Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!pagesat.net!sloth.swcp.com!cipher From: cipher@swcp.com (J B Bell) Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.religion.wicca,alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Wiccans and alt.magick Followup-To: alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.religion.wicca Date: 1 Dec 1995 21:14:09 GMT Organization: Eschatek--Tools for End Times Lines: 56 Message-ID: <49nr71$51n@sloth.swcp.com> References: <492p7o$sal@jobe.shell.portal.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kitsune.swcp.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: shell.portal.com alt.magick:60084 alt.pagan:135125 alt.religion.wicca:17498 alt.magick.tyagi:5129 talk.religion.misc:190166 [Folks, please note trimmed followups] Brigid (nwitch@ecst.csuchico.edu) wrote: : (Sigh.) Is alt.magick still upset that a.p is its child, and a.r.w its : grandchild? You make a sweeping generalization, and then below protest that you're not inviting flames. When you get a flame, a few posts after this, you get annoyed about how "no one here gets along". You are not contributing to getting along by your assertions that betray a lack of the knowledge of the history of these newsgroups, along with your condescending tone. (Your clever "sighs" suggest you are exasperated with a small child, or a senile elder. What *are* you inviting?) I'm trying here to keep my own tone relatively conciliatory, but I am annoyed. Alt.magick is, in fact, the "child" of alt.pagan, which in turn came from talk.religion.newage. Interestingly, a.p split from t.r.n for the same reason a.m split from a.p--a feeling that the "parent" newgroup was much too full of annoying mush-headed thinking. (Actually, I think the a.m creation was reasonably amicable, and the two topics, while they have overlap, are distinctly different. Few people seem to have trouble with the differences.) I am not sure where a.r.w came from, actually--I don't remember seeing the discussion when it was created, and I invite others more knowledgable about it to comment. : This is precisely (sp?) the reason I do not subscribe to a.m... : You over in a.m may be in it for the magick. I am in a.p and a.r.w for : the religion. And, yes, I do *wholeheartedly* believe in the Rede. If : you disagree, it is not my problem. That's fine. So don't read it. Why do you feel the need to broadcast something that is clearly a matter of taste? When you overhear a coffeeshop conversation, to you stride over and inform the people participating that you're *not* talking to them? Does it not occur to you that your post only contributes to rudeness and accomplishes nothing, except possibly a stroke to your ego? : (Sigh.) : Brigid : (Wiccan and proud) (no, this is not an invitation to flame, simple my : opinions) Putting forth matters that are opinions doesn't automatically protect you from getting criticized. Expect people to respond to your opinion. Otherwise, why do you offer it? Or were you thinking we'd just lap it up and say "oh yes, terribly wise"? I'm honestly wondering what prompted you to make this post. --JB Rev. J B Bell | Eschatek | ____ cipher@eschatek.com | Tools & Technologies | \bi/ http://www.eschatek.com/~cipher | for a Changing & Doomed Planet | \/ --> MCH G+ QH++ 666+ W- C+++ N++ <--