Nashimiron wrote:I was hesitant about posting this, given that the last person who criticized a Stephen Skinner publication
disappeared from the internet. But, what the hell, at the risk of exposing myself to a vengeful blasting current....
Pfffft please. Now whose making outrageous claims here? Dr. Skinner is a class act and he does not resort to any such shenanigans. It's just not his style. The man is a Type B egghead scholar type not a Type A in your face type that would take issue with you dissing his work. Vengeful blasting. LOL!!! Good one!
.
Lemme say this, when it comes to Enochian, what I know about that subject can be engraved on the head of a pin in Sanskrit. However just because some alleged Enochian scholar claims another alleged Enochian scholar is at fault, does not mean it is automatically so. I have seen arguments like this rage for weeks in the old Yahoo Groups on lists like 'Ritual Magic' or Aaron Leitch's 'Solomonic' with nary anyone coming out the clear winner. Enochian is the bastard child of the occult whom no one likes to admit is theirs yet everyone claims they can't wait to adopt.
Nashimiron wrote:In fact, I could continue quoting Thorogood on the above book,
Some of the supporting material is not very well researched and independent editorial input might have prevented several egregious errors creeping in....the hypothesis... is not supportable by any stretch of the imagination.
Except Enochian is NOT what we're talking about here; we're discussing Stephen Skinner's book on
Solomonic material, aren't we?
Nashimiron wrote:as this applies also to elements of "Techniques...",
How does the two books tie into one another?
Nashimiron wrote:although I would add that some of what he writes concerning the PGM seems to me to be downright deceptive and he appears to be riding on the safe assumption that most of his readers will be overwhelmed by the PGM and so unlikely to notice the not-so-occasional fudge.
Please refrain from the ad homien attacks to Dr. Skinner and
prove your assertions.
Nashimiron wrote:One thing that stands out to me from the book first appears in the section titled "Circle of Protection". He admits that there are only two occurrences of circles drawn on the ground, (and, I should add only one of which the magician stands upon), but supports his argument that circles are commonplace in the PGM by saying that we can assume the reason circles are never mentioned is because their use was taken for granted.
This is simply bunkum. He is very subtle when he describes the phrase in question as "do the usual" for this turns it in to a command to perform a specific act. The truth is, I can't think of a single occurrence of "do the usual" in the PGM. As far as I am aware it is always "add the usual".
So what is the word being translated as "add the usual"? It is Koina and variants. In Supplementum Magicum II - which is in Skinner's bibliography- it is defined as
Are you certain you are not confusing two different terms? You mention in the above example "Koina" and then in the next paragraph quote, you use "KOINON" which has a different suffix.
At best this is is an example of what is considered off the mark though I do not see any deliberate attempt at faulty scholarship. Will it interfere with the PGM's spells and incantations overall? No. Because have we bothered to compare Dr. Skinner's work to Flowers & Mierzwicki for reference - if for nothing else to see if they too made this error?
Let's also remember Dr. Skinner is a researcher not necessarily a practitioner and the PGM is a mammoth amount of material to wade and sift through. Even though the man is dynamic researcher it has to be maintained that mistakes can and will occur in works like the PGM. However what you're assuming is above and beyond what is considered mistake so you're implying Dr. Skinner knowingly withheld this information even though he knew it to be false, is that it? You can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law?