In a message dated 02/03/2005 10:16:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... 93 Ian What do you mean by a Sanctuary ? 93 93/93 Camlion [Non-text portions of thisMessage 1 of 48 , Feb 5, 2005View SourceIn a message dated 02/03/2005 10:16:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, camlion@a... wrote:
> >>I was recently reminded of Crowley's "Account of A.'.A.'." in this
> >>"As soon as external societies wish to transform a temple of wisdom
> >>into a political edifice, the interior society retires and leaves only
> >>the letter without the spirit."
> >>93 93/93
> >A.'.A.'. would be an entirely different can of lion-serpents from
> OTO, with a
> >couple of unfortunate, although apparently necessary, overlaps or
> What is, then, a Sanctuary?
> 93 93/93
What do you mean by "a Sanctuary" ?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dear Ian, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... said ... John Tindsley did not respond to message 16018 probably because it was not addressed toMessage 48 of 48 , Feb 15, 2005View SourceDear Ian,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
--- In email@example.com, "Ian Rons" <ianrons@y...> wrote:
> > and since John Tindsley didn't respond to message 16018, I
>>> suppose you are the only person who doesn't now understand what I
>>> in message 15996 and wishes to argue about it.
John Tindsley did not respond to message 16018 probably because it
was not addressed to him. In general he did not respond to you
as he saw no point in continuing the argument.
John Tindsley has since attempted to respond to you but his response
has not got past the moderators.
nu_isis@... is not John Tindsley. My post to which your
message 16018 was a response was posted from that account by
mistake, as I was logged into that rather than tanzendstern93
for the purpose of maintaining the NIWG website.
I have not yet responded to you as I am only online very
infrequently. Actually I generally agree with the position
in the last paragraph of your post 16018... the "Bellman's Law"
remark is probably more applicable to Peter than to you. I am
quite happy to let this discussion drop before it completely
disappears up its own arsehole... while I have a limited interest
in historical questions such as these, I think that limit has
been not merely reached but exceeded.
Love is the law, love under will.
Kevin aka dancingstar