# Over 1700 esoteric and occult books



## xes (Aug 20, 2013)

With lots more to be added. Stumbled across it on my travels, thought it share worthy. Free to read, members can download, pretty sure it's free to do so.
http://issuu.com/scottjenson

enjoy.

spooky, just clicked on one which was published 20th august, 1655!


----------



## Greebo (Aug 20, 2013)

Thanks for the link.


----------



## xes (Aug 20, 2013)

your more than welcome, there's loads and loads of really cool looking books in there.


----------



## xslavearcx (Aug 20, 2013)

thats great. was looking for james _varieities of religious experience _for my dissertation, and its there!


----------



## xslavearcx (Aug 20, 2013)

might also read that astral projection in 90 days book to deal with the inevitable stress of the dissertation...


----------



## xes (Aug 20, 2013)

oh good is that on there, I did have a little look, but there's alot there to look at.

you could skip reading the whole book, and just read the 5 pages on the technique
http://issuu.com/scottjenson/docs/robert_monroe_-_monroe_technique


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2013)

Protocols?


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 20, 2013)

Is The Ninth Gate there?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 20, 2013)

Is there anything about the Rainbow Bridge there?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Is there anything about the Rainbow Bridge there?


 
Don't do that mate. That's out of order.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 20, 2013)

I want to find out more!


----------



## xes (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Don't do that mate. That's out of order.


Implying what? If you have something to say, fucking say it. (instead of skirting around things, like the accusation of antisemitism, have the fucking bollocks I dare you) Now, you see, the rainbow bridge, as I'm sure you're aware, is the mythical place where you meet the animals you've had as pets who are dead. Now, from your comment, I _could_ take as a direct threat to my dogs. I will protect them with my life. You do not want me to think that you have anything like that in mind. There's some really dark magick stuff in here, I'm looking for someone I despise to try it out on. And there aren't many I despise more then you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> Implying what? If you have something to say, fucking say it. (instead of skirting around things, like the accusation of antisemitism, have the fucking bollocks I dare you) Now, you see, the rainbow bridge, as I'm sure you're aware, is the mythical place where you meet the animals you've had as pets who are dead. Now, from your comment, I _could_ take as a direct threat to my dogs. I will protect them with my life. You do not want me to think that you have anything like that in mind. There's some really dark magick stuff in here, I'm looking for someone I despise to try it out on. And there aren't many I despise more then you.


such a pity after such a good op


----------



## nogojones (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> There's some really dark magick stuff in here, I'm looking for someone I despise to try it out on. And there aren't many I despise more then you.


 
xes this morning....


----------



## xes (Aug 21, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> such a pity after such a good op


I know, but that little fuck winds me up.

edit- nogojones I had a haircut yesterday, but other than that, good call


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> Implying what? If you have something to say, fucking say it. (instead of skirting around things, like the accusation of antisemitism, have the fucking bollocks I dare you) Now, you see, the rainbow bridge, as I'm sure you're aware, is the mythical place where you meet the animals you've had as pets who are dead. Now, from your comment, I _could_ take as a direct threat to my dogs. I will protect them with my life. You do not want me to think that you have anything like that in mind. There's some really dark magick stuff in here, I'm looking for someone I despise to try it out on. And there aren't many I despise more then you.


 
wtf is wrong with you you hair trigger loon? I was telling OU not to mess about with the rainbow bridge stuff as i know a) what appears to some as silly is based on deep love and can be hurtful to mock b) that you love your dogs and c) that your sense of humour extends to precisely 1mm around your own body and essentially consists solely of _ha! aren't i a loon! _

Threatening your dogs? I think you owe me an apology warlock.


----------



## Voley (Aug 21, 2013)

I think someone's gonna have to explain this Rainbow Bridge thing to me. Are there dark forces at play if I stick this on?


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2013)

Or certainly your dark majik spells should be redirected against orang.


----------



## purves grundy (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> Implying what? If you have something to say, fucking say it. (instead of skirting around things, like the accusation of antisemitism, have the fucking bollocks I dare you) Now, you see, the rainbow bridge, as I'm sure you're aware, is the mythical place where you meet the animals you've had as pets who are dead. Now, from your comment, I _could_ take as a direct threat to my dogs. I will protect them with my life. You do not want me to think that you have anything like that in mind. There's some really dark magick stuff in here, I'm looking for someone I despise to try it out on. And there aren't many I despise more then you.


Easy, dude...


----------



## Voley (Aug 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> Or certainly your dark majik spells should be redirected against orang.


Cool. Sounds reasonable. I'm gonna put 'Dolly Dagger' on backwards and see what happens. Will report back.

OU: Brace Yourself.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> Implying what? If you have something to say, fucking say it. (instead of skirting around things, like the accusation of antisemitism, have the fucking bollocks I dare you)


 
It's a bit of a hodge podge isn't it. Orwell, Einstein, Chomsky mixed up with Austin Spare and all my mate Phil's books. I like that they have Burrough's "Electronic Revolution", been meaning to read that again.

There does seem to be a book entitled "The Aryan Origin of the Alphabet" though, which caused me to raise my eyebrows. I didn't click on it though because I'm at work.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> It's a bit of a hodge podge isn't it. Orwell, Einstein, Chomsky mixed up with Austin Spare and all my mate Phil's books. I like that they have Burrough's "Electronic Revolution", been meaning to read that again.
> 
> There does seem to be a book entitled "The Aryan Origin of the Alphabet" though, which caused me to raise my eyebrows. I didn't click on it though because I'm at work.


 
The author was a massive racist - if that helps.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The author was a massive racist - if that helps.


 
I figured that they would either be unpleasantly weird or a massive racist (or both). So yes, that does help. 

Echoes of the "conspiracy theory" thread here, I guess, in that this is an area in which unpleasant ideas continue to circulate.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2013)

What have I started with an innocent throwaway comment mocking xes' credulity?
I was just giving all that astral projection malarkey and other crap that I saw on the site the same credence as I do to all that rainbow bridge bollocks


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> What have I started with an innocent throwaway comment mocking xes' credulity?
> I was just giving all that astral projection malarkey and other crap that I saw on the site the same credence as I do to all that rainbow bridge bollocks


 
You have made him look like a fool, i tell you, a fool. Or was that Harry himself?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> malarkey


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You have made him look like a fool, i tell you, a fool.


Doesn't need much help


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> What have I started with an innocent throwaway comment mocking xes' credulity?
> I was just giving all that astral projection malarkey and other crap that I saw on the site the same credence as I do to all that rainbow bridge bollocks


You have incurred the wrath of a practicioner of the dark arts. Tremble.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> You have incurred the wrath of a practicioner of the dark arts. Tremble.


I have just come out in hives


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> You have incurred the wrath of a practicioner of the dark arts. Tremble.


 
_They lived on Northwold Road_
_Tried to turn each other into toads_
_But just came out in in hives_
_Chaos magick and wretched lives._


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

Anyway, thanks for the racist books xes


----------



## xes (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You have made him look like a fool, i tell you, a fool. Or was that Harry himself?


OU hasn't made me look anything, he's more than welcome to his own views. It's you I got a problem with, a big one. Your very existance bothers me.


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2013)

You should turn him into a mouse, then squash him.


----------



## xes (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Anyway, thanks for the racist books xes


 you're welcome tothem, thought they'd be right up your street.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> OU hasn't made me look anything, he's more than welcome to his own views. It's you I got a problem with, a big one. Your very existance bothers me.


 
No apology then Harry? Just a quick lunch break conjuring?


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 21, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> _They lived on Northwold Road_
> _Tried to turn each other into toads_
> _But just came out in in hives_
> _Chaos magick and wretched lives._


 
The Merthyr Tydfilians they say,

Are all worthy townsfolk by day.

But they're not what they seem,

By the moon's mystic beam,

They mount broomsticks and all fly away.


----------



## xes (Aug 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> You should turn him into a mouse, then squash him.


I shall see what the book I'm reading suggests. And try it out. (unless it involves animal sacrifice, that's icky) I'm sure ba won't mind, magick doesn't exist.


----------



## xes (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No apology then Harry? Just a quick lunch break conjuring?


I owe you fuck all. And that's what you're getting.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> I shall see what the book I'm reading suggests. And try it out. (unless it involves animal sacrifice, that's icky) I'm sure ba won't mind, magick doesn't exist.


 
Are you threatening my cats? I _could_ read it that way. If i was a dim paranoid hate-freak.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> I owe you fuck all. And that's what you're getting.


 
Classy. I tell OU not to start with stuff about your dogs (not that he was, but that you would read it that way was clear). You loon this into me threatening your dogs and spew a load of hairball abuse at me. Looking good Harry , looking good.


----------



## xes (Aug 21, 2013)

No, I'm going to wave a wand at you, not your cats. I respect your cats right to exist.

well done for making another thread all about you btw.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> No, I'm going to wave a wand at you, not your cats. I respect your cats right to exist.
> 
> well done for making another thread all about you btw.


 
You did that with your lunacy about threatening your dogs. You can hate me all you like but by refusing to back down and admit that you got that wrong you give me victory. Sweet juicy easy not-bothered victory.


----------



## xes (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Classy. I tell OU not to start with stuff about your dogs (not that he was, but that you would read it that way was clear). You loon this into me threatening your dogs and spew a load of hairball abuse at me. Looking good Harry , looking good.


that was not your intention and you know it. You masked it nicely so it could be taken in multiple ways, nice get out clause. But, no dice.

This is the last time I'm going to reply to you, the link is there for others who want it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> that was not your intention and you know it. You masked it nicely so it could be taken in multiple ways, nice get out clause. But, no dice.
> 
> This is the last time I'm going to reply to you, the link is there for others who want it.


 
My intention in telling OU not to pursues the rainbow bridge - that this would be out of order - was to threaten your dogs? What to say to that?


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> _They lived on Northwold Road_
> _Tried to turn each other into toads_
> _But just came out in in hives_
> _Chaos magick and wretched lives._


 
Is that a Pulp lyric?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

I hereby challenge xes to a magick off in the devils dyke, next spooky date. Bring your capes.


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I hereby challenge xes to a magick off in the devils dyke, next spooky date. Bring your capes.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> Is that a Pulp lyric?


 


No, memories of some occultist squatters... waving their wands about, cursing each other. Like the Young Ones crossed with Harry Potter.


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> No, memories of some occultist squatters... waving their wands about, cursing each other. *Like the Young Ones crossed with Harry Potter*.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> No, memories of some occultist squatters... waving their wands about, cursing each other. Like the Young Ones crossed with Harry Potter.


 
I sense another script coming on.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I sense another script coming on.


 
I should really write this stuff up, some of it was hilarious at the time and pretty much all of it is in retrospect. Not sure I can rival Chuck's MATB novella tho...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

I think we should set up a script-doctoring agency.

Here's the link to xes' books everyone.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> No, memories of some occultist squatters... waving their wands about, cursing each other. Like the Young Ones crossed with Harry Potter.


I was thinking of this:




with Butchers as Merlin and xes as Mad Madam Min


----------



## xes (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I hereby challenge xes to a magick off in the devils dyke, next spooky date. Bring your capes.


the next spooky date after I've read the Koetting stuff I've got queued up to read  And there's a Devils Dyke not 4 miles from here, so we could do this. It did say that a connection with the aura needs to be made at some point, can be done remotely, but it would be stronger if I could be within a few feet of you.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> the next spooky date after I've read the Koetting stuff I've got queued up to read  And there's a Devils Dyke not 4 miles from here, so we could do this. It did say that a connection with the aura needs to be made at some point, can be done remotely, but it would be stronger if I could be within a few feet of you.


 
_I've seen in your eyes, I've read it in books_
_Who wants love without the looks?_


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2013)

This is a new angle on internet Hardman posturing. I love it.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> This is a new angle on internet Hardman posturing. I love it.


 

Innit


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2013)

put a hex on me too please xes. What do you need? I can happily supply some toenail clippings or a lock of hair. You'll have to source your own eye of newt though...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

I've just bought a new haxan cloak - i'm ready to magick!


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2013)

Song for butchersapron & xes


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> It's a bit of a hodge podge isn't it. Orwell, Einstein, Chomsky mixed up with Austin Spare and all my mate Phil's books. I like that they have Burrough's "Electronic Revolution", been meaning to read that again.


 
Annoyingly, I already have all of Hine's stuff, plus most of the AOS stuff he's got up. 



> There does seem to be a book entitled "The Aryan Origin of the Alphabet" though, which caused me to raise my eyebrows. I didn't click on it though because I'm at work.


 
Very much a collection that embraces both the sublime and the ridiculous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2013)

NVP said:


> I think someone's gonna have to explain this Rainbow Bridge thing to me. Are there dark forces at play if I stick this on?


----------



## Voley (Aug 21, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>


Ah. Right you are. That explains it all.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 21, 2013)

NVP said:


> Ah. Right you are. That explains it all.


 
it does - Jimi Hendrix is talking about Bifrost the rainbow bridge linking Asgard with Midgard.


----------



## xes (Aug 21, 2013)

One day people will learn that such a "Bifrost" is within you, and not some external mythical place.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> One day people will learn that such a "Bifrost" is within you, and not some external mythical place.


 
I am bifrostual.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 21, 2013)

xes said:


> One day people will learn that such a "Bifrost" is within you, and not some external mythical place.


 
So is Hell, and other such realms.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2013)

Greebo said:


> So is Hell, and other such realms.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 21, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
You'll be glad to know that Hell is also in Michigan.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2013)

Greebo said:


> You'll be glad to know that Hell is also in Michigan.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> it does - Jimi Hendrix is talking about Bifrost the rainbow bridge linking Asgard with Midgard.


 
With the bridge being guarded by Heimdall, to make sure no wrong'uns or frost giants try to go to Asgard and take the piss.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> it does - Jimi Hendrix is talking about Bifrost the rainbow bridge linking Asgard with Midgard.


 

Ah, so this is what set off butchersapron's fashdar?


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Annoyingly, I already have all of Hine's stuff, plus most of the AOS stuff he's got up.
> Very much a collection that embraces both the sublime and the ridiculous.


He's an interesting geezer, Phil Hine, and a good writer too, IMHO. I think his chaos writings hold up best out of all that crew. I notice that for a while now he's been writing on Tantra (see his enfolding.org blog).These young chaos punks get older and move towards a more a formally organized, old-established tradition  

Didn't Pete Carroll become a Tory, advocating the free market?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2013)

scalyboy said:


> He's an interesting geezer, Phil Hine, and a good writer too, IMHO. I think his chaos writings hold up best out of all that crew. I notice that for a while now he's been writing on Tantra (see his enfolding.org blog).These young chaos punks get older and move towards a more a formally organized, old-established tradition


 
What was once revolutionary always ends up becoming reactionary. 
But yeah, from that era Phil Hine does hold up better than the likes of Dave Lee (who he?  ) and Peter Carroll.



> Didn't Pete Carroll become a Tory, advocating the free market?


 
Carroll was always a right libertarian, one of the reasons I never took to him (the other being his arrogance).

And of course the whole British chaos scene went a bit up its own arse in the mid to late nineties, with some of the IOT becoming little better than a swingers' S&M group.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 22, 2013)

I'm looking forward to the magick off. Could we have the date and location pls? This could be the first time that we get _actual deckchairs._


----------



## maya (Aug 23, 2013)

Greebo said:


> You'll be glad to know that Hell is also in Michigan.


There's *two* Hell's in Norway though, one near Trondheim as shown on Pickman's model's map, and one in the south near Stavanger (for strange reasons _not_ shown on the map- )

Apparently there's a problem with metal fans from Japan and elsewhere regularly nicking the 'Hell' sign from the train station in the northernmost Hell. Poor council workers who have to put up another brand new sign every other day, only knowing they'll have to do exactly the same again tomorrow (but I guess the local sign makers rub their hands in glee at the opportunity.)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2013)

xes said:


> With lots more to be added. Stumbled across it on my travels, thought it share worthy. Free to read, members can download, pretty sure it's free to do so.
> http://issuu.com/scottjenson
> 
> enjoy.
> ...


 

Thanks mate! Am sharing this link widely! 

Just to stir the cauldron pot a little more....


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Firstly, Magic is ssentially the higher understanding of Nature"?

No that's Science.

Superstition is about not understanding how nature works, and waving a stick about to try and effect change. 



Fozzie Bear said:


> No, memories of some occultist squatters... waving their wands about, cursing each other. Like the Young Ones crossed with Harry Potter.


 
And I've found my film script. Ta.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

xes said:


> Implying what? If you have something to say, fucking say it. (instead of skirting around things, like the accusation of antisemitism, have the fucking bollocks I dare you) Now, you see, the rainbow bridge, as I'm sure you're aware, is the mythical place where you meet the animals you've had as pets who are dead. Now, from your comment, I _could_ take as a direct threat to my dogs. I will protect them with my life. You do not want me to think that you have anything like that in mind. There's some really dark magick stuff in here, I'm looking for someone I despise to try it out on. And there aren't many I despise more then you.


 
Xes just took a comment Butcherapron's made as a threat to his dogs (which was a pretty tedious thinking there Xes), and threatened Butchers with "dark magick"

And I was worried that with Jazzz gone things were going to be dull around here.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

as it happens, i used to live with a guy who was to all intents & purposes Rik, and he tried to train me in the practice of chaos magick.

i managed to stifle my laughter, just.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> No that's Science.


 
In your opinion. In mine, science is just a form/mode of magic.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

in my opinion, magic is bollocks made up by charlatans and madmen for credulous idiots.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> In your opinion. In mine, science is just a form/mode of magic.


 
I think you'll find that's idiotic. That'd be my opinion and just about every rational human being.

Shall I list off all things accomplished by Science/Scientists. 

And 

You list off all the things magic has given us. 


You go first though, I think your list will be much much much shorter.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> You list off all the things magic has given us.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> I think you'll find that's idiotic. That'd be my opinion and just about every rational human being.
> 
> Shall I list off all things accomplished by Science/Scientists.
> 
> ...


 
Well given that my perspective is that 'science is just a form/mode of magic' my list would also include 'scientists' so your challenge is pointless. 

Using phrases like 'rational human beings' and implying you know what 'just about everyone's' opinions are doesn't make your argument any stronger either IMO it just reveals your 'competitive' debating style and need to directly and indirectly insult me instead of simply disagreeing. Have 20 internet points. You've earnt them.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

love the passive aggressive 'likes' btw. almost as good as the smileys.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> love the passive aggressive 'likes' btw. almost as good as the smileys.


 
They were acknowledgements of your posts, not 'likes' in that sense. The smileys are pointers too...You haven't upset me, I am still smiling. 

I'm off to create some magic in the garden now, in the artistic sense, loosely translated to mean sink some limestone offcuts into the ground around my firepit...I'll probably mediate whilst doing so too 

 

...You carrying on frothing and insulting if you want.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

what are you acknowledging?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> Firstly, Magic is ssentially the higher understanding of Nature"?
> 
> No that's Science.
> 
> Superstition is about not understanding how nature works, and waving a stick about to try and effect change.


 
bollocks is science 'the higher understanding of nature'. i suppose taking a gene from a fish and putting it in a plant is, iyo, a demonstration of the higher understanding of nature. i suppose the scientists who ok'd the feeding of dead cows to living ones were demonstrating their higher understanding of nature. i suppose that mengele and his colleagues in the death camps - and his counterparts at the japanese unit 731 - were simply getting together with their inner selves to advance their higher understanding of nature. and if it is such a high understanding of nature how come so much of it is in fact theories, a guess at what might be going on?

an uncritical belief in the efficacy of science or in its 'higher' status is in fact a superstition.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

ooh, godwins. i guess it was inevitable, considering.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> I think you'll find that's idiotic. That'd be my opinion and just about every rational human being.
> 
> Shall I list off all things accomplished by Science/Scientists.
> 
> ...


let's begin then.

magic has given us science, but we won't hold it against magic.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

aren't you missing some 'k's?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> ooh, godwins. i guess it was inevitable, considering.


 
it's by no means 'godwins'.

the work done by mengele and his colleagues has been incorporated into the glorious world of science, it hasn't been disavowed although obviously his techniques were too much for some of the squeamish. i'm not talking about nazis, i am talking about mengele as one of the less ethical scientists whose advances have nonetheless never been rejected by his more ethical successors.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

And where does Mr Daniels come into this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> aren't you missing some 'k's?


 
magick is "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will."

i'm not sure that's what people here mean by magic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And where does Mr Daniels come into this?


 
that's sleight of hand, not magic


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> that's sleight of hand, not magic


 
Is it?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> <snip>
> 
> ... with some of the IOT becoming little better than a swingers' S&M group.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is it?


 
it's not magic, is it, because none of it relies on anything except distraction and mechanics. none of what paul daniels did was enabled solely by his  mind or by mystick forces or by the supernatural. next time you're in london i'll show you a little magic trick, how i can move something through your hand.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 23, 2013)

good link, the ex will be most pleased


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> . next time you're in london i'll show you a little magic trick, how i can move something through your hand.


 
want 

and possibly a pint with you pickmans, think it could be quite a laugh


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> bollocks is science 'the higher understanding of nature'.


 
You don't understand what Science defines as Nature do you?



> i suppose taking a gene from a fish and putting it in a plant is, iyo, a demonstration of the higher understanding of nature. i suppose the scientists who ok'd the feeding of dead cows to living ones were demonstrating their higher understanding of nature. i suppose that mengele and his colleagues in the death camps - and his counterparts at the japanese unit 731 - were simply getting together with their inner selves to advance their higher understanding of nature. and if it is such a high understanding of nature how come so much of it is in fact theories, a guess at what might be going on?


 
Oh fuck off, picking a handful of scientist as evil and therefore QED science is bad, is about as logical as Creationists claims about Athetists being responsible for the horrors of the 21st century.



> an uncritical belief in the efficacy of science or in its 'higher' status is in fact a superstition.


 
You don't really understand this debate do you. This is between Science and Rationalism, and Magick and Supersistition. 

Next time you're sick do you want a witchdoctor or hospital.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 23, 2013)

You could make a pretty good argument for law (I'm thinking of stuff like property rights etc) originating from the magic "end" of the magic/religion nexus.

Dwyer has some pretty interesting arguments along similar lines I suspect, but he normally can't resist winding people up for long enough to explain them properly.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> magick is "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will."
> 
> i'm not sure that's what people here mean by magic.


 

you sound well versed in the teachings of a certain Mr Macgregor Mathers , and his once co-hort mr Crowley...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> in my opinion, magic is bollocks made up by charlatans and madmen for credulous idiots.


 
Sensible magic(k)ians nowaday call their science "psychology".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> I think you'll find that's idiotic. That'd be my opinion and just about every rational human being.


 
Ah, one of my most favourite pieces of bushwah: The deployment of the trope "me and every other rational human being".

Come on then, prove your rationality! 

You can't. All you can do is *position yourself* as rational in relation to another, putatively irrational, person.



> Shall I list off all things accomplished by Science/Scientists.
> 
> And
> 
> ...


 
It's not about lists. It's about how people label things in order to explain those things to themselves.  Anything not *properly* explainable by modern science yet (some elements of string theory and quantum entanglement for example) are to all intents and purposes "magical" until we can explain them properly within the framework of our current understanding of physics.  Similarly, much that was formerly attributed to magic is now explainable by science, mostly via psychology.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


>


 
Having heard some of the stories from soiree attendees, I can only say that I'm glad I never joined the IOT.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> You don't understand what Science defines as Nature do you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


given the clusterfuck you've made of dealing with my post i wouldn't be surprised if i understood the debate better than you do. for a start i never said or implied 'science' was evil, i took issue with your claim that it is the higher understanding of nature.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> You don't understand what Science defines as Nature do you?


 
'science' doesn't define anything; although scientists do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> Oh fuck off, picking a handful of scientist as evil and therefore QED science is bad, is about as logical as Creationists claims about Athetists being responsible for the horrors of the 21st century.


as i have pointed out before, here we are beyond the childish labels of good and evil


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> Next time you're sick do you want a witchdoctor or hospital.


 
a witchdoctor, being human, would be better than a hospital, as buildings do not cure disease.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> a witchdoctor, being human, would be better than a hospital, as buildings do not cure disease.


 
 In this instance the witch-doctor represents superstition and magick, while the hospital is modern science and medicine. 

If you're just going to be facetious.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> as i have pointed out before, here we are beyond the childish labels of good and evil


 
Pretentious much? 



> i took issue with your claim that it is the higher understanding of nature.


 
It is, you just don't understand what science defines as nature.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> In this instance the witch-doctor represents superstition and magick, while the hospital is modern science and medicine.
> 
> If you're just going to be facetious.


 
i see you've decided to make dishonest and flimsy ex post facto justifications for your contributions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> It is, you just don't understand what science defines as nature.


do you mean you think i know the definition but i don't understand it? post up your definition and let's see how i get along.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i see you've decided to make dishonest and flimsy ex post facto justifications for your contributions.


 
No you're just being obtuse, and pedantic when's been pointed out that your post was a idiotic mess than doesn't understand what science defines as nature, combined with THE EXACT lurid argument against science that creationists make towards both science and atheists.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> do you mean you think i know the definition but i don't understand it? post up your definition and let's see how i get along.


Why so you continue to same sort of deliberate misrepresentation of others that is the sum total of your contribution to this thread?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> No you're just being obtuse, and pedantic when's been pointed out that your post was a idiotic mess than doesn't understand what science defines as nature, combined with THE EXACT lurid argument against science that creationists make towards both science and atheists.


 
i think you're confusing knowledge (or the lack thereof) and understanding (or the lack thereof). as i've asked why don't you post up this universal scientifick definition of nature and we can see how i get along.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you're confusing knowledge (or the lack thereof) and understanding (or the lack thereof). as i've asked why don't you post up this universal scientifick definition of nature and we can see how i get along.


 
Avoiding the point again, your attack on science was the same argument as a creationist uses.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> Avoiding the point again, your attack on science was the same argument as a creationist uses.


 
simple y/n question: do you know 'the' scientific definition of nature?


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Lets just remember your first post



> bollocks is science 'the higher understanding of nature'. i suppose taking a gene from a fish and putting it in a plant is, iyo, a demonstration of the higher understanding of nature. i suppose the scientists who ok'd the feeding of dead cows to living ones were demonstrating their higher understanding of nature. i suppose that mengele and his colleagues in the death camps - and his counterparts at the japanese unit 731 - were simply getting together with their inner selves to advance their higher understanding of nature. and if it is such a high understanding of nature how come so much of it is in fact theories, a guess at what might be going on?


 

From your OP your understanding of nature is biology. Correct?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> Lets just remember your first post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
no. nature is not biology, biology is the study of living things. you're arse about tit here. can you see where you might have gone wrong?


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

So to be clear. YOU THINK that "bollocks is science the higher understanding of nature". 

Science considers nature to be "the universe and everything in it". Natural Science is the study of Biology, Chemistry, Physics. and Earth Science (and all sub branches). 

So please Pickman's please explain how you think science ISN'T about the higher understanding of nature.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> no. nature is not biology, biology is the study of living things. you're arse about tit here. can you see where you might have gone wrong?


 
No Pickman's please tell me what you think Science is about, and what you think Nature is (according to Science).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> No Pickman's please tell me what you think Science is about, and what you think Nature is (according to Science).


 
everything animal vegetable and mineral. the material world and everything in it (not of course forgetting things without like the solar system, milky way etc etc)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> No Pickman's please tell me what you think Science is about, and what you think Nature is (according to Science).


 
now what's this definition of yours i don't understand


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> So to be clear. YOU THINK that "bollocks is science the higher understanding of nature".
> 
> Science considers nature to be "the universe and everything in it". Natural Science is the study of Biology, Chemistry, Physics. and Earth Science (and all sub branches).
> 
> So please Pickman's please explain how you think science ISN'T about the higher understanding of nature.


 
oh

now it's ABOUT the higher understanding of nature, rather than being, as you said above, the higher understanding of nature

so how were scientists seeking a higher understanding of nature by turning cows into cannibals?


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> no. nature is not biology, biology is the study of living things. you're arse about tit here. can you see where you might have gone wrong?


 
God you're digging yourself in deeper here.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> oh
> 
> now it's ABOUT the higher understanding of nature, rather than being, as you said above, the higher understanding of nature


 
You are getting more and more desperate. 

Why was this rant of yours



> _ollocks is science 'the higher understanding of nature'. i suppose taking a gene from a fish and putting it in a plant is, iyo, a demonstration of the higher understanding of nature. i suppose the scientists who ok'd the feeding of dead cows to living ones were demonstrating their higher understanding of nature. i suppose that mengele and his colleagues in the death camps - and his counterparts at the japanese unit 731 - were simply getting together with their inner selves to advance their higher understanding of nature._


 
Why did you pick these three examples for "nature".


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> God you're digging yourself in deeper here.


 
no, you are showing yourself to be stupider than even i thought possible. biology is the study of living organisms. "the study of living organisms" is not nature. you said you thought i thought nature was biology. even if i thought that nature was only living things, which i don't, i wouldn't conflate as you do the study of the subject with the subject itself. it's like saying astronomy is stars.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Given that this entire page is sprung from someone claiming that "Science is a form of Magic", I find it laughable (but predictable) that Pickman has decided to have a go at MY understanding of what Science is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> You are getting more and more desperate.
> 
> Why was this rant of yours
> 
> ...


 
three things leapt to mind. they weren't intended to be descriptive of all science.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> Given that this entire page is sprung from someone claiming that "Science is a form of Magic", I find it laughable (but predictable) that Pickman has decided to have a go at MY understanding of what Science is.


i thought i was having a go at your stupidity.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> snip.


 

WHAT DO YOU THINK NATURE IS ACCORDING TO SCIENCE? 

And considering you use creationist arguments to attack science I really don't think you should be lecturing anyone on their understanding of science.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> WHAT DO YOU THINK NATURE IS ACCORDING TO SCIENCE?


read my posts you thick fuck and maybe you will find out



> And considering you use creationist arguments to attack science I really don't think you should be lecturing anyone on their understanding of science.


such as?


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> read my posts you thick fuck and maybe you will find out


 
I have, Science is the study of nature. I've always said that. You said;



> b_ollocks is science 'the higher understanding of nature'._


Now you won't say what you think Nature is, or for what you think Science is the study of.

But you *clearly* don't think it's the study of nature. So tell us Pickman's what do you think Science is then? And what do you think Nature is?

So let me tell you what I think happened, you saw me write "science is the study of nature" and then you went on a long rant about genetic splicing of animals, Nazi and Japanese doctors, all the while not realising that when I wrote "nature", thinking when I wrote nature I meant "biology". By the way you thick fuck when I mentioned biology I meant the scientific concept of biology (which includes, zoology, botony, microbiology, medicine, physiology all the life sciences) so your astronomy=stars analogy was pretty fucking flawed) I was using the precise scientific definition of the concept.





> such as?


 
I pointed them out to already you thick fuck. Twice. You Ignored them. You thick fuck,

After a page and bit of this shit it's clear to everyone that you haven't offered your definition what you think nature is, or  your definition of what science is the study of. Or you haven't told us what the scientific definition of nature is (seeing you our scorn over my definition), and are just flinging feces to cover up the fact that you're talking immense bollocks.

Shut up and go away.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> After a page and bit of this shit it's clear to everyone that you haven't defined what you think nature is, or what you consider is your definition of what science is, or what the scientific definition of nature is, and are just flinging feces to cover up the fact that you're talking immense bollocks.


i thought you hadn't read post 126 and now i see i was right. piss off you dozy cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> So let me tell you what I think happened, you saw me write "science is the study of nature" and then you went on a long rant about genetic splicing of animals, Nazi and Japanese doctors, all the while not realising that when I wrote "nature", thinking when I wrote nature I meant "biology". By the way you thick fuck when I mentioned biology I meant the scientific concept of biology (which includes, zoology, botony, microbiology, medicine, physiology all the life sciences) so your astronomy=stars analogy was pretty fucking flawed) I was using the precise scientific definition of the concept.


 
you really should put the spade down, you're deep enough already.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought you hadn't read post 126 and now i see i was right. piss off you dozy cunt.


 
Missed that one on the host of abuse.

So if you think according to Science Nature is



> everything animal vegetable and mineral. the material world and everything in it (not of course forgetting things without like the solar system, milky way etc etc)


 
How the fuck do you then say;



> _bollocks is science 'the higher understanding of nature'._


 
If science is the study of everything how can you match those two sentiments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> when I mentioned biology I meant the scientific concept of biology (which includes, zoology, botony, microbiology, medicine, physiology all the life sciences) so your astronomy=stars analogy was pretty fucking flawed) I was using the precise scientific definition of the concept.


 




8den said:


> From your OP your understanding of nature is biology. Correct?


i could be generous and say you'd maybe missed out a word or two - perhaps that you meant 'your understanding of nature is FROM biology'. but i'm by no means in a generous mood. biology is the STUDY of living things. it is not LIVING THINGS themselves. saying 'nature is biology' in any context is wrong and shows a worrying degree of ignorance in someone who prides himself on his understanding of science. it is like saying 'numbers are arithmetic' or stars are astronomy. you conflate the study of something with the something itself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> If science is the study of everything how can you match those two sentiments.


 
i didn't say science is the study of everything, it's not (for example) the study of languages or the study of the human past. you claimed science is the higher understanding of nature. but it isn't. as you subsequently said it is concerned with the higher understanding of nature but is not in itself the higher understanding of nature. if it was then there wouldn't be any space left for god.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Jesus fucking christ, how the fuck can someone reasonably well read be this stupid. It's not that you're rude, pedantic, obnoxious and offensive, it's just you're a complete asshole. 

Post by Rutita included a JPG "Magic is essentially the higher understanding of nature"

I jokingly said 



> No that's Science.


 
If I had said "Science is the study that gives us a higher understanding of nature"  20 plus posts of bullshit would have been avoided?

Mind you we would have missed that idiotic post of yours where you use creationist logic to criticise science so it's a kind of win. 





> but i'm by no means in a generous mood.


basically you're admitting "I'm a total cunt"


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if it was then there wouldn't be any space left for god.


 
But we're not talking theology we're talking about nature.


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 23, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I'm looking forward to the magick off. Could we have the date and location pls? This could be the first time that we get _actual deckchairs._


If we're talking magick-offs...don't forget the main event, the Hagler-Hearns of the occult world  (or should that be Haye-Chisora)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> Jesus fucking christ, how the fuck can someone reasonably well read be this stupid. It's not that you're rude, pedantic, obnoxious and offensive, it's just you're a complete asshole.
> 
> Post by Rutita included a JPG "Magic is essentially the higher understanding of nature"
> 
> ...


better people than you have called me a total cunt: and it's clear that your opinion of me is somewhat better than my opinion of you. if you didn't want this to go '20 plus posts of bullshit' you could have lowered the bullshit content of your contributions. you could have stepped away at any point but you chose to stick it out and demonstrate to all with eyes to read that you're really something of a thicko who can't be fucked to read posts. as for this creationist logic i think it's something of your own creation as i have no familiarity with the field.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> But we're not talking theology we're talking about nature.


 
it's strange then how many scientists manage to square their 'scientific' outlook with a firm religious belief. while the sphere left to god has shrunk with the advance of science, there are still quite a number of things science has yet to explain and a lot more which it has yet to explain to everyone's satisfaction. in many areas it isn't as i said above a higher understanding of nature but a bit of guesswork about how certain things work.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> better people than you have called me a total cunt: and it's clear that your opinion of me is somewhat better than my opinion of you. if you didn't want this to go '20 plus posts of bullshit' you could have lowered the bullshit content of your contributions.


 
There was no bullshit from me, you just purposeful and intentionally misrepresented my position. 



> you could have stepped away at any point but you chose to stick it out and demonstrate to all with eyes to read that you're really something of a thicko who can't be fucked to read posts.


 
I missed one post in a deluge of 40 of yours. If you had the technical ability to multi quote, and weren't just a complete jackass I may not have missed it.



> as for this creationist logic i think it's something of your own creation as i have no familiarity with the field.


 
Well then congratulations you used the same argument as many creationists, and you came up with independently. I wouldn't keep going on about it, it makes you look like a cretin.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> I wouldn't keep going on about it, it makes you look like a cretin.


if the worst you can say about me after our little contretemps is that i have the appearance of a cretin, it is imo better than having, as you do, the substance of one.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if the worst you can say about me after our little contretemps is that i have the appearance of a cretin, it is imo better than having, as you do, the substance of one.


 
No not the worse, a intellectually dishonest deceitful unpleasant human being. You intentionally misreprented what I was saying to prove some obtuse point.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> I jokingly said


 
You were not joking at all, your writing my opinion off and characterising it as suspersition, your insults and the pointless _challenge_ you issued me betrayed that fact quite clearly.

Interesting that you use terminiology like 'witch-doctor' too and posit everything 'scientific' and by that you appear to mean institutionalised/westernised as rational etc... You even introduced the concept of good/evil into the discussion, revealing your own theological/patriarchal bias.  So yeah, t_he atomic bomb_ for example, completely 'irrational' and bad science/magic IMO...





> In other words, the witches were those women who in one way or another resisted the establishment of an unjust social order – the mechanical exploitation of capitalism. The witches represented a whole world that Europe’s new masters were anxious to destroy: a world with strong female leadership, a world rooted in local communities and knowledge, a world alive with magical possibilities, a world in revolt.


 
http://endofcapitalism.com/2009/11/...archal-terror-and-the-creation-of-capitalism/


----------



## xes (Aug 23, 2013)

I read this thread whilst not logged in, but post 150, the very things you are accusing someone else of, are the very reasons i have you on ignore. Become that which you hate the most...much?

reply via other people, as i wont see your bilge writings unless I read this whilst not logged on.

And I'm 2/3 of the way through 1 book on baneful magick. Only 3 more to read until I find a nice place in the woods for an altar, (can't be slashing the fuck out of roosters in my bedroom, now can I?)  and start wishing BA the most ammount of misery imaginable. (i won't kill you, just make you wish I had)  Fogbat, i don't hate you enough to curse you, you'll have to try harder to gain my spite. And as you are of no threat to me, at all, you're going to have to try extra hard.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Wishing won't make it happen.


----------



## xes (Aug 23, 2013)

says he who doesn't know the power of intent. (but soon will)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

xes said:


> says he who doesn't know the power of intent. (but soon will)


 
Who do you think protects me clown?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2013)

Flipping heck...  If there's little belief in Magic on this thread why are people behaving/posting like 'warlocks'?


----------



## xes (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Who do you think protects me clown?




your mum?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

xes said:


> your mum?


 
I suppose it was you that killed her a few weeks ago then harry?


----------



## xes (Aug 23, 2013)

Wasn't me, unless I also invented time travel in a few weeks time......fred.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

xes said:


> Wasn't me, unless I also invented time travel in a few weeks time......fred.


 
We're me? You are legion? Do you want to see the teacher?


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> You were not joking at all, your writing my opinion off and characterising it as suspersition,


 
It is superstition.


----------



## xes (Aug 23, 2013)

changed the sentance half way through writing it, but thank you for bolstering one of the reasons you irk me so fucking much.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

xes said:


> changed the sentance half way through writing it, but thank you for bolstering one of the reasons you irk me so fucking much.


 
One of the reasons i irk you, Harry is that i read what you post and respond to it? Luckily, for you and your roosters, we are a rapidly dwindling band.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

you total penis xes. i appreciate you probably don't care, but have you any idea how ludicrous you sound?


----------



## xes (Aug 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> you total penis xes. i appreciate you probably don't care, but have you any idea how ludicrous you sound?


know it? lol. I live for this. people like BA are here for my amusement. There will be no "magick off" with capes. It'll be me, a half dead pigeon, and a big fucking knife. (on a slab of concrete covered in my own blood etc)

I need to see if this works. I have my victim. Give it a year, and I will know if it works or not. Make me sound ludicrous? For folk on here, I've been doing that for years.  Mocking me, will only make me more determined. So please, carry on.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

What a child


----------



## xes (Aug 23, 2013)

feed me more hatred. Please.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

If only xes were in on the joke.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2013)

8den said:


> No not the worse, a intellectually dishonest deceitful unpleasant human being. You intentionally misreprented what I was saying to prove some obtuse point.


 
yes yes but have you anything bad to say about me?


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

xes said:


> know it? lol. I live for this.


 
Get out more. 



> people like BA are here for my amusement. There will be no "magick off" with capes. It'll be me, a half dead pigeon, and a big fucking knife. (on a slab of concrete covered in my own blood etc)
> 
> I need to see if this works. I have my victim. Give it a year, and I will know if it works or not. Make me sound ludicrous? For folk on here, I've been doing that for years. Mocking me, will only make me more determined. So please, carry on.


 
Getting a little bit more than jolly old mental UFO loving Xes here.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

xes said:


> feed me more hatred. Please.


 
hatred? don't flatter yourself.


----------



## xes (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If only xes were in on the joke.


oh, i thought I _was_ the joke?


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Interesting that you use terminiology like 'witch-doctor' too and posit everything 'scientific' and by that you appear to mean institutionalised/westernised as rational etc... You even introduced the concept of good/evil into the discussion, revealing your own theological/patriarchal bias. So yeah, t_he atomic bomb_ for example, completely 'irrational' and bad science/magic IMO...
> 
> View attachment 39610
> 
> ...


 
 Reminds me of that joke. Y'know what we call alternative medicine that works? MEDICINE!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 24, 2013)

xes said:


> It'll be me, a half dead pigeon, and a big fucking knife. (on a slab of concrete covered in my own blood etc)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

I wrote this on the rice & peas thread a while back:



> ...._there is a long running conversation amongst my sisters about how, regardless of them using the same amount of coconut milk, the flavour is stronger for one of them than the other...it really annoys the one who's doesn't feature as much _
> 
> _ Stories like this remind me *that cooking is the most common form of magic*._


 
It was really heartening that nobody on that thread saw fit to froth, insult etc...in fact many people liked the post.

So yeah  right back at you.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

i suspect most of the people liking your post thought you were using magic as some kind of metaphor, like most people do.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> i suspect most of the people liking your post thought you were using magic as some kind of metaphor, like most people do.


 

Perhaps, a _metaphor_ for what though?


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> I wrote this on the rice & peas thread a while back:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Or it could be you're different brands of coconut milk (say one of you is using reduced fat coconut milk, or condensed coconut milk, that requires you to add water). Or different cooking methods, one is using gas the other electric (gas hobs heat much more quickly than electric, mean the rice comes to the boil faster). There are lots of potential differences

Just because you don't understand the possible differences and go "OOOOOHH MAGICK" doesn't mean occult forces are at work in your fucking kitchen.

Thats the difference between rationalism and superstition. One group when they see a unexplained phenomena goes "okay lets figure out why there's a difference", and the other goes "oooooooooohhhhhhhh space pixies did it!"



killer b said:


> i suspect most of the people liking your post thought you were using magic as some kind of metaphor, like most people do.


 
Quoted for truth


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Perhaps, a _metaphor_ for what though?


 
the imperceptible things a cook does to make their food different from someone elses?

my mum, for example, makes much nicer pastry than my dad, even when using the same recipe. but it isn't magic - it's because she has a lighter touch when rubbing in the fat, and poorer circulation (and therefore colder hands). oh, and the fucking fairy dust that she sprinkles in the flour beforehand.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> Or it could be you're different brands of coconut milk (say one of you is using reduced fat coconut milk, or condensed coconut milk, that requires you to add water). Or different cooking methods, one is using gas the other electric (gas hobs heat much more quickly than electric). Or one leaves the rice to soak in the milk and the other soaks it in water.
> 
> Just because you don't understand the possible differences and go "OOOOOHH MAGICK" doesn't mean occult forces are at work in your fucking kitchen.
> 
> Thats the difference between rationalism and superstition. One group when they see a unexplained phenomena goes "okay lets figure out why there's a difference", and the other goes "oooooooooohhhhhhhh space pixies did it!


 
From your post above it's clear you have lots of questions about context, variations in cooking environment, method and ingredients, such a shame you couldn't just ask them without assuming _you_ know best.

Space pixies?  

I had hoped you'd lost the high and mighty mood today and were not going to return to frothing, insults and condescension, seeing as you obviously can't discuss this without attacking me and being a prick i'll go back to ignoring you.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Perhaps, a _metaphor_ for what though?


 
Oh fucking hell. I'm (or I was) a trained cook. 

You have two people cooking the same meal on the same model oven, using the exact same ingredients. Say a risotto. 

Ones a professional chef who's cooked the risotto hundreds of times, the other a gifted amateur. They follow the recipe exactly to the letter.

100 quid tells you the chef's risotto will taste better. 

Now is that magick, or is it just that the chef knows the recipe better? That he knows exactly when to stir in extract stock, or just the right heat to cook the chorizo in?  or take a little bit of the oil out. Or any number of dozens of things, that will improve the dish. 


Similarly two people cooking the same meal, using the same ingredients, the same can easily come up with wildly different results, and instead of over thinking what they did differently, they shrug their shoulders and go "magic".


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

quit with the 'burn the witch' stuff you idiot.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> From your post above it's clear you have lots of questions about context, variations in cooking environment, method and ingredients, such a shame you couldn't just ask them without assuming _you_ know best.


 
I never said I know best. I just think there are three reasons (off the top of my head) that the dish could make the dish taste better, before leaping to conclusions that satan and his demonic forces were at work at your sister's hob. 



> Space pixies?


 
That was sarcasm. Would you prefer garden nymphs? The divine will of the goddess? Kitchen gnomes? Take your fucking pick, once you start believing some sort of divine or magical forces are at work in your kitchen, we're just splitting hairs. 



> I had hoped you'd lost the high and mighty mood today and were not going to return to frothing, insults and condescension, seeing as you obviously can't discuss this without attacking me and being a prick i'll go back to ignoring you.
> 
> 
> View attachment 39631


 
Mine and your sister's rice and peas loss.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> the imperceptible things a cook does to make their food different from someone elses?
> 
> my mum, for example, makes much nicer pastry than my dad, even when using the same recipe. but it isn't magic - it's because she has a lighter touch when rubbing in the fat, and poorer circulation (and therefore colder hands).


 


> im·per·cep·ti·ble  (
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Great use of the word actually. 
I'd take it a step further, I'd say it's influenced by her thoughts/feelings about what's she cooking and who she is cooking for, I'd say it's about the 'energy' she puts into cooking, what she thinks about etc...I'd say it's influenced by her relationship with cooking and how much practise she has had doing it... all of these have influence IME....and guess what I am allowed to think/feel these things, you can call them what the hell you like and label them as you like, your opinion however doesn't negate mine no matter how resistant you are to it.



> oh, and the fucking fairy dust that she sprinkles in the flour beforehand.


 oh ffs? You as well? Been watching far too much Disney and Harry potter it seems.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

so you're redifining magic to mean something other than what everyone else understands it to mean?


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> quit with the 'burn the witch' stuff you idiot.


 
Yes. You're not in the fucking reformation. 

See the people who wanted to burn witches were exactly (well not exactly, they were more hysterical and had access to firewood) as superstitious as you. They believed in divine mythical powers that effected their daily lives, in practical and real ways.

I just object to you saying things along the lines as "magick and science are part of the same", "cooking and magick are the same", when they clearly aren't. 

I've not seen too many Mitchellen star restaurants sacrificing a goat to Cthuhlu before dinner service.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> so you're redifining magic to mean something other than what everyone else understands it to mean?


 
Careful killer b those goalposts of her's are broomsticks, she can move them whereever she likes.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> quit with the 'burn the witch' stuff you idiot.


 
Stop telling me what to do, haven't you worked it out yet? i'm not about to start obeying you anytime soon. HTH.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> so you're redifining magic to mean something other than what everyone else understands it to mean?


 

You don't know what everyone else understands it to mean, simply assuming you do is doesn't mean you do.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

pathetic. just make an argument that makes sense, no-one's persecuting you ffs.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> pathetic. just make an argument that makes sense, no-one's persecuting you ffs.


 
per·se·cu·tion (pûr
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




s
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-ky
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







sh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




n)_n._
*1. * The act or practice of persecuting on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, *or beliefs that differ from those of the persecutor.*


Petty insults, condescension, assuming you know what I think and why, attempting to undermine my position by using childish/fantasy caricatures (space pixies/demons/broomsticks etc), positioning yourself as knowing what everyone else thinks, using culturally subjective terminology like 'supersition', introducing the concept of good/evil...Oh yeah, nothing to see here, pathetic, as you say.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> You don't know what everyone else understands it to mean, simply assuming you do is doesn't mean you do.


 
You can believe whatever bullshit you want. In the privacy of your own home. But you're on a public forum, you expressed your personal philosophy, and some people disagreed. You're not being oppressed sweetie, you're engaged in a free and robust exchange of ideas. Please get down off the pyre dearie, you put yourself up on it.

I got annoyed when you said science = magic. I really don't mind what nonsense you believe in when it doesn't effect anyone else. Christianity, homeopathy, crystals, tarot cards, Buddhism, Colour therapy, Creationism. Whatever go fucking nuts.

But I do object when people try and bring spirituality into science. Claiming magick is a kind of Science (or vice versa) means you clearly don't have a bogs notion what science actually is. That annoys me. Like Alternative therapies treating serious illness, or demanding creationism be taught in the science classroom. There's a creating irrationalism in modern society that makes me wonder if we aren't back sliding back out the back of the reformation.

There's a homeopath that I've passed a number of times, that is asking for donations for it's campaign to treat child african aids victims with homeopathy. If you think you annoy me, you've nothing on them. But I think your statements confusing magick and rationalism are on the same fucking path.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> per·se·cu·tion (pûr
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It is supersition. 

And if you want to see persecution I'd suggest you fuck off and try practice your religious and spiritual beliefs in the middle east.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

Froth, froth, froth...


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Froth, froth, froth...


 

Darling you think that magic and science are the same, and that divine forces are working in your kitchen. 

I think you're a fucking cretin. 

That's not oppression. Or persecution.


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> so you're redifining magic to mean something other than what everyone else understands it to mean?


On this thread we haven't yet come to a common agreement of what 'magic' means (I suspect it would be very difficult to do so).

I've got some gravelly beds outside my flat, very poor soil for growing things in, some weeds grow and I've had some success with some plants, not others. Some years ago when my Dad was visiting, he had a small cutting (about 6") from a bush, stuck it in the bed, no hormone powder or anything...it took very well, now it is a massive flourishing shrub I have to trim back every year. He did the same with a different bush another time, that too is now flourishing. Now, when I try to propagate cuttings in the same way, even when I treat them with hormone powder, and put them in a pot with some good compost, they invariably wither and die.

I think of this as his green-fingered magic.  Others would just say it was his horticultural knowledge that did the trick. It could be that my Dad recognised which plants would do well in poor soil, but he said he'd not done this before and just stuck it in the ground saying, let's see what happens. So if he had some knowledge (accrued from his 40+ years of gardening) it would have been unconscious.

On a similar theme (and its difficult to talk about this without sounding hippyish), since I've been pottering about with gardening (container plants, growing seeds in the flat and then planting them out etc) I've come to think of plant growth and their annual cycles as magic...A plant in winter that appears to all intents and purposes dead (brown, dry wood) starts to send out little green shoots in the Spring, WTF? But it was 'dead'...

Or, I take a seed, stick it in some dirt and in a few weeks' time this little living green thing has emerged OMFG...I plant it out and, again, in a couple of months time it is two-feet high? WTF...where did it come from, how did this happen - from a little seed? Of course this is science and science explains how the plant's DNA is encoded.

I also think of it as a form of everyday magic...it happens every year and is all around us so we take it for granted. I suppose one way to think of this is think of it as an attempt at re-enchantment, re-enchanting my view of the everyday world, so that I see it as 'magical' like when I was a kid and was entranced by stories, Treasure Island, The Hobbit, Wind in the Willows.

If I call this magic I can also acknowledge the science (biology, botany, horticulture etc) without one excluding the other. But my understanding of 'magic' isn't a Harry Potter-style flames-emerging-from-wands or huamns-transforming-into-animals magic. I've never seen that happen 

Apologies to my teenage late 1970s punk former self for the hippy talk  , but as I say it is hard not to sound like one when taking about stuff like this


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

> It is supersition.
> 
> And if you want to see persecution I'd suggest you fuck off and try practice your religious and spiritual beliefs in the middle east.


 


> Darling people who are actually being persecuted don't usually get to make these replies.


 
Oh quite right dear, I should count myself lucky that I am not about to be marched out to the town square and stoned for daring to be different to you...Seriously? 

Metaphorically speaking, you have tried and still are trying to do just that on this thread.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

ok then, _so you're redefining magic to mean something other than what it is commonly understood to mean?_

will that do?


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh quite right dear I should count myself lucky that I am not about to be marched out to the town square and stoned for daring to be different to you...Seriously?
> Metaphorically speaking, you have tried and still are trying to do just that on this thread


 
Considering you've;

A) Said that people disagreeing with you are persecuting you.

B) you've posted many jpgs on this thread where you suggest that the people who disagree with you want to burn you at the stake.

it's a little hypocritical for you to accuse me of hyperbolising the discussion.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

i don't anyone would deny the power of the unconscious mind on influencing our actions to create sometimes surprising or unexpected results. but why call it magic, when that word is already so heavily loaded with aeons of associations, and is almost certain to result in rows like this?


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> i don't anyone would deny the power of the unconscious mind on influencing our actions to create sometimes surprising or unexpected results. but why call it magic, when that word is already so heavily loaded with aeons of associations, and is almost certain to result in rows like this?


 
She also said science is a form of magick on this thread. So clearly she means "magick means whatever is convenient to my point at the time I'm making it".


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> Considering you've;
> 
> A) Said that people disagreeing with you are persecuting you.
> 
> ...


 
Bollocks. 

The 'persecution' is not in the act of disagreement at all, nor have I said it is.
It's in the vile, demeaning, condescending, culturally oppressive and authoritarian way it is done. This includes the use of language, immature characterisations and suggestions I should simply count myself lucky I even have a platform to express my perspective without being killed. 

The jpegs summed that up very well IMO, given the subject matter. That and I knew it was winding you up.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> vile, demeaning, condescending, culturally oppressive and authoritarian


 
really? have you never been here before?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> You were not joking at all, your writing my opinion off and characterising it as suspersition, your insults and the pointless _challenge_ you issued me betrayed that fact quite clearly.
> 
> Interesting that you use terminiology like 'witch-doctor' too and posit everything 'scientific' and by that you appear to mean institutionalised/westernised as rational etc... You even introduced the concept of good/evil into the discussion, revealing your own theological/patriarchal bias. So yeah, t_he atomic bomb_ for example, completely 'irrational' and bad science/magic IMO...
> 
> ...


 
Have you read that book Rutita?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> She also said science is a form of magick on this thread. .


 I did. Nothing you have said has changed that view either. Imagine that.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

scalyboy said:


> On this thread we haven't yet come to a common agreement of what 'magic' means (I suspect it would be very difficult to do so).
> 
> I've got some gravelly beds outside my flat, very poor soil for growing things in, some weeds grow and I've had some success with some plants, not others. Some years ago when my Dad was visiting, he had a small cutting (about 6") from a bush, stuck it in the bed, no hormone powder or anything...it took very well, now it is a massive flourishing shrub I have to trim back every year. He did the same with a different bush another time, that too is now flourishing. Now, when I try to propagate cuttings in the same way, even when I treat them with hormone powder, and put them in a pot with some good compost, they invariably wither and die.
> 
> ...


 
If everything you do is something that can be explained by science it's not magic, it's science. 

It's incredible and fantastic and wonderful but there's nothing divine, or magical about it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> It's incredible and fantastic and wonderful but there's nothing divine, or magical about it.


 
In your opinion. It's not hard mate. Some people experience the world, think, perceive, associate, interact with, understand and express these things differently to you.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:
			
		

> And I was worried that with Jazzz gone things were going to be dull around here.



Why, what happened to Jazzz?


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> ok then, _so you're redefining magic to mean something other than what it is commonly understood to mean?_
> 
> will that do?


So would my gardening 'magic' and Rutita's cookery 'magic' not qualify as magic in most peoples' definition of the term? Quite possibly, yes. Certainly yes, if 'magic' is commonly understood as spells, wizards, demons, Harry Potter stuff.

Mind you, I know of people who have successfully worked spells - I've seen the evidence. Burning candles to saints etc. Sometimes that works, and sometimes it doesn't 

Seriously though, if magic is commonly understood as Harry Potter stuff then that is at odds with how spells, sorcery, voodoo etc are alleged - as I understand it - to work. That stuff is supposed - again, as I understand it, I'm not an expert  - to work as _manipulation of coincidence_. Evans-Pritchard's example when he lived with the Azande was of the building that fell on the victim - it was science that explained how termites had been eating away the walls so that it would eventually collapse - it was magic that caused the victim to walk underneath at precisely that moment.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> In your opinion. It's not hard mate. Some people experience the world, think, perceive, associate, interact with, understand and express these things differently to you.


And? Should we respect every belief anyone has, regardless of how ridiculous they are?


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> The 'persecution' is not in the act of disagreement at all, nor have I said it is.
> It's in the vile, demeaning, condescending, culturally oppressive and authoritarian way it is done. This includes the use of language, immature characterisations and suggestions I should simply count myself lucky I even have a platform to express my perspective without being killed.


 
And you're the one who repeatedly suggested that the people disagreeing with you are persecuting you and wanted to BURN YOU AT THE STAKE. And then get annoyed when someone points out that there are parts of the world where something similar still happens so get some fucking perspective.



> The jpegs summed that up very well IMO, given the subject matter. That and I knew it was winding you up.


 
Darling its not winding me up it's exposing your own hysterical rantings.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> And? Should we respect every belief anyone has, regardless of how ridiculous they are?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

> Darling its not winding me up it's exposing your own hysterical rantings.


Oooh 'hysterical' 

Keep them coming, it's like a psychoanalyist's wet dream.





Truth is I'm sat in my nightie, drinking coffee, killing time/waiting for the rain to stop so I can go out and lay a patio.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

Fuck, its over now.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Oooh 'hysterical'
> 
> Keep them coming, it's like a psychoanalyist's wet dream.
> 
> ...


 
I never for once suggested that I feel your believes are stupid and your reaction ridiculous because you're a woman. 

You're a walking wet dream for the kind of bullshit nonsense that had some post modern theorist claim a maths paper was "sexist"

Do yourself a favour read

http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudo-Science/dp/1567313590


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Why, what happened to Jazzz?


 
Dude's banned dude.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> I never for once suggested that I feel your believes are stupid and your reaction ridiculous because you're a woman.


 I didn't say you did. 

You have though used gender specific language/associations in a derogatory/condecending way.



8den said:


> Careful killer b those goalposts of her's are broomsticks, she can move them whereever she likes.


 
_Dearie, darling, hysterical _for example.....all terms that I don't think you would have used if you were talking to a man.

I'm not without fault here and retaliated. I called you a 'prick'...I never refer to women like that.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> I didn't say you did.
> 
> You have though used gender specific language/associations in a derogatory/condecending way.
> 
> ...


 
No you didn't retaliate. You called me a prick first. Post 180. You're mixing up cause and effect. I started calling you dearie and darling after you accused me of persecuting you, and suggesting that I wanted to burn you alive. My reaction was to go on a kind of "calm down dear". Theres nothing sexist or gender specific in the term hysterical.  

And btw, you're the one who got on your high horse first. Objecting to such horrible language as  by me as "superstition" and "rational human beings". You flew off the handle. 

In fact lets look you at this discussion. I objected to your equating magick and science and made a suggestion a sarcastic list.

You've responsed suggesting I'm so intolerant of you that I "metaphorically" want to burn you alive for your beliefs. You've said that I'm persecuting you. And say that my language is misogynistic, sexist, intolerant, and implies that I'm some kind of cultural imperialist. THIS IS URBAN 75. Those are some of the worst things someone can be accused of around here. But* I'm* persecuting *you* with my language. 

I think you'll find that the describe of "magick" as "superstition" is something thats perfectly valid. You're responded to my points, with a increasing

Do you have a spell that will help thicken your skin?


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

You didn't look at the clip above, I acknowledge your beliefs, I don't have to respect them, and I object when you equate belief and superstition with science.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> Theres nothing sexist or gender specific in the term hysterical.


 
tbf, there is (although i agree it's generally used in a non-gendered way now)


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> tbf, there is (although i agree it's generally used in a non-gendered way now)


 
So I was calling toby jug a girl on the boat happy thread.

It's clear on this thread I meant in a non gender specific way, when one person is suggesting that the other side is persecuting them on a thread, and posting pictures suggesting that the other side of the argument wants to burn them alive, I think I can get away with calling them hysterical and not get called on being sexist.

On a thread where Xes is suggesting he's going to either self harm, or engage in animal cruelty with the intention of attempting to hurt Butcherapron using magick, I think we can safely say that neither gender has the monopoly on stupid on this thread.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

yeah, i think most people use the term without being aware of it's origin or any sexist intent - but there was considerable debate about it on here a while back, so i avoid using it 'cause i know exactly what reaction it causes.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 24, 2013)

Some people are such drama queens


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)




----------



## scalyboy (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> If everything you do is something that can be explained by science it's not magic, it's science.
> 
> It's incredible and fantastic and wonderful but there's nothing divine, or magical about it.


That would be a bit too either-or for me, too binary...if I'm looking at a top-class sunset, I can't enjoy its aesthetic qualities to the fullest if I am thinking, hmm, a pleasing effect of light diffusion through the atmosphere as a result of the earth's daily rotation. Sure, I can flip between aesthetic/pantheistic appreciation of the sunset, and a scientific understanding of the phenomenon, but I can't do both at the same time - if you can, however, good luck to you, horses for courses and all that. I reserve the right to hold both positions though


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> Dude's banned dude.


Do you know what he got banned for? Was it the Icke-stuff?


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

scalyboy said:


> if I'm looking at a top-class sunset, I can't enjoy its aesthetic qualities to the fullest if I am thinking, hmm, a pleasing effect of light diffusion through the atmosphere as a result of the earth's daily rotation.


 
but... nobody thinks like that.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

scalyboy said:


> Do you know what he got banned for? Was it the Icke-stuff?


 
Nope in the end it was ant vaccination stuff on a homeopathy thread. Honestly like the death of Omar at the end of the wire.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

tbh i find the idea that because you have no belief in the supernatural you must have some kind of mr logic approach to aesthetics a bit bizarre.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> No you didn't retaliate. You called me a prick first. Post 180. You're mixing up cause and effect. I started calling you dearie and darling after you accused me of persecuting you, and suggesting that I wanted to burn you alive. My reaction was to go on a kind of "calm down dear". Theres nothing sexist or gender specific in the term hysterical.


 
Yes I did call you a prick first, because you were posting like one. Putting words/ideas into my perspective, taking the piss, using Harry-potteresque cararicatures as if that is how I relate to the concept of 'magic', swearing loads, calling my opinion idiotic etc...That's what I retaliated to.

My use of 'burn the witch' jpegs was because IMO your condecending resistance to my perspective was just as irrational as you were suggesting my perspective is and being so 'authoriatarian' about it! I didn't find any burn the wizard jpegs, otherwise I would have posted one also. Let's not forget the use of concepts like good/evil, your apparent insistance that 'science' is somehow king in terms of how people should relate to/understand the world around them and their place in it etc. There are associations to partriarchal/religious/spiritual oppression within that hence me quoting/linking to the  Silvia Federici book.

As I have already posted, those pictures were also posted to annoy you & KB, on account of you being so annoying.  The metaphor came later, see below.



> And btw, you're the one who got on your high horse first. Objecting to such horrible language as by me as "superstition" and "rational human beings". You flew off the handle.


 
High horse? You have not asserted any 'higher' perspective at all on this thread? Can you at least be honest about this? You know full well what I was objecting to and you know full well that you were being demeaning in your responses to me. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. My bone with you and KB was the way you were doing it, the subjective, condescending way...it's all there. Claiming you were/could speak for 'everyone' else etc...



> In fact lets look you at this discussion. I objected to your equating magick and science and made a suggestion a sarcastic list.


 
So now your challenge to me was sarcastic? I don't believe you, just like when you tried earlier in the thread to suggest you were joking when you said 'no, it's science'...Frankly, if we are doing a review of the thread and interaction now I do ask that you are at least HONEST.



> You've responsed suggesting I'm so intolerant of you that I "metaphorically" want to burn you alive for your beliefs. You've said that I'm persecuting you. And say that my language is misogynistic, sexist, intolerant, and implies that I'm some kind of cultural imperialist. THIS IS URBAN 75. Those are some of the worst things someone can be accused of around here. But* I'm* persecuting *you* with my language.


 
Yes I believe on this thread you have been _intolerant_ and that your arguments/associations and use of terminology has been culturally subjective. Not because you simply and humbly disagreed with me, there is/was much more going on in the discussion as you well know.

I know where we are thanks.

Yes I used that metaphor, after being told I should count myself lucky I don't live in the Middle East (summary) like I have no awareness of the 'freedoms' of expression I have here in the UK as a woman/man, like I need some kind of lecture from you or anyone else?



> I think you'll find that the describe of "magick" as "superstition" is something thats perfectly valid. You're responded to my points, with a increasing


Doesn't make sense.



> Do you have a spell that will help thicken your skin?


 
There you go again  ....I'll humour you and say yes I do, i have been casting one throughout my interaction with you on this subject 

A pinch of remembering that it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what you think, a little bit of winding you up, a touch of it's my perspective and I'll have it if I want to, stir well, a smidgen more time killing as I wait for the rain to stop ...no particular order, add salt/sarcasim/jpegs to taste.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

scalyboy said:


> That would be a bit too either-or for me, too binary...if I'm looking at a top-class sunset, I can't enjoy its aesthetic qualities to the fullest if I am thinking, hmm, a pleasing effect of light diffusion through the atmosphere as a result of the earth's daily rotation. Sure, I can flip between aesthetic/pantheistic appreciation of the sunset, and a scientific understanding of the phenomenon, but I can't do both at the same time - if you can, however, good luck to you, horses for courses and all that. I reserve the right to hold both positions though


 
Completely missed my point. There's nothing magic about planting a seed in the winter and watering it and watching it grow, there's something _wonderful _and _magical _about it, but nothing magic. Put simply if you think the plant grows better because you talk to it, pray to it, wish it to, or  sacrifice a cockerel on a full moon, then you believe in magic. If you think it grows because of biology but think thats incredible and fascinating and are captivated by that, then you don't believe in magic.

You know your dad and plants right. If a friend got your Dad over to help pick his crops, and work on his garden because your dad knows about horticulture and biology, and your dad helped him with soil irrigation and pesticide etc, and your friend had a bumper crop that's science. If your friend asked your dad over to make his garden grow, and your dad did all of the above, and _a magic dance to the sky faeries_ and your friend had a bumper crop, and your friend thought _it's the magic dance and the sky faeries_ that made the crops grow, that's magick.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> There you go again  ....I'll humour you and say yes I do, i have been casting one throughout my interaction with you on this subject


 
it's working well.


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> Nope in the end it was ant vaccination stuff on a homeopathy thread. Honestly like the death of Omar at the end of the wire.


Ah, OK, cheers.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 24, 2013)

I think it's really a mistake to see it as _either_ magic or science, as though they were _necessarily_ competing for explanatory power over the same territory.

The territory where magical thinking has value (although perhaps more practical than explanatory value) is one that's relatively unexplored by science.

Here's a rare example (assuming you allow Batesons's notion of cybernetics the title of "science" ... ) http://ift-malta.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-cybernetics-of-self-A-theory-of-alcoholism.pdf


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> Completely missed my point. There's nothing magic about planting a seed in the winter and watering it and watching it grow, there's something _wonderful _and _magical _about it, but nothing magic. Put simply if you think the plant grows better because you talk to it, pray to it, wish it to, or sacrifice a cockerel on a full moon, then you believe in magic. If you think it grows because of biology but think thats incredible and fascinating and are captivated by that, then you don't believe in magic.


That's your definition of magic, not mine (yours may be the majority view however  ).

Mine is more to with a re-enchantment of how I see the natural world - I prefer to view it as magical not mechanistic. That doesn't mean I refute science or that I would choose a crystal healer over a doctor if I had an illness.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

this is a dog. you may have a different understanding of what a dog is, but it's a dog as far as i'm concerned. 

he's shit at bringing back sticks & never sits when i tell him though.


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> tbh i find the idea that because you have no belief in the supernatural you must have some kind of mr logic approach to aesthetics a bit bizarre.


Fair enough. Maybe I shouldn't have just said 'aesthetics' with the sunset example, but should have added a sense of the divine in nature, a pantheism, a Wordsworth sort of thing.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

scalyboy said:


> Fair enough. Maybe I shouldn't have just said 'aesthetics' with the sunset example, but should have added a sense of the divine in nature, a pantheism, a Wordsworth sort of thing.


 
you think that your appreciation of beauty is somehow stronger than mine because _magic_?


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> this is a dog. you may have a different understanding of what a dog is, but it's a dog as far as i'm concerned.
> 
> he's shit at bringing back sticks & never sits when i tell him though.


 But I can successfully refute your identification of this cat as a dog by an argument from biology, using objective examples internet photos of dogs and cats. Far harder for either of us to refute the other's definition of magic, as there we are dealing with metaphysics.


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> you think that your appreciation of beauty is somehow stronger than mine because _magic_?


Er, no. Where did I say that 
I'm trying to explain what works for me. Not interested in a competition...if your aesthetic appreciation works for you then that's fine by me.
Anyway I've got to go, Fulham-Arsenal on the radio in a few minutes...back later.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

yeah, fair enough. i was probably reading too much into it. enjoy the match.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2013)

xes said:


> says he who doesn't know the power of intent. (but soon will)


 
It's not just about the force behind your intention, as you'll find out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2013)

xes said:


> know it? lol. I live for this. people like BA are here for my amusement. There will be no "magick off" with capes. It'll be me, a half dead pigeon, and a big fucking knife. (on a slab of concrete covered in my own blood etc)
> 
> I need to see if this works. I have my victim. Give it a year, and I will know if it works or not. Make me sound ludicrous? For folk on here, I've been doing that for years. Mocking me, will only make me more determined. So please, carry on.


 
You do realise that the blood, the altar and the sacrifice are just props, don't you, like the finger-waving, the bread and the wine is for Christians?  That you can make what you want to happen occur by "shaking the bones" at the person you want to change?  Then, if your intent and their belief in your intent are strong enough, things will happen.
Like I said, nowadays, we call what used to be named "magic", psychology.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You do realise that the blood, the altar and the sacrifice are just props, don't you, like the finger-waving, the bread and the wine is for Christians? That you can make what you want to happen occur by "shaking the bones" at the person you want to change? Then, if your intent and their belief in your intent are strong enough, things will happen.


 I thought Xes was joking, well I supposed I hope he was.

If he wasn't, i'd say all that effort would be a big waste of what could be a lovely meditative ritual (sans the animal sacrifice)




> Like I said, nowadays, we call what used to be named "magic", psychology.


 Not all of us!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> so you're redifining magic to mean something other than what everyone else understands it to mean?


 
Given that to an awful lot of people, "magic" is illusionism, then the normative and commonsense understandings of the word aren't fit for purpose in this discussion. The same can also be said of the mass of people who are adherents of science, but are unable to articulate what they mean by science and why they have faith in it, beyond some crude scientism that's on the same level as religious adoration.

The commonly-understood (at least by anyone who's ever bothered to read an occult primer) definition of magic as (as was mentioned earlier) "the science and art of causing change in conformity with will".  That being so, and "will" being manifest in action, the practice of magic may be said to encompass the practice of scientific investigation.  More so, at least, than worshipping science *because* it's called "science", as some people do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> Yes. You're not in the fucking reformation.
> 
> See the people who wanted to burn witches were exactly (well not exactly, they were more hysterical and had access to firewood) as superstitious as you. They believed in divine mythical powers that effected their daily lives, in practical and real ways.
> 
> ...


 
That's because of the hygiene regulations with regard to livestock in the kitchen.


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes I did call you a prick first, because you were posting like one.


 
No you claimed you called me a prick because I used very specific sexist terms. Now it turns out you're the one who started with the sexist terms. Yet he without sin cast the 1st stone.



> Putting words/ideas into my perspective, taking the piss, using Harry-potteresque cararicatures as if that is how I relate to the concept of 'magic', swearing loads, calling my opinion idiotic etc...That's what I retaliated to.


 
Trust me this isn't me swearing loads. Seeing as you consistently refuse to define what you think magic is never mind how you relate to it, so I was forced to guess, I don't know if you worship sky pixies, or chant before making rice and peas.

As to calling your opinion idiotic yes, yes it is. You think a recipe tastes different in one kitchen to another because of magick, or think science is a form of magick.

I mentioned it above, I can be aware of your opinion/beliefs, there's no reason why I should respect it.




> My use of 'burn the witch' jpegs was because IMO your condecending resistance to my perspective was just as irrational


 
It's not irrational. I think your statement that "science is a form of magick" is PROFOUNDLY idiotic. And dangerous.



> as you were suggesting my perspective is and being so 'authoriatarian' about it! I didn't find any burn the wizard jpegs, otherwise I would have posted one also. Let's not forget the use of concepts like good/evil, and their place in it etc. There are associations to partriarchal/religious/spiritual oppression within that hence me quoting/linking to the Silvia Federici book.


 
Bollocks, after posting all those "burn the witch JPGS" you starting hysterically announcing you were being persecuted, one is a escalation of the other.




> your apparent insistance that 'science' is somehow king in terms of how people should relate to/understand the world around them


 
I don't think science is king in how we relate to the world, I think that we should use scientific reasoning and rationalism to figure out how the world works before we use incantations and spells to try and change it.



> High horse? You have not asserted any 'higher' perspective at all on this thread? Can you at least be honest about this? You know full well what I was objecting to and you know full well that you were being demeaning in your responses to me. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. My bone with you and KB was the way you were doing it, the subjective, condescending way...it's all there. Claiming you were/could speak for 'everyone' else etc...


 




> So now your challenge to me was sarcastic? I don't believe you, just like when you tried earlier in the thread to suggest you were joking when you said 'no, it's science'...Frankly, if we are doing a review of the thread and interaction now I do ask that you are at least HONEST.


 
It was sarcasm, because I knew you couldn't do it.



> Yes I believe on this thread you have been _intolerant_


 
Nope I'm not intolerant. I said on the thread in the privacy of your own home, you can believe whatever you like.

If your believe that you can do magick and and that makes you happy. BRILLIANT. Fantastic. I'm thrilled for you. If it makes you a better person even better. But when you try and say "magick makes my food taste better" or "science is a form of magick". I'm going to say "that is fucking bullshit". If I have to interact with it, or you try and or foster your belief system on others then yes I can tell you why I think you're talking crap.

I the idea that creationism or intelligent design is taught in classrooms fucking awful, and your "science is a kind of magick" bullshit is a stepping stone on that path.

As the man in the youtube video said, I can accept that this is your worldview/belief system, I just don't have to respect it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2013)

Oh god, you too? (@vp)


----------



## 8den (Aug 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You do realise that the blood, the altar and the sacrifice are just props, don't you, like the finger-waving, the bread and the wine is for Christians?


 
And I find the whole transubstantiation thing complete crap. Comparing Xes's bullshit to Catholicism isn't really helping your cause.

The Point is Xes was willing to cut himself or murder a animal in order to hopefully inflict harm on another person doesn't say something deeply troubling about his mindset?



> That you can make what you want to happen occur by "shaking the bones" at the person you want to change? Then, if your intent and their belief in your intent are strong enough, things will happen.


 
If we're talking about pure psychology, then the psychologist own will have very little to do in the matter, it's all about the subject and their desire to effect change in themselves. 



> Like I said, nowadays, we call what used to be named "magic", psychology.


 
No, because a psychologist isn't going to say "Tell me about a case, of a person with emotional trouble, and then without ever meeting or interacting or conversing with them, I will cure their emotional issues merely through the power of my "psychology" and my will."

If a psychologist told you that, they'd be laughed out of it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> Oh god, you too? (@vp)


 
I have a science degree (among others).  That doesn't render me incapable of understanding that "magic" is an extant force, even if "magic" is merely a code for "something unexplained" rather than "something that's *not explainable* by science".  Everyone is so hot here to shout "the other side" down, they're forgetting certain fundamental things, such as the fact that science evolved from (for want of a better word) "magic", and was implicated with it until after The Reformation; that "magic" has *always* been used as a code for practices or occurrences *not yet explained* by science; that faith in science is just as much "magical thinking" as faith in a deity or an immanent force; that you're quibbling about words when you should be arguing about meanings and that unless you're roceeding from the same meanings, then any argument you have can go nowhere, because the subject of discussion will mean something different to each party.

People who claim to be logical, but don't even bother to set the terms of the debate?  I piss on the lot of you, and frankly you're not worthy of my piss.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> And I find the whole transubstantiation thing complete crap. Comparing Xes's bullshit to Catholicism isn't really helping your cause.


 
What cause is that?  I'm making an argument from a logical base - that flim-flam and ceremony are essentially meaningless, and that what matters in terms of xes doing his business, or a priest and congregation doing theirs, is how much belief they and others invest in the ceremonial flim-flam (and thereby in the effectiveness of the ritual in realising their intent).




> The Point is Xes was willing to cut himself or murder a animal in order to hopefully inflict harm on another person doesn't say something deeply troubling about his mindset?


 
1)  What he does to himself is his business.
2) One kills an animal, one doesn't "murder" it.
3) xes is a bullshitter wholikes to try and shock people.  he's about as likely to follow through with his gibberings as you are to get a blowjob from Helena Christiansen.




> If we're talking about pure psychology, then the psychologist own will have very little to do in the matter, it's all about the subject and their desire to effect change in themselves.


 
If life were pure and simple that might be the case, but as life is dirty, smelly and complex, it's also about the projection of will, and of ideas, from one party to another, and about *how* the subject "takes up" those ideas.  If they invest ideas with belief then "desire" doesn't figure in the equation.  Change can be effected in spite of the subject's conscious desires otherwise.




> No, because a psychologist isn't going to say "Tell me about a case, of a person with emotional trouble, and then without ever meeting or interacting or conversing with them, I will cure their emotional issues merely through the power of my "psychology" and my will."
> 
> If a psychologist told you that, they'd be laughed out of it.


 
Straw man.  No-one mentioned this putative psychologist except you, who created him so that you could give a bit more "body" to a shite argument.  The issue is that psychology effects change through influencing the way a subject/patient thinks and what they think about.  "Magic", especially within a belief system, does much the same, except that the practices haven't been quantified through scientific investigation like psychology has.

I get the feeling that rather than arguing from a point of logic, you're arguing from the basis that you're as religious about science as a priest is about his g-d(s).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2013)

8den said:


> No you claimed you called me a prick because I used very specific sexist terms. Now it turns out you're the one who started with the sexist terms. Yet he without sin cast the 1st stone.


 
You were already invoking a whole fucking history of partiarchial/theological/culturally subjective/ institutionalised bigotry and being an arse so I called you a prick. That is what I retaliated against. Also, I think you will find I have been a hell of a lot more self-aware and honest about what i've posted and why than you have...perhaps you simply don't get it? You say these thins yet don't make the connections/associations?



> Trust me this isn't me swearing loads. Seeing as you consistently refuse to define what you think magic is never mind how you relate to it, so I was forced to guess, I don't know if you worship sky pixies, or chant before making rice and peas.


 
Here you go again, a defensive, immature rant. I haven't told you what I think because you haven't actually asked in any way that I care to respond to honestly. You have been aggressive, condescending and dismissive from the get go. If you'd actually read a few of my posts instead of frothing so fucking hard and scowling into your keyboard, you'd have a better idea.



> *As to calling your opinion idiotic yes, yes it is*. You think a recipe tastes different in one kitchen to another because of magick, or think science is a form of magick.


 
No is isn't, you are confusing your own opinion as a universal truth.




> It's not irrational. I think your statement that "science is a form of magick" is PROFOUNDLY idiotic. And dangerous.


 
Dangerous? In which way do I pose a threat to you or anyone else? My beliefs are my own, they are not working against you. It appears the 'fear' you feel is a psychological one. Nothing I have posted here puts you or anyone at risk ffs  That danger/fear you perceive is YOURS, not because I have done/am doing anything 'wrong'.



> Bollocks, after posting all those "burn the witch JPGS" you starting hysterically announcing you were being persecuted, one is a escalation of the other.


 
I have not been hysterical, not at all. I simply and calmly showed you how your attitude/words/manipulations of my posts/opinions and the willful derogatory assumptions/associations you have consistantly made 'fit' the definition of 'persecution'. I could say your reaction has been hysterical, I won't though because I experience it more as 'irrational' given that my beliefs have zero affect on you and your ability to live the way YOU choose outside of this discussion. I've explained why I posted the jpegs a few times already, so won't bother again.




> I don't think science is king in how we relate to the world, I think that we should use scientific reasoning and rationalism to figure out how the world works before we use incantations and spells to try and change it.


 
Bully for you. Now point me to where I have posted even once that I use spells/incantations to change anything? You can't because it didn't happen but another 100 internet points for continuing to make it up as you go along.



> It was sarcasm, because I knew you couldn't do it.


 Pot, kettle... You like to give it out but can't take it very well.



> Nope I'm not intolerant. I said on the thread in the privacy of your own home, you can believe whatever you like.


 So kind of you to limit me to inside my own home, great use of the word _private_ too....I think i told you that I don't do 'obeying' didn't I?



> If your believe that you can do magick and and that makes you happy. BRILLIANT. Fantastic. I'm thrilled for you. If it makes you a better person even better. But when you try and say "magick makes my food taste better" or "science is a form of magick". I'm going to say "that is fucking bullshit".


 
Why do you assume 'magic' in my experience/definition of it is something that is 'done'?
Why do you define 'magic' as something that exists outside of one's own experience and believe I do too?
Where have I said magic makes food taste better? The story about my sisters didn't mean anything of the sort!
Where have I said or inferred my definition/relationship with 'magic' makes me a better person?
Yes I still say IMO science is a form of magic and no amount of screaming, frothing and plucking shit out of the air will stop me.



> If I have to interact with it, or you try and or foster your belief system on others then yes I can tell you why I think you're talking crap.


 Simply having an opinion is 'fostering' it onto others now eh? Do you not see why I put up the jpegs? Seriously? CONFORM, CONFORM, CONFORM or face abuse is the message you are sending!



> I the idea that creationism or intelligent design is taught in classrooms fucking awful, and your "science is a kind of magick" bullshit is a stepping stone on that path.


 Really? I don't think so.



> As the man in the youtube video said, I can accept that this is your worldview/belief system, I just don't have to respect it.


 If your interaction with me had given the same, simple sentiment as you now dishoesty claim it to be I dare say we wouldn't be on page whateveritis now. The truth is you don't accept it at all and resorted to abuse/belittling/aggression to communicate that fact from the get go.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 26, 2013)

killer b said:


> Oh god, you too? (@vp)


 
And me - got a problem with that?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 26, 2013)




----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2013)

I dont really give a shit tbh. Believe whatever you like.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have a science degree (among others).  That doesn't render me incapable of understanding that "magic" is an extant force, even if "magic" is merely a code for "something unexplained" rather than "something that's *not explainable* by science".


What, like ghosts and fairies and vampires and ectoplasm and shit? Made-up stuff?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> What, like ghosts and fairies and vampires and ectoplasm and shit? Made-up stuff?


 
You really are second-rate.  Try harder, or at least read the thread, there's a good primate.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 26, 2013)

Why is talk of magick and spells always so vague?

Cos it's a load of shit 

Why are people so superstitious these days? Why is this nonsense coming back?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2013)

Science can cure heart burn... but not heart break. Which hurts more?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Why is talk of magick and spells always so vague?
> 
> Cos it's a load of shit


 
Rather than just blather, define your terms and make some substantive critiques, because your "it's a load of shit" is so vague. 



> Why are people so superstitious these days? Why is this nonsense coming back?


 
Superstition isn't "coming back", it never went away, just as religion has never gone away.  It fills a human need - the need to believe in something external to oneself, whether that's a deity, an indefinable force or the malevolent presence of a ghostly zombie crow that pecks at your eyes as you sleep.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 26, 2013)

I'm not sure there necessarily is a need


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 26, 2013)

And you explain what magick is.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Aug 26, 2013)

Along with Phil Hine I would say Joel Biroco is still worth reading (as someone associated with that particular scene.)

And of course a healthy dose of art, along with the science, doesn't go a miss.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

I was there. Was he?


----------

