Peter Gilmore Considers Egan a Threat

I no longer can find the whining emails both Gilmore and Nadramia sent about "how much Doktor loved me" and "how much Doktor hated Egan" but there is a hint of it in this, which was sent way later on when it was evident that I would NOT attack Egan like a lackey. I do note they didn't send me any storm trooper email. They sent another kind of email. Heh, like that would make a difference?

-----Original Message-----
From: hpoelzig []
Sent: 24. februar 2000 18:51
To:; Sir Chaos
Cc: Hr. Vad; me; Red Comrades
Subject: Re: Enough 

To the gang:

Here's our take on the current disputes online.

Nancy: She's a kook, but she's one who is an independent individual. The evidence points to her often beginning flame-wars with people by posting attacks against them FIRST (completely out-of-the-blue) in threads in which she has had no previous involvement. Other people have responded on their own to her and thus drawn her fire. She has been the instigator for the most part. She did start her Andre war after he basically said "not interested" to her flirty chat room messages - this is fact. Her complaints about him revealing her personal information are spurious; our research shows that she has posted information about herself online, and further, there is good reason to believe she is the person who researched and posted Andre's home address and phone number. This was long before anyone knew who SHE was, so if she doesn't like her name being bandied about, she has only herself to blame. To repeat: Nancy posted the personal info of a CoS Priest long before her own info (consisting only of her real name, NOT an address or location) was seen anywhere. Bottom line: unless one gets a kick out of trading insults with her, just ignore her, and she seems to do the same (though as Satanists, when attacked for no reason as many were by her, they naturally respond). She thrives on the negative attention, so one shouldn't supply her with her "fix." Be the Epicurian Sadist who says "No" to the masochist.

Red: He is a criminal in his theft of copyrighted material, and you have dealt well with this by making him give up the stolen goods, as well as having exposed his and his wife's unwise behavior of attacking you all from the systems at their places of employment. Regarding his disputation of physics and the Dark Doctrines - who cares? Put this in a historical perspective. The Dark Doctrines have had in the past and will continue to have now and in the future many opponents. These doctrines serve as a litmus test for an individual (just like "The Satanic Bible") for an individual reads them and either gets it or doesn't, based on his nature. Chasing down those who oppose them just makes all of you look like you are out there "hunting heretics" instead of simply smiling and knowing what is being exposed by this opposition. As Tani has said: the trap is set and people fall into it. It is clear to those who really can see. The truth in the Dark Doctrines doesn't need defense in alt.satanism - this is not the final line of battle to "save them." Now that Tani and Phil have written this material down and it has been made available in print and on websites, it will be found and embraced by the proper individuals - just as has happened throughout history. Additionally, Red isn't even a member (and if he was, the appearance of persecution of heresy would be an even more appropriate description). That he spews his vitriol, but NEVER defines what he thinks Satanism to be, THAT is the real issue. Ole did it best when he asked Red to clarify his definition of Satanism. Red has never answered, so that question should be the only response to any of Red's posts. You can argue about physics with him, but most of the readers of alt.satanism aren't even getting what is discussed. A handful do, but these folk could easily be encouraged to have private dialogues which would be far more productive.

Lupo: Same deal as with Red. He's not a member, so why should you all care about what he thinks about Anton LaVey or the Dark Doctrines? Is it that he WAS respected as a scientist (his name evoked to defend your arguments) and now, as he doesn't agree, you all feel the need to demote him from his previous position of authority? If so, what this says is that YOU are worried about people who only believe things based on OTHER people's opinions, NOT on their own sovereign judgement (and clearly, such individuals are lacking as Satanists).

Any individual with an independent mind who takes the time to follow the threads in which you argue about the Doctrines with Lupo or Red, would naturally be inclined to look up this material and make their own judgements (Sir Chaos is an example), and so there is no problem. The mathematikoi will embrace them, and the akousmatkoi will ape whomever is their preference - as they have always done. If there had been newsgroups in Plato's time, I doubt he'd be out there arguing with people who didn't get it, as he'd know they are essentially incapable of this understanding. He'd spend his time exploring the nuances of knowledge with the mathematikoi, and enjoying his time. These people can follow the signposts, as it is one of the elements which define their characters. The rest are not worth the bother. You guys are wasting way too much time on something that isn't a difficulty at all.

However, several of you say that you think Egan isn't a problem, when he promotes a confused mish-mash of non-carnal mysticism as Satanism. Since he is claiming to be a figure in the movement of Satanism, his identification to the public at large is far more injurious to us than these disputes with Lupo or Red, as Egan gives society in general (who can vote to take away our freedoms) the picture of Satanists as lunatics. That Egan ISN'T a Satanist is what needs to be emphasized, not that he is a "kind" of Satanist. I think some of you "get soft" on him because he lumps the Dark Doctrines in with the rest of his bullshit, and we think THAT would be a reason to NOT be favorable to him.

And we are aware that some of our officials can be rude or abrupt in an inappropriate manner. This "bunker-mentality" has been developed through being an Op in chat rooms, and we agree that much improvement could be made in rudeness applied only when merited. Sometimes though, those who complain of unfair treatment are exposed to be the aggressors when the chat logs are examined. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it has happened frequently.

Additionally, what we say on the site is what holds true: There is no official Church of Satan chat room, and we are not responsible for what goes on there. The person who owns the chat room IS, and all complaints should be sent to him. People who want questions answered that aren't answered by the current large amount of info on the site are always welcome to write directly to the Church of Satan (a wiser course of action then demanding answers in chat rooms). They will get an answer, even if it is only a finger pointing out where they can get the information if they really want it (it is nobody's job to spoon-feed people who are too lazy to read or too cheap to buy a book). That's our two cents. Do with it what you will (as you always do).

Hail Satan!