Is it officially recognized among most Wiccans or in whatever major texts you may or may not have that the Ouija Board is not to be messed with ?

I ask outta curiosity, not to disrespect your religion. I thought you might be coming at it from a general superstition-for-superstition's-sake kind of angle when I replied earlier, which I see way too much of---scaredy beliefs without basis. Like folks who think saying "Bloody Mary" in front of a mirror in a dark bathroom will invoke something terrible, but have no religious affiliation that would explain their reasons for believing something that most of us left behind when we were 12.

[ edited by Kris on 2008-09-19 15:02 ]

Kris | September 19, 14:46 CET

"Candyman, Candyman, Candyman, Candyman, Candyman" is still pretty dodgy though.

I thought you might be coming at it from a general superstition-for-superstition's-sake kind of angle when I replied earlier ...

As opposed to superstition-for-a-really-good-reason's-sake ?!?

Saje | September 19, 15:11 CET

Kris, I can't speak for all Wiccans, as we're an eclectic bunch and follow a number of different traditions. But in my experience, yes, a Ouija board is considered something better to just leave alone, if you're of the persuasion that there are indeed "dark forces" out there (along with the forces of light). In spite of the fact that kids regularly use them to scare each other and none that I've heard of, end up in Linda Blaire territory. ;-)

Not so tarot, which are used by most Wiccans.

Thanks for asking without being derisive. :)

Shey | September 19, 15:21 CET

Thanks for the explanation Shey. So were you hoping for that Buffy tarot deck too then ?

Heh, c'mon Saje, you know what I mean. The difference between folks who are fly-by-night superstitious (black cats, break a mirror, etc, but with nothing else in their lives that would indicate they would or should think this way) and people who have a well thought out belief system that maybe dictates a reason (or "reason") for being superstitious.

[ edited by Kris on 2008-09-19 15:38 ]

Kris | September 19, 15:37 CET

Heh, yeah I kinda get what you mean Kris, I was mainly pointing out that by definition a superstition is:

so all reasons for them are actually "reasons" as you put it ;). Which ones persist and spread is actually pretty interesting I think, they usually have something that makes them more prone to propagation, what a story-teller might call a "hook".

As you say though, you can have a well-thought out belief system that encompasses superstitions - it doesn't necessarily make the superstition less nonsensical of course but that's down to the individual and the extent to which reason and logic inform their beliefs. And you can certainly believe a superstition based on what you think are good reasons and just be mistaken about e.g. assigning an effect to an unrelated cause for instance, so-called "primitive" peoples (which we all once were) did that a lot in the past.

Saje | September 19, 16:01 CET

Has no one learned anything from the horrible trials of Regan McNeil? I kid, but Ouija boards give me a bad feeling, not the least of which that I believe there are entities, I hesitate to call them demons, who do want to harm us and that's a way in (I'm not particularly religious, it's just an intuitive feeling). My brother told me once, who has been in involved in Eastern religion for a long time, they are called catamounts (no, not Puma). If you're going to buy memorabilia, at least buy something reasonably attractive (and what happened to the Buffy bookends one place was supposedly producing). And I knew I should have bought that Buffy/Angel snowglobe while I had the chance. They're out of stock now.

Tonya J | September 19, 16:17 CET

Yeah, I get the same "bad feeling" when I see a lone magpie cos growing up I was taught "one for sorrow, two for joy ..." (cheers mum, you taught me a lot of very handy stuff but that one ? Not so much ;). And I still "touch wood" out of habit sometimes.

As with any other superstition of course, there're plenty that some people observe religiously (heh ;) that millions of others have never heard of. And yet those millions continue just as before, with no ill effects. I played with Ouija boards growing up much as Kris did and i'm still here for instance. I mean, I was possessed by unearthly evil and carried out nameless dark atrocities at the behest of Beelzebub but you know teenagers, always getting up to mischief ;).

Saje | September 19, 16:27 CET

Well, I think we all always sensed the evil in you, Saje ... :p

Tonya J | September 19, 16:30 CET

When I said to Kris thanks for the interest without being derisive, I wasn't really thinking in terms of, it's refreshing because you can always count on someone to be insulting to other people's beliefs.
Turns out, the contrast is indeed illuminating.

Shey | September 19, 16:37 CET

Well, I think we all always sensed the evil in you, Saje ... :p

And now you can put a face to that previously amorphous sensation of infinite darkness (i've trimmed my horns a bit since then though ;).

Saje | September 19, 16:41 CET

On a Saje-sidenote, I think you are either going to set a record or break the internet. You've got an average of about 7 posts per day for the last 997 days for a total of 6,962 posts. That means you are only 38 posts from the 7,000 milestone. 38 divided by 7 per day means you should hit that mark in 5.4 days.

I don't know if you're (still) evil but there's no debating you have quite a bit to say. Kudos.

alexreager | September 19, 17:11 CET

Heh, it mainly means i've got a job which is semi-seasonal and is largely spent sitting in front of my PC. One of our busiest periods is coming up (so I might ruin your average calculations alexreager, soz ;) but most of the time the work-rate equals about 1.5 person-days per day and there're two of us to do it (leaving half-a-person spare). That equals a lot of web-surfing (since i'm not allowed to bring a book in and read it at my desk and there're too many distractions to play online poker ;).

And I bet if you took facetious comments out we'd be down to double figures anyway ;).


ETA: On the "quite a bit to say" topic BTW, i've noticed that the more time I spend on here the more I develop a sort of "opinionitis" i.e. the various threads sort of "force" me into deciding one way or another about a lot of topics where i'd previously probably just have said "don't really care either way". Does anyone else feel like that (about themselves I mean ;) ?

[ edited by Saje on 2008-09-19 17:30 ]

Saje | September 19, 17:21 CET

I didn't know about not saying Bloody Mary in front of a mirror in the dark. Is it OK if the mirror is behind a bar?

jcs | September 19, 19:14 CET

As with most things said at a bar, it all depends on how many times you say it ;).

Saje | September 19, 19:37 CET

I think that's a profound statement Saje and I have to say that I agree. It seems the uber-courteous style of this site lends itself to intelligent discussion and/or disagreement while maintaining the highest degree of respect for the participants.

When I was young, my father asked me about school or something else from my day. I started to tell him my answer and he stopped me. He asked me to please start again but this time, I should sit on my hands. He was forcing me to choose my words carefully to express my thoughts (versus using my hands to gesticulate).

In a very similar way, I think WHEDONesque's strict policies regarding taboo topics and unacceptable comments (i.e. personal or petty jabs) forces us to really think about our comments before making a knee-jerk reaction. (Everyone knows that knee-jerk reactions lead to hate and hate leads to the dark side.)

So as I've said many times before, I love this site and it's many wonderful mods and posters (including the highly prolific, yet bored at work, Saje).

alexreager | September 19, 21:05 CET

I'm saving my money for when they bring back Spike panties.

MysticSlug | September 19, 21:16 CET

There goes the tone ;-).

Cheers alexreager and back atcha BTW ;). I pretty much agree with the caveat that it's how close we often sail to the wind re: taboo subjects and still, by and large, keep it civil that I love about this place. And when we stray from the straight and narrow (as we all do from time to time, cos who's perfect in this life ?) the mods are usually there to "explain" the error of our ways ;).

Saje | September 19, 21:46 CET

I think that's a profound statement Saje...

Well, this made me laugh because it came right after Saje's comment about the bar, which was funny but not the deepest thing I've ever heard him say (read him write?), but I certainly agree with your post alexreager.

As for "opinionitis"--maybe it's caused by excessive exposure to internet polls. :)

jcs | September 19, 22:13 CET

The last time we were asked (and I think it's been asked more times here in topics/polls than I can count) which shows we liked better, Buffy or Angel, or which of all the shows, I couldn't answer. And this week I did. That's not opinionitis but more reflection I suppose after having seen the question so many times. So that could be one area where repeated topics and polls can be useful. Usually I glare balefully at the screen and think oh no, not again and usually just stay out of said topic altogether. Next time we're asked what Joss means to us or something along those lines, I might be moved to say, "Oh, he's that funny guy who makes me snort Pepsi up my nose" and let it go at that than do the deep, meaningful paragraphs of adoration.

Tonya J | September 19, 22:23 CET

Pepsi huh ? That gives me an idea for a poll ...

;-)

Saje | September 19, 22:44 CET

Sometimes Pepsi ... sometimes Iced Tea (Snapple 'cause I love the Snapple knowledge underneath the cap ... for instance, did you know Camels have three eyelids? Stuff like that).

[ edited by Tonya J on 2008-09-19 22:59 ]

Tonya J | September 19, 22:59 CET

I didn't know that. Seems like overkill but I guess it's always handy to have a spare and also, if a camel wanted to be on the lookout, they'd be able to keep their eyes really peeled. We should use camels as sentries in fact, it just makes sense.

Saje | September 19, 23:41 CET

Silly man, of course they need three; an heir and a spare! Bwahhahahaha, I really crack myself up sometimes.... :>0

Tonya J | September 20, 00:08 CET

The question of whether or not actively participating in an on-line forum like this one gives one "opinionitis" is something I might never have considered if I hadn't come across the idea here, and once I might have said, well, who cares, but now I feel strangely compelled to form an opinion on the matter just so I can be part of the conversation.

So: yes! me too!


I don't really get this (if it's obvious, apologies, just got home from a busy shift) but I think it's one of those things that's funny whether you get it or not. I laughed, anyway.

catherine | September 20, 04:03 CET

Heh, catherine, that description totally describes me while reading this thread. Guess I'll be sitting with you and Saje in the "opinionitis" section of whedonesque :).

Also, regading cola's and to prove my condition: it's either Coca-Cola or a very nice local cheap alternative which tastes better than Pepsi for me ;)

Also, alexreager, I completely agree. I remember when I first came here, I felt restricted by the site policy simply because it was there and was strict. I often worried if I was polite enough or wondered if I did/said things the mods may not have liked. But after a while, when I got "the feel of this place", I quickly realised that it wasn't a burden to live to whedonesque's rules, but actually very, very easy. It really comes instinctively and naturally almost all of the time and it makes for much more interesting and insightfull discussions on a broad range of subjects which, refreshingly, do not end up in online shouting matches. It's one of the reasons why I love it here. And the fact that, as Saje says, we also sometimes still cross the line, means that the rules and mods are still here for a reason. Without them, whedonesque might not be the incredible internet community it is today.

GVH | September 20, 05:04 CET

GVH. Does that mean that you're going to fill us in on your responses to my questions about Kant and your positions on his theories about morality, that you just blew past, and his questions on human reason, which are critically important to the theory of science, that you just blew past?

dreamlogic | September 21, 04:25 CET

Or my questions about the fundamentally amoral nature of tea-brewing, that you just blew past?

ETA ;)

[ edited by catherine on 2008-09-21 13:58 ]

catherine | September 21, 13:57 CET

Sorry, dreamlogic, I don't remember "blowing past" your questions on the - I'm guessing - religion/atheism/science philosphy thread. I just looked at your posts there to see what I did, and I noticed that I, in fact, answered pretty much all your questions except one general remark about Kant ("GVH, on the last thread, that you helpfully linked to, you said that you've read Kant, but didn't say what that might have meant concerning any of your points.").

First of: I was kinda overextending myself with two of those threads on the subject in a short period of time and as it came up towards the end of the thread, I was getting a bit discussion-weary after discussing basically the same subject for more than a week already. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate. I mention this, since you sound kinda angry in your post here (as you did in the other thread). I'm not quite sure what I did to deserve that.

Anyway, it's been ages since I've read (some of) Kant for a science philosophy class I took, so I'd probably have to read up on that to give an answer to your remark in any detail. Like I said in my response to you there, I tend to remember concepts, but not so much the people those concepts originally belonged to. His ideas have therefore probably long since merged into my own personal philosophy of the theory of science. So for me to answer how the theory of Kant relates to all of my opinions on the subject (since you didn't specify which particular opinions you felt should be adressed), seems like an essay waiting to happen, including prep time like new research into the subject. And while I absolutely love science philosophy, I'm not going to do that simply because someone asked in a discussion thread on the internet, even if it was a fellow regular in a very interesting discussion on whedonesque. I have an actual job too, y'know ;).

In fact, because of the amount of time it would entail to answer such a question, I didn't even think you actually wanted me to do that at the time, which, I'm guessing by your post, was a wrong assumption ;). If you would consider me not doing that (and yet answering everything else you mentioned) 'blowing past your questions', I would humbly suggest you formulate those questions in less general terms, next time.

Anyway, if you still feel I've "wronged" you in any way, as your posts seems to imply, feel free to drop me an e-mail (I would've done this in an e-mail already, because this is wildly off-topic for this thread, but your profile doesn't include one), as I'm sure the mods wouldn't want us to continue this here - even if this is about to drop off the front page.

Heh, catherine :)

GVH | September 21, 14:05 CET

On the opinionitis thing: I know I'm still new here, but I have experience from other sites of the same kind of effect, and I'm actually trying to wean myself off it these days. This is because I am naturally a rather opinionated person to begin with, and I want to give my take on any subject that arises, but really... I should probably shut up instead.

So these days I try to stick to flippant and/or peacemaking comments - except when discussion of fictional characters is involved of course, when all bets are off because my interpretation of them is totally more correct than yours. ;)

[ edited by skittledog on 2008-09-21 16:09 ]

skittledog | September 21, 16:08 CET