alt.magick FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions), then and now

[tyaginator]

"Alexander Mulligan":
#> I think that it is time to create a real FAQ,

LOL! hi, pleased to meet you, Alexander. create *another* FAQ? sounds good.
please start that right away. and if you notice any holes in the other parts
of the general admin files, please let me know.

"Rick" <***@hooYa.you.know.what>:
# That's what we called the FAQ when we revised it, the "real" alt.magick FAQ.
# At the time we all acknowledged what a silly working title that was. It
# sounds just as silly today as it did then.

it gives it importance. it's like "First Church of Satan" or something.
I like the characterization. it's keen.

# You and/or anyone else are free to create a FAQ for alt.magick

yeah! have fun. it can be exciting and pride-inducing. multiplex
perspective convening on the newsgroup can only do us all good.

# It's an unmoderated forum, so there's no authority to say so much as
# boo about it, and certainly no means by which anyone could prevent
# you from creating and/or posting a FAQ.

thanks Rick.

# You could post specific criticism about the FAQ in question,

that's always fun.

# garner input from current posters, and entreat the current editor to
# update it further.

good luck. sometimes they like the criticism, sometimes not.

# But you should know that so far, Bruce, the comments you've made about this
# particular FAQ aren't actionable. Calling it "gibberish" and disparaging the
# listed contributors provides no basis for addressing your issues, whatever
# they may be. You'll have to be much more specific if you want the current
# editor to do anything about your concerns.

# You (anyone for that matter) can edit the existing FAQ yourself, with or
# without the input of other readers, and can then post your version at will.

LOL always full of good ideas. sorta like telephone game or
chained-storywriting.

# Or if you don't think the current FAQ is worth the effort, you can create
# one from scratch and post that as much as you like. Other options not listed
# are available to you as well. The spirit of free will is in full effect on
# alt.magick; exercise it as you see fit, which of course includes making the
# vague sorts of comments you've already made, which by their very nature
# cannot possibly lead to any improvement of what you are criticizing. Now as
# always, the full range of action is at your disposal.

plus, intentional exercise of will is good preparation for magic.
like taking a walk to the park and back, or jumping jacks.

#> based upon actual questions asked here,

I suppose the interested could identify the google-posts of threads in which
the issue is considered once more in the newsgroup. the noise-reduction FAQ
did this informally and was insufficiently supported to continue. if you like
that one, check out El FAQO GIGANTE, which sri catyananda created as composite
of those outstanding. it's swell:

within http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/

http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/

(dunno what their proper sequence is right off)
http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/001.gigante.0908
http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/000.gigante.0910
http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/000.gigante.908
http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/000.gigante.1
http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/001.gigante.1
http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/001.gigante.2

there's as many as I can think of ever seeing in one place at the
Lucky Mojo FAQs webpage:

Lucky Mojo FAQ and REF Archive
http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs.html

some good bit of this post ought to become the routine of
URL-citenote or become part reference for the 'real' FAQ.
the writings and works of previous participants should not
be left behind (there's a lot of it).

#> rather than what a bunch of absentee magickal _scholars_

presence called into question, as if endurance = authority
representatives of a tradition longstanding and arcane,
these "magickal _scholars_" did the best they knew how. ;>

#> want people to THINK are the questions that are
#> customarily asked here.

what do you think they are, comparatively, Alexander?


Rick:
# Your characterization of the contributors of the FAQ, suggesting that there
# is some underlying motivation to mislead readers about common questions
# asked on alt.magick smacks of paranoia, and is quite inaccurate.

I don't think it's paranoia so much as a notice of bias in the real alt.magick
FAQ with which I substantially agree. whether that bias addresses the actually
commonly-asked questions is a fair challenge to pointed FAQs such as the 'real'.

# The document is a dynamic, evolutionary thing that was originally created by
# regular readers/posters of alt.magick, which has now been updated twice by
# subsequent regular readers/posters as of the time of each revision. For the
# sake of history here's what happened: the base document was originated by
# the founder of the newsgroup (Joshua Geller)

Josh wrote the Charter and newgroup'd alt.magick, Shava wrote the first FAQ
in composite to numerous suggestions posted simultaneously by contributors.
Josh wrote the OTO Sex Magick REF and a few other documents of distinct value
to magical practice, there were some suggested revisions, some incorporated.

# and a handful of posters that
# had made substantial contributions to the group through the early years of
# its existence (from the early 90's). Those who contributed to the first
# revision (~5 years ago) were daily posters at the time and had been regular
# readers/posters for at least a year at the time of revision. The contributor
# list that currently appears at the beginning of the FAQ consists of a
# combination of the originators of the document and those contributing to
# that revision.

you left out extensive posting in attempted constructed of a newsgroup FAQ,
whose results, gradually whittled due to criticism, posted for years to the
newsgroup (eventually becoming a 'noise-reduction FAQ'). initially it was
posted along with several REFs, then later diminished to mention of those
REFs and the noise-reduction FAQ as the various proto-documents turned into
individual project REFs, like the GDREF (SCranmer), or the KABBALAHREF (CLow)
instead of attempting to gain consensus about what was a good answer to 'em.

the LM FAQ archive has a bunch of versions like:
* alt.magick FAQ, 1992-1994 solo authorship, ("the old FAQ" by Shava
Nerad Averett)
* alt.magick FAQ, 1994 Questions Without Answers, compiled by tyaginator
* alt.magick FAQ, 1995 Critique of "the old FAQ" by tyaginator
* alt.magick FAQ, 1996-2000 group authorship, 1996 edition
* alt.magick FAQ, 1997-2000 group authorship, 2000 edition, ASCII
* alt.magick FAQ, 1996-2000 group authorship, 2000 edition, HTML
* alt.magick FAQ, 1999 group authorship, based on the 1992-1994 FAQ

initially as the old FAQ was posted, compilations or entire REFs were cached
by tyaginator for posterity ("KreeepIng OoZe FAQs") a leftover of which is
now posted as readership is sufficient to again generate a FAQ with some
content (the Questions REF). the GOO file REFs included stuff like:

* Abrahadabra / Abracadabra REF (quotes defining the words), 1997 version
* Abramelin Oil Recipes REF, version 1.1, 1998
* Abyss REF (quotes defining the word) (KfaQ#10), 1996 version
* Akasha REF (quotes defining the word) (KfaQ#9), 1994 version
* Baphomet REF #1 (quotes defining the word and its magical meaning), 1998
version
* Book List: Egyptology, by Shawn Clayton Knight, 1995 version
* Book List: Golden Dawn, by Steven R. Cranmer, 1996 version
* Book List: Magical Non-Fiction and Fiction, compiled by Reto Kohli, 1995
version
* Books by Mail Order: Publishers on Occultism, compiled by tyagi, 2001
version
* Caduceus / Hermes Wand REF (KfaQ#4), 1995 version

amongst some others (Lilith, Hermeticism, any number of common queries)
which are generally mentioned in:

http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/ref.html

the FAQ went into a website and TXT was reposted routinely, sometimes with
discussion about updating it. after some contention in the newsgroup about
whether the newsgroup FAQ was solely the product of tyaginator (many
of the original regulars familiar with long periods of usenet history
having departed), nagasiva created his own "biased" FAQ in competition to
display what he'd have created rather than in consensus with the former
posters to the newsgroup.

some time and a few discussions about FAQ later, Rick (ZZ) and another
group sought to create a "real" FAQ, apparently perceiving, amongst its
creators, some kind of struggle between them and the noise-reduction
FAQ-poster. they used the "Old alt.magick FAQ", as a Shava-seed and
produced a new product for the newsgroup in rivalry. over time this
won approval of most of the remaining newsgroup participants,
and it has sustained its popularity since.

still later sri catyananda composited the batch of them and it lays
there ready for anyone interested in completing it as El FAQ-O Gigante,
mentioned above.

# During the first revision, some Q's and A's were left intact while others
# were removed or added, and some answers to pre-existing questions were
# updated. All proposed changes were posted to the forum and anyone reading
# the group at the time was free to weigh in. The then editor (ZZ, aka "other
# Rick") made efforts to establish a consensus for the revisions. As I recall,
# fairly few people participated in those discussions.

some newsgroup suggestions were ignored, dependent upon who made them.
between this and Asiya's undertaking there was a failed attempt to move
the old noise-reduction FAQ away from Lucky Mojo. long discussions
terminated in a lack of interest in keeping it routinely-posted. all
of this history is secondary to the continued accrual of information.

# When [Asiya] assumed
# responsibility for editing and posting the FAQ she did essentially the same
# thing: posed prospective changes to the forum so that current readers could
# weigh in. As before, very few participated.

get used to it. no matter how many complaints there are,
there have been few contributors to revision since the early days,
and no general consensus satisfied all new comers, those achieved
were done over some objections by those present. it didn't, therefore
have the same general support as something to dissuade noise, but it
did glean the greater proportion of support from regular contributors
(and thus my interest in seeing it substituting for the NRFAQ).

# Furthermore, very few changes
# were made during this latest revision, so most of the current FAQ in
# question reflects the Q&A's decided upon some 5 years ago.

I've contributed to every one of these FAQs without exception.
the 'real' FAQ received substantial feedback from me, some of
which was integrated, some of which was ignored. it wouldn't
surprise me if some other posters were likewise ignored and/or
uncredited.

# Three of the contributors from the previous revision effort (myself,
# Nagasiva[by whatever handle], and Tom Schuler) made comments on the current
# revision. Few of the rest on the contributor list post to alt.magick much
# these days, though some continue to post sporadically. I assume Asiya left
# the contributor list intact for the sake of fair attribution,

that's what I figured happened, though it was initially included for clarity
of origin and then for rivalry with the newsgroup noise-reduction FAQ.

# not knowing
# exactly who contributed what to the original or subsequent revision of the
# document. Personally I think the contributor list is wholly unnecessary.

it tends to become somewhat political. I've heard arguments for/against and
have kept one on the noise-reduction FAQ, if I recall correctly. I like the
idea of dispensing with the contributor list, but don't care that much.
the latter, which should have a repair and now appears as:

alt.magick Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/

I'll probably revise it as 'the alt.magick Noise-Reduction FAQ' and just
refer to it in posts like this for the interested. it currently mentions
the following contributors, all who helped to shape it aside from the
compilation reduction etc.:

***@netcom.com (AShub)
***@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
***@kodak.com (Kim Burkard)
***@aol.com (Dshoem)
***@library.uwaterloo.ca (Karen)
***@newton.apple.com (peter kim)
***@winternet.com (robin)
***@luckymojo.com (catherine yronwode)
***@best.com (josh geller)

few of whom continue to post here with any regularity.
catherine, peter, and peggy the most recent AFAIK.

tyaginator

50050103 aa-viii om

[tyaginator]

hi Asiya!

# ...Most topics discussed in the FAQ aren't going to have radically
# different answers because of a few years difference. Try reading it
# sometime and you'll see. For instance, who was Aleister Crowley?

the slant on it might shift considerably as more is learned/thought,
but in the main you are quite correct. the entry might therefore be
crafted to be more complete and less biased in any single direction.

# What is KCHGA?

this is liable to change as notions are constructed by the interested.
new occultists/magicians will of course create their favoured ideas,
plus vye with one another for supremacy or against their bugaboos
("no! HGAs are *not* personal!" "yes! they can be!" etc.).

# etc. Crowley will not be a different person just because someone
# from 2004 answers it.

he will if the original individual(s) were slanted in some direction
and omits data pertinent to answering the query.

tyaginator

[tyaginator]

afternotes to my own post previous

tyaginator:
|Rick <***@hooYa.you.know.what>:
|# tyaginator <***@nagasiva>:
|## Rick:

|# how to reflect the full range of diversity without leaving
|# the poor reader hip-deep in a pool of contradiction;

compare this post from Shava's partner Edward:

Message-ID: <1u7smo$***@samba.oit.unc.edu>

which brought an end, along with complaints from others in
the newsgroup that the Questions we were creating were too
many in number. that was the split-point after which the
specialized FAQs were spearheaded by the interested and
the GOO compilations began coming into being. I just looked
through the googlegroups cache for 1993-2002 and collected
all the FAQ-QUESTIONS and Key Terms lists! this is how it
played out (what I've been able to construct so far):

alt.magick FAQ time-line:

-----------------------
alt.magick FAQ timeline
-----------------------

1993-01 initial discussion
1993-02 questions evaluation/discussion
1993-03 much discussion, questions/parts identified
1993-04 questions revised/refined
1993-05 questions reposted repeatedly, FAQ abandoned 5-31-03;
posting of "FAQ: ..." request for compilations
1993-06 GOO Compilations begin;
CLow's QBLREF completed
KKChua's NCONREF completed I-III;
SCKnight's Egyptiangods FAQ work
1993-07 GDFAQ posted
1993-08 SCKnight's Egyptian Gods REF completed;
St. Ash's Group REF completed

--- at some point in here I consolidated the Noise-Reduction FAQ
and considered it a 'FAQ' while the rest were 'REFS' because
they usually tried to cover a certain subject, whereas
Shava's Classic and the Newsgroup FAQ were serious FAQ attempts --

1995-02 I was occasionally posting all these FAQ-portions in mass-docs.
[and 1995 has the lowest post-count of all years in Googlegroups]

1997-00 one of ZZ's copyrights has this year listed

1998-05 ZZ posts old FAQ's Q's and URL for his alt.magick FAQ

1998-06 Solumnus routinely posted URLs for "ZZ's"/"Tyagi's"/"Shava's" FAQs

1998-07 hollyfeld.org NRFAQ location intermittently troublesome

1999-04 one of ZZ's copyrights has this month listed

1999-07 shifted the NRFAQ to Lucky Mojo by this time for stability

2000-02 created "Nagasiva's alt.magick FAQ"; routinely reposted

2000-10 "Key Terms for Occult Searching" created from REFs;
sri catyananda added terms for folk magic, hoodoo

2001-08 newsgroup wars about NRFAQ begin including ZZ/Rick
2001-09 NRFAQ revision discussed, distinguished from nagasiva's
2001-10 mika begins a revision of NRFAQ and abandons this;
nagasiva starts talking about 'Troll Black List REFs'
ZZ/SS/Rick posts "©1997 rick - 30 April 1999" versions

2001-11 sri catyananda constructs "EL FAQ-O GIGANTE" combining all FAQs

...

2005-11 asiya undertakes to repost the darkwave/ZZ "real" alt.magick FAQ


# ...Josh wrote the OTO Sex Magick REF. there were ...revisions
# ...were made to the Shava-originating Old alt.magick FAQ.

Josh also posted the file of Crowley's concepts of magic
(his Theorems and Axioms in the front of "Magick in Theory
and Practice") routinely, so this is another of the REFs,
later folded into the whole cache of Crowley texts that I was
keeping wherever it happened to be most stable long after
sites like coombs or CCHenningson's site dissappeared.

I also posted a bunch of essays, some in response to repeat
queries like Science/Magick issues, for fun. these eventually
became the basis for the Avidyana.

|# Your historical account is no doubt more comprehensive and
|# accurate than mine. I came into it considerably later than
|# you did, and have been far less involved.

not entirely. I only last night tracked it down precisely and
confirmed what I'd been saying. ;> I was right that most of it
is reconstructable at Googlegroups (with a "FAQ" search and
sorted by date).

|# some time and a few discussions about FAQ later, Rick (ZZ) and another
|# group sought to create a "real" FAQ, apparently perceiving, amongst its
|# creators, some kind of struggle between them and the noise-reduction
|# FAQ-poster. they used the "Old alt.magick FAQ", as a Shava-seed and
|# produced a new product for the newsgroup in rivalry. over time this
|# won approval of most of the remaining newsgroup participants,
|# and it has sustained its popularity since.

I don't think ZZ/Rick was ever doing this. it was later that a
few troublemakers used his renewed old FAQ to stir up discussion
which seems pretty much to have stopped once mika agreed to do
something with the NRFAQ (at which point all discussion stopped
and nothing more was done, including mika's work -- so I kept
doing what I'd always done :>). that was a good period of time
after the initial creation of the real alt.magick FAQ.

|# Having reminisced about these matters over the past day, I think I can
|# pin-point the source of some of the biases you (and I, looking at it now)
|# recognize in the "real" FAQ as it reads today. Scanning the contributor list
|# I notice that 5 of the 13 were participants of the DMK-year project: ZZ,
|# myself, Brian Bethel, Simon Anderson, and Solemnus. One of the things we
|# managed to do over the course of that project was to create a fairly strong
|# group feeling among us. No doubt the power of our fraternity, along with
|# having one of our number making the final decisions of course, drove the
|# Q&A's to their current resting place. Since the DMK-year project was a
|# neo-GD-flavored thing, neo-GD thinking no doubt became the primary spice in
|# the stew at the cost of more subtle flavors.

# this is very interesting and might make very good seed backdrop material
# for how it was, actually, that the real alt.magick FAQ came into being.
# it takes a certain comradery and interplay familiarity to work past all
# the naysayers and catcallers on the wings pecking like little birds at
# anything which is put forward as possibly valuable. it sounds like you
# had that with those individuals sufficient to overcome inertia.

not only this, but it explains why Solemnus routinely posted the URLs
for ALL the FAQs for newsgroup participants through the years during
which any number of us were absent or the FAQs were hazily reachable.

thank you Solemnus and all the real alt.magick FAQ crew!

# and I will be changing this NRFAQ through the coming months to
# interact profitably with the real alt.magick FAQ, pointing to
# its website, introducing this NRFAQ as *supplemental* to it,
# and contacting those who have this website listed as the FAQ
# to ask them to correct its (new) title or its (new) URL.

any help y'all would like to be in doing this would be very
much appreciated. I've now collected everything I could from
the past that constitutes a reference document for the newsgroup
and will try to mention it here if it doesn't appear on the REF
page attached to the real alt.magick FAQ.

# yes, I got into them about half-way through as I recall, and made
# comments on a good deal of what was being suggested.

|# some newsgroup suggestions were ignored, dependent upon who
|# made them.
|#
|# Yeah. I remember some of those events fairly clearly. I want to
|# believe it was content-based ignoring and not person-based, but
|# I don't think I can. I happily apologize now for what part I
|# might have played in that sort of thing in those days. I'm
|# rather a different person today compared to then, in many ways
|# (most of which only I recognize I'm sure). I'll be hopeful
|# that's one of the things I've managed to improve about myself.

I've attached some material which I posted I believe was ignored,
after which I figured I was not welcomed to contribute to the
real alt.magick FAQ. perhaps this situation has changed.

|# the 'real' FAQ received substantial feedback from me, some of
|# which was integrated, some of which was ignored. it wouldn't
|# surprise me if some other posters were likewise ignored and/or
|# uncredited.

|# It's difficult to know for sure. I don't recall there being many
|# particpants in those discussions that could have been ignored.
|# It's a new landscape today though, with a fresh editor and all
|# manner of possibilities.

see the end of this post. I didn't notice too many others who
contributed to criticism or addition to the real alt.magick FAQ,
but I can't be sure I saw it all. truly it may not be important.

# CONTRIBUTORS CREDIT
#
# Many people had a part in making this document who
# were participants in the alt.magick newsgroup during
# the time of its fashioning and editing. Consult some
# available usenet archive for the details, such as
# some deja-news remnant, a usable Google.com engine,
# or some other private cache by the interested.

I'm still curious what y'all have to say about this.

==================================================

some text ignored in the 1998-06 period:

how can I summon a demon?

that largely depends on what you think that a 'demon'
is. if it is an antagonistic spirit which you'd
like to summon in order to enslave to your purposes,
then the traditional method is to enlist with some
sort of greater cosmic power (i.e. the gods or god
of your choice and hir clan) and then surround
yourself with the power objects and symbols of that
tradition or entity while cautiously snatching up
the demon through the use of its powername and
depositing it in a magical container where you can
threaten it and beat it up a bit until it submits
to your potent and dominating will. sometimes the
demons are identified by handy directory grimoires
which provide a supposed 'true name' by which the
demon can be manipulated (e.g. in Solomonic magic
where the mage uses a book like the _Lesser Key of
Solomon_ to dredge up some Judeochristian gollywog).

if a demon is a spirit which is merely antagonistic
to the Judeochristian religious tradition (which was
famous for having stolen the term from Greece and
used it as a taxonomical classification to identify
their spiritual enemies), then you might be able to
study its history prior to this limitation and come
to summon it with strength as an ally. some suggest
that this may be done with ALL known demons and that
this constitutes one of the most important Satanic
enterprises known to nonChristian mages. even some
Christian mages, bent on being nice to all known
spirits, think this is a pretty swell idea. ;>

how do I get rid of unwanted demons?

one method of approaching this *and* the previous
question (or the question of how to interact with
these possibly nefarious entities) is to consider
how one would interact with and manipulate a human
being out of which one might want a certain response.
how do you summon a human? you talk to them nicely
or threaten them with something they fear, inform
them of the advantages for coming or the disadvantages
of refusing your summons, then you ask them politely
to depart when you desire this or find something that
will repulse them either via threat or taste in order
to see them off.

some claim to have formulated certain spells whereby
such results could be effected 'without fail'. one
of these is called 'the Lesser Banishing Ritual of
the Pentagram' (Hermetic, integrating Judeochristian
verbology and cosmology, luxocentric). it tends to
treat the spirits as migrant farmworkers who should
respond to the mage as does a landlord from the ruling
class, the mage owning the spellspot sufficiently to
require deportment when she decides to have a party
with a certain few select guests.

anything worth integrating here? with revision?

tyaginator
50050105 viii om

[tyaginator]

I think your 2000 "Key Terms for Occult Searching" was a
brilliant help to newbies

thank you. it's going to become part of a larger REF document
compilation which starts with the termset and then proceeds
to the queries I've collected and can imagine. when recently
examining the googlegroups archive I grabbed every post that
I could find that was pertinent for inclusion, like ours.

and i found it particularly
discouraging that it went almost uncommented upon in the
a.m. newsgroup except by me.

I'm more jaded, cynical, or realistic than you in that I
expect this kind of response now.

I also have not forgotten who
attacked you in alt.magick in 2001 and the part played in
those events by the current FAQ revisionist.

I understand. some I also remember and I don't see them now.
I'm doing my best not to dwell on those distractions from work.

Did you read the post where she volunteered to copy over the
entire lm faq directory to [Asiya's] site "if people wished
her to"?

I'm unsure, but I think that's a great idea. it should be
propagated. if she wants to do that, I support it and will
watch for the post in which she says it to respond as such.

Does this mean i can copy "her" a.m. FAQ to lm now if i
wish to?....

my impression is that alt.magick FAQs should be hosted by as
many domains as possible. as soon as the authorship becomes
that of more than a single individual (i.e. a true 'newsgroup
FAQ' file), then its reposting and rehosting can't truly be
constrained (because it is a group-output and no longer very
easy to assert as a copyright). archives of all types will
probably want to get and present a copy of the latest version,
including luckymojo.com and arcane-archive.org, and I do think
that this is a very good development, so yes, that is what
I think should and will happen. information wants to be free! ;>

nagasiva

[nagasiva]

briefly

RE
whether newcomers should know anything about FAQ-maintainer histories,
or the history of the groups FAQ-maintainer's participate in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I vote NO. totally anonymous. therefore I agree, destroy the Contributor list.

(i agree with Rick, for this alt.magick FAQ)

SUGGESTION: (c) alt.magick newsgroup 2005
All rights reserved.

=============================================================================

RE
whether reference volunteers must take an active role in the impression
management of others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
absolutely NO. that is not their responsibility,
it is merely convenient and helpful. :>


"Rick" <***@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com>:
# "nagasiva" <***@nagasiva> wrote in message
#> "Rick" <***@yaaahooo.com>:
#># "nagasiva" <***@nagasiva>:
#>#> "Rick" <***@ucla.edu>:

#>#># ...Inference about motivation is the issue I'm addressing here....
#>#># ...if your intent is to provide what value you have to offer to others
#>#># (I now assume this is your primary motivation),

#>#> not really, no. my intent is to worship Kali the best way I know how.

#># In terms of public service (FAQ compilation/editing/maintaining/posting,
#># etc. are a public service in my mind,

#> they're works of art by the interested. sometimes they serve the public,
#> and sometimes they do not. the motivation for creating them varies.
#> they're like little scrawls on the wall in a bathroom, fading. half-
#> remembered by advertizers on the walls nearby, shiny, dusting over.

# So we've clarified that we have very different ideas

I doubt that we've clarified very much here, no. we're still truly
in the introductory stages. only 1-2 questions have been considered.

# about what the FAQs and docs can or should be.
^^^ ^^^^^^
no, I have few solid and unmoving ideas about FAQs and docs,
aside from: that those who make them CAN have as much fun
as possible *while* making them, and those who use them
SHOULD be very happy with what we get from volunteers.

#># and as such imply a certain level of social responsibility)....

#> none of which I'm aware, except for extremely volatile gadgetry or chems.

# Lack of awareness, or not concerned about?

none required, as there are no responsibilities that truly obtain.
only those we each take upon ourselves.

# And by the way, I don't understand what your exception clause means.

FAQs aren't WMD or unstable chemical solutions.

#>#># especially to the newcomers who don't know anything about your
#>#># history or the history of the groups you participate in, you have
#>#># to take an active role in the impression management of others,

#>#> not true. I'd say that I do almost the *opposite*, and it helps me.

#># I see, and I appreciate your candor.

#> but not, perhaps, its signification.

# I am coming to recognize it as a signature of yours,
# if that's what you mean.

I mean I don't bother to try to manage impressions.
instead, what I do is manage my appearance (as best I'm
able), and then let others catch on if they care to.
it is a signature of sorts, but it is done by others,
especially in IRC, where channel-surfing is proliferant.

# My appreciation is sincere. I have great respect for direct and honest
# expression, in general, something that many people grapple with, but seems
# to come quite naturally to you (whether by intentionally practiced habit or
# by nature I don't know).

thank you.

# As you've stated,

as you've inferred.

# you do what helps you. Regardless of what it helps you do,
# it is essentially a reflection of a primarily self-serving posture.

worshipping Kali in the best way that I know how.

# As a general pattern of behavior or a mental posture, it strikes me as highly
# efficient, and the forthright manner with which you express it is highly
# respectable (not that my respect should matter to anyone). At the same time,
# I don't believe the best possible FAQ (as I envision it) is likely to flow
# from it.

keen. your beliefs are so noted.

# There's nothing really new in this realization. While less well specified in
# my own mind in the past, it is the basic reason I tended to ignore and
# wanted to help provide an alternative to your pre-1998 FAQ-work.

mostly compilations and rarefaction, plus my own construct which engages
and sets a certain comparison standard that I hope to add and/or use
from FAQ-scraps I contribute and fall off the sides. :>

# In my opinion, the FAQ the alt.magick readership could and should produce

it doesn't weigh much yet. El FAQ-O Gigante was a criteria of measure.

# would necessarily come from a far more altruistic mental posture, aiming to
# serve the intended readers of the documents without a trace of self-service
# to the authors and editors anywhere evident.

perfect.

# Altruism alone isn't sufficient
# though. I believe there was ample supply of that in 98, yet those documents
# in retrospect fall far short of this conception of mine. That's why now I'm
# advocating better, more transparent and clearly specified methodology,
# democracy, and anonymity.

all sounds good so far.

#> I am but a humble messenger. Pay little heed
#> to my gestures or faint, quivering movements,
#> for I am but conveying the glorious doctrine
#> of my Beloved as I find it lying in the gutter
#> bereft of proper attention by the powers that be.

#> given that the aim has usually been the rarefaction of compiled
#> expression by groups into coherent summations, it is more that
#> the skill at the task be considered in its theoretic and act.

this is essential to an understanding of my self-service (aesthetic).

#>#># by anticipating common reactions to your posting behavior,

#>#> I attend to it despite its confusing repercussion. people either
#>#> figure it out or get lost, which is fine. by this method shall
#>#> they be weeded, I suppose. St. Ash used to say "go away!"

#># This statement triggers a strong negative reaction for me. If you are
#># willing to callously filter people from the FAQ and related documents for
#># self-serving reasons, as you clearly state above....

#> no idea what you mean here. please elaborate as to where
#> what you are talking about is clearly stated above. thanks.
#> tyaginator posts in the most refined reference channels,
#> creates them, and magnifies them, identifying superiors.

# "People either figure it out or the get lost, which is fine,"
# is the primary expression that disturbs me.

agreed.

# I don't find it objectionable as an Usenet
# posting posture, a general approach to social interaction, etc. I do find it
# a problematic mental posture concerning what I consider should be public
# service function, where such personal habits and attitudes would have to be
# set aside and carefully controlled for if the end product is to fulfill its
# highest potential.

no I learned to avoid what you're talking about because it
is not sustainable long-term. the Badge of Altruism shines
brightly and is beset by badgering beasts.

# You appear to be feigning ignorance with regard to the off-putting nature
# (for some people) of some these documents you've produced.

sorry.

# I'm going to
# grant you more intelligence than you're projecting, and assume you're
# producing this facade for personal reasons.

that's the point, right there. no facades involved, just a pragmatic
dispersal of identification for throughput.

# What those reasons are don't really matter to me,

the point: they should. they craft everything which is brought forward.

# so I'll play along and provide what your facade cries out for,

what is it that you think *is* facade? what does it cry out for?

# but want to make it clear that I don't believe you're not already
# aware of the following:

# Your documents are detectably self-serving,

as they should be. the newsgroup docs are another matter.

# and for that reason are bothersome to some people,

distraction-mongers, mostly. :>

# which explains why others have sought to provide
# alternatives to them periodically,

this explanation ignores the facts.

# and possibly explains why you have
# generally perceived such efforts as a hostile act toward you

having avoided conflict in the main as regards FAQ construction
in particular (for this newsgroup), I become self-effacingly
helpful to my detractors herein, and refused to cooperate in
destruction of what came before in the face of helpful promises
before returning to tumult and scrapping absent sincerety.

# (so much of your "self" in the documents
# that any disparage cast in the direction of the
# documents seems like a personal attack).

all nothing in comparison to what might be created,
and so easily left behind with energy to work. let's *go*!

# Further, many of the newcomers encountering the documents early in their
# alt.magick experience will detect the same thing (I did when I first
# encountered them), and will find it as distasteful as those alluded to in
# the previous paragraph find it, all of which negates the potential value of
# the documents for those readers who respond to them in similar fashion.
#
# That's what's happening when some of these "people get lost," and you've
# made it quite clear that it's fine by you.

assembling of contentions on different matters doesn't constitute
a coherent argument. I've made it unclear what was fine by me. it
was fine by me if people don't understand my history or my actuality
with respect to this forum. it is vastly unimportant in the array
of things and the conditions of reference available to the interested.

# My main point is that fewer
# people will "get lost" if what has consistently proven to be objectionable
# or distasteful to a stable subset of readers can be extricated from the
# newest revision.

excellent. then let's see to its revision. :>

# To do so first requires caring enough about the future readers

generally demonstrated, in networking, editing and compilation, sustenance.
work with it, roll with it, dispense it or dispense with it.

# who might "get lost" in this known way,

following the topic is my interest. personae and social extranea less so.
this is why I maintain restrictions on FAQ-related broadcast, as compared
with things which pertain to the subject of magick in many facets. when I
start to know where the approacher should know before they ask about it,
then I am providing more than a reference, I am providing orientation.

# followed by best
# anticipatory efforts toward others who might "get lost" for other reasons.

as long as emphasis is placed on avoiding myopia of dogmatism,
we'll be fine.

#># I'll also suggest that past events of others attempting to provide an
#># alternatives to the FAQs you're associated with might stem from similar
#># negative reactions to the attitude you've expressed above,

#> yes, you've focussed on that a few times. I've adequately explained it.

# Post hoc explanations are useless to the people you give them to in the
# short term, which is the timeframe that matters here (considering the first
# time reader of the documents in question).

beautiful.

# But the information contained in the explanations can be useful to you,

and the information implied and pointed toward in their defense
can be useful to you. neither assists the reference docs,
however, which is our concern of the moment.

# if you choose to use it in a
# different way, by coming to understand what gave rise to the need for
# explanations in the first place,

lack of sincere interest in wasteland management. distractions can amuse,
like tossing a bone to haggle over. after a while it is disservice.

# and removing those elements from the current revision,

please let us remove these quickly to accord with your desires.

# so that future revisions require less explanations,
# with the end goal being no explanations necessary whatsoever.

beautiful! completely agreed!

#># It's rather an inferior document by objective comparison to previous
#># documents, but may be more attractive (to some at least) for it's
#># lack of association with you.

#> for some this is assuredly true.

# I'm detailing why I think it's true, though I'm fairly confident that
# you're already aware of most if not all that I've said on the matter.

I'm aware that you've said it. yes. :> to a degree I'm attempting to
be sure to what you are referring in specific, and, having done so,
watching where this leads. it's great! thanks for your time and attention!

#># limitations of any individual involved in its initiation. Such things tend
#># to serve more people better, historically, by the nature of it. There are
#># exceptions of course, and many subtle sub-dynamics that have to be satisfied
#># before it happens. So it appears to me it won't happen here today. So be it.

#> access denied. wrong keys. try again later. :> poor Lawnmowerman

come on, that was a joke! your arguments are disputed but accepted
as sufficient. democracy isn't accepted but your voice is proclaimed
reasonable and virtuous. the Lawnmowerman joke was inapplicable
to you because you already have the Key and are participating
in critiquing and crafting the Reality (The alt.magick FAQ).

# (as I define those things). If I'm more available during the
# next revision effort, I'll do more of the work.

thanks! you're kind to consider the options and discuss them.

#># Overall, the lack on input from others, even at the level offering
#># well-reasoned opinions, still baffles me.

#> the times are black.

#># You're sincerely welcome. I'm hopeful that you'll consider what I've said in
#># deciding what you do next, but won't grudge whatever you do.

#> oh of course not. half the time people don't understand me and the
#> other half they'll like what I say. appearance management is waste
#> where I come from as experiential enhancement assumes proportionately
#> greater emphasis and applies to more than just me or my species.

# Which, once again, is as respectable as anything I can think of, with regard
# to general social interaction.

excellent. I don't think I'm unusual in this regard.

# But it wouldn't be a good thing to run on for a seat on the
# city council,

knowledge isn't democratic. dogma and doctrine are.

# nor is it an attitude that will produce the best possible FAQ,
# in my opinion.

excellent, then let's make it and I'll see how agreeable I can be. :>

nagasiva
=======================================================================
ps
my aim for brevity will curtail future disputes.
let's move on to the editing of the material to hand.