HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: kundalini, martial arts, Alice Bailey
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:23:59 GMT

In article <BxyE7s.386@acsu.buffalo.edu> rmr@acsu.buffalo.edu (Richard M. Romanowski) writes:
>hi hi hi there!
>
>	Query for anybody who works with kundalini a lot: do you find
>Alice Bailey -style methods and z.Landsdowne methods useful --
>if so with what other methods do they mesh best?
>
>	Has anybody successfully combined esoteric martial arts
>(particularly Snake Kung Fu) and magick? If so, how?
>Thanks
>Luck
>Rick

The principles and meditation practises of Aikido come in handy for my
magickal practise on a regular basis. Also, the katas for the sword
and staff are *wonderful* for ceremonies invoking fire/wind. This is 
strictly on a practical basis. I couldn't begin to tell you how Aikido
has given me a foundation for magick....

Lost Boy


Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Shaman(esses?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:15:05 GMT

shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:

>This is copied shamelessly from a pagan conference on a UK BBS.
[stuff deleted]
>Hope it was interesting

Well, it was interesting, but I *really* want to know about the ethnogaphic
sources used.  What research is this, and does it really apply to the whole
world?  Did the original article cite any sources?  I, for one, am unwilling
to believe anything claiming to be ethnography (or any acedemic discipline)
without sources--especially something which makes such vast claims.


                               --Br'anArthur

Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
Newage is hypoallergenic spirituality--
it's for people who are allergic to the word religion.
                                   --Jon Jay Obermark
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Subject: Re: kundalini, martial arts, Alice Bailey
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:20:33 GMT

In article <BxyE7s.386@acsu.buffalo.edu> rmr@acsu.buffalo.edu (Richard M. Romanowski) writes:

            (question about kundalini deleted)
                
>	Has anybody successfully combined esoteric martial arts
>(particularly Snake Kung Fu) and magick? If so, how?
>Thanks
>Luck
>Rick

If you mean magic in the broader, cross-cultural sense, esoteric martial
arts _are_ magic.

If you mean the specific Western traditions that get most of the air time
in this group, though, that's a more interesting question, and one I'd
also like to hear more about.  The Western world never seems to have
developed anything like the spiritualization of combat that plays so big
a part in Eastern fighting arts, which IMHO leaves a hole in Western
occultism.  (Methods of bodywork of all kinds seem to have gotten short
shrift in the West, but that's another subject.)  

It certainly seems possible to adapt Eastern martial arts (or some
specific martial art) to fit a system of Western magical work, although
depending on the art some fairly substantial changes in the art's
philosophy and structure might be needed.  Alternatively, although
this might be rather more difficult, it seems possible to work with
the few surviving European martial arts (Fencing?  Savate?  Quarter-
staff?)  and develop one or more of them into an esoteric Western art.

I've been training in aikido (an art with some interesting links to
Japanese folk magic) for about four and a half months at this point,
for reasons that have a lot to do with the point under discussion.
How does it interact with my (mostly Golden Dawn-based) magical work?
Ask me in a couple more years...

The one common note that I find in the various esoterically inclined
Asian martial arts is that the philosophy of the art, and its essential
structure (from issues of strategy and tactics down to the particular
kinds of strikes and holds it uses) are precisely based on the ideas   
of the esoteric tradition in which the art is grounded.  (Compare the 
flowing, non-resistive movements of a T'ai Chi Ch'uan master to the
underlying body of Taoist esoteric philosophy, if you'd like an example.)

What kind of Western magic, then, has teachings that harmonize well with
Snake style kung-fu?  (This isn't a rhetorical question; I'm not at all
familiar with this style.)  For that matter, what sort of martial art
would suit, say, the Thelemic tradition, or modern Neopaganism, or the
Golden Dawn?  (I suspect the latter would need to be complex  to the
point of fussiness, and full of ornate weapons techniques. ;-) )

Anyone else doing work in this area?

-- John Michael Greer
   grimoire@u.washington.edu
From: gklein@acsu.buffalo.edu (Ginamaria Klein)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: help--- need someone who knows voodoo
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:48:27 GMT
Organization: UB

or possession...

serious help only, please...

gina
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: kundalini, martial arts, Alice Bailey
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
	<1992Nov20.232033.9285@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:14:10 GMT


s. l. mcgregor-mathers was very much into boxing, fencing etc. 
he also wrote a book about infantry tactics.

josh
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: definitions of Magic
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:05:20 GMT


Bran's definition of magic:
a range of processes of connecting with various subtle aspects of reality,
and then, *sometimes*, influencing them with our intent.

I know this definition leaves lots of undefined terms in its wake.  That's
intentional--everyone is going to have to work out those definitions 
experientially, so putting my definitions there would only hinder the process.


                               --Br'anArthur

Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
Newage is hypoallergenic spirituality--
it's for people who are allergic to the word religion.
                                   --Jon Jay Obermark
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: artephius 'secret book' (very long)
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:16:17 GMT
	<1992Nov17.073640.8810@sobeco.com>
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science


In article <1992Nov17.073640.8810@sobeco.com> ladislas@sobeco.com (Ladislas A.)
writes:

> I've come to believe that the only two ways one can complete the Work is to
> apprentice to an Adept or figure out the workings of nature and adapt it to
> achieve the Stone. 

I don't think so. I think that reading just a few books and performing
experiments one could, theoretically, complete the work. I think reading 
too many books might be a mistake until one has experimented some. 

bring this up in a couple four years, and I may have a better answer for you.

josh
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Myself and Magick
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:23:34 GMT

actually, I don't object so much to people believing anything
they want, though in fact 'believing' anything is sort of
losing. what I object to is people saying it publicly:

'oh yes, I myself was ramses III in a previous life'

'oh really? I was eleanor of aquitaine'

'oh wow, I was sir silliness of londinium, I just remembered'

whether these things are true or not, they are unproveable,
and thus on a par with claims of nonordinary abilities
(clairvoyance, psychokinesis, etc). 

believe what you want; publicly announce things like this
where I can hear or read them and you will be asked to 
provide some evidence.

josh
From: cward@think.com (Christopher Ward)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Spawning( was: Re: Many things - was women Vs men (ugh))
Date: 16 Nov 1992 20:39:29 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.239.33.15

I have to add my remarks in with Collin's on this.  I don't think
there is a single definitative reason for non-spawn policies (or
pro-procreation for that matter).  My own experience has lead me
to believe that having children is one of the most positive and
rewarding part of my life.  I also work with foster kids and know
that there are a lot of people for whom the parent-child relationship
dance is a real nightmare for both.

Perhaps the best way I could express it to this crowd would be to
put it as a matter of Will.  I wanted children and to make my relationship
with them a positive and rewarding experience for both of us.  Becoming
a father has had a more positive effect on my spiritual growth than
any other book, seminar, or retreat.  As Collin pointed out, there's
nothing like a baby or 2 year old to teach you about self sacrifice,
patience and unconditional love.

My years working with state foster care has certainly shown me that 
there are people out there who can't handle parenthood - but I've 
never run into a child who couldn't handle childhood with the right parent.
So, from some of the self serving drivel I've seen people post here, I
imagine that they might see parenthood as a weight on their precious
time.  Certainly a selfish person would view a child as a parasite
and perhaps eventually extend that view to almost everyone else.  I'd
say that such a person is better off celibate, but I wouldn't recommend
it as a lifestyle for everyone.
   

-- 
==========================================================================
Christopher Ward                                     voice: (602) 492-2955
Applications Engineer, AMEX                            fax: (602) 492-2463
Thinking Machines Corporation                       email: cward@Think.COM
From: spillane@ctron.com (James A. Spillane)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: To Greg in the UK
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:52:50 GMT
Reply-To: spillane@olympus.ctron.com (James A. Spillane)

To: mce186@uk.ac.salford.mcs
Subject: Re: White magic

Dear Greg,

        I am certain there at one time must have been a person who used
magic solely in an altruistic manner, but I think that such a person
is rare indeed.  I would be the first to admit that I am not even grey,
there are very clear veins of black and white in me, like two distinct
personalities.  Self interest will always be a factor, I think, because
rare indeed is the person who would cause himself harm in the name of
greater good, and I can only think of some very few situations where I
might even consider such actions.
        I do not know where you might find the information you seek...
You may want to try some of the obscure historical writings from the
10th and 11th centuries.  Do you know where I might find a Rowan or
Cauldron?  How about a decent sword?  These things are hard to come by
here...

-White Knight
From: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Allen Kampe)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Women Vs Men
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:34:07 GMT
Reply-To: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo.west.sun.com

>Hmmmmm....the optimum role.... The optimum role for the typical 
>exploitative, self-serving, egotistic medieval woman would 
>be to have piles of wealth and (somehow) lots of influence so the 
>church and politics would leave her alone.  Regarding the 
>breeding aspect, she'd select a group of stud-males to service 
>her, and nannies to take care of the babies.  Whether or not a 
>female could have actually managed to do this is doubtful.  

Eleanor of Aquitaine comes to mind.

>Realistically, the best a female could do would be to marry 
>someone rich and make the best of it.  

Sadly, she couldn't find anyone richer than herself to mary, so
she was forced to marry down ... to the king of England.

However I do not for a moment offer this to refute any of the 
rest of Ms Brown's observations and comments.
From: dgreen@thor (David Greenebaum)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: why wOn't for wIll not?
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:35:48 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.berkeley.edu

Stu Savory writes:

>Would not, could not            (see Walrus & Carpenter         ;)
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Would not, could not            (see Walrus & Carpenter         ;)
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Would not, could not            (see Walrus & Carpenter         ;)
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You do mean, "Lobster Quadrille", do'n't you?

>            [What I tell you three times, is true!          ;-]

The proof is complete, if only I've stated it thrice.

---------------------
 |\  | |\  |\  |// |
 | > | |\\ | \ |/  |   David Greenebaum/University of California/Berkeley, CA
 |<  | | \ |   |   |   dgreen@athena.berkeley.edu, dgreen@garnet.berkeley.edu
 | > | |   |   |   |
 |/  | |   |   |   |   "I make mistakes, but I am on the side of good -- by
---------------------  accident and happenchance." -- the Golux
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: grammar quiz
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:11:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.060206.22214@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>Path: news.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.udel.edu!udel!princeton!crux!roger
>From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
>Subject: Re: grammar quiz
>Message-ID: <1992Nov15.060206.22214@Princeton.EDU>
>Originator: news@nimaster
>Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: crux.princeton.edu
>Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
>Organization: Princeton University
>References: <1992Nov15.043652.22142@u.washington.edu>
>Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 06:02:06 GMT
>Lines: 16
>In article <1992Nov15.043652.22142@u.washington.edu> kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante) writes:
>>Which of the following is correct, and why?
>
>>     a)  "There is more than one."
>
>>     b)  "There are more than one."
>>CORRECT answers only, please.  Let's not waste bandwidth with
>
>Well,*you* certainly don't waste bandwidth, he said, noting the 
>abrupt end to the posting...
>
>Anyway, there is more than one way to skin a cat.  But in response
>to "How many are there?"  one might say, "There are more than one."
>One would *certainly* say "There are more than two."
>
>Roger


Someone (not a fan) wrote to me to correct a statement I had once
made in print from "there are a number of ways..." to "there is a
number of ways...."  Of course I was right and he was wrong, since
sense always is allowed to modify agreement, but I was startled
to read in a Michael Innes (J.I.M. Stewart) novel "there is a number of"
(novel dates from mid.1940s).

Dennis


debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:40:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.173051.21756@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.211317.14509@news2.cis.umn.edu> I wrote
>(replying to Roger):

>  Well I guess we have a fundamental disagreement.  Most people *do* do things
>  out of sheer trendiness.  Most bizspeak, entertainment speak, news, etc. is
>  little else but trendiness.

>In article <1992Nov21.233317.9814@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu
>(Roger Lustig) writes:

>> TRANSLATION: "I don't like it."  

>> Seriously, can you back this up with an iota of evidence?  Can you
>> demonstrate that fashion in word use is not universal, that it does not
>> reflect actual needs or desires to express new things or ideas or
>> relationships?  Have you ever studied the development of a new idiom?  

>Can you demonstrate that it is, and more precisely that trendiness is no
>more important now than in any other time in human history?  Can you
>demonstrate that using initialisms for everything does reflect actual needs?
>I can't even imagine what would count as evidence in such a demonstration.

Doesn't matter.  I don't *have* to demonstrate those things.

*YOU* made the assertion that acronyms and initialisms were the result of
"sheer [i.e., unadulterated] trendiness".  The burden of proof-- or even
of evidence is on you.

Now, regarding actual needs, it's more or less a given that people talk
the way they do in order to communicate.  Yes, there *have* been a few
observations that would back up this shocking hypothesis, and I see no
need to demonstrate it, either.  It seems like a good null hypothesis to me;
so how about doing your part?

>Studying the development is very different from demonstrating a need -- unless
>you have a hidden panglossian assumption that mere existence demonstrates
>a need.  

Again with the stupid insults.  This is not "panglossian," but simply 
a null assumption of linguistics.  Over the past thousand years of 
English, few words have arisen *except* when needed.  Why assume that 
these things we're talking about suddenly arise from a different 
motivation?

ANSWER: "I don't like it."

>You complained about being labeled "panglossian", but if you have
>any other argument, you haven't stated it.

I have the history of our language -- and of all other languages --
on my side.  Words and usages and constructions and practices become
accepted if they serve some purpose, and not otherwise.  I look forward
to your demonstrating that this (or anything else) is an exception.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.sex
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:01:31 GMT

In article <722057498@ptero.cs.duke.edu> dsb@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Scott Bigham) writes:

>From the Holy Book of <1992Nov18.100410.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
>  as spake by ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert) :
>
>>Even `grammarians' gave up long ago worrying about `you' being used for both
>>singular and plural.
>
>Wait, 'you' _is_ both a second-person singular pronoun and a
>second-person plural pronoun.

Only because that usage became so common.  If it were not in common
usage, you would be arguing the opposite.

>"Oh, someone will be coming by with the Harrison transcripts.  Send them
> to Joe in room 405."
>
>Now, does the 'them' in that sentence refer to the transcripts or to the
>person bringing them?
>
>See the problem?

Yes.  It's called "ambiguity," and it comes with the territory.  I
could cite you a dozen other perfectly grammatical, ambiguous
sentences -- most notably involving the word "you," which you have
already declared to be both singular and plural.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: quite unique
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:50:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.143247.22895@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.052332.20190@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.044517.15622@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>>If you use "unique" to mean "rare" or "unusual" or "a nice knockdown
>>>argument", then what word will you use when you really mean "unique"?

>>Why, "unique" of course.  (Note that "unique" *really* means "singular,"
>>"rare," etc. as well as "one-of-a-kind.")  I use "unique" to mean 
>>"one-of-a-kind" when the context makes that meaning clear.  I'm also
>>pretty good at fashioning appropriate contexts, they tell me.  

>So you're relying on the intelligence of your reader to guess what you
>mean when you say "unique" - this from the man who has peppered his
>posts with "Can't you read?"  complaints.

Well, yes, I am.  And so are all the other millions who use the word in
any or all of its four or five accepted meanings.

As for my "can't you read" complaints, they usually have to do with
a "not" that someone's overlooked.  You can use any standard meaning 
of "not" that you like, but *do* take it into account.

>Of course, of course, your readers will always know exactly what you
>mean, even if you don't bother using the best word for the job.  And if

I'd love to know how to determine the "best" word for a job when there
are several suitable ones.  Can you tell me?

>they don't, it must be because they can't read - it couldn't possibly be
>that you were less than 100% clear.

Please show me an example of this.  I can't really respond to hypotheticals
like that.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Things go better with cola-flavored soft drinks
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 07:44:31 GMT

> > And, in the UK, at least, VAX make carpet cleaners.

> ...which they advertise with the slogan "Nothing sucks like a VAX"
> (I kid you not).

You kid us not, and you are posting from the UK, but have you yourself
seen this slogan used by the VAX vacuum people?  Below is what version
2.9.10 of the Jargon File says, and it would be nice to settle the point.

Version 2.9.10 of the Jargon File says:

#  :VAX: /vaks/ n. 1. [from Virtual Address eXtension] ...
#  
#     2. A major brand of vacuum cleaner in Britain.  Cited here because
#     its alleged sales pitch, "Nothing sucks like a VAX!" became a
#     sort of battle-cry of RISC partisans.  It is sometimes claimed that
#     this slogan was *not* actually used by the Vax vacuum-cleaner
#     people, but was actually that of a rival brand called Electrolux
#     (as in "Nothing sucks like..."); your editors have not yet
#     been able to verify either version of the legend.  It is also
#     claimed that DEC actually entered a cross-licensing deal with the
#     vacuum-Vax people that allowed them to market VAX computers in the
#     U.K. in return for not challenging the vacuum cleaner trademark in
#     the U.S.
-- 
Mark Brader			"The three dots '...' here suppress a lot
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	         of detail -- maybe I should have used
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com	 four dots."			-- Knuth

This article is in the public domain.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english