HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Dream:  A Tale
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:35:24 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

I am posting this for another; nothing below the dotted line is mine. I am
willing to forward any e-mail to the author.

--Semhaza (The Antichrist)
================================================================================

                                 Dream
                                -------



	The immortal dashed through the confused crowd, dazed by the redening
sun.

	Civilisations were born with each of his passing breath; civilisations
died with each of the beatings of his heart. But today, for the very first time
of his ageless existence, his mind was bathed with a new emotion. The sheer 
joy\of a child about to receive a candy.

	Today, for the very first time of his ageless existence, the immortal
was about to meet someone more powerful than he.

	Some called him God. For the immortal, he was the Dreamer.

	How would he appear? Like an Emperor? Like a mighty beast? Would he 
even have a material form?

	A flash of red light interrupted the immortal thoughts; his heart held 
still in his chest; two thousand worlds screamed their agony in unisson.
The immortal had reached the goal of his ageless quest.

	He walked into a little house, failing to notice, in his childish 
anticipation, the ruined state of the surrondings.

	In a moisty chamber, an old man, tired of a hard life, was breathing
heavily. His uneasy sleep was crowded by strange universes. By dreams of hope
and despair.

	By the immortal's very existence.

	The old man was dying; even with all his powers, he couldn't save
himself.

	The immortal turned around and ran into the sunset, never to look back.

	For the very first time of his ageless existence, he wished he was not 
immortal.


Daniel Roy,

for the "Voyageurs sans Permis"
From: mcsdc2mlh@dct.ac.uk (Doubleplusgood)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Helen Back (geddit?)
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:47:56 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology

What old posts?

I know its cruel but me and my flatmate are slowly setting up a bunch of 
Jehova (?)'s witnesses and then we are going to hit them with an orgy, drugs
drink and anything else we can think of when they next call.....

Ha ha...

Should stop them calling round for a while!


-- 
********************************************************************************
Matt Haswell.....Student at DIT                 Janet : mcsdc2mlh@dct.ac.uk

                       Have you ,or have you ever been?

                       Yep, these are only my opinions. 
********************************************************************************
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:10:33 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Why?

In article <1992Nov11.102402.16981@abo.fi>, MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats
Andtbacka Ktf92) says:
>
>      Is this somebody putting out a baited question just to get the
>flames going, or is it *actually* another i-won't-read-no-fuckin'-FAQ
>idiot whom we can safely ignore? If so, will we?
>
>In <92315.220039SXS52@psuvm.psu.edu> <SXS52@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Hmmm... Now where did I see that address before...

Hey, what do you have against penn state? It may be full of xian clubs,
but not everyone here at main campus is a weak-willed xian.

Martin Schulte
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:00:29 -0500 
From: "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: reality

Hey guys,
     What's going down?  If we could get off this sexuality topic for a
little bit.  I see that all the arguments trace back to something even
more fundamental.  I'd like to see some posts of people saying whether
they believe in subjective or objective reality, and why.  For the
purpose of convention, how about these as definitions:  Subjective
reality means that truth is defined by the individual; in other words,
something may be true for you, but not necessarily true for someone
else.  Objective reality means that truth is predefined somehow, and it
is the same for everyone; in other words, if something is objectively
true, and you don't believe it, then your wrong.  These are some pretty
short definitions, and admittedly there are some loopholes, but please,
let's not get so literal.  I just want to hear some input as to which
people think is correct.
     Andrew
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Alt.Satanism FAQ version 2.1
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:10:08 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <BxL0H3.7B8@ais.org>, kelek@ais.org (Mike McDonald) writes:
 
>   Finally, a good explanation of what 'Satanism' is.  I've always
> wondered about it, since Christians merely call it evil or
> worship of Satan.  A couple comments, though:
>   I don't believe 'Secondary Satanists' should be included as a
> type of Satanist, which implies that anyone called a Satanist
> is a Satanist.  I am a practitioner of Shamanism and involved
> in role-playing games, but I don't fit into any of the definitions
> of Satanism.

The definition was included because many uninformed people think of them
as Satanists. Wiccans, for example, often show up in some books on
"Satanists." I will try to clean it up a little to make it clear that
these people *do not* call themselves Satanists and would not qualify
as such under the other terms of the definition given in the FAQ. (I can
do this now! We got our computer back today :) :) :)

>   Second, are there seriously 'Lovecraftian Satanists'?  The Lovecraftian
> mythos and books are fictitious, made up, don't exist.  There is
> currently an argument about this on alt.necromicon (misspelled)
> and alt.horror.cthulhu that claim that there actually exist(ed) a
> Necronomicon and other books used in HPL's stories, but the
> Necronomicon has nothing to do with Lovecraft's stories or mythos,
> and I expect the same from the other books.  There are several
> rip-off 'Necronomicon's on the market that are good for a laugh.

Well, maybe I should have put a smiley by that definition, because when
we came up with it, it was purely a joke. I have actually met people like
that, though; fortunately there don't seem to be many.

Discussion on alt.necromicon? Last time I checked (last night) there were
only three posts.

One question while I'm thinking about it:  did anyone catch Maximus' post
on Satanism in alt.athiesm? Any thoughts on it?

--Semhaza
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: To all christians...
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:05:19 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <of0U4By00WBOQ=lFhK@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Hey guys,
>     What's going down?  If we could get off this sexuality topic for a
>little bit.  I see that all the arguments trace back to something even

Whats the matter? Unable to respond? Sounds familiar...

>more fundamental.  I'd like to see some posts of people saying whether
>they believe in subjective or objective reality, and why.  For the
>purpose of convention, how about these as definitions:  Subjective
>reality means that truth is defined by the individual; in other words,
>something may be true for you, but not necessarily true for someone
>else.  Objective reality means that truth is predefined somehow, and it
>is the same for everyone; in other words, if something is objectively
>true, and you don't believe it, then your wrong.  These are some pretty

Look, I see what you are leading up to. Number one; according to all the 
current interpretations of quantum mechanics, your "objective" and "subjective"
are meaningless. There is no distinction between the two. As far as "the Truth"
if we are speaking of your moral absolutes again, you have yet to show that 
there are any. Don't be a Kant; he tried & failed. Goethe(I think) & Nieztche 
had a field day with his moral absolutes. Since we have no definition of what
you mean by "the truth" any comment on your post is meaningless untill you
define this. Presumably you will define "the truth" to suit your argument after
someone answers. Sophistry.

>short definitions, and admittedly there are some loopholes, but please,
>let's not get so literal.  I just want to hear some input as to which
>people think is correct.
>     Andrew

The problem with philosophy as a discipline is its lack of a "literal" 
language with which to conduct its buisness. Untill it develops such a rigorous
language, some form of linguistic mathematics, it will forever remain a
bastard offspring of other sciences, and a generally clueless exercise.

The great success of physics, chemistry, engineering and the other "hard 
sciences" are largely due to its use of a rigorous mathematical "language".

-Misquamicus
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:27:21 EST
From: <WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: To all christians...
 <wezu5HO00aw5EHAZZa@andrew.cmu.edu>

I think it's odd that the Mosaic code (Exodus 20-23 and 34) doesn't
specifically forbid homosexuality, though it does specifically forbid
bestiality.  My understanding of the NT attacks on homosexuality is that
they actually concern pederasty, which was a fairly common practice among
Greeks and Romans, to the extent that there was a trade in young boys who
could be sold as sex partners.  I'm not sure that this is the same as
sex between male consenting partners.
.
Bill Ellis (wce2 @ psuvm.psu.edu)                 Editor, FOAFtale News
Penn State, Hazleton Campus                       Voice: 717-450-3026
Hazleton, PA 18201-1291                           Fax: 717-450-3182
"If I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil.  The only right is
 what is after my constitution; the only wrong what is against it."
From: 9117075@ul.ie
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re:Dennis
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:54:54 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland

JEE DENNIS 
         I THINK YOUR A BIT FUCKED UP MAN
        ANYWAY LIVE LONG AND PASS THE DRAW
From: graff@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Eugene M Graff)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Satan
Summary: Natas
Keywords: Natas
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:50:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

!skcus nataS
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Magazines?
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:59:37 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

Are there any periodicals of a Satanic-type nature being published
at present?

--Semhaza
From: pyuaq@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr G S Sutherland)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: To all christians...
Date: 10 Nov 1992 21:49:18 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <92315.112721WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu> <WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
+.......... My understanding of the NT attacks on homosexuality is that
+they actually concern pederasty, which was a fairly common practice among
+Greeks and Romans, to the extent that there was a trade in young boys who
+could be sold as sex partners.  I'm not sure that this is the same as
+sex between male consenting partners.

It was actually normal for a young Greek man in classical times to be
homosexual up until he was of marriagable age, and I think that it was
expected. Women, unfortunatly took a very backseat role in Greek society.
I'm not sure about the Romans though, but they did inherit almost all of
their civillisation off the Greeks.

The NT attacks are probably explained by the theory that St Paul was a
homosexual. Hence, he often feels guilt towards his body, and condemns
it (his flesh) frequently. With a founding father like that, what does
one expect....

+Bill Ellis (wce2 @ psuvm.psu.edu)                 Editor, FOAFtale News
+Penn State, Hazleton Campus                       Voice: 717-450-3026
+Hazleton, PA 18201-1291                           Fax: 717-450-3182
+"If I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil.  The only right is
+ what is after my constitution; the only wrong what is against it."

Graeme Sutherland
pyuaq@csv.warwick.ac.uk

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: dementia@cheshire.oxy.edu (Daniel Steven Reinker)
Subject: To all christians...
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:35:02 GMT

A couple questions for the christians who post here...all
differences aside.

1) Do you believe that God is against homosexuality?

2) If not, does it ever bother you when people use God to
support their anti-homosexual beliefs?

3) Do you believe that AIDS was created for the express 
purpose of punishing homosexuals?

Hiz Lord Dementia
-- 
"You can't help that. We're all mad here."-The cheshire cat, Alice in WL

"A mass hysteria/a megalomania/reveal Dementia/reveal"-Metallica                
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: donnell@manowar.micro.umn.edu (BogusMan)
Subject: Re: prophecies
Organization: none
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:51:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.013207.27553@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> radinsky@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Radinsky) writes:
>donnell@tuna.micro.umn.edu (BogusMan) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov03.232831.27569@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>>>In article <515@asylum.UUCP>, dnibby@asylum.UUCP (Dana Nibby) writes:
>>>|>
>>     (article trimmed for bandwidth conservation)
>>>|>
>> Jesus is referrred to more than once as "Rabbi" <although they have been
>> working to change these passages>.  This leads to interesting
>> speculation, since to be a Rabbi <then as now>, one had to be married.
>> There are a lot of gnostic, and discredited references to Jesus
>> marrying Mary Magdalene, but this is not accepted by the churches. <The
>> Saviour marry a prostitute!  Never!>
>
>"Rabbi" just means "Teacher".
>
>Wayne
>

Yes, but it is still not a title to be given lightly. And the standard         
requirement <one of them> for the title to be conferred, is marriage.
Still is, even today.

Your in the Love of the Lard Cheeses
					--Judex--

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: To all christians...
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:12:12 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <Uf0l63O00aw949E31x@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>I wanted to drop this subject, but you are so clueless that I am moved
>with pity.  When Paul says (I believe an example is in ch7 of I or II
>Cor) that homosexuals are damned, and that is what is literally says,
>there is hardly room for interpretation.  It's really quite simple: 
>that's what he said, and that's probably what he meant.  If you have
>read some of my earlier posts, I have said that grad students in
>theology often come up with some bizarre explanations of various
>passages; such is their job, and occasionally they do shed some light. 
>I hardly think that any recent scholarship could show that what Paul
>meant was not what he said.  And also in my earlier posts, I was
>attempting (apparently unsuccessfully) to condemn homosexuality in terms
>of logic.  However, the original poster wanted this in terms of
>Christianity, which I never responded to.  The argument for a Christian
>is really quite simple:  the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, so it
>is.  I was attempting to use reason because I assumed that the Christian
>method of proof (ie, the Bible) is so blatant.  Sorry for the confusion.
> 
>     As for my unloving attitude as you put it, i try to love all
>people, and homosexuals are no exception.  It is difficult to do, and
>sometimes I err in my goal, but I like to think that I am trying. 
>Although I may love a person, that does not necessarily mean that I
>agree with what they are doing.  In this case, as in many others
>including many heterosexual acts, I don't agree.  But nevertheless I try
>to love.  On account of this love I try (eg, by posting to
>netnews.alt.satanism) to help those who I feel have fallen off the
>better path.  I am not however imposing religious beliefs, just a better
>(in the eyes of ultimate reality) lifestyle.  They are as always free to
>reject any of my suggestions.



(Misquamicus has fallen off his chair in an extacy of laughter)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Andrew, that was the best laugh I have had all week. Thank you for 
*giggle* trying to help those who have fallen off the better path. Thank you
for "imposing.... a better(in the eyes of ultimate reality) lifestyle."
PFFFFFWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHHAAAHHHHAAAAHHHAAAA!!!!!!!!
Have you read the FAQ? *giggle* Oh never mind... If you took the FAQ advice
I wouldn't have had this great opportunity for merriment; please continue
you are very entertaining...

may you never go to the place with the holes in the bathroom stalls...
-Misquamicus
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: Alt.Satanism FAQ version 2.1
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:16:45 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BxL0H3.7B8@ais.org> kelek@ais.org (Mike McDonald) writes:
>
>
>  Finally, a good explanation of what 'Satanism' is.  I've always
>wondered about it, since Christians merely call it evil or
>worship of Satan.  A couple comments, though:
>  I don't believe 'Secondary Satanists' should be included as a
>type of Satanist, which implies that anyone called a Satanist
>is a Satanist.  I am a practitioner of Shamanism and involved
>in role-playing games, but I don't fit into any of the definitions
>of Satanism.

I believe they were included because so many groups (i.e. reader's digest,
the PMRC, fundies etc..) associate them with satanism. _I_ don't think they are
particularly satanic either, and I believe the fact that their "satanic" 
influence exists in the imagination of aforsaid groups was made clear. If not 
(I must re-read this section), then perhaps it should be modified.

>  Second, are there seriously 'Lovecraftian Satanists'?  The Lovecraftian
>mythos and books are fictitious, made up, don't exist.  There is

Fictitious, made up, and do exist. The whole mythos is based on magickal 
currents that have been existance for mellenia. Lovecraft's conscious awareness
of these currents is still a matter of debate, but, in fact, this issue has no
real relevance. The Lovecraftian current is real. It is utilized by such
orders as the I.O.T. (the Pact), The Temple of Set, Kenneth Grant's O.T.O. 
and Michael Bertiaux (sp?) group.
As a "Lovecraftian satanist", I assure you that this movement exists, and
is growing.

>currently an argument about this on alt.necromicon (misspelled)
>and alt.horror.cthulhu that claim that there actually exist(ed) a
>Necronomicon and other books used in HPL's stories, but the
>Necronomicon has nothing to do with Lovecraft's stories or mythos,
>and I expect the same from the other books.  There are several
>rip-off 'Necronomicon's on the market that are good for a laugh.

Agreed, these books are pathetic rip-offs. The other stuff is interesting
historically, but has no real relevance to the Lovecraftian satanist. It is
_not_ expected that a necronomicon will show up, giving phenominal powers
to the user. The quest for the "necronomicon" is an internal, Shamanic journey.

-Misquamicus

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: donnell@manowar.micro.umn.edu (BogusMan)
Subject: Re: The Rapture
Organization: none
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:56:17 GMT

In article <Bx791F.J7q@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> @expert.cc.purdue.edu (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>OH OH OH OH OHHHHHHH. I seen it , I seen the rapture, i seen the rapture, mommy
>did you take pictures of the guy with no head...huh didya didya didya didya...
>
>Perhaps, the rapture did take place....I guess there were no good christians
>left to take up...oh well.
>
>Besides, everyone knows the world cant end untill 2024 when the big C comes
>
>hmm...perhaps next month i'll create a story about the rapture of 1993...
>If i start now i can get it printed...no wait..94 , naw, won't be able to
>enjoy the money i'm makeing..ok 95. Ahem...THE RAPTURE WILL TAKE PLACE IN
>1995 , sorry for the miscalculation...thanks...buy my book.
>
>smitty
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Smitty,
>
>The Bible tells us that no man knows the day or the hour, not the angels, not
>even the Son of God.  Only the Father (God) knows when the Rapture will happen.
>People who try to predict the Rapture have no definnite proof of anything.  
>Only God knows.  Don't listen to people who claim to know the time of the 
>Rapture.  Be prepared.  "Live like you'll die tomorrow.  Die knowing you'll
>live forever."
>
>Mark
>
>adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu

Ah well, it doesn't matter since I will be taken in the Party saucers on
July 5th, 1998, at 7:00 a.m. Central time., to a better place.
And remember that the Rapture might be more like Night Of The Living 
Dead, with the bodies of dead christians slaughtering living Xians, 
as punishment for dragging  hir name through the mud for so long.
<This is occasionally referred to as "The Rupture">

Yours in the love of the Lard Cheeses,

					--Judex--

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: radinsky@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Radinsky)
Subject: Re: ways in which Jesus failed
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:35:44 GMT

radinsky@spot.Colorado.EDU (me!) writes:
> rhr9081@hertz.njit.edu (Ray Rich) writes:
>> 	Is the option of following Jesus or going to hell really "free will"?
>> If you believe that gorp, you obviously won't go.  If you don't, you really
>> shouldn't worry, because you don't believe.  It's really quite simple.
> 
> I wasn't talking about that "gorp" at all.
> 
> [ blah blah blah ]
>
> I didn't say any gorp.  Please don't read more into what I say than is
> there.

It occured to me after I posted this that I was harsher than I shoulda been.
Sorry, Raymond.  But...

When you talk about "you really shouldn't worry, because you don't
believe", you're really talking about something else entirely, namely
this idea that whether you go to hell (or heaven or cease to exist or
whatever) depends on whether you believe you will.  I don't think
that's true.  I'm not saying =I= know whether there's an afterlife, but
if there is, there is for =everybody= regardless of what they believe,
and if there isn't, there isn't and we =all= simply cease to exist.

Or at least that's what I believe. :-)

>> Raymond H. Rich
>> Devil's Advocate
> 
> Wayne

Wayne
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: reality
From: "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:48:54 -0500 
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Hey guys,
     What's going down?  Yes, I am driving towards something else with
my post on reality.  However, it has little to do with
netnews.alt.satanism, but all input is important.  Since you asked, I'll
tell you briefly.  I have no plans to use any responses to further any
arguments over that whole homosexuality bit.  For me, that debate is
over.  Quite simply, I never found it very interesting, and responding
to letters in which I had little interest became a hassle.
     Actually, I'm thinking along the lines of Unitarian Universalism,
the only religion I know of which professes truth to be subjective.  I
have studied theology for a number of years, and "specialized," if you
will, in UUism.  I have learned about it almost exclusively from the
UU's themselves, both the people and their literature.
     Anyhow, I was wondering both if there was any correlation between
the way reality is viewed by UU's and satanists (I am not calling UU's
satanists), and what some good arguments for subjective truth might be
from a perspective outside UUism.  In other words, if you are a UU,
please don't respond to my original post, because I already have heard
literally thousands of arguments from UU's already.
     Andrew