From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: men's spirituality (was Re: New Pagans and Reading)
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:58:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

ymir@eagles.uucp (Ymir Thunarsson) writes:
: Recently Bill Nelson writes:
: 
: > ymir@eagles.uucp (Ymir Thunarsson) writes:
: > : > >
: > : > > >   Looks like you've gone and stuck your foot in your mouth this time
: > : > > > Men created women's mysteries, just for the record, not women.
:  For your information Bill I did not write this part of your posting. This was
: done by Hulda  commenting on one of Ailsa's letters. 

Sorry, it is easy to get attributions messed up when quoting back that far.
Where I wrote "(Ymir Thunarsson) writes:" only means that it was your posting
that I was responding to - in which I replied to at least one statement made
by you. I may also have responded, as I did in the previous posting, to the
comments made by others which you posted. 

: > They did? Do you believe that all women follow Gardner or the other Wiccan
: > faiths that are outshoots of the Gardnerian tradition? If so, you know little
: > about women's spirituality.
: > Once again, Where you are drawing your inferrence is not my wording! But, to
: respond to the Gardenarian traditions influence on women in wicca...It had its
: impact, but it would be foolish of anyone to claim that it was the ONLY 
: influence or even had the greatest influence...so I agre with you there.

That is not the point. The statement made was that "men created womens
spirituality". That is far different from saying that "men created Wicca",
a claim that you agree is also foolish.

: > : > > > So now you ask yourself, why? To make money of course. Remember the
: > : > > > Gardner? Alexander? Ring a bell? Throw a little Golden Dawn in there
: > : > > > have todays wicca. And of course let's not forget Buckland. He's get
: > : > > > rich off of females like yourself. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not k
: > : > > > wicca, I used to be wiccian myself. Until I decided to find the "TRU
: > 
: 
: Once again Bill, not MY words but Hulda's! Watch the *flames* that you throw
: around. However, I agree with much of the above statement. Each of these 
: individuals have had an impact on a sizeable portion of wicca, along with
: the likes of Kelly, Farrar, Vailiente, Marion Weinstein and Leland to name
: a few.

See my original statement in this response. When responding to a posting, a
person usually does not limit themselves to repsponding only to comments made
by the poster. There is often other material that is deserving of response,
that was quoted by the poster.

: > See above. Wicca, and (in particular) the versions you have been exposed to,
: > do not make up Wicca - only a small subset. Neither necessarily have anything
: > to do with womens mysteries or spirituality.
: > 
:  Granted! But again, you are using another's words to *flame* me.

Sorry if you are confused by the posting style. I was not flaming you. I was
flaming the person making the statement. Your article just happened to contain
the statement to which I was responding. 

: > : > > > religion. Now I am a member of the Asatru community. And VERY happy.
: > : > > > what I was looking for. Yes, I still worship the Lord and Lady, but
: > : > > > truer form. I call them Freyr and Freyja. We also have male mysterie
: > : > > > Asatru. For all you manly men out there searching. Odin was the most
: > : > > > mysterious of the Gods. Through him you may find those mysteries you
: > : > > > to be missing.
: > 
: 
:   Still, you haven't quoted me, but Hulda. Where was your head when reading
:  this? Still, the phrase used here was not meant to be inflamatory by Hulda.
: It did turn out to be a colossal error and one that she deeply regrets. The
: term true used here by Hulda was not used in an universal sense but in an
: ancestral one with Hulda being of Germanic descent. So, I agree it was not
: well stated and has led to much misunderstanding and hard feelings. We can
: all still overcome such animosity and I, at least will try to do so. Anyone
: wish to join me?!!!

Hard feeling? From me? I think you are taking all this too seriously.

: > Ah yes, the "True" Asutra. Where have I heard that before? Odin is mysterious
: > No more so than many other gods.
: > 
: >Here I must differ with you. He is far and away the most mysterious of any of
: the Aesir or Vanir. He is also darker in aspect. He is, however, no more 
: mysterious than SOME of the gods of other traditions and religions.

That was my point exactly - I was not limiting myself to Norse traditions.

: > : intended not to heal, teach or inform but only to hurt. What Hulda said may
: > : have injured your pride and hurt your feelings...but she also does not live
: > : by the Wiccan Rede as you profess to do. If you truly believe "...And It Ha
: 
:   Ah hah! At last you quoted me...CONGRATULATIONS!
: > 
: > Hah! Hulda hurt Ailsa's pride or feelings? Not bloody likely - it takes 
: > someone a lot sharper witted than her, or you, to do that. 
: > 
:  Evidently, by her responses to me I struck a chord somewhere. But I still
: think that if we can put this childish name calling and finger pointing
: behind us we CAN actually learn from each other. It may be foolish, but
: I still cling to that hope.

Probably. As I said above, I try not to take any of this personally. If I am
flamed, it is because I probably said something idiotic. But then, it may have
been an idiot who flamed me. As such - I ignore the flame and look for the
reason. I can learn from that, even if it is simply that I should ignore the
flame as baseless.

By the way, I don't believe that Ailsa has ever claimed to live by the
Wiccan Rede.
		
: > : None..." you have violated this trust in a very "common" and mean spirited
: > : manner. I hope as you read your own missive you will see the hate implied
: > 
: > I suggest that you do not try to apply your interpretation of the Rede to
: > everyone else. Yours is far too restrictive. If a person lived by it, they
: > would not be able to associate with anyone. 
: > 
:  Yes, you are right there ,Bill! I should not judge someone  by my inter-
: pretation of their rede. They may only be judged by THEIR interpretation.
: I stand corrected and I was out of line.
: 
: > Yes, Ailsa is spirited. I would be disappointed if she wasn't. However, I
: > don't see where there was any hatred in her posting. Maybe a bit of intoleran
: > for fools - but, many of us have that problem.
: > 
:  Yes, we do! Question: Is it foolish to try to right the wrongs on both our
: parts? I'll work on mine...Will you and Ailsa work on yours?

Nope - hopefully we post here to learn and share experiences. However, to 
learn, we have to be able to express disagreement. Since this is a written
forum, rather than verbal, emphasis often comes in the form of stronger
statements. Please do not read every venoment response as being a flame,
especially from me.  If I flame you, it will be calling you such things
as "unmitigated egocentric asshole".

: > : Whether Hulda was right or wrong in her posting is not at issue here. That
: > 
: > Oh, but it is. Any posting here is to a public forum. As such, it is open
: > to any type of response that a person wishes to make.
: 
:  Not when it includes vulgarities and direct insult that borders on slander
: and liable! 

Hm, methinks you should look up the legal definitions of the terms, not those
in the abridged dictionaries. I have seen no "notorious" claims being made,
nor have I seen anything that would cause greate harm to Hulda. Yes, there
has been stuff that could bruise a person's pride or ego. That is not at all
unusual on the net. 

: > : before you begin to run off at the mouth. Now that I have compleated my
: > : soapbox...Try not to think of Hulda or myself as an enemy. Think of us 
: > : instead of people that belive differently than you do and say so. There
: > : is no need for a war of words. I would much prefer to exchange information
: > : about each others belief on a more friendly and constructive basis. I hope
: > : you will see things the same way. If not...you have to live with that 
: > : decision! BLESSED BE AND BE POSITIVE!
: > 
:  Good, you were able to find another quote of mine. I still stand by this one
: without any reservation or hesitation!
: 
: > If you had wanted to be positive, you would have made that response by
: > e-mail and not posted it to the net.  Hypocrite.
: > 
:  Ailsa and yourself may have followed your sage advice as well! I only 
: followed within the same structure as she and you. But I do agree this sort
: of dirty laundry should be kept on a more private level.

Wrong. I have never made claims about wanting to be positive. As such, I may
be (on occasion), an ass - I have never claimed to be otherwise. That was my
whole point. Your posting was hypocritical - regardless of the validity of
what you said. 

Now, hopefully this is out of the way. Maybe we can get on to other things.

Bill