User talk:Cavalorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Welcome again! 3 It's all Adrien's fault! 4 Great work 5 re: choronzon 6 Charmer

[edit] Welcome

Fun, isn't it? - David Gerard 20:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome again!

Glad you've showed up. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't hold out any more. Too much of the stupid.Cavalorn 17:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's all Adrien's fault!

Velkome, oh Bringer of Scary Mutilated Koala's.

-Veratien 23:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great work

I'm impressed... It's great to see someone so obviously knowledgeable and able to communicate that knowledge effectively. Thanks for being here -- sannse (talk) 15:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much! -- Cavalorn 17:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: choronzon

I'm not following this stuff anymore, man. Wikipedia is, like, one thing that somebody could do on a vacant evening. You want to rewrite all the articles on this topic, being all rigidly doctrinaire, go ahead. Auto movil 16:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not being rigidly doctrinaire at all - just now I included your original article, on the 'he said - she said' basis that we both agreed would work. I don't really understand where you're coming from here. One moment you say it looks really good, the next you're claiming I'm being rigid. For the record, what I'm not prepared to accept is *anyone* being rigidly doctrinarian, whether it's your take on the 'so called Abyss' (as you put it) or AC's original account. What you don't seem to grok is that you are trying to push a doctrine of your own, in which you state that AC was wrong and things aren't how he described them. BOTH accounts needed to go in there, in chronological order, and now they have.Cavalorn 17:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a doctrine of my own; it's what fan-boys would call 'secret teachings.' That said, maybe I shouldn't be going on about such things in a public forum, but the whole Crowley thing is actually incredibly simple. I don't see any reason to continue the tradition of being obscure about all this stuff.

Thanks for reworking the article. As I said, I can't follow this stuff too closely, but I'm certainly willing to bicker and discuss Auto movil 20:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charmer

You're the only author on this article, is there any chance we can squeeze some 'earliest date of reference' or solid dates, locations and possibly references from you on this most interesting topic? 211.30.80.121 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)