 |
 |
Nice, and very tidy. I have had it worded slightly differently by a fellow magician, who is of the opinion that he will not take money from anyone for doing 'spells' for their benefit, safety etc, as that transaction makes him an employee, and somehow more likely to be called on again.... by doing things without charge he can be more selective on what he actually takes on for the benefit of others, and is not 'owned' by them as a result very interesting US Pagan Census figures posted on this thread; so far as i know we've not had that matter addressed in any coherent survey-taking manner in the UK; unless i missed it? dave e ----- Original Message ----- From: Ieuan Jones To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Definitions of Magic Scholar that I am, I can't help thinking about an early episode of Angel, where the main characters were discussing whether they should charge for their demon-battling services. They reasoned that if they did charge the relationship with the client would be formally closed after payment, whereas if they didn't the client might feel indefinitely indebted to them, so they went with the former. Rather neat, I thought. Ieuan