> From: oldwifetale
yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.religion.wicca,alt.dreams.lucid,alt.magic,
> alt.native Subject: Re: The Corey UseNet Group ? Date: Sat, 07 Jul
> 2007 20:15:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com
>
> On Jul 7, 7:33 am, Nevermore thestake.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "us"?
>>>>> And for what reason would you peel the skin off one of my
>>>>> ancestors?
>>
>>>> Well, these days it's mostly just for interfering with major
>>>> circles ( by convention parking complaints don't count) or attacks
>>>> on familiars but back then there was a big long list. Check the
>>>> Manual of Incabulation. It goes on and on for pages.
>>
>>> Hmmm, i just googled that word and only five sites popped up along
>>> with the question: "Did you mean infibulation?"
>>
>> Oh Hells no!
>
> True story.
Jeezuz H. Christmas you are dense. ANYONE reading the exchange above
would realize that I realize that must have been what you got when you
googled an obscure witch term and that I in turn answered the question
it posed.
>
>>
>>>> Besides, as I keep pointing out and you
>>>> should already well and truly know, John Proctor's problems
>>>> weren't with Witches. It was the Calvinists who went after their
>>>> fellow Calvinists in Danvers. We just seem to be the ones doing a
>>>> better job of keeping that in proper perspective 315 years later.
>>
>>> John Proctor's only 'problems' were the result of being too
>>> outspoken in the eyes of those "fellow calvinists". That, also, is
>>> a matter of 'public record'.
>>
>> And THAT is what I keep pointing out. He wasn't a witch and he
>> wasn't tried or hung by witches. He was a Christian who was tried
>> and hung by Christians after pointing out from the get go that what
>> they were doing was stupid.
>
>
> You were pointing out that he pointed out the obvious?
> Okay, then.
Apparently things aren't obvious enough for you.
>
>
>>
>> I pointed out that we don't hang people. Hence the, "IF it had been
>> us...
>
>
> You never actually pointed out that you don't hang people.
> So "hence" nothing.
> Should i be reading between the lines here?
You saw the Blair Witch Project. Did she hang anybody? Were Hansel and
Gretel hung? How about Snow White? When, when, when have you EVER
heard of Witches hanging anyone??? That goes without saying, HENCE my
reply.
>
>
>
>> IF it had been us and he'd been seeing spectral visions WE wouldn't
>> have cared. Hell, half the naked serving girls at my Halloween
>> parties see spectral visions. Grow up.
>
>
> And you are how old to be telling a grandma to "grow up"?
You are how old to be making fourth grade reading comprehension mistakes?
>
>
>>>After his daughter Martha (my g..grandmother) married
>>> a Gowen - (also a matter of public record) - they left your area
>>> and eventually their descendants made it to the appalachians where
>>> many live even now. These are my father's people. Perhaps you've
>>> neglected your 'research' when it comes to the Gowens.
>>
>> Can I ask why in the Spheres you think I SHOULD have been researching
>> the Gowens?
>
>
> Oh, no special reason. The name is familiar in 'some' circles.
I thought they usually laid out trailer parks in rows.
>
>
>>
>>> It certainly throws light
>>> on the matter, and btw - 315 years is only a blip on the timeline.
>>> At any rate - you still did not answer my question as to 'why' -
>>> whereas when you stated what you would have done to my ancestor,
>>> you were quite specific. One might be left to assume that 'method
>>> of punishment' is more to your liking than actual history.
>>
>> Deductive reasoning is just one big mystery to you, isn't it?
>
>
> Well, actually, lots of things are a Mystery to me.
> Sometimes a mystery is not meant to be 'unraveled'.
> However, in this case, putting two and two together does not make for
> 'deductive' reasoning.
In your case it doesn't appear to make for four either.
>
>
>
>> Okay, let's all diagram what you should have learned from what I said:
>> You interjected a big rant on the injustices done to John Proctor
>> because he was a witch and people killed him. I pointed out that A)
>> he wasn't a witch B) Calvinists killed him
>
> Thank you for pointing out in alphabetical order the list of things i
> already knew about my own ancestor. Makes it so much easier to skip
> over the most condescending parts.
>
>
> C) We aren't Calvinists
>
>
> Who is?
1) John Calvin
2) John Proctor
3) All your other Puritan ancestors if you are a descendent of the
inhabitants of Salem and Danvers circa 1692.
>
>
> D) We
>> are witches E) You could have told if witches killed him because we
>> wouldn't have publicaly hanged him with a big show trial - we would
>> have started with a series of escalating measures starting with
>> swiping his lawn furniture and eventually working our way up to
>> ritual decortication and (time permitting) filling his bone marrow
>> full of hot lead as specified in various moldy books F) All that is
>> only reserved for people who transgress upon us (or irritate the cats)
>> and We wouldn't have done that to John Proctor or any of his other
>> Calvinist buddies because WE DON'T CARE if large giant bats plague
>> young farm girls and say spooky things to them in the woods. That's
>> an average Wednesday evening around here.
>
> Gee, i must still be missing your point because i never said that
> witches had anything to do with his hanging. So you're responding to a
> statement that was never there.
YOU went into a big hyperventilating about John Proctor being 'labeled'
as a witch and being hung in Salem, apparently because the mere mention
of the word 'Salem' sends you into fits, and I pointed out that I'm
hardly the team to be bringing this up to because we neither said he was
a witch, nor hung him (all of which - you've no doubt puzzled out by now -
is a little moot because the only thing involved in this conversation
that was actually around in 1692 is my dining room set) and then I
somewhat cheekily mentioned that we don't hang people anyway. YOU, who
can't parse indicative tenses nor recursive phrases, managed to tangle
yourself into the notion that we were looking to kill him - just by
different methodology. I set down a perfectly nice snifter of brandy
and took my own munificent time to explain to you that WE don't punish
people for upsetting Puritans. WE encourage nubile young women to dance
naked in the woods with frogs. WE use hymnals to light clambakes. We
tinker with steeples. We wreak from Mount Desert Island to way beyond
Minot Light. We don't care about people who consort with Witches. We
are Witches. The only point you could be missing is right on top of
your head.
> Must be a 'spectral' thing. And
> insofar as "spooky things" - what makes you think that 'witches' have
> cornered the market?
Did I say we had?
> (And i have also heard that quite a few of the
> 'witches' have rather large commercial 'market' going on there in
> Salem). Hahahaha.
Well, yeah, but the comic book stores are pretty much just bait for
meeting Goth chicks.
> Well, it's good to know your 'people' wouldn't have
> bothered with my ancestor - but since your 'people' have no family
> that intersected with mine, why would it even cross my mind to begin?
> Hmmm. Aw well - we'll just let that be a 'mystery'.-
A 'mystery' that Klonopin could probably clear up in a week or two.
Nevermore
>
>
