HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pyuaq@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr G S Sutherland)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Satanic ritual abuse update
Date: 10 Nov 1992 22:02:32 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <92315.120957WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu+ <WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu+ writes:
+Two items of interest to those following the satanic ritual abuse scare:
+
+1) According to clippings just received from Scotland, the Orkney Island SRA
+inquiry report has been issued.  It characterizes everyone involved in
+investigating the case as incompetent, biased, and/or careless, including
+police, social workers, child care workers, and especially "experts" from the
+Royal Scottish Society for the Protection of Children.
+
+As some of us know, the Orkney case was the British equivalent of the McMartin
+Preschool Affair: Social workers and police, trained with literature and
+videos prepared by American satanic cult "experts," raided four homes in a 
+predawn raid in February 1990, removing nine children they claimed were being
+subjected by their parents to satanic ritual abuse.  Despite lack of any 
+physical or medical evidence, the authorities insisted in isolating the 
+children from their parents for five weeks, claiming that parents would use 
+secret symbols to silence or threaten their children.  A skeptical judge threw
+the case out of court on first hearing, but social workers insisted on an 
+inquiry to justify their methods.
+
+Early readings of the inquiry suggested that the presiding judge, Lord Clyde,
+was sympathetic to the authorities, and that the report was likely to be a
+whitewash.  Parents have already insisted on a civil trial for damages before
+the EC Court of Human Rights.  The strength of the criticisms therefore came 
+as something of a surprise, and will probably have repercussions far beyond 
+Great Britain in the SRA camp.

Yup, this case has been going on for over a year, and I think that it has 
finally been settled....

A couple of points worth noting....

(1)	The eldest child of the parents (a university student) wrote a
	letter to one of the main British newspapers (The Guardian I
	think) saying that it was all a load of rubbish.

(2)	The Social workers alleged that there were late night sabbats
	that involved dancing naked around a fire. Anyone who has been
	to Orkney (like me) will tell you that its very flat, and the
	winds reach a fair speed frequently. I for one would not want
	to be out at night like this....

(3)	British Social Workers often have a habit of interfering were
	there is no case to do so.

+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."



Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:26:20 -0500 
From: "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: To all christians...

     There are no moral absolutes!  The act of saying that contradicts
what you're saying!  It's like saying, "I don't know any words in
English."  It's really quite simple.  First acknowledge the existance of
absolutes (eg, math).  Then, when an absolute is in contradiction with
an action (or thought, etc; let's not skirt the issue), you have
something immoral, esp with relation to religious matters, although
science is not apart from morality either.
     Next of all, I did not say for a homosexual to remain closeted. 
What he does with respect to that is his own business.  I have no
obligation to confess my orientation, and neither does anyone else.  If
he does come out, and people persecute him, they're the ones who are
wrong.  I would recommend to all homosexuals to come out and break this
barrier of unjust predjudice.  Ultimately that's his decision though,
and it is a decision with no immoral implications with respect to him,
as far as I see.
     You want a reference.  _General Psychology_ by Gleitman.  I think
that name's correct.  It's my psych textbook now, and as a matter of
fact I just read ch 15, which deals with this, only moments ago. 
Orientation is what is psychological.  Activity is not something outside
of the realm of control of the individual. 
     As far as the Bible goes, I do not know of any reference to
lesbianism.  I do not read the Bible much, only when asked to translate
a particular passage for the fundamentalist next door, or if I'm really
bored and want to improve my Greek.  If you can send me some Biblical
references, I can tell you what it says in a very literal translation. 
As far as the two words for homosexuality which I read in some Epistle,
they were used to condemn homosexuals of two different sorts.  One was
the type of homosexual with that characteristic lisp and open
tendencies; the word used literally means soft.  The other word was the
more active homosexual, the one who engages in unorthodox activity; the
word is a combination of the words for man and bed.  Draw your own
conclusions (but keep them valid).
     I also worked here last summer, and I know the bathroom about which
you speak.  It's pretty nasty, isn't it?  I won't go there now that the
school year has started; I've heard some pretty raunchy stories of
people walking in there and hearing feet shuffle...
     Andrew
From: graff@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Eugene M Graff)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Lupo
Summary: LUpo
Keywords: Lupo
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:48:52 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Who is Lupo anyway, and what in the hell do I care anyway?
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: g91a2724@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR GJ ANDREWS)
Subject: Re: Lupo
Summary: LUpo
Keywords: Lupo
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:07:16 GMT

In article <Nov.9.19.48.51.1992.25510@andromeda.rutgers.edu> graff@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Eugene M Graff) writes:
>From: graff@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Eugene M Graff)
>Subject: Lupo
>Summary: LUpo
>Keywords: Lupo
>Date: 10 Nov 92 00:48:52 GMT
>Who is Lupo anyway, and what in the hell do I care anyway?


How can you not know Lupo! Argh! How sad.
Organization: Sophomore, Chemical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:49:18 -0500 
From: Stephen Alan Sisson <ssac+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: To all christians...
	<1dpaouINNo93@clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
	<4f0=7iS00iV20=4n52@andrew.cmu.edu>

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:10:38 -0500 
From: "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: To all christians...
.........
> It was a noble effort of whoever
>suggested that Paul was gay, but it is incompatible with too many other
>things he said.  

yeah, like that passage where he says, "I must hasten to finish my
writings, for I am to drink tonight with my buddies and go queerbashing."
					Teevie >:0/
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: g91a2724@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR GJ ANDREWS)
Subject: exorcism
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:38:58 GMT

Hi again folks!

This is your bright and cheerful xian-type calling again. How has your day 
been? Hope it was filled with lots of gay abandon! Me? Well since you are 
all so interested - I picked some beuuuatiful flowers on my way to prayer 
group. Then we had a worship service just for the hell (...oops sorry to 
blaspheme!) of it.


Actually, I want some juicy info on exorcism. Anybody had personal 
experience - ha ha. Flame me all you want I love teasing you people. You 
give such interesting insults. But don't forget the info on exorcism - and 
it must be good (not in the moral sense).

Love you all, my kookumses! Don't forget your bedtime prayers now.
Greg
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
Subject: Questions
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:15:12 GMT
Distribution: na

I was wondering how many people(on this net) have actually taken part
in a satanic ritual?  If so, what was it for?  Just wondering...Thanks


-- 
Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   
Mead Data Central   |  time, no matter how long   |     CAPRR Conversion
P.O. Box 933        |  it takes"                  | mead!mwk@uccba.uc.edu
Dayton, Ohio  45401 |      -- Rod Brookin         |    ...!uccba!mead!mwk
Organization: Sophomore, Chemical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:03:01 -0500 
From: Stephen Alan Sisson <ssac+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: To all christians...
	<wezu5HO00aw5EHAZZa@andrew.cmu.edu>

Utter piffle.
There is nothing wrong with a homosexual act. This is simply a product
of the propaganda which seeks to condemn pleasure and praise suffering.
I am sure a lot of the oppression of homosexuals by christians comes
from the fact that homosexual congress can never produce a child,
therefore it can only be for pleasure. christians apparently think that
sex for pleasure is wrong.
i always found it entertaining that christians tend to think sex for
pleasure only as falling prey to "animal urges"... whereas most animals
actually only have sex for reproduction (like a "good" christian), and
nonreproductive sex is a trait particular to primates.
                                    Teevie >:0)
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: reality
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:11:38 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <Af0rc6_00Uh_A0zFQF@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 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

What, does UU accept Satanists into the fold?

--The Antichrist 
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:47:31 -0500 
From: "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: To all christians...

Homosexuality is wrong.  This is an absolute (a bad word to some
satanists), in other words, independant of one's religious affiliation. 
By homosexuality, I mean homosexual BEHAVIOR, NOT ORIENTATION. 
Psychologists today tell us that orientation may be genetic; thus it can
not be the persons fault.  In this regard, homosexual orientation is no
worse than having brown hair.  Activity is another story...
     As far as people using God to support anti-homosexual beliefs. 
First of all, homosexuals should not be treated worse/differently than
other people.  Paul tells us in his Epistles that homosexuality (there
are two different words for this in the Greek, but that also is another
story) is wrong.  To all Christians, this must be so.  If a particular
denomination feels differently, then they must be reading an extremely
poor translation of the Bible.  I myself would hardly quote the Bible in
attacking homosexuality (ACTIVITY, remember), but since you asked...
     And concerning AIDS.  This was probably just some mutated virus or
whatever.  I hardly think that God created it to punish homosexuals (esp
because heterosexuals are getting it at a faster rate than homosexuals),
but then again God works in mysterious ways, and there is nothing
intrinsicly wrong with death.  Never threaten a true Christian with
death!
Andrew
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:34:56 -0500 
From: "Justin S. Chambers" <jcaj+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: To all christians


It's been true entertainment listening to these arguments that have
started over a simple question.  I was going to stay out of it, but I
find myself in disagreement with Mr. Westmeyer.  The sexual act (in
humans at least) transcends the biological requirement to propagate . 
In the psychology text that Mr. Westmeyer reference it also states that
particularly with the advent of reliable birth control, the social and
recreational aspects of the sexual act have become unchained from its
biological function.  These aspects have always existed.  So to say that
homosexual acts are immoral because they will never result in a child is
invalid.  If the sexual act was performed not to bear a child but as an
expression of romantic love (or even physical pleasure), how can it be
immoral if it cannot produce young?  This would make heterosexual acts
performed for the same reasons just as immoral.  As for Mr. Westmeyer's
comments on the anatomy of homosexual intercourse,  they are highly
dependent on the definition of conventional sex, and is the convention
necessarily correct (i.e. does it matter what the conventional wisdom on
the subject is?).  Mr. Westmeyer, how are homosexuals denying reality?

JC
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: g91a2724@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR GJ ANDREWS)
Subject: Re: To all christians...
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:37:38 GMT

In article <wezu5HO00aw5EHAZZa@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Homosexuality is wrong.  This is an absolute (a bad word to some
>satanists), in other words, independant of one's religious affiliation. 
>By homosexuality, I mean homosexual BEHAVIOR, NOT ORIENTATION. 
>Psychologists today tell us that orientation may be genetic; thus it can
>not be the persons fault.  In this regard, homosexual orientation is no
>worse than having brown hair.  Activity is another story...


That's real "loving".


>Paul tells us in his Epistles that homosexuality
>is wrong. 


Not according to recent sholarship. Or are you a xian who is not open to the 
use of reason? In which case forget I ever mentioned it.
From: jute@sday.pulp.nullnet.fi (Jussi Kantola)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re:prophesies
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 09:25:30 EET
Distribution: world
Organization: Splattersday

@expert.cc.purdue.edu (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:

> Remember this though:  whether or not you believe doesn't change the fact tha
> Jesus is the Son of God.  He did die for your sins, and He loves you.

Wrong.  Jesus and God exist _only_ because of faith, because someone believes
they exist.  _Anything_ can exist, if there's someone to believe it.  They
may exist in _your_ world, in _your_ mind, but they are a bad joke in
_my_ world.

And Jesus did not die for our sins, he died because he had a few nails
going through his wrists and ankles.  Nasty wounds.  Poor boy.

> still loves me.  He has brought peace to my life.  I hope you'll let Him do
> the same for you.

Don't want peace to _my_ life, want peace to the whole world.  No more wars.
No more fights.  No more violence.

> on Earth, didn't understand until close to end of Jesus' ministry.  The
> people were simply looking for the wrong kind of king.

Perhaps you are?


---wop------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jussi Kantola    | Internet: jute@sday.pulp.nullnet.fi (jute@gadox.cirion.fi)
 Paltamo, Finland | "See first, think later, then test" -Wonko the Sane
------------------------------------------------------------------------foop--
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: mporter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mitchell Porter)
Subject: Re: The Rapture
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 06:06:03 GMT

>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">

No no no, it's just the Rapture; the Rupture is the cosmic calamity also
known as the Time Intersection, which comes *after* the Apocalypse, and
which is a godzillion times worse. Remember?

>Yours in the love of the Lard Cheeses,

>					--Judex--

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: donnell@tuna.micro.umn.edu (BogusMan)
Subject: Re: Questions
Organization: none
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:57:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.041512.5423@meaddata.com> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
>I was wondering how many people(on this net) have actually taken part
>in a satanic ritual?  If so, what was it for?  Just wondering...Thanks
>
>
>-- 
>Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   
>Mead Data Central   |  time, no matter how long   |     CAPRR Conversion
>P.O. Box 933        |  it takes"                  | mead!mwk@uccba.uc.edu
>Dayton, Ohio  45401 |      -- Rod Brookin         |    ...!uccba!mead!mwk

Define "Satanic".
By fundie standards, I have been involved with a few Satanic rituals, but
that is not what we considered them, nor was "Satan" involved.
What were they for? None of your business. <But basically, banishings,
and the like>

Pax
					--Judex--
From: pyuaq@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr G S Sutherland)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Need info
Date: 5 Nov 1992 12:20:11 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <Bx7oKE.BHp@ddsw1.mcs.com> eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun) writes:
+>>g91a2724@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR GJ ANDREWS) writes:
+: Hey I'm enjoying this.
+: 
+: Everyone, listen up, I need lots of info from the experts ie not xians.
+: I'm supposed to write an essay on "hell" for my course on eschatology but am 
+: bored to tears of the usaul theological drival. Will all and sundry please 
+: send me their views on the subject so I can shock my lecturers with my
+: "authoratative contacts from among the damned" - so to speak. I just want to 
+: see their faces when they read it. <<
+
+Read Dante Aleghieri "Divine Comedy" it is divided into three parts: Inferno
+(hell) Limbo and Paradiso (hell) A book with Gustave Dore's illustrations is
+the best! It seems that a lot of the Christian church got much of info from
+there. 
+
+Then the hells of Oriental mythology are quite good. The film "Jacob's
+Ladder" attempts to show this. Hell in the oriental sense is a state of not
+acceptance of being dead where those angelic choirs that would transcend you
+into light become abominable, hideous phantasmogoria until your sould
+becomes aware of its condition, even through hineous tortures and releases
+itself out of materialism into the truth of light, divesting itself of the
+material envelope from which it struggles to escape.
+
+See Tibetan book of the Dead.
+
+>>. Give me all you've got - even if its rubbish you made up on the 
+: toilet.<<
+
+Why?? there is enough rubbish that you can quote that will really scare the
+pants out of them and ensure you a "good" mark.:-)
+:
+Eshin-Fun
 
Dante's Inferno is a good bet, since it seems to be a de facto Medieval
cosmology. Try Hobbes' Leviathon too, since there is a chapter in that on
Hell, including innumerable Biblical references. I'll post the full details
later. I would also think that the Satanic Bible has some information on it
but not having read it, I can only offer it as a potential source.

Graeme Sutherland.

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: To all christians...
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:25:12 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <kf0Dj6y00WC0AJBVNt@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> Stephen Alan Sisson's post was utter piffle.  there is plenty wron with
> the homosexual act.  First of all, I'm sure (I hope) that we all agree
> that there is nothing wrong with pleasure, even in the sexual act. Even
> the Catholic Church has formally declared this. 

Yes, but they do their best to downplay this. The Catholic Church
approves of one specific type of sexuality, which many people do *not*
find pleasureable. Further, they insist that the sexual act be
accompanied by an intolerably high risk of pregnancy, thus insuring that
reproduction is an important possibility in sex.

> The problem with the
> homosexual act is that it denies the natural aspects of sex. 

The "natural" aspect of sex is pleasure. Animals know not that they are
engaged in a reproductive act, but only an enjoyable and desirable one.
Humans do not grasp sex beyond the pleasure component, unless they are
instructed. Associating sex with reproduction is a learned behavior.
Children masturbate; this is normal and "natural," untainted by 
society's influence.

> I know
> that there are homosexual acts among animals, but there are other acts
> among them which clearly indicate that they are apart from morality as
> people are concerned.

What acts of animals show that they are apart from morality and humans
aren't?

> So don't dodge the issue by using that appalingly
> assinine argument.  One of the purposes of sex is to propagate.  This
> cannot be done in the homosexual context.  Another aspect is the fact
> that no matter how  you bend and twist, two penises will not enter each
> other.  This denies sex as conventionally seen. 

Sex as conventionally seen? You are speaking, you realize, of a single,
rigidly defined concept that is peculiar to Xianity. Sex is not limited
to one person entering another via sexual organs. I can be sexual with a
partner without ever touching them.

> To deny reality is to
> do an act of immorality.  Accept it.
> Andrew

I don't accept the concept of immorality. You are the one who denies 
the reality of others.

--Semhaza
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: To all christians...
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:09:47 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <Uf0l63O00aw949E31x@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Andrew N. Westmeyer" <aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>      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.

Love the sinner but hate the sin, huh? Guess what, it doesn't work. One
*always* ends up hating the sinner; how do you think persecution has
lasted so long?

"Better in the eyes of ultimate reality lifestyle"? You don't understand
what is going on here, do you? Your "ultimate reality" doesn't exist as
far as we are concerned (in fact, it doesn't exist at all).

You are trying to "help" us. Sorry. All that people like you do is convince
us that we are better off without you. Just thought I'd clue you in;
maybe it'll save you wasting some time.

Yours in Azazel,
--Semhaza
Newsgroups: alt.satanism