From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: (Was shields down) Now: morality of love as force
Date: 12 Sep 92 05:33:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep11.215919.24614@samba.oit.unc.edu>, eddie@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Edward M. Averett) writes...
>In article <BuF24B.IKH@acsu.buffalo.edu> oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:

>>We have some definition problems here, as usual.  Following are 
>>
>We sure do.  I find your comments interesting.  However, I am just going to 
>agree to disagree on this one, and let it drop, since not a thing you said
>in this post was something I even vaguely agreed with, or even was relevant
>to what I was talking about. 

If you say so.

>If the conceptual differences are that large, 
>then this limited forum is certainly not the place to go into a vast 
>discussion on the meaning of an entire vocabulary of basic terms.  I am 
>occasionally willing to address certain specifics of vocabulary, but not
>(unless everyone says, "Oh yes, let's!"), entire sets of jargon. 

I'm happy to settle for Webster's definition of terms.  I quoted 
the definitions for both disinterested and indifferent, and the 
definitions I used are primary, whereas the definitions you and Amanda 
used are secondary.  Of course, you may find a dictionary with your 
definition first.  I do not find definition confusion to be an 
overwhelming barrier to communication.  It can easily be 
overcome.

Now agreement on concepts is another matter.  Can't imagine why 
anyone would ever want agreement on concepts.  Dialogue would 
then become boring very fast.  Different ideas are what I find 
interesting.  I'm glad people have views different than mine.

>This may have something to do also with your feelings of apparent insecurity 
>about there being a conspiracy organization on this group.  

How did you come up with this theory?  I think alt.magick has the 
same sort of group dynamics as any other group.  I was merely 
sticking up for Kethry, whom I think was treated rather badly.  
Just one of my personal peculiarities at work here.  I only "do 
battle" with those I consider my equals or superiors.  Blowing 
away someone who is not fully able to defend their position does 
not appeal to me, especially when they are being criticized en 
masse on their first post.

Where did you get this "conspiracy" theory anyway?  This is what I 
said:

****************************************************************
*Why is it that someone who is a teenager (or thereabouts) is 
*automatically said to be acting out a psycho-melodrama?  I've 
*read equally far-fetched posts from adults and nearly everyone 
*accepted theirs at face value.  What are these value judgements based 
*on?

*IMO they are based on group-think.  There's an "inner circle" 
*here on alt.magick that sets the standards for what is acceptable 
*and what is not - to think, post, believe.  

*An inner circle member can post something and *not* be subjected to 
*the same level of critical thinking that outsiders endure.

*I hope the "fringe participants" aren't intimidated by this.  The 
*day everyone accepts the "inner circle's" basic tenants is the 
*day alt.magick becomes boring.
*******************************************************************

>If there is a 
>substantial subset of writers here with a vocabulary in which you skew so 
>badly that a majority of primary basic concepts are addressed in entirely 
>different ways, then it becomes easier to see that you may feel left out. 

Again, I think there is plenty of room for people to address 
basic concepts in entirely different ways.  It annnoys me to hear 
there is only one way.

>For my part, while I see occasional "groupings" that seem to come and go 
>in either basic writing styles, or content oriented posting, I can identify
>no such critter.  

Oh well, keep trying.  Group dynamics.  Alive and well on alt.magick.

- Peggy -
From: cal@otter.hpl.hp.com (Colin Low)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:47:45 GMT
Subject: Smalltalk
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.