🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: bit.listserv.freemasonry
Article #162

Re: Co-Masonry

#162
From: John Herold
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 03:37
44 lines
3389 bytes
Quoting Ron Boutwell <Fri Jul 15 1994 20:49> to John Herold:

JH>To be honest, Ron, I find that attitude somewhat hysterical.  If a
JH>Mason can't defend it (for whatever reason), then I have to suspect
JH>that he doesn't understand either historical or contemporary
JH>Masonry.  I want you to understand that I don't mean that as a
JH>personal attack, but rather as an observation.  Perhaps some older,
JH>wiser, experienced heads among your Masonic aquaintances cna help
JH>you with the subject.

 > Let's take an objective (outsiders) stance for a moment rather than a
 > mason's stance.

No, let's not.  Masonry is not defined by the uninitiated.

 > Perhaps an older Mason can give you a good enough
 > reason to justify the solely MASCULINE stance on Masonry.  But you and
 > I are Masons.  We would be much quicker to give such a justification
 > the benefit of the doubt because WE WANT TO HEAR A GOOD EXPLAINATION,
 > so even a NOT SO GOOD one sounds far better than it is.

Hey, just a minute, there.  Don't include me with your "we".  When I joined I
might have agreed with you, but not after learning more about it and going
through the chairs.

 > You say that
 > if a Mason can't defend the masculine restriction on Masonry he dosn't
 > understand either historical or contemporary Masonry.  I, too, hopw
 > you will not take this response as an attack because it TOO is not,
 > but I say BUNK!  I've heard way too many older Masons as you say
 > trying to logically defend the position and if I take the stance of an
 > objective outsider, NONE of these explainations hold water.  Simply

Since the "outsider" view is immaterial and you seem to base your argument on
the premise that it means something, I don't see where we can discuss
agreeably.  As a result of your writing I do maintain that you lack an
understanding of Masonry (IMO, anyway) and simply have an axe to grind -
whether out of sincer interest in the Craft or from some need you have, I
cannot say.  However, I'm sorry this medium doesn't lend itself to the replies
I would need to make to you to help you learn.


--- QM v1.31
 * Origin: King Solomon's Mine  Baltimore MD (410)494-1533 (1:261/1023.0)
Technical Details
Message-ID: <79.513.975@indy.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!paladin.american.edu!auvm!indy.com!john.herold

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 115ce7,9be4fee0f7236ded
X-Google-Attributes: gid115ce7,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-07-17 20:37:00 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!paladin.american.edu!auvm!indy.com!john.herold
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.freemasonry
Comments: ********************************************************
Comments: * The following "Approved" statement verifies header   *
Comments: * information for gateway passage.  No approval of the *
Comments: * content is implied.                                  *
Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU                              *
Comments: ********************************************************
Resent-Message-Id: <m0qRYfZ-000E1yC@dorite.use.com>
Reply-To: freemasonry@indy.com
Resent-From: freemasonry@indy.com
Sender: root@indy.com
Subject: Re: Co-Masonry
From: john.herold@indy.com (John Herold)
Message-ID: <79.513.975@indy.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 94 22:37:00 -0500
Organization: The User Friendly BBS (317) 784-0520
Lines: 43