93!
I thought it best to open up a new thread (since the "Cypher Thread" is now all over the place) to handle RT Cole's new book "The Race to conquer eLGMOR", which promises to solve the riddle of the Book of the Law in Chapter II:76 and the mystery of the "grid page" in Chapter III:47. I received my copy today and want to say one thing first: the changes Mr. Cole made to the book compared to a preview copy floating around for some weeks are all for the better. I thought about how to present my review and decided it would be best to give it in various installments. So, let's begin...
93!
Where to begin? At the end: According to the RTC book, the solution to the II:76 riddle translates to:
418 meets 418, on 24 March 1906
A BeGLAMOR? RSVP TO L
So, without getting into detail, when I first read this, I thought "Good gosh, that's it? That's the solution when it is found, will be unquestionable. It will be marked by the most sublime simplicity, and carry immediate conviction?"
First thought: NO WAY!
Beglamor? The American spelling of Beglamour? Aleister Crowley would use this word? Never!
24 March 1906? This would be the date Crowley wanted to conceal? When he was in Hong Kong? He wanted us to believe he met Egyptian Masters in Hong Kong and then tried to conceal it? Or maybe on his way from Hanoi to Hong Kong?
Well, I thought I could end my review here, because this is one of the most ridiculous solutions to the riddle I ever read. It is, however, spun into a really convinving agenda Mr. Cole tries to sell for some years now, so maybe there is more to it, and I will tomorrow speak more about my thoughts on that and about other evidences...
Love=Law
Lutz
Thanx for the first installment of your review, Lutz.
And i am thrilled to share some exciting news: Lulu has printed my copy and created a shipping label. It is coming from Agawam, Mass., about 5 hours away, so should arrive soon after they ship.
I will then have to read the thing a couple times, but that can't take long with only 68 pp. So my review will be coming soon.
@the_real_simon_iff - Grinding my solution against Crowley's fabrication is equally useful as using the shrapnel to prop-up said-mentioned fabrication, in preference to a simple truth. Just relax and let the Horus Current do all the work.
@ignant666 - Exciting isn't it! I hear he'll be wearing his Sunday-Best black cap to proclaim the worst. 😭
I received my copy today and want to say one thing first: the changes Mr. Cole made to the book compared to a preview copy floating around for some weeks are all for the better.
I'm glad to read that all of the changes made are "for the better" - but would you say that the new & improved changes made are so significant that the "revised" version is practically a different beastie, Lutz, and for the benefit of those who are not likely to have sight of either for the present time being are you also intending to be highlighting what would be the (main) differences between the two?
Norma N Joy Conquest
Am waiting on my Lulu copy also.
and am curious as to what changes.
@the_real_simon_iff - Grinding my solution against Crowley's fabrication is equally useful as using the shrapnel to prop-up said-mentioned fabrication, in preference to a simple truth.
@therealrtc What do you mean by this? That he wasn't in Hong Kong at this date? I mean he met people, he wrote letters from there etc. While there seems to be no indication where he was on March 24, it is totaly unconceivable that he went to Egypt for a day. So why would he include this date in specific connection with Cairo in the riddle? Makes no sense to me.
Love=Law
Lutz
would you say that the new & improved changes made are so significant that the "revised" version is practically a different beastie?
@jamiejbarter Hm, it seems I have to backpedal here a bit. Concentrating on II:76 I was under the impression that the final book leads us to his solution much "smoother", but checking it page by page there is practically no difference. It probably just helped to read it again. Sorry. It seems the changes are then in III:47 part, which isn't my top priority at the moment since I have so many issues with the first half. I will let you know.
Love=Law
Lutz
Another question (without further spoilers, because everybody here knows the pic): can you explain why the map you use in your book and on the cover is credited like this in your book: "Reproduced over is a double-page map of Cairo, at 1/50,000 scale, as charted by Alexander Nicohosoff (Civil Engineer) and printed in 1908", when the internet is full of this map (you can buy it on AbeBooks) and is always credited "after 1933"? Probably Cairo hadn't changed so much during this years, but when you were following Paul's and Faustian's footprints it was important to have a map of 1904. While this might be unnecessary, your given credit is nonetheless completely false and maybe misleading? And if I seem picky about dates, well, who isn't here?
Love=Law
Lutz
@the_real_simon_iff - "What do you mean by this?" - I mean you noting that Crowley wasn't in Cairo on that particular date. 'That' is grinding my solution! Let's recap - Crowley fabricated a story which relied on him being in Cairo at a particular date, several years later. Then HIS PLAN CHANGED and the meeting codified in the cipher became redundant, and worse, toxic to his revised scheme. Similar with the map. I found a map that states "Printed ion 1908," Does the map's actual date make the slightest difference with reference to my solution? It most certainly does not. So why make a mountain out of dung-heap? I find your resolute determination to raise the most pedantic and contrived objections quite fascinating. ☹️ Just relax and let the Horus Current do all the work!
The problem is, RTC, that, from the reviews so far, the Horus Current has to do all the work, because your book doesn't seem to do its part.
Speaking of delivery, when will Lulu ship my already-printed book, so i can find out for myself?
Just relax and let the Horus Current do all the work!
Shouldn't you be able to use the Horus Toy to bring about the enlightenment of Lutz? After all, apparently it empowers a slip of a girl to lift up a car, so that should be small beer.
@ignant666 - You'll love it! What Lutz is trying (not) to say is this - If you discount Crowley's ludicrous 'angel flapped in on my honeymoon with a Chosen One T-Shirt' myth, approach the matter with an open mind and join the historical dots (i.e. 'go with the Cole Flow') then the solution works perfectly, and dovetails seamlessly with the alternate timeline presented in Bogus. Conversely, if you pedantically grind the solution against Crowley's fabrication, it doesn't - As Thelema fails to deliver any of the wonders touted by Crowley.... If only Crowley's words were analysed with the same microscopic scrutiny as those daring to deviate from the official cart-wheel rut... 😫
The sheer nonsense of believing that AC would use some future date as a Cairo meeting point when he had been there 3 times is hopefully obvious. But okay, let people be nonsensical sometimes. But since you're also alluding to March 24 in his 1904 diary when he met "the beast" again. Does that mean he had his 1906 diary already written, found out that he wasn't in Cairo in 1906 and redated it to 1904? Or is it your opinion that he somehow obtained L in Cairo 1904 and decided to "officially" receive it 2 years later as proven by the riddle? This is very confusing, Richard.
Okay, so you are the only one who found this map dated 1908, shit happens. And as I said, the map probably hasn't changed so much. Dating things can be weird (I'll cover the watermark later).
It will get a lot more pedantic, I promise.
Love=Law
Lutz
@the_real_simon_iff - "Does that mean he had his 1906 diary already written, found out that he wasn't in Cairo in 1906 and redated it to 1904?" - There are enough Crowley re-dates, questionable dates and edited dates amidst alleged Cairo material to fill a sack - Why do you choose to ignore these? Why does your enquiring mind not wish to resole these issues, in preference to defensively pecking at those who do?
My alternate timeline, and conjoined solution, is exceedingly simple. That you seem intent on morphing a straight road into railway station is... frustrating, and ultimately futile.
@therealrtc But you are changing the timeline constantly. First it was written way late in 1906. Now it was written way before March 1906, because else it makes no sense that he didn't manage to be in Cairo in 1906, new plans or not. Now you mention the 1904 March meeting with "the beast". I think you are convinced your "solution" is perfectly supplementing your Liber Bogus theories, but it feels like you stretched things too far so that ALL must fit Bogus. It doesn't and I hope to show that your solution can't be true at all. I don't want to frustrate you on purpose, but I cannot only take your word for it when it comes to sinking Crowley's boat. Like when you say that your "solution adheres, precisely (!) to all criteria specified by lashtal with reference to material obtained from faustian: '[...] All it needs is a scan of the origianl manuscript of Liber Legis, a photograph of the stele and a 1904 map of Cairo.'" and then you use a mid 1930's map. There was no need to mention those "criteria", and in the end it is unimportant, yet you did mention them and didn't stick to them, though you said so. And I am afraid there are more of those instances where you just state a "fact" elegantly or funnily and then go on, hoping that nobody will see that those "facts" are untrue or twisted. My apologies in advance for frustrating you with this.
Love=Law
Lutz
My alternate timeline, and conjoined solution, is exceedingly simple. That you seem intent on morphing a straight road into railway station is... frustrating, and ultimately futile.
You allege that Crowley fabricated the Cairo Working; you spin a web of speculation out of the lacunae and inconsistencies, but fail utterly to prove your case. Where for instance is the Pirie watermark that is supposed to prove that the paper on which The Book of the Law was written cannot have been available in 1904? Where is the statement by Rose Crowley that she and her husband made it all up?
It's all very well brow-beating those of us who are not convinced of your case, but the failure is yours because you fail to back up your assertions with evidence.
"And I am afraid there are more of those instances where you just state a "fact" elegantly or funnily and then go on, hoping that nobody will see that those "facts" are untrue or twisted."
This comes from someone (Lutz) who gave you a fair hearing over the last few months on LAShTAL, looked into the matter, and finds your case unconvincing. And yet, instead of listening, you get all shirty with Lutz. All he is pointing out is that you have failed to prove your case. You may be right, but you haven't proved it. That is what Lutz is saying; a pity you're incapable of listening.
As Thelema fails to deliver any of the wonders touted by Crowley....
Perhaps I am misinterpreting your words, but if your practise of Thelema fails to produce any wonders at all, you are doing it wrong. Or not doing 'it' at all. Or not not-doing.
Either way something is broken in your chain.
I find your resolute determination to raise the most pedantic and contrived objections quite fascinating.
Further Fascism Fascination (F.'.F.'.) will surely be coming from Ignantland.
As Thelema fails to deliver any of the wonders touted by Crowley....
I believe this is correct. Crowley's Thelema, as a philosophy, cannot but have helped many individual aspirants, but any LVXs (Law In Extension) directed toward control of the Establishment, in any form, seems to fall short. Or somebody ends up in jail ... or dead.
I propose a traditional Trimurti, wherein we can separate the three Crowleys. I submit that this following classification is true, for me (self-verified) and some other, gullible, persons might agree ...
MASK #1 - The Demon Crowley. This persona includes Freudian anal-stage fixations, hating the Baby Jesus and his grown-up image, patriarchal lineage ("women should be brought around to the back door ... like milk.").
MASK #2 - Frater Perdurabo. This aspirant includes Freudian anal-stage fixations, hating the Baby Jesus and his grown-up image, patriarchal lineage (The Path is described in bible-speak a lot). Libers are issued. The Libers are no bull.
This Mask [^] starts around 1898 and extends to the arising and flourishing of VVVVV, the Original 10 volumes of The Equinox. It is all summarized in The Book of Lies.
This period includes The Cairo Working,
which is under discussion.
.There is the beginning of a watershed
involving Reuss and The Book of Lies,
wherein Perdurabo shifted into Baphomet,
turning his attention from esoteric to exoteric.
OTO, Sex-Magic, and Thelema cominded
under the guidance an birth of ....
MASK #3 - The Master Therion. This Magus (presumably) includes Freudian anal-stage fixations, hating the Baby Jesus and his grown-up image - assuming the role of Great Beast, patriarchal lineage ("women cannot be a Magus because they do not possess the required physical equipment.").
This Mask [^] evolves out the back end of The Book of Lies, which ends at #91 ... only two more to go. Here is where Thelema is explained. This is when The Tao Teh King and the Yi King were written in Thelemic dialect.
his period includes extensive promotion of The Cairo Working,
with unwavering attestation to its truth
which is under discussion
as being a fabrication.
So my point is: The early Libers work and have had a profound effect on many people, but not directly on society (except as inserted by daring individuals).
Thelema, a philosophy, in itself as an exoteric by-word or recognized temporal authority, seems to be lacking.
Either way something is broken in your chain.
So, there's not much point in trying to yank it then?
N Joy
Thelema, a philosophy, in itself as an exoteric by-word or recognized temporal authority, seems to be lacking.
Perhaps lacks as an authority yes (especially in temporal matters), but not as a practise using its cosmology 🙂
it's LIBRI, not LIBERS.
I skipped Latin in any and all schools or colleges. . Actually, it skipped me because it wasn't offered. I have a particular disregard for ancient ferrenghi lingos, and I tend to anglicize funny words like Liber (One Liber, Two Libers, Three Libri?). There is no Latin God where I am.
Anyway, I suppose you are correct and promise to try and remember the Liber/Libers/Libri sorting method.
--------------------
In relation to my Three Grades of AC, posted just a tiny bit uphill from here, there are some loose ends to re-ravel, or snip off.
MASK #! - The Demon Crowley
MASK #2 - Frater Perdurabo
MASK #3 - The Master Therion
Now, in terms of the present discussion, strangely silent this morning of the first "Holy Day," obviously fabricated, which seems to revolve around the fact that The Magichole Hair, RTC, real, has presented a Thesis, in respect to his 7=4 examination, or his witch-burning ceremony, which is unsupported by evidence, proof, or the sworn testimony of seven dead witnesses.
Summary: RTC offers no proof for his supposition.
RTC also suggests that AC consciously fabricated (fakired) parts of The Cairo Working and other Tales from surrounding countries and annums [anglicized Latin for "years"].
I am not certain which items have been faked or fiddled, as I have not read the book yet. I am relying on reviewers candid observations.
All members of the Knights Templar, from any lineage, even if you only read a Templar book r saw Heaven's Gate, please stand by for active duty escorting Frater RTC to the Throne Room or the Dungeon, whichever may come first.
Fedex, in their infinite wisdom, has shipped my book 90 miles northeast (whereas i live about 90 miles in the opposite direction from the origin point), and then from there to about 180 miles to the southwest of me. It is now resting there, fatigued from its long journeys.
It is said that it will be delivered Friday, on the Third Day Of The Fake Faking.
I love when that happens. It's because of their 'regional hubs.' I don't understand it but they always tell me it's quicker/more organised that way ... ha.
Like when I ordered a DVD recently from Colorado Springs, about 3 hours south of me max, and they shipped it to Illinois and then back to Colorado. lol
@ignant666 That's a shame, I had hoped you can chime in as soon as possible. So to not have this discussion alone with Richard (not that anybody thinks this is a personal thing) I thought I'll just leave some food for further thought on a matter we have already discussed or at least mentioned: the buttons!
From the book: "Crowley's inclusion of the curious (sic!) 'inverted brackets' above and below the numerals '24' and '89' seemed indicative to me that he intended to convey a meaning other than purely numeric. The 'frames' suggested 'rotation.'"
Are those brackets "curious"?
For your consideration here are some examples what Crowley did when he wanted to make sure that letters belong together and should not be adressed seperately (and please admire his sensationally good eyesight in the fifth and seventh example in the pic with the words "leaf" and "Shall", this is really concentrated proofreading):
That's by the way is in my opinion a reason to decline solutions that use "4638" as a 4-digit number.
Love=Law
Lutz
Yes, these are simply standard proofreader's marks, and mean "[space]24[space]89[space]", and not, for example, "2489". But @therealrtc is not familiar with standard proofreader's marks, or very familiar with proofreading, as those who have read his previous books know.
If they suggest "rotation", it would, i would have thought, be clockwise rotation in the direction the marks were clearly made from the pen-strokes.
But i understand that RTC, having decided these proofreaders marks in the cipher mean we "rotate" on the map when solving the grid-page, opts to rotate counterclockwise, in the opposite direction to which the alleged "rotate" marks are made in the AL ms.
I am sure there is a good explanation for why this is so, and look forward to finding this out soon after my book finishes resting in Breinigsville, Penn., and begins moving towards me again.
But i understand that RTC, having decided these proofreaders marks in the cipher mean we "rotate" on the map when solving the grid-page, opts to rotate counterclockwise, in the opposite direction to which the alleged "rotate" marks are made in the AL ms.
@ignant666 Well, when you look at the cover of the book, you could say he DID rotate clockwise, because he flipped (mirrored) the whole "line drawn and the circle squared" anyway, for reasons that are so outlandish you soon can read yourself.
Love=Law
Lutz
This book/argument just has to make more sense than it sounds like when hearing bits and pieces of it.
Yours,
Frustrated At The SLOW-ASS PACE OF FED-EX In Dachers County
@michael-staley - “All he is pointing out is that you have failed to prove your case. You may be right, but you haven't proved it.”
- Really! I read the words “Good gosh, that's it?... most ridiculous... totaly unconceivable... sheer nonsense...” with a promise to get “a lot more pedantic.” Yet, this literary abuse is supported by a completely incidental map date and the fact of Crowley being in Hong Kong on a certain date – Well, D’Oh!
I deduced a coherent and relevant solution, which generates the same ‘message’ in numeric, pictorial, linguistic and geographic terms. My solution also adheres exactly to the shenanigans outlined in Bogus... Seriously, what does it take? Not so long ago, Lutz took considerable pains to provide materials supportive of the ‘F/K’ change (Which I, personally, feel was a supreme ‘shot yourself in the foot with a bazooka’ moment for the changer). Yet, and curiously, when faced with this Crowlean elephant in the room, there is no will, or even curiosity to get to the bottom of a narration most now feel is extremely questionable.
Ahhh, here’s the next dollop, and it’s ‘funny brackets’ time
@the_real_simon_iff – Very considerate of Aiwass to convey the notion of ‘togetherness’ onto two pairs of numbers that nobody is in any danger of reading as anything other than ‘24 89.’ So, if Aiwass or Crowley was so focused on technical matters, PLEASE give me another comparable instance from the Legis manuscript in which this type of instruction is utilised. Go on, just one... 🤣
Once again, my interpretation generates a definite, rational and relevant solution. Your defensive mockery tells us only that ‘24 89’ is absolutely, definitely ’24 89.’
@christibrany – “if your practise of Thelema fails to produce any wonders at all, you are doing it wrong” - Erm, remember what Crowley stated? “I, Aleister Crowley, declare upon my honour as a gentleman that I hold this revelation a million times more important than the discovery of the Wheel, or even of the Laws of Physics or Mathematics.” So where are the results? Is Thelema the New World Religion? Active members number? Interest in Crowley at a thirty-year low... Conversely, I have the alternate timeline, riddle solution, a practicable understanding of the New Aeon and the Horus Toy™. Take your pick...
@ignant666 – “68 pp...” 88, surely? Incidentally, the closer anything comes to revealing a more accurate historical timeline for Crowley's fiction, the more determined some will become in attempting to diminish the material. Read it and make your own mind up.
Dear Ann Landers,
I am writing to you because apparently interest in Aleister Crowley is at a 30 year low, and Thelema hasn't got near enough followers.
Do you have any suggestions on how to fix that?
My husband seems to think I am too nosy, but I really want to do some good in the world.
Please share anything you can think of,
Capricious in Colorado
Yes, i am surely "determined [...] in attempting to diminish" your book, by saying your book contains the number of pages Lulu says it does:
Product Details
Copyright Standard Copyright License
Edition First
Publisher New Aeon
Published November 28, 2019
Language English
Pages 68
Binding Perfect-bound Paperback
Interior Ink Black & white
Weight 0.32 lbs.
Dimensions (inches) 6.14 wide x 9.21 tall
Product ID 24337313
I will be happy to find this is wrong, and that you sneaked another 20 pp. past Lulu, if my book ever leaves Breinigsville, Penn., no doubt a delightful place, i am sure.
this is really concentrated proofreading
4 = 12
🤪
@christibrany - "any suggestions" - Yes. Accept that the Cairo mythology is Crowley's best attempt to describe an experience utterly beyond his capacity to assimilate. Focus on the 'it's happening now, in yer face, real world' version of the New Aeon and forget a distorted, egocentric divination from someone who hadn't a hope in Hell of 'getting it' (because he hadn't seen the stuff we take for granted today).
Finally - Get yer Horus Toy™ out and stroke it at every possible moment! 🤗
@ignant666 - The Lulu info is incorrect. The last text page is numbered '86.'
PLEASE give me another comparable instance from the Legis manuscript in which this type of instruction is utilised. Go on, just one... 🤣
@therealrtc I am not here to defend AC's or Aiwass' position, you are here to defend your position. Since there is no other instance where anyone could get the idea to seperate or conjoin letters, these are the only instances of proofreader's marks, but of course you also have the "insert stele translation" mark. As I clearly stated, I posted examples of those "curious" brackets for consideration.
Love=Law
Lutz
I wonder if it is possible that the Aiwass GPS™ was an early or experimental version of the Horus Toy™?
The Lulu info is incorrect. The last text page is numbered '86.'
Maybe you should correct the Lulu information then, rather than having internet fits at people who quote it?
Also, if there are 88 pp., why is the last page numbered 86?
So many mysteries, and the answers resting all day in Pennsylvania.
Yet, and curiously, when faced with this Crowlean elephant in the room, there is no will, or even curiosity to get to the bottom of a narration most now feel is extremely questionable.
@therealrtc Again, it is not me who has to defend anything, it is you. On these very pages, I made dozens of posts (if not more) pertaining to the oddities of the Cairo story, so please don't try to put me in the blind follower corner. I even published a VERY limited thingie which is very much about that. Everyone knows there is something fishy about the Cairo story. You make some good points in the book (and even in Liber Bogus) but your eagerness to prove "your alternative timeline" always makes you go for proofs that don't exist. That's sad, be it the watermark, Rose's diary or this riddle "solution". I will deliver the final and deadly evidence that your solution is nothing but a joke on, let's say April 20. No, that's Hitler's birthday. Make that April 23. Until then I will only be VERY pedantic about those tiny details. The brackets. The rotation. The flipping. The double rotation. The gematria. Nd a lot more. It's all just pathetic.
As brothers ye fight!
Love=Law
Lutz
@jamiejbarter I nearly forgot about it. The new material is only about what happened on Lashtal.com at the time between the proof copies were circulating (or being purchased by me on ebay) and the final publishing date, so it it adds nothing but an afterthought to the book.
Love=Law
Lutz
and forget a distorted, egocentric divination from someone who hadn't a hope in Hell of 'getting it'
Pot, kettle, black. I don't think I've ever encountered such an egotistical, strutting, sneering person on this forum as you. And here you are, throwing a hissy fit because some express reservations about your latest publication.
@the_real_simon_iff – “I am not here to defend AC's or Aiwass' position, you are here to defend your position. Since there is no other instance where anyone could get the idea to seperate letters, these are the only instances of proofreader's marks, but of course you also have the "insert stele translation" mark. As I clearly stated, I posted examples of those "curious" brackets for consideration.”
By ‘looking the other way’ and adopting an outright dismissive tone, you are doing precisely that! As we are both aware, the ‘funny brackets,’ if intended as typesetting instructions, are the sole instance of that style of technical instruction. Do you not wonder why Crowley apportioned unique attention on these two pairs of two digits, and nowhere else in the manuscript? Or perhaps they aren’t proofreading marks, at all, but a cryptic instruction (within a riddle) to rotate, as suggested by my Lesser Heresy.
Oh, yes, and the stele inserts. Not so much technical proofreading protocols... as a sentence, and can you please explain how Crowley forgot one of the paraphrase verses, and crudely wedged it in later (evidence of which all over the manuscript)? Also, as I recall reading on this very website, some years ago, the paraphrases relate to a chapter from the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead and not the stele. As for the text itself, has anyone ever read it and thought... Hang on a minute, how...? But, heck, everything is fine because it is just a proof-reading mark and not a jagged edge showing through Crowley’s revised fiction. Phew...
@ignant666 - Aiwass GPS™ is a by-product of the Horus Toy™? As you will soon(ishly) learn... On a theme, I did wonder if you were an unanticipated ripple from my last ride on the Horus Toy™. Seems not...
I believe Lulu's info relates to the initial ‘tester’ edition. Don’t know why this info wasn’t updated with the revision. As mentioned, the last text page (climaxing with your own supreme utterance) is numbered 86. Following that are a few shameless pages of self-promotional hyperbolic and otherwise outlandish advertising devices.
I don't think I've ever encountered such an egotistical, strutting, sneering person on this forum as you.
It is true that RTC makes his only possible competitor in this area, S.'. H.'. Fra. Dr. Los 8=3 PhD, look positively humble in comparison.
throwing a hissy fit
I think this is perhaps too kind, i would go as far as "throwing an ing-bing", or even "taking a conniption."
can you please explain how Crowley forgot one of the paraphrase verses, and crudely wedged it in later
@therealrtc Once again, I don't need anything to prove. We are talking about YOUR book. I just answered your question about the proof-reading brackets. Why don't YOU show me another instance in the book where they would be needed? I gave visual examples of those brackets and asked readers to ponder that. At the moment I am just not getting deeper into your book, because I want others to be a part of it, but it seems I am one of the first (in Germany, no less) who had the book delivered. As I said, April 23 I will destroy your solution (and please read this exactly as I write it: your solution, not your all-over theory, which is admittedely still beautifully easy and kind of logical - in a perverse way - but of course gets more insane with every other promised and not delivered "proof").
Take care, stay safe.
Love=Law
Lutz
@michael-staley - "... ever encountered such an egotistical, strutting, sneering person on this forum as you. And here you are, throwing a hissy fit because some express reservations about your latest publication."
- Wow! Words to die for, and heading directly onto the back-cover blurb of the expanded edition... Magnificent!
"Hissy fit" - I was making practicable suggestions how to rectify the chronic (and worsening) condition of Religile Dysfunction besetting interest in Crowley. The hissing noise may be sound whatever general interest remains in Crowley farting out of the rupture...
I don't think I've ever encountered such an egotistical, strutting, sneering person on this forum as you. And here you are, throwing a hissy fit because some express reservations about your latest publication.
Ditto.
Dr. Los (...) PhD, look positively humble in comparison.
Yesyesyes, and for your other points, Yesyesyes Again.
I am so damn tired of this whole thing. RTC's words are so poisonous, be he right/wrong/ whatever. He sounds like a person who torture animals, and I, being a snake, don't like that.
@therealrtc and about the fill/kill thing: I always stated that it is just a personal thing that I like the Kill thing better. The mentioning of this by you seems to try to shove me in the universally questionable McOTO corner. Which is bullshit of course, I am here on my own and alone - very alone. With the same "arguments" I could try to push you in a kind of disappointed ex-OTO PR König corner, but I don't. This is about what you have published, and nothing else!
Love=Law
Lutz
Once again, my interpretation generates a definite, rational and relevant solution. Your defensive mockery tells us only that ‘24 89’ is absolutely, definitely ’24 89.’
@therealrtc You will be surprised how not rational and not relevant your solution is, latest on April 23. And of course "24" and "89" will absolutely and definetely stay "24" and "89". All else would be nonsense.
This sucks, I hope somebody can soon join me...
Love=Law
Lutz
@serpent252 - "I am so damn tired of this whole thing"
- Yet, paradoxically, you endure. The snake doth protest to much, methinks...
@the_real_simon_iff – I disagree. Choosing not to undertake a first-hand, personal exploration of these intriguing ‘oddities’ is a symptom of avoiding a conclusion any given individual prefers not to make.
Legis is positively littered with hundreds of instances that would have benefited greatly from the lavish editorial treatment bestowed upon ’24 89.’ Alas, all these opportunities were squandered. So, rather than ask why Crowley (uniquely) highlighted this set, you palm the question away with a suggestion that the ‘funny squiggles’ are Crowley’s way of ensuring the correct duplication of four digits that nobody was in any danger of getting wrong.
“April 23 I will destroy your solution” – Hey, hey... That’s more like it! Why the delay? I genuinely savour your destroyal, which, I fully anticipate will actually support both my Lesser and Greater Heresies.
There’s nothing past-tense about my disappointment with a set who are the worst thing for Crowley... since Crowley! 🤔
"This sucks, I hope somebody can soon join me..." Welcome to my world. Ha ha ha ha ha...
This sucks, I hope somebody can soon join me...
I'd be happy to join you, but (a) I don't have the book; & (b) even if I had the book I'd not bother to read it; so (c) if there is any other way I can help you, I am here.
As in Michael Jackson's song, You are not alone
I am here with you