rose symbolism

[David Dalton]

I'm interested in rose symbolism in magick and also in
freemasonry, amorc and rosicrucianism so follow up if
you know something about it or have some relevant links.

Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision
of Sept. 6, 1991 which is described on
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/sunstare.html
which is a subsubpage of my Salmon on the Thorns
web page http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html .

[David Dalton]

Post by David Dalton
I'm interested in rose symbolism in magick and also in
freemasonry, amorc and rosicrucianism so follow up if
you know something about it or have some relevant links.
Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision

oops that should have read "Some may also be..."

Post by David Dalton
of Sept. 6, 1991 which is described on
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/sunstare.html
which is a subsubpage of my Salmon on the Thorns
web page http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html .

[Tom]

Post by David Dalton
I'm interested in rose symbolism in magick and also in
freemasonry, amorc and rosicrucianism so follow up if
you know something about it or have some relevant links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucianism

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta33.htm

http://www.christian-restoration.com/fmasonry/18th.htm

http://www.wisdomportal.com/Poems2008/RoseInAlchemy.html

Post by David Dalton
Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision
of Sept. 6, 1991

Actually nobody is. Except you, of course.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <49063c4b-2e51-4396-99f3-***@d6g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
***@comcast.net says...
|:|> Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision
|:|> of Sept. 6, 1991
|:|
|:|Actually nobody is. Except you, of course.
|:|

what if i were to say i'm interested. would that shatter your world view?

[Tom]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|> Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision
|:|> of Sept. 6, 1991
|:|
|:|Actually nobody is.  Except you, of course.
|:|
what if i were to say i'm interested. would that shatter your world view?

No, because you quite often say things you don't believe. Like that
business where you said that "all anyone needs to know is that there
is one Creator". You just say stuff. It's not like you mean any of
it.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <5c5c3137-50ee-49f9-8600-***@j1g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
***@comcast.net says...
|:|
|:|On Dec 30, 2:04 am, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
|:|> In article <49063c4b-2e51-4396-99f3-***@d6g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
|:|> ***@comcast.net says...
|:|> |:|> Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision
|:|> |:|> of Sept. 6, 1991
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|Actually nobody is.  Except you, of course.
|:|> |:|
|:|>
|:|> what if i were to say i'm interested. would that shatter your world view?
|:|
|:|No, because you quite often say things you don't believe. Like that
|:|business where you said that "all anyone needs to know is that there
|:|is one Creator". You just say stuff. It's not like you mean any of
|:|it.

i like to see you squirm.

[Tom]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|
|:|> |:|> Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision
|:|> |:|> of Sept. 6, 1991
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|Actually nobody is.  Except you, of course.
|:|> |:|
|:|>
|:|> what if i were to say i'm interested. would that shatter your world view?
|:|
|:|No, because you quite often say things you don't believe.  Like that
|:|business where you said that "all anyone needs to know is that there
|:|is one Creator".  You just say stuff.  It's not like you mean any of
|:|it.
i like to see you squirm.

You don't mean that either. You just say stuff. Why indulge in so
much futility? Do you think that by saying things you make them
real? Is that how you think magick works?

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <472b03f1-1bbf-43e5-97d0-***@r16g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
***@comcast.net says...
|:|
|:|On Dec 31, 2:22 am, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
|:|> In article <5c5c3137-50ee-49f9-8600-***@j1g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
|:|> ***@comcast.net says...
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|On Dec 30, 2:04 am, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
|:|> |:|> In article <49063c4b-2e51-4396-99f3-***@d6g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
|:|> |:|> ***@comcast.net says...
|:|> |:|> |:|> Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision
|:|> |:|> |:|> of Sept. 6, 1991
|:|> |:|> |:|
|:|> |:|> |:|Actually nobody is.  Except you, of course.
|:|> |:|> |:|
|:|> |:|>
|:|> |:|> what if i were to say i'm interested. would that shatter your world view?
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|No, because you quite often say things you don't believe.  Like that
|:|> |:|business where you said that "all anyone needs to know is that there
|:|> |:|is one Creator".  You just say stuff.  It's not like you mean any of
|:|> |:|it.
|:|>
|:|> i like to see you squirm.
|:|
|:|You don't mean that either.

you're a moron. i always speak honestly, period. how you hear it is not how anyone else
hears it. you project your ideas into everything that is outer towards you, and create
your own picture of reality. we all do it. it's not a special thing.

|:|You just say stuff. Why indulge in so
|:|much futility? Do you think that by saying things you make them
|:|real? Is that how you think magick works?

what things. what did i say. start with just one issue and then we deal with it, and then
move on to the next.

[Tom]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|> |:|> Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision
|:|> |:|> |:|> of Sept. 6, 1991
|:|> |:|> |:|
|:|> |:|> |:|Actually nobody is.  Except you, of course.
|:|> |:|> |:|
|:|> |:|>
|:|> |:|> what if i were to say i'm interested. would that shatter your world view?
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|No, because you quite often say things you don't believe.  Like that
|:|> |:|business where you said that "all anyone needs to know is that there
|:|> |:|is one Creator".  You just say stuff.  It's not like you mean any of
|:|> |:|it.
|:|>
|:|> i like to see you squirm.
|:|
|:|You don't mean that either.
you're a moron.

You don't mean that either.

Post by Dennes De Mennes
i always speak honestly, period.

Or that.

Post by Dennes De Mennes
how you hear it is not how anyone else
hears it.  you project your ideas into everything that is outer towards you, and create
your own picture of reality. we all do it. it's not a special thing.

Then all conversation is futile. Yet you persist. Why? Because you
really don't believe what you're saying.

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|You just say stuff.  Why indulge in so
|:|much futility?  Do you think that by saying things you make them
|:|real?  Is that how you think magick works?
what things. what did i say.

Just follow the conversation, Dennes. You're letting yourself get
needlessly confused.

Post by Dennes De Mennes
start with just one issue and then we deal with it, and then
move on to the next.

There is no "next" when you say that all anybody needs to know is that
there is one Creator. Anything you say thereafter is superfluous,
just noise. And yet here you are, saying all sorts of other stuff
anyway. Why?

The answer is obvious. You don't actually believe that is all anybody
needs to know. You're just saying stuff in the hopes that by saying
it, you can make it real. Thus, you think that magick is simply a
matter of saying something in order to make it real.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <06fb51c3-dad7-497a-b96d-***@b20g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
***@comcast.net says...
|:|There is no "next" when you say that all anybody needs to know is that
|:|there is one Creator. Anything you say thereafter is superfluous,
|:|just noise. And yet here you are, saying all sorts of other stuff
|:|anyway. Why?

so what does that mean 'there's only one creator'

i didn't say that stuff about noise, you have no quote of that.

|:|
|:|The answer is obvious. You don't actually believe that is all anybody
|:|needs to know. You're just saying stuff in the hopes that by saying
|:|it, you can make it real. Thus, you think that magick is simply a
|:|matter of saying something in order to make it real.
|:|

let's first find the right quote and provide a link for the whole thing and see what the
context is.

[Sultan Bbub]

Red Hot Chili Pepper's Monarchy of Roses

[Tom]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|There is no "next" when you say that all anybody needs to know is that
|:|there is one Creator.  Anything you say thereafter is superfluous,
|:|just noise.  And yet here you are, saying all sorts of other stuff
|:|anyway.  Why?
so what does that mean 'there's only one creator'

The meaning seems pretty clear to me, but you're the one who said it,
so who knows what you've decided to mean by it now? So are you going
to tell us what you think you meant by that and why is that the only
thing anybody needs to know? And isn't that more than just knowing
there is only one Creator?

Post by Dennes De Mennes
i didn't say that stuff about noise, you have no quote of that.

Of course not. I'm the one who said that and I never claimed you
did. Aren't you clear on who said what?

Post by Dennes De Mennes
let's first find the right quote and provide a link for the whole thing and see what the
context is.

So you're not clear on who said what after all, or what you might have
meant. This is because you just say stuff. No wonder you can't keep
it straight.

You said: "There is only one Creator. That's all you need to know."
That is a direct quote. If you think there is some sort of contextual
situation that alters the meaning, feel free to provide one. That way
we can see what other stuff you think we need to know.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <f568e684-7dd9-4fb0-9b92-***@v24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
***@comcast.net says...
|:|You said: "There is only one Creator. That's all you need to know."
|:|That is a direct quote. If you think there is some sort of contextual
|:|situation that alters the meaning, feel free to provide one. That way
|:|we can see what other stuff you think we need to know.
|:|

i didn't say it out of thin air. must have been a reply to something and so there's a
whole context you're just ignoring. you just picked my response and yanked it out. and
then added the parts about everything is noise. one of the things i say is that
everything has a purpose, not everything is noise.

[Tom]

|:|You said:  "There is only one Creator. That's all you need to know."
|:|That is a direct quote.  If you think there is some sort of contextual
|:|situation that alters the meaning, feel free to provide one.  That way
|:|we can see what other stuff you think we need to know.
i didn't say it out of thin air. must have been a reply to something and so there's a
whole context you're just ignoring.

So you're saying that you really didn't mean that the only thing
anybody needs to know is that there is only one Creator? That you
really meant something else but you can't remember what it was?

Like I noted before, you just say stuff.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <b8399b84-6bac-45a3-b7b1-***@s10g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
***@comcast.net says...
|:|
|:|On Jan 1, 2:46 am, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
|:|> In article <f568e684-7dd9-4fb0-9b92-***@v24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
|:|> ***@comcast.net says...
|:|> |:|You said:  "There is only one Creator. That's all you need to know."
|:|> |:|That is a direct quote.  If you think there is some sort of contextual
|:|> |:|situation that alters the meaning, feel free to provide one.  That way
|:|> |:|we can see what other stuff you think we need to know.
|:|>
|:|> i didn't say it out of thin air. must have been a reply to something and so there's a
|:|> whole context you're just ignoring.
|:|
|:|So you're saying that you really didn't mean that the only thing
|:|anybody needs to know is that there is only one Creator? That you
|:|really meant something else but you can't remember what it was?
|:|
|:|Like I noted before, you just say stuff.

like i said, it has meaning when seen in its whole context. what was i replying to. what
was the conversation about, etc. it does not mean you can yank my answer out and use it
for a billion replies. it was meant for that one reply only. each time i reply it's a new
thing because each message is unique. if it requires i use that again i will, but i can't
predict that ahead of time.

[Tom]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|
|:|> |:|You said:  "There is only one Creator. That's all you need to know."
|:|> |:|That is a direct quote.  If you think there is some sort of contextual
|:|> |:|situation that alters the meaning, feel free to provide one.  That way
|:|> |:|we can see what other stuff you think we need to know.
|:|>
|:|> i didn't say it out of thin air. must have been a reply to something and so there's a
|:|> whole context you're just ignoring.
|:|
|:|So you're saying that you really didn't mean that the only thing
|:|anybody needs to know is that there is only one Creator?  That you
|:|really meant something else but you can't remember what it was?
|:|
|:|Like I noted before, you just say stuff.
like i said, it has meaning when seen in its whole context.

It might have a different meaning or it might not, but you don't know
because you don't remember what you meant when you said it. Like I
say, you just say stuff. In a little while you forget what you said
and what it meant. None of it sticks.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <36bca51a-5c8e-4df4-a837-***@37g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
***@comcast.net says...
|:|
|:|On Jan 1, 3:31 pm, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
|:|> In article <b8399b84-6bac-45a3-b7b1-***@s10g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
|:|> ***@comcast.net says...
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|On Jan 1, 2:46 am, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
|:|> |:|> In article <f568e684-7dd9-4fb0-9b92-***@v24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
|:|> |:|> ***@comcast.net says...
|:|> |:|> |:|You said:  "There is only one Creator. That's all you need to know."
|:|> |:|> |:|That is a direct quote.  If you think there is some sort of contextual
|:|> |:|> |:|situation that alters the meaning, feel free to provide one.  That way
|:|> |:|> |:|we can see what other stuff you think we need to know.
|:|> |:|>
|:|> |:|> i didn't say it out of thin air. must have been a reply to something and so there's a
|:|> |:|> whole context you're just ignoring.
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|So you're saying that you really didn't mean that the only thing
|:|> |:|anybody needs to know is that there is only one Creator?  That you
|:|> |:|really meant something else but you can't remember what it was?
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|Like I noted before, you just say stuff.
|:|>
|:|> like i said, it has meaning when seen in its whole context.
|:|
|:|It might have a different meaning or it might not, but you don't know
|:|because you don't remember what you meant when you said it. Like I
|:|say, you just say stuff. In a little while you forget what you said
|:|and what it meant. None of it sticks.

it was only meant for that one reply and it made sense back then, but why you want to
resurrect it is what the question is here. you don't even know the context. for me it
doesn't matter because i always speak honestly, so i'm sure i did then, also. if i have
to use that response again, i will, but so far it hasn't come up.

[Tom]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|> |:|You said:  "There is only one Creator. That's all you need to know."
|:|> |:|> |:|That is a direct quote.  If you think there is some sort of contextual
|:|> |:|> |:|situation that alters the meaning, feel free to provide one.  That way
|:|> |:|> |:|we can see what other stuff you think we need to know.
|:|> |:|>
|:|> |:|> i didn't say it out of thin air. must have been a reply to something and so there's a
|:|> |:|> whole context you're just ignoring.
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|So you're saying that you really didn't mean that the only thing
|:|> |:|anybody needs to know is that there is only one Creator?  That you
|:|> |:|really meant something else but you can't remember what it was?
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|Like I noted before, you just say stuff.
|:|>
|:|> like i said, it has meaning when seen in its whole context.
|:|
|:|It might have a different meaning or it might not, but you don't know
|:|because you don't remember what you meant when you said it.  Like I
|:|say, you just say stuff.  In a little while you forget what you said
|:|and what it meant.  None of it sticks.
it was only meant for that one reply and it made sense back then, but why you want to
resurrect it is what the question is here. you don't even know the context. for me it
doesn't matter because i always speak honestly, so i'm sure i did then, also. if i have
to use that response again, i will, but so far it hasn't come up.

Hey, if you don't know what you meant by it, that's OK with me. If
you want to say something that only applies for the moment you say it
and is void elsewhere, that's OK too. I understand. You just say
stuff.

[Robert Scott Martin]

Post by Tom
Hey, if you don't know what you meant by it, that's OK with me. If
you want to say something that only applies for the moment you say it
and is void elsewhere, that's OK too. I understand. You just say
stuff.

He's right, octinomos. Remember that bit about inhabiting your metaphors?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/browse_thread/thread/2e12633ded5d42f4/9da4790b44f60fa8?q=#9da4790b44f60fa8

We would now say "occupy your structures," of course.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <jdsg0b$h7a$***@reader1.panix.com>, ***@panix.com says...
|:|
|:|In article <6a27389d-7be3-4c1c-9fba-***@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
|:|Tom <***@comcast.net> wrote:
|:|
|:|>Hey, if you don't know what you meant by it, that's OK with me. If
|:|>you want to say something that only applies for the moment you say it
|:|>and is void elsewhere, that's OK too. I understand. You just say
|:|>stuff.
|:|
|:|He's right, octinomos. Remember that bit about inhabiting your metaphors?
|:|
|:|http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/browse_thread/thread/2e12633ded5d42f4/9da4790b44f60fa8?q=#9da4790b44f60fa8
|:|
|:|We would now say "occupy your structures," of course.


i decide the content of my messages, not he.

[Robert Scott Martin]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/browse_thread/thread/2e12633ded5d42f4/9da4790b44f60fa8?q=#9da4790b44f60fa8
i decide the content of my messages, not he.

That's an excellent start.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <jdt8n1$rij$***@reader1.panix.com>, ***@panix.com says...
|:|
|:|>|:|http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/browse_thread/thread/2e12633ded5d42f4/9da4790b44f60fa8?q=#9da4790b44f60fa8
|:|
|:|In article <***@news.sysmatrix.net>,
|:|Dennes De Mennes <***@nyx.net> wrote:
|:|
|:|>i decide the content of my messages, not he.
|:|
|:|That's an excellent start.

i always post sincerely every time, but what differs is my current perception at the time
of me saying it, so something I say a while back might have needed to be updated for my
new level of awareness. I can't predict that. I say the way I see it right now. If
something changes, then what comes out gets altered.

[Robert Scott Martin]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
i always post sincerely every time, but what differs is my current perception at the time
of me saying it, so something I say a while back might have needed to be updated for my
new level of awareness. I can't predict that. I say the way I see it right now. If
something changes, then what comes out gets altered.

Case in point! What got my attention back in October was the way you fell
back on the formulation "'only' a metaphor, 'just' a metaphor."

Today you're owning your content, which is great.

One interesting thing that can happen from here is discovering what
remains as perceptions change. Until that happens, it's "your" talk, but
it could be more. To own & inhabit the metaphors.

To occupy "structures."

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <6a27389d-7be3-4c1c-9fba-***@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
***@comcast.net says...
|:|Hey, if you don't know what you meant by it, that's OK with me. If
|:|you want to say something that only applies for the moment you say it
|:|and is void elsewhere, that's OK too. I understand. You just say
|:|stuff.
|:|

i say things that pertain to each individual message, such as now. but you think that the
answer right now could be copy-pasted into other messages and it doesn't work like that.
each answer is brand new and what will be required to be said is up in the air. i cannot
predict it. maybe i use the one creator thing again, maybe i won't. i decide, not you.

[Tom]

|:|Hey, if you don't know what you meant by it, that's OK with me.  If
|:|you want to say something that only applies for the moment you say it
|:|and is void elsewhere, that's OK too. I understand.  You just say
|:|stuff.
|:|
i say things that pertain to each individual message, such as now. but you think that the
answer right now could be copy-pasted into other messages and it doesn't work like that.
each answer is brand new and what will be required to be said is up in the air. i cannot
predict it. maybe i use the one creator thing again, maybe i won't. i decide, not you.

So where did I say I would wish to decide what you say? You made that
up. It's yet another example of how you just say stuff. It's not
like what you say has any definite meaning, consistency, or
relationship to anything outside your head right at the moment. I've
told you already that it's OK with me if you say stuff. Is it OK with
you if I say stuff, too?

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <1f2ae593-7f3d-4c2a-baac-***@l16g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
***@comcast.net says...
|:|
|:|On Jan 2, 1:27 pm, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
|:|> In article <6a27389d-7be3-4c1c-9fba-***@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
|:|> ***@comcast.net says...
|:|> |:|Hey, if you don't know what you meant by it, that's OK with me.  If
|:|> |:|you want to say something that only applies for the moment you say it
|:|> |:|and is void elsewhere, that's OK too. I understand.  You just say
|:|> |:|stuff.
|:|> |:|
|:|>
|:|> i say things that pertain to each individual message, such as now. but you think that the
|:|> answer right now could be copy-pasted into other messages and it doesn't work like that.
|:|> each answer is brand new and what will be required to be said is up in the air. i cannot
|:|> predict it. maybe i use the one creator thing again, maybe i won't. i decide, not you.
|:|
|:|So where did I say I would wish to decide what you say? You made that
|:|up. It's yet another example of how you just say stuff. It's not
|:|like what you say has any definite meaning, consistency, or
|:|relationship to anything outside your head right at the moment. I've
|:|told you already that it's OK with me if you say stuff. Is it OK with
|:|you if I say stuff, too?

well, don't be telling me what i mean when i say what i say, unless you quote the entire
message. if you just yank one little part out and start pontificating i will call you on
it. i need to see the whole context, the entire conversation to see what i myself meant,
i can't recall every little thing i say, i'm not a computer.

[Tom]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|>
|:|> i say things that pertain to each individual message, such as now. but you think that the
|:|> answer right now could be copy-pasted into other messages and it doesn't work like that.
|:|> each answer is brand new and what will be required to be said is up in the air. i cannot
|:|> predict it. maybe i use the one creator thing again, maybe i won't. i decide, not you.
|:|
|:|So where did I say I would wish to decide what you say?  You made that
|:|up.  It's yet another example of how you just say stuff.  It's not
|:|like what you say has any definite meaning, consistency, or
|:|relationship to anything outside your head right at the moment.  I've
|:|told you already that it's OK with me if you say stuff.  Is it OK with
|:|you if I say stuff, too?
well, don't be telling me what i mean when i say what i say, unless you quote the entire
message.

Why not simply admit you don't remember saying it or what you might
have meant by it? Why demand that I remember it all for you? *You*
wrote the words. If you can't remember what you meant, it's not my
responsibility to explain them to you. That's just another example of
how you just say stuff. And where did I say I wanted to decide what
you say? Did I say that or did you just make it up? You seem to be
ignoring that. Did you forget where you made than imputation as
well? Hint: It's right in front of your nose.

Post by Dennes De Mennes
if you just yank one little part out and start pontificating i will call you on
it. i need to see the whole context, the entire conversation to see what i myself meant,
i can't recall every little thing i say, i'm not a computer.

You're simply not paying attention and no wonder. Your mind flits
around. You have no focus and a poor memory. Work on those. Both
are amenable to improvement with diligent practice.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <e9f86d69-d91d-4f85-8525-***@y25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
***@comcast.net says...
|:|
|:|On Jan 3, 4:13 am, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
|:|> In article <1f2ae593-7f3d-4c2a-baac-***@l16g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
|:|> ***@comcast.net says...
|:|> |:|>
|:|> |:|> i say things that pertain to each individual message, such as now. but you think that the
|:|> |:|> answer right now could be copy-pasted into other messages and it doesn't work like that.
|:|> |:|> each answer is brand new and what will be required to be said is up in the air. i cannot
|:|> |:|> predict it. maybe i use the one creator thing again, maybe i won't. i decide, not you.
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|So where did I say I would wish to decide what you say?  You made that
|:|> |:|up.  It's yet another example of how you just say stuff.  It's not
|:|> |:|like what you say has any definite meaning, consistency, or
|:|> |:|relationship to anything outside your head right at the moment.  I've
|:|> |:|told you already that it's OK with me if you say stuff.  Is it OK with
|:|> |:|you if I say stuff, too?
|:|>
|:|> well, don't be telling me what i mean when i say what i say, unless you quote the entire
|:|> message.
|:|
|:|Why not simply admit you don't remember saying it or what you might
|:|have meant by it? Why demand that I remember it all for you? *You*
|:|wrote the words. If you can't remember what you meant, it's not my
|:|responsibility to explain them to you.

The conversation didn't involve you.

|:|> if you just yank one little part out and start pontificating i will call you on
|:|> it. i need to see the whole context, the entire conversation to see what i myself meant,
|:|> i can't recall every little thing i say, i'm not a computer.
|:|
|:|You're simply not paying attention and no wonder. Your mind flits
|:|around. You have no focus and a poor memory. Work on those. Both
|:|are amenable to improvement with diligent practice.

i concentrate on the message in front of me at the moment. i always speak sincerely. if
you have a problem, then quote the corresponding offending data, and we can examine it.

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ***@netfront.net ---

[Tom]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|
|:|> |:|>
|:|> |:|> i say things that pertain to each individual message, such as now. but you think that the
|:|> |:|> answer right now could be copy-pasted into other messages and it doesn't work like that.
|:|> |:|> each answer is brand new and what will be required to be said is up in the air. i cannot
|:|> |:|> predict it. maybe i use the one creator thing again, maybe i won't. i decide, not you.
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|So where did I say I would wish to decide what you say?  You made that
|:|> |:|up.  It's yet another example of how you just say stuff.  It's not
|:|> |:|like what you say has any definite meaning, consistency, or
|:|> |:|relationship to anything outside your head right at the moment.  I've
|:|> |:|told you already that it's OK with me if you say stuff.  Is it OK with
|:|> |:|you if I say stuff, too?
|:|>
|:|> well, don't be telling me what i mean when i say what i say, unless you quote the entire
|:|> message.
|:|
|:|Why not simply admit you don't remember saying it or what you might
|:|have meant by it?  Why demand that I remember it all for you?  *You*
|:|wrote the words.  If you can't remember what you meant, it's not my
|:|responsibility to explain them to you.
The conversation didn't involve you.

Was I eavesdropping on your private e-mail, or reading a post in a
public newsgroup? If you were having a private conversation that did
not involve any other readers, then you chose the wrong medium for
it.

Nonetheless, I can see that you are far too vain to admit a flaw, even
when it's blatantly obvious.

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|You're simply not paying attention and no wonder.  Your mind flits
|:|around.  You have no focus and a poor memory.  Work on those.  Both
|:|are amenable to improvement with diligent practice.
i concentrate on the message in front of me at the moment.

And then forget it. Poor focus and poor memory.

Post by Dennes De Mennes
i always speak sincerely.

Except when you avoid answering any of my questions.

Post by Dennes De Mennes
if
you have a problem, then quote the corresponding offending data, and we can examine it.

I did quote it, but you forgot what you meant by it and haven't the
wit or the will to look up your own words to remind yourself, if
indeed you ever meant anything at all. Further, you lack the humility
to admit it. So you insist that I find more and more of your words in
the hope that somehow they will begin to make sense to you. If they
still make no sense, you can always insist that there still isn't
enough "context" yet and demand more and more. There's no end to
that.

[Sultan Bbub]

Of course his vision could have been boring, so Tom, I can understand
your aversion to that.

[Tom]

Post by Sultan Bbub
Of course his vision could have been boring, so Tom, I can understand
your aversion to that.

Well, they do tend to get boring after you've heard a lot of them and
none of them ever turn out to have any point or utility. David is one
the a number of badly malfunctioning brains which have been recently
dumping their diseased mental products all over the newsgroup in
excessive amounts. Not that I consider your own efforts to be much
better.

[Sultan Bbub]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
|:|
|:|> |:|> Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision
|:|> |:|> of Sept. 6, 1991
|:|> |:|
|:|> |:|Actually nobody is.  Except you, of course.
|:|> |:|
|:|>
|:|> what if i were to say i'm interested. would that shatter your world view?
|:|
|:|No, because you quite often say things you don't believe.  Like that
|:|business where you said that "all anyone needs to know is that there
|:|is one Creator".  You just say stuff.  It's not like you mean any of
|:|it.
i like to see you squirm.

You don't mean that either.  You just say stuff.  Why indulge in so
much futility?  Do you think that by saying things you make them
real?  Is that how you think magick works?

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

It does work magick if they believe as Donald Michael Kraig does that
magick is a change in consciousness as a direct result of an act of
will. They post, in accordance with their pattern of will at the time
you encounter it, and they are changed by the act of it not your
response to it. You respond to it and they see that as evidence to
support their contingent conception of the act of magick.

Now you could get into technomagick but it might be scary. Was for me,
maybe it's just this decadent western civilization making me a pussy.
Sorry random thought, it's got to be the demon rum, good rum this new
years eve, 23.99 a bottle.

[Sultan Bbub]

Post by Tom

Post by David Dalton
I'm interested in rose symbolism in magick and also in
freemasonry, amorc and rosicrucianism so follow up if
you know something about it or have some relevant links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucianism
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta33.htm
http://www.christian-restoration.com/fmasonry/18th.htm
http://www.wisdomportal.com/Poems2008/RoseInAlchemy.html

Post by David Dalton
Some maybe also be interested in my blue rose vision
of Sept. 6, 1991

Actually nobody is.  Except you, of course.

Tom, entertain his experience, you don't have to learn anything, or
feel anything but your nihilation of his experience only shows your
guarded insecurity towards another's experience. Guard dog or not you
are showing a great deal of inauthenticity.