Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-dallas!news-in-dallas.newsfeeds.com!feed.textport.net!sn-xit-04!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Gnomedplume@aol.com (Gnome d Plume) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick Subject: Re: Runyon Plagiarized? (was where to start?) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 03:48:23 GMT Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3b71f7f3.426609446@trialnews.peoplepc.com> References: <9kn6fj$h7r$1@plutonium.btinternet.com> <9ksmr0$4u9@bolt.sonic.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 99 Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:28443 alt.magick:256797 On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:53:52 GMT, nagasiva wrote: >50010808 VI! om Hail Satan! Hail Yes! > >"David Cantu" : >>And here is what is going to happen, or potentially could: you don't know >>much of the history here so don't know that Kraig stole portions of the book >>from one Carol (Poke, Gnome) Runyon's work and that he, Kraig, is mostly >>chased away when he shows his face here. > >please provide some relevant quotations from each and their copyright >dating in support of this claim. I haven't heard this charge yet and >what I saw in Kraig's "Modern Magick" seemed rather conventional >Thelemic/Golden Dawn such that I wonder what was "stolen". > >>But you will not find "truth" in books or tools or any bullshit except your >>own mind and spirit. You must learn to discern. One way of doing this is >>to take on a model for reality like Kabbalah, or physics for that matter, >>and learn to see the world from the point of view of this model. Many new >>connections and ways of manipulating your inner and outer reality will >>become more apparent as you go through an interpretive drift toward your >>chosen model. Any model will due, and like LSD, the real lesson is not the >>particular model but the malleability of the world you experience. > >sounds like magic is, to you, 'the change of consciousness in conformity >with will' which Crowley did not accept. > >>Now it may or may not be true that there are entities to contact and learn >>from, and perhaps they can teach you or maybe you can teach yourself how to >>become enlightened. Hahahahahahahahahaha, what are Angels and Demons and >>things that fly about about? > >birds? > >nagasiva *******Just to set the record straight on this: I've never accused Don Kraig of plagiarism. He came close but not over the line. What happened was this: one of my students had a falling out with me--mostly instigated by his wife---and, after leaving the O.T.A., he circulated a Xerox, Acco binder "book" in which he briefly explained the facial reflection/distortion method of Goetia evocation I had developed back in 1969. He admitted that he was "Revealing" someone else's "Secret Magick." This was a marginal, underground publication and the method itself was only presented in one paragraph. I decided to ignore it. Kraig, however, praised it, calling the authors "two excellent occultists," and cited it as his major source for Chapter Nine in *Modern Magick,* He then came as close as he dared to showing exactly how the O.T.A. method was done. Just a few months before Kraig's book hit the stands, Carl Weschecke was anxious to introduce me to Don Kraig at the ABA convention in Los Angeles. He wanted "To get us together." Kraig was also ingratiating. He had heard I was working on the G.D. cyphers and he wanted to give me a copy of McGee's pamphlet version in exchange for a set of our 7th Ray journals. I agreed. A month or so later, his letter arrived with the McGee pamphlet and a money order for $15.00. I shelved it until I could get a set of Rays ready for him (some had to be re-copied). In less than a week his book was out and I had my first look at it. I must admit I was furious. I'd been ripped-off and there was nothing I could do about it. Weschecke had known very well that I would be furious, and so had Kraig. The ABA courtship was a slimy move by both of them. I shoved Kraig's letter with the money order into a cubby hole and tried very hard to put the whole rotten business out of my mind. Seven years later, at Pat Zalewiski's urging, I got back to work on the G.D. cyphers. I used the McGee pamphlet (one of several versions of the cyphers) as one of my cross references (It was available in two copyrighted re-prints), but I still gave Don Kraig thanks in the acknowledgements to my book for having sent me a copy. Carl Wescheke wrote that he liked my book and we a signed a contract. Everything seemed to be going well with the project at Llewellyn until Don Kraig circulated a letter to the whole staff accusing me of "stealing his work," (his exact words!) without explaining himself further. In other words, he accused me of plagiarism! I sent a five page letter to Llewellyn detailing the background of the situation and asking for an apology. Kraig tried to justify his accusation by claiming that he had had to "work" to "earn the money" to buy the pamphlet from McGee, and therefore I had "stolen his work" (I have this incredible statement over his signature!) ---and of course there was the $15.00 money (which had grown to $25.00 in his mind) that I had also "stolen". This didn't work very well either because I'd never cashed it and had managed to find the original buried in my desk. The upshot of all this was that Llewellyn dragged their feet on my book for a year until Darcy Kuntz's version of the cyphers came out and then used that as an excuse to break their contract. Of course I had grounds for a lawsuit against Kraig and Llewellyn but suing authors and their publishers is not a wise thing to do if you are a writer yourself. So, in my opinion Mr. Kraig is not a very honorable or even an honest gentleman, but I can't call him a plagiarist----even though he certainly called me one. ******** Gnome d Plume http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/welcome.html