|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 219 responses total. |
selena
|
|
response 111 of 219:
| 
Jun 9 14:20 UTC 1995 |
Because it's no good. There's a list of "rules" a mile long, so
that you can't even do as much as you used to in sexuality, and now
you can't do that, either.
|
phaedrus
|
|
response 112 of 219:
|
Jun 9 20:17 UTC 1995 |
Rules? That's really weird. Was the old conf really that bad?!
|
selena
|
|
response 113 of 219:
|
Jun 9 22:16 UTC 1995 |
Not in my opinion. I'm talking it over with the FW, to see what
can be done.. maybe I'll recommend it later, or at least not recommend
against it..
|
brighn
|
|
response 114 of 219:
|
Jun 11 18:28 UTC 1995 |
I really wish you'd talked about it with me *before* you lambasted it
publicly, Selena.
I really wish I'd read this item *before* I wrote to you privately.
I'm hurt now, truly hurt.
I'm trying to do this the right way. If anybody doesn't think I'm doing
it the right way, let me know *privately* and see if there is a solution
that can be reached, before complaining in public.
There are five rules. Rule #3, I think, is that everyone is to have fun.
I hardly think that's being tyrannical.
But, whatever, ...
|
phaedrus
|
|
response 115 of 219:
|
Jun 12 15:55 UTC 1995 |
Uhh, Brighn, did you organise this cf we're talking about. You're
taking this awefully personal.
|
brighn
|
|
response 116 of 219:
|
Jun 12 17:46 UTC 1995 |
Uh, yeah, I'm the fw.
And, uh, yeah, I usually take things way too personally.
I'm going to have to get the entire lyrics to Garden Party tattooed to
my eyelids so I see them everytime I blink: "You can't please everyone,
so you gotta please yourself."
|
selena
|
|
response 117 of 219:
|
Jun 13 00:13 UTC 1995 |
That's why i said "the FW" so as not to name you.
It's especially rule #1 that has me, and others, on edge. And, I'm sorry,
but I won't recommend it yet.
|
phaedrus
|
|
response 118 of 219:
|
Jun 13 18:21 UTC 1995 |
Ok...so what's rule #1?
|
brighn
|
|
response 119 of 219:
|
Jun 13 20:59 UTC 1995 |
To quote Infectious Groove: "All the rules just went out the window."
There is no more rule #1.
|
ajax
|
|
response 120 of 219:
|
Jun 14 20:52 UTC 1995 |
Brighn removed them from the conference, but here they are, for
discussion's sake:
Ground rules:
(1) Absolutely positively nothing that is not suitable for any
other Grex conference but for content. That is, topics should be
relevant to flirting, cybersex, and so on, but the goal of this
conference is to have fun, not to get Grex and all its minions
arrested for pandering.
(2) No flaming, unless in response to baiting. No wars, in other
words. Drift conferences especially attract that behavior. I don't
want to see it here.
(3) Everybody must have fun, whether they want to or not! :)
(4) Appropriate to the conf.:
-- tantalizing stories and other fiction and poetry
-- light questions about sex and other naughty things
-- personal ads and flirting
(5) Inappropriate to this conf.:
-- CyberSex (take it to Party or Mail)
-- expectations of serious discussions (take it to Sexuality)
I'm sure I'll be lax in enforcement, but I reserve the right to
chastise, freeze, and delete!
You stud-muffin fw,
Brighn
|
kami
|
|
response 121 of 219:
|
Jun 16 18:26 UTC 1995 |
so what was wrong with them?
|
brighn
|
|
response 122 of 219:
|
Jun 16 21:57 UTC 1995 |
The complaints were about #1, too restrictive...
|
ajax
|
|
response 123 of 219:
|
Jun 16 22:51 UTC 1995 |
I'd say 1, 2, and 5...the idea of having broad written "rules" at all for
a cf is kind of disappealing...I doubt many other cfs on Grex threaten
deletion of responses the fw considers to be "flaming!"
|
mneme
|
|
response 124 of 219:
|
Jun 30 07:58 UTC 1995 |
Hmm. I certainly agree that 1 and 5 are/were inapropriate. As far as two
goes, the general rule "no flaming" is both fair and just if you can enforce
it, even by consent; a message intended to do noghitn asside form start a
distracting thread which draws attention away from the actual topic of the
forum is BAD. So are the "yes it is, no it isn't, your a lamer; Is your IQ
in the 10's or 20's?" kind of discussion that populate Usenet.
|
phreakus
|
|
response 125 of 219:
|
Jul 8 19:08 UTC 1995 |
Yeah. What he said.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 126 of 219:
|
Jul 21 16:09 UTC 1995 |
Hello!!! The subject, please?
{{{{ahem}}}}
_Celtic Magic_ by D.J. Conway is very good for someone who wants to learn
about Celtic Magic, Celtic Myth, and the history of the people and religion.
It also gives you the dates of ceremonies like Samhain, Beltane, etc.
Basically...anything in the Llewyllen (sp?) series is trustworthy.
|
iggy
|
|
response 127 of 219:
|
Jul 23 16:19 UTC 1995 |
'norse magick' by d.j. conway isnt that good. there are many
glaring errors....
one in particular is stating that the name of freya's cats
are begul and tregul. <honey, and amber>
there was never any reference to that ANYWHERE.
actually, diana paxon came up with those names in a fiction novel
and dj conway jumped on it as truth, without bothering to confirm.
i am assuming that dj conway isnt asatru, and that is why her
<i think it is a 'her'> book reflects.
perhaps she is celtic, and maybe she does a better job within her
own faith?
|
birdlady
|
|
response 128 of 219:
|
Jul 25 17:04 UTC 1995 |
Yup -- she is Celtic, but has studied other religions. That's why I
recommended "Celtic Magic" and none of her other books. =)
|
kami
|
|
response 129 of 219:
|
Jul 25 18:24 UTC 1995 |
Um, I could have sworn Conway was male- I thought he was at some Con I was
also at a while back, but I'm not sure. I DON'T trust his/her Celtic
scholarship, either- it's *very* loose, with bits and peices pulled from
everywhere without attribution, untrustworthy sources, and bits filled in
anywhich way. Sigh. On the other hand, I generally trust Diana Paxton's
scholarship, although in a novel she might cerainly make up names as needed.
I don't recall her primary tradition, it might well be Norse, but since
she's involved with COG, she tends to be eclectic and quite accessible.
I'm sorry, Birdlady, but among the more scholarly end of the pagan community,
the reverse of what you said is true- anything from Llewellyn is UNTRUSTWORTHY.
They use almost no editing, either of copy or content, have published some
blantant bullshit, and tend to ask their better authors to "dumb down" their
work. It's worse since Cunningham died. Recently, I thought I had found
an exception in (I forget the author-book's out on loan) _Oghams, Omens and
????(oops)_. I've been wanting more on the structure and use of the Ogham
and other forms of divination from the Celtic world. Sigh. This book is
about as solid as jello; holds its shape but don't press it :( It
references Iolo Morganwg, a notorious fraud of the 19th Century, and even
Douglas Monroe (of the infamous _21 Lessons of Merlin), Robert Graves- the
White Goddess is a lovely work of inspiration but not reliable source material
and never set out to be, and others of dubious scholarship, along with a
few good secondary sources, but no real primary sources to speak of. Sigh.
I wish my own library were better, or that I had the reading list handy.
I'll have to work on it.
|
iggy
|
|
response 130 of 219:
|
Jul 25 18:27 UTC 1995 |
sigh... i as well wish i had a better library.
perhaps some day.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 131 of 219:
|
Jul 25 18:44 UTC 1995 |
Egads! What I meant was kind of what you brought up, Kami. If someone is
new to the whole Pagan thing, then Lleywellyn is kind of good because it*is*
so simplified. I haven't used that series at all for working though because
it tends to confuse me at times. It's kind of like when you first start out
reading. You start out with "see dick run" and move on to "Alas, Horatio!"
<grin> I apologize ... <curtsey>
|
kami
|
|
response 132 of 219:
|
Jul 25 22:05 UTC 1995 |
No need to appologize, Birdlady, not your fault you jumped with both feet
into a mess I've been embroiled in; I"m one of those "scholarly pagan
types", for weel or woe... Other folks are just as happy with a slushy
mess of "whatever works", and then too, I do see signs that the quality
of what's available to beginners is slowly increasing, not just the quantity.
|
robh
|
|
response 133 of 219:
|
Jul 25 23:56 UTC 1995 |
To clarify the above, yes, D.J. Conway is male.
|
iggy
|
|
response 134 of 219:
|
Jul 26 02:27 UTC 1995 |
my mistake.
|
starwolf
|
|
response 135 of 219:
|
Jul 26 15:32 UTC 1995 |
Hi!
|