BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Discussion of the behaviour of Deus est Daemon Inversus [Formerly "Mordant's Personal problems in Temple"]

 
  

Page: 12(3)45678... 9

 
 
illmatic
07:09 / 19.05.06
Well, I feel strongly that he should go, so I'm going to wait till the other side of the weekend to see if he responds to this thread (ha!). Then I'll contact Tom, and see what he thinks. If anyone feels strongly that he should stay, you can put your case here.

Mordant, by interested in your point of PoV.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
07:42 / 19.05.06
I feel strongly that he should go, too. But, as usual, you are the voice of reason, Ganesh. I shouldn't be down on the guy just because I think he'll continue to be a negative effect on the board. He very well may turn things around and become a valuable poster. Thus, I withdraw. I'll watch the rest of this from a distance.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:11 / 19.05.06
Dedi, you've now had a full day and night to swing by and explain yourself. You haven't even bothered. Classy.

It's pretty obvious what'll happen next: you'll lie low for a week or two, then come back to the Temple as if nothing had happened. When someone brings this issue up, you will spit out your dummy and round we'll go again. I'm not keen on bannination but it looks like you're not going to give us a choice. You had your chance, kitten.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:58 / 19.05.06
OK - if there's a move to ban, I think we need a new thread, started in the most neutral terms possible, specifically oriented towards that.
 
 
Ganesh
09:58 / 19.05.06
Perhaps leave it up to Tom, then, whether he acts immediately or goes for the 'community discussion' option a la ShadowSax. DEDI's contributions have been fewer than ShadowSax's and the issues arguably more clear-cut (in that it's predominantly about his mode of interaction with Mordant), so I'm not sure we'd need an entire week to talk about it.
 
 
Ganesh
09:59 / 19.05.06
OK - if there's a move to ban, I think we need a new thread, started in the most neutral terms possible, specifically oriented towards that.

Fair enough - and we can harvest the various links from this thread. Who fancies starting the new thread?
 
 
illmatic
10:31 / 19.05.06
Might be an idea *not* to start one at present - in that I don't think it's necessary. Sorry to be enigmatic but some new info has entered the picture and been passed to Tom.
 
 
electric monk
11:35 / 19.05.06
Tease.
 
 
Sekhmet
12:37 / 19.05.06
Oh, great. Tenterhooks.
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
15:13 / 19.05.06
I had intended to reply briefly. Now, in light of a vicious, underhanded Star Chember attack by Illmatic, claiming secret "new information," which I have no doubt is pure libel on his part, I shall wait.
 
 
electric monk
15:19 / 19.05.06
Then answer a question. A "Yes" or "no" will do.

Do you want to be a part of this community?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:25 / 19.05.06
Wait for what, precisely? For everyone to stand on their desks in a display of solidarity?
 
 
electric monk
15:30 / 19.05.06
DEDI Poets Society?
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
15:31 / 19.05.06
I purposefully waited a day and a half so as to reply once to all messages on the thread. Now, in light of this rather deplorable "secret information" Star Chamber tactic by Illmatic, I thought I'd wait for that. No matter, since as I wrote before, I'm sure it's irrelevant.

That being said, later this weekend I'll address substantially all points mentioned here.
 
 
electric monk
15:38 / 19.05.06
A simple yes or no, DEDI.


YES

or

NO
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
16:05 / 19.05.06
Yes, Monk.
 
 
electric monk
16:13 / 19.05.06
Thank you, DEDI. That's a start.


Care to tell us why?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:31 / 19.05.06
Don't hassle the man, monk. If whatever Illmatic has discovered makes banning inevitable, there's no need to badger him for an explanation. If not, we can talk about this later.
 
 
electric monk
16:33 / 19.05.06
Yeah, you're right. Sorry all. I'm a bit worked up about all this.
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
17:17 / 19.05.06
Again, the reference to the "secret" information compiled by Illmatic. Though I am faintly interested in whatever these libels might be, only the basest type of coward- as Illmatic has proved himself to be- would resort to this sort of tactic. I expected better from you, Haus, than even to implicitly endorse this sort of infamy.

As to Illmatic's underhanded insinuations, I consider them an unwarranted attack on my character libelous per quod. I am an attorney in good standing- with a clean disciplinary record- with my State Bar. I will gladly provide the link to anyone who writes me. I only mention this because Illmatic's insinuations, and I can not sufficiently stress that they are those of a coward, are an unsubstantiated personal attack which invites certain inferences.

I mentioned that I would address the rest of the thread with some specificity later this weekend.
 
 
Ganesh
17:24 / 19.05.06
Perhaps Illmatic and Haus are the offspring of whores too?
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
17:34 / 19.05.06
I had hoped to defer this until I had more time. I will, in fact, write a statement here in three hours or so.

As to your specific question, I sincerely doubt it. Do you and Haus then endorse Illmatic's tactics? This statement I will defend to the death; and never retract: the "secret" information tactics engaged in by Illmatic were those of a coward.
 
 
rising and revolving
17:59 / 19.05.06
Have you ever considered that as a lawyer, you might want to give some consideration to the use of the term "libel" and the validity thereof? You use the word a lot, but it does not mean what you think it means.

Well, that's not entirely true. It seems you think it means "I'm a lawyer, using law words! Back off!"

You'd be wrong.

Certainly there is no court on the planet that would find

"Sorry to be enigmatic but some new info has entered the picture and been passed to Tom."

to be libellous. You embarrass yourself to imply that it is.
 
 
iconoplast
18:00 / 19.05.06
What just happened? Why are we now in the past tense?
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
18:09 / 19.05.06
R. ands R., libel law permits reasonable inference. That's why I said libel per quod and not libel per se. It also allows one to make these inferences from the content in which they are made. Illmatic's "enigmatic" communication implied that he had come on information so damaging that no further discussion was possible. In the context that he made it, it is libel per quod.

I don't much care about that. What I do care about is the cowardly way Illmatic went about this.

Now, let me finish up a few things first, then read through the thread, and address the salient points with specificity.
 
 
Quantum
18:14 / 19.05.06
Please stop calling Illmatic a coward.
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
18:29 / 19.05.06
Then let him publish whatever he has here, or be damned.
 
 
Ganesh
18:32 / 19.05.06
Alternatively, we could go ahead and let Tom make the decision based on your behaviour on Barbelith.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:32 / 19.05.06
A lawyer who does not understand the value of discretion is no lawyer I'd ever want to hire.

Getting a lot of work, are you, DeDI?
 
 
Cat Chant
18:50 / 19.05.06
Illmatic's "enigmatic" communication implied that he had come on information so damaging that no further discussion was possible

Um... actually, until you commented about this I took Illmatic's statement to mean either that he had heard from you directly that you were leaving Barbelith, so the point was moot, or that he had discovered some mitigating circumstances which he did not want to make public, perhaps because it was private, personal or embarrassing to you.
 
 
charrellz
19:22 / 19.05.06
I wrote a rather long post to go here, and then noticed just how nasty it was, so I'm just gonna shorten it down to the part I really wanted to get out:

Doesn't the information have to be false to be libel? How can you declare Illmatic's actions as libelous when no one knows what the information is, DeDI?


If only everyone on the 'lith was capable of not posting mean things, our little digital abode would be so much friendlier (but admittedly more boring).
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
19:26 / 19.05.06
I'll make a very brief statement. There were two threads on joining Occult groups. I made some general comments on both. When I joined Barbelith, I quickly went over all the threads. I did not realize that there were two threads on the same topic. When people asked about literature, I provided some links to texts in the public domain at our web site at www.golden-dawn.com. At the praemonstrator ordinis of H.O.G.D., I made some comments on our curriculum. Whatever I did say was on topic. Mordant, on three occasions, accused me in Temple of 'pimping.'

Whatever work I do for H.O.G.D., as praemonstrator ordinis, or as general counsel, is uncompensated.

I was a bit chagrined when, and I had just mentioned my work as a praemonstrator, my experience with Occult orders, my recommendation that people read the literature available for free before joining an Order, etc. and no more in my posts, a thread appeared promoting a Chaos Magick lecture which charged a fee. I pointed this out.

"Pimp" is not a word that I take lightly. When Mordant used it again in a private communication, I made the- I admit- inappropriate (and unfounded) reference to her mother. It was a private communication; not published by me to a third party. Mordant threatened to publish it in Policy. I replied, as I always do when threatened: do whatever it is that you will.

After that, it became a thread in Policy. Whenever I posted anywhere, Mordant and Haus cross-posted. That was three months ago. This minor harrassment continued. When, quite recently, I posted a piece on the hexagraam- which, I think, anyone who reads it will find it factual and unargumentative- Mordant, dripping with sarcasm, tried to revive the prior thread. I made certain factual comments. Again, I was threatened with Policy. I started the current thread.


I will say this. I do not know Mordant's mother. My comment, made privately to her, and published by her to others, was inappropriate. I have said as much.
 
 
iconoplast
19:27 / 19.05.06
Then let him publish whatever he has here, or be damned

...or be damned?

Really?

I mean, if your personal cosmology does in fact include eternal perdition for those malefactors who wrongfully prevent the innocent from letting the entire internet know how that latest episode of Gilmore Girls was the best one yet, then yes - damned. Spot On.

If not, I think you may want to cool the rhetoric a bit, it comes off as (a) pompous, and (b) kind of silly, really.
 
 
doglikesparky
19:27 / 19.05.06
I took Illmatic's statement to mean either that he had heard from you directly that you were leaving Barbelith, so the point was moot, or that he had discovered some mitigating circumstances which he did not want to make public, perhaps because it was private, personal or embarrassing to you.

Indeed. My inference on the comment was that information had come to light that would make further discussion moot. I didn't read anything in it which suggested it would prove Dedi wrong in any way.
To react the way he did was unnecesarliy defensive and to refer to it as 'rather deplorable' was, imho, telling.
 
 
Sam T.
19:36 / 19.05.06
Anyway, when you look at the final result, you have to admit that Illmatic comment managed to make DIDE talks. Clever.

I feel like I'm spreading oil on fire, like they say idiomatically in my country.

< gets out fast >
 
  

Page: 12(3)45678... 9

 
  
Add Your Reply