SV: Re: Wicca again! (O.T., but I'll stop soon)

Sigvald Grøsfjeld jr. sigvald at duckburg.dk
Sun Aug 10 01:34:48 CEST 2003


Donald D. Markstein <ddmarkstein at cox.net> wrote:

> Sigvald, it is not my policy to engage in
> lengthy off-topic discussions here, in which
> insults are traded. But I'm making an exception
> for you -- except that I don't expect to let
> it get much more lengthy than it already has
> (this is the second exchange).

Yes, let's hope this OT-discussion can be ended quickly and in an as
friendly atmosphere as possible.


>> OK, you asked for it! I'll be open and tell
>> you exactly what I know about>the wiccas.
>> Fact is that once I saw a Norwegian TV
>> program where a Norwegian Wicca-lady openly
>> told about how at least some wiccas practice
>> nudism and sexual orgies out in the forests
>> somewhere, to me that sounds more like a
>> cult than a religion.
>
> So, you once watched a sensation-mongering TV
> show that mentioned their most lurid practices.

That's your words, not mine. How can you say So when you haven't seen that
program? Isn't that some sort of ignorance?


> (And non-universal ones, to judge from Wiccans
> I know personally.) THAAAT makes you WAAAAY
> qualified to insult millions of people you
> don't know...

Again, I have *not*, at least not intentionally, insulted anyone. I have
just mentioned some thoughts based on a TV-program I once saw.

> ...by calling their religious
> beliefs a cult.

Ahaaa?!? Is that it? Is the word "cult" a very, very negative word in
English? What do you Americans put into that word? Is it perhaps ancient,
barbaric customs like when the Aztecs cut the hearts out of people? Well,
welcome to the modern world then. I am open-minded and able to include much
more than that in the word cult. I am not sure how to put it, but I think
that I see a cult like something purely based on human thoughts and ideas,
while religions are based on what is claimed to be the holy words of one God
or some gods. I am sorry if my use of the word cult has been confusing.


> As for your taking offence at my calling you
> "ignorant". If the above is your idea of
> speaking out of knowledge,

Hey, I have never claimed to be any expert on Wiccas. That's why I referred
to other DCMLers whom I know have studied religion - the two I am thinking
about are Norwegians and if they read this they will know who I am
addressing. If you want their names, just send me a private mail and say so.
This is not the place, nor the time to involve these people in this debate
without their own acceptance.

> Then please, DO take offence, because I persist
> in believing you ignorant -- a fact you confirm
> every time you open your mouth.

And again you are insulting me. By the way this is not the first time people
in DCML presents such general non-valid critics against my person based on
just a few of my statements. By following your own logic in your above
statement I could have said something like this: "I persist in believing
that you act insulting -- a fact you confirm every time you open your
mouth.", but I will never act in such a way, simply because that would not
be true, fact is that most of the mails you have written to DCML has nothing
to do with me at all - thus they do not insult me either. And furthermore I
like a good debate (on- and off-topic), but I can't possibly find any
pleasure in deliberately insulting my opponents, especially not by implying
that I disagree whenever they come up with any statements to DCML, whatever
the message is. Each statement should IMO be judged individually and not
only in the light of what the person behind it has stated previously in
other contexts.

Sigvald


More information about the DCML mailing list