BDD you yourself told the community you were brain damaged, so nicknaming you BDD seemed appropriate. The question occurs:
Is this a scam so that you can use the legal ploy of diminished responsibility?
For more than a year you have claimed we Frosts are pedophiles, basing your claim on a few lines carefully exegesized from a book published forty years ago.
You have become fond of calling police departments and others, making these same claims and trying to get us imprisoned, presumably to further your book sales efforts.
We wonder why you haven't called the police department or the Sheriff's office or perhaps the DA in Hinton WV?
Thank you for putting to rest the community-wide rumor about your mythical older daughter and about the civil suits in your area. Since that was so easy for you, we are encouraged to do the same thing and make the following statements to the community:
1. I, Gavin Frost, have never had any sexual contact with a minor of either gender.
2. I, Yvonne Frost, have never had any sexual contact with a minor of either gender.
Our lawyers have grown annoyed with us for having these contacts with you, BDD. Thus this is the last time we will respond on the net to you. BYE. GY
65 comments:
You wrote:
1. I, Gavin Frost, have never had any sexual contact with a minor of either gender.
2. I, Yvonne Frost, have never had any sexual contact with a minor of either gender.
Now how about demonstrating some real ethical and moral responsibility and fortitude by reaching beyond your own ideology and begin truly considering your overall Wiccan and Pagan legacy of which will remain well beyond your individual passing into the Summerland's.
I respectfully make the following suggestion as this is important and intended only for Gavin and Yvonne Frost.
1. I, Gavin Frost, do not endorse nor any longer promote the suggestion or concept of sexually manipulating children under any circumstances but instead would promote the suggestion that all children be cherished and protected as our greatest asset for the future of our faith and all life here on Mother Gaia.
2. I, Yvonne Frost, do not endorse nor any longer promote the suggestion or concept of sexually manipulating children under any circumstances but instead would promote the suggestion that all children be cherished and protected as our greatest asset for the future of our faith and all life here on Mother Gaia.
I understand your general strategy of defense relies upon your insistence of never having personally engaged in such activities as suggested by your early publication.
But there does exist examples of such people as Charles Manson, now long incarcerated, because of the influence he exerted upon his followers to commit murder.
There are also court cases involving drug dealers which were busted on possession and distribution who had attempted leniency within the courts based on their never having consumed any illegal substances themselves.
Your closing statement against "BDD" could easily be interpreted to mean that though you claim no impropriety your continued silence on the potential ramification of influence stemming from your writings explaining in exact detail how to prepare an adolescent child for sexual ritual conduct may be deemed unethical and immoral behavior which may tarnish the validity and sanctity of the Wiccan faith.
Speaking of vampires, I have a good idea for AJ Drew. I don't know why I didn't think about it before.
Since he refuses to take my friendly advice to drop all this nonsense and return to writing books, I think I have another idea that would be even more up his alley.
He should consider running for Vice-President of the United States of America, as the running mate of current Presidential candidate Jonathon Sharkey, on "The Vampyres, WItches, and Pagans Party"
If he does this, maybe people will finally start to take him as seriously as they do Jonathon Sharkey.
So, . . . would someone please contact me? applcorp@gmail.com Been there, . . . I'm good with talking to whomever wants to talk.
"BDD you yourself told the community you were brain damaged, so nicknaming you BDD seemed appropriate."
So, if someone had mentioned that they had breast cancer you would find it appropriate to then call her BCC (Breast Cancer Chick), or if someone mentioned that their child was mentally retarded would you then refer to them as RBM (Retarded Baby's Mom)? You people are truly sick. I would like to suggest by your own logic that you will hereby be referred to as :
Gavin: EPD (Enlarged Prostate Dude)
Yvonne: FPBC (Female Pattern Baldness Chick)
Yours truely,
MHFC (Menopausal Hot Flash Chick)
I dont know about A.J. calling you pedphiles..I do know he stated You wrote an instructional, advocating the sexaul abuse of children as a form of ritual back in the 70's and republished it again with a half-assed sorry disclaimer in 2000. I'm pretty sure it was not a work of fiction, otherwise we would not be having this debate..But it was wrote a instructional on how to practice the oldest religeon using those exact words..Then You resorted to making up rumors which had no basis on Mr Drew and his family..And now You resort to name calling. I, for 1, am all for freedom of speech..But I have to wonder what is going on in your minds to move you to instuct people to take the virginity of a child..as a form of ritual, and to publish it as an "Instructional". You may have the rest of your followers enchanted by your "words of wisdom" (I seriously wonder about their mental state too.) But others are begining see it for what it's worth..and that is what counts..Your own written words have discredited you. Your actions are another story, allbeit not a good one..
Archaeus-
I think its a little late for a retraction..it would be nice..but it would be like the shutting barn door after the horse is gone...The words are written, the damage is done, whether or not a child was hurt in the process.
Exerpts from the so-called good witches bible
http://www.freewebs.com/controversialstudy/WB/ChapterIV.htm
Hi!
I think you will find the following much better as to true evidence as to what is what is being talked about concerning the GWB. Typed in text can be altered. Images cannot. You will need to cut and paste the following links but it does come up. Also a few of those not really wanting to believe this was in the GWB 2000 has had to back down since these are images.
http://www.freewebs.com/
percival342/pg65.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/
percival342/pg66.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/
percival342/warning.jpg
BTW I went to a REAL Pagan Pride Day Event this weekend. It was fantastic and I was able to spread the word on GWB to over 2000 people.
There was also a Triad group that invited me to join their web site and post about this.
I will state (And this may shock a few people and may also cause some to not like me oh well.) I do not have a problem with the Frosts personally. I do however have a problem with the GWB and with the Frosts not answering questions of those who truly would like honest answers. Not addressing the issue is as good as condoning what was written 35 years (NOT 40 years) ago.
Not addressing the questions as to why give the documentation thee was to try and justify chapter 4 is as good as saying "we can do what we want and use whatever we have to, to make us look better.
As a researcher and a writer I find this detrimental to the researching community and those who are trying so hard to make all Pagan religions what they should be and not something that is to be used by others.
What some have not thought about when they published and wrote GWB was how this chapter of breaking the hymen of prepubescent girls and boys would look, and be used, not only to other pagans, but to the world at large.
Was any real thought given as to how this one chapter could be used to make the pagan religions look bad? I think not and it seems to have been written for pure personal interest.
To end;
There has been a lot of name calling. Why? Are we adults or 6 year old children on a school play ground?
My question is this.
Mr. and Mrs. Frost, Why did you use the documentation you did for chapter 4 of GWB 2000?
I hope this will be addressed but am afraid that since I do not seem to be a loyalist to the Frost Camp it will not be answered.
Sigh -
I realize there is a lot of question about this book and the practices therein. I also realize there hasn't been a great outpouring of information from people who were there during the Seventies. Well, here I am. My name is Kate, and my parents worked very closely with the Frosts during the Seventies. I realize this is probably not what some people want to hear, but I wasn't molested. I never went through this particular procedure, nor do I know anyone that did. Matter of fact, we weren't allowed to be in ritual at all.
I will be more than happy to talk with anyone wanting more information. I'm starting to think maybe some people don't really want to know the truth.
I was considering signing up for the school here as I'm very interested in Wiccan faith. I'm disappointed that there is arguing going on and more disappointed that it is about child molestation or the promoting of it ? possibly in this book GWB
I'm a bit unnerved after reading the documentation provided online. I wasn't aware that children were involved in sexual ritual with adults...or am I getting this wrong? I hope I am? I would like to find a faith that doesn't objectify children or use them for sexual gain.
I would like clarification.
When I came on the net to look for a Wiccan site, this one struck me as being very down to earth. The Frosts struck me as salt of the earth type people and though I don't know them personally, I felt that they were sincere in their efforts to teach and lived an honorable life.
I went to another site, and they seemed to be very concerned about making money..more so than teaching the faith. Anyway, I hope I am misinterpreting what i read. Would really like to learn the Wiccan faith and grow spiritually. Thanks.
Raven, my email is applcorp@gmail.com. Feel free to write and ask questions.
Rhiannon said-
"As a researcher and a writer I find this detrimental to the researching community and those who are trying so hard to make all Pagan religions what they should be and not something that is to be used by others."
Hey, kiddo, hate to break it to you, but "the researching community" isn't going to make my pagan path what they think it should be. I am going to make it what I want it to be. I don't deign to speak for anybody else's pagan religion, of course, but I will speak for my own-what it is or is not will be my decision, and mine alone.
I'll base it on my own research and study, and will trust my instincts and my relationship with the deities to do so. No one else has a say in it. No one else gets a vote, you might say. See, I know what my ideals and agendas are, but I'm not so sure of anyone else's.
Fenix-
I don't think you are going to be getting a lot of invites to tell your side of the story, at least not from the Drewbies.
As for Raven, I could be wrong, but I have this sneaking suspicion she's yet another one of the commenters that has been "invited" by AJ Drew to come here and troll. That is exactly how another of his followers, Archaeus, put it one time. He was "invited". As though AJ controls the blog, and those he invites should be considered honored guests.
I wouldn't take very seriously if I were you somebody that claims to have just innocently stumbled onto this blog, was supposedly interested in joining the Church and School of Wicca, but now she isn't so sure because of what she has read here about The Good Witches Bible?
Sounds trollishly suspicious to me. Or is that suspiciously trollish? I guess it amounts to pretty much the same old, same old, huh?
I've spoken with Raven by private email. I don't think she's trying to set anyone up. Even if that were the case, I really have nothing salacious to share.
I am disappointed there aren't as many people filling up my mailbox as I thought there would be. Ah, well. I'm still here.
Just for the record:
I'm not trying to set anybody up.
I came into Wicca out of desperation to find a sense of spirituality. I have one book called "Wicca, the Complete Craft" which actually my BF bought quite a while ago, several years, and I never picked it up. I lost touch w/ Christianity/God/Christ after a young boy I worked with hung himself. I lost my faith in everything I knew after he died. I don't know AJ Drew from BJ BOO! for that matter. I came across this website Today...by way of 'google'. I put in 'wicca' and came up w/ the websites www.wicca.org and www.wicca.com. so i checked out .org first. I am rarely on the PC, only today did i spend a lot of time because I was bored and didn't feel like doing anything on a sunday. I thought I would explore wiccan faith because in essence life is empty for me spiritually and I feel deeply that I need to be reconnected again...somehow. This is a personal journey for me, a deeply personal one...not some troll design to....spy on a couple who are being hounded by Mr. Drew. To be honest with you...altbough I'm deeply disappointed that I have come across again another avenue that I do not want to take, I simply could care less...about this arguing..it's a damn waste of energy.
It is frankly a waste of good time to slander a retired couple based on what they wrote, if indeed what they wrote is actual..I do not know if it is the real book as I've never read it. If people are that concerned about pedophiles, why not go to legislature and bust up the damn court systems to provide stricter laws to keep pedophiles in prison? Why waste your energy hounding two people when there is no legimate grounds that they have committed a crime? So...A) I'm not trolling B) I'm not out to GET the Frosts C) I'm on a spiritual path hopefully it is Wiccan...soo...there you go.
Raven-
Like I said, I could be wrong, and I guess I was. When you're called names like "piece of shit nazi" and "pagan pedophile supporter", like I've been by some of these Drewbie trolls, it tends to make you somewhat gun shy.
My apologies. Good look to you on your search.
Pagan Temple--
It's ok, don't worry about it. I can understand people being gun-shy. I'm about as anti-pedophile as they come, but I don't see the need here to go after a couple when there are no legal allegations of child abuse. As I've not read the book, I don't know if it's accurate in those words..or it could be taken wholey out of context...I don't know. I don't know much about ritual or the like....to be honest with you...
I think time would be better spent revising the law and going after groups like NAMBLA: national association for man-boy love...or hunting down pimps who enslave kids in international child porn rings....or going after the courts who have consistently given slaps on the wrist to real diagnosed pedophiles so they can live next to day-care centers and commit the crimes all over again.
Just seems to me to be a pathetic waste of time...time better served in other areas. Oh well, enough said. I had hoped to talk about Wicca..not to discuss child abuse all over again...feels like groundhog day over and over...there has to be a reason why I walked into this...nothing happens accidently...or by chance.
Anyway...blessings to you all..and may the Lord and Lady lead you to peace and harmony.
Pagan Temple
I agree that no one should make your path out for you. Only you can do that for it to truly be your path and the right one for you.
BUT, instead of only reading one part of my post try reading the whole post. Not just one very small part of it.
Also since you focused only on the research statement...
I was not talking about what your path should be or what others should make it. I think that was clear if the whole post I made was read as a whole.
The research/documentation given in the GWB is false. Clan of the Cave Bear is pure fiction and as thus is not documentation. The book Roots of Civilization talks about counting moon cycles for planting and birthing. There is nothing sexual as in the use of the baton de commandment. It was not used in breaking hymens in any way. I am sure that Marshak would be a bit put out to say the least to se that his writings were twisted and used falsely.
ONCE AGAIN
FOR ANYONE WHO DOUBTS WHAT IS IN GWB
Images from the book
http://www.freewebs.com/
percival342/pg65.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/
percival342/pg66.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/
percival342/warning.jpg
Rhiannon-
Okay, point taken, but try to understand, historical research is stymied by a good deal of subjective interpretation anyway, from a lot of different areas. People can see perfectly accurate historical records and come to different conclusions as to what it means.
That's why the Frosts see Caligula as basically a spendthrift man who was generous to a fault, and may have been unfairly maligned by later writers, while I tend to believe he was basically a dictatorial maniac with delusions of godhood.
My points are valid, based on he available history, but I have to say the Frosts made a good point. It's a matter of interpretation, which can be very subjective, to say the least.
History is a very tricky thing. It might seem like it's written in stone, and in a sense it is. However, the meaning of what is written on that stone is not always so clear, and may mean different things to different people.
That's why I am very adverse to the idea of people deciding what the meanings of certain things are. I might listen to them, but in the end I might also disagree with them. Or I might agree, who knows?
But when it comes to ancient pagan times, there are too many unknowns for anybody to be able to speak with any authority as to what actually happened, and what it all meant. Our knowledge is very incomplete, to say the least.
Hell, nobody really knows for damn sure why the hell the Great Pyramid was built, and that was one of the most important accomplishments of the ancient world. If we don't really know that much about it, how can anybody expect to speak with any authority on the meaning of more obscure things?
“I, Gavin Frost, have never had any sexual contact with a minor of either gender.”
“I, Yvonne Frost, have never had any sexual contact with a minor of either gender.”
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. “
It’s all very well to make such a statement. But why should we believe you, when you seem to have been using fake academic degrees for decades, and other statements you make have been investigated and shown to be false?
How about, “We, Gavin and Yvonne, and our daughter covens, never arranged a sexual initiation for a child under the age of 18?” “I, Gavin Frost, never had the first phallus used by a virgin child given to me”? Because these things are what you wrote in The Good Witch’s Bible, the things you said your religion practiced in the early days. It’s the arranging for sex for a 14 year old that Warren Jeffs got busted for, not where his own dick was. His power. His controlling.
The initiation section in The Good Witch’s Bible is instructional. While there’s philosophy imparted in parts, it tells a sequence. You do this, and then you do this, and then after that you do this. Their manual for practicing Wicca gives a lot of technical writing on how you practice, like a manual telling you how to program your VCR, or a cookbook. Things need to be done in order, and if you don’t get the order right, or if you leave out instructions, it won’t work.
It was this low-key note on p.99 in the “Making the Phalli” section that brought me up short:
"Dimensional deviations in phalli are sometimes required. The need is determined between the sponsor and the flamenca."
How do Yvonne and the sponsor determine what size phallus a child needs before her first intercourse?
I tried to think what possible ways Yvonne could figure out what size was needed. X-ray vision? A note from the girl’s pediatrician saying what size yoni she had? An algorithm like “Hmm, 4’10,” go for a size A.” Ye Arte Anciente of Vajayjay Scrying? Or just a low-tech but effective “stinky pinky”?
Help me out, Yvonne. I can’t figure out how you can do this without sexual contact. And if you do manage to determine the “need” in some way that isn’t overtly sexual, you are still arranging to have the under-age kid raped by a coven member, which doesn’t make you someone we can be proud of. Or did you never actually practice the sexual initiation of minors, and are we back to the beginning, with you then lying about that?
Gina was right about it being a little late for retraction. But if they had considered it at least it would have demonstrated a level of compassion for those not yet influenced by their writings.
But you'll notice everything else they are willing to spend a great deal of effort in explaining.
Such behavior is indicative of the originating mentality behind the creation of Wicca where when it had made its arrival here in New York did we have Pagans here insisting that the word Witch and Witchcraft be abolished and replaced by the name of Wicca as it would be less offensive to the Christians.
These same people had also attempted to enforce the logic of the Frosts as written in the GWB. And yes they did attempt to force the concept as written in the GWB upon other Pagans especially those like myself that had younger children.
Many of us here in Western New York had rejected their advances. But what would never be known is exactly how many perhaps had not for there were Pagans who afterwards had established much more private groups.
My concern is at least further informing people of the potential threat which the GWB may impose upon those willing to accept such writings as ethical and moral behavior.
I mean lets consider the Frosts point of view of just how much better it would be for the girl to have her hymen surgically broken so as to avoid all that bloody messy inconvenience when engaging in her first sexual intercourse.
Of course this can easily be translated as to suggest how much more clean and pleasant the girls first ritual intercourse would be for the adult mounting her. And this is not even mentioning the potential for any ejaculated sperm.
Now within my tradition and that of many other "Witch" traditions especially those of Italian Witches like the Stregheria would never think of doing anything of which to prevent what was considered a natural symbolic feminine ritualistic act and rite of passage into womanhood which was most sacred to the Goddess!
In essence all this would occur at the females own choosing of when she felt the time was right for her and with who she had chosen to be her first lover whether they be male or female depending upon her own sexual preference and desire.
And real Witchcraft is filled with rites of passage for both women and men which ritualistically mark the important phases of our personal physical and emotional development. Which included the women's first moment of sexual intercourse being accompanied by bleeding and sometimes pain which is what also symbolically distinguished her from young maiden to eventual womanhood and motherhood.
Which makes me wonder why would any faith calling themselves Wiccan and Pagan insist upon abolishing what is meant to be a natural rite of passage for a young woman.
The Frosts have stated in writing that they had never engaged in sexual activity with any children.
But their statement doesn't clarify whether or not they had ever "witnessed" the ritualistic molestation of any child as performed by other adults.
I believe in time the games will stop and the truth will be known.
Unfortunately, the Frosts seem to have fallen into what I call the "alright already" trap. After months and months of slurs and innuendoes, they publicly state that they have no broken any law by having sex with a minor.
After all the smears and slurs they hit the "alright already" level and gave a point-blank answer to the accusations: No.
The problem is, people who are more interested in glomming on to someone else's fame by attacking them--a common practice in politics and occasionally in the Craft until Mr. Drew and his followers have attempted to elevate it to an art form--will never be satisfied with any answer. They're not looking for an answer, they're setting themselves up as accusers, judges and juries and they want to see their victims beg. Mr. Drew did this once with Raymond Buckland. Mr. Buckland stood up to him and then opened communication, and now Mr. Drew is at peace with Mr. Buckland (although I haven't seen anyone demanding that Mr. Drew remove the smears and slurs against Mr. Buckland from his book).
Mr. Drew's groupies are simply following in this political power play. Specifically, the Frosts answered the question, and Ms. Maltby then adds new questions:
"How about, “We, Gavin and Yvonne, and our daughter covens, never arranged a sexual initiation for a child under the age of 18?” “I, Gavin Frost, never had the first phallus used by a virgin child given to me”? "
Answering such accusations is futile because Ms. Maltby will simply ask more. "Okay, you answered this, but what about that?" The goal is not to have her accusations responded to, but to attempt to control the Frosts.
What proof do I have of this? It's in her own, sad words. After she repeats their statement of innocence she asks, "It’s all very well to make such a statement. But why should we believe you...?"
Indeed, if you aren't going to believe them, why ask your questions at all? The answer, of course, is because you couldn't care less about the answers, you just want to be in a position of power and control, a position you feel you don't have and you think that if you can control someone else you'll have real power.
It's too bad you're not a real Wiccan. If you were, you'd know that real power comes from within. You'd know that real power is power over yourself, not others.
Perhaps, some day, you'll study Wicca and discover power. Unfortunately, on the self-righteous path you are on now, I doubt it.
They are rhetorical questions, that I don't expect an honest answer to. The Frosts won't even discuss what seems to be their inaccurate allusion to a paleolithic potboiler as a justification for their practice.
But the awkward questions should still be asked, because anyone deciding what they think about the Frosts should understand what the controversy is based on. Not rumors about what the Frosts wrote, but what they actually wrote.
Archaeus, the ritual sex with the initiate does not appear to happen within the circle, so they technically might be able to say they'd not had sexual contact. Perhaps they'd consider the phallus fitting session more like going to the gynecologist than sexual contact, purely professional detachment for the good of the child.
While the details of the making and use of the dildo receive a great deal of the attention by the Frosts, the first intercourse is glossed over with almost Victorian modesty. The initiate and sponsor "leave the circle" to presumably consummate the act, bringing back "the fruits of your body (sponsor's body)" and later "The coven disperses for a few moments of relaxation before the meeting to follow."
http://www.freewebs.com/controversialstudy/WB/ChapterIV.htm
Carol Maltby said...
They are rhetorical questions, that I don't expect an honest answer to.
Then does that mean I should not expect you to speak with me about my history with the Frosts?
My parents were initiated by the Frosts in 1974. They had a charter through the Church and School. I think that qualifies my parents as "being there." I think that would also qualify myself as a candidate for the lurid accusations being thrown about here. Did any of these things happen to me? No. Do I know anyone that had these things happen to them? No. Do I agree that this is a big waste of time and energy? Yes.
Let us put aside the Frosts personally for a moment.
Now think on this.....
Just take chapter 4 of GWB. What does it represent?
Is it historical?
Does it represent and promote sex with children?
Would you want your son or daughter to be introduced to a coven that practiced what is written in chapter4 of GWB??????
Is it wrong to expect a child under the age of 16 to have sex with a coven person just to initiate them?
Is it wrong to have sex with children?
This may come as a surprise to some of you, but most sane individuals who read anything like the ritual in question will refuse to participate. Is Wicca a hard-line doctrine? Do you do everything a book tells you to do?
Sex with children is wrong. Duh. No one had sex with me, in ritual or out of ritual, until I was old enough to make my own decisions about my body. Nobody forced me to be ritually deflowered, nor did I agree to any such rituals.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, it didn't happen. I wasn't manipulated, brainwashed, forced, molested, inappropriately touched or any of those other taboos as defined by today's society. What else can I say to make it plainer?
Rhianon wrote, "Let us put aside the Frosts personally for a moment.
Now think on this.....
Just take chapter 4 of GWB...."
LOL! It's THEIR book. It's their work. It's their baby. How do you "put aside" for a moment something that is them?
You ask, "Is it wrong to have sex with children?" Duh. Of course it is.
Now, since the book has been around for over 30 years, there should have been hundreds or thousands of children who had sex due to this book. That means some of them would now be in their 30s or 40s.
WHERE ARE ALL OF THE VICTIMS???
Why can't you produce 20? or 10?
The fact is, you can't. The victims aren't there. The wealth and power of the Catholic church couldn't prevent adults from revealing abuse at the hands of clergy. The Mafia couldn't stop people from revealing their actions even though they threatened people with death. The truth will come out, and the truth is nobody has abused children as a result of reading something from the Frosts.
What you, and other groupies of Mr. Drew fail to realize is that reading a book doesn't turn anyone into a child abuser. There were child abusers long before the Frosts were born and unfortunately there will be child abusers long after we're all dead.
Normal mental development results in sexual interests by adults in other adults. Only people who have aberrant mental development become abusers. You completely ignore this fact.
That's because Mr. Drew really doesn't care about the children (an expression always used by those interested in controlling others), but as a failed author he seeks to get some fame by attacking those who are successful. He attacked Ray Buckland. Now he's attacking the Frosts. Eventually he'll attack someone else.
And his groupies--people sucking up to fame because they feel inferior in their own lives--will grab onto anything he says without thinking, without logic, and without caring about the freedoms that have made our country--and Mr. Drew's ability to publish anything himself--great.
I have a question for the Frost's or the Frosted Flakes.
Just who in the hell are Gavin and Yvonne Frost to decide when it's appropriate for children's or adolescent's first sexual experience?
What qualificatioins do they have to make those judgements?
How would you feel if a Catholic Priest had written that manual?
For anyone who would like to read the full chapter 4 text, it is available online at:
http://www.freewebs.com/controversialstudy/WB/ChapterIV.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/percival342/pg65.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/percival342/pg66.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/percival342/warning.jpg
This is a very important discussion. So please do not conduct yourselves, as does Pagan Temple in declaring over and over again that you have not read the book. Be informed before discussing the matter.
Concerning the accusations that I invent users here. I tell folk that if they want the Frosts to know what they think, they should come here to the Frosts blog. I invite folk to express themselves. I think that is appropriate behavior, as I want to encourage the free exchange of ideas and information. I do not think it constitutes inventing participants of this blog.
In fact, if not for my discussion of this blog I doubt very much there would be any discussion within it. Lets face it, the thing is yet another blog mixed in with millions of similar ones hosted on commercial services such as this. Such blogs tend to slip in between the cracks if other folk do not talk about them.
Sucking up to fame:
Concurring the ongoing attempt to belittle people by claiming they are sucking up to my fame. As I have expressed Shadowhawk, I am not famous. I have a few books in print and run a website at http://PaganNation.com. However, I barely even interact there other than to work on the software. I am little more than a guy with a blog. The idea that I am famous.
Folk do not agree with my stance on the Frosts book because I am influential. They agree with me on my position of the Frosts book because they have read the book and have made up their own minds.
Edward Anderson:
No, the Frosts have not issued a statement which addresses the issue. They have issued a statement that they have not had sex with minors. Such has NOT been the issue at hand. The book which seems to rather clearly instruct that one should use sex and incest to initiate children into Wicca is the issue. The teachings are the issue. The published, in print, provable statements are what are in question.
Their statement is kin to me being on trial for grand theft auto and demanding that while I smoked marijuana, I did not inhale.
The Frosts claim to be the founders of my religion. The Frosts claim that those instructions were the earliest teachings of their Church and School of Wicca. My religion was NOT founded on those teachings and I will not allow the public to receive the impression that it is without my rebuttal.
Raven:
There is no reason to use the word “possibly”. The book is available from the Frost’s website. Purchase it and read it. I will say that despite the Frost’s claim, they did not invent Wicca and what they call Wicca has little if any similarity to anything being instructed by others. As long as I have been active in this community, the Frost’s Church and School of Wicca has been described at best as being on the fringes of our community.
You have expressed many opinions without having read the book. I suggest you read the book before discussing it. Your opinion may then be that the Church and School of Wicca was at a time very similar to the organization NAMBLA in that it seems to have encouraged and provided reasons for pedophilia. In the case of NAMBLA, that reason being ‘love’ and evidently in the case of The Church and School of Wicca, that being the same but complicated with religion.
If you are interested in learning more about Wicca; read many different authors and form our own opinions as you do. Do not look to this or any other single point for instruction, especially those who claim to be the very inventors of Wicca or a sanctioning body. Wicca has no such single origin. Wicca has no such sanctioning body. Instead it is a constantly changing, growing, ideology. On which I feel slipped a bit over the last year of commercialism and publishers rushing forward to cash in, but one which is finding its roots in individual thought adding to the collective once again.
Imagine a million butterflies created one hell of a wind.
Concerning pedophiles and slander; as far as I know there exists nobody here who wants to slander a retired couple based on something they wrote. The discussion is on a book which seems to rather clearly instruct the sexual initiation of children being said to be the very foundation of a growing religion. The Frosts seem to want to turn the matter into a discussion of their innocence in matters of pedophilia because they believe there is no hard evidence to be found. On the other hand, the book has been in print for over 35 years. It is something they can not defend against. The fact is they wrote it and there words are there for the world to see.
Rhiannon:
Right on! The big problem in our community is not the Frosts book or the Frosts themselves. The real problem is silence. Spread the word. We will not tolerate the abuse of our children in our name or even in our community. No more!
fenix:
So then, as the Frosts state rather firmly that Chapter 4 were the teachings of the Church and School of Wicca, are you saying the Frosts lied in their book? Are you saying that your parents were members after the Frosts changed their minds?
I do no think it is odd that you are not receiving tons of email. There are only a tiny number of readers and participants in this blog. Additionally, I have observed that most bloggers / commentaries prefer open discussion to private email as private email often winds up as public he said vs. she said arguments. As an example, it was reported by the Frosts that there exists some wide spread rumor that my non-existent daughter has a restraining order against me. Another reported email states that I have been convicted of drug charges. I, for one, try to avoid non-public conversations on such matters because people tend to use the claim that they received an email as an out for saying some of the most ridiculous things.
If you have something to share with an ongoing public conversation, why not share it publicly?
Gina:
Thank you.
Archaeus:
Right on, however I would very much appreciate it if you reframe from using the derogatory term chosen by Gavin and Yvonne Frost. By referring to me as BDD, even when clearly quoting the Frost’s use of the term is kin to your referring to me as “the Nigger”, “the Gimp”, or “the Broad” after they used such terms. While I doubt you meant any belittling insult, it simply is not appropriate to use such terms in reference to human beings.
Concerning a proper and sincere retraction now at such a late date: Not just yes. Not just right on. But hell yes that is right on! If the Frosts honestly and sincerely believe that the book was a mistake, the very minimum they can do is apologize for it with a major retraction explaining how such behavior is an illness.
I do not know why such is so hard, unless of course they do not feel that way. Just a few weeks ago, did something which was incredibly inappropriate. The very next morning, I apologized to the person who I had offended. I knew I was wrong and I knew I demonstrated horrifically poor judgement, so I apologized and explained that I shouldn’t have conducted myself in that matter. Sure, it was belittling but it was the right thing to do. Then we got drunk.
I do not think I will be looking forward to drinking with the Frosts, but I do think that if they were to suck it up, apologize, and use their position to explain that their former instructions constitute a sickness, one which they no longer promote, well I think a lot of the current wildfire of objection would simmer down.
Pagan Temple:
I have no aspirations for political office. I am rather happy being a blogging blacksmith. Concerning being taken seriously, I do not find that to be all that necessary. I contributed to what is becoming a wildfire of concern within our community. The defrosting movement now has a life of its own. Its numbers grow every day. Folk are standing up and saying hell yes, our community needs simple ethical standards such as the idea that our children are sacred. Simple moral foundations which define the structure on which our community is built. For without commonalties, we simply do not meet the definition for a community.
Concerning the idea that there is room for interpretation on everything, I disagree. Some things are just plain wrong. Fathers using dildos on their daughters at their entrance to puberty is just plain wrong. Sorry, I just can not imagine a person not recognizing such unless they are so open minded that their brain has poured out onto the floor.
Gavin and Yvonne Frost:
My cognitive challenges do not prevent me from being successfully sued for what I have said about you. The fact that I have not made an inaccurate statement is why I can not be successfully sued for what I have stated. You wrote the book, it is in print. The current version of the book states that you added statements in January of 2000 which clearly state that the material in question were the teachings of the Church and School of Wicca. You stated firmly that you practiced what you instructed. It is that simple.
My cognitive challenges could not possibly be used in court, as a defense to what your lawyer has indicated are your complaints. A person with my condition may not violate copyright law. You simply can not sue for copyright infringement because it is perfectly within the rights of any citizen of the United States to quote sections of a book in order to provide critical review of that book.
I have never said you are pedophiles. I have said that I believe you have conducted yourself in accordance with the book that you wrote. I have further explained that you have stated in print that the material in that book was the teachings of your Church and School of Wicca and that you practice what you teach.
Thus your first public lie about my character within this post alone.
I have never called the police or any other entity and claimed you or your wife are pedophiles. I have said that I believe the sale of the book in question would be taking place and that I, as a layman in such matters, feel that the sale of that book is illegal as it encourages illegal activities.
Thus your second public lie about my character within this post alone.
You are aware of the fact that what you have just posted publicly are lies. You have obviously been motivated by malice in these publicly stated lies. In particular, you’re rather insensitive nickname. To call a person Brain Damaged Dude as a proper name and thinking that such is acceptable is kin to calling someone a “crip” because s/he uses a wheel chair to get around. How it is that you can not understand the objection to such terms is beyond my understanding. Simply because a person is challenged with paralysis is not an excuse for calling him a crip, gimp, or other durrogatives. Simply because I have a brain injury is not an excuse to call me that Brain Damaged Dude.
What is next? Are you going to call people niggers and then claim that it’s ok because they are obviously African American? The point is not that I do in fact have a cognitive challenge. The point is that it is inappropriate behavior to use race, sex, and yes even disabilities to create such titles as they belittle the human being those titles represent into being little more than those titles.
Example: We do not call women “broads” because doing so indicates that their only value is for breeding stock due to their broad hips. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Concerning the authorities where you live, I am already aware of a very large campaign to do just that in the effort of causing the investigation of that book. There is not reason for me to address the matter personally as the community is now standing up to what many feel is your sale of obscene material which promotes the molestation, torture, and rape of children in the name of our religion.
Concerning your statements of not having sexual contact with minors of either gender. As I understand your book, you state rather firmly that you are too awe inspiring for coitus at initiation. As I understand the laws in the state of Ohio, should a father follow the directions in your book concerning the use of the multiple sized dildos to help his daughter at the age you describe, the father is guilty of rape. Essentially, the State of Ohio (and many other states) have decided that the definition for rape includes any vaginal or anal penetration with any part of the body and / or devices (such as the multiple sized dildos described in your book as being made of dowl rod, nylon cord, and bees wax).
As I understand past events, your book was created from the teachings of the Church and School of Wicca. That book was published initially in 1972. So we know your teachings existed prior to 1972. In the year 2000, you published an amended edition with included a reference stating various disclaimers were as if they were written at that time, January 2000. So, it appears that for over 28 years, your public view was that the initiation rites and the use by the father of home made dildos on his daughter were your teachings. During that time, your daughter fell into the description of girls who should have this done to them.
So then, are you saying you did not conduct yourself with your children as you advised others to conduct themselves with their children? Are you now contradicting what your book states concerning you practicing what you teach?
Was the book a lie? Or are you now playing fast and loose with the term “sex”?
Concerning your lawyer – I suspect he is growing annoyed at you because you continue to make known false statements concerning my character out of malice.
Mr. Drew -
My parents did work with the Frosts in the Seventies. I really have nothing to share, if you had read my previous posts. I've been quite forward with all my experiences.
For the record, my mother did read the Witch's Bible - in it's original form - and flat out told the Frosts she refused to participate in the "deflowering" ritual and would not subject her children to it, either. They said, "ok."
Anything else?
Just to make sure I am clear on this matter-
I am defending the Frosts on First Amendment grounds. To defend somebody on such grounds, it is unnecessary for me to have read the book.
What is in the book, or what is not in the book, is not the issue for me.
If I had a "Ten Commandments" that I adhered to, they are to be found in the Bill of Rights. They are far superior to the original Ten Commandments supposedly handed down from God to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
As fanatical as many Jews and Christians feel about the original Commandments, I feel every bit as fanatically about my "Ten Commandments".
Nor do I care whether some activist judge twists the meaning of this one or that one in order to curry favor according to the gut wrenching, knee-jerk issue of the day. They are what they are, and yes, they are meant to protect the rights of individuals as much as, and maybe even more than, "society" at large.
That means that you have as much right to read Mein Kampf as you have the right to read "Tuesdays With Morrie". That's just the way I look at it.
The Frosts are not the first controversial people I have defended on First Amendment grounds. On my blog, I have also defended Nazis such as Prussian Blue and David Irving on First Amendment grounds.
I also defended on my blog the first Amendment rights of a little African American girl to write and recite poetry that could legitimately be called "hate speech" towards white people.
And, I have defended communists such as my friend Renegade Eye, knowing full well that if his comrades ever got the power they wanted, there would probably be a gulag in my future. Or, do I need to remind certain ones of you what I think of your group think approach to the First Amendment?
So no, I don't care about dildos and whether they are or are not in this or that book or in what context they are in there if they are there.
As for the idea of children being sacred, as Mr. Drew says-DUH! Of course they are sacred. So are adults. So are the aged, including the Frosts. So are the infirm, including Brain Damaged Dudes. So are dudes that write shitty poetry and think they're all that. I would even go so far as to say that even dude that writes the 11,000,000,000,000,000,000,478th book detailing yet another "original" way to cast circles and observe the Sabbats and Esbats-even that person's life is sacred.
But life, sacred though it is, wouldn't be worth a rats ass if a lot of you people had your way. We would be in just another third world country run by a bunch of elites that cracked the whip and told us all what to read, write, eat, watch, and think. Fuck that.
Mr. Anderson
"What you, and other groupies of Mr. Drew fail to realize is that reading a book doesn't turn anyone into a child abuser. There were child abusers long before the Frosts were born and unfortunately there will be child abusers long after we're all dead."
First off I am not a groupie. Say what you like but anyone who knows me also knows I do not follow blindly. That is your first mistake.
Yes there have been abusers and will be abusers. BUT if one JUST one child abuse can be stopped then isn’t it right to do so????
“Normal mental development results in sexual interests by adults in other adults. Only people who have aberrant mental development become abusers. You completely ignore this fact.”
Yes sexual development does happen.
It dose not take an aberrant mental development to be a child abuser. In fact most child abusers have a canny intellect.
“And his groupies--people sucking up to fame because they feel inferior in their own lives--will grab onto anything he says without thinking, without logic, and without caring about the freedoms that have made our country--and Mr. Drew's ability to publish anything himself--great.”
LOL
Honey you don’t know anything about me. So this is your second mistake.
You obviously have not read my other posts. Your third mistake.
You sir have shown what you really are. Someone who follows blindly and makes statements that are wrong.
I love the constant mantra about people jumping on the A.J Drew Vs. Frost Bandwagon claim to fame bs.
1st: I started on the Frosts independently last year in 2006 when they were invited to our regional Rochester Pagan Pride.
And for anyone who knows me I have and never will be a follower.
2nd: I hold my own distinction for being the first and only Pagan along with my mate both written and filmed by ESPN Sports which aired nationally near the end of October 2005.
http://supernaturalparanormal.com/frontier.wmv
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=barone/051031
Merry 1st Of Samhain.
Yeah, that kind of reminds me of a woman I know of, from a couple of my old Yahoo Groups, that goes by the name Gypsy. She's the daughter of a former high ranking British diplomat. She has been on nature shows on The Discovery Channel. She has partied with Steppenwolf. I guess Gypsy has just about done it all.
For her next trick, I guess she will either write bad, pretentious poetry, or another "original" book about how to cast circles and observe the Sabbats and Esbats.
Always must the last remark be yours.
Expressing that last little bit of verbal poignancy and sardonic witticism..
How sad for you.
"Always must the last remark be yours".
Hey, I resemble that remark.
No the last remark must be mine!!!!! Bwahahahahaha (joke intended)
So I see that the Frosts do not want to be asked honest questions by just anyone.
Oh what am I referring to you may ask????
Their new post to the Toledo event.
"Please note: To attend the festival, you must currently be a member of Spirit Weavers"
So there you have it folks. The Frosts are now limiting their audience. How nice for them to not have to answer any questions that they don't want to answer just like on their blog and any letters written to them.
I will say that Mr. Anderson was right. You can NOT separate the Frosts from their book GWB.
So coming to that conclusion that signifies that they DO believe in what they wrote even though it is not historical.
Here I was trying really hard to give the benefit of the doubt and hoping to be able to ask them some question that have been nagging at me for some time now. Guess I just have to come to my own conclusion on this since they do NOT wish to meet new people.
It has been said many times
“You don’t know them. You need to talk with them”
I was willing to do just that. I was willing to take time from my business to drive 4 hours and meet them, but it seems it will not happen now.
Rhiannon said...
"I was willing to do just that. I was willing to take time from my business to drive 4 hours and meet them, but it seems it will not happen now."
Gee Rhiannon, wonder if you sent them $100 they'd do it?
You could always come to the Witch's Ball. It's free. And it's open to the public.
Rhianon wrote:
"First off I am not a groupie. Say what you like but anyone who knows me also knows I do not follow blindly. That is your first mistake."
No, the mistake is that you don't have a clue as to what a groupie is. Of course you are a groupie! You can deny all you like, but it was you who posted a long list of raves over Mr. Drew's works because I had dared to threaten your god by showing that he had feet of clay. Your posts here show you are absolutely a groupie of his.
Rhianon writes:
"Yes there have been abusers and will be abusers. BUT if one JUST one child abuse can be stopped then isn’t it right to do so????"
Absolutely! But for more than 30 years that book has been in print and you've not been able to show that even one child has been abused as a result. If you want to condemn the Frosts, you should do so by claiming that their writings are a failure because people aren't doing the work!
Further, where are the child's parents or guardians? The scenario you are presenting is that there is nobody watching over a child and somebody starts waving a book in a child's face saying, "Look at what we should do," and the child is such a moron that he or she says, "Well, okay!"
You're assuming that all children are idiots and they have no guardians. That is a totally ridiculous assessment as is proven by the fact that you can't produce any abuse victims resulting from the Frost's book.
Further, you are showing an absolutely unamerican attitude known as "prior restraint," This is something that is practiced in virtually every totalitarian country, and it seems your solution is not to encourage parents and teach children, but rather to turn America into a totalitarian dictatorship with someone such as Mr. Drew as the dictator.
Rhianon wrote:
"Yes sexual development does happen.
It dose not take an aberrant mental development to be a child abuser. In fact most child abusers have a canny intellect. "
Sorry, ma'am, but intellect has nothing to do with aberrant mental development. People can be geniuses or morons by have an aberration where they think it is okay to abuse children.
Rhianon wrote:
"Honey you don’t know anything about me. So this is your second mistake.
You obviously have not read my other posts. Your third mistake."
The ONLY think I know about you is from your posts. And they make quite clear that you are a groupie of Mr. Drew. You may not like being identified as such, but if you waddle like a duck and quack like a duck you are a duck.
Rhianon wrote:
"You sir have shown what you really are. Someone who follows blindly and makes statements that are wrong."
Interestingly, you don't say what I follow blindly. Since I've written in other posts that I found what the Frosts have written as dated and unoriginal, and since I also include that they've obviously failed to get people to follow at least part of what they wrote about (and, I would add, I've found sections in their writings that are invented and outright wrong), I think you'd have a hard time saying I blindly follow the Frosts.
You also say that I make "statements that are wrong" but not only have you not produced such a statement, but showed that you don't understand the difference between aberration of mental development and intellect, if anyone has made statements that are wrong, it has been you, not me.
However, I do follow such things as the concepts presented in the U.S. Constitution (as amended). I do follow such things as a belief that evidence must be presented before condemning people for crimes not committed. I fully admit to following these things. If you choose not to, that is up to you.
Rhianon wrote:
"Their [The Frost's] new post to the Toledo event.
"Please note: To attend the festival, you must currently be a member of Spirit Weavers"
So there you have it folks. The Frosts are now limiting their audience."
Hmm. Unfortunately, as is typical of some people, they write first and think second.
Although Rhianon accused me of "making statements that are wrong," if she had just done a bit of research should would have found out that, once again, it is she who is wrong.
The sponsor of the event is Spirit Weavers Church
http://www.spiritweavers.org/index.htm
They sponsor events that are open to everyone and events that are only open to members of their church. This event, of which the Frosts are only a small part, is only open to members of the church. That was not determined by the Frosts, it was determined by Spirit Weavers Church.
Further, if you had even bothered to check the link included on the Frost's blog, you would have seen that anyone could become a member and go to the event by simply paying an additional $30.
http://www.spiritweavers.org/samhain_registration.htm
Your attack on the Frosts -- seen through your dedication to Mr. Drew and your seeing the Frosts as All Things Evil© ®™ -- has blinded you to the facts and put you in the position of spreading two outright lies:
1) Attending the event has been limited--false
2) The limitation was set up by the Frosts--false
With your presentation of such lies that were so easy to disprove, why should anyone believe anything you have posted?
My Dear Mr. Anderson said
"Although Rhianon accused me of "making statements that are wrong," if she had just done a bit of research should would have found out that, once again, it is she who is wrong."
First it would be nice you could at least spell my name right.
Yes you have made statements that are wrong about me. Because you are assuming you know me and you do not.
"They sponsor events that are open to everyone and events that are only open to members of their church. This event, of which the Frosts are only a small part, is only open to members of the church. That was not determined by the Frosts, it was determined by Spirit Weavers Church."
I would think that IF the Frosts would have wanted it to be open then Spirit Weavers would have accommodated them. Also as you have just stated it is only for members of the church/Spirit Weavers. That is what the Frosts had posted. Read it and weep.
"Your attack on the Frosts -- seen through your dedication to Mr. Drew and your seeing the Frosts as All Things Evil© ®™ -- has blinded you to the facts and put you in the position of spreading two outright lies:"
Again you make the mistake of judging me and assuming you know all about me.
If I am so much a "groupie of Drew's" then why in the hell was I banned from his site a few years ago?
I have been very open about giving anyone a chance to disprove what I have written in my blog that authors and former members of the Frosts coven have written. No one has even made an attempt at doing. Not One person.
As to the lying…. Then the Frosts must be lying because they are the ones who posted that it was only for those who are currently members of Spirit Weavers. Not I. I am only going by what The Frosts posted on the Toledo event.
“No, the mistake is that you don't have a clue as to what a groupie is. Of course you are a groupie! You can deny all you like, but it was you who posted a long list of raves over Mr. Drew's works because I had dared to threaten your god by showing that he had feet of clay. Your posts here show you are absolutely a groupie of his.”
What the hell are you talking about??? Raves over drew’s works???? What nonsense are you spouting here? Threaten my God????? And just who is my God Mr. Anderson????
“Absolutely! But for more than 30 years that book has been in print and you've not been able to show that even one child has been abused as a result. If you want to condemn the Frosts, you should do so by claiming that their writings are a failure because people aren't doing the work!”
Have I been looking? No. I AM concern about what will happen in the future to up coming children because of this kind of writing.
“Further, you are showing an absolutely un-American attitude known as "prior restraint," This is something that is practiced in virtually every totalitarian country, and it seems your solution is not to encourage parents and teach children, but rather to turn America into a totalitarian dictatorship with someone such as Mr. Drew as the dictator.”
Oh don’t even try that crap with me. It doesn’t work. If that is un-American then the writing of the GWB is un-American. It doesn’t care about children and how they will be used. It doesn’t care on how the Pagan religion will be looked on because of what it says about using children. It doesn’t care that it is falsely documented with lies.
Now who is un-American?????????
It is un-American of those who write about how to “prepare a prepubescent child for sex with strangers”.
“I think you'd have a hard time saying I blindly follow the Frosts.”
No I really wouldn’t for you defend them.
“condemning people for crimes not committed.”
I have not accused anyone of committing a crime unless you would want to claim that using false documentation is a crime. I have said that the Frosts do not answer real questions. Only ones that they think will make them look good.
Never assume anything with me Mr. Anderson because you will undoubtedly be wrong.
The rest of your comments I am not even going to go into because it is just too ridiculous to even bother commenting on.
Knowledge is Power
Rhiannon said...
"I was willing to do just that. I was willing to take time from my business to drive 4 hours and meet them, but it seems it will not happen now."
Gee Rhiannon, wonder if you sent them $100 they'd do it?
Maybe but it isn't worth it to me. If they have to be paid to let people get to know them then I don't think I want to know them.
Fenix
fenix said...
You could always come to the Witch's Ball. It's free. And it's open to the public.
Well that would be nice but I am already committed to another event at that time and have been since January.
Thank you for making the suggestion though.
I really hate having to "assume" anything about anyone until I have a chance to meet them but boy the Frosts are making a bit hard here. Especially by not answering questions. It is understandable about not answering a few people's questions but there are others that could be answered.
By all that is breathing and beating, I read this blog to see interesting but stalemate arguments! But PLEASE GUYS! If I see one more "omgzors lyke woah you iz an AJ Drew groupie!" I will stab myself in the eye with a pencil! Its so childish and immature that I promise it's not helping your case any. I stumbled upon this out of boredom researching Wicca (being not Wiccan, but closer to Celtic Pagan myself), and I'm sure that alot of other people here have as well. Just because they have the SAME OPINION as AJ Drew doesn't mean that they worship him on a daily basis or even have heard of him before!
Closing Arguments: MOVE ON.
Opheliac-
We've been trying to encourage them to do just that. Move on. But they can't let it go. They keep on, repeating the same old things, over and over and over again. Well, we never believed them the first time. Still, somehow they seem to think if they repeat them often enough, somebody somewhere will believe them.
That is a sign of obsession, and it is a sign of group think. People that engage in a kind of group think can genuinely be said to be groupies, and in this case AJ Drew is their leader. So therefore the description is, I think in most cases, an apt one.
I hate to say this without having a major under my belt, but as a college Sociology student, I also hate to say that you are abusing the idea of group think. Group think is only applicable in personal instances where the subjects are forced to make a stance. These people are not being forced to post. It deals with a person or persons within a group not wanting to be left out of said group so they follow the majority. In this case, to even apply group think in the most technical of ways would insinuate that they wouldn't post at all if they disagreed.
Opheliac said...
"I stumbled upon this out of boredom researching Wicca..."
"Just because they have the SAME OPINION as AJ Drew doesn't mean that they worship him on a daily basis or even have heard of him before!"
Opheliac, you're correct. Just because they have the same opinion as Mr. Drew does not mean they are his groupies or worship him.
However, you claim you have only stumbled on this site. What you don't know is that they are also on a site dedicated to Mr. Drew and ape and support everything he says and does. They treat him as the all wise, all knowing god.
Your error is assuming that this is the only place they post. It is not. Your error is assuming that they came to the same conclusions independently of Mr. Drew. They do not and have not said anything on this subject until Mr. Drew posts it.
No, they are not groupies of Mr. Drew because they have the same opinion as Mr. Drew. They are groupies because they think and act like his groupies. Having the same opinion is just one aspect of it.
Your statement that they are not being forced to make a stand is simplistic. It is true that nobody is holding a gun to their heads forcing them to take a stand, but as groupies they have a focus of supporting Mr. Drew and attacking his perceived enemies as if they were being forced to do so. It is a fixation and compulsion. They are metaphorically forcing themselves to do it.
Hey Rhiannon,
What's your blog's url? I'd love to go and read.
If you don't mind posting it publicly.
Good Job Rhiannon :)
I have to say that after your post, I went to his blog to check it out. I only found two similar posters, and they appeared fairly recently.
One thing about Sociology that ANY student learns on the first day of class: it is simplistic. Group think simply cannot work if there is no direct pressure.
I admit that I have the same opinion as AJ Drew, but have no interest in pursuing his blog or any of the such. So am I a "groupie"? Although groupie is such an abused word, its denotation is not nearly as bad as its connotation.
Opheliac, as I wrote, people "are not groupies of Mr. Drew because they have the same opinion as Mr. Drew. They are groupies because they think and act like his groupies."
There are people who have the same opinions as George Bush or Hillary Clinton. That does not make them groupies of those people. When they hang on every word those people say, adopt it as their own, and then do what they think their god wants, then, indeed they are groupies.
As you said, you just stumbled on this discussion. That you agree with Mr. Drew does not make you a groupie. If a person thinks and acts like a groupie then that is what they are.
Opheliac, since you "stumbled upon this site out of boredom researching Wicca," I would respectfully suggest that you would learn much more by visiting http://www.witchvox.com/ rather than focusing on either here or on Mr. Drew's website.
http://www.freewebs.com/athenaartemis/pathsyoucantake.htm
The Church of Wicca was founded by Gavin and Yvonne Frost. They offer correspondence courses in their brand of Wicca, which is sometimes called Celtic Wicca. The Church of Wicca has just recently begun including a Goddess in their deity structure, and has been very patrofocal as Wiccan traditions go. The Church of Wicca terms itself "Baptist Wicca"
I found this while looking for answers to some of my questions that the Frosts do not wish to answer unfortunately.
Now why would someone who seems to not like Christians want to dub their religion with a Christian name????
I believe its called eclecticism.
So apparently you do not believe it is possible for two people to both feel vehemently for the same thing. One must be a groupie. That puts quite a dimmer light on the entire civil rights campaign.
I've going on witchvox off and on for quite some time now. Just because I was researching wicca doesn't mean I am thoroughly ignorant of it. I am already of a "similar" religion and have been studying since childhood. I usually just don't bother paying attention to the politics of its members. I like being solitary, being alone helps me think. An art that has long been lost.
Opheliac said...
"So apparently you do not believe it is possible for two people to both feel vehemently for the same thing."
You seem to be acting purposely obtuse on this. You are also putting words in my mouth that I never said and never intended.
Of course it's possible for two people to both feel vehemently for the same thing. Is that clear? Do you understand that?
Earlier you wrote:
"Just because they have the SAME OPINION as AJ Drew doesn't mean that they worship him on a daily basis or even have heard of him before!"
To which I replied: "Opheliac, you're correct. Just because they have the same opinion as Mr. Drew does not mean they are his groupies or worship him."
For some reason you're pretending you don't understand this. I think everyone here will be able to read through your silliness.
What I also wrote was that people "are not groupies of Mr. Drew because they have the same opinion as Mr. Drew. They are groupies because they think and act like his groupies."
Further, I wrote: "There are people who have the same opinions as George Bush or Hillary Clinton. That does not make them groupies of those people. When they hang on every word those people say, adopt it as their own, and then do what they think their god wants, then, indeed they are groupies."
I would hope that you now understand the difference between people who think alike and people who are groupies.
However, that, unfortunately, may not be the case. Some people are so dedicated to their beliefs that they will lie about them (as you attempted to lie about what I believed).
You also write " Just because I was researching wicca doesn't mean I am thoroughly ignorant of it. I am already of a "similar" religion and have been studying since childhood. I usually just don't bother paying attention to the politics of its members. I like being solitary, being alone helps me think. An art that has long been lost."
But earlier you wrote that you "stumbled" on this site because you were "researching" Wicca. How much "research" does someone need if they are not "thoroughly ignorant" of it and have been "studying since childhood?"
Let's see...you clearly misrepresented what I wrote twice, your statement about your own history sound dubious at best, and you insult everyone here by thinking that they couldn't pay attention to what you say because you don't have a college "major under [your] belt."
One wonders what your REAL agenda is here.
My real agenda? I'm bored. Don't try to start any underlying messages, because there really isn't any.
You're dancing around in a circle trying to prove me wrong in some way. I'm not going to argue with you, you can't beat wisdom into a mule.
I am researching because we all have room to learn. I know about my religion, about religions in general. But I don't know all, no one can know everything. I just don't keep up with the politics surrounding it. You can know about deities and rituals without knowing about authors and famous people. It's the wonderful thing about being solitary, you can focus on the religion without the fluff and bull.
I am not saying that people are dumb, as you imply I did, because they haven't gone to college. Hell, I haven't even finished it yet. But when someone is abusing a theory to sound smart, I will speak up with what I know.
Opehliac, your posts get funnier and funnier.
You wrote, "I am not saying that people are dumb, as you imply I did, because they haven't gone to college."
I didn't say that at all and once again you are either shown an incredible inability to understand English, or you are just a troll.
What I DID say was that you were you "insult everyone here by thinking that they couldn't pay attention to what you say because you don't have a college 'major under [your] belt.'"
Your every post referring to what I have posted has misrepresented what I wrote. That makes me think you either have difficulty reading--perhaps dyslexia--are just stupid, or have another agenda.
If the first, then I doubt you are in college at all--more likely you would be barely getting through 11th grade. I choose to think you are not the second. That leaves only the third. And I still wonder what your agenda is.
Of course, if after my pointing out how you have misrepresented what I stated not once or twice, but three times, if you again misrepresent what I have posted I will be sure that you do not have an agenda. Rather, you are simply a moron (i.e., an IQ between 50 and 69) or a troll.
Its hard to understand you when you talk in circles and attempt to discredit my entire life instead of sticking to a point.
If you'd like to know, I graduated with honors from Topsail High School and currently attend The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, though was accepted to multiple other schools due to my extremely high English SAT score and very nice Math score(though my spelling is still lacking) which to be honest, I don't remember the exact numbers. I never took an IQ test, our school didn't do them.
I will continue to be a lurker here, its just way to entertaining. A stress reliever after all the educational debates from class. But I shall digress for a moment before I do depart from conversation: dude... you're nuts. Get a life.
Opheliac, if your inability to understand English and your easy ability to misrepresent what others have written is a sign of our educational system, woe to all of us!
On the other hand, you'll be a perfect hack spokeshole for the Republican party.
Concerning groupthink - I continue to provide comments and quotes in an effort to show folk what the Frosts have written. Folk read the material and form their own individual opinions. That is not groupthink.
Now what the Frosts are attempting might be. Where I take issue with the book and it’s content, it seems there is an effort underway to convince people that my issue is that I think they are pedophiles. As the effort to cause that change in consciousness is not factually based and does not call on people to make their own decisions, but instead create a mob mentality well now we are talking group speak as I understand the term.
As I have always said, read the book for yourself. Make up your own mind. Then you too can be called a Drewbie, Groupie, or what ever the next popular term will be.
"Now what the Frosts are attempting might be. Where I take issue with the book and it’s content, it seems there is an effort underway to convince people that my issue is that I think they are pedophiles."
Shall we go back and find the posts referencing your statements?
The problem, Mr. Drew, is your obsessive behavior, not with the Frosts. I have challenged you repeatedly to produce ten people who have been directly harmed as a result of the Frost's book. So far you have ignored this challenge. So far you have failed to produce anyone who has been harmed.
The REAL complaint that could be made against the Frost's book is that it is a failure. People have read it for over 30 years and nobody is following that part. That doesn't sound very successful.
But you ignore the true failure and instead focus compulsively on your personal obsession.
The problem with obsessions, Mr. Drew, is that they can quickly change to something else. Nobody can guess what that might be, but the fact is your obsessive campaign is a failure and I hope you get some valid mental help before you harm yourself (worse than you've already done) or harm a family member.
Greetings Bloggers,
As the rhetoric rolls on, and attempts are made to draw out the Frost's with some sort of rationale to justify their writings, it is plain to see that the efforts are being fruitless. I'm sure the Frost's realize that any sort of defense they may attempt, will quickly be turned and twisted against them. Like those who wore the green crosses of the inquisition, any sort of mitigating or explanatory remarks, were quickly turned into reasons for further torture and death. So at this point in history, the wisest defense the Frost's could make, is no defense at all, in my humble opinion. And of course, the prisons of the inquisition saw silence as an admission of quilt, and I'm sure many feel that way in this issue. But in the full scheme of things, silence can cause less turmoil.
Have A Great Day,
Blue Skull
I think......
Gavin and Yvonne the dancing penguins are nuttier then a fruitcake!!!!
Just remember "the frost's" will always hide, cowards never face the righteous.
Post a Comment