading, because otherwise these threads have over 2,300 messages.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
But I should note, some initiatory traditions
do in fact involve the use of "deliberate untruths" -- for instance,
to frighten the initiate when in fact there is nothing to fear, so
the initiate can experience fear without actually being endangered.
This was not the case here. The whole concept of using "deliberate untruths"
was hastily cobbled together later, once it became clear that habitual lying
and flat denials of such lies would not go unchallenged.
Please look at my post
which documented a series of false citations by a published author. I used
links to specific articles, and directly quoted the specific texts at issue,
in addition to summarizing the discussion, because of a request for *proof*.
If you would do the same, then your argument need not rely on mere allegation
-- or repetition of allegation -- or rephrasing of allegation.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
If you wish to defend "Brenda", fine.
I have no personal investment in Brenda. I do have some personal
distaste for false accusations, which I have already seen in this
thread. If some of your accusations are true, then let them be
shown to be true. Trial by mere allegation is not persuasive to me.
I'm not in the habit of telling lies,
I'm happy to hear that.
However, when Usenet is so highly populated that readers are unlikely to
know every writer's personal character, or reputation for honesty, it is
usually better to provide evidence when requested, if possible, than fall
back on an assertion of one's own honesty. For my part, when challenged
on my own assertions of fact, I do try to provide links to other sources
whose credibility might be more widely known than my own -- and I have said
on a number of occasions that people should *not* take my word for anything,
nor the word of anyone on Usenet, but look up reliable sources off-Usenet.
Post by Jani
and I have no problem at all with those who simply refuse to disclose
information, or who skilfully use smoke-and-mirrors where appropriate.
I do have a problem with some of the smoke-and-mirrors crowd.
Post by Jani
I do object to people who repeatedly make false claims, which then
reflect badly on those whose claims are genuine, *particularly* when
such individuals set themselves up as spiritual mentors IRL.
One term I've seen, and appreciate, is "spiritual countereits".
Post by Jani
There are enough unpleasant characters in pagan communities
battening on the vulnerable as it is.
Oh yes.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
But please don't assume that this is someone who has simply
"changed her mind". She has already insulted people from various
pagan paths by attributing to herself status to which she is not
entitled, and is now doing the same with regard to genuine Wiccan
clergy.
That may be true, and again it may not be true. No doubt some of
our readers may deny that there can be any such thing as "genuine
Wiccan clergy", and *therefore* Brenda cannot have been such a thing.
Others may be aware that becoming "genuine Wiccan clergy" is both
possible and (among Wiccans) not uncommon, so not an improbable
thing for Brenda to actually have accomplished.
I do tend to distinguish, perhaps unfairly, between
Gardnerian/Alexandrians
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and "others". That said, I have encountered solitary eclectic Wiccans whose
knowledge, experience and integrity certainly qualifies them as "genuine
Wiccans" by anyone's definition. I just don't feel that uninformed and
superficial new-agery, coupled with habitual lying to pretend to status,
*does* qualify.
Alas, some genuine Wiccans have also been uninformed and superficial new-agers.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
You have *alleged* this to be false. But how have you *shown* this to
be false? And why are you bringing this issue to Christian newsgroups?
Removed the crossposts, now, since it's no longer appropriate. I thought at
first that you were posting from one of the christian ngs.
Oh. But now you've Googled my ID, right? (Since you know I "know" Janet.)
Jani
2003-11-30 00:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Obviously you are not familiar with "Brenda Kent"'s assertions
Only as far as a bit of Googling the Usenet archive would take me.
Post by Jani
that she is or has been a pagan elder,
****Bren replies:actually..I claimed I was an elder to a person...not a
pagan elder.
There is a difference. Also in whatever construct a persons sees the term
of elder being applied to suffices. A construct of a Wiccan elder...may
not be the same as a witch elder....or a druid elder..etc.
" ***** Okay another little beginner trying to tell an elder her work.
Sigh...where do these youngins come from?
I think it is great that you are learning but drop the attitude and the
"I know something now...my shit don't stink". You assume that I am some
little gothed up teen learning her stuff when I have been doing this for a
long time."
http://www.google.com/groups?q=gothed+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bdb7b5b%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=1

" ***** I learn from many things and many persons. You need to learn
yourself and to drop the attitude.
I am an elder as I have been doing this for some time..not just
Wicca,Witchcraft but the techniques of Shamanism,Taoism,And the lessons of
the Good folk which I commune with on an ongoing basis. I do not just read
a book and think I know it all. I find that a case of too many of you
beginners.
Prove that I am a liar.
Witchcraft is a religion and a craft.
Brenda "


http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3080543062d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bdc7483%40news.victoria.tc.ca


" ****** she has only been doing this for five years. I have been doing it
longer so I am an Elder to her. I also may be physically her Elder as I am
40 years of age. "

http://www.google.com/groups?q=elder+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bdda780%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=1


(note the MAY, which was an afterthought, NOT the original meaning
intended.)
Post by Raven
Brenda has said she used to be a Wiccan HPS at one time, and later left
both that position and Wicca. As a result, she could well have been a
"pagan elder" at one time, yet not at a later time.
****Yes I was a Wiccan HPS...yes I did leave that position and Wicca
later. I was only an elder in terms of age to my coven mates...and am an
elder to others..in terms of age ofcourse. Again the label of elder varies
within each tradition if used in that way. A conversation between myself
and my priestess (not high priestess..but personal priestess) "P"....oh
_______ I didn't know that you were an elder....are you? Brenda: "Well I
am not an elder as in the lineaged or degreed trads...but If one wants to
call me an elder due to my age difference...or knowledge...then so be it."
No-one was calling you an elder. You were claiming the title yourself, and
quite clearly not in the context of chronological age.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
She was asked later if she had made the claim, and if it was an outright
lie, and conceded that it was. This, however, was after months of pretending
she had no memory of such a claim, that the families in question did not
exist, and various other obfuscations.
****I never said it was a lie...
" > Q.: Did you claim to be a member of or invited guest of a
Cornish Family/Trad?
***Yes
Q: Were you?
*** NO "

http://www.google.com/groups?q=trad+cat+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030527195613.20773B-100000%40vtn1&rnum=1



I said it was a ravening. I could not have
done this ravening without claiming such...as that is what is required in
the teaching. The family that I spoke of ofcourse does not exist as I
created them. If one cannot understand what I am doing...how is it
therefore conclusive that I was lieing?
What you were doing was telling a barefaced lie about being adopted in a
Cornish family tradition, with no assertion at the time that this was
anything but a categoric statement of fact, and then later pretending you
had never even heard of such a trad.


" *** you obviously have not read my posts thoroughly. I have lived in
Post by Raven
Cornwall for one year..been adopted into the family and have seen it in
action. My teacher brought me over to have this experience. I did. I
learned and then came home as I could not stay longer. After following
for
Post by Raven
awhile...my own beliefs and meditiations brought be to the Arthurian Fae
tradition.
***** Adoption is permanent. I never said that I am not part of the family
anymore..but my own way..that they deem important to follow was pressing
and it was time to go in that direction. This was thought out with counsel
and preparation. I can go back and be accepted within any time I wish.
You sure do assume a lot.
Post by Raven
***** as I do as well. Namely the family I was adopted into and their
wisdom.
**** sorry...I am adopted. Why do you deem yourself the one that knows all
sees all and controls all? "

http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3613185994d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3be388a1%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=218

" >Your so-called Ravening, of which concept we have different
understandings,
you admit a deception relating to Cornish Trads.
The Traditions are the Families, invoking them in your deception is an
abuse.
***NO I did not invoke them in a deception...I know NO Cornish Trads. I
never admitted this. Which Cornish Trads? I spoke of Pelloys to
teach....obviously...according to Jani..there is no such thing...I never
invoked any Trad. "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2870829851d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3de4636d%40news.victoria.tc.ca
Post by Raven
That *sounds* conclusive... so would you please cite the message-ID?
After much Googling, all I've found is a bunch of go-arounds about how
she had not named the specific family into which she was "adopted" for
a year's stay. I'm not even clear how this corresponds to "lineaged trad"
in the sense of any Wiccan tradition, or whether Wicca was even involved.
As I said, it was nothing to do with Wicca.
Post by Raven
Some reference was made to "Ravening", which I trust does not refer to any
practice of mine, but which I suspect might refer to a certain BlackBane.
****no not at all. I don't know any Blackbane. Ravening is a term my
teachers use that bears a close connection to shamanic "mirroring".
" >>>> Ok, what is the difference between ravening - which seems to be a
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
deliberate telling of untruth without any caveat - and lying?
****Lying is for no other reason than to tell a falsehood to cover
your own backside...Ravening is a teaching method taught to me by my
spiritual teachers to help someone to see themselves reflected back.
Does it include the deliberate telling of untruth?
*****it can...but so does acting...and do people see that as lying?
Or is there different catagories of this?
Acting that is known to be acting requires a suspension of disbelief - not
lying. "

http://www.google.com/groups?q=lying+teaching+group:alt.pagan+author:janet&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bjo7tb%24lhf3c%241%40ID-176608.news.uni-berlin.de&rnum=2

Since I had not claimed to be a member of any trad, nor dismissed Llewellyn
books (that was Psyche) nor been rude and condescending to a newbie (that
was you) then you were not "mirroring" anything. You were, as usual, annoyed
that your attempts to appear superior were not being taken seriously by
several people who actually knew more than you did.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
This was nothing to do with Wicca, it was a claim to initiation by
adoption in a particular family tradition in Britain.
****it had nothing to do with any trads anyone else knows. I simply used
Cornish trad...because Jani is very impressed by lineage and
tradition...and using this would set the stage for a good ravening.
I'm not "impressed" by claims of lineage, I simply have great respect for
those in *all* paths who have put in years of work, study, training and
commitment, and deserve whatever formal recognition they have gained as a
result. I don't have respect for people who treat that level of commitment
with contempt, just to try and make themselves appear superior.
Post by Raven
Reminds me of the time one young lady I knew was offered "adoption" into
Clan McNaughton. Had she accepted, and proclaimed, that status, a lie
would have been involved, but not hers. (Her father and I met with the
gentleman who'd made the offer, with Lord Lyon's letter in my hand to add
the weight of authority to our rebuttal. The gentleman went elsewhere.)
Heh. I'm not familiar with the history of the McNaughton line, but I take
your point, having heard of rather similar occurrences elsewhere being dealt
with in much the same way.
****Well this I was not in any lineage..and only working within Wicca many
years ago...and since I had had many more years of training in Wicca than
my coven members...they claimed me as their HPS.
So you actually had no formal status as HPS, and simply took over a bunch of
people who didn't know much about Wicca. And then, even though you had no
lineage yourself and were not initiated, you took it upon yourself to
initiate *them*.
****none are conflicting. Heyoka..or sacred clown is what I am. Core
shamanism is something I referred to when I talked about ravening...and
how my way has nothing to do with cultural specific shamanism.
I was being
labeled as one that is culturally theiving and I had to express that many
of these practises are within core shamanism. I never said I was taught by
any core shamanism teachers. I have both human and spiritual teachers as
many shaman tend to do...and I have NEVER claimed that I was taught by
Natives in any native tradition.
You stated specifically that you had "spirit teachers" who were part of a
Native tradition in your area.

" I'm not a native person nor did native *people*
teach me this. There are far more native cultures on the Northwest coast
however than what you speak of. Raven is a cultural trickster of many
people on this coast. Since my teachers, being spirits of this area,..have
called it Raven due to the area I live in ...that is what I use. "

http://www.google.com/groups?q=native+teachers+group:alt.pagan+author:bren a+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030326105241.2451I-100000%40vtn1&rnum=3

Since no-one else has ever heard of "ravening", I suppose mysterious Native
spirit teachers are a pretty safe bet, from your point of view.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a theosophist
***which I am. One only has to write to the society and ask if I am on the
rolls.
Do you consider enrollment in medical school to be the same as being a
qualified surgeon?
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
She claimed to be undertaking a formal course of study in theosophy,
described herself several times as a theosophist, but was unable to engage
in any substantive discussion on the topic beyond some vague references to
the life of Blavatsky.
****I was not under the impression that I was supposed to engage in a
discussion on this. And when the slanders and libels against Blavatsky
started...there was no point.
As I recall, you were simply asked to offer a personal critique of
Blavatsky, since you said you had read her works, and instead you googled
and posted a series of URLs.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and a christian mystic,
***never said I was...said I can understand much of it and see
similarities in my beliefs. Many times to help another understand my way
is to suggest that they consider a specific "kind" of thing, Christian
Mystic,faith healer, etc. so they can get a better understanding of what I
may be talking about. This does not mean that I claim to be this...or that
I have any specially training in such.
You were asked, in terms of your Christian denomination, what "your lot"
were, Janet's "lot" being Catholics, and you stated "Christian Mystics". If
that was not what you meant (as it clearly wasn't, given your prompt
backpedaling), why claim it?
Post by Raven
More generally, *I'd* define a mystic as someone who seeks direct personal
experience of, or union with, the divine.
As a general description, that fits not only Christian mystics (St.
Teresa
Post by Raven
of Avila would be another example), but also Muslim (Sufi) mystics like Rumi,
practitioners of Voudun being ridden by the loas, or Wiccan High Priestesses
"drawing down the moon". This shared goal makes it plausible that a former
Wiccan HPS might gravitate to the mystical side of Christianity.
Yes, as a general description, "mystic" fits all of those. "Christian
Mystic" is much more specific. "Brenda" was quite specific, until asked to
justify her claim.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a lengthy exchange with a Christian theologian (I believe you know Janet? :)
In a Usenet-correspondent sense: we've conversed online in friendly manner.
However, if I just said "yes" to that question, someone intent on calling me
a liar could then do so -- on the grounds that she and I never actually met.
How easily one can be called a liar just by construing words
differently.

If I'd meant an offline acquaintance, I would have added "IRL".
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
showed that she had no idea of the historical and theological concepts
of christian mysticism,
To be a mystic -- to seek direct experience of, or union with, the divine --
does not require being a theological scholar.
****yes!
Post by Raven
Had Brenda claimed to *be* a theological scholar, then you'd have basis
to claim disproof of *that* status. But lack of scholarship is no disproof
of being a mystic, even a Christian mystic.
**yes!
Indeed, a mystic would not need to be a scholar of anything. However,
someone who claims to be "a Christian Mystic" - not a mystic, not a
Christian *and* a mystic, but a "Christian Mystic by Ekhart's definition" -
is being very specific and implying some level of scholarly knowledge by the
very mention of Ekhart.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and was actually referring to some sort of unstructured newage
transcendentalism.
And Eckhart was accused of being a heretic and a pantheist. So?
So, what is your point? Ekhart was working within a pretty strict Christian
paradigm, after all.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
or her contradictory assertions that witchcraft is a religion,
is not a religion, is part of Wicca, is separate from Wicca
and so on.
****I believe that Wicca is a religion and witchcraft is a craft. However
I also spoke on the name "wicca" being pronounced "witch-ah" and probably
being the earlier term for witch or wise person. From this others
misunderstood.
It's pretty hard to misunderstand "Witchcraft is the religion of witches,
Wicca is the religion of Wiccans", isn't it?
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
This is one of the murkiest topics to discuss.
I agree. My point in this instance is that "Brenda" has stated categorically
that "witchcraft is the religion of witches" and "Wicca is the religion of
Wiccans" and then turned around (especially when talking to Christians) and
asserted that witchcraft is not related to any religious belief system and
therefore can be practised by Christians. (But not, apparently, Satanists.)
******I have to the first line? I don't believe I have said that
witchcraft is the religion of witches.
" if You don't think it's a religion then you have not done your
homework. Witchcraft is the religion of Witches. Wicca is the religion of
Wiccans. "


http://www.google.com/groups?q=witchcraft+religion+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bd206c0%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=1


Satanists can practise witchcraft
to be certain..but my onus was on the concept that witch...meant "wise"
and that embracing matter over spirit does not seem wise "to me". It had
nothing to do with what others think...but my own belief. Which from what
I hear..we are all allowed to have.
"Since witch means wise..you
cannot be a Satanist witch..no matter what you are told."

http://www.google.com/groups?q=christian+satanist+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3c2e7a20%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=12

That doesn't sound like allowing people to have their own beliefs. That
sounds like "Brenda's" dogma, which supersedes everything, "no matter what
you are told".
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
You may not have come across her admission that telling
"deliberate untruths" is an acceptable part of her "religious path"
(whatever that might be at the time), or her obfuscatory efforts to
redefine "lie" and "truth" when presented with the archived posts
in which her dishonest claims appear.
*****it is acceptable to my path if it is used to teach. My own concept of
lie is to do it for selfish reasons...or out of fear. Telling someone they
look good in a dress that they spent much money on and have invested
feelings on...and has on at the moment and is happy, when they look like
the dogs dinner is not a lie to me...but part of being a kind human being.
You use this example rather a lot. I find it very telling that you consider
it "kind" to let a friend go out looking "like a dog's dinner" and be
laughed at by the general public, rather than be tactfully honest and save
her the embarrassment. And yet you constantly cite this as an example of a
lie which is not only justifiable, but actively kind.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
This was not the case here. The whole concept of using "deliberate untruths"
was hastily cobbled together later, once it became clear that habitual lying
and flat denials of such lies would not go unchallenged.
****and you know this by How?
By the simple fact that "ravening", "mirroring", "sacred-clowning" and all
the rest of the backpedaling only came into play when "I never said that, I
never heard of them, she's making it up" didn't work.
Post by Raven
However, when Usenet is so highly populated that readers are unlikely to
know every writer's personal character, or reputation for honesty, it is
usually better to provide evidence when requested, if possible, than fall
back on an assertion of one's own honesty. For my part, when challenged
on my own assertions of fact, I do try to provide links to other sources
whose credibility might be more widely known than my own -- and I have said
on a number of occasions that people should *not* take my word for anything,
nor the word of anyone on Usenet, but look up reliable sources off-Usenet.
Short of spending more time than I care to on hunting through Google and
bookmarking endless message IDs, I can only give you a representative sample
of "Brenda's" methodology. Reading entire threads might be tedious, but it
certainly gives you a much broader picture of who is consistent and who
isn't.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and I have no problem at all with those who simply refuse to disclose
information, or who skilfully use smoke-and-mirrors where appropriate.
I do have a problem with some of the smoke-and-mirrors crowd.
I find it useful. It's not a technique I'm good at, and it sharpens my focus
to analyse it in others.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
I do object to people who repeatedly make false claims, which then
reflect badly on those whose claims are genuine, *particularly* when
such individuals set themselves up as spiritual mentors IRL.
One term I've seen, and appreciate, is "spiritual countereits".
As in, those who have no substance?
****I have not insulted anyone from various pagan paths. No one has come
to me to tell me that I have insulted them or thier path...no one.
Actually, a lot of people have said that you have insulted them, but since
you have such a long list of "people you don't read", perhaps you've managed
to avoid them.

I have
only Jani constantly telling me that I have insulted Cornish witches of
her acquaintance...which could or could not be true..
Are you saying that everyone who has objected is actually me, posting under
another name?


.because I dared to
use the term "Cornish Witch" as if my claiming a lover to be named Darryl
would be insulting all men named Darryl.
No-one has mentioned "using the term Cornish witch". Except you, just now,
in another attempt to obfuscate.


This makes little sense. No one
of a Wiccan clery has ever contacted me about insulting them...nor could
show me where I have insulted them yet.
Why on earth should they contact you?
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Removed the crossposts, now, since it's no longer appropriate. I thought at
first that you were posting from one of the christian ngs.
Oh. But now you've Googled my ID, right? (Since you know I "know" Janet.)
Nope, didn't have time. I cut the crossposts because it wasn't relevant to
ACC.

Jani
Jani
2003-11-30 10:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
" ***** Okay another little beginner trying to tell an elder her work.
Sigh...where do these youngins come from?
I think it is great that you are learning but drop the attitude and the
"I know something now...my shit don't stink". You assume that I am some
little gothed up teen learning her stuff when I have been doing this for a
long time."
http://www.google.com/groups?q=gothed+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bdb7b5b%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=1
***yes..the young woman came to me and started in with the insults...as
she followed the crowd.
There was no "crowd". I don't think anyone knew Brigi outside of her few
posts to the ng, and she was having a perfectly civilised discussion with
everyone else about men's and women's groups within paganism.

I was tired of those that come on a
newsgroup...having only a few years of witchcraft behind them..and think
that they should cop an attitude and tell someone older than her..and more
learned about witchcraft ..what to think.
You told her that "witch" was derived from "wicca" - something she wouldn't
be expected to know, since she'd said already that she was Celtic pagan, not
wiccan - and then refused to give her any historical or etymological source
for that assertion, when she asked. No wonder she thought you were talking
nonsense.


I have no problem with polite
conversation..or someone saying "perhaps..or maybe". Infact my own coven
mates were younger than I and I encouraged them to not just sit there and
accept everything I said...but to challenge it if they can. There is a
difference however...in being snotty...and calling down someone..and
asking questions and challenging someones knowledge.
You made a flat-out statement about the derivation of a word and then
refused to support it. Is that how you taught your students to "challenge" -
making unsupported statements and sneering at them as "beginners" when they
asked for evidence?
Post by Jani
" ***** I learn from many things and many persons. You need to learn
yourself and to drop the attitude.
I am an elder as I have been doing this for some time..not just
Wicca,Witchcraft but the techniques of Shamanism,Taoism,And the lessons of
the Good folk which I commune with on an ongoing basis. I do not just read
a book and think I know it all. I find that a case of too many of you
beginners.
Prove that I am a liar.
Witchcraft is a religion and a craft.
Brenda "
****for some it can be. However after working it through...I have decided
that Wicca is indeed a religion and witchcraft is a craft.
Which, as Talesin pointed out at the time, was a pretty basic concept that
people who *did* know what they were talking about had been trying to get
across to you for weeks.


Learning is not
static...one continually learns and reforms thoughts and ideas.
Or, in your case, makes categoric statements under the pretension of "I am
an elder", "I am more learned", slams others for being beginners, and then
discovers that the so-called "beginner" knew their stuff and you didn't. I
think it's fairly obvious who needs to "drop the attitude", don't you?
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3080543062d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bdc7483%40news.victoria.tc.ca
Post by Jani
" ****** she has only been doing this for five years. I have been doing it
longer so I am an Elder to her. I also may be physically her Elder as I am
40 years of age. "
***Yes? and?
http://www.google.com/groups?q=elder+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bdda780%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=1
Post by Jani
(note the MAY, which was an afterthought, NOT the original meaning
intended.)
****may due to her attitude which came off as someone very young to me.
You said several times afterwards when your claims were challenged that
"elder" only meant "chronologically older". And yet here, it's very clear
that being "chronologically older" was not what you meant, except as
something that occurred to you *after* you had defined "elder" in terms of
experience and learning, *not* chronological age. "I'm an elder because I
know a lot about witchcraft, wicca, taoism, yada yada - oh yes, and I might
be older than her as well".
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Brenda has said she used to be a Wiccan HPS at one time, and later left
both that position and Wicca. As a result, she could well have been a
"pagan elder" at one time, yet not at a later time.
****Yes I was a Wiccan HPS...yes I did leave that position and Wicca
later. I was only an elder in terms of age to my coven mates...and am an
elder to others..in terms of age ofcourse. Again the label of elder varies
within each tradition if used in that way. A conversation between myself
and my priestess (not high priestess..but personal priestess) "P"....oh
_______ I didn't know that you were an elder....are you? Brenda: "Well I
am not an elder as in the lineaged or degreed trads...but If one wants to
call me an elder due to my age difference...or knowledge...then so be it."
No-one was calling you an elder. You were claiming the title yourself, and
quite clearly not in the context of chronological age.
*****Yes as I was considered this by my own coven mates.
It's very strange that no-else has mentioned *any* pagan path or tradition
in which "elder" has no other connotation except chronological age. In fact,
the two are quite often at variance. If I say "X is an elder" that is not
the same as "X is older than the rest of us". X might well be physically
younger, in fact. But since your "coven mates" didn't know anything about
Wicca, I can quite see why you would let them go on thinking that "Brenda is
older" is synonymous with "Brenda is an elder". A neat way of - again! -
proclaiming a status and title to which you are not entitled.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
She was asked later if she had made the claim, and if it was an
outright
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
lie, and conceded that it was. This, however, was after months of
pretending
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
she had no memory of such a claim, that the families in question
did
Post by Jani
not
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
exist, and various other obfuscations.
****I never said it was a lie...
" > Q.: Did you claim to be a member of or invited guest of a
Cornish Family/Trad?
***Yes
Q: Were you?
*** NO "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=trad+cat+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030527195613.20773B-100000%40vtn1&rnum=1
*****and? it is a ravening.
You can call it whatever you please, but what it *is*, is a lie.
Post by Jani
I said it was a ravening. I could not have
done this ravening without claiming such...as that is what is required in
the teaching. The family that I spoke of ofcourse does not exist as I
created them. If one cannot understand what I am doing...how is it
therefore conclusive that I was lieing?
What you were doing was telling a barefaced lie about being adopted in a
Cornish family tradition, with no assertion at the time that this was
anything but a categoric statement of fact, and then later pretending you
had never even heard of such a trad.
*****When one ravens..one can do it this way or many other ways. There is
no rule against it in my path. You call it a bareface lie...so be it. It
is not to myself. Pretending? My "kind" of tradition that I was ravening
about...was what you were talking about. No...I had never heard of it
before. Your kind of trad.....YES I have heard of it. How else would I
have known which to use to teach?
So you had indeed heard of the Cornish families, and knew exactly *what* you
were lying about. If you were aware of that, how odd that you complain about
such a lie following you and colouring every other claim that you try to
make. What else did you expect?
Post by Jani
" *** you obviously have not read my posts thoroughly. I have lived in
Post by Raven
Cornwall for one year..been adopted into the family and have seen it in
action. My teacher brought me over to have this experience. I did. I
learned and then came home as I could not stay longer. After following
for
Post by Raven
awhile...my own beliefs and meditiations brought be to the Arthurian Fae
tradition.
***** Adoption is permanent. I never said that I am not part of the family
anymore..but my own way..that they deem important to follow was pressing
and it was time to go in that direction. This was thought out with counsel
and preparation. I can go back and be accepted within any time I wish.
You sure do assume a lot.
*****Yes? ravening.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
***** as I do as well. Namely the family I was adopted into and their
wisdom.
***Yes? more ravening.
Post by Jani
**** sorry...I am adopted. Why do you deem yourself the one that knows all
sees all and controls all? "
****again more ravening.
Again, a pack of lies, reiterated over and over in the hope that presenting
yourself as lineaged would regain some of the respect you'd lost by your
other fake claims.
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3613185994d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3be388a1%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=218
Post by Jani
" >Your so-called Ravening, of which concept we have different
understandings,
you admit a deception relating to Cornish Trads.
The Traditions are the Families, invoking them in your deception is an
abuse.
***NO I did not invoke them in a deception...I know NO Cornish Trads. I
never admitted this. Which Cornish Trads? I spoke of Pelloys to
teach....obviously...according to Jani..there is no such thing...I never
invoked any Trad. "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2870829851d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3de4636d%40news.victoria.tc.ca
****all of a part of ravening.
No, the first of your attempts to cover your tracks by saying "I never said
that, Jani is lying" - a tack which didn't work, since everyone is capable
of reading your archived posts for themselves.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
That *sounds* conclusive... so would you please cite the message-ID?
After much Googling, all I've found is a bunch of go-arounds about how
she had not named the specific family into which she was "adopted" for
a year's stay. I'm not even clear how this corresponds to "lineaged
trad"
Post by Raven
in the sense of any Wiccan tradition, or whether Wicca was even
involved.
As I said, it was nothing to do with Wicca.
Post by Raven
Some reference was made to "Ravening", which I trust does not refer
to
Post by Jani
any
Post by Raven
practice of mine, but which I suspect might refer to a certain
BlackBane.
****no not at all. I don't know any Blackbane. Ravening is a term my
teachers use that bears a close connection to shamanic "mirroring".
" >>>> Ok, what is the difference between ravening - which seems to be a
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
deliberate telling of untruth without any caveat - and lying?
****Lying is for no other reason than to tell a falsehood to cover
your own backside...Ravening is a teaching method taught to me by my
spiritual teachers to help someone to see themselves reflected back.
Does it include the deliberate telling of untruth?
*****it can...but so does acting...and do people see that as lying?
Or is there different catagories of this?
Acting that is known to be acting requires a suspension of disbelief - not
lying. "
****and acting that is not known to be acting? as in practical
jokes...impromptu street theatre etc.
And does the street player come to you later and say "I never said that, I
was not there, you are lying about me"? I think not.
http://www.google.com/groups?q=lying+teaching+group:alt.pagan+author:janet&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bjo7tb%24lhf3c%241%40ID-176608.news.uni-berlin.de&rnum=2
Post by Jani
Since I had not claimed to be a member of any trad, nor dismissed Llewellyn
books (that was Psyche) nor been rude and condescending to a newbie (that
was you) then you were not "mirroring" anything. You were, as usual, annoyed
that your attempts to appear superior were not being taken seriously by
several people who actually knew more than you did.
***No. I will react with anger when someone is being snotty and rude to
myself at times...as was the newbie.
She asked you to provide evidence for your assertions. You refused. She was
more knowledgable than you about the difference between religion and craft.
You reacted by pretending that your knowledge was superior "because I am an
elder". *You* were snotty and rude, not Brigi. And moreover, she was quite
honest about her status in the craft - five years' experience - whereas you
lied.



It is a rarity though. I have not
made one attempt to
appear superior in any way.
You were doing it only a few days ago, telling christians that they "don't
understand" their own God, but they "will eventually".

Since one does not know me..or how I work..or
how sacred clowns work.....since no one knows my reasons...but only
guesses at them..to be later considered lies....they cannot make a
factual statement as to my character..but can only offer opinion.
You tell lies, and try to pretend you haven't by accusing others of lying
about you. That says volumes about your "character". Inventing
pseudo-rationalisations later to excuse your habitual lying says even more
about it.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
This was nothing to do with Wicca, it was a claim to initiation by
adoption in a particular family tradition in Britain.
****it had nothing to do with any trads anyone else knows. I simply used
Cornish trad...because Jani is very impressed by lineage and
tradition...and using this would set the stage for a good ravening.
I'm not "impressed" by claims of lineage, I simply have great respect for
those in *all* paths who have put in years of work, study, training and
commitment, and deserve whatever formal recognition they have gained as a
result. I don't have respect for people who treat that level of commitment
with contempt, just to try and make themselves appear superior.
***Yes you seem to be Jani. You reacted to my opinion that lineage does
not make one superior magickally to anyone else with a twisted "so you
think these folks are impotent huh?" which was never at all my point..but
you tend to twist my words constantly.
Oh, please. You tell everyone that you don't say what you mean, or mean what
you say, that you tell deliberate untruths whenever it suits you, and then
you say *others* twist your words?


You have shown a reaction to
lineage and scholars and tradition....that borders on elitism. I am not
the first to mention this.
How is it "elitist" to have respect for people who have studied, worked, and
gained a breadth of knowledge in their subject? I've said several times that
such knowledge does not automatically mean they have academic degrees, or
formal qualifications of any kind. But they know their stuff - as opposed to
those who know very little, and call those who *have* put the work in,
elitist.

You even said that you would not use the term
witch to describe yourself if persons like myself used it. You DO have a
"better than" mindset and you know it.
I don't use "witch" for various reasons, but certainly one of them is that
it has gone from the medieval descriptor to signifying silly women
pretending to be priestesses to gain social kudos. And I would like to know
how on earth I can have a "better than mindset" when I have repeatedly
pointed out how much more knowledgeable others are than I, and that I don't
pretend to be anywhere near their level.
Post by Jani
****Well this I was not in any lineage..and only working within Wicca many
years ago...and since I had had many more years of training in Wicca than
my coven members...they claimed me as their HPS.
So you actually had no formal status as HPS, and simply took over a bunch of
people who didn't know much about Wicca. And then, even though you had no
lineage yourself and were not initiated, you took it upon yourself to
initiate *them*.
****formal status? we did not work in the structure that you believe a
Wiccan must. Who said I was not initiated? I was indeed initiated by the
Gods....and that is enough.
Yeah, yeah, and you're an adopted trad in the Families. We all know about
your "initiations".


If you don't agree with this than you not only
question the first Wiccan of any tradition...but also every witch out
there that is solitary
Wiccan. I was never an Alexandrian or a Gardnerian....I don't follow in
those trads.
I'm not questioning other Wiccans, at all. I'm questioning a proven liar
about yet *another* claim to status.
Post by Jani
****none are conflicting. Heyoka..or sacred clown is what I am. Core
shamanism is something I referred to when I talked about
ravening...and
Post by Jani
how my way has nothing to do with cultural specific shamanism.
I was being
labeled as one that is culturally theiving and I had to express that many
of these practises are within core shamanism. I never said I was taught by
any core shamanism teachers. I have both human and spiritual teachers as
many shaman tend to do...and I have NEVER claimed that I was taught by
Natives in any native tradition.
You stated specifically that you had "spirit teachers" who were part of a
Native tradition in your area.
*****No. I stated that they were spirit teachers..who happen to dwell in a
range that sees Raven as a trickster. They are not native persons..but
spirits of this area. Have you never heard of spirits of place?
Have you actually *read* what you wrote, below?
Post by Jani
" I'm not a native person nor did native *people*
teach me this. There are far more native cultures on the Northwest coast
however than what you speak of. Raven is a cultural trickster of many
people on this coast. Since my teachers, being spirits of this area,..have
called it Raven due to the area I live in ...that is what I use. "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=native+teachers+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030326105241.2451I-100000%40vtn1&rnum=3
Post by Jani
Since no-one else has ever heard of "ravening", I suppose mysterious Native
spirit teachers are a pretty safe bet, from your point of view.
****I can't help what my spiritual teachers call something. I have already
shown that it bears a close resemblance to mirroring in core shamanism
however.
No, you've shown it bears a close resemblance to telling lies.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a theosophist
***which I am. One only has to write to the society and ask if I am on the
rolls.
Do you consider enrollment in medical school to be the same as being a
qualified surgeon?
****Never said I was a specialist. However I AM a theosophist as my
enrollment states. Why do you twist my words to your own assumptions?
You are equating "being on the rolls" with "being a theosophist". Again, is
"being on the rolls" of a medical school the same as being a qualified
practitioner? And if not, is it not deceitful to pretend that it is?
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
She claimed to be undertaking a formal course of study in theosophy,
described herself several times as a theosophist, but was unable
to
Post by Jani
engage
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
in any substantive discussion on the topic beyond some vague
references to
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
the life of Blavatsky.
****I was not under the impression that I was supposed to engage in a
discussion on this. And when the slanders and libels against Blavatsky
started...there was no point.
As I recall, you were simply asked to offer a personal critique of
Blavatsky, since you said you had read her works, and instead you googled
and posted a series of URLs.
*****and I believe that I did. I believed however that someone with a
better grasp of it should speak instead.
In other words, someone who had actually read and understood the books.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and was actually referring to some sort of unstructured newage
transcendentalism.
****what is new age? is it going from person to person gathering bits of
knowledge and using them in one mish mosh of a path?
Now seeing that many native medicine folk go from tribe to tribe gathering
bits of knowledge to use within their path (from differing cultures)...is
a normal thing to do...do we consider them new age persons?
Native people brought up in a specific tribal culture already have a solid
foundation in their own path. They don't start from nothing and skim off
bits and pieces from other ways and paths to create a superficial
hotch-potch, then present it as superior to all the cultures they've stolen
from.
Post by Jani
******I have to the first line? I don't believe I have said that
witchcraft is the religion of witches.
***ah..then I reread..and I did say this! Well my learning does continue
to change and grow...so good for me.
And while you are still learning *the basics*, you have no business setting
yourself up as a mentor to others. Otherwise, you are in danger of passing
false information, presented as fact, to those who assume you know what
you're talking about. Why do you think elders - genuine ones - have *long*
passed the stage of such basic errors before they are even considered for
elderhood?
Post by Jani
" if You don't think it's a religion then you have not done your
homework. Witchcraft is the religion of Witches. Wicca is the religion of
Wiccans. "
*****I don't see it as a religion really. Religion is something that
re-ligates..or connects you to something larger or more.
And you have some etymological source for this derivation, of course ...?

To me it is a
craft...not a religion. Wicca is the religion of Wiccan witches? ofcourse.
My thinking of this continues to grow and morph as I continue to form new
concepts. I don't always just make a point and stick by it till the ends
of time..nor do I just swallow everything from a scholar or book.....mine
is an active seeking of truth. My beliefs can change often..this is how I
grow.
No-one has ever asked you to "swallow everything from a scholar or book".
You *have* been asked, repeatedly, to look at texts which are relevant to
various of your assertions, or to listen to those with more experience,
which you refuse to do on some specious grounds that actually learning about
a subject is "elitism". And if you know that you are totally inconsistent as
regards your knowledge and beliefs, then don't set yourself up as a mentor
to others until you *do* have something valid and consistent to offer them.
http://www.google.com/groups?q=witchcraft+religion+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bd206c0%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=1
Post by Jani
Satanists can practise witchcraft
to be certain..but my onus was on the concept that witch...meant "wise"
and that embracing matter over spirit does not seem wise "to me". It had
nothing to do with what others think...but my own belief. Which from what
I hear..we are all allowed to have.
"Since witch means wise..you
cannot be a Satanist witch..no matter what you are told."
http://www.google.com/groups?q=christian+satanist+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3c2e7a20%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=12
Post by Jani
That doesn't sound like allowing people to have their own beliefs. That
sounds like "Brenda's" dogma, which supersedes everything, "no matter what
you are told".
****did you see the part about "my belief" ? I have no problem with others
thinking how they like. I was asked what "I" think...not what the
consensus is. Does your opinion that "chocolate" for instance is the
best...mean that you are disallowing others to have their own beliefs?
If you add the rider "no matter what you are told" then that does indeed
preclude anyone having a conflicting opinion on the matter. Your comment
states that no matter what the christian bible, Anton leVay, or any of the
many Satanist paths might say, you cannot be a Satanist witch because BRENDA
KENT SAYS SO.

If that isn't a perfect example of your intransigent arrogance, I don't know
what is.
Post by Jani
You use this example rather a lot. I find it very telling that you consider
it "kind" to let a friend go out looking "like a dog's dinner" and be
laughed at by the general public, rather than be tactfully honest and save
her the embarrassment. And yet you constantly cite this as an example of a
lie which is not only justifiable, but actively kind.
*****again..you twist my words. If someone I knew WAS going to be laughed
at by the general public..and I knew this...I most assuredly would let her
know. However I don't tell someone that they look like crap if I am most
likely the only one to think this way. There ARE degrees of this Jani.
Why do you insist on extremes?
You are the one who dredges up this example again and again, with no caveat
that "I might tell a lie or again I might not". As usual, you make flat-out
statements and then tweak them when they are shown to be unacceptable.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
This was not the case here. The whole concept of using "deliberate
untruths"
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
was hastily cobbled together later, once it became clear that
habitual
Post by Jani
lying
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and flat denials of such lies would not go unchallenged.
****and you know this by How?
By the simple fact that "ravening", "mirroring", "sacred-clowning" and all
the rest of the backpedaling only came into play when "I never said that, I
never heard of them, she's making it up" didn't work.
****this still does not prove anything but your own opinion
No, it's proved by your own archived posts.

and what you
may have done in the same circumstance. Since others seem to see in others
what they could easily see in themselves.
Leaving aside for the moment that I don't tell barefaced lies and then
pretend I don't even remember them, this is not about any hypothetical
question of what I "might" do, this is about what you actually DID. Trying
to pass it off as yet another fake "mirroring" will not get you very far.
Post by Jani
****I have not insulted anyone from various pagan paths. No one has come
to me to tell me that I have insulted them or thier path...no one.
Actually, a lot of people have said that you have insulted them, but since
you have such a long list of "people you don't read", perhaps you've managed
to avoid them.
****No. None have actually. I have gotten lots of insult from others that
you approve of...Cuddles, and many more...and that you have no problem
with however no one has said to me that I have personally insulted them.
They have not said so when I was reading them
constantly...and they most likely still don't as I have not talked to them
much. I have yet to see someone who said that I had insulted them...and
that it was proven that I intended to do so.
I believe Tuesday was the most recent, and there is a long line of people
before that. Some of whom you have replied to, before you killfiled them
when they wouldn't accept your piling more lies upon the original ones.
Post by Jani
I have
only Jani constantly telling me that I have insulted Cornish witches of
her acquaintance...which could or could not be true..
Are you saying that everyone who has objected is actually me, posting under
another name?
****no one has told me that I insulted them. Where are these names? where
is the proof that I had the intent to insult them? Where is the proof that
anyones thoughts of my insulting them...was not in fact misunderstandings
on their part?
Ah, I was wondering when the "misunderstandings" would be trotted out.
"Brenda Kent" can say whatever she likes, and if anyone should object - why,
they "misunderstood". They thought "I am adopted" or "witchcraft is a
religion" or "I am an elder" actually MEANT "I am adopted" or "witchcraft is
a religion" or "I am an elder". How very silly of them.
Post by Jani
.because I dared to
use the term "Cornish Witch" as if my claiming a lover to be named Darryl
would be insulting all men named Darryl.
No-one has mentioned "using the term Cornish witch". Except you, just now,
in another attempt to obfuscate.
*****How am I insulting specific Cornish witches by using the term Cornish
witch? do you get insulted by someone saying that Jani is a ______ when
they may be talking about some other Jani?
I have never said *anything* about "using the term Cornish witch". "I am
adopted in a Cornish family" does not use the term "Cornish witch", does it?
Post by Jani
This makes little sense. No one
of a Wiccan clery has ever contacted me about insulting them...nor could
show me where I have insulted them yet.
Why on earth should they contact you?
*****to tell me how insulted they are ofcourse. If this indeed was such a
terrible thing...I am sure I would have heard of it from all of their
collective mouths...stating which was an insult..and why it was...and then
stating that I intended to insult..by what proof?
Perhaps if you thought a little harder about it, you would realise why so
many people ignore your posts, or reply only with contempt.

Jani
t_naismith
2003-11-30 11:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
***Since one does not know me..or how I work..or
how sacred clowns work.....since no one knows my reasons...but only
guesses at them..to be later considered lies....they cannot make a
factual statement as to my character..but can only offer opinion.
You tell lies, and try to pretend you haven't by accusing others of lying
about you. That says volumes about your "character". Inventing
pseudo-rationalisations later to excuse your habitual lying says even more
about it.
You tell everyone that you don't say what you mean, or mean what
you say, that you tell deliberate untruths whenever it suits you, and then
you say *others* twist your words?
****no one has told me that I insulted them. Where are these names? where
is the proof that I had the intent to insult them? Where is the proof that
anyones thoughts of my insulting them...was not in fact
misunderstandings
Post by Jani
on their part?
Ah, I was wondering when the "misunderstandings" would be trotted out.
"Brenda Kent" can say whatever she likes, and if anyone should object - why,
they "misunderstood". They thought "I am adopted" or "witchcraft is a
religion" or "I am an elder" actually MEANT "I am adopted" or "witchcraft is
a religion" or "I am an elder". How very silly of them.
That has been Br***a's pattern of lying, spread out over many
threads and many more posts. It's how she deludes herself and
tries to fake-out others who see only the surface reflections of her
lies, glittering.
Post by Jani
[...]
*****to tell me how insulted they are ofcourse. If this indeed was such a
terrible thing...I am sure I would have heard of it from all of their
collective mouths...stating which was an insult..and why it was...and then
stating that I intended to insult..by what proof?
Perhaps if you thought a little harder about it, you would realise why so
many people ignore your posts, or reply only with contempt.
Jani
Zsarnok
2003-11-30 17:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
" ***** Okay another little beginner trying to tell an elder her work.
Sigh...where do these youngins come from?
I think it is great that you are learning but drop the attitude and the
"I know something now...my shit don't stink". You assume that I am some
little gothed up teen learning her stuff when I have been doing this for
a
Post by Jani
long time."
http://www.google.com/groups?q=gothed+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bdb7b5b%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=1
***yes..the young woman came to me and started in with the insults...as
she followed the crowd.
There was no "crowd". I don't think anyone knew Brigi outside of her few
posts to the ng, and she was having a perfectly civilised discussion with
everyone else about men's and women's groups within paganism.
I was tired of those that come on a
newsgroup...having only a few years of witchcraft behind them..and think
that they should cop an attitude and tell someone older than her..and more
learned about witchcraft ..what to think.
You told her that "witch" was derived from "wicca" - something she wouldn't
be expected to know, since she'd said already that she was Celtic pagan, not
wiccan - and then refused to give her any historical or etymological source
for that assertion, when she asked. No wonder she thought you were talking
nonsense.
I have no problem with polite
conversation..or someone saying "perhaps..or maybe". Infact my own coven
mates were younger than I and I encouraged them to not just sit there and
accept everything I said...but to challenge it if they can. There is a
difference however...in being snotty...and calling down someone..and
asking questions and challenging someones knowledge.
You made a flat-out statement about the derivation of a word and then
refused to support it. Is that how you taught your students to "challenge" -
making unsupported statements and sneering at them as "beginners" when they
asked for evidence?
No! Students???? She has students? Gads, the poor things. (Zs)
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
" ***** I learn from many things and many persons. You need to learn
yourself and to drop the attitude.
I am an elder as I have been doing this for some time..not just
Wicca,Witchcraft but the techniques of Shamanism,Taoism,And the lessons
of
Post by Jani
the Good folk which I commune with on an ongoing basis. I do not just
read
Post by Jani
a book and think I know it all. I find that a case of too many of you
beginners.
Prove that I am a liar.
Witchcraft is a religion and a craft.
Brenda "
****for some it can be. However after working it through...I have decided
that Wicca is indeed a religion and witchcraft is a craft.
Which, as Talesin pointed out at the time, was a pretty basic concept that
people who *did* know what they were talking about had been trying to get
across to you for weeks.
Hasn't she worked this out about 5 times now?
Post by Jani
Learning is not
static...one continually learns and reforms thoughts and ideas.
Or, in your case, makes categoric statements under the pretension of "I am
an elder", "I am more learned", slams others for being beginners, and then
discovers that the so-called "beginner" knew their stuff and you didn't. I
think it's fairly obvious who needs to "drop the attitude", don't you?
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3080543062d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bdc7483%40news.victoria.tc.ca
Post by Jani
" ****** she has only been doing this for five years. I have been doing
it
Post by Jani
longer so I am an Elder to her.
I used to think the title Elder carried a certain degree of
accomplishment as well as experience with it. Apparently I was wrong. (Zs)
Post by Jani
I also may be physically her Elder as I
am
Post by Jani
40 years of age. "
***Yes? and?
http://www.google.com/groups?q=elder+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bdda780%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=1
Post by Jani
(note the MAY, which was an afterthought, NOT the original meaning
intended.)
****may due to her attitude which came off as someone very young to me.
You said several times afterwards when your claims were challenged that
"elder" only meant "chronologically older". And yet here, it's very clear
that being "chronologically older" was not what you meant, except as
something that occurred to you *after* you had defined "elder" in terms of
experience and learning, *not* chronological age. "I'm an elder because I
know a lot about witchcraft, wicca, taoism, yada yada - oh yes, and I might
be older than her as well".
Ah, another bout of ravening.
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Brenda has said she used to be a Wiccan HPS at one time, and later
left
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
both that position and Wicca. As a result, she could well have been
a
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
"pagan elder" at one time, yet not at a later time.
****Yes I was a Wiccan HPS...yes I did leave that position and Wicca
later. I was only an elder in terms of age to my coven mates...and am
an
Post by Jani
elder to others..in terms of age ofcourse. Again the label of elder
varies
Post by Jani
within each tradition if used in that way. A conversation between
myself
Post by Jani
and my priestess (not high priestess..but personal priestess)
"P"....oh
Post by Jani
_______ I didn't know that you were an elder....are you? Brenda: "Well
I
Post by Jani
am not an elder as in the lineaged or degreed trads...but If one wants
to
Post by Jani
call me an elder due to my age difference...or knowledge...then so be
it."
Post by Jani
No-one was calling you an elder. You were claiming the title yourself,
and
Post by Jani
quite clearly not in the context of chronological age.
*****Yes as I was considered this by my own coven mates.
It's very strange that no-else has mentioned *any* pagan path or tradition
in which "elder" has no other connotation except chronological age. In fact,
the two are quite often at variance. If I say "X is an elder" that is not
the same as "X is older than the rest of us". X might well be physically
younger, in fact. But since your "coven mates" didn't know anything about
Wicca, I can quite see why you would let them go on thinking that "Brenda is
older" is synonymous with "Brenda is an elder". A neat way of - again! -
proclaiming a status and title to which you are not entitled.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be
false")?
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
She was asked later if she had made the claim, and if it was an
outright
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
lie, and conceded that it was. This, however, was after months of
pretending
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
she had no memory of such a claim, that the families in question
did
Post by Jani
not
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
exist, and various other obfuscations.
****I never said it was a lie...
" > Q.: Did you claim to be a member of or invited guest of a
Cornish Family/Trad?
***Yes
Q: Were you?
*** NO "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=trad+cat+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030527195613.20773B-100000%40vtn1&rnum=1
*****and? it is a ravening.
You can call it whatever you please, but what it *is*, is a lie.
Post by Jani
I said it was a ravening. I could not have
done this ravening without claiming such...as that is what is required
in
Post by Jani
the teaching. The family that I spoke of ofcourse does not exist as I
created them. If one cannot understand what I am doing...how is it
therefore conclusive that I was lieing?
What you were doing was telling a barefaced lie about being adopted in a
Cornish family tradition, with no assertion at the time that this was
anything but a categoric statement of fact, and then later pretending
you
Post by Jani
had never even heard of such a trad.
*****When one ravens..one can do it this way or many other ways. There is
no rule against it in my path. You call it a bareface lie...so be it. It
is not to myself. Pretending? My "kind" of tradition that I was ravening
about...was what you were talking about. No...I had never heard of it
before. Your kind of trad.....YES I have heard of it. How else would I
have known which to use to teach?
So you had indeed heard of the Cornish families, and knew exactly *what* you
were lying about. If you were aware of that, how odd that you complain about
such a lie following you and colouring every other claim that you try to
make. What else did you expect?
Post by Jani
" *** you obviously have not read my posts thoroughly. I have lived in
Post by Raven
Cornwall for one year..been adopted into the family and have seen it
in
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
action. My teacher brought me over to have this experience. I did. I
learned and then came home as I could not stay longer. After
following
Post by Jani
for
Post by Raven
awhile...my own beliefs and meditiations brought be to the Arthurian
Fae
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
tradition.
***** Adoption is permanent. I never said that I am not part of the
family
Post by Jani
anymore..but my own way..that they deem important to follow was pressing
and it was time to go in that direction. This was thought out with
counsel
Post by Jani
and preparation. I can go back and be accepted within any time I wish.
You sure do assume a lot.
*****Yes? ravening.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
***** as I do as well. Namely the family I was adopted into and their
wisdom.
***Yes? more ravening.
Post by Jani
**** sorry...I am adopted. Why do you deem yourself the one that knows
all
Post by Jani
sees all and controls all? "
****again more ravening.
Again, a pack of lies, reiterated over and over in the hope that presenting
yourself as lineaged would regain some of the respect you'd lost by your
other fake claims.
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3613185994d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3be388a1%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=218
Post by Jani
" >Your so-called Ravening, of which concept we have different
understandings,
you admit a deception relating to Cornish Trads.
The Traditions are the Families, invoking them in your deception is an
abuse.
***NO I did not invoke them in a deception...I know NO Cornish Trads. I
never admitted this. Which Cornish Trads? I spoke of Pelloys to
teach....obviously...according to Jani..there is no such thing...I never
invoked any Trad. "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2870829851d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3de4636d%40news.victoria.tc.ca
****all of a part of ravening.
No, the first of your attempts to cover your tracks by saying "I never said
that, Jani is lying" - a tack which didn't work, since everyone is capable
of reading your archived posts for themselves.
How many times has she done this so far? (Zs)
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
That *sounds* conclusive... so would you please cite the message-ID?
After much Googling, all I've found is a bunch of go-arounds about
how
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
she had not named the specific family into which she was "adopted"
for
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
a year's stay. I'm not even clear how this corresponds to "lineaged
trad"
Post by Raven
in the sense of any Wiccan tradition, or whether Wicca was even
involved.
As I said, it was nothing to do with Wicca.
Post by Raven
Some reference was made to "Ravening", which I trust does not refer
to
Post by Jani
any
Post by Raven
practice of mine, but which I suspect might refer to a certain
BlackBane.
****no not at all. I don't know any Blackbane. Ravening is a term my
teachers use that bears a close connection to shamanic "mirroring".
" >>>> Ok, what is the difference between ravening - which seems to be a
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
deliberate telling of untruth without any caveat - and lying?
****Lying is for no other reason than to tell a falsehood to cover
your own backside...Ravening is a teaching method taught to me by my
spiritual teachers to help someone to see themselves reflected back.
Does it include the deliberate telling of untruth?
*****it can...but so does acting...and do people see that as lying?
Or is there different catagories of this?
Acting that is known to be acting requires a suspension of disbelief -
not
Post by Jani
lying. "
Not to mention you have to turn on a set, or buy a ticket, etc., so you
know what you are seeing (or hearing) is a performance. Sheesh. (Zs)
Post by Jani
****and acting that is not known to be acting? as in practical
jokes...impromptu street theatre etc.
And does the street player come to you later and say "I never said that, I
was not there, you are lying about me"? I think not.
There's a punchline to a practical joke that flows from the setup.
Nobody circles around street theater and claps because they think they
are being lied to. You're straining so hard for some respectable claim
you're gonna get a hernia. (Zs)
Post by Jani
http://www.google.com/groups?q=lying+teaching+group:alt.pagan+author:janet&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bjo7tb%24lhf3c%241%40ID-176608.news.uni-berlin.de&rnum=2
Post by Jani
Since I had not claimed to be a member of any trad, nor dismissed
Llewellyn
Post by Jani
books (that was Psyche) nor been rude and condescending to a newbie
(that
Post by Jani
was you) then you were not "mirroring" anything. You were, as usual,
annoyed
Post by Jani
that your attempts to appear superior were not being taken seriously by
several people who actually knew more than you did.
***No. I will react with anger when someone is being snotty and rude to
myself at times...as was the newbie.
She asked you to provide evidence for your assertions. You refused. She was
more knowledgable than you about the difference between religion and craft.
You reacted by pretending that your knowledge was superior "because I am an
elder". *You* were snotty and rude, not Brigi. And moreover, she was quite
honest about her status in the craft - five years' experience - whereas you
lied.
Hello Brigi, sorry you ran into Bren. Really sorry. (Zs)
Post by Jani
It is a rarity though. I have not
made one attempt to
appear superior in any way.
You were doing it only a few days ago, telling christians that they "don't
understand" their own God, but they "will eventually".
'Elder'
Post by Jani
Since one does not know me..or how I work..or
how sacred clowns work.....since no one knows my reasons...but only
guesses at them..to be later considered lies....they cannot make a
factual statement as to my character..but can only offer opinion.
When based solely on your actions, your words, your presentation of
yourself, an opion of your character is often accurate. You lie, you
posture, you instigate conflict. (Zs)
Post by Jani
You tell lies, and try to pretend you haven't by accusing others of lying
about you. That says volumes about your "character". Inventing
pseudo-rationalisations later to excuse your habitual lying says even more
about it.
Now if she claimed to be a celtic knot ....
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
This was nothing to do with Wicca, it was a claim to initiation by
adoption in a particular family tradition in Britain.
****it had nothing to do with any trads anyone else knows. I simply
used
Post by Jani
Cornish trad...because Jani is very impressed by lineage and
tradition...and using this would set the stage for a good ravening.
I'm not "impressed" by claims of lineage, I simply have great respect
for
Post by Jani
those in *all* paths who have put in years of work, study, training and
commitment, and deserve whatever formal recognition they have gained as
a
Post by Jani
result. I don't have respect for people who treat that level of
commitment
Post by Jani
with contempt, just to try and make themselves appear superior.
***Yes you seem to be Jani. You reacted to my opinion that lineage does
not make one superior magickally to anyone else with a twisted "so you
think these folks are impotent huh?" which was never at all my point..but
you tend to twist my words constantly.
You lie so hard your tongue must be about to fall out. (Zs)
Post by Jani
Oh, please. You tell eve yone that you don't say what you mean, or mean what
you say, that you tell deliberate untruths whenever it suits you, and then
you say *others* twist your words?
You have shown a reaction to
lineage and scholars and tradition....that borders on elitism. I am not
the first to mention this.
So you were ravening to get Jani's respect? (Zs)
Post by Jani
How is it "elitist" to have respect for people who have studied, worked, and
gained a breadth of knowledge in their subject? I've said several times that
such knowledge does not automatically mean they have academic degrees, or
formal qualifications of any kind. But they know their stuff - as opposed to
those who know very little, and call those who *have* put the work in,
elitist.
You even said that you would not use the term
witch to describe yourself if persons like myself used it. You DO have a
"better than" mindset and you know it.
Self-respect that has been earned, as well as earned respect from
others, is in no way near to being elitism. (Zs)
Post by Jani
I don't use "witch" for various reasons, but certainly one of them is that
it has gone from the medieval descriptor to signifying silly women
pretending to be priestesses to gain social kudos. And I would like to know
how on earth I can have a "better than mindset" when I have repeatedly
pointed out how much more knowledgeable others are than I, and that I don't
pretend to be anywhere near their level.
I think she wishes she was you Jani. Now that she's faced with her own
inadequacies, she's become hostile towards these unrealizable
aspirations, and of course it must be someone else's fault. Sad,
really, if she weren't vindictive as well. (Zs)
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
****Well this I was not in any lineage..and only working within Wicca
many
Post by Jani
years ago...and since I had had many more years of training in Wicca
than
Post by Jani
my coven members...they claimed me as their HPS.
So you actually had no formal status as HPS, and simply took over a
bunch of
Post by Jani
people who didn't know much about Wicca. And then, even though you had
no
Post by Jani
lineage yourself and were not initiated, you took it upon yourself to
initiate *them*.
****formal status? we did not work in the structure that you believe a
Wiccan must. Who said I was not initiated? I was indeed initiated by the
Gods....and that is enough.
Yeah, yeah, and you're an adopted trad in the Families. We all know about
your "initiations".
If you don't agree with this than you not only
question the first Wiccan of any tradition...but also every witch out
there that is solitary
Wiccan. I was never an Alexandrian or a Gardnerian....I don't follow in
those trads.
I'm not questioning other Wiccans, at all. I'm questioning a proven liar
about yet *another* claim to status.
Post by Jani
****none are conflicting. Heyoka..or sacred clown is what I am. Core
shamanism is something I referred to when I talked about
ravening...and
Post by Jani
how my way has nothing to do with cultural specific shamanism.
I was being
labeled as one that is culturally theiving and I had to express that
many
Post by Jani
of these practises are within core shamanism. I never said I was
taught by
Post by Jani
any core shamanism teachers. I have both human and spiritual teachers
as
Post by Jani
many shaman tend to do...and I have NEVER claimed that I was taught by
Natives in any native tradition.
You stated specifically that you had "spirit teachers" who were part of
a
Post by Jani
Native tradition in your area.
*****No. I stated that they were spirit teachers..who happen to dwell in a
range that sees Raven as a trickster. They are not native persons..but
spirits of this area. Have you never heard of spirits of place?
Have you actually *read* what you wrote, below?
Post by Jani
" I'm not a native person nor did native *people*
teach me this. There are far more native cultures on the Northwest coast
however than what you speak of. Raven is a cultural trickster of many
people on this coast. Since my teachers, being spirits of this
area,..have
Post by Jani
called it Raven due to the area I live in ...that is what I use. "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=native+teachers+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030326105241.2451I-100000%40vtn1&rnum=3
Post by Jani
Since no-one else has ever heard of "ravening", I suppose mysterious
Native
Post by Jani
spirit teachers are a pretty safe bet, from your point of view.
****I can't help what my spiritual teachers call something. I have already
shown that it bears a close resemblance to mirroring in core shamanism
however.
No, you've shown it bears a close resemblance to telling lies.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a theosophist
***which I am. One only has to write to the society and ask if I am on
the
Post by Jani
rolls.
Do you consider enrollment in medical school to be the same as being a
qualified surgeon?
****Never said I was a specialist. However I AM a theosophist as my
enrollment states. Why do you twist my words to your own assumptions?
You are equating "being on the rolls" with "being a theosophist". Again, is
"being on the rolls" of a medical school the same as being a qualified
practitioner? And if not, is it not deceitful to pretend that it is?
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
She claimed to be undertaking a formal course of study in
theosophy,
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
described herself several times as a theosophist, but was unable
to
Post by Jani
engage
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
in any substantive discussion on the topic beyond some vague
references to
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
the life of Blavatsky.
****I was not under the impression that I was supposed to engage in a
discussion on this. And when the slanders and libels against Blavatsky
started...there was no point.
As I recall, you were simply asked to offer a personal critique of
Blavatsky, since you said you had read her works, and instead you
googled
Post by Jani
and posted a series of URLs.
*****and I believe that I did. I believed however that someone with a
better grasp of it should speak instead.
In other words, someone who had actually read and understood the books.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and was actually referring to some sort of unstructured newage
transcendentalism.
****what is new age? is it going from person to person gathering bits of
knowledge and using them in one mish mosh of a path?
Now seeing that many native medicine folk go from tribe to tribe gathering
bits of knowledge to use within their path (from differing cultures)...is
a normal thing to do...do we consider them new age persons?
Native people brought up in a specific tribal culture already have a solid
foundation in their own path. They don't start from nothing and skim off
bits and pieces from other ways and paths to create a superficial
hotch-potch, then present it as superior to all the cultures they've stolen
from.
Post by Jani
******I have to the first line? I don't believe I have said that
witchcraft is the religion of witches.
***ah..then I reread..and I did say this! Well my learning does continue
to change and grow...so good for me.
And while you are still learning *the basics*, you have no business setting
yourself up as a mentor to others. Otherwise, you are in danger of passing
false information, presented as fact, to those who assume you know what
you're talking about. Why do you think elders - genuine ones - have *long*
passed the stage of such basic errors before they are even considered for
elderhood?
Post by Jani
" if You don't think it's a religion then you have not done your
homework. Witchcraft is the religion of Witches. Wicca is the religion
of
Post by Jani
Wiccans. "
*****I don't see it as a religion really. Religion is something that
re-ligates..or connects you to something larger or more.
And you have some etymological source for this derivation, of course ...?
To me it is a
craft...not a religion. Wicca is the religion of Wiccan witches? ofcourse.
My thinking of this continues to grow and morph as I continue to form new
concepts. I don't always just make a point and stick by it till the ends
of time..nor do I just swallow everything from a scholar or book.....mine
is an active seeking of truth. My beliefs can change often..this is how I
grow.
No-one has ever asked you to "swallow everything from a scholar or book".
You *have* been asked, repeatedly, to look at texts which are relevant to
various of your assertions, or to listen to those with more experience,
which you refuse to do on some specious grounds that actually learning about
a subject is "elitism". And if you know that you are totally inconsistent as
regards your knowledge and beliefs, then don't set yourself up as a mentor
to others until you *do* have something valid and consistent to offer them.
http://www.google.com/groups?q=witchcraft+religion+group:alt.pagan+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3bd206c0%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=1
Post by Jani
Satanists can practise witchcraft
to be certain..but my onus was on the concept that witch...meant
"wise"
Post by Jani
and that embracing matter over spirit does not seem wise "to me". It
had
Post by Jani
nothing to do with what others think...but my own belief. Which from
what
Post by Jani
I hear..we are all allowed to have.
"Since witch means wise..you
cannot be a Satanist witch..no matter what you are told."
http://www.google.com/groups?q=christian+satanist+author:brenda+author:g+author:tataryn&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3c2e7a20%40news.victoria.tc.ca&rnum=12
Post by Jani
That doesn't sound like allowing people to have their own beliefs. That
sounds like "Brenda's" dogma, which supersedes everything, "no matter
what
Post by Jani
you are told".
****did you see the part about "my belief" ? I have no problem with others
thinking how they like. I was asked what "I" think...not what the
consensus is. Does your opinion that "chocolate" for instance is the
best...mean that you are disallowing others to have their own beliefs?
If you add the rider "no matter what you are told" then that does indeed
preclude anyone having a conflicting opinion on the matter. Your comment
states that no matter what the christian bible, Anton leVay, or any of the
many Satanist paths might say, you cannot be a Satanist witch because BRENDA
KENT SAYS SO.
If that isn't a perfect example of your intransigent arrogance, I don't know
what is.
Post by Jani
You use this example rather a lot. I find it very telling that you
consider
Post by Jani
it "kind" to let a friend go out looking "like a dog's dinner" and be
laughed at by the general public, rather than be tactfully honest and
save
Post by Jani
her the embarrassment. And yet you constantly cite this as an example of
a
Post by Jani
lie which is not only justifiable, but actively kind.
*****again..you twist my words. If someone I knew WAS going to be laughed
at by the general public..and I knew this...I most assuredly would let her
know. However I don't tell someone that they look like crap if I am most
likely the only one to think this way. There ARE degrees of this Jani.
Why do you insist on extremes?
You are the one who dredges up this example again and again, with no caveat
that "I might tell a lie or again I might not". As usual, you make flat-out
statements and then tweak them when they are shown to be unacceptable.
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
This was not the case here. The whole concept of using "deliberate
untruths"
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
was hastily cobbled together later, once it became clear that
habitual
Post by Jani
lying
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and flat denials of such lies would not go unchallenged.
****and you know this by How?
By the simple fact that "ravening", "mirroring", "sacred-clowning" and
all
Post by Jani
the rest of the backpedaling only came into play when "I never said
that, I
never heard of them, she's making it up" didn't work.
****this still does not prove anything but your own opinion
No, it's proved by your own archived posts.
and what you
may have done in the same circumstance. Since others seem to see in others
what they could easily see in themselves.
Leaving aside for the moment that I don't tell barefaced lies and then
pretend I don't even remember them, this is not about any hypothetical
question of what I "might" do, this is about what you actually DID. Trying
to pass it off as yet another fake "mirroring" will not get you very far.
Post by Jani
****I have not insulted anyone from various pagan paths. No one has
come
Post by Jani
to me to tell me that I have insulted them or thier path...no one.
Actually, a lot of people have said that you have insulted them, but
since
Post by Jani
you have such a long list of "people you don't read", perhaps you've
managed
to avoid them.
****No. None have actually. I have gotten lots of insult from others that
you approve of...Cuddles, and many more...and that you have no problem
with however no one has said to me that I have personally insulted them.
They have not said so when I was reading them
constantly...and they most likely still don't as I have not talked to them
much. I have yet to see someone who said that I had insulted them...and
that it was proven that I intended to do so.
I believe Tuesday was the most recent, and there is a long line of people
before that. Some of whom you have replied to, before you killfiled them
when they wouldn't accept your piling more lies upon the original ones.
Thinking people are dumb enough to fall for your lies is insulting.
It's secondary to the stupid games you play, but it counts. (Zs)
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
I have
only Jani constantly telling me that I have insulted Cornish witches
of
Post by Jani
her acquaintance...which could or could not be true..
Now that is a great big lie. GREAT BIG. So many people jumped all over
you for that lie you would have had to have KF'd the entire group you
were posting to to say you didn't read any of it. (Zs)
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
Are you saying that everyone who has objected is actually me, posting
under
Post by Jani
another name?
****no one has told me that I insulted them. Where are these names? where
is the proof that I had the intent to insult them? Where is the proof that
anyones thoughts of my insulting them...was not in fact misunderstandings
on their part?
Ah, I was wondering when the "misunderstandings" would be trotted out.
"Brenda Kent" can say whatever she likes, and if anyone should object - why,
they "misunderstood". They thought "I am adopted" or "witchcraft is a
religion" or "I am an elder" actually MEANT "I am adopted" or "witchcraft is
a religion" or "I am an elder". How very silly of them.
I wonder if she's Ballard's long-lost twin. So determinedly dense. (Zs)
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
.because I dared to
use the term "Cornish Witch" as if my claiming a lover to be named
Darryl
Post by Jani
would be insulting all men named Darryl.
No-one has mentioned "using the term Cornish witch". Except you, just
now,
Post by Jani
in another attempt to obfuscate.
*****How am I insulting specific Cornish witches by using the term Cornish
witch? do you get insulted by someone saying that Jani is a ______ when
they may be talking about some other Jani?
I have never said *anything* about "using the term Cornish witch". "I am
adopted in a Cornish family" does not use the term "Cornish witch", does it?
Post by Jani
This makes little sense. No one
of a Wiccan clery has ever contacted me about insulting them...nor
could
Post by Jani
show me where I have insulted them yet.
Why on earth should they contact you?
*****to tell me how insulted they are ofcourse. If this indeed was such a
terrible thing...I am sure I would have heard of it from all of their
collective mouths...stating which was an insult..and why it was...and then
stating that I intended to insult..by what proof?
Perhaps if you thought a little harder about it, you would realise why so
many people ignore your posts, or reply only with contempt.
Jani
I wonder if these formal complaints would need to be delivered on heavy
cardstock with gilt.

Zsarnok
Raven
2003-12-01 05:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Snipping much, in order to address just a few points.
-snip-
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
How was this "shown to be false" (not simply "alleged to be false")?
She was asked later if she had made the claim, and if it was an
outright lie, and conceded that it was. This, however, was after
months of pretending she had no memory of such a claim, that the
families in question did not exist, and various other obfuscations.
****I never said it was a lie...
"Q.: Did you claim to be a member of or invited guest of a
Cornish Family/Trad?
***Yes
Q: Were you?
*** NO "
http://www.google.com/groups?q=trad+cat+group:alt.pagan
+author:brenda+author:g+author:kent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030527195613.20773B-100000%40vtn1&rnum=1

Hint: for shorter links, omit all parameters after the "?" except "selm=....":

<http://www.google.com/groups?
selm=Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030527195613.20773B-100000%40vtn1>

Reading in Google, any message-ID preceded by "news:" also becomes a link:

<news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1030527195613.20773B-***@vtn1>

Brenda does admit she affirmed what now she denies.

However, she still asserts that this was not a lie, but a "ravening",
apparently meaning "playing a trick upon another to teach something".

I am not familiar with this usage of "ravening". To me, as to the
dictionaries I checked, "ravening" is a "ravenous" behavior -- like
the ferocious attack of a hungry animal. Whether Brenda originated
her usage or learned it from others, it appears to be an idiosyncratic
and non-standard usage, which creates the likelihood of misunderstanding
when it is used in discussions with those not familiar with her usage.

In my own usage, and again I think this is the general usage, "lie"
means making a false statement with the intention that it be believed true
(as opposed to "fiction", a false narrative *not* intended to be believed).

"Lie" can even extend to a statement asserted to be true, when in fact
the speaker does not know whether it is true or false. (In law, this
is covered under the heading of "false pretenses".)

At this point, and pending further knowledge, Brenda's claim to have been
"a member of or invited guest of a Cornish Family/Trad", which she admitted
having made, but later denied, appears to have been a lie.

It is just barely possible that the initial claim was true and the denial
was false... but then there would still be a lie involved.

Point to Jani.

-snip-
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
a theosophist
***which I am. One only has to write to the society and
ask if I am on the rolls.
Do you consider enrollment in medical school to be the same
as being a qualified surgeon?
Poor analogy. Being enrolled in medical school doesn't make one
a qualified surgeon; but being enrolled in the Theosophical Society
*does* make one a Theosophist. No course completion is required.

<http://www.theosophical.org/society/intro/index.html>
<http://www.theosophical.org/society/membership/index.html>

Whether Brenda is in fact a member has not been proven true or false,
but it is not implausible. Until proof either way comes to light,
she's entitled to benefit of the doubt, and presumption of innocence.

Point to Brenda.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and a christian mystic,
***never said I was...said I can understand much of it and see
similarities in my beliefs. Many times to help another understand my way
is to suggest that they consider a specific "kind" of thing, Christian
Mystic,faith healer, etc. so they can get a better understanding of what I
may be talking about. This does not mean that I claim to be this...or that
I have any specially training in such.
Reading the above leaves my head spinning.

On the one hand, Brenda has posted what seem to be clear statements
that she *is* a Christian mystic, or at least a Christian *and* a mystic.

Taking those statements at face value, again they're not implausible:
one doesn't need "special training" to be a mystic, even a Christian mystic;
there is no educational requirement; it's a statement of one's goal, not of
achievement or theological scholarship -- in fact, to the extent one is
engaged in theological scholarship (the study of others' writings), one is
*not* engaged in mysticism (seeking the *direct experience* of the divine).

On the other hand, I now have no idea whether Brenda even asserts this goal.

-snip-
Post by Raven
More generally, *I'd* define a mystic as someone who seeks direct
personal experience of, or union with, the divine.
As a general description, that fits not only Christian mystics (St.
Teresa of Avila would be another example), but also Muslim (Sufi)
mystics like Rumi, practitioners of Voudun being ridden by the loas,
or Wiccan High Priestesses "drawing down the moon". This shared goal
makes it plausible that a former Wiccan HPS might gravitate to the
mystical side of Christianity.
Yes, as a general description, "mystic" fits all of those.
"Christian Mystic" is much more specific.
It identifies the particular divinity of whom one seeks direct experience,
or with whom one seeks union. Within Christianity, it distinguishes those
who believe God *can* be so approached, from those who believe no such
direct experience or union is possible. Other than that, there's wide
variation in theological beliefs. I'd put the entire Society of Friends
(the Quakers) in the "mystic" category, simply because of their reliance
on the inner light, the indwelling spirit of God, rather than external
guides such as the Bible. Yet they are far from Eckhart's Dominican
background, even his personal version, let alone strict Catholic orthodoxy.
"Brenda" was quite specific, until asked to justify her claim.
One doesn't have to "justify a claim" of having a particular goal or
belief. Such things don't require a degree or course completion.

She has also described herself as a panentheist, which again is consistent
with mysticism -- if God is in everything, then direct experience with him
is simply a matter of becoming *aware* of him, not of long deep study in
the writings of theologians. Panentheism can sometimes be mistaken for
pantheism... and people have accused Eckhart of being a pantheist.

-snip-
Indeed, a mystic would not need to be a scholar of anything. However,
someone who claims to be "a Christian Mystic" - not a mystic, not a
Christian *and* a mystic, but a "Christian Mystic by Ekhart's definition" -
is being very specific
I addressed this above. It's not a claim of expertise, just of a goal.
and implying some level of scholarly knowledge
by the very mention of Ekhart.
No more than claiming to share Thomas Jefferson's ideal of democracy
implies scholarly knowledge of Jefferson's writings. Many people share
that ideal without having more than the "common knowledge" of some few
snippets of his most famous texts.
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
and was actually referring to some sort of unstructured newage
transcendentalism.
And Eckhart was accused of being a heretic and a pantheist. So?
So, what is your point? Ekhart was working within a pretty strict
Christian paradigm, after all.
And strayed far enough over the line that he had to retract and renounce.

His accusers didn't use the phrase "unstructured newage transcendentalism",
but their point was precisely that he *didn't* stay within their specific
"pretty strict Christian paradigm", at least not to their satisfaction.

(On the other hand, I suspect, say, the Quakers would have had no problem
with precisely those points on which he strayed from Catholic orthodoxy --
so he'd still be in the broader reach of the overall "Christian paradigm".)

-snip-
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
I do object to people who repeatedly make false claims, which then
reflect badly on those whose claims are genuine, *particularly* when
such individuals set themselves up as spiritual mentors IRL.
One term I've seen, and appreciate, is "spiritual countereits".
As in, those who have no substance?
I'm sorry, I accidentally omitted the "F" in "spiritual counterfeits".

As in, those who offer (for payment) a fake as though it were genuine.

E.g. Lynne V. Andrews & Carlos Castenada vs authentic Native American
tribal religions or "shamanism".

-snip-
janet
2003-12-01 19:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven
Snipping much, in order to address just a few points.
[]
Post by Raven
one doesn't need "special training" to be a mystic, even a Christian
mystic; there is no educational requirement; it's a statement of
one's goal, not of achievement or theological scholarship -- in fact,
to the extent one is engaged in theological scholarship (the study of
others' writings), one is *not* engaged in mysticism (seeking the
*direct experience* of the divine).
Hang on, hang on.

I disagree - rather profoundly.

Is it not possible to hear/experience the divine through the words/works of
others?

I would most certainly argue that it is.

(I couldn't care less who has claimed to be what, btw - I'm interested in
the point at hand).


I have to disagree here - one CAN seek the expeirence of the divine through
theology - that's what prayer books and the study of spirituality is *for*
after all.

[]
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Post by Raven
More generally, *I'd* define a mystic as someone who seeks direct
personal experience of, or union with, the divine.
Again, I'd disagree, but less vehemently.

I would say a mystic is someone who has this expeirence, not one who seeks
it.

That means that there are *lots* of mystics out there - which of course I
sould agree with.
[]
Post by Raven
Post by Jani
Yes, as a general description, "mystic" fits all of those.
"Christian Mystic" is much more specific.
It identifies the particular divinity of whom one seeks direct
experience, or with whom one seeks union. Within Christianity, it
distinguishes those who believe God *can* be so approached, from
those who believe no such direct experience or union is possible.
I'm not at all sure that the second belief has much of a place in
Christianity. I could be wrong, but I can't see how it could work in an
(orthodox) incarnational faith.
Post by Raven
Other than that, there's wide variation in theological beliefs. I'd
put the entire Society of Friends (the Quakers) in the "mystic"
category, simply because of their reliance on the inner light, the
indwelling spirit of God, rather than external guides such as the
Bible. Yet they are far from Eckhart's Dominican background, even
his personal version, let alone strict Catholic orthodoxy.
And here again we part, not because I would disavow the experience of the
Friends, but because I'd use the title of those who have *experienced*
rather than those who *seek*.

[]

--
janet Email : ***@karlsforums.com
mwcnbf - esoterrorist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
Raven
2003-12-06 12:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Post by Raven
Snipping much, in order to address just a few points.
[]
Post by Raven
one doesn't need "special training" to be a mystic, even a Christian
mystic; there is no educational requirement; it's a statement of
one's goal, not of achievement or theological scholarship -- in fact,
to the extent one is engaged in theological scholarship (the study of
others' writings), one is *not* engaged in mysticism (seeking the
*direct experience* of the divine).
Hang on, hang on.
I disagree - rather profoundly.
Is it not possible to hear/experience the divine through the words/works
of others?
I would most certainly argue that it is.
But that's "hear... *through*", in contrast to "*direct experience*";
second-hand vs. first-hand.
Post by janet
(I couldn't care less who has claimed to be what, btw - I'm interested in
the point at hand).
I have to disagree here - one CAN seek the expeirence of the divine through
theology - that's what prayer books and the study of spirituality is *for*
after all.
Theology would be studying the map.

Mysticism would be exploring the actual territory.

One might do both -- in fact, it often helps to study whatever maps there
may be, before one travels -- but doing the first is not doing the second.

Writings *about* mysticism are like the logs of physical-territory explorers.

The explorers have the *direct experience* of the territory.

The readers do not... *until* they get up and go explore there themselves.
Post by janet
[]
Post by Raven
Post by Jani