Welcome to another read through.

A couple of folks in alt.magick go through a book chapter by chapter
discussing and criticising the ideas within. This time we're examining
"Real Magic" by Issac Bonewits.

In the introduction of Real Magick Bonewits takes the radical step of
introducing his book. He speculates that in part people's interest in
magic comes from the search for knowledge and in part from the feeling
of helplessness. He describes Real Magic as being not a recipe book or
a book of theurgy, which other books on magick often are, but a
intercultural and interdisciplinary examination of magical practices.
He ridicules the secrecy prevalent in magic and the claiming of
authority by supernatural means.

As Bonewits freely admits it's a book of conjecture which he presents
as theories to be tested. His goal, he says, is to examine 'old'
beliefs about magic that are present across cultures, simplify them
and present them in a testable way.

I hope you'll join us as we go real through, kicking about the ideas
within.

Kisai here, your other commentator on Isaac Bonewits' _Real Magic :An
Introductory Treatise on the Basic Principles of Yellow Magic_
(henceforth abbreviated as _RM_, Isaac will be *IB*).

A decent mini-biography of Isaac is given here: http://www.neopagan.net/IB_Bio.html

If you've never heard of this work before: _RM_ is actually a very
influential book, mainly amongst the Neopagan community.  The book
appears on many reading lists, including _Modern Magick_'s and _The
Magician's Companion_.  The magazine "PanGaia" lists it as the "third
most respected classic Pagan book in print".

The reason why _RM_ is influential (far more than the other seven
books *IB* wrote later on in his career) is that it really zinged the
zeitgeist of the late 60's- early 70's.  Its written with a scholarly-
ish, wry, meandering perspective that takes the reader on a leisurely
tour about the dusty museum of modern occultism.  _RM_ adomishes
superstition and authority and is never afraid to say "I don't know"
or as *IB* coins "Insufficient data".

As of such, it acted as an excellent introduction to the
disenfranchised youth which was fashionably hip to be in the 70's.
Magic is introduced as an _egalitarian_ technology, readily accessible
to the masses, and will spearhead a revolution as soon as everyone
gets their user's manual.  You'll notice, as we follow *IB* on his
tour, that he shpiels about hope.  Lots of hope.  Thirty-seven years
later, its still hopeful.  Unfortunately, those user manuals never
seem to have gotten around to being printed by either *IB* or another.

But hey, enjoy the tour.

Real Magic 0 - Introduction

*IB* expresses wonder at the world, denounces other books on magic as
being "documentaries" and "recipe collections", waggles his finger at
morality, Christianity, Authority in general, and Edgar Cayce,

*IB* holds up his B.A. in Magic and Thaumaturgy, says he is not an
expert in anything, but that he will be your tour guide to the museum
of magic.  On his way, he'll introduce his own theories, rearrange
ideas, and make it seem new.

*IB* asks that you not find enlightenment within the pages (hah), take
everything with a grain of salt, test things for yourself, that magic
takes years of practice and your own gumption, that the time is past
for Things Man Was Not Meant To Know.  This book is written for the
public.  Please, be kind.

Kisai wrote, On 5/22/2008 6:26 PM:
> Kisai here, your other commentator on Isaac Bonewits' _Real Magic :An
> Introductory Treatise on the Basic Principles of Yellow Magic_
> (henceforth abbreviated as _RM_, Isaac will be *IB*).
> 
> A decent mini-biography of Isaac is given here: http://www.neopagan.net/IB_Bio.html
> 
> If you've never heard of this work before: _RM_ is actually a very
> influential book, mainly amongst the Neopagan community.  The book
> appears on many reading lists, including _Modern Magick_'s and _The
> Magician's Companion_.  The magazine "PanGaia" lists it as the "third
> most respected classic Pagan book in print".
> 
> The reason why _RM_ is influential (far more than the other seven
> books *IB* wrote later on in his career) is that it really zinged the
> zeitgeist of the late 60's- early 70's.  Its written with a scholarly-
> ish, wry, meandering perspective that takes the reader on a leisurely
> tour about the dusty museum of modern occultism.  _RM_ adomishes
> superstition and authority and is never afraid to say "I don't know"
> or as *IB* coins "Insufficient data".
> 
> As of such, it acted as an excellent introduction to the
> disenfranchised youth which was fashionably hip to be in the 70's.
> Magic is introduced as an _egalitarian_ technology, readily accessible
> to the masses, and will spearhead a revolution as soon as everyone
> gets their user's manual.  You'll notice, as we follow *IB* on his
> tour, that he shpiels about hope.  Lots of hope.  Thirty-seven years
> later, its still hopeful.  Unfortunately, those user manuals never
> seem to have gotten around to being printed by either *IB* or another.
>

It's funny you should mention user manuals, I stopped by my local
Borders today when I was struck by the idea to pick up a copy of RM.
I found that Stephen Covey's books were not only in the self help
section, there was a copy of Seven Habits in the metaphysical section.
They didn't have RM though.

> But hey, enjoy the tour.

Heh.

> 
> 


-- 
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
http://www.mediafire.com/?9bmgyggtlx7

On May 22, 3:40 pm, Kisai  wrote:
> Real Magic 0 - Introduction
>
> *IB* ... denounces other books on magic as
> being "documentaries" and "recipe collections",

Of course.  He has to set up his own book as the only worthwhile show
in town.

> *IB* holds up his B.A. in Magic and Thaumaturgy,

From where?  Is this an accredited Bachelor's degree?

> Please, be kind.

Why?

"mika"  wrote in message 
news:936ec18d-2fec-4fbd-9eaa-58de12ba1a0e@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 3:40 pm, Kisai  wrote:
>> Real Magic 0 - Introduction
>>
>> *IB* ... denounces other books on magic as
>> being "documentaries" and "recipe collections",
>
> Of course.  He has to set up his own book as the only worthwhile show
> in town.

If you haven't read it, you should.  You'll find that, although it's 
somewhat dated, it contains a number of interesting ideas.

>> *IB* holds up his B.A. in Magic and Thaumaturgy,
>
> From where?  Is this an accredited Bachelor's degree?

UC Berkeley, 1970.  Yes, it is an accredited Bachelors Degree, one of the 
first awarded to a self-designed program.  Mostly it was anthropology, but 
with ancient and medieval history, psychology, philosophy, and comparative 
religion topics as well.  He was competently supervised and his progress was 
fully documented.

I've seen the diploma and met a couple of his teachers.  He really was there 
and it really is a legitimate Bachelors Degree from Berkeley.  For what 
that's worth.

On May 22, 5:50 pm, mika  wrote:
> On May 22, 3:40 pm, Kisai  wrote:
>
> > Real Magic 0 - Introduction
>
> > *IB* ... denounces other books on magic as
> > being "documentaries" and "recipe collections",
>
> Of course.  He has to set up his own book as the only worthwhile show
> in town.
>
> > *IB* holds up his B.A. in Magic and Thaumaturgy,
>
> From where?  Is this an accredited Bachelor's degree?
>
> > Please, be kind.
>
> Why?

We do ask that if you comment, its because you're following the book,
or have already read it.  My remarks tend to be abbreviated, or
sometimes sarcastic and do not actually reflect the tone of the book.
*IB* is much more self-effacing in his introduction, and recognizes
his limitations appropriately.

On May 22, 5:47 pm, Meltdarok  wrote:

> It's funny you should mention user manuals, I stopped by my local
> Borders today when I was struck by the idea to pick up a copy of RM.
> I found that Stephen Covey's books were not only in the self help
> section, there was a copy of Seven Habits in the metaphysical section.
> They didn't have RM though.

Large bookstores tend to stock that which moves off the shelf
quickly.  Your local used bookstore might have a copy of _RM_ for
under $5.

On 23 May, 17:29, Kisai  wrote:
> On May 22, 5:50 pm, mika  wrote:
>
>
> > > Please, be kind.
>
> > Why?
>
> We do ask that if you comment, its because you're following the book,
> or have already read it.

I don't really mind Mika, or anyone else who hasn't read it commenting
generally, but in this case Kisai is echoing IB. So it's
understandable to respond with a request for context with the
recommendation to read the book.

However, this time I'll give it. As Kisai alluded to previously, IB
says he tried to make the book accessible to the public. As such it's
written in a breezy rather than a scholarly style and his arguments
have been simplified (a lot like most usenet posts). There are other
reasons too of course, but you'll just have to read the book. :P

On May 22, 9:53 pm, "Tom" wrote:
> "mika"  wrote
> > On May 22, 3:40 pm, Kisai  wrote:

> >> *IB* holds up his B.A. in Magic and Thaumaturgy,
>
> > From where?  Is this an accredited Bachelor's degree?
>
> UC Berkeley, 1970.  Yes, it is an accredited Bachelors Degree, one of the
> first awarded to a self-designed program.  Mostly it was anthropology, but
> with ancient and medieval history, psychology, philosophy, and comparative
> religion topics as well.

So the degree is actually in anthropology, with a bit of history and
other 'soft science' subjects mixed in as well, with a focus on the
subjects of magic and thaumaturgy.  His degree was not in "magic and
thaumaturgy" as claimed.

There's a big difference between, say, a chemistry degree and a
history of chemistry degree.  Someone with a history of chemistry
degree could not with any validity claim to be a chemist.  Yet IB is
trying to back up his title of "magician" with a "history of magic"
degree.

Maybe it fools the people he needs to impress to sell his work, but it
doesn't fool me.

On May 23, 9:29 am, Kisai wrote:
>
> *IB* is much more self-effacing in his introduction, and recognizes
> his limitations appropriately.

Define "appropriately".  I don't think he recognizes them sufficiently
at all.  See my response to Tom - he's trying to sell his history
degree as if it means he's a certified Thaumaturgist or some such
thing.

Then he mentions the 'laws of magic' right after discussing the laws
of physics, as if the meaning of the word "law" is the same in both
those instances, which it isn't.  The laws of physics are based on the
scientific method, the "laws" of magic are based on speculation.

Finally, why are you assuming I'm not reading the book?

"mika"  wrote in message 
news:5f31148a-a138-4974-ae44-dfb94428f75b@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 9:53 pm, "Tom" wrote:
>> "mika"  wrote
>> > On May 22, 3:40 pm, Kisai  wrote:
>
>> >> *IB* holds up his B.A. in Magic and Thaumaturgy,
>>
>> > From where?  Is this an accredited Bachelor's degree?
>>
>> UC Berkeley, 1970.  Yes, it is an accredited Bachelors Degree, one of the
>> first awarded to a self-designed program.  Mostly it was anthropology, 
>> but
>> with ancient and medieval history, psychology, philosophy, and 
>> comparative
>> religion topics as well.
>
> So the degree is actually in anthropology, with a bit of history and
> other 'soft science' subjects mixed in as well, with a focus on the
> subjects of magic and thaumaturgy.  His degree was not in "magic and
> thaumaturgy" as claimed.

No. In a self designed study, the degree is in what you title the course of 
study. If Bonewits titled his proposed course of study as "Magic and 
Thamurgy", and it was approved for a degreee, then the Degree is under that 
title.
>
> There's a big difference between, say, a chemistry degree and a
> history of chemistry degree.  Someone with a history of chemistry
> degree could not with any validity claim to be a chemist.  Yet IB is
> trying to back up his title of "magician" with a "history of magic"
> degree.
>
> Maybe it fools the people he needs to impress to sell his work, but it
> doesn't fool me.
>

Chade wrote:
> Welcome to another read through.
> 
> A couple of folks in alt.magick go through a book chapter by chapter
> discussing and criticising the ideas within. This time we're examining
> "Real Magic" by Issac Bonewits.
> 
> In the introduction of Real Magick Bonewits takes the radical step of
> introducing his book. He speculates that in part people's interest in
> magic comes from the search for knowledge and in part from the feeling
> of helplessness. He describes Real Magic as being not a recipe book or
> a book of theurgy, which other books on magick often are, but a
> intercultural and interdisciplinary examination of magical practices.
> He ridicules the secrecy prevalent in magic and the claiming of
> authority by supernatural means.
> 
> As Bonewits freely admits it's a book of conjecture which he presents
> as theories to be tested. His goal, he says, is to examine 'old'
> beliefs about magic that are present across cultures, simplify them
> and present them in a testable way.
> 
> I hope you'll join us as we go real through, kicking about the ideas
> within.

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/video/

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/streaming/dbdoll.ram

FFF
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

On 23 May, 19:23, mika  wrote:

>
> Maybe it fools the people he needs to impress to sell his work, but it
> doesn't fool me.

IB describes himself as a good occultist, but a poor magician.

On 23 May, 20:53, Chade  wrote:
> On 23 May, 19:23, mika  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Maybe it fools the people he needs to impress to sell his work, but it
> > doesn't fool me.
>
> IB describes himself as a good occultist, but a poor magician.

I suppose I should qualify that as a relatively poor magician.

"Kisai"  wrote in message 
news:f4ebc1ff-98b4-4e2b-a93e-902e64b153c8@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>
> We do ask that if you comment, its because you're following the book,
> or have already read it.  My remarks tend to be abbreviated, or
> sometimes sarcastic and do not actually reflect the tone of the book.
> *IB* is much more self-effacing in his introduction, and recognizes
> his limitations appropriately.

While it is a good idea to read a b ook before commenting on what it says, 
it seems perfectly reasonable to comment on ideas raised by others who are 
discussing it.

"mika"  wrote in message 
news:5f31148a-a138-4974-ae44-dfb94428f75b@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 9:53 pm, "Tom" wrote:
>> "mika"  wrote
>> > On May 22, 3:40 pm, Kisai  wrote:
>
>> >> *IB* holds up his B.A. in Magic and Thaumaturgy,
>>
>> > From where?  Is this an accredited Bachelor's degree?
>>
>> UC Berkeley, 1970.  Yes, it is an accredited Bachelors Degree, one of the
>> first awarded to a self-designed program.  Mostly it was anthropology, 
>> but
>> with ancient and medieval history, psychology, philosophy, and 
>> comparative
>> religion topics as well.
>
> So the degree is actually in anthropology, with a bit of history and
> other 'soft science' subjects mixed in as well, with a focus on the
> subjects of magic and thaumaturgy.  His degree was not in "magic and
> thaumaturgy" as claimed.

No, the degree is overtly and explicitly in "magic".  It was an individually 
designed course of study, a very new idea at Berkeley at the time.  It was 
not a pre-packaged program in some other field.

"Chade"  wrote in message 
news:60e6f9c8-c809-480d-935f-a4f5f2ba54f6@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 May, 19:23, mika  wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe it fools the people he needs to impress to sell his work, but it
>> doesn't fool me.
>
> IB describes himself as a good occultist, but a poor magician.

A description with which I fully agree.

Chade  writes:

> As Bonewits freely admits it's a book of conjecture which he presents
> as theories to be tested. His goal, he says, is to examine 'old'
> beliefs about magic that are present across cultures, simplify them
> and present them in a testable way.

And he invokes Occam's Razor - a bold thing to do when writing about
the application of magic.

> I hope you'll join us as we go real through, kicking about the ideas
> within.

Cheers,
Florian

-- 
Every man passes out of life as if he had just been born.
                                           -- Epicurus (Vatican Sayings 60)

On May 23, 5:31 pm, "Tom"  wrote:
> "Kisai"  wrote in message
>
> news:f4ebc1ff-98b4-4e2b-a93e-902e64b153c8@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > We do ask that if you comment, its because you're following the book,
> > or have already read it.  My remarks tend to be abbreviated, or
> > sometimes sarcastic and do not actually reflect the tone of the book.
> > *IB* is much more self-effacing in his introduction, and recognizes
> > his limitations appropriately.
>
> While it is a good idea to read a b ook before commenting on what it says,> it seems perfectly reasonable to comment on ideas raised by others who are> discussing it.

Noted.  I would just protest a little for fairness in favor of Isaac.
He did write the book when he was 21, which is a laudable achievement.

On May 23, 1:27 pm, mika  wrote:
> On May 23, 9:29 am, Kisai wrote:
>
>
>
> > *IB* is much more self-effacing in his introduction, and recognizes
> > his limitations appropriately.
>
> Define "appropriately".  I don't think he recognizes them sufficiently
> at all.  See my response to Tom - he's trying to sell his history
> degree as if it means he's a certified Thaumaturgist or some such
> thing.
>
> Then he mentions the 'laws of magic' right after discussing the laws
> of physics, as if the meaning of the word "law" is the same in both
> those instances, which it isn't.  The laws of physics are based on the
> scientific method, the "laws" of magic are based on speculation.
>
> Finally, why are you assuming I'm not reading the book?

You seem a bit hostile to what's essentially a fun and casual book.

mika wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Define "appropriately".  I don't think he recognizes them sufficiently
> at all.  See my response to Tom - he's trying to sell his history
> degree as if it means he's a certified Thaumaturgist or some such
> thing.

Nonsense -- he may be gloating that he managed to get the University of 
California system to grant him a degree in Magic, but he is not making 
fraudulent claims regarding his credentials. He's wonderfully truthful 
(unlike, say, that guy who concocted imaginary fieldwork in Mexico for 
his doctoral thesis).

> 
> Then he mentions the 'laws of magic' right after discussing the laws
> of physics, as if the meaning of the word "law" is the same in both
> those instances, which it isn't.  The laws of physics are based on the
> scientific method, the "laws" of magic are based on speculation.

Gee, more nonsense. It's been many years since I read the book, so I 
won't comment precisely on Bonewitz's claim. I will, however, ask you to 
show me the *direct empirical* evidence for Stephen Hawking's leaking 
black holes (remember, I'm asking for *direct* empirical evidence, not 
mathematical or other indirect evidence).

Perhaps you're looking for Karl Popper's notion of 'falsifiability' as 
the difference between an empirical claim and a claim from elsewhere in 
the field of philosophy or theology. You will find that distinction, but 
you'll find more speculation than 'scientific method' (whatever that 
means) in the initial formulation of the laws of physics.

I doubt there was appreciable difference in Newton's methodology in 
formulating the laws of universal gravitation from discussing the 
interactions of the elements. The biggest difference is that he was 
right about gravity (as *later* empirically demonstrated) but working 
from the wrong preconceptions (correspondences rather than the 
undiscovered atomic theory) as he attempted to combine the elements.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

On May 24, 4:02 pm, Kisai wrote:
>
> You seem a bit hostile

Perhaps because I am criticizing something you like.  I bet if I were
as critical of something you don't care about, you wouldn't infer any
hostility at all.

> to what's essentially a fun and casual book.

I thought the purpose of these book review threads was to engage in
serious discussion regarding magick-related works, which involves
critical analysis.  If you now want to say 'but wait, this is just fun
and casual material' because you don't like the criticism, that's
bullshit.  If this is a merely fun and casual book, there is no
substance to discuss.

On May 25, 6:08 am, Gale wrote:
> mika wrote:
>
> > Define "appropriately".  I don't think he recognizes them sufficiently
> > at all.  See my response to Tom - he's trying to sell his history
> > degree as if it means he's a certified Thaumaturgist or some such
> > thing.
>
> Nonsense -- he may be gloating that he managed to get the University of
> California system to grant him a degree in Magic,

But, apparently, it's not a degree in Magic, it's a degree in
Anthropology.

Do you think a degree in Chemistry and a degree in the History of
Chemistry are the same thing?  Do you think someone with a degree in
the History of Chemistry is qualified to run a Laboratory?

> > Then he mentions the 'laws of magic' right after discussing the laws
> > of physics, as if the meaning of the word "law" is the same in both
> > those instances, which it isn't.  The laws of physics are based on the
> > scientific method, the "laws" of magic are based on speculation.
>
> Gee, more nonsense. It's been many years since I read the book, so I
> won't comment precisely on Bonewitz's claim. I will, however, ask you to
> show me the *direct empirical* evidence for Stephen Hawking's leaking
> black holes (remember, I'm asking for *direct* empirical evidence, not
> mathematical or other indirect evidence).

Bonewitz was relating his laws of magic to the laws of physics, as I
said in the paragraph above.  Note:  the reference is to the *laws of
physics*, not to 'any theory developed by a physicist'.

You do understand the difference between a scientific law and a
theory, right?

If he called his "laws of magic" "theories of magic" instead, I
wouldn't have made the same criticism.

"mika"  wrote in message 
news:9e39c629-1b8b-4da9-ba39-ad1b476c6980@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 25, 6:08 am, Gale wrote:
>> mika wrote:
>>
>> > Define "appropriately".  I don't think he recognizes them sufficiently
>> > at all.  See my response to Tom - he's trying to sell his history
>> > degree as if it means he's a certified Thaumaturgist or some such
>> > thing.
>>
>> Nonsense -- he may be gloating that he managed to get the University of
>> California system to grant him a degree in Magic,
>
> But, apparently, it's not a degree in Magic, it's a degree in
> Anthropology.

No.
More than one poster has assured you that this is not the case..

> Do you think a degree in Chemistry and a degree in the History of
> Chemistry are the same thing?  Do you think someone with a degree in
> the History of Chemistry is qualified to run a Laboratory?

This is a false arguement, since your arbitrary assumption that his degree 
must be in something other than what it is, is a false one to begin with.
>
>> > Then he mentions the 'laws of magic' right after discussing the laws
>> > of physics, as if the meaning of the word "law" is the same in both
>> > those instances, which it isn't.  The laws of physics are based on the
>> > scientific method, the "laws" of magic are based on speculation.
>>
>> Gee, more nonsense. It's been many years since I read the book, so I
>> won't comment precisely on Bonewitz's claim. I will, however, ask you to
>> show me the *direct empirical* evidence for Stephen Hawking's leaking
>> black holes (remember, I'm asking for *direct* empirical evidence, not
>> mathematical or other indirect evidence).
>
> Bonewitz was relating his laws of magic to the laws of physics, as I
> said in the paragraph above.  Note:  the reference is to the *laws of
> physics*, not to 'any theory developed by a physicist'.
>
> You do understand the difference between a scientific law and a
> theory, right?

Do you?
It sounds suspiciously as if you may think that  a law is something that has 
been proven true and a theory has not.
This is not the way the terms are used in science.
>
> If he called his "laws of magic" "theories of magic" instead, I
> wouldn't have made the same criticism.

On May 27, 1:25 pm,  wrote:
> "mika"  wrote
>
> > But, apparently, it's not a degree in Magic, it's a degree in
> > Anthropology.
>
> No.

Tom wrote:

" Yes, it is an accredited Bachelors Degree, one of the
first awarded to a self-designed program.  Mostly it was anthropology,
but
with ancient and medieval history, psychology, philosophy, and
comparative
religion topics as well.  "

This degree is to "magic" what a "history of chemistry" degree is to
"chemistry".

To be accurate, he should call his degree "history of magic" or
"philosophy of magic" or use some other such qualifier.  If not, the
least he should do is call it a "theory of magic" degree, to
distinguish it from magical *practice*.  As it stands, he is being
very disingenuous, giving the appearance of having some sort of
accredited credentials in the practice of magic so he can "speak from
authority", when in actuality this claim of authority as it relates to
magical practice is no more valid than 'family tradition' or 'lineage
through initiation' or any other unverifiable claim.  Understanding of
history and theory does not automatically translate to understanding
of practice.  As I said, do you think someone with a degree in the
History of Chemistry is qualified to run a chem lab?

"mika"  wrote in message 
news:9e39c629-1b8b-4da9-ba39-ad1b476c6980@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> But, apparently, it's not a degree in Magic, it's a degree in
> Anthropology.

No, it's not.  I explained this to you once, but it doesn't seem to have 
registered.  Anthropology was one of the subjects it covered, among many 
others.  However, it wasn't anything like a course in magical applications. 
It was merely a study of the history, philosophy, and practices of 
"primitive" European religions and shamanism.  The study of magic can cover 
a lot of ground.

Isaac freely admits that he's more an occultist than he is a magician.

> Do you think a degree in Chemistry and a degree in the History of
> Chemistry are the same thing?  Do you think someone with a degree in
> the History of Chemistry is qualified to run a Laboratory?

Nobody with a BA in Chemistry is qualified to run any lab.  Bachelor's 
degrees are not to be confused with Doctorates.

When I completed my Bachelor's degree, I commented that I didn't have much 
knowledge of my field but at least I finally had a good notion of how to go 
about learning something substantial, if I put my mind to it.

> Bonewitz was relating his laws of magic to the laws of physics, as I
> said in the paragraph above.  Note:  the reference is to the *laws of
> physics*, not to 'any theory developed by a physicist'.

The laws of physics *are* theories developed by physicists, aren't they?  I 
don;t think that was the root of his problem.

Isaac's most basic error was in thinking that magic laws were the same as 
physical laws.  This stems from his credulous belief in paranormal powers.

> You do understand the difference between a scientific law and a
> theory, right?

Scientific laws are theories that have been around for a long time without 
being seriously challenged by contradicting evidence.  They're really good 
theories, but they are theories.

> If he called his "laws of magic" "theories of magic" instead, I
> wouldn't have made the same criticism.

Isaac's expression of the "laws" of magic aren't actually too bad, by 
comparison with those of other occultists.

"mika"  wrote in message 
news:83aec7e3-528e-446d-b375-472caa0dfac5@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 27, 1:25 pm,  wrote:
>> "mika"  wrote
>>
>> > But, apparently, it's not a degree in Magic, it's a degree in
>> > Anthropology.
>>
>> No.
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> " Yes, it is an accredited Bachelors Degree, one of the
> first awarded to a self-designed program.  Mostly it was anthropology,
> but
> with ancient and medieval history, psychology, philosophy, and
> comparative
> religion topics as well.  "
>
> This degree is to "magic" what a "history of chemistry" degree is to
> "chemistry".

No.
The quote above indicates that most of the courses were in the Anthropology 
department, with others in the other departments listed; but what you keep 
refusing to hear is that it was a self-designed program leading to a degree 
named by the student and approved by the University.
>
> To be accurate, he should call his degree "history of magic" or
> "philosophy of magic" or use some other such qualifier.

Unless he used some such qualifier in proposing the degree to the University 
or the University required such a qualifier in the degree as approved and 
granted then it would be inaccurate to add such qualifiers just because you 
don't approve of the degree he as actually granted.


  If not, the
> least he should do is call it a "theory of magic" degree, to
> distinguish it from magical *practice*.  As it stands, he is being
> very disingenuous, giving the appearance of having some sort of
> accredited credentials in the practice of magic


This is precicely what he does have.
The fact that you don't like it, doesn't change that.




 so he can "speak from
> authority", when in actuality this claim of authority as it relates to
> magical practice is no more valid than 'family tradition' or 'lineage
> through initiation' or any other unverifiable claim.

Except that his claim IS verified by a degree form a rather prestiegous 
University


 Understanding of
> history and theory does not automatically translate to understanding
> of practice.  As I said, do you think someone with a degree in the
> History of Chemistry is qualified to run a chem lab?


His degree is not in "the History of" Magic.

"Tom"  wrote in message 
news:6bWdneMNbs4hJ6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "mika"  wrote in message 
> news:9e39c629-1b8b-4da9-ba39-ad1b476c6980@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> But, apparently, it's not a degree in Magic, it's a degree in
>> Anthropology.
>
> No, it's not.  I explained this to you once, but it doesn't seem to have 
> registered.  Anthropology was one of the subjects it covered, among many 
> others.  However, it wasn't anything like a course in magical 
> applications. It was merely a study of the history, philosophy, and 
> practices of "primitive" European religions and shamanism.  The study of 
> magic can cover a lot of ground.
>
> Isaac freely admits that he's more an occultist than he is a magician.
>
>> Do you think a degree in Chemistry and a degree in the History of
>> Chemistry are the same thing?  Do you think someone with a degree in
>> the History of Chemistry is qualified to run a Laboratory?
>
> Nobody with a BA in Chemistry is qualified to run any lab.  Bachelor's 
> degrees are not to be confused with Doctorates.
>
> When I completed my Bachelor's degree, I commented that I didn't have much 
> knowledge of my field but at least I finally had a good notion of how to 
> go about learning something substantial, if I put my mind to it.
>
>> Bonewitz was relating his laws of magic to the laws of physics, as I
>> said in the paragraph above.  Note:  the reference is to the *laws of
>> physics*, not to 'any theory developed by a physicist'.
>
> The laws of physics *are* theories developed by physicists, aren't they? 
> I don;t think that was the root of his problem.
>
> Isaac's most basic error was in thinking that magic laws were the same as 
> physical laws.  This stems from his credulous belief in paranormal powers.
>
>> You do understand the difference between a scientific law and a
>> theory, right?
>
> Scientific laws are theories that have been around for a long time without 
> being seriously challenged by contradicting evidence.  They're really good 
> theories, but they are theories.

This statement has nothing to do with the scientific use of the terms "law" 
and "theory"


>> If he called his "laws of magic" "theories of magic" instead, I
>> wouldn't have made the same criticism.
>
> Isaac's expression of the "laws" of magic aren't actually too bad, by 
> comparison with those of other occultists.

joerevskelton@bellsouth.net wrote:
> "mika"  wrote in message 
> news:83aec7e3-528e-446d-b375-472caa0dfac5@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>On May 27, 1:25 pm,  wrote:
>>
>>>"mika"  wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>But, apparently, it's not a degree in Magic, it's a degree in
>>>>Anthropology.
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>" Yes, it is an accredited Bachelors Degree, one of the
>>first awarded to a self-designed program.  Mostly it was anthropology,
>>but
>>with ancient and medieval history, psychology, philosophy, and
>>comparative
>>religion topics as well.  "
>>
>>This degree is to "magic" what a "history of chemistry" degree is to
>>"chemistry".
> 
> 
> No.
> The quote above indicates that most of the courses were in the Anthropology 
> department, with others in the other departments listed; but what you keep 
> refusing to hear is that it was a self-designed program leading to a degree 
> named by the student and approved by the University.
> 
>>To be accurate, he should call his degree "history of magic" or
>>"philosophy of magic" or use some other such qualifier.
> 
> 
> Unless he used some such qualifier in proposing the degree to the University 
> or the University required such a qualifier in the degree as approved and 
> granted then it would be inaccurate to add such qualifiers just because you 
> don't approve of the degree he as actually granted.
> 
> 
>   If not, the
> 
>>least he should do is call it a "theory of magic" degree, to
>>distinguish it from magical *practice*.  As it stands, he is being
>>very disingenuous, giving the appearance of having some sort of
>>accredited credentials in the practice of magic
> 
> 
> 
> This is precicely what he does have.
> The fact that you don't like it, doesn't change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  so he can "speak from
> 
>>authority", when in actuality this claim of authority as it relates to
>>magical practice is no more valid than 'family tradition' or 'lineage
>>through initiation' or any other unverifiable claim.
> 
> 
> Except that his claim IS verified by a degree form a rather prestiegous 
> University
> 
> 
>  Understanding of
> 
>>history and theory does not automatically translate to understanding
>>of practice.  As I said, do you think someone with a degree in the
>>History of Chemistry is qualified to run a chem lab?
> 
> 
> 
> His degree is not in "the History of" Magic.
> 
> 
And they canceled the program that allowed him to get his degree in Magic
--
JL

-- 
Joseph Littleshoes

     "The two main political parties ruled alternately as if by tacit 
agreement.  Politically they were practically indistinguishable (one 
perhaps a shade more liberal) but in both camps supporters were more 
swayed by personalities than by issues.  Both parties were heavily 
dependent on the large industrial conglomerates.  Corruption was 
widespread, the conglomerates dictated economic policy, and with few 
outstanding exceptions, politicians' reputations were low."

wrote in message 
news:S63%j.53207$7a.51029@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "mika"  wrote in message 
> news:83aec7e3-528e-446d-b375-472caa0dfac5@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 27, 1:25 pm,  wrote:
>>> "mika"  wrote
>>>
>>> > But, apparently, it's not a degree in Magic, it's a degree in
>>> > Anthropology.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>> " Yes, it is an accredited Bachelors Degree, one of the
>> first awarded to a self-designed program.  Mostly it was anthropology,
>> but
>> with ancient and medieval history, psychology, philosophy, and
>> comparative
>> religion topics as well.  "
>>
>> This degree is to "magic" what a "history of chemistry" degree is to
>> "chemistry".
>
> No.
> The quote above indicates that most of the courses were in the 
> Anthropology department, with others in the other departments listed; but 
> what you keep refusing to hear is that it was a self-designed program 
> leading to a degree named by the student and approved by the University.
>>
>> To be accurate, he should call his degree "history of magic" or
>> "philosophy of magic" or use some other such qualifier.
>
> Unless he used some such qualifier in proposing the degree to the 
> University or the University required such a qualifier in the degree as 
> approved and granted then it would be inaccurate to add such qualifiers 
> just because you don't approve of the degree he as actually granted.

Actually, the administration of Berkeley has since decided not to allow 
students to name their degree in the manner Isaac did.  They, like Mika, 
feel that it was misleading to call it a degree in "magic".  Similarly, they 
would not allow a student to claim a degree in "engineering" if they had 
learned only to operate a railway locomotive.  Technically, it would be 
correct, but practically, it would be misleading.

Still, the degree title is what it is.  A lot depends on that perennial 
problem, the definition of magic.

"Joseph Littleshoes"  wrote in message 
news:483CED15.9090807@isp.com...
>
> And they canceled the program that allowed him to get his degree in Magic

Not exactly.  Self-designed programs are presently allowed in many 
departments.  It's just that you can't call your degree whatever you'd like.

wrote in message 
news:7o3%j.53263$7a.7173@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Tom"  wrote in message 
> news:6bWdneMNbs4hJ6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> Scientific laws are theories that have been around for a long time 
>> without being seriously challenged by contradicting evidence.  They're 
>> really good theories, but they are theories.
>
> This statement has nothing to do with the scientific use of the terms 
> "law" and "theory"

I await your differentiation between a "scientific law" and a "scientific 
theory".  With supportive evidence, of course.

On May 27, 6:53 pm, "Tom"  wrote:
> "mika"  wrote
>
> > But, apparently, it's not a degree in Magic, it's a degree in
> > Anthropology.
>
> No, it's not.  I explained this to you once, but it doesn't seem to have
> registered.  Anthropology was one of the subjects it covered, among many
> others.

Excuse me, anthropology and some other soft sciences.  My point
remains valid.  The title of his degree is misleading.  As you said:

> However, it wasn't anything like a course in magical applications.
> It was merely a study of the history, philosophy, and practices of
> "primitive" European religions and shamanism.

> Isaac freely admits that he's more an occultist than he is a magician.

> > Do you think a degree in Chemistry and a degree in the History of
> > Chemistry are the same thing?  Do you think someone with a degree in
> > the History of Chemistry is qualified to run a Laboratory?
>
> Nobody with a BA in Chemistry is qualified to run any lab.

I didn't say a BA.  It was an analogy.  If you want to be so nit-picky
with the above, then why were you so careless with the distinction
below?

> > Bonewitz was relating his laws of magic to the laws of physics, as I
> > said in the paragraph above.  Note:  the reference is to the *laws of
> > physics*, not to 'any theory developed by a physicist'.
>
> The laws of physics *are* theories developed by physicists, aren't they?

Laws are more than theories.  They may have started as theories, but
there is a difference.

Theories are "propositions", "speculation", "a proposed explanation
whose status is still conjectural"... where a scientific law is "a
phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever
certain conditions exist or are met".

Don't you think there's a difference between "status is still
conjectural" and "proven to invariably occur"?

> Isaac's most basic error was in thinking that magic laws were the same as
> physical laws.  This stems from his credulous belief in paranormal powers.

That works for me.  Magic "laws" can't be "proven to invariably occur"
like physical laws.  Magic "laws" remain conjectural, thus are more
accurately called "theories".

> Isaac's expression of the "laws" of magic aren't actually too bad, by
> comparison with those of other occultists.

Some shit smells better than other shit, but still tastes like shit.

"mika"  wrote in message 
news:b3c47dac-4921-445b-b58c-22889c14a65f@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 27, 6:53 pm, "Tom"  wrote:
>>
>> Nobody with a BA in Chemistry is qualified to run any lab.
>
> I didn't say a BA.  It was an analogy.

An analogy to what?  The guy got an undergraduate degree.  All that means is 
that he learned how to do homework.

>> The laws of physics *are* theories developed by physicists, aren't they?
>
> Laws are more than theories.  They may have started as theories, but
> there is a difference.
>
> Theories are "propositions", "speculation", "a proposed explanation
> whose status is still conjectural"...

No, ma'am.  Those would be hypotheses.  Theories have evidenciary bases, 
sometimes a very extensive ones.  "Laws" in science are theories that have 
*a whole lot* of evidenciary bases and nobody has yet thought of a better 
one.

Newton's "Laws of Motion" are a good example.  They come apart at extremely 
high velocities and with very great or very tiny masses.  Since we were 
unable to experiment with such extremes until recently, people thought of 
them as laws of nature, but they're not.  They're just theories that fit the 
available evidence for a long time.

> Don't you think there's a difference between "status is still
> conjectural" and "proven to invariably occur"?

"Proven" is a word that has no place in the description of any scientific 
theory.  Every theory of science is open to contradiction at any time.

>> Isaac's most basic error was in thinking that magic laws were the same as
>> physical laws.  This stems from his credulous belief in paranormal 
>> powers.
>
> That works for me.  Magic "laws" can't be "proven to invariably occur"
> like physical laws.  Magic "laws" remain conjectural, thus are more
> accurately called "theories".

Unless they are testable, they don't even rise to the level of "theory". 
Still, lots of fudging goes on, even among scientists.  For instance, 
"string theory" is untestable at the moment.  So, in my opinion, it is 
erroneous to call it a "theory" at all.  Yet, because it has all those 
scientific trappings, it gets a pass from most folks.

>> Isaac's expression of the "laws" of magic aren't actually too bad, by
>> comparison with those of other occultists.
>
> Some shit smells better than other shit, but still tastes like shit.

Those are tests.  I approve of testing.

On 2008-05-28,   wrote:
>
> "Tom"  wrote in message 
> news:6bWdneMNbs4hJ6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Scientific laws are theories that  have been around for a long time
>> without  being  seriously  challenged  by  contradicting  evidence.
>> They're really good theories, but they are theories.
>
> This  statement has nothing  to do  with the  scientific use  of the
> terms "law" and "theory"

That's true, but it's also  irrelevant since the scientific use of the
*terms* has  a lot to do with  history and little to  do with science.
Historians may wrangle about why we speak of Newton's *Law* of Gravity
and Einstein's  *Theory* of Relativity but real  live scientists don't
give  a hoot  since  they care  about  the *content*  rather than  the
terminology.  Don't judge a book by its cover etc.

Enough deepness, this is for giggles:

    http://boasas.com/?c=958

;-)

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty

"Jeremy Henty"  wrote in message 
news:slrng3rrb0.ngf.onepoint@omphalos.onepoint...
> On 2008-05-28,   
> wrote:
>>
>> "Tom"  wrote in message
>> news:6bWdneMNbs4hJ6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Scientific laws are theories that  have been around for a long time
>>> without  being  seriously  challenged  by  contradicting  evidence.
>>> They're really good theories, but they are theories.
>>
>> This  statement has nothing  to do  with the  scientific use  of the
>> terms "law" and "theory"
>
> That's true, but it's also  irrelevant since the scientific use of the
> *terms* has  a lot to do with  history and little to  do with science.

Then it's not a scientific term at all.  It's an historical term. So. if we 
accept your statement, there is no such thing as a "scientific law".

"Tom"  wrote in message 
news:c5ydna8rZ8iz5aDVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>  wrote in message 
> news:7o3%j.53263$7a.7173@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Tom"  wrote in message 
>> news:6bWdneMNbs4hJ6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> Scientific laws are theories that have been around for a long time 
>>> without being seriously challenged by contradicting evidence.  They're 
>>> really good theories, but they are theories.
>>
>> This statement has nothing to do with the scientific use of the terms 
>> "law" and "theory"
>
> I await your differentiation between a "scientific law" and a "scientific 
> theory".  With supportive evidence, of course.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

On 2008-05-29, Tom  wrote:
>
> "Jeremy Henty"  wrote in message 
> news:slrng3rrb0.ngf.onepoint@omphalos.onepoint...
>> On 2008-05-28,   
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tom"  wrote in message
>>> news:6bWdneMNbs4hJ6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Scientific laws are theories that  have been around for a long time
>>>> without  being  seriously  challenged  by  contradicting  evidence.
>>>> They're really good theories, but they are theories.
>>>
>>> This  statement has nothing  to do  with the  scientific use  of the
>>> terms "law" and "theory"
>>
>> That's true, but it's also  irrelevant since the scientific use of the
>> *terms* has  a lot to do with  history and little to  do with science.
>
> Then it's not a scientific term at all.  It's an historical term. 

What is this "it", kemosabe?   Seriously, it's impossible to tell what
you're referring to  by "it" here.  If you mean  that the titles "law"
and  "theory" are  bestowed by  history,  then, well,  duh, I  already
*said* that.  And, they are.

> So.  if we  accept  your statement,  there  is no  such  thing as  a
> "scientific law".

Don't  be  so silly!   I  simply pointed  out  that  the presence  (or
otherwise) of  the words "Law" or  "Theory" in the  title says nothing
whatsoever about the content.  If  you think that implies "there is no
such  thing as  a scientific  law" then  you really  *can't*  tell the
difference between the book and the cover.

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty

"Jeremy Henty"  wrote in message 
news:slrng3sb5p.ngf.onepoint@omphalos.onepoint...
> On 2008-05-29, Tom  wrote:
>>
>> "Jeremy Henty"  wrote in message
>> news:slrng3rrb0.ngf.onepoint@omphalos.onepoint...
>>> On 2008-05-28,  
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Tom"  wrote in message
>>>> news:6bWdneMNbs4hJ6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> Scientific laws are theories that  have been around for a long time
>>>>> without  being  seriously  challenged  by  contradicting  evidence.
>>>>> They're really good theories, but they are theories.
>>>>
>>>> This  statement has nothing  to do  with the  scientific use  of the
>>>> terms "law" and "theory"
>>>
>>> That's true, but it's also  irrelevant since the scientific use of the
>>> *terms* has  a lot to do with  history and little to  do with science.
>>
>> Then it's not a scientific term at all.  It's an historical term.
>
> What is this "it", kemosabe?

Read the fucking thread, you idiot.

wrote in message 
news:T%o%j.7105$772.631@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Tom"  wrote in message 
> news:c5ydna8rZ8iz5aDVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>  wrote in message 
>> news:7o3%j.53263$7a.7173@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "Tom"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6bWdneMNbs4hJ6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> Scientific laws are theories that have been around for a long time 
>>>> without being seriously challenged by contradicting evidence.  They're 
>>>> really good theories, but they are theories.
>>>
>>> This statement has nothing to do with the scientific use of the terms 
>>> "law" and "theory"
>>
>> I await your differentiation between a "scientific law" and a "scientific 
>> theory".  With supportive evidence, of course.
>
> http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

Utter crap.

"Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a 
law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict 
what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how 
nature works."

There's no difference between describing what nature does and explaining how 
it works.  They're the same thing.

"Tom"  wrote in message 
news:2IWdneqORf-KVaPVnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>  wrote in message 
> news:T%o%j.7105$772.631@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Tom"  wrote in message 
>> news:c5ydna8rZ8iz5aDVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>  wrote in message 
>>> news:7o3%j.53263$7a.7173@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Tom"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:6bWdneMNbs4hJ6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Scientific laws are theories that have been around for a long time 
>>>>> without being seriously challenged by contradicting evidence.  They're 
>>>>> really good theories, but they are theories.
>>>>
>>>> This statement has nothing to do with the scientific use of the terms 
>>>> "law" and "theory"
>>>
>>> I await your differentiation between a "scientific law" and a 
>>> "scientific theory".  With supportive evidence, of course.
>>
>> http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
>
> Utter crap.
>
> "Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a 
> law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict 
> what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains 
> how nature works."
>
> There's no difference between describing what nature does and explaining 
> how it works.  They're the same thing.
>

So....
"flip that switch and the light comes on."
covers the whole of electronic thiory as it applies to the overhead lighting 
system in my office?

wrote in message 
news:53Y%j.46$UF5.31@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Tom"  wrote in message 
> news:2IWdneqORf-KVaPVnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> There's no difference between describing what nature does and explaining 
>> how it works.  They're the same thing.
>
> So....
> "flip that switch and the light comes on."
> covers the whole of electronic thiory as it applies to the overhead 
> lighting system in my office?

Yup.  It's all a matter of how much detail you want to provide.  Nobody can 
explain how electrons do what they do.  All we can describe is what they do, 
in greater or lesser detail.

mika wrote:
> On May 22, 9:53 pm, "Tom" wrote:
>> "mika"  wrote
>>> On May 22, 3:40 pm, Kisai  wrote:
> 
>>>> *IB* holds up his B.A. in Magic and Thaumaturgy,
>>> From where?  Is this an accredited Bachelor's degree?
>> UC Berkeley, 1970.  Yes, it is an accredited Bachelors Degree, one of the
>> first awarded to a self-designed program.  Mostly it was anthropology, but
>> with ancient and medieval history, psychology, philosophy, and comparative
>> religion topics as well.
> 
> So the degree is actually in anthropology, with a bit of history and
> other 'soft science' subjects mixed in as well, with a focus on the
> subjects of magic and thaumaturgy.  His degree was not in "magic and
> thaumaturgy" as claimed.
> 
> There's a big difference between, say, a chemistry degree and a
> history of chemistry degree.  Someone with a history of chemistry
> degree could not with any validity claim to be a chemist.  Yet IB is
> trying to back up his title of "magician" with a "history of magic"
> degree.
> 
> Maybe it fools the people he needs to impress to sell his work, but it
> doesn't fool me.
> 

Oh Noooo Siireeeeeee, nothing fools the mighty mika! *stomps foot and 
slaps thigh*

mika wrote:
<snip>
> 
> You do understand the difference between a scientific law and a
> theory, right?

Yes, it's spelled N-O-N-E. You've evidently been listening to some 
religious fundamentalist's misdefinition of 'theory,' or else you 
imagine we can reach scientific conclusions by some process yielding 
certainty beyond that possible using the inductive process. Either way, 
you are in error.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_