PDA

View Full Version : Site of knowledge or site of crap?



RavenMoonshadow
September 12th, 2005, 09:13 PM
here is one of the site I found on Direct magic and Occult knowledge what do the rest of you think site of knowledge or site of crap

http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/tomekeeper/ (http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/tomekeeper/)

Shanti
September 12th, 2005, 09:24 PM
I wouldnt call it crap. Its one persons perspective and some I agree with, some I dont....for myself of course.

For the perspective that this person has, I think they wrote it very well and are very thorough in explaining their ideals.

When it comes to things like this site...its strictly individual opinion. Some may not like it, others may find they are of like mind.

Shanti
September 12th, 2005, 09:25 PM
I cant use your poll. I cant pass judgement on on anothers beliefs being expressed without harm.

Mouse
September 13th, 2005, 05:58 AM
I'm sure some of it works for someone out there... but i'm voteing crap.
I didn't read very much though, it lost my interest fairly quickly.

Faelon_Moon_Hawk
September 20th, 2005, 11:48 PM
here is one of the site I found on Direct magic and Occult knowledge what do the rest of you think site of knowledge or site of crap

http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/tomekeeper/ (http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/tomekeeper/)

crap...i didn't read it all...in fact i only read a little of it...but their subject headings alone set of any number of alarm bells in my head that this person has no idea what they are talking about. psi mage? dnd anyone? sounds to me like any form of magickal practice. The entire page to me is just tainted with the hollywood type ideas of what magick is.

HPS_Mysta
September 23rd, 2005, 06:16 AM
hehe I thought D&D too, psi and necromancer....I just had these images from dragon magazine of a semi naked dark lady surrounded by walking skeletons and these bald headed men with waves of colour coming from the third eye area :P

Acid09
December 5th, 2005, 04:30 PM
I believe any indepth participation with this site would proove that much of what is discussed and taught is legitimate. I have been a member of their message board for more than a year now and there are people who are very intelligent and knowledgable on their subjects of interests. But like any message board it has its few nut cases.

For the scale of this site its number of members and vast well of of its library I give this site a 8/10. Its good but has a few kinks.

Philosophia
December 6th, 2005, 02:29 AM
Actually, this is a good site. Go beyond the headings and actually look at the content and you'll find that the majority of it is pretty good. PSI mages and neuromancers do exist...

Malcolm
December 6th, 2005, 11:34 AM
I voted crap. Mostly cause all the pop-ups annoyed me.

morningstar2651
December 24th, 2005, 01:27 AM
Due to the lack of cited sources & evidence, I would have to say that this is a website of opinions instead of facts.

Vincent Verthaine
December 24th, 2005, 02:46 AM
Most of what was covered was already covered by Whitewolf games "Mage the Acension".

I was kind of disappointed.
Chaos magic wasn't covered.
Neither was discordian magic,fae magic,dragon magic,child amgic,plus any other that we haven't discovered yet.

He has a right to his opinions of course.Some reference material would have been nice also.

ObsessedFae86
December 24th, 2005, 03:22 AM
I'm with Malcolm..popups..yuck!

But I voted...CRAP.

Rhisiart
December 26th, 2005, 09:03 AM
I voted "Informational Crap".

While on the surface the author gives some specific information about his classifications of the different types of Magick that to an uninformed or in-experienced person may seem to be knowledgable, most is rather detailed musings that appear on the most part to be Role-Player type classifications like those you would find in D&D or other RPG's.

As a 20+ seeker and practioner of MANY different arts, I have to say that I found many of the entries wishful flights of artistic fancy, especially in describing the 'additional' powers or abilities one who follows a certain path would gain or aquire due to the specialization. While he was pretty close to describing how many 'modern' Satanists would describe their path, I think some would argue the 'limited' sources of Magick he subscribes them. The Wizard Path describes nothing more than the Shamans traversing of the Axis Mundi more or less and I, as a Chaos Mage, use nothing of the 'Dark Ether' he describes for my practice. And what the hell was all that Fluffy Bunny Crap about White Magick? I'm sorry if appear to be knocking your path by the way, I am not, simply the authors way of lumping 'types' together the way he did.

I especially dont contain myself to a single one of these areas! I use many at any given time depending on what I'm trying to accomplish. 'Nature' followers use 'Summoning'(what is Evoking/Invoking?), Satanists use Sorcery, High Magickians(Enochian, Goetian, Thelemics) use 'Summoning' and 'Celestial' and 'Elemental' (as do 'Natures'), Chaos Magickians use em all or even stuff not listed...

And I know that these are classifications of 'types' of magick, but theyre really too comic book like for me, like I'm picking out what kind of super-hero I want to be..."I want my powers to be 'Celelstial'!" or I'm going to be some kinda super-specialist and that I will gain something extra from being so specialized...maybe an extra 4th level spell! lol sorry...couldnt help myself...

I've been looking for along time. I know what Magick is. Aleister Crowley once said:
" What is a Magical Operation? It may be defined as any event in nature which is brought to pass by Will. We must not exclude potato-growing or banking from our definition. Let us take a very simple example of a Magical Act: that of a man blowing his nose." ...What type is that? 'Summoning' maybe? Perhaps its Water Elemantal Magick!

Well, I just realized I was starting to rant so I will stop here and let someone else on...thanks for letting me blather on! Caio!

leonora
December 27th, 2005, 10:02 AM
what a load of crap!

StarSpiral
December 28th, 2005, 01:13 PM
I found it hard to read more than a page or two because of the poor site design (dark graphic background with bright text Ack! My eyes!).

I found the content interesting though since there was no referencing and I know little about Ceremonial or occult forms of magic I can't comment much on there "crap" factor. I got the impression that it is one person's opinions and definitions and I don't appreciate that they were very "this is the way it is" in their writing and didn't make clear what was their opinion, what was others' and how they reached their opinions and definitions.

Also, Canadians don't always spell "center" "centre" (from http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/tomekeeper/intro/philos.html)- they have two different meanings, the former is "middle" and the latter means a place like "the University's Student Centre". This random generalization about language disguised as fact leads me to feel that there is likely to be many more generalizations to come.

David19
August 18th, 2008, 09:51 PM
Actually, this is a good site. Go beyond the headings and actually look at the content and you'll find that the majority of it is pretty good. PSI mages and neuromancers do exist...

I'm sorry for the thread necromancy, but, I just found this thread, and I had to post, I definitely agree with you, this site is legit, and it is, IMO, a very good site on magic.

I think, if you go beyond the style of the writing, you will find a great site, full of great, IMO, info on magic:

The Library of Knowledge (http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/tomekeeper/)