Wicca

[Lifesaver]

Some pagans have researched for years themselves, and are part of beliefs systems as old as Catholicism, so I can't help but feel that there is an ethnocentric quality to a sweeping statement like the one above.

Do not buy that, Plan 9. Neo-Paganism of nowadays is a lot different from the Pagan religions of old tribal communities. They just adapted the modern and contemporary broad spirituality of today to the deities of those ancient cultures.

First of all, I won't use the term "Neo-Pagan" about a really large and mixed group of people, the majority of which I will never meet.

It is a broad term, and there are many differences between many of its members. The same is true with the name Christian. Having a name to group all those different beliefs by what they have in common is not without problems, but it certainly helps any dialogue about them.

I've heard evidence, arguments, reasons, but I wanted to hear those for their own sake; not as fodder for debate. Like most Christians here, I suspect most Pagans find it too unpleasant to participate in the virtual bloodbath we call "debate" here at CF.

Yes, but the discussion is only among the members who come to this thread. And if they come and post, it is safe to assume they see some benefit on it.

I don't want to pretend anything, bu that is an insulting term, and I think you're aware of that. Certainly when I ask questions in OBOB, and I do so fairly frequently, I am treated with the utmost kindness and courtesy, and it's in OBOB that the term "heretic" in its strictest theological sense could be applied to me without rancor on anyones' part, including myself.

I don't remember ever calling you a heretic. If I did, I'm sorry. As for protestantism, whenever it comes up in a discussion, the Catholic position is clear and unchangeable.
But yes, most Catholic members in these forums are a lot wiser and can reply in a much kinder and more skilled way than I can. Take them as your role example.

I think you should try very hard to be less offensive. If you don't, a thread of real value to the rest of us, however little you may care about it, or us, will be closed. You can be both tactful without sacrificing honesty.

Okay, I'll try.

 

[Smilin]

It is very understandable that you want to defend the stance of your ancestors, and like I said the first time I mentioned Native Americans, the massacre they suffered was wrong and completely anti-Christian.

We agree..

However, it is not fair to paint them in the idylic colours so often associated with them nowadays.

Okay, I'm half Cherokee and live in our native lands. I also participate
in the rituals, ceremonies, gatherings, and spiritual rituals of the
traditionalists full-bloods. Now...please elaborate what you mean
by 'paint them in the idylic colors ....'
I have no clue what you refer to, and I dwell among those we speak of.

That's all. I never defended the way the colonization took place; never defended the slaughter and slavery of indians.

I just urge you not to think of them in the ideal way natives from all over the world are seen by so many people today.

Again, elaborate further? I don't follow your point. Personally, I think of
myself and those I commune with as the remnants of a once great nation.
A great nation who believed they were the 'chosen' by the Creator, yet
another race drove them from their lands and tried to exterminate them.

.....little did they know we would survive.....


Sounds very similar to the story of the Israelites...eh?

 

[Lifesaver]

I mean exactly what I said. War was a constant reality in the Native American life, as were high infant mortality, poor education (in Western standards) and a life completely defined for the individual from the day of their birth. Basically, if we leave aside the particularities of deities, language and other cultural traits, they were similar to the peoples of the whole American continent.

The Southern Illinois University speaks of ritual bleeding:
http://www.museum.siu.edu/universit...m_Explorers/school_pages/Chenoa/cherokee.html

Just to make it clear: I've listed some of the things I consider negative about that indian nation. That is not the whole of my view about them.

 

[Plan 9]

Do not buy that, Plan 9. Neo-Paganism of nowadays is a lot different from the Pagan religions of old tribal communities. They just adapted the modern and contemporary broad spirituality of today to the deities of those ancient cultures.

Yes, I understand the meaning of "neo". I simply don't agree that it's true of all pagans of every pagan religion.
How old are you, Lifesaver? I'm an old hippie, so I've met a great many pagans, I studied pagan religions from childhood, and I've made friends with some of our pagan members, both at this site and elsewhere.
If you want me to make my decisions on the basis of logic, study and personal experience, then I can't agree with you on the basis of any, because you want to lump great masses of people into one group.
It not rational to do that with my Catholic friends, even given their relative uniformity of belief. and I don't split Catholics into Catholics and Neo-Catholics, even though I've met some who you'd love to straighten out on a few things.

It is a broad term, and there are many differences between many of its members. The same is true with the name Christian. Having a name to group all those different beliefs by what they have in common is not without problems, but it certainly helps any dialogue about them.

It hinders dialogue with them, and hurts understanding of any kind about them. It's just too broad to be useful.

Yes, but the discussion is only among the members who come to this thread. And if they come and post, it is safe to assume they see some benefit on it.

No, it's not safe to assume that. One of my anthropology teachers pointed out this simple thing on the blackboard:

When you assume, you make an @SS out of U and ME.

(before you report me, folks that just means "donkey", okay? LOL)

This thread has been closed once, and next time it's closed, it'll be for good, and, in the meantime, your "debating" style is about to drive me out of a thread I really enjoyed, and the OP regrets starting it. We're real people here, just like you, no matter how wrong you may feel we all are in our beliefs.

I don't remember ever calling you a heretic.

I didn't say you yourself did, but it sure didn't bother you? You're still defending the use of a term which is unnecessarily discourteous.

I'm sorry. As for protestantism, whenever it comes up in a discussion, the Catholic position is clear and unchangeable.

I'm familiar with this stance, and have no objection to your belief, only in how you phrase it. You don't even know what kind of "Protestant" I am; you have us all lumped together, so you never bothered to ask, because you have us all lumped together, and that's something most Catholics I know don't do, and for very good reasons.

But yes, most Catholic members in these forums are a lot wiser and can reply in a much kinder and more skilled way than I can. Take them as your role example.

Then ask one of them to come here, because non-Christians can't visit OBOB, and you are the role example they have.

I'm the only one here of my denomination right now, and so I must serve as the example for us all, however inadequate I feel in trying to do so.

Okay, I'll try.

Thank you! You can't imagine how much I appreciate it! Non-Christians have no congregational home to return to, so the loss of a thread can be heartbreaking. This thread is theirs, not ours, and if it's closed, they don't have the option to restart a closed thread.
Otherwise, I wouldn't be giving you a difficult time. If you ever post with me in OBOB, although I don't suppose you'll want to much, now, you'll think a nice person got my password, and is impersonating me.

 

[Plan 9]

Europeans practiced ritual bleeding for centuries: it was called medical treatment.

I mean exactly what I said. War was a constant reality in the Native American life, as were high infant mortality, poor education (in Western standards) and a life completely defined for the individual from the day of their birth.

It wasn't war as we understand the term now. High infant morality rate was a fact of life for every culture until very recently. As far as poor education goes, that's like saying that the Amish have a poor education because they don't value the knowledge we think they ought to.


Our lives are as completely defined for us as for any Native American at the time. If you aren't familiar with cultural anthrop0ology, try reading a novel like Tess of the D'ubervilles or Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy. they're online and they aren't that long. He's a fine writer, too.

Basically, if we leave aside the particularities of deities, language and other cultural traits, they were similar to the peoples of the whole American continent.

You can't leave these things aside, along with enviornmental conditions, they are all-important to basic comprehension of a people.

Try dropping thse things from Catholic countires, and see what you have left.
First, Latin has to go. Just start with that! Do you have any idea how many Protestants today can't comprehend your most basic belief they don't know any Latin, and worse, that not know knowing any Latin is what's blocking their understanding.
I just participated in an OBOB thread which had to be closed because a visitor thought that "co" means equal, and when we all tried to convince her, including me, she said it was "only" semantics. Is that only semantics, Lifesaver? Everything you believe was given its form and structure by Latin, and it was frozen long ago because it became the lingua franca that allowed everyone to communicate complex concepts so that everyone could understand them. Non-Catholics still use it for that reason, eg. the Linnaeus Classification System of flora and fauna.

 

[Lifesaver]

Europeans practiced ritual bleeding for centuries: it was called medical treatment.

Yes, even scientifical enquiry can lead men to error. Once they found out it was no good, they stopped doing it.
My question is: did the indians give this ritual up?

It wasn't war as we understand the term now.

It was immersed in a lot more cultural aspects than it is with us, but people died all the same, and since universal human rights were alien to all Native Americans, the execution of innocent was a common unquestioned practice. Cannibalism was not an uncommon thing either(though I can't say whether the Cherokee did it or not).

High infant morality rate was a fact of life for every culture until very recently.

Ever since the beginnings industrial revolution it experienced a drastic reduction in Europe, which is why populations grew so much.
Populations also experienced a healthy growth during the most stable periods of Medieval times, before the Crusades.
Life expectancy was also very low among natives.

As far as poor education goes, that's like saying that the Amish have a poor education because they don't value the knowledge we think they ought to.

Do they learn only to do physical labour and religious doctrines? If so, then you can bet they have what I would call a poor education.

Our lives are as completely defined for us as for any Native American at the time. If you aren't familiar with cultural anthrop0ology, try reading a novel like Tess of the D'ubervilles or Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy. they're online and they aren't that long. He's a fine writer, too.

Nowadays in any Western country each person chooses what to do with their life. Life is riskier and less stable, but the individual has a choice with what to do with theirs.
In ancient tribes, one individual's goals mattered very little. Everyone was expected to accept it and the concept of individual freedom unheard of.

You can't leave these things aside, along with enviornmental conditions, they are all-important to basic comprehension of a people.
Try dropping thse things from Catholic countires, and see what you have left.
First, Latin has to go. Just start with that! Do you have any idea how many Protestants today can't comprehend your most basic belief they don't know any Latin, and worse, that not know knowing any Latin is what's blocking their understanding.
I just participated in an OBOB thread which had to be closed because a visitor thought that "co" means equal, and when we all tried to convince her, including me, she said it was "only" semantics. Is that only semantics, Lifesaver? Everything you believe was given its form and structure by Latin, and it was frozen long ago because it became the lingua franca that allowed everyone to communicate complex concepts so that everyone could understand them. Non-Catholics still use it for that reason, eg. the Linnaeus Classification System of flora and fauna.

If we stripped down rich Western countries of their culture today, we'd have a common model applyable to all of them. Surely, each nation has their structural particularities as well, but that doesn't invalidate a model which works effectively for all of them.

 

[Volos]

It hinders dialogue with them, and hurts understanding of any kind about them. It's just too broad to be useful.

This was so timely and so well said.





You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Plan 9 again.

 

[Plan 9]

Yes, even scientifical enquiry can lead men to error. Once they found out it was no good, they stopped doing it.
My question is: did the indians give this ritual up?

In my section of North America, I know of no American Indian clan which did so to start with, particularly not as a part of medical proceedure.

It was immersed in a lot more cultural aspects than it is with us, but people died all the same, and since universal human rights were alien to all Native Americans, the execution of innocent was a common unquestioned practice. Cannibalism was not an uncommon thing either(though I can't say whether the Cherokee did it or not).

But hardly any. What you're calling war, we'd call a bar-brawl. It's suicidal for a culture comprised of a amall number of people to allow large losses in "war".
This is why counting coup was practiced: no one was harmed when counting coup.

Ever since the beginnings industrial revolution it experienced a drastic reduction in Europe, which is why populations grew so much.
Populations also experienced a healthy growth during the most stable periods of Medieval times, before the Crusades.
Life expectancy was also very low among natives.

Our US Native Americans experienced heathy populaton growth, too.

Do they learn only to do physical labour and religious doctrines? If so, then you can bet they have what I would call a poor education.

No they didn't, and neither do the Amish only learn such things.

Nowadays in any Western country each person chooses what to do with their life. Life is riskier and less stable, but the individual has a choice with what to do with theirs.

Again, I would like to refer you to Jude the Obscure (1895), by Thomas Hardy, to see how much one individual's goals mattered at that time.
Tell that to the people trapped in Whitechapel when Jack the Ripper struck in 1887.
Tell that to my father, who grew up during the great Depression, and was one of the very few men to actually graduate from high school.
come visit me and tell this to to the bulk of our black citizens living in the north part of town.
In sociolology and cultural antropo0logy, the term used is "life chances" with the emphasis on "chancse".

In ancient tribes, one individual's goals mattered very little. Everyone was expected to accept it and the concept of individual freedom unheard of.

I see you haven't read any Stephen Ambrose. Custer and Crazyhorse is a good beginning book on Native American culture and ours at the time, and is an easy read.

If we stripped down rich Western countries of their culture today, we'd have a common model applyable to all of them. Surely, each nation has their structural particularities as well, but that doesn't invalidate a model which works effectively for all of them.

No, we'd lose your religion first, if only becuse you would lose Latin...and your cultural history, which, as you know, is very old, and dependent on that language to this day.
They are many competing models of modern western society; each with their intelligent and verbal adherents; none of them singly are a good enough fit; none works effectively for all, or there would be only one.
It's like searching for a unified field theory of physics, everyone wants one very badly, but new mysteries arise to confound us.

 

[Plan 9]

This was so timely and so well said.





You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Plan 9 again.

Thank you, but it's not really that big a deal, Volos, and you know that. The need to lump everything and everyone together is hardwired into our brains, and everybody who does reasonalby well in a good psych 101 class should know this.
It's a good thing in some ways; it's what prevents us from drinking from a Draino can instead of our bottle of water or soft drink.
Our brains aren't set up to handle the great masses of people modern society forces on us, and so, in desperation our brains try to apply a system of classification never meant to be applied to people.
Just as Tess in the Thomas Hardy novel should never have left her villiage, which she intimately understood, and was a part of, we don't do well in our mass society, although we've had more chance to adapt, because, in my case, my parents did.

I've learned a lot from my father about this: he rode a horse to a one-room schoolhouse, yet we made it to the moon in his lifetime. Now, I show him what can be seen from this old PC of mine; I showed his hime town: Pennington Gap, Va (Big Stone Gap has a site), and in turn, he's taught me what it was like for his mother to spend two days doing their small family's laundry by hand, aand lots of other things like that. He could never stand to sit though an episode of the Waltons because they were so rich while being presented as poor.

Now, Lifesaver might relegate his life to the barren existence shared by the Amish and Native American villages, because his first goal was always subsistence, but he was the white man working on the Frisco who couldn't bear the manner in which the black porters were treated, and later did away with our unwritten Jim Crow laws in this city almost singlehandedly, he and my mom had Jewish friends when they changed their names here so their businesses wouldn't fail, and I have every reason to consider him a wise man, even if my formal education does surpass his: he lived when everything changed, he paid attention and remembered, and he made himself part of that change!

What my dad told me when I asked why the nice man had numbers on his arm when I was six is that everyone is my equal until they prove themselves not to be, and that I wasn't careful, I would be the one to prove myself inferior.
So, if I can sometimes my brain's compulsion to lump people together to somehow make sense of our world , it's only because of my early training, and later education; it's no credit to me.

 

[Plan 9]

Sorry about that huge personal post, to which I'm now adding, but, I think it only fair to say that Lifesaver probably holds much of his point of view because of people like me: I was a sort of neo-pagan as a teenager, and I made did pretty much make it up as I went along. I didn't believe I was good enough to hold real religious beliefs; the standards of a true religion of any sort are so very high, and I was terrified of failing yet again, as I felt I had at everything. I know a real pagan from a neo-pagan from sad personal experience.

 

[Volos]

Sorry about that huge personal post, to which I'm now adding, but, I think it only fair to say that Lifesaver probably holds much of his point of view because of people like me: I was a sort of neo-pagan as a teenager, and I made did pretty much make it up as I went along. I didn't believe I was good enough to hold real religious beliefs; the standards of a true religion of any sort are so very high, and I was terrified of failing yet again, as I felt I had at everything. I know a real pagan from a neo-pagan from sad personal experience.

never apologize for your spiritual beliefs.



I for one have never looked down at anyone for being in their “do it your self free form worship” phase. I think everyone goes through that and I think every one , especially pagans) go through a rigid ritual phase, eventually the two extremes balance out and people find themselves in a very comfortable personal kind of spirituality.

 

[SquareC]

Yes, even scientifical enquiry can lead men to error. Once they found out it was no good, they stopped doing it.
My question is: did the indians give this ritual up?


It was immersed in a lot more cultural aspects than it is with us, but people died all the same, and since universal human rights were alien to all Native Americans, the execution of innocent was a common unquestioned practice. Cannibalism was not an uncommon thing either(though I can't say whether the Cherokee did it or not).


Ever since the beginnings industrial revolution it experienced a drastic reduction in Europe, which is why populations grew so much.
Populations also experienced a healthy growth during the most stable periods of Medieval times, before the Crusades.
Life expectancy was also very low among natives.


Do they learn only to do physical labour and religious doctrines? If so, then you can bet they have what I would call a poor education.


Nowadays in any Western country each person chooses what to do with their life. Life is riskier and less stable, but the individual has a choice with what to do with theirs.
In ancient tribes, one individual's goals mattered very little. Everyone was expected to accept it and the concept of individual freedom unheard of.


If we stripped down rich Western countries of their culture today, we'd have a common model applyable to all of them. Surely, each nation has their structural particularities as well, but that doesn't invalidate a model which works effectively for all of them.

For someone who admits to little knowledge of Native Americans from North America, you are very verbal on the subject! The Cherokee in particular were very concerned with personal freedoms and human rights. They also placed equal or even greater value on their women as on their men! That happened to be one of the 'concerns' of the Christian settlers, they were afraid their women would get bad ideas of equality and freedom.

 

[Smilin]

I mean exactly what I said. War was a constant reality in the Native American life, as were high infant mortality, poor education (in Western standards) and a life completely defined for the individual from the day of their birth.

Okay, this is what you were eluding to? Yes, there were wars, skirmishes
among the different tribes of the Native Americans. However, the lives
they took were still considered sacred. The wars between enemy clans
pale in comparison to the war/genocide raged upon ALL Native Americans
by the invading Europeans.

Basically, if we leave aside the particularities of deities, language and other cultural traits, they were similar to the peoples of the whole American continent.

Who? The Cherokee? Wrong....

However, an interesting proposal worthy of further in depth study. And not one
that I could tackle given I know little of South American Natives

The Southern Illinois University speaks of ritual bleeding:
http://www.museum.siu.edu/university_museum/museum_classroom_grant/Museum_Explorers/school_pages/Chenoa/cherokee.html

I quickly scanned that very brief summary. Personally,
if I were the professor grading that paper, the student
would have gotten a C at best. If you wish to delve
further into the history of the Cherokee, you can follow
my website link. That very poorly written summary wasn't
focused on any specific ritual, AND lacked details.

Additionally, the information on the cleansing rituals
weren't accurate. I take the C back, the writer
gets an F for inaccuracies.

Just to make it clear: I've listed some of the things I consider negative about that indian nation. That is not the whole of my view about them.

Then I missed your list. Care to point it out to me?

 

[Smilin]

Yes, even scientifical enquiry can lead men to error. Once they found out it was no good, they stopped doing it.
My question is: did the indians give this ritual up?

The point and focus of the Native American traditionalists
is to preserve and pass on the original customs of our
ancestors. Specifically, those untainted by Christianity.
I'm not familiar with WHICH specific ritual you are referring to.
However, I can only say the traditionalists simply seek
to keep ALL rituals intact.

It was immersed in a lot more cultural aspects than it is with us, but people died all the same, and since universal human rights were alien to all Native Americans,

Wrong. Native Americans valued ALL life and the Earth. The taking
of any life was not a matter of small concern to the original Natives.
War was a last resort, and only permitted under specific circumstances.
Additionally, animals were only killed out of NEED and certain animals
considered to be sacred could only be hunted under specific circumstances
by specific members.

Alternately, Invading Europeans
valued a rare yellow metal, slaves, spices, animal hides and land.
I can point you to early writings by the Christian
Puritan leaders on what they thought of the Native Americans.

the execution of innocent was a common unquestioned practice.

Sorry, wrong again. The execution of an innocent was a reason
for war. It was neither common, nor went unquestioned. Thus,
the uprisings of the fractured Native American population. When
the Europeans started to enslave women and children while
slaughtering the males, they did rise up. I'm sure you'd defend
your family to the death as well. I know I would.

Cannibalism was not an uncommon thing either(though I can't say whether the Cherokee did it or not).

What's wrong with that statement?

Ever since the beginnings industrial revolution it experienced a drastic reduction in Europe, which is why populations grew so much.
Populations also experienced a healthy growth during the most stable periods of Medieval times, before the Crusades.

You forget the black plague and small pox which obliterated
a major portion of the European population.

Do they learn only to do physical labour and religious doctrines? If so, then you can bet they have what I would call a poor education.

(smiles) now we diverge to the Amish. So much to learn!
I also live among the Amish. They'd consider your education
to be very poor as well since they are a self-sufficient society.
I doubt many formally educated persons could survive without
help.

In ancient tribes, one individual's goals mattered very little. Everyone was expected to accept it and the concept of individual freedom unheard of.

Wrong. Individual freedom and spirituality was just as sacred as
the loyalty to the individuals clan.

If we stripped down rich Western countries of their culture today, we'd have a common model applyable to all of them.

I'd wager you'd have a group of people which would quickly starve
to death or slaughter each other.

Surely, each nation has their structural particularities as well, but that doesn't invalidate a model which works effectively for all of them.

Agreed. The Cherokee had (have) their own written language, nation,
and system of government. Andrew Jackson had no buisness
invalidating a whole nations rights simply over greed by land/gold
hungry settlers.

 

[Smilin]

They also placed equal or even greater value on their women as on their men! That happened to be one of the 'concerns' of the Christian settlers, they were afraid their women would get bad ideas of equality and freedom.

Very good my friend!

Women determined clan membership, geneology, and held
a very high status in their society.

And, yes, that was a great concern to the Europeans
and their ideals towards women of that era.

i.e... a Cherokee woman could divorce her husband simply
by setting his belongings outside their dwelling. That notion
CERTAINLY disturbed the Puritans.

 

[Plan 9]

[/size][/font]

never apologize for your spiritual beliefs.

Well, I was one scared kid, so what I did was all about gaining some power. It wasn't kind and balanced like Wicca at all; it was mostly Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn stuff.
Cowardice is just not the best motivation for ones religious beliefs. It was when I wanted more than anything to be a better person, no matter what the cost, that I began to make some real progress.
Christians here seem to talk about "fire insurance" a lot, but I wasn't a bit concerned with that; I just wanted to get through the next day without doing something I was miserably ashamed of, and I still think that's a worthy goal.

I for one have never looked down at anyone for being in their “do it your self free form worship” phase. I think everyone goes through that and I think every one , especially pagans) go through a rigid ritual phase, eventually the two extremes balance out and people find themselves in a very comfortable personal kind of spirituality.

I do agree with you here! It's a hard thing to find the right balance, isn't it? All of us are in the situation of adapting ancient beliefs to a very different culture.
Smilin's a good example: his people can't turn back time and be just what they were. The Cherokee still have their native tongue, so I do believe they can adapt and won't lose what's best in their culture. As a matter of fact, the link Smilin' gave on another thread shows an area near where I live, and it's some of the most beautiful country in our state. It made me wonder if you can convert to Cherokee.
I had an Osage great-grandmother, but our family had to her in plain sight, which I'm told happened a lot here by Scots-Cherokees I know.
Our family was Welsh. As a general rule, Celtic immigrants weren't treated well at all, and their clan systems were similar to those of several Native American clans, so they tended to get together and intermarry. When things got bad later, they hid their Native American relatives, as I said, in plain sight.

 

[Heathen Dawn]

I know a real pagan from a neo-pagan from sad personal experience.

Are you suggesting neopagans aren’t real pagans?!

 

[Plan 9]

Are you suggesting neopagans aren’t real pagans?!

No, I'm not. Lifesaver suggested that, from my understanding of what he was saying.. If you go back, you'll see I'm referring to Lifesaver's definition of the term, as belef system you skimp on, for lack of a better term. I'm afraid that you'd have to read several pages now to get a sense of what Lifesaver and I aren't in agreement about.

What I personally did was definitely on the chessy and cheap side, and it was primarily ripped off from a group that I can't say I respect as much now, for the most part.
Some of the hermeticists have interesting ideas, but I wasn't interested in ideas at the time, so I broke every spiritual law that Wiccans hold sacred. I knew no Wiccans, or I might have done better. I could have used some guidance, but I had none.
We were more a bunch of druggies than anything else. Surely you know people now you'd sometimes like to get off your side?
Maybe fringers is the right term. Ignorant people who play at something they don't understand, get in trouble, and also make others look bad.
Questions, Heather? In case I haven't explained myself well?

 

[Heathen Dawn]

No, I'm not. If you go back, you'll see I'm referring to Lifesaver's definition of the term, as belef system you skimp on, for lack of a better term. I'm afraid that you'd have to read several pages now to get a sense of what Lifesaver and I aren't in agreement about.

My apologies.

 

[Plan 9]

My apologies.

The apologies should really be mine, Heather! I'll try to think about the effect my posts have on someone who's come in in the middle of a long discussion in the future, especially when I'm a guest in a thread.