Thank you Rain. I have never used the word "Tulpas" on here, but its nice to know someone might have been 'checking up on it' as a means to understanding what I originally meant.
As rain will attest, it was actually me
who raised the tulpa topic in context with what you say about your halluncinations-made-flesh. She even quoted me.
So, cheers for the inadvertent pat on the back.
What he really means Rain, is this Forum could 'flow much better' without himself tryng to 'disrupt it'!
Ah, no, that's not what I meant at all. In fact, that's an outright lie. Again, can you stop misrepresenting what I say?
Please ignore him, he is of no significance. Just a person tangled up in his own meaningless words!
First Barbara, now rain? The same person who quoted me
byway of response to you?
If my words are "meaningless", then what would that make of rain's utilising my writings in her response?
Tripped over yourself again, Dave.
Also, what's with this obsession
in trying to silence people engaging me in conversation?
Jeez, chill out man. They can think for themselves, ya know.
To say I have "no significance" is once again playing the "holier than thou" card. Which, as we've seen from your defense of Wicca, multiple personal attacks against members of the forum, refusing to supply evidence or (generally) engage in reasoned discussion, etc. is quite a laugh.
It is yourself who is reaching any conclusions about 'bishops' or 'clergymen', "Venator, when I have not even referred to these.
A logical one, considering the attire you described. Not to mention that bit about the lamb and crook. Priests generally don't carry crooks, do they?
In fact, the 'photograph' on the back cover is a photograph of a drawing - rather like the ridiculous ones you keep posting here.
You referred to it as a "picture". Again, a logical supposition that it was a photo, is justifiable.
The only difference is, it does not portray ridiculour-looking Mediaeval demons like the ones you seem so obsessed with showing here.
No, but you did say it features someone "recognisable". So, go on: who is it?
The book does contain real photographs, however, but you'll just have to get a copy if you want to read it.
More shameless advertising.