To reiterate, as I have also posted in an "Open Letter to Joseph":
1. Rev. Craig Schaefer had nothing to do with yesterday's letter. He doesn't even know this is going on yet, as I haven't spoken with him since yesterday.
2. The original discussion was about whether or not we considered Vodou Pagan (we don't). How did this then become your critique of whether or not Kemetic Orthodoxy is Pagan, and whether or not our opinion, which is that it isn't, is correct?
Comment : Because you decided to make it so, Tammy. 
The reader will look in vain to find a single passage
in which I denied the validity of her position that
Vodoun is not a Pagan religion. Likewise for the
Non-Pagan status of Kemetic Orthodoxy.But then, we've been here, haven't we? As for the relevance of the Paganness or Non-Paganness of Kemetic Orthodoxy, Ms. Siuda is again guilty of quotation out of context, or something close to it. It came up in the course of my showing the logical inconsistency of Craig's position. Or, that of whichever other secret person Tammy had speaking for her. (Sssshhh ... we're not supposed to know who it is). Obviously, if my point is to show the logical inconsistency between what the House is saying was its position (before they started deleting records), and those positions, that, at the time of writing, it was still on record as having taken, I am going to be limited to working with the material they've written. As the House is a Kemetic Orthodox group, the words "Kemetic Orthodoxy" can be expected to come up fairly often, when their material is quoted. In light of this, what Siuda is saying, in effect, is "what possible motivation could you have to quote me and my followers accurately?". Answer : Honesty. No wonder she was confused. Such a motivation must be entirely outside of her frame of reference. |
(snipped)
> .. In a previous post, I responded to Tamara Siuda's spokeperson (who
> .. would be Craig Schaefer, the seal bearer for the House) who wrote:
Rev. Craig is one of many spokespeople for the Kemetic Orthodox House of Netjer. He was not the writer of the post you are taking apart; that was dictated by me to an assistant and is representative of my own words and opinions only.
(snipped)
> .. Now, how do you know I'm telling the truth about what Tammy Siuda
> .. said? You don't even know me. Well, here's one way to resolve the
> .. mystery. Let's go visit their homepage. Oh, and look : here's a
> .. post by none other than Craig Schaefer himself, the 'man' whose
> .. job it is to be the spokesman for the House of Netjer. You can find
> .. it for yourself by visiting the House of Netjer webboard
>
> .. archives at
>
> .. http://www.netjer.org/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=qanda&
> .. Number=5134
>
> .. Don't take my word for it, look for yourselves.
>
>
> .. : .. RevCSchaefer Administrator
> .. : .. (Kai-Imakhu)
> .. : .. 02/28/01 09:46 PM
> .. : .. 24.131.164.220
> .. : .. Re: Kemetic Orthodoxy Neo-Paganism Question [re: Mafdet]
> .. : .. > .. Does Kemetic Orthodoxy consider itself a part of the greater
> .. : .. > .. Neo-Paganism (ie Druidry, Asatru, Wicca) movement? Does it
> .. : .. > .. consider itself New Age or perhaps one of the Eastern
> .. : .. > .. Traditions (ie Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto)?
> .. : .. > .. I'm pretty sure it's not considered part of the mainstream
> .. : .. > .. religions. It falls under the definition for Alternative Religion
> .. : .. > .. (catchall term for Neo-Paganism, New Age and Eastern
> .. : .. > .. Traditions; pretty much anything that's not mainstream), but
> .. : .. > .. do its practitioners consider it part of it at all.
> .. : .. We do not call ourselves neo-pagans, pagans, or an 'alternative'
> .. : .. religion, as all three labels are essentially loaded judgments from
> .. : .. an external perspective; nor do we consider ourselves in solidarity
> .. : .. with other faiths who do accept those labels. The only "movement"
> .. : .. we are a part of is the Kemetic Orthodox movement. Insofar as
> .. : .. being mainstream... Why not? Last I checked, Kemetic Orthodoxy
> .. : .. is made up of blue-collar folks and millionaires, moms and dads,
> .. : .. children and elderly...
> .. : .. That looks pretty mainstream to me. If you really want a category,
> .. : .. this is an African religion (or, if you want a broader grouping, an
> .. : .. Eastern religion). Anything beyond that just muddies the waters
> .. : .. and implies connections which may not exist.
>
> .. : .. Ankh Udja Seneb,
> .. : .. Rev. Craig A. Schaefer, Hem Bast
> .. : .. Sedjauty, House of Netjer
>
>
> .. The ellipses are his, the underlining is mine. What you are seeing here,
> .. is the entire post.
This is indeed the correct post, and I agree with what Rev. Craig wrote.
| Comment : once again granting that the position which I attributed to her is, indeed, her position. (How many times has it been?) So, where exactly was it, that I "put words in her mouth"? After all of that verbiage on her part, we still haven't heard an answer to that simple question. What we have seen in abundance is back-pedalling and self-contradiction. |
(snipped)
> .. Now, you're telling me that despite the fact that you've just
> .. insisted, in this passage, that the House IS practicing an
> .. African religion, and that in the previous one, in effect,
> .. that the House wasn't practicing a Pagan one, that the
> .. position that Traditional African religions are Pagan is
> .. logically compatible with the House's positions? Uh, huh.
>
> .. I trust that you know what a syllogism is. I'm about to set one up,
> .. using some of your own working assumptions, and this new
> .. assumption which you say is compatible with those of the House:
>
>
> ............ All who are Kemetic Orthodox, practice an African
> ............ Traditionalist religion.
>
> ............ All who practice an African Traditionalist religion, are Pagan
>
> ................ Thus : All who are Kemetic Orthodox, are Pagan
>
> ............ But : You have already made clear that Kemetic Orthodoxy, the
> ............ religion of the House of Netjer, isn't a Pagan religion.
>
> ............ Therefore : introducing this new assumption, that African
> ............ Traditionalists are Pagan, creates a logical inconsistency;
> ............ the new assumption is not logically compatible with the ones
> ............ which the House had previously expressed.
>
>
> .. Craig, you knew that I was a Mathematician. Did you think that
> .. I wasn't going to pick up on this? Boxing the opposition into
> .. a logical corner is a fundamental part of my job. For God's
> .. sake, man, this is Basic Logic 100. Do you enjoy looking foolish?
I (not Craig, he had nothing to do with this) don't enjoy looking foolish any more than you do, but I don't think I look foolish here, only misunderstood from your perspective. Your syllogism would work fine, except that I (and I set the teaching of the Kemetic Orthodox movement as its founder and Nisut) do NOT believe African Traditional Religions are pagan, either,
| Comment : which was exactly the point of the argument by contradiction which you saw earlier. Am I supposed to believe that a former graduate student in Egyptology can't follow Logic on a High School level? Remember "reductio ad absurdum" from High School Geometry? |
nor do I believe I have ever said so.
| Comment : Nor have I ever said that she did, and Ms. Siuda knows it. |
A person who does believe ATRs are pagan, would indeed be likely to follow and define Kemetic Orthodoxy as pagan. They are entitled to do so, and in fact some of our membership do prefer to consider themselves part of the Pagan spectrum. That's their choice. I myself do not believe ATRs to be part of the Pagan spectrum, and fully admit my definition of "pagan" is different from yours. As to who is "right", I don't believe that question only has one answer.
| Comment : Finally, she addresses what I actually said, instead of what she has tried to convince the more careless readers I said. Sort of. But take due note of the tone of the writings from the House, and notice the absence of the kind of wishy-washiness you see here. It is absent, as it should be. As we have pointed out before, for communication to even be possible, there has to be some real measure of consistency in the way words are used; this position that "you have your definition and I have mine, and who's to say who's right and who's wrong?" is indefensible for just this reason. |
I think that all religious movements should be permitted to define themselves as religion is a personal matter even when organized groups are involved.
|
Comment: Religion may be a personal matter, but,
as we've noted, language must not be. Siuda attempts
to haze over a very important distinction, here:
The truthfulness or falsity of our beliefs regarding
religion is a matter of opinion, in the sense that
we may not resolve the matter through objective,
verifiable means, and are thus thrown back on subjective
means to arrive at our personal convictions regarding
the objective truth, which is for us otherwise unknowable. However, when we start describing what those beliefs are, we have left the highly subjective realm of Theology and entered the far more objective one of History. Verifying the truth of the fact that somebody, or some group of people have asserted something, is not at all the same thing as establishing that said assertion is factually correct. As such, the subjectivity of Theology is beside the point, here. Why may we not, as a matter of principle, grant Siuda's request, aside from the unsoundness of its philosophical foundations? We see the answer every time the Historical Reconstructionist Community (what would have once been called "The Pagan Community") attempts to establish itself, defining an identity for itself, and finds that effort being subverted as Neopagan groups (usually Wiccan) co-opt the new label being adopted. Most recently, we've adopted the term Traditionalist, ironically following the House' lead; already, we see Wiccans calling themselves "Traditionalists", which they clearly are not. The Nisut and her followers are attempting the same co-option of the phrase "mainstream religion" by claiming to be that which they culturally clearly are not : what they are, is a Neopagan group, under standard terminology, whether they wish to acknowledge this or not. In effect, what Siuda is saying is "when a group attempts to recruit through false advertising, you should respect their feelings enough to not challenge them on that". To this, my response in part would have to be: "Shouldn't we hold those who would claim to be religious leaders to ethical standards at least as high as those we expect out of corporate executives, such as they are?". Somebody who tried to sell a product through deliberate mislabeling would be facing serious court time, at the very least. Try to sell a belief through the same means, though, and the House would claim that one should be shielded from even so much as being contradicted! |
(snip)
> .. clearly implying that I was lying.
Nope. Clearly implying that if you put words into someone else's mouth, you should expect them to come and correct you if you are incorrect.
| Comment: So, Tammy is maintaining that I didn't lie, but I did put words in her mouth? How did I manage to pull that tricky maneuver off? |
It's possible to be in error without lying. I wanted to correct what I perceived to be an error, and I did not attribute any malicious intent to the mistake. Should I have? Your subsequent behavior is making me wonder.
|
Comment : And what behavior would that be? Again, her
assertions here have been rebutted and linked back to,
ad nauseum, and here she's just trying to wear us down. At the risk of excessive repetition, I would remind the reader that not only did I get the position that I attributed to Miss Siuda from her, personally, but I used as close a facsimile of her exact words, as the limits of memory allow. Given the repetitive nature of her comments on this matter, that would be very close, indeed - at times, she sounds like she is reading from a script, and her writing can be even worse, that way. |
(snip intro to my own words on a kemet.org FAQ):
> .. " The concept of Netjer bears some similarity to that of another
> .. indigenous African religion: the "Orisha" of Nigeria's Ifa religion,
> .. and to the concept of "Lwa" in the Afro-Caribbean syncretic religion
> .. of Vodou. ...
> .. Because Kemetic society predates the 'Western' mode of thought
> .. that is the basis of most modern religions, it is difficult to explain
> .. Kemetic religion within a Western framework. Kemetic Orthodoxy
> .. falls neatly between a number of dichotomies Westerners commonly
> .. draw in discussing religion. It recognizes that
> .. the human intellect is
(snip)
> .. Again, this passage is hardly ambiguous. Let's take a look at that
> .. underlined section :
> ........ " Because Kemetic society predates the
> .......... 'Western' mode of thought "
>
> .. ie. the Western world view
>
> ........ " that is the basis of most modern religions, it is difficult to
> ........ explain Kemetic religion within a Western framework. Kemetic
> ........ Orthodoxy falls neatly between a number of dichotomies
> ........ Westerners commonly draw in discussing religion. "
>
> .. Craig, it's a little hard to argue that Tammy isn't calling Kemetic
> .. Orthodoxy a non-Western religion.
Where was that argued? It is a non-Western religion, it's always been stated as such.
| Comment : Really, Tammy? That's funny, because just a short while ago, you said that there is no one truth on this sort of thing, and now you seem to feel otherwise. |
The discussion you started this flamewar over was about Vodou -- not Kemetic Orthodoxy. Or did I miss a post? And why are you continuing to call me "Tammy?" If it's designed to annoy me or to give me disrespect, that takes away from the strength of your arguments. It's not my name.
|
Comment : Argument by assertion, Tammy? Your emotional
state has no bearing on the logical strength or weakness
of an argument. Siuda, here, has not missed a post, she's missed the point, and rather deliberately, I should think. The question here is whether or not the family of African Tribal Religions, of which Tammy claims Kemetic Orthodoxy is a member, is a subset of the family of Pagan religions. If one asserts that it is, a position that the House has asserted is not contrary to its own teachings (except when it flip- flops and asserts that it is contrary, hoping that the reader will be sufficiently forgetful to not notice), and accepts that Siuda's claims regarding Kemetic Orthodoxy are correct, one is then forced to conclude that Kemetic Orthodoxy is Pagan - an item can not belong to a subset of a set, without belonging to that set. As one of my little cousins would say, "duh!". Just a short while ago, we were apparently supposed to believe that a former graduate student in Egyptology at the University of Chicago couldn't follow Basic Logic on a high school level. Now, we're supposed to believe that she can't understand Basic Set Theory, straight out of an elementary school textbook? Come on, my six year old cousin is getting this material in first grade. If she is lying, then she is a liar; if she's telling the truth, then what does it say about the House, that one such as this, is its defining intellectual presence? |
(snipped)
> .. Let's squeeze that one down : "Paganism", by Siuda's own
> .. words, is a Western Category, which Kemetic Orthodoxy would
> .. fit very poorly into. Tammy Siuda, your nisut, the very person
> .. on whose spiritual authority your church and your own
> .. individual clerical status rests, has objected to the use of
> .. the word "Pagan" to describe Kemetic Orthodoxy. Not New Age,
> .. not Neopagan, the specific word she objected to when she wrote
> .. to me was "Pagan", at a time when the Neopagan and Traditional
> .. Pagan listings in the Agora had already been seperated, and
> .. the House being listed along with Neopagan groups would not
> .. have even been an issue. And, as I'm sure that you've already
> .. guessed, I held onto copies of most of the mail she sent me,
> .. and they'll be going up, too. Let it never be said
> .. that I'm not thorough.
I have absolutely no arguments with these statements. They are true. I do not believe Kemetic Orthodoxy is pagan, and I never have, though I am aware that some people do believe it is so. However, again, this is drawing away from the original post, which was supposedly about my statement on Vodou, not on Kemetic Orthodoxy.
| Comment : More repetition, 'point' answered already. |
> .. In my correspondence with her, I did raise the issue of
> .. original meaning, "Pagan" initially referring to Non-Judeo-
> .. Christian religions found within the Roman Empire, of which
> .. Egypt was a part. If I did not know you, I would be astounded
> .. at the breakdown in communications which must have occurred in
> .. the House, for you to be denying what your own nisut had said,
> .. when speaking behalf of your own group. Tammy Siuda quite
> .. rightly pointed why my initial approach, in defining
> .. "Paganism", was a wrongheaded one - it was a category invented
> .. by a post-pharaonic people, who didn't necessarily understand,
> .. or even want to understand, Kemetic Orthodoxy when
> .. placing it in this category.
This is my position, yes (that "pagan" is a word that is newer than Kemet and therefore not a useful one in my mind).
|
Comment: I've been gentle with her on this one
in the past, but this argument makes no sense.
Consider the mountain you see out your window,
when you drive through the Rockies. Mankind hadn't
even come into existence yet, at a time when that
mountain was 1,000,000 years old. It is certainly
far older than the word "mountain", or any other
word that humans use. Does it follow that we shouldn't call that large, looming thing that we're looking at "a mountain" ? Words, almost by definition, almost always come into existence after that which they describe. The very need to name the unnamed is what drives us to create words in the first place. |
The letter written yesterday did not deny any of this in the least. It was speaking about your attributing a comment to me about Vodou, not Kemetic Orthodoxy, two very separate religious traditions.
|
Comment : a comment which Siuda has since endorsed,
without admitting that she's endorsed it. Of course,
you've also seen her deny that she held that position,
in the same thread, if you believe her claims about
whose remarks were present in that first letter of
response from the House, which she has endorsed. Maybe her personalities are in disagreement over this one? Again, note her misleading suggestion that I've equated Vodoun with Yourba religious practices; a strange point for her to complain about, considering how much of that equating one can see her do in person, but even so ... taken in context, such clearly was not my meaning, and such could not reasonably have been taken to be my meaning. |
> .. When I am actually wrong, I do appreciate being corrected, so
> .. long as the correction is honest and sensible, two things that
> .. Siuda's initial responses were. What I don't appreciate is
> .. this online game of "Red Rover", in which you and Tammy write
> .. to me, succeed in winning me over to your point of view on a
> .. subject, and then use my online support of that position as a
> .. pretext for attacking my credibility in public. I even less
> .. appreciate the nakedly dirty politics that I'm seeing,
> .. when you pull a stunt like this in order to defuse criticism
> .. that you've already been given fair warning is coming.
Joseph, who attacked your credibility? I corrected your mistake, that Cat was a teacher of mine -- and then pointed out that my assertion that Vodou is not Pagan is a personal belief, and that those who are offended by it
|
Comment : All sarcasm aside, here we see the real issue.
Intellectual cowardice. Regardless of what it is she
actually said, publicly or privately, Siuda doesn't want
to go down on record as having stated a position that
those present might get angry about. Remember her
response to the irrationally angry Afrocentrists she
met earlier? She made peace, by making their position
into House doctrine. "Forget the facts, let's all just
go along to get along". This, by her own words, is about appeasement, the very thing we say out of Cass and Schaefer when they backed up John and the others on the Egyptian Electrification thread, after they got done throwing their respective tantrums. Peace at any price, even at that of justice, and open intellectual discourse. |
might need to understand that I define pagan differently -- the way I define it most people call "Neo-pagan."
|
Comment : Curious, because as you saw, in those
initial letters, Siuda expressed almost the exact
opposite concern - that visitors would assume that
a Pagan group would have to be a Neopagan one, even
though she and I could appreciate the difference. Now,
she seems to be saying that she is the one who equates
the two, while most people won't! Having seen my past e-mail, I can assure you with no small authority that the latter isn't true. |
There is no dirty politics, no stunts. There WAS a correction of a mistake you made, which I would've asked to be done no matter who said it -- and in fact, until I read the post I didn't even know it was you who had made the mistake, so this was not a case of "let's go get Joseph." You are seeing knives in the hands of people who have none. Neither I nor anyone associated with me bears you any ill will, though from the tone of these letters, it sounds like you certainly bear us some.
> .. Craig, that stinks. (*) But, then again, in general, so do your ethics, as
> .. we get to see at
Ad hominem, and nothing to do with the discussion of my letter. Doubly so because Craig had nothing to do with any of this, though he certainly seems to be a target of your ire.
|
Comment: As one of my brothers would say, it speaks
to motive, a relevant thing when misconduct is alleged.
Also, Rev.Siuda is misusing the term "ad hominem" in a way
annoyingly common among Pagans and Netizens. A graduate
student should know better. An "ad hominem" is the use
of a comment on the opponents's character in an attempt
to divert the audience's attention away from a substantive
point; here, no substantive point has been made. Siuda et al.
have made a series of assertions about their own past remarks
which they've asked the reader to take on faith. Having done
so, they've elected to make their own personal credibility
topical. To put it in common sense terms, I've stated that Siuda et al. are not terribly honest, and then backed that claim up with examples of dishonesty. Siuda's response, in effect, is to say "don't try to change the subject by bringing up the facts", and then try to bluff the reader into not noticing the strangeness of this argument by stating in Latin what would be glaringly illogical to almost all, when expressed in English.
|
(snipped)
> .. Your cowardly willingness (as well as that of Stephanie Cass), to roll
> .. over on somebody, merely for having come under attack, and to let the
> .. loudest trolls on your board define reality, could not better be
> .. illustrated, than it is by the absurd incident chronicled at the above
> .. urls. Far from being worthy to claim clerical credentials, you aren't
> .. even worthy to call yourself a man.
Does screaming on the Usenet "define reality"? Does the Usenet make people whose opinions differ from the moderators go away?
| Comment: In either case, did I say it did? If Ms. Siuda is looking for an example of an ad hominem, she might look to her own frequent emotional outbursts here. |
The House of Netjer boards are just that -- public. We permit anyone to come and say whatever they please so long as it remains within our posting policies, which are openly presented at the opening of the boards. Our policies revolve around respectful behavior, not "only letting the people who are right post."
| Comment: The reader will notice the repeated misrepresentation on Ms. Siuda's part, of the substance of my criticism: that I had been censored without just cause, and not allowed to speak freely, not that John and the others had been allowed to so speak. |
You came to our boards and dredged up old arguments that had been dead for over a year (had you looked at the dates of those posts you might've noticed they were quite dead).
|
Comment: Again, let's keep the context in mind. The
thread that I had mentioned was the Geometry one; no
sane person could look at that, and consider it to
be an argument. Siuda is equivocating without shame.
Let's try to play Devil's Advocate on her behalf, though,
and see if we can even begin to succeed. In a completely unrelated discussion, I did respond to an old argument, count it, one, unless you want to count my rebuttal of Bob's personal attack: the one about Afrocentricism, and what about it? An untruth remains an untruth, worthy of rebuttal, no matter how old it becomes. Old material is still read, and can still mislead, so what is her point? Notice how she will leave the misleading impression that this is the thread that I was linking to; in fact, John wasn't even one of the participants, at least not under that name. (He has morphed a few times, and it is hard to be sure, sometimes, who is him, and who is not). |
You got into an argument with another member of the board with whom you had a personal disagreement. The board moderator, Rev. Stephanie, asked BOTH of you to cease and desist. You left the boards.
| Comment: A bald faced lie, as you have already seen. |
This is the history. I agree, the whole thing was (and your continued distress about it long after the fact is) absurd; both of you only needed a deep breath to step back from the argument; after being asked to post productively rather than continue personally attacking another person, you could've continued to be a welcome addition to our boards. You're still allowed to sign in as well -- we did not ban you, we simply asked you to remember our posting policy.
| Comment: Have you read the thread in question, yet? Siuda, here, is using a one-size-fits-all response, just like Craig Schaefer did, and simply refuses to get that the situation wasn't symmetrical. I wasn't attacking, I was being attacked. That's the difference. |
(We also asked the other person to do the same). We do not censor people on those boards for other than obscenity; they are places for people to talk in a free manner. People are entitled to their own opinions.
| Comment : Really? Let's check that claim out. |
(snipped)
> .. Your 'nisut', Tammy Siuda, claims a status which some would
> .. refer to as being that of a prophet. She claims to carry
> .. within her the "kingly ka", that of Heru, which would sort of
> .. make her the embodiment of courage and justice itself.
> .. Justice is one thing that I've never even seen attempted on
> .. those boards, and as for courage - please! I've never claimed
> .. to be especially brave, much less the embodiment of kingly
> .. courage, but even I can handle my own e-mail. Judging from
> .. what I saw in that incident, Siuda can't, feeling the need to
> .. hide between you and Stephanie Cass, the quivering twin towers
> .. of jello, in the 'city of God' that is the House.
Last time I checked, real debate didn't continually sink to ad hominem levels, and I will not sink to it with you.
| Comment: (Laughing out loud) Sink to it? She initiated it, and has continued it on her own! |
I don't think you realize just how large this organization is.
| Comment: Approximately 200 people, smaller than some of my classes. Respectable, but not awesome; certainly, not unmanageably huge. |
My "quivering twin towers of jello" do work that I do not have the time to do myself, as I am rather busy with the spiritual work of this temple. They do so with my blessing and with much experience.
| Comment: ... which merely reinforces my point that the House is done no injustice when I judge it based on their actions, and that the same may be said of its current "nisut"; if anything, I showed it undeserved kindness by hesitating to do so. Aside from that, though, why should I care? Siuda seems to expect me to feel grateful to these two clowns, because of favors they do for her, and for her organization. Why should the fact of those favors, done of behalf of an organization which I have never considered joining, leave me more inclined to be forgiving of their abuses of authority? |
I don't understand what sort of "justice" you wanted on our boards that you didn't get,
|
Comment: How about not being censored based on
a trumped up complaint, and having the board
monitors actually look at the facts before
making a decision? Nothing that out of the ordinary, really. |
other than that you decided that some person was too crazy to be on our boards, and we didn't immediately throw him offline at your request.
| Comment: How many times has she repeated that particular lie? I've lost count. |
When you run your own message boards, you will be welcome to let in and throw out whomever you like. My boards are open to anybody who can speak civilly to anyone else; whether or not they're "right" is secondary. The boards in which you were having those discussions are not official teaching boards and therefore we do not "police" them for Joseph-acceptable opinions.
| Comment: I guess that would be one more time. |
> .. If a man such as you can be the 'king's' defender, what does that say
> .. about the courage of the king?
Joseph, if you have a problem with me, take it up with me.
| Comment: Some would say that I just had, in that remark. Some more character assassination via the psychoanalysis game follows, mostly without comment, as I'm getting bored. |
You have met Rev. Craig once as well, and this man does NOT have anything to do with the post that happened yesterday, nor to my knowledge has he ever done anything unkind towards you (unless I consider his asking you and another person trolling our boards to stop arguing unkind), yet you seem obsessed with attacking him.
> .. If the spirit of a being like Heru had come anywhere near
> .. Tammy Siuda, she would be more like him than the common
> .. man, not less. As is the usual fate of a mathematician,
> .. as I box the opposition into a logical corner, I find
> .. that I am myself boxed into a conclusion, whether I like
> .. it or not. In this case, I definitely don't like it, but
> .. the facts allow me no escape. Tamara Siuda is no prophet,
> .. and if she truly believes she is one, then she is deluded.
> .. "Her holiness", indeed. She's no holier than our paper boy.
Holiness is relative, and we've all got it.
I don't consider
myself any holier than a paper boy.
|
Comment: Keep in mind that this is somebody who
encourages her followers to refer to her as "Her
Holiness", "Her" and "She" always being capitalized
when Siuda is spoken of. Who does she think she is fooling? |
A paper boy performs a valuable service to his fellow people, and that's something I also try to do. Perhaps you might also benefit from trying to be more open to accepting others,
| Comment : Translation: by rolling over, and letting them walk all over me, instead of talking back to them. Yes, this is sounding pretty cult-like. |
rather than ascribing to them hatred and disdain and conspiratorial motives.
Joseph, I am heartfully sorry that you have taken what was meant to be a routine "hey guys, be nice to each other" action on our web-boards
| Comment : Without even intending to, she has hit the nail on the head. That it was routine, was precisely what was wrong with the House' actions. It was a mindless, knee-jerk reaction. |
as a personal affront. I am additionally sorry that you have decided we must all therefore be evil and nasty and whatever else you seem to be attributing to us. I'm sorry that you took that away from your interaction with us, as I had hoped it would be different. As I said in my other letter, I was impressed with you when I met you, and am very surprised things have gone this way. Perhaps it is the faceless nature of Internet that makes enemies of strangers; perhaps this is why my church spends less and less time in it as time goes by, and why I will be removing myself from the Usenet now that I've said my piece.
I wish all of you well in your spiritual endeavors and apologize for wasting bandwidth if you care not to read this.
-Tamara
| ... Tamara getting in one last chance to kiss up to the online mob, before departing. Sickening. |
Click here to return to the previous page.