A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community

[SangSavvy]

So, in short, you are willing to try to sacrifice the pre-existing unity that we have of this community/subculture/family so that you can foist your own views on everyone and make people take sides. 

Nice. 

It's all about you, it seems. 

This isn't about *our* partition, this is about *your* partition.

This isn't about creating better dynamics for sangs and psi's, this is about your own personal gain, and it has been from the get-go. 

This isn't about creating more competent social change for the better for all of us, this is is *really* about your person agenda to stimulate demonstrative interactions between one another in some sort of glowing effort to "help". 

You and whatever efforts you stimulate in the future do not speak for mine.

[Catori]

-doing her best Southern Belle act fanning herself- Well I do declare Savvy, you nailed her perfectly. 

[paindancer]

*tried to post from phone earlier*
cj,

Ya know.. I always find it strange, how some of the most intense voices for pure sang seem to employ drama feeding methods that only a poorly mannered pranic would use.  Its ironic.. but  its also clear you 'get' something from all the strife, considering the gloating in your opening paragraph.  And thats all we see.  Even if you really did feel you were doing something good.. its lost in your words.

But drama be drama, and ya, you caused it.. even  here.. things got nasty.. untill some of us realized we were doing more harm fighting than good.  Hell, Koon and I have even been discussing opposing theories without nary a insult of jibe lately. 

Maybe the division you caused dosnt run as deep as you think, maybe the VC isnt quite as fragile as you hoped.  Flash in the pan, I suppose.  But at least you came back to try and stir the pot a bit.  I feel loved.

[Catori]

-choking on coffee laughing- I dunno PD, if I want this sort of love she has to share, I could just go hang out with some of the inmates at Alto. As far as the phone, probably just a momentary glitch. If it keeps happening I guess we can figure out if it is your phone's internet connection or a problem here.

[RKCoon]

*tried to post from phone earlier*
cj,

Ya know.. I always find it strange, how some of the most intense voices for pure sang seem to employ drama feeding methods that only a poorly mannered pranic would use.  Its ironic.. but  its also clear you 'get' something from all the strife, considering the gloating in your opening paragraph.  And thats all we see.  Even if you really did feel you were doing something good.. its lost in your words.

But drama be drama, and ya, you caused it.. even  here.. things got nasty.. untill some of us realized we were doing more harm fighting than good.  Hell, Koon and I have even been discussing opposing theories without nary a insult of jibe lately. 

Maybe the division you caused dosnt run as deep as you think, maybe the VC isnt quite as fragile as you hoped.  Flash in the pan, I suppose.  But at least you came back to try and stir the pot a bit.  I feel loved.

Tooo much irony right there.  Wow.

[display]

let me chime in on this...it will be short and sweet
CJ! ...
 i do respect your passion . I for one am Sang, and as bothered as i was of the Sappho fiasco, this has went beyond the scope of a sad attempt to shatter a already divided community...
The attempt very well could have worked if wasn't so premature.. You see, although many of us were pissed off , but we were very cautious..
Now I can't speak for anyone but myself when I say, if you focus this destructive energy on a positive you will be a asset...
Btw, once upon a time.. Sappho wasn't a bad person... We all get lost sometimes.. And I guess this could be a second chance for you...
Just think it over... But word of caution, not everyone will be accepting, you just have to earn the respect

[RKCoon]

Needed to get a little more into this --

I'm really glad that all along this thread and other forums in which the treatise was posted that it furthered the divide between sanguinarians and the metaphysical practioners of vampirism. It also furthered the divide with those who take their condition seriously and those who cling onto the identity. This was an argument for partition after all.

Truth be told I originally wrote the treatise in December of 2009. I shared it with some trusted friends and acquaintances within the community to get feedback and discuss a strategic way of releasing the treatise as well as how to execute its aims (I do want to mention that few of the people I shared the treatise with agreed with me on all points). After the feedback I decided to put the idea on the backburner. However once the fallout from the initial Sappho interview happened fellow sangs I've chatted (most of which have never read the treatise beforehand) with started making statements that coincided with the sentiments of the treatise. Sanguinarian sentiment, while always frustrated by the metaphysical line of "sangs crave the energy within the blood" as well as being defined by psis in general, was at a high against such impositions. Sappho ultimately failed to discredit sanguinarians, in fact she motivated them. The treatise proposed a direction to carry the momentum toward: scientific research in order to gain truer insight into ourselves as well as possible treatments toward sanguinarianism. The strong language was intentional: I wanted exclusivity and a unified message. Those put off by it just aren't cut out to be part of my vision of the sanguinarian community. I also wrote this with the outside if not skeptical observer in mind. I want the outside world to know that people within the "vampire" community can be self-critical to a very harsh degree.

 So far it seems as if the treatise directly and indirectly inspired or affirmed a strong base of sanguinarians to take action. I'd imagine the next course of action would be to discuss tactics in terms of jockey for position to gain access to clinical trials. I proposed methods of doing just that but I am sure that we as a group can come up with ideas that improve upon them or different approaches that are better. Obtaining knowledge is inherently a political process; don't be shocked if more feelings are hurt in the process.

Take care. Have fun.

I have a hard time buying that you , CJ, had any direct influence on the already wide rift within the OVC. Simple fact is, the rift has been there for a decade plus, fed by psis that cant let go of their egos, cant accept that sangs need more than they do, and that these days, the sangs are just plain getting tired of putting up with heavily shoveled nonsense, everything from long distance turning to the plethora of terms they dream up for themselves - yet, ultimately, it is the sangs that still hold the cards on risk, on putting their lives and livelihoods on the line JUST to fill a rather mysterious need; all of which , psis do not NEED TO. I cant emphasize this enough - Psis do NOT need to risk themselves to feed (and those that claim to be sex feeders can pull their heads out of their asses, FYI).  Many sangs I know, while not wanting to say it for risk of public distress, feel that psis are nothing more than emo leeches, along for the ride.   While I DID like your treatise, dont let it go to your ego too much  ---- especially NOT when one factors in one simple point you have made abundantly clear --

You reject being a vampire yourself.

That, ultimately, leads to your total discreditably, and totally sucks the wind out of your posts - and makes you look just as bad as the psis that shove their crap at the sangs as well.

[deacongray]

Shockingly there are some points of which I can agree with coon. He is right about Sangs and Risk. I don't see how anyone can deny that reality. For Sangs there is a constant up hill struggle both in maintaining their feeding, as well as their identity. To say "Its purely biological" is difficult because to do so would indicate that they are some how ill, and thus treatable and consequently  not actually vampires at all. To say it is not purely biological puts them on even footing with PSIS in their claim to vampirism, but doesn't really allow for any solid ground to stand on otherwise. There remains one simple truth, Neither side can prove shit.

PSIS this PSIS that...Sangs this Sangs that...hell people stop pissing into the wind, it is all theory, conjecture, and philosophy. If you really cannot stand the PSIS or SANGS no one is forcing anyone else to stick around the community. We enjoy a lot of each others company, but not just to listen to them piss and moan about feeling picked on, or mistreated because of some stupid debate with points neither side can prove.

[Darklilone]

PSIS this PSIS that...Sangs this Sangs that...hell people stop pissing into the wind, it is all theory, conjecture, and philosophy. If you really cannot stand the PSIS or SANGS no one is forcing anyone else to stick around the community. We enjoy a lot of each others company, but not just to listen to them piss and moan about feeling picked on, or mistreated because of some stupid debate with points neither side can prove.

This.
Though i may have worded it differently, i can't think of how right now, and think the way Deacon worded it is just fine.
I've watched the crap fly to and from both ends, not just psys saying sangs aren't legit or vice versa.
It's all crap and i wish it would stop. I'm glad when many can put their perceived differences aside and work, or at least, coexist together within the community.

[Zerochan]

I'm really glad that all along this thread and other forums in which the treatise was posted that it furthered the divide between sanguinarians and the metaphysical practioners of vampirism. It also furthered the divide with those who take their condition seriously and those who cling onto the identity. This was an argument for partition after all.

Truth be told I originally wrote the treatise in December of 2009. I shared it with some trusted friends and acquaintances within the community to get feedback and discuss a strategic way of releasing the treatise as well as how to execute its aims (I do want to mention that few of the people I shared the treatise with agreed with me on all points). After the feedback I decided to put the idea on the backburner. However once the fallout from the initial Sappho interview happened fellow sangs I've chatted (most of which have never read the treatise beforehand) with started making statements that coincided with the sentiments of the treatise. Sanguinarian sentiment, while always frustrated by the metaphysical line of "sangs crave the energy within the blood" as well as being defined by psis in general, was at a high against such impositions. Sappho ultimately failed to discredit sanguinarians, in fact she motivated them. The treatise proposed a direction to carry the momentum toward: scientific research in order to gain truer insight into ourselves as well as possible treatments toward sanguinarianism. The strong language was intentional: I wanted exclusivity and a unified message. Those put off by it just aren't cut out to be part of my vision of the sanguinarian community. I also wrote this with the outside if not skeptical observer in mind. I want the outside world to know that people within the "vampire" community can be self-critical to a very harsh degree.

 So far it seems as if the treatise directly and indirectly inspired or affirmed a strong base of sanguinarians to take action. I'd imagine the next course of action would be to discuss tactics in terms of jockey for position to gain access to clinical trials. I proposed methods of doing just that but I am sure that we as a group can come up with ideas that improve upon them or different approaches that are better. Obtaining knowledge is inherently a political process; don't be shocked if more feelings are hurt in the process.

Take care. Have fun.

AKA: You are an elaborately worded, yet ultimately drama mongering troll. You do realize that not all sangs are going to follow you, right? What about the ones who LIKE the vampire identity? And you certainly wont get any hybrids on your side, seeing as you completely denied the fact we have a dual need. I really have no support, or respect for you. You admitted yourself that you can't accept being a vampire, and therefore want everyone else to reject it as well. You wrote this treatise for the sole purpose of trolling, and getting everyone more pissed off. The fact that you said it was written specifically to further the divide is proof of this.

Though I must say for the purpose of being a troll, good show. You got drama going, that's for sure. But know this, you're not going to succeed in what is ultimately your plan to discredit hybrids and psis as well as destroy the vampire community. Unfortunately, it's not fragile enough for a simple minded, self-rejecting troll like yourself to break.

[Devil of Russia]

I'm really glad that all along this thread and other forums in which the treatise was posted that it furthered the divide between sanguinarians and the metaphysical practioners of vampirism. It also furthered the divide with those who take their condition seriously and those who cling onto the identity. This was an argument for partition after all.

Truth be told I originally wrote the treatise in December of 2009. I shared it with some trusted friends and acquaintances within the community to get feedback and discuss a strategic way of releasing the treatise as well as how to execute its aims (I do want to mention that few of the people I shared the treatise with agreed with me on all points). After the feedback I decided to put the idea on the backburner. However once the fallout from the initial Sappho interview happened fellow sangs I've chatted (most of which have never read the treatise beforehand) with started making statements that coincided with the sentiments of the treatise. Sanguinarian sentiment, while always frustrated by the metaphysical line of "sangs crave the energy within the blood" as well as being defined by psis in general, was at a high against such impositions. Sappho ultimately failed to discredit sanguinarians, in fact she motivated them. The treatise proposed a direction to carry the momentum toward: scientific research in order to gain truer insight into ourselves as well as possible treatments toward sanguinarianism. The strong language was intentional: I wanted exclusivity and a unified message. Those put off by it just aren't cut out to be part of my vision of the sanguinarian community. I also wrote this with the outside if not skeptical observer in mind. I want the outside world to know that people within the "vampire" community can be self-critical to a very harsh degree.

 So far it seems as if the treatise directly and indirectly inspired or affirmed a strong base of sanguinarians to take action. I'd imagine the next course of action would be to discuss tactics in terms of jockey for position to gain access to clinical trials. I proposed methods of doing just that but I am sure that we as a group can come up with ideas that improve upon them or different approaches that are better. Obtaining knowledge is inherently a political process; don't be shocked if more feelings are hurt in the process.

Take care. Have fun.

AKA: You are an elaborately worded, yet ultimately drama mongering troll. You do realize that not all sangs are going to follow you, right? What about the ones who LIKE the vampire identity? And you certainly wont get any hybrids on your side, seeing as you completely denied the fact we have a dual need. I really have no support, or respect for you. You admitted yourself that you can't accept being a vampire, and therefore want everyone else to reject it as well. You wrote this treatise for the sole purpose of trolling, and getting everyone more pissed off. The fact that you said it was written specifically to further the divide is proof of this.

Though I must say for the purpose of being a troll, good show. You got drama going, that's for sure. But know this, you're not going to succeed in what is ultimately your plan to discredit hybrids and psis as well as destroy the vampire community. Unfortunately, it's not fragile enough for a simple minded, self-rejecting troll like yourself to break.

...Really now? You don't agree with her ideals so she must be a troll? With the amount of work and thought she's put into the treatise I find that hard believe. You may find what she's said disagreeable, and it may have caused a bit of a stir, but to just desultorily start calling troll, No offense, but with all the praise you received from everyone else for being wise beyond your years, that last lash out really made you seem quite your age : /

If you're going to criticize her, at least say something something substantial, because when you basically just say something along the lines of, "HEY YOU YOUR JUST A BIG DUM TROLL GIT OUTTA HERE YOU, DUN YOU BE  SPLITTIN MY COMMUNITY!!!11!!", it's just...I see these kind of remarks, "crying troll" far too often to really think highly of what anyone says when they have to resort to what is basically nothing more than name calling.
 
She's already stated her stance and how she's wants go about undergoing an effort to further research on sanguines, and rather clearly cut, I honestly don't see how people are viewing the language as "wordy and misleading", from an outside point of view it sorta just comes off as "i dont like what you're saying and im too lazy can't be bothered to read through it all"

tl;dr If you're going to counter someone's argument, do so with more forethought into what they're actually saying, instead of calling troll in an attempt to discredit them.

[Catori]

What you have missed Devil is where she said she had posted the treatise for the sole purpose of dividing the community further. I am also thinking that there is an edit that was done to what you quoted or I am not finding the post I saw earlier where she stated she wanted nothing more than to cause problems and dissention amongst everyone. By her own words plus her actions, it reeks of troll. I mean, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.....it's a freaken duck.

[Syrion Deathvow]

Excuse me. Metaphysicality actually HAS been proven. There was a Russian ( I believe) study done based on auras. They screened the test subject's fingers for an energy signature. One being a self-proclaimed psivamp, the other a "mundane". The "mundane"'s energy signature came off as a blue glow surrounding her fingertip. The psivamp's signature was red and very small. They put the psivamp and mundane together for the next test and the red aura was actually piercing the blue aura and removing segments of it whilst growing bigger. After the feeding, the blue aura had holes, and was greatly reduced, while the red aura was swollen and vibrant. There you have it folks, this poster is blowing off unwarrented steam from being ashamed of their self.

[RKCoon]

Prove it then; demonstrate links and such for us to see, dont just make claims about it.

[Persephone]

@ Syrion
The researcher you're refering too is Joe Slate, who ran studies for the US army in the 1970's, following Soviet studies using Krilian photography. The colors you refer to were added to the origianl photos to differenciate the self-professed psychic vampire from the mundane target.

Part 1 of a radio interview of Joe Slate:
  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/eRpG8o4W9HQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/eRpG8o4W9HQ</a>

A visual for this study starts at 1:45 of this video clip from the documentary "The Secret Life of Vampires"
  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/MuttpJ4T8Tc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/MuttpJ4T8Tc</a>

Note: Krilian photography is not direct proof of auras or energy transfer, though it may be useful as indirect evidence.