home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!wang!ailanth!ailsa
- From: ailsa@ailanthus.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
- Newsgroups: alt.pagan
- Subject: Re: Nomenclature./Men are Not witches!
- Message-ID: <ZXw7VB1w165w@ailanthus.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 10:30:46 EDT
- References: <lj4j9vINNoou@news.bbn.com>
- Reply-To: ailsa@ailanthus.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
- Organization: Ailanthus Project
- Lines: 39
-
- dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
-
- > In article <1992Dec18.212725.23970@athena.cs.uga.edu>, tedr@athena.cs.
- > >
- > > Okay, let's clear the air on this one. Since when were men called w
- >
- > Since they stopped watching "Bewitched."
- >
- fairly sure i found while studying up on the inquisition that men were
- burned as witches as well. in so many words, that is.
-
- > > The correct terminology for a man who endeavors to engage in magical
- > > practices is "Warlock". The more gender nuetral term would be
- > > "Necromancer". If I practiced magic, I surely wouldn't want to be c
- > > witch.
- >
- > If Bran wants to be called a witch, that's his business. I don't thin
- > you'll find very many sources in modern paganism outside of comic book
- > using the word "warlock." But hey, if that's what you want to be call
- > go for broke.
- >
- interesting we are arguing the correct terminology for something like
- this. kinda like an argument on the correct fire-creating apparatus
- for dragons. call yourself whatever you want to call yourself. if you
- prefer to introduce yourself as a Schmendrick, for instance, go for it.
- just be prepared to define it, and to have yiddish-speakers giggle at
- you.
-
- -ailsa
-
- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
- ailsa@ailanthus.com or ailsa@wonky.uucp
- ________
- I miss the rains down in Africa. Silence \ / Action
- Gotta take some time to do the things we = \ / =
- never have... Death \ / Life
- \/
-
-
-