The Alphaville Herald

241 Responses to “Interview with Selene Moon on Wicca and Witchcraft in Alphaville”

1. 

   Stella Dives
   

   Feb 1st, 2004
   

   Dyer I dont care how many people visit this website. The only reason Im posting here is because I was invited.

   I dont need to use words to control my environment. Sometimes its handy. You assume the only reason someone would be Wiccan is because they want to obtain power. Well, my powers dont even come from my Wiccan beliefs. Its the other way around. I adopted Wicca because of my powers. I almost died 12 years ago and had a NDE. I returned with my powers. I didnt ask for them. And, sometimes they prove more of a curse than a blessing. Its really insensitive and unkind for you to make fun of me. But, of course no one here is shocked by your insensitivity. Youre a low vibing nazi type. How could we hope for your compassion?

   I could easily affect your life. You should be careful. Every post you write to me allows me to be closer to you. Sometimes, I can see you sitting at your computer. I can see what you look like. BTW Im a remote viewer. This means I could probably locate you in RL if i make any effort at all. LOL You are the brainiac that decided to go after Wiccans. By doing so, youve openned yourself up to all sorts of trouble. Fortunately for you most Wiccans have peaceful hearts and are not interested in harming others. Although, I disagree with Piper that all true Wiccans are kind hearted. But thats another topic altogether. Most are. But not all. Some are very selfish. Evil? We dont believe in evil. That’s a christian belief.

   I disagree that words dont have power to harm others. But, YOUR words dont have any power. Why? Because, see ultimately what you dont get Dyer is that its not about who can make the most eloquent arguement.

   “I’m confident in my arguments, free, and totally virile, because I have the conviction of my beliefs and the knowledge that I have laid them out logically and articulated them, even if I transcribe thought and/or speech, rather than present the still-prescribed artifact of written text with its own laws.”

   So you believe what you are saying. That doesnt make it true. Big deal. You laid your arguements out logically. Well, in your own warped mind your arguments are logical. In my opinion, they are full of holes. So where does this confindence come from then? I have a healthy ego. But, I would never delude myself into thinking I must be right all the time just because I have the power of conviction. Or because I have laid my arguments out in a way that is logical to me. emmm, humans are not that infallible sorry.
2. 

   Gia
   

   Feb 2nd, 2004
   

   My apologies if the post was perceived as an attack. I’m very passionate about web plagiarism, and my point regarding that was, and still is, that if you use information that is someone else’s intellectual property, you should give said author credit. If this information is being used to teach, it would be useful for the student to know where the information came from.
3. 

   Lady Julianna
   

   Feb 2nd, 2004
   

   Dyer, you claim to lay your arguments out in a rational manner… I have news for you boy. Rational arguments do not include name calling. That is an irrational act, done in desperation.

   I quote you… “even if I transcribe thought and/or speech, rather than present the still-prescribed artifact of written text with its own laws.”

   Could somebody please tell me what the heck that means?!?!

   Does still-prescribed exist as a hyphenated word?
   Artifact of written text? Did you find some old words laying around on the ground that had petrified to stone Dyer? This “still-prescribed artifact of written text” (whatever that might be) has laws?

   Rational argument? Dyer, I am not sure you can use English effectively let alone make an argument, and rational you are not. The word “hysterical” comes to mind.
4. 

   Lady Julianna
   

   Feb 2nd, 2004
   

   Dyer, if your “virility” relies on your ability to use English and make a rational argument… you are in trouble boy.

   One word… Viagra.
5. 

   Mikal
   

   Feb 2nd, 2004
   

   *roflmao* Mistress that’s too funny

   *grins at Mistress*

   Mikal
6. 

   Stella Dives
   

   Feb 2nd, 2004
   

   lmaooooooooo
7. 

   Dyerbrook
   

   Feb 5th, 2004
   

   One word, Lady J, Wellbutrin. Or is it Paxil? Whatever that anti-psychotic drug is that can best get rid of delusions of grandeur, control, and their accompanying paranoia.

   Hard to deal with someone who says he is virile without Viagra, isn’t it, when you don’t have you boot on his neck? I pity you.

   As for ad hominem attacks, I used to think it was good form to avoid them. I did avoid them. I watched about 300 posts go by where *you* and your cronies indulged in this sport. You called me “a little man,” someone you had to “dismiss”, you called me a liar, a psychotic, and oh, dozens of things that anyone with half a brain can see in living color just by scrolling back all your posts. You constantly engage in ad hominem attacks meant to humiliate and demean, as if other posters on this board, especially me, are somehow engaged in your BDSM role-play. Well, guess what, we aren’t. If the moderator (soi-disant) of this board or any reader merely looks through all your posts, they will see dozens if not hundreds of ad hominem attacks directed against me and other players. In such a windstorm, I think it is appropriate to engage in ad hominem attacks. You are an ass. End of Story.

   As for Toy, well, I can’t help mischievously thinking of Donald Rumsfeld here, even though I am chilled by him and his war and have trouble supporting it even for the laudable purpose of taking down the mass killer and totalitarian Saddam. At the outset of the war, he said with a cold glint in his eyeglasses, “There are those who wish to die fighting for the cause of Saddam. We will accommodate them in that wish.”

   There are those who wish to depersonalize themselves, humiliate themselves, refer to themselves in the third person, treat themselves as not free humans but slaves, call themselves by a name that means they are a mere plaything of others. OK, we will accommodate them in their wishes. We will ignore them, and not treat them as serious interlocutors about this game.
8. 

   toy
   

   Feb 5th, 2004
   

   toy still will await answers to her questions asked of you dyer…… toy once again asks, do you have no answers to them? are they unaswerable? should toy speak s-l-o-w-e-r for you to understand them?

   how can you honestly believe toy doesnt speak her own mind here? time after time toy has spoke out against what you believe to be the only truths simply because toy is more openminded and can accept that there are many thoughts and ideas about everything, nothing is ‘holy writ’ toy wont attack your beliefs, just your narrowminded insistence to only accept what you believe is ‘holy writ’

   falara kajira toy

   ~the one who sleeps well~
9. 

   TSKELLI
   

   Feb 5th, 2004
   

   “We will ignore them, and not treat them as serious interlocutors about this game.”

   Again, Dyerbrook, how can you possibly hope to understand without engaging? If you resort to sitting from afar and critiquing, you certainly develop a viewpoint, but it can hardly be called an informed one. How can you possibly understand toy’s perspective without engaging her?

   This one thinks that you are intimidated by toy, and don’t really have the courage to hear what she has to say if you chose to engage her. You are encouraged to do so — you will inevitably learn something.

   But alas, it is easier to fold your virtual arms and refuse to do so, smug in your false understanding of what is going on.

   Kelli
10. 

    Nicholas
    

    Feb 6th, 2004
    

    Just a comment, as I have been following the different articles here. Dyerbrook, Lady Julianna is not the only one throwing around ad hominem attacks. From where I began reading, you threw the first one and the others rallied in her defense. Looks like you are playing with fire and getting burned. Why don’t you answer toy’s questions? She does deserve an answer. It’s really sad how people treat others these days. It’s a sad state of affairs when people close their minds and hearts to other ideas and refuse to even remotely consider they might be wrong about something. To push your idea as being the only correct idea is wrong. To refuse to listen to other ideas and condemn those for those ideas that don’t affect anyone but themselves, is wrong. I recommend that you sit down and truly look into yourselves. Do you like what and who you see? Can you live with the consequences of your actions? What are the consequences of those actions? Think about that. Look deep inside yourself. But remember, we all have the right to decide for ourselves how we will live. Live and let live.

    Nicholas
11. 

    toy
    

    Feb 6th, 2004
    

    toy has come to the conclusion that dyer lacks communication skills. dyer is a wonderful ‘lecturer’ but lecturing is not communicating, one most speak and ‘listen’ to communicate. toy could compare it to a small child who when being spoken to about something they dont want to hear….. ~clasping hands over their ears and screaming LALALALALALA and then feeling that since they didnt listen it wasnt spoken.

    toy
12. 

    Dyerbrook
    

    Feb 7th, 2004
    

    Go back and look again Nicholas, it was they who made the first ad hominem attacks. You’re nuts. You just haven’t read enough on this blog, and are looking perhaps only in this thread, when there are many others, on this same subject, in response to other articles earlier. It’s hard to understand why I’d have to engage with someone who choses to be a nullity. You engage with her, and then tell us abou it.
13. 

    Stella Dives
    

    Feb 7th, 2004
    

    You didnt respond to my last post either Dyer. Id like to hear what excuse youll offer for that.
14. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 8th, 2004
    

    Not a Sims/TSO/Alphaville player, just a passer-by who looked up the Alphaville Herald after reading a news story about it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3334923.stm):

    In the interview, “Selene Moon” correctly uses the word “Wicca” (capitalized) to refer to the religion, and correctly distinguishes it from “witchcraft” — “witchcraft is spells and stuff… Wicca is the religion”. She also correctly describes Wiccans’ uses of gods from varying pantheons (Greek, Nordic, etc), and other practice such as sending healing energy.

    However, Dyerbrook incorrectly refers to the religion (rather than a member of it) as “wiccan” (lowercase), and jumbles it together with “satanism” (also lowercase), along with other drastic misconceptions about what Wiccans do.

    It seems unlikely to me that the same person would have first gotten so many details right while pretending to be “Selene Moon”, then gotten such details wrong while writing as “Dyerbrook”.

    It seems far more likely to me that these two were NOT the same person; that “Dyerbrook” was not “Selene Moon”; that his claim to have been her was false.

    Given that Dyerbrook proudly proclaims himself a hoaxer, I would suggest that his hoax here was on the forum readers — the hoax being the *claim* that he hoaxed Urizenus in the interview.

    There’s also the inherent falsehood in his position that Wicca and other pagan faiths are “lifestyles” which should not be permitted in public places. These are religions — and all people have the right and freedom to hold and express their religions, even in public places.

    If that were not so, if Dyerbrook were right, then to be consistent, what should be said of all those Christians who go about expressing their “lifestyle” in public places — and even imposing it upon minor children? By Dyerbrook’s standards, that should also be banned, right?

    Disclosure: I’m a Humanist, not a Wiccan, but I do know a bit about Wicca. In lieu of a resum, the URL http://tinyurl.com/2p5qq opens up to a Google search for webpages with my ID and references to Wicca or Paganism. Click the “Groups” tab to also see newsgroup posts. I’m the “Raven” mentioned in the credits of the alt.religion.wicca newsgroup FAQ (ARWFAQ).
15. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 8th, 2004
    

    Just to clarify, the *forum* post above, signed “Selene Moon” at January 23, 2004 09:59 PM, also uses Dyerbrook’s lowercase “wiccan” (and not the interviewed Selene Moon’s “Wicca”) to refer to the religion:

    Maria asked how i got into wiccan…

    but…the problem is..i think dyerbrook made me up…

    So *that forum post* was part of the hoax (on forum readers) by Dyerbrook, but also exposes itself as a hoax.

    P.S. Coco / Cocoanut, you’d written at January 25, 2004 12:12 AM:

    I have known Dyerbrook in the game for probably close to a year now, and I have never known him to lie. I may not agree with his views on many subjects, or his enthusiasm for those views, but I have never found him to lie on any subject.

    And later, at January 25, 2004 06:59 PM (addressing Dyerbrook):

    … my experience has been that you have never lied to me since I have known you in the game. … I believe in giving people credibility until I, personally, determine that they have lied about something, and I haven’t determined that in your case.

    Does the foregoing change your mind?
16. 

    toy
    

    Feb 8th, 2004
    

    toy wont reply to you for now dyer… but would point out fear is a terrible thing, toy will await for you to discuss your past attacks on this girl patiently

    toy
17. 

    Dyerbrook
    

    Feb 8th, 2004
    

    Hi, there, Raven, good detective work, hey, Uri, hire that girl, at least she checks stuff unlike other reporters. You still got it wrong however. As I explain on the essay on my site, I indeed perpetuated the hoax of Selene Moon. But Selen Moon is a *shared Sim*. There were several of us taking turns with her at different times. That’s why sometimes she sounds one way, and sometimes another way. In an interview she’s one way, in the game she’s one way, and when I write about her she’s one way, and when somebody else writes about her she’s another way. It’s a collective effort, just as Lord Cheetah was collective. I personally made the “wiccan” mistake, but others in our little collective knew not to make it. I stepped forward and took the rap for this hoax, because we knew it would generate a lot of hate and flaming, and since I am already hated and flamed, I was happy to absorb yet another tarring and feathering and being run out of town on a rail.

    It’s silly to me that someone can blather on about how Wicca isn’t “of satan” merely because Satan isn’t a figure in this “religion”. Wicca is not a tax-deductible recognized religion in the United States, whatever its pretentions. It will have to fight the same kind of battle as the Church of Scientology and for that, it will have to prove it is unified, and not just a lot of little sects with all kinds of nutty ideas about what witches are, some rooted in centuries of non-Christian thought and paganism, other rooted in 70 years of neo-cult activity in the United States, etc

    In the Christian idea, Satan uses various cult ideas and ideas of the power of human beings over other humans, as in paganism, as in witchcraft, to distract people’s minds from the truth. Satanism might be a separate brand of belief for the satanists, Satan may be absent from the pantheon of wicca (the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence LOL) but for Christians, all the systems of paganism, satanism, witchcraft, and wicca are all parts of the work of the devil. Surely it pains them to be reduced to evil in this matter, but there you have it. There was war in heaven, and there is still war on earth.

    Therefore, there is nothing inconsistent or incorrect or “ignorant” about my remarks about satan, wicca, satanism, etc. because they are from the Christian perspective, the perspective of the Judeo-Christian heritage. And thank God for it! Once again, I’d have to point out that the hallmark of all these tiny little orthodoxies, these little jihadist fundamentalist sects, is their automatic putting of everyone outside their tiny midst *in the wrong*. They bleat and scream that the majority Judeo-Christian heritage has put THEM in the wrong, and indeed it has — up to a point. Yet it has tolerated them, and left them a space in its liberal society, in the notion that many paths to God must be permitted because God permits free will in Man. The sub-cultists have no such largeness of liberal belief. You can never learn enough about that little sub-cult and its ways. You are always ignorant. You are forever misunderstanding them. They are forever tragically misunderstood. Nothing about them is common-sensical or transparent or rational or logical, all of it depends on curious mystical beliefs that have no checks or balance by any kind of recognized structure. They all have messianic zeal to put across their world view, and therefore accuse you of messianic zeal even as you merely affirm the basics of the Judeo-Christian heritage in which our society, real and virtual, has its home. *If they have their way, if they are secularists, they remove religion from the public space entirely, like Catseye*. I rest my case.

    Of course, if you want to throw out the fundamental tents of this J-C heritage and say it is all white-dominated, or male-dominated, or misogynist, or intolerant, creepy, corrupt, contaminated, that’s your right. You’ll find much to support your arguments as you cherry-pick through its history. But don’t pretend that some tiny sectlet you belong to with a lot of yahoo mall-rats with too much time on their hands role-playing in some dumb online game is going to take the place of the grandeur which they represented in terms of human thought, reason, and belief.

    Various paganists, wicca-practitioners, satanists, BDSMers, and God-knows-what-else wanted to take the idea of freedom of religion and freedom of interference by the state in religion and expand it past reasonable and civilized boundaries to include freedom and status and tolerance for their own dubious belief systems, too, even though their belief systems represent the antithesis and destruction of the Judeo-Christian heritage. This is a debate about how far you tolerate the enemies of freedom in a free society. It is not a particularly informed debate, given the participants here, and it will not be decided here on this blog. But that is what the debate is about.

    We can get a glimmer of what kind of enemies of freedom these sub-cultural believers are by looking at what they post. Catseye has advocated that we simply remove religious expression — by which he means removing any expression of belief based on the major, recognized religions — never the unrecognized religions of cults and sub-cultures (which he views on the anti-Dyerbrook team and therefore “ok”). Catseye, in his tiny mind, reasons that if we don’t “allow” religion in the public schools, then we shouldn’t “allow” it in the public square, like a public blog. Catseye would no doubt advocate removing a Star of David or a manger from a public square during certain winter holidays. He would take a literalist approach to the idea of expression of religion, and banish it forever from public discussion. If he can construe somebody’s blog to be the entirety of the public space where religion should be separate from state, why, he will banish it from there, and show reveal his hand as secretly wishing to ban any speech that doesn’t conform to his own rigidly conservative notions of hedonistic orthodoxy. He will constantly bait someone who opposes his jihadist restrictions as “intolerant” or “conservative”. He will ascribe to them beliefs like opposition to gay marriage — beliefs which I don’t have.

    But you cannot ban the morality that emerges from the main religions tradition of this country. That morality prevails even in a public school, although in a non-visible form. It’s not OK for students to hit each other. It’s not OK for them to have sex in school — say, those famous blow-jobs on the school buses that you constantly invoke. It’s not OK for them to lie or cheat. These are all ideas that emerged from the Ten Commandments and all the laws and the prophets, even if it would actually be forbidden by the secular activists to post the Ten Commandments and the Bible in the school hallway.
18. 

    Lady Julianna
    

    Feb 8th, 2004
    

    Dyer, BDSM is not the antithesis of Christianity. The two are not imcompatible. There are many of us, perhaps even most of us, are Christian.

    Read Paul. Wives submit to your husbands, slaves obey your Masters… It’s in the bible. Look it up. New testament even.

    By the way, I am a Christian. Maria has also identified herself as Christian, as has my Mikal.

    You go too far Dyer.
19. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 9th, 2004
    

    Dyerbrook wrote, at February 8, 2004 04:20 PM:

    “I indeed perpetuated the hoax of Selene Moon”

    If you meant to say “perpetrated”, I doubt your veracity, for reasons already given.

    What you are “perpetuating” is the claim that you were behind Selene, and that claim is what appears to be the hoax.

    The interviewed Selene knew things you (and the forum-posting Selene) didn’t, even basic information, like the correct name of the religion.

    Funny how your claimed “little collective” wasn’t available to help you get the details right for the forum post — it’s not nearly as rushed a setting as a chat-session interview, so you could have taken all the time you needed.

    You’re still getting basic facts wrong. (Where did that “collective” go, just when you needed its help?)

    It’s silly to me that someone can blather on about how Wicca isn’t “of satan” merely because Satan isn’t a figure in this “religion”.

    Well, if someone actually really truly worships Satan, it would make sense to call him an actual real live Satanist.

    But here you’re saying all “pagans” are thereby Satanists, even if the figure of Satan doesn’t exist in their theology? (By such reasoning, all non-Zoroastrians must be worshippers of Ahriman, even if they never heard of Ahriman.) All the rest of the world’s population outside JudeoChristianity — Hindus, Buddhists, and all — are Satanists in your eyes? That’s the position of an ignorant religious bigot.

    Wicca is not a tax-deductible recognized religion in the United States, whatever its pretentions.

    Bzzzt, wrong again, Ace; wrong several times in one sentence.

    (1) The appropriate term here is “tax-EXEMPT”. (Though donations TO such groups may be tax-DEDUCTIBLE.)

    (2) IRC 501(c)(3) applies to religious *organizations*, not religions as such — so Christianity is not a “tax-exempt religion”, either, in that sense. That is, you cannot claim tax-exemption by reason of merely being a Christian, and your neighbor could not claim tax-exemption by reason of merely being a Wiccan. But your Christian *church*, or its denomination, can file for 501(c)(3) tax exemption — and so could your neighbor’s Wiccan coven or its Tradition (=denomination). Several Wiccan groups are already on the IRS list of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt religious organizations.

    (3) As to “recognized”, several court decisions have settled the matter, including Dettmer v Landon (617 F Supp 592) in the District Court of Virginia, 1985. Senator Jesse Helms tried to overturn those decisions by changing the law (that was the point of the “Helms Amendment”), but his proposal never got enacted. Neither did another proposal, by Representative Bob Barr in 1999, which would have prohibited Wiccan soldiers from having their religious services on military bases. Wicca is, and remains, a legally recognized religion. (Otherwise, Helms and Barr would not have needed to try changing the law to undo that recognition.)

    Wicca’s even listed in a United States Army’s handbook for chaplains, precisely so that Wiccan soldiers *can* receive chaplain services according to the terms of their own religion.

    Here’s an online copy of the entry: http://www.paganspath.com/usarmy.htm

    Here’s the Military Pagan Network: http://www.milpagan.org/resource_center.html

    Googling for “Wicca” and “recognized religion”: http://tinyurl.com/2zvxy

    Googling for “Wicca” and “501(c)(3)”: http://tinyurl.com/2qmp9

    …for that, it will have to prove it is unified, and not just a lot of little sects with all kinds of nutty ideas…

    That doesn’t appear to be a requirement. For instance, Christianity isn’t unified; Christianity is a lot of sects (little and big) with all kinds of different ideas — I’ll skip the debate about whether they’re “nutty” or not, or how many are vs. how many aren’t — and you’ll notice that this diversity hasn’t prevented them getting tax-exempt status, any more than it prevented those Wiccan groups; they’re on the very same IRS 501(c)(3) list.

    All of this detail, just to correct the errors you managed to pack into your second paragraph, one of the two shortest paragraphs in your post, without even beginning to address the remainder. *sigh*

    Well, it may serve as a wake-up call to some of your readers, that you are not a reliable source of information, but rather that what you claim to be facts are often flatly wrong. You yourself may sleep through that call, but at least they will have had fair warning.

    “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”
         – United States Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943).
20. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 9th, 2004
    

    Above I wrote to Dyerbrook, at February 9, 2004 04:22 AM:

    But here you’re saying all “pagans” are thereby Satanists, even if the figure of Satan doesn’t exist in their theology? (By such reasoning, all non-Zoroastrians must be worshippers of Ahriman, even if they never heard of Ahriman.) All the rest of the world’s population outside JudeoChristianity — Hindus, Buddhists, and all — are Satanists in your eyes? That’s the position of an ignorant religious bigot.

    To clarify the word “ignorant”…

    I don’t simply mean that Dyerbrook is ignorant of other (i.e. non-Christian) religions and what they do or don’t worship or practice.

    I mean that Dyerbrook is ignorant of what his own religion teaches, in its founding scriptures, in the words of Jesus.

    I’ll refer to the King James Bible, with links to the text at the University of Michigan (http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/kjv/).

    1. Jesus told his disciples the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:26-37.

       Note: Samaritans were not Jews (nor Christians). They were a despised religious minority; Jews of that time thought them devil-possessed. (The Pharisees said to Jesus, “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?” John 8:48.)

       Jesus, however, did not condemn Samaritans as being Satanists. He used a Samaritan as his example of what sort of person should be loved by those he taught.

       Between the position of the Pharisees and the position of Jesus, on whether outsiders are of Satan, Dyerbrook has chosen the position of the Pharisees.

    2. Likewise, the Roman soldiers at that time were not Jewish (nor Christian) but pagan, yet Jesus did not accuse the centurion of being Satanic or Satanist:
       

       “And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

       “And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

       “The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

       “When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”

       – Matthew 8:5-10

    3. Who did Jesus imply might be guided by Satan? His own disciples, when they started hating and condemning non-Christians (Samaritans again!) who would not receive them:
       

       “And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

       “And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

       “But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”

       – Luke 9:51-56

    Interesting that Dyerbrook claims to write from a “Judeo-Christian” perspective, yet he acts in opposition to what Jesus said, in an anti-Christian way. He knows not what manner of spirit he is of.
21. 

    Lady Julianna
    

    Feb 9th, 2004
    

    Yes, he acts in opposition to the spirit of Christianity at every step. He does not appear to know scripture or the words of the one he claims to follow.

    Christ’s greatest commandment is “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” Dyer is a hater.

    “Judge not lest ye be judged.”

    “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

    I could go on and on and on, for I do know the words of my Lord and Master. Christ is the ultimate Master, the One before whom I will kneel and bow my head.

    Am I perfect? Without sin? No! If I were I would not need the forgiveness and protection of my Lord.

    Will he judge me to be wrong for what I do with my Mikal in the end? It is done with love. I meet Mikal’s needs, focus on my Mikal, care for him, nurture growth…

    Perhaps he will, perhaps he will not… As I have said before I think in the end other things will be far more important in his judgement of me. I think that my adherence to his greatest commandment will be much more important.. loving others.

    Dyer is the evil in the world. I am a sinner, yes, but I do not set out to hate others, judge them, nor do them harm.

    Now, that is all I shall say on religion. It is pertinent because Dyer is trying to make a moral judgement here, and our belief system is the only basis to base such a judgement on.
22. 

    toy
    

    Feb 10th, 2004
    

    ~quotes dyer from one of his previous posts in this thread~ “Go back and look again Nicholas, it was they who made the first ad hominem attacks. You’re nuts. You just haven’t read enough on this blog, and are looking perhaps only in this thread, when there are many others, on this same subject, in response to other articles earlier. It’s hard to understand why I’d have to engage with someone who choses to be a nullity. You engage with her, and then tell us abou it.”

    toy would disagree dyer…… in the original post by anonymous on the subject of BDSM/Gor in the herald, before any of the BDSM/Gor community posted on it…… toy is adding your full post dyer in which you initiated the attack on us..

    quote.. “I would VIGOROUSLY oppose making Alphaville the “adults only server” although I think a discussion should be opened up about making such a server. Why? Because we founders who formed other neighborhoods, a variety of non-BDSM neighborhoods like Sim Arts or others, *were here first*. I personally will push back against the BDSM riot, and I think others will, too. They were pushed out of other cities because people found them too disturbing, and found AV a permissive environment, precisely because a) some of the most creative and intellectual long-term gamers are in AV and b) AV had already been terrorized by the Sim Shadow Government so that the timid and the disgusted were already out of the game.
    Far from letting BDSM entirely take over AV, I think they should go to some dead city like Dan’s Grove. But let’s also go over what BDSM says *in its own words* from your very helpful interview just to raise the larger philosophical issues of whether BDSM represents a cult or a closed, violent society which adherents of a democratic, open society should oppose on moral or philosophical grounds, which is their right, without being called “bigots” and “flamers”. Let me rehearse what we’ve gleaned from Anonymous:
    “i think that there are a lot of very damaged people in the bdsm community of av…searching to find something to fix them…”
    Er, why should I turn over my virtual world to a lot of very damaged people? Hello?
    We’ve also confirmed that there is a debate in this community between those who think they are “real” and do real BDSM in real life, and those who are just roleplayers, and that those who are just roleplayers *find themselves under pressure* from those who are hard-core.
    We’ve also learned there are educational centers, lectures, people who write about BDSM in their profiles, and roam about the city at will.
    Well, duh, that *is* recruiting. That *is* what I mean by recruiting, and you don’t have to block out my name with a “zzzzz” Mr. Anti-Censorship, Mr. Citizen Kane, you can say it’s DYERBROOK who has raised this matter as a public concern, *as is my right*.
    We’ve also learned that there are people in this lifestyle who think and act as if women are inferior. Um, we’re supposed to swallow THAT??? Why? Is that in keeping with the letter and spirit of the TOS? My beef with BDSM is precisely this: it is a perversion not because it has people having sex differently in private — that isn’t my business — but because it says it is “an entire way of life* and perverts the generally accepted value of equality between people, by claiming people voluntarily accept dominion. Do they? How can we be sure that their voluntary acceptance of slavery isn’t a function of their status as damaged people. We’ve been told that a) in many cases, seriously damaged people play BDSM games and do it in RL; b) people within BDSM are themselves under pressure from the hard-core people in their own community to be more “real” c)people in BDSM, especially the newbie trainee subs, are unable to provide us straight answers because if we every HAVE a question about someone’s voluntary submission or any problem with them, we’re to go to their masters, mind our manners, etc. and never to them and d) we are labeled harassers and bigots if we express any concern about points a-c, utterly silencing our legitimate expression of concern. That seems awfully fishy to me. But let’s go on…again…”in their own words” — we find this:
    “Gor is a bit like a cult”. A bit? Only Gor? Who is to know?
    Or let’s take this lovely exemplar of mafia-style totalitarian thinking:
    “it’s like any family…there is always squabbling between siblings…but when someone comes in from the outside to cause trouble…we band together…
    Anonymous: if i get a message from Lady Julianna about such-and-such sub being a problem and they should be banned from my property…i do it, no questions”
    Oh, you do? No questions? No establishment of the truth? No checking of the facts? Merely out of loyalty to your tribe, without granting that someone might have a legitimate inquiry about the very troublesome violent RL activities of some “very damaged people”? Hello? That is mob justice. You “band together” like a tribe, a club, even a cult against those “vicious” outsiders. Could that ever be the root of injustice, do you think? It often is.
    Once again, I would oppose the banning of BDSM, the banning of adult lots, the censorship of speech in TSO. I do, however, believe a discussion could be opened up about moving BDSM to separate server/city, and I believe the way to counter troublesome, closed-society secretive activity in the game is to push back with moral suasion, open debate, and expression of opinion.
    Since my other post laying out more of my troubles with the philosophy of BDSM is buried, I would urge readers to go look at my comments under the interview with Snow White.
    What we now have on the table is that BDSM is not merely a sex act, not merely a RP, but *a whole way of life* as this and other informants tell us. It does no good for air-headed hard-leftists to yammer on about how we should be tolerant of BDSM as we would GLBT, that it is a “lifestyle” choice, or that parents should do their own policing of children. What we have *in their own words* from BDSM adherents is that we face a serious problem in our virtual world, one not only about children, and it should not be allowed to spread unchallenged. See my own site for interviews with minors and other players in the game that indicate that minors frequently lie about their age and “pass” and that while they may have the good sense to stay away from a violent cult, they certainly are exposed to it merely by going to an ordinary vanilla contest on an ordinary skill lot because of the profiles, play-acting, and activities of those in the BDSM community.
    Should BDSM stay on their own lots in a segregated community, or another server entirely? Let’s have that discussion, because I personally don’t want a violent totalitarian cult to spread on the Internet and gain fresh recruits.
    Posted by: Dyerbrook at December 20, 2003 02:11 PM

    so much for us attacking you dyer……

    toy
23. 

    TSKELLI
    

    Feb 10th, 2004
    

    ~sighs~

    Dyerbrook

    I am sorry, truly, if my behavior over the weekend offended you. It was not right, i regret that it happened, and i will not allow it to happen again. Please forgive me.

    i too am a christian, but i am not going to debate religion with you, it is a very personal matter. i will say only that i personally do not condemn wiccans or buddhists or hindus or muslims for what they honestly believe, and i have the deepest respect for their sincere beliefs, as different as they may be from some of mine.

    i continue to be disturbed about your references to toy as a “nullity”. i am not going to flame you about it, but please reconsider that, as she is a human being like everyone else here and worthy of being considered the same and not a “nullity”.

    warmest,

    kelli
24. 

    Dyerbrook
    

    Feb 12th, 2004
    

    Raven, your forays into the U.S. Tax Code and practice in the realm of 501-c-3 groups is woefully inadequate. Read some of the pages of nutters trying to get registered, such as at
    http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/501c3.htm to find the many hurdles the IRS will place in the path of “churches” that are really cults. Of course, anybody can put together a non-profit Pagan Pride Parade group and get 501-c-3 status as a non-profit educational or charitable group, but that doesn’t mean they will be recognized as a church. The Department of State of each individual state will make rulings on all these pagan cult groups in each separate case, and they will not have built up a code of common rulings and practices as they have with mainstream groups like the Baptists or Catholics. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that’s the case.

    It’s perfectly fine to call these groups *tax-deductible* groups if you are describing them from the users’ point of view, who looks at them and decides whether they can *take a tax deduction* on their tax return by donating to these ostensibly charitable groups. From the perspective of the groups, they are called tax-exempt because they are exempt from taxes themselves. You don’t need to engage in silly sophistry to make your point, we’re not stupid.

    It’s hardly that I have acted in opposition to my own religion, it’s that you, no doubt guided by the Subtle One yourself, have cherry-picked some Bible verses to try to make your point about Jesus supposedly saying that people who are possessed aren’t really possessed, and that his own disciples are the problem (pluck the log out of your own eye). This sounds like the kind of script they hand out in pagan and satanist boot camp. Anyone with even passing knowledge of the Bible knows that Jesus healed people frequently by casting out the demons in them — they were possessed. And he counciled on the snares of Satan. You have only to read the story of Jesus’ own temptation, where he was promised the kind of worldly goods and power that Satanists and wicca and paganists promise their followers to understand intimately His own struggle against Evil.

    Other great “religions of the book” have a monotheistic religion with Good and Evil. Religions that have many gods and goddesses still have concepts of Good and Evil. Satanism obviously turn these age-old concepts on their ear.

    “Love thy neighbor” does not mean you get a pass to beat and strike other people for the sake of sexual pleasure. You don’t. BDSM practices are in fact the diametrical opposite to “Love they neighbor and do good to those who hurt you.”

    As for you reiteration of my post, I’m hard put to find some “ad hominem” attack in it. Ad hominem means addressing “to the man,” singling out an individual. This has characterized BDSM followers as a lot of hurt and broken individuals, *in their own words* as Lady J once said to Lord Cheeta, whose screenshoted conversations I read, too, and we have kept on file. That’s criticism, but it isn’t an ad hominem attack.
25. 

    toy
    

    Feb 12th, 2004
    

    of course dyer you will never admit to being wrong, how foolish of this girl to think that

    but still and all you lie and twist words as usual to cover your own failings…

    as far as calling this girl a ‘nullity’ toy is above name calling dyer.. ones who cant defend themselves and known to lie are the ones to resort to name calling.

    It doesnt bother toy a whit what you think of her, only wishes to point out that with all your large words you still come across as a fool, so please carry on

    toy
26. 

    nicholas
    

    Feb 12th, 2004
    

    I read all the posts per your suggestion, Dyerbrook and still I see it as you made the first attack.

    One more thing I’d like to point out is in regards to this: “It’s hardly that I have acted in opposition to my own religion, it’s that you, no doubt guided by the Subtle One yourself, have cherry-picked some Bible verses to try to make your point” Every single religion and religious person who picks up the Bible, “cherry-picks” their way through it. Why do you think there are so many different “Christian” churches with so many varied beliefs in what the Bible says?

    Calling me nuts because I see things differently when I read the blogs is just an example to everyone who reads here of who and what you are. No one can have a serious discussion with you without being called a nutter, nuts, etc. just because their beliefs differ. I firmly believe that if this is what the schools and society is now teaching the children, we are looking at a very gloomy future. God help us all if this is that case. If you don’t believe in God, then ask Whoever you do believe in to help us.

    Peace out.

    Nicholas
27. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 13th, 2004
    

    Dyerbrook wrote at February 12, 2004 12:28 PM:

    Raven, your forays into the U.S. Tax Code and practice in the realm of 501-c-3 groups is woefully inadequate. Read some of the pages of nutters trying to get registered, such as at
    http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/501c3.htm to find the many hurdles the IRS will place in the path of “churches” that are really cults.

    Thank you for admitting that those who are given 501(c)(3) status are not “really cults”, since they passed that screening process.

    For instance, you’ll find the following groups on the IRS list of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, by going to http://www.irs.gov/charities/page/0,,id=15053,00.html, entering “Wicca” in the name field, and pressing the search button:

        Assembly of Wicca
        Association of Cymmry Wicca of the Church of Y Tylwyth Teg
        Church and School of Wicca
        Church of Indo-European Wicca
        Circle of Salgion Church of Wicca
        First Celtic Wiccan Church
        Gwynvyd Church of Wicca
        Minnesota Church of the Wicca
        Order of the Red Grail Church of Transformational Wicca
        Phoenix Wiccan Assembly
        Ravenwood Church and Seminary of Wicca
        Wiccan Church of Minnesota
        Wiccan Educational Society
        Wiccan Inspired Temple for Community Healing
        Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida

    That’s just the groups with “Wicca” actually in the name. You can do separate searches for other Wiccan organizations, like “Covenant of the Goddess”, “Circle Sanctuary” (in Mt. Horeb WI), “American Federation of Witches”, “Witches Voice”, “Nomadic Chantry of the Gramarye”, etc., all of which are also on the IRS tax-exempt list.

    So much for your earlier claim, “Wicca is not a tax-deductible [sic] recognized religion in the United States”.

    Of course, anybody can put together a non-profit Pagan Pride Parade group and get 501-c-3 status as a non-profit educational or charitable group, but that doesn’t mean they will be recognized as a church.

    So, after you had given “tax-deductible” [sic] as one of the criteria you claimed Wicca couldn’t meet, and after you were presented with numerous examples to contradict you (in one link, Googling for “Wicca” and “501(c)(3)”: http://tinyurl.com/2qmp9), now you wish to withdraw that criterion — but without admitting that you were wrong in the first place.

    You get no points for honesty by such evasions.

    Unfortunately, you failed to follow the other link I provided you (Googling for “Wicca” and “recognized religion”: http://tinyurl.com/2zvxy), or you’d have seen that Wicca is also a legally recognized religion.

    In fact, I cited one such court decision to you already, Dettmer v Landon (617 F Supp 592), 1985.

    This leaves, of your original claim, approximately nothing.

    It’s perfectly fine to call these groups *tax-deductible* groups …

    Dyerbrook, I’ve already told you, it’s the donation (contribution to such a group) that’s tax-deductible. The group itself is tax-exempt. When you use the IRS search page, you get an “Exempt Organization Search”, not a “Deductible Organization Search”.

    Your smokescreening, instead of admitting error, on even such trivial mistakes as that one, again gets you no points for honesty.

    It’s hardly that I have acted in opposition to my own religion …

    Well, we can all look at how Jesus treated people — including specifically pagans — in word and in deed, and then at how you do, and draw our own conclusions.

    … it’s that you, no doubt guided by the Subtle One yourself, have cherry-picked some Bible verses to try to make your point about Jesus supposedly saying that people who are possessed aren’t really possessed …

    More accurately, that people whom the Pharisees said were possessed (e.g. the Samaritans) weren’t really possessed, and could in fact be the “neighbor” whom he taught his followers to love (as in the Good Samaritan). Your rephrasing asserts the Pharisee’s position as fact, and flatly contradicts what Jesus said. By now this is no longer surprising.

    … and that his own disciples are the problem (pluck the log out of your own eye). This sounds like the kind of script they hand out in pagan and satanist boot camp.

    Direct quotes from the Bible, with links to the exact chapter and verse each time so everyone can check the text for themselves? Sounds like the kind of reference they should give out at every Bible class. But somehow I don’t think there’s that much reliance on Christian scriptures among pagan groups. Nor have I heard of them having “boot camps”. You seem to have some very weird ideas about how other religions are organized.

    Anyone with even passing knowledge of the Bible knows that Jesus healed people frequently by casting out the demons in them — they were possessed.

    And how many did he say were “pagans”? You seem to forget that his ministry was among his own people, the Jews.

    And he counciled on the snares of Satan.

    For instance by rebuking his own disciples (“Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of”) when they started hating and condemning non-Christians.  Luke 9:51-56.)

    This appears to be a lesson from which you will not learn.

    You have only to read the story of Jesus’ own temptation, where he was promised the kind of worldly goods and power that Satanists and wicca and paganists promise their followers to understand intimately His own struggle against Evil.

    Once again you lump together “Satanists and wicca [sic] and paganists [sic]“, still the position of an ignorant religious bigot.

    By the way, exactly what “kind of worldly goods and power” do “wicca [sic] and paganists [sic] promise their followers”?

    The last I heard, there was no such promise made by Wicca.

    If by “paganists” you simply mean “pagans”, that category covers many different religions. What you claim is certainly not true of most varieties of, say, Buddhism (other than Nichiren Shoshu), though it seems to be true of the golden-faucets “prosperity Christians” like Jim and Tammy Bakker — but the latter are not “pagans”.

    Could you possibly have meant to say: “… he was promised the kind of worldly goods and power that televangelists promise their followers…”?

    “Love thy neighbor” does not mean you get a pass to beat and strike other people for the sake of sexual pleasure.

    Not even for their pleasure? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    BDSM practices are in fact the diametrical opposite to “Love they neighbor and do good to those who hurt you.”

    If they were inflicted (a) upon the unwilling, or (b) in such a way as to do actual harm, I would agree with you. In fact, I think the BDSM community would agree with you, though again I speak as an outsider. I’m sure they must have FAQ files on the subject…. yes, it turns out they do; here’s a link Googling on “BDSM” and “abuse”: http://tinyurl.com/2k37c. For instance, “Mutual consent is what distinguishes BDSM from abuse and assault, just as consent distinguishes sex from rape”; “What Newcomers Should Know: Preventing abuse within BDSM relationships”.

    As for you reiteration of my post, I’m hard put to find some “ad hominem” attack in it. Ad hominem means addressing “to the man,” singling out an individual.

    “Singling out an individual” is not the fallacy involved. Claiming that a position held by another person (or even by multiple other people) should be regarded as invalid because of who holds that position is the fallacy involved. For instance, to argue that “The ACLU opposes the Patriot Act because the ACLU are pro-terrorist” does not single out any individual, but it is still an “ad hominem” argument.

    Here are some links with more detail:
        http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
        http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
        http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
        http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

    Thus your argument that people into BDSM have no business being in Alphaville because of who they are could well be characterized as an “ad hominem” argument — or, even more aptly, as simple bigotry.
28. 

    nicholas
    

    Feb 14th, 2004
    

    Very well done, Raven. It’s nice to see someone take the time to actually research the subjects and show links to back up what is being said, and have a very well thought out post. Again I say, well done.

    Nicholas
29. 

    Dyerbrook
    

    Feb 14th, 2004
    

    My, you really are a vicious ignoramus, Raven. Let’s start with the little stuff. You can so call 501-c-3 organizations “tax-deductible organizations” if you look at them *from the point of view of the donor* duh duh duh.

    Read here:

    http://www.mycause.com/fineprint.html

    “You can choose any tax-deductible organization registered with the IRS or any organization to which MyCause can make tax-deductible donations, including schools, libraries, and religious organizations such as churches, synagogues, schools, etc.”

    Mycause.com is one of the most popular sites for those who would like to donate to a good cause.

    Or go here:
    http://www.accounting-center.com/1040schedulea.html

    A simple site about making tax-deductible contributions. It calls them “Tax deductible organizations, Churches” on the chart. Duh.

    Now google the phrase, and find hundreds more examples, duh. There is even a slight difference between tax-exempt and tax-deductible organizations if you want to get technical, but who wants to do that? Let’s accept that they are the same, more or less, and that the term applies, and I have used it perfectly accurately, and you’re just an ass.

    And not at all have I somehow conceded that cults are not cults merely if they have this tax status under 501-c-3. Plenty of cults function as 501-c-3s, I’ve seen it here in NY. The list you give is a good example. The FBI or IRS would have to watch them, get complaints, and find that they have committed a crime to remove their status. And that is done. The status given by the Dept. of State and the IRS is not a comment on whether or not they are a cult, nor is it recognition that they are a church if they get the status, it’s merely a judgement about *the non-profit, non-commercial* nature of their activities. BTW, 501-c-3 says you cannot be cruel to animals to get this status. Probably hunting clubs would not get it. So that’s an interesting hook to pursue, to see if the IRS could review this for cults like BDSM that are cruel to human beings.

    Nicholas, you are so impressed with links. The Internet is a big place. Impressed with me now, dude? You’re pathetic.

    As for your mangling and misrepresentation of the Bible and Christianity, I’ll return to that later.

    As for ad hominem attacks, find my post, and quote it to me to prove I am first, making sure to look at all threads first. You’re again like the Red Queen, an attack against a lifestyle as a whole for reasons of principle, or against the concept of BDSM as a whole or as a “neighborhood” is now suddenly an “ad hominem” attack, merely because you say so. I thought we were in TSO, not Alice in Wonderland.
30. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 15th, 2004
    

    Dyerbrook wrote at February 14, 2004 05:16 PM:

    My, you really are a vicious ignoramus, Raven. Let’s start with the little stuff. You can so call 501-c-3 organizations “tax-deductible organizations” if you look at them *from the point of view of the donor* duh duh duh.

    Out of all the huge mass of misinformation on the Web, it should be possible to find many private sites (let alone Usenet posts) making the same mistake you do, misapplying “tax-deductible” to the organization rather than to the donation. You quote two of them.

    Whereas I cited the official IRS(.gov) site, which, unsurprisingly, uses the two terms correctly: “tax-exempt” as referring to the organization, “tax-deductible” as referring to the donation.

    That is, you get to deduct all or part of your own contribution from your taxes; you don’t get to deduct the whole organization from your taxes.

    Here’s a FAQ page on the IRS site, http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96583,00.html.

    Question #2:

    “How can I determine if a particular organization is tax-exempt and eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions?

    “Publication 78 provides a partial listing of organizations that have been recognized by the IRS as eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. For information concerning other organizations that have been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt organizations, you may call IRS Customer Service at 877-829-5500. You can also contact us through any of the other methods described in Publication 557.”

    Now perhaps you’ll claim that the IRS itself uses these terms incorrectly, while those two dot-com sites got them right?

    There is even a slight difference between tax-exempt and tax-deductible organizations if you want to get technical

    True in this sense: there are other kinds of 501(c) tax-exempt organizations than 501(c)(3), and contributions to those other kinds may not be tax-deductible. (This is addressed in Question #1 of that same FAQ page.)

    However, we’re discussing specifically 501(c)(3) groups, and, as the IRS also explains, “Charitable organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with section 170.” (http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96102,00.html)

    And not at all have I somehow conceded that cults are not cults merely if they have this tax status under 501-c-3.

    So much for your earlier thumping on the lack of “tax-deductible” status as a sign of lacking the status of a “recognized religion”: “”Wicca is not a tax-deductible [sic] recognized religion in the United States”.”

    And so much for your later “Read some of the pages of nutters trying to get registered, such as at http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/501c3.htm to find the many hurdles the IRS will place in the path of “churches” that are really cults.”.

    BTW, 501-c-3 says you cannot be cruel to animals to get this status. Probably hunting clubs would not get it. So that’s an interesting hook to pursue, to see if the IRS could review this for cults like BDSM that are cruel to human beings.

    I hadn’t heard that any BDSM group ever filed as a 501(c)(3), nor does “BDSM” get results on the IRS search page http://www.irs.gov/charities/page/0,,id=15053,00.html.

    This is probably because BDSM is not a religion, nor presented as one even by those involved in it — which is also why the term “cult” doesn’t really fit.

    So this appears to be yet another case of your misapplying words.

    As for your mangling and misrepresentation of the Bible and Christianity, I’ll return to that later.

    “Mangling”? Go back up and click the links I provided with the Bible citations. They’ll take you to the source text, which will show you that those quotations were word-for-word correct.

    As for ad hominem attacks, find my post, and quote it to me to prove I am first, making sure to look at all threads first.

    I didn’t claim that you were “first”, though Nicholas has (“I read all the posts per your suggestion, Dyerbrook and still I see it as you made the first attack.”); so take it up with him. I don’t think that claim’s implausible, but it’s not a claim *I* made, so it’s not a claim *I* have to prove.

    Kindly remember that you brought up “ad hominem” to me in your post at February 12, 2004 12:28 PM, and, as I had not previously discussed the term, this appeared to be a topic you’d been debating with someone else. However, you misdefined it as “singling out an individual”, and I corrected you in my post at February 13, 2004 03:52 AM, explaining how an argument can be “ad hominem” without singling out any individual.

    For that matter, earlier I let pass another case where you addressed me but were arguing about something somebody else had said. You wrote, “It’s not OK for them to have sex in school — say, those famous blow-jobs on the school buses that you constantly invoke.” (February 8, 2004 04:20 PM)  In fact, I had never “invoked”, or otherwise mentioned, any such thing. I believe you were referring to something Catseye had said (though not “constantly”).

    Your inability to keep track of who said what, and your misattribution to me of what other people said, does no more to persuade me of your reasoning than does your recurrent misapplication and misdefinition of terms.

    You’re again like the Red Queen, an attack against a lifestyle as a whole for reasons of principle, or against the concept of BDSM as a whole or as a “neighborhood” is now suddenly an “ad hominem” attack, merely because you say so.

    Oddly enough, other people were saying so before you brought the subject up to me. What do you suppose gave all these people the same idea? Could it be that your assailing a position, because you dislike the lifestyle of the people who hold it, falls neatly under the definition of an “ad hominem” attack?
31. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 15th, 2004
    

    Earlier (February 15, 2004 02:16 AM) I wrote in reply to Dyerbrook:

    I hadn’t heard that any BDSM group ever filed as a 501(c)(3), nor does “BDSM” get results on the IRS search page …

    Update: now I have. Well, sort of.

    The problem was Dyerbrook’s misleading reference to “cults like BDSM” having 501(c)(3) status (“… see if the IRS could review this for cults like BDSM…”), which suggested that such groups had filed as religious organizations.

    But of course there are other types of 501(c)(3) than “religious organizations”:

    “The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.”

         – http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

    An organization devoted to helping members of the BDSM community get treated better (by the public or government or police or health agencies) might well qualify, notably under “lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law”.

    Notice that such requirements to qualify for 501(c)(3) status would not refer to the actual practice of BDSM; they would refer to an organization’s having a purpose like helping the people in that community overcome “prejudice and discrimination” and secure their “human and civil rights”.

    Such organizations do exist, and do have 501(c)(3) status.

    But that doesn’t describe a “cult”.
32. 

    toy
    

    Feb 15th, 2004
    

    ever notice how dyer resorts to name calling when he cant answer questions??

    toy
33. 

    toy
    

    Feb 15th, 2004
    

    as far as your first attack agains BDSM toy and toy posted the fill quote already with day and date…… you attacked BDSM first its time you admittedf this.. must toy post it again? you simply bit off more than you could chew and have suffered for it ever since

    toy
34. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 16th, 2004
    

    I’ve just posted a comment on the “Interview with Mistress Maria LaVeaux and her slave, Toy”, at February 16, 2004 02:39 AM.

    It revisits the “vote” count concerning the Stratics thread.

    Due to looking only at the page linked by Urizenus, about 1/3 of the Stratics posters had gone uncounted in the earlier discussion.
35. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 16th, 2004
    

    I’ve backtrailed as far as the “Interview with Anonymous on BDSM”, and came across this revealing set of exchanges.

    It sheds light upon Dyerbrook’s current holier-than-thou posture.

    Since that thread has become so long already (and started so long ago), let me address the exchanges here.

    Dyerbrook wrote at December 23, 2003 11:35 AM:

    I’ve counted four Sims in Alphaville already — I keep finding new cases — who were never into the BDSM lifestyle before, even played the Sims for months, who were friends of mine or other Sims, and now, they are suddenly into the lifestyle, sporting its regalia and insignia….

    … I don’t intend to be pushed out of AV by intolerant thugs who want to create a closed society….

    What I’d like to know is how Dyerbrook thinks this happened.

    Did someone point a gun, through the Internet and the PC screens, at the Sims players’ heads, and force them to make their characters don these “regalia and insignia”?

    Or did the players freely choose to do so?

    If by force, were the players kept continuously online and at gunpoint thereafter, or did they get to sign off occasionally to do things like go to school or work?

    If they got to sign off, then how were they forced to sign on again later, to resume this awful shameful degrading condition?

    Couldn’t they make these characters discard the “regalia and insignia” and go back to a non-BDSM lifestyle?

    If not, couldn’t they have simply abandoned the characters who were being so horribly abused?

    In other words, exactly how is this “involuntary” recruitment supposed to have been accomplished?

    On the other hand, if they joined freely and of their own will, why is Dyerbrook now determined to expel from Alphaville the same people he referred to as having been “friends” of his?

    Doesn’t he respect their free will to live their lives as they choose? Or does he require that they must live as he wishes, in order to be allowed to stay in Alphaville?

    If the latter, then who really is being “pushed out of AV”, and who really is behaving like “intolerant thugs who want to create a closed society”?

    And as for Dyerbrook’s posturing as a well-intentioned Christian determined to rid Alphavile of foul disgusting influences….

    brigit wrote at January 1, 2004 06:44 AM:

    i couldn’t sleep last night and went into sims……saw a BDSM house open…had two people in it…so thought i would drop by…..OMG…two women who lived there and right in front of me landed……………dyerbrook………..*claps hands to her cheeks making the O shape with her mouth*….

    and he said…..You Bitch…..this is one of those BDSM houses…..

    now when he said that…i tagged him…it made me mad….the other woman said…omg who was that… now who is harrassing whom…..and after i tagged him…he ran away….and then the well spoken dyerbrook IM’ed me…..and said

    You Sick Little F_ _ k……

    so now who is the low life…..who is the one who has their mouth in the gutter….
    

    Dyerbrook wrote at January 1, 2004 08:20 PM:

    Yes, let me say it again for good measure, so you don’t have to bother fetching screenshots.
    YOU SICK LITTLE F##K.

    [Obscenity obscured by ##. —Raven]

    Darksoul wrote at January 1, 2004 03:35 PM:

    Oh my….dyerbrook has gay, naked sims on his site….how decadent for a man of god

    http://syminalist.tripod.com/academy/id7.html
    

    … and at January 1, 2004 03:40 PM:

    and some more http://members.tripod.com/dyerbrook/gayfrats.htm

    Are W/we learning anything about the little man?
    

    toy wrote at January 1, 2004 07:13 PM:

    or perhaps these gems

    http://dyerbrook.tripod.com/simgems/id9.html

    http://members.tripod.com/dyerbrook/roadtosedation.htm
    

    Dyerbrook wrote at January 1, 2004 09:26 PM:

    Yes, I have several Sim story sites, and indeed, one could be characterized as “pornographic”…. But what’s the difference between MY “porn” site, that is, a site with some adult stories and screenshots, and Lady Julianna’s, and why is it NOT a legitimate subject of conversation for TSO?

    Well, gee, Lady Julianna had already written at December 27, 2003 09:31 PM:

    I am sure Maxis is aware of my website and finds it not objectionable. There is no pornography on it, no profanity, no nudity. There is creative writing there, and general info on BDSM. None of this violates TOS.

    And Dyerbrook still doesn’t know the difference?

    Well. Let’s take it from that rhetorical question that he sees no difference. So he’s “no different” from the people he denounces as unfit to grace the virtual pavement of Alphaville. But then why does he stay, himself? And if he stays, what standing does he have to demand that others leave?

    So much for his purity of motive.

    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5, cf. Luke 6:41-42)
36. 

    Dyerbrook
    

    Feb 16th, 2004
    

    There is no way in hell(actually only in Hell) that “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a carte blanche, a blank check, a permission, to engage in sadism and masochism or domination or submission. That’s absurd. That is not what Jesus and His disciples taught, and your silly effort to mischaracterize them in this way would be evil, if it weren’t just pathetic (but then, so many forms of evil are banal).

    There really isn’t much of a basis for debate here, if you are willing to pervert and hijack the Bible to suit your own vain purposes. Televangelists may be greedy, there are churches that are corrupt, but that doesn’t mean that the ideology of Christianity, taken as a whole, is about establishing power over other human beings. It most certainly is not. It is about humility and serving not some other human with a boot on my neck, but serving God and the ideals and aspirations of Christianity. Meanwhile, the ideology of wicca, and of BDSM, and I dare say paganism, is about establishing power over other human beings. That all seems pretty self-evident, unless, of course, you’re trying to sugar-coat it to make it more digestible for mass dissemination, especially in places like on-line games.

    Your silly notice that there isn’t some justifiable usage of “tax-deductible” just doesn’t hold water. This term is used in the field, and is perfectly acceptible. I didn’t cite two mistaken versions of its use, I cited two mainstream pages, including one with many hundreds of thousands of hits or more per day in this field, as showing how it is commonly used, by people really working in this field, and not just silly wicca or BDSM practitioners trying to get their jollies by tripping up people on their puny-minded orthodox reading of some IRS regulation. Please. Get a grip. Look at the hundreds of other hits on google to see that it is perfectly acceptible. Once again, for the record, getting this 501-c-3 status doesn’t mean you have a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that you are not a cult and you are a church. You aren’t. It’s only a statement on the non-profit nature of your activites. The society at large, the media, other 501-c-3 groups are all free and able to criticize you as being a cult and not a church, and believe me, that’s what some of the best of them do.

    I find it hard to understand why what I said playing this game in TSO, to people who were trying to get me to gnome in a house that turned out to be a BDSM house, or what I say in stories on my porno website, have anything to do with this discussion. I don’t find anything contradictory between running a site with pornographic stories, or using swear words against griefers in TSO and calling them sick fucks (once again, “sick fuck” is about an apt a term as I can find for them) and being an advocate of Judeo-Christian civilization. The two are not mutually incompatible. One of the basic tenets of this heritage is that you have a free will. I don’t claim to be some televangelist or preacher or Bible-thumper or church-goer. It is you who have characterized me as such, and you who are trying to find some way to prove me a hypocrite. A site that has erotic stories is just that, a site with erotic stories, some written by me, some written by other players. It is not the game of TSO which has kids in it. Your BDSM houses, on the other hand, are in a game with kids. And you publish your URLs in this game, and bring kids to your site, where they can read horrifying things like the art of making human beings into ponies and totally depersonalizing them. My stories are parodies of porn, and some of them are quite poignant. Some of the stories people have published on that site are actually quite interesting stories about people not just about sex. I don’t think they need to have any redeeming qualities, but I think it’s worth pointing out. We’ve been over this ground before, hmm? It’s very hard for you to jump over that argument: you are a menace in a game with kids and non-consenting adults. I’m merely somebody who swears at griefers and has a little porno page. There’s a world of difference, you freaks.

    Only a small group of people who happen to get a link to this site from a small club of album-makers have gone to my story site — the hit counter probably registers in the middle 3 digits. Meanwhile, you are in a game where thousands of people see you daily. I wonder how you can live with that.

    The Bible’s teaching about motes and logs doesn’t mean you get a pass to commit violence and slavery, and then tell anybody who questions it that they should get rid of their porn or any of their pecadilloes, and that they are illegitimate, and you are legitimate. There is no way that it can be construed. These are matters of scale. And only God can judge, not you. But I’m sure He’ll have something to say about people who have perverted his Good Book in such a heinous way.

    If you wish to preach against pornography, do so, but please have the decency to do so from a perspective that doesn’t have as its base the violent, sexually explicit, and slave-owning ideology of BDSM.

    I don’t think that naive players are brought into BDSM with a gun at their head — it is hard to use force in a game where you can delete or log off as we’ve already discussion many times. But I do think there is a subtle and not-so-subtle form of brain-washing that goes on, a bombardment, a recruitment that uses all kinds of games of language and ideology to achieve its ends. One of the main things it does is to pretend what it is not. It’s big on claims that there is “no foul language and no pornography” on its site (although videos of luridly grinning scantily clad dommes are a few clicks away ready to give you painful pleasures). It’s big on claims that it is about gentility and politeness (where the mind games and mind control and humiliation and demaning of humans is kept far off camera). Shame on you!

    It’s curious that you keep inquiring haughtily, as if you’ve caught me at some secret slip, whether I “dislike” the lifestyle of BDSM. Oh, but I do. I heartily dislike it. There’s no secret about that. I vote against it with both hands. It’s my right. Indeed, it’s my duty. It is a loathsome lifestyle. It is wrong. It is perverse. What I used to think about it before TSO was that it was merely something to tolerate, because it did not invade the larger public space, and made no pretentions to convert youth, or non-consenting adults, and did not claim that it was a viable, mainstream, approved lifestyle that should spread through the land. Now I’m finding in TSO that it has every intention of invading every space and pretending what it is not in order to get a foothold. I find that pretty pernicious and I’ve been happy to fight back tooth and nail.

    It’s hard to justify much more time spent on this debate. You are repeating yourself, and merely cutting and pasting posts from other threads and playing “gotcha” in such a tired and pathetic way that it would invoke pity if it did not invoke revulsion. You are perverts. Yes, perverters of the truth and the right. It’s OK to say that. You may be challenged. It’s all right in our free society to do that. We have freedom of religion and belief, or freedom of non-belief in our society. That means you can challenge beliefs and religions as well. No one is challenging your right to form a group and exist and do your thing. No one has asked that the attorney general shut you down and throw you in jail (although I’ll bet some local police might find some of the Gorean non-consent stuff grounds for arrest or fines). What I am doing is challenging you because a) I don’t think you have a right to exist in a game with children and non-consenting adults and b) I think you should be debated in an open society, because you aspire to the mainstream, and if it were up to you, you would change what we have to a closed society. Therefore you are an enemy of freedom – first and foremost the freedom of your “consenting” subs — and the fabric of society at large and deserve a fight.
37. 

    toy
    

    Feb 17th, 2004
    

    once again, just as a child, dyer clamps his hands over his ears and screams LALALA in the belief since he refuses to listen, then it cant be possible…

    such a pity, since that way one misses much beauty in the world.

    but then dyer discounts anything toy says simply because toy is a slave and hence isnt good enough in dyers mind to speak to. a further pity and it does put lies to what he speaks, he puts himself above toy.. not worth talking to…. toy is freer than you can ever hope to be dyer and this slave pities you

    falara kajira toy
38. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 17th, 2004
    

    Dyerbrook wrote at February 16, 2004 08:54 PM:

    There is no way in hell(actually only in Hell) that “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a carte blanche, a blank check, a permission, to engage in sadism and masochism or domination or submission. That’s absurd.

    Take it up with those many Christians, over many centuries, who flagellated themselves, wore sackcloth or hair shirts, and otherwise “mortified the flesh” as part of their “lifestyle cult”. Cite to them, with chapter and verse, the passages that declare masochism a sin.

    That is not what Jesus and His disciples taught, and your silly effort to mischaracterize them in this way would be evil, if it weren’t just pathetic (but then, so many forms of evil are banal).

    That’s consistent with your refusing to address toy because she has chosen, voluntarily, to serve another. Here you make clear that it is not only your personal preference to refuse any subservient rôle, but in your view Christianity itself forbids such a “submission”.

    Your only problem is that Jesus disagreed with you:

    “Jesus … riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. … So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”     [excerpted from] John 13:1-17

    Whereas your version of Christianity involves “serving not some other human”; evidently you think that Jesus guy got Christianity all wrong.

    Meanwhile, the ideology of wicca, and of BDSM, and I dare say paganism, is about establishing power over other human beings.

    Really? Care to cite chapter and verse on that?

    In any of the texts of [capital-W] Wicca, for instance?

    Or in whatever text you think all pagans hold in common? (And what text is that?)

    As for BDSM, surely it can’t have escaped your attention that — due to the emphasis on “safe, sane, and consensual” — for anyone to take on a “dominant” r7ocirc;le, someone else has to voluntarily take a “submissive” rôle?

    How much actual power exists in a relationship where either party can choose to withdraw, can choose not to enter in the first place, by simply not consenting?

    This is rôle-play, even in real life, not the literal “slavery” (or “involuntary servitude”) quite properly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

    Your silly notice that there isn’t some justifiable usage of “tax-deductible” just doesn’t hold water.

    So now you resort to misstating what I said, the old straw-man strategem.

    For the record, I never claimed there “there isn’t some justifiable usage of ‘tax-deductible’”. Quite the contrary. The term refers, justifiably, to a donation (contribution) which one may deduct from one’s taxes.

    The problem is that you misapply the term “tax-deductible” to an organization. But you cannot deduct the entire organization from your taxes, only (at most) the contribution you gave it.

    Thus the contribution is “tax-deductible”, but the organization is not.

    This term is used in the field, and is perfectly acceptible.

    Yes, it is, and it has a clear meaning: “deductible from taxes”.

    Contributions may be deductible from your taxes, in which case those contributions are “tax-deductible”.

    Organizations are not deductible from your taxes, thus organizations are not “tax-deductible”.

    Organizations may be exempt from taxes, in which case they are “tax-exempt“.

    People sometimes confuse these two terms. You did, and you quote others who did. The IRS does not. I’ve cited several examples of the correct usage from the official IRS(.gov) website’s pages. Apparently you prefer to believe the IRS got it wrong. So be it. You’re free to cling to even the most blatant error, in the face of all evidence. But everyone else now has fair warning that you are doing so.

    I cited two mainstream pages, including one with many hundreds of thousands of hits or more per day in this field, as showing how it is commonly used, by people really working in this field…

    Which should be fair warning to others about relying on those sites for accurate advice about tax laws.

    … and not just silly wicca or BDSM practitioners trying to get their jollies…

    Since I’ve clearly stated above that I’m a Humanist, not a Wiccan, and that I’m an outsider in relation to the BDSM scene, I wonder why you bring them into this. Or is this another of your attempts at ad hominem argument, trying to discredit what I say as coming from both of the groups you denounce here, even though I belong to neither of them?

    … by tripping up people on their puny-minded orthodox reading of some IRS regulation.

    This is hilarious: “puny-minded orthodox reading of some IRS regulation” — translation — correct citation of a tax term’s proper usage, from the official site of the government agency that actually administers, explains, and executes tax rules.

    If any site on the web can be trusted to use these tax terms properly, it’s irs.gov — the site I keep referring you to.

    You don’t cite any page from the IRS using these terms the way you do, because you can’t. You cite unofficial websites instead, because your erroneous usage can only be found on unofficial sites.

    Once again, for the record, getting this 501-c-3 status doesn’t mean you have a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that you are not a cult and you are a church.

    As if the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval were ever applied to churches. But you were the one who brought up “tax-deductible [sic] recognized religion” as a status that you claimed Wicca lacks. Now that your claim’s been proven false, you’re falling all over yourself backtracking, and claiming that “tax-deductible” [sic] status is utterly irrelevant. Well, fine, then you shouldn’t have brought it up, should you? But you did, and you were wrong, so why not just admit it, instead of whining about the fact that you were proven wrong?

    Snipping the remainder of your snivelling gripes.
39. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 17th, 2004
    

    Typo correction: “r7ocirc;le” -> “rôle”.
40. 

    Raven
    

    Feb 17th, 2004
    

    Corrected Bible citation link: John 13:1-17
41. 

    Torin
    

    Jul 29th, 2004
    

    Interesting thread I seem to have found while doing a simple search for Gorean related IRC’s. I happen to be a praticing Wiccan, have spent time in a Druid Grove in Calif. am Gorean and enjoy BDSM persuits. And I have come away from this whole thing with one thought. “Do as thou wilt, Shall be the whole of the law.” Our ablity as human “thinking” creatures :I enquote thinking because it is remarkably clear that there are those that DO NOT do this.: sets us apart from the lower animals that share our planet, it is what gives us our ablity to CHOSE our own paths and AVOID the paths that do not fit us. For the person who is so agenst the FREE will of people :you know who you are, so I wont name names:): YOU need to find another path my friend for this one leads to your ruin. To those that are “of like mind” and you also know who you are, Blessed Be and Be Well.

    Torin D. Jasoon

Leave a Reply