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 -----
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
