From: ... DEMIPAGAN (domain deleted)
Number: ... 481177
To: ... [email protected]
Date: ... 2/27/02 11:00 PM
Subject: ... Clarity
Reference: ... None
Read: ... 2/27/02 11:05 PM
Private: ... Yes
Conference: ... Private E-Mail
Attachment: ... None

Craig, first of all, much of this is a moot point. I will not be returning to the Netjer boards, ever, no matter what the outcome. As I indicated in my note to the Nisut, I always keep my word. Last summer, while the original "Netjer and Geometry" thread was still active, some curiosity was expressed about the unusual Japanese practice that I had mentioned, especially among some Djehuty worshippers. I promised to post the appropriate references once I found them, and I did. Obviously, if the people who made this request were unable to find that thread, my word would have been kept in form, but not spirit. Thus, it was morally necessary to create a gateway post to help them find what Kheru's article cancellation had made into a needle in a haystack.

The moment that I did that, the demands of honor were satisfied, and my obligations fulfilled. If your group has seen fit to delete that post, and recreate the original difficulty, that is your privilege, your problem, and your loss. I had no desire to stay. I have never gotten the least bit of useful information out of your forums, and seldom enjoy the company. I wasn't "driven out of here", as one of your posters put it, I walked away. When I start seeing heat from your membership, because I refuse to take the "possibility" of Pre-Ptolemaic electrification seriously, I know that I'm not going to see an intelligent discussion out of these people, ever. They're still people, so my word to one of them still binds, but the keeping of that word was the only reason I had to return.

A little friendly feedback, Rev. Schaeffer, which is not to say positive or supportive. It seems to me that you and the House are trying to be all things to all people. You wish to promote awareness of your dedication to "cutting edge research", but at the same time, you want to be big friends with the anti-rationalist, postmodernist "Hacker Underground" element that you've attracted to these boards (eg. John). As the saying goes, you're trying to "have your cake and eat it, too". You want to enjoy the credibility that comes from academic integrity, without having to fight the political fights that come with the territory. I'm sorry, Craig, but neither you nor the House can have it both ways. You may fool people for a while, as your former Neo-Pagan adversaries did, but in the end the truth always comes out, for better or worse.

You wish to be a friend to all, and treat all fairly, but this can never be, because all are not well-intentioned or honorable, and in some cases, such as John's, there is nothing subtle about the situation. When you try to put the person lied about and the person doing the lying on an equal moral plane, you may delight the latter, but the former will be justly outraged. The evidence is there for you to see, Craig, and however sweet the spin you've tried to put on the situation, the reality remains that you've just simply refused to look. Peace at any price, even at the expense of simple fair play. Stick around for more of this? Been there, done that, don't need to stick around for the sequel. This is how Neopagans resolve disputes, and I've written lengthy accounts documenting how it didn't work. What, I'm going to stick around for more of the same, here? Why? Forget about having a good experience, I won't even get new material out of the deal.

Enough said.


Click here to return to "Groupthink in Action".