Talk:Silver Ravenwolf

From what I can see, she never legally changed the name and it's more of a craft name/nom de plume than anything. A lot of authors have those, and so do a lot of neopagans. Nothing terribly unusual about it. --Kels 09:40, 12 December 2008 (EST)
 * Still... If I were selecting a name by which I would be known internationally, I'd choose something a little more respectable (in the sense that people can read it and still have a modicum of respect for the person who chose it, without bursting out laughing or such) than "Silver Ravenwolf". In the interests of full disclosure, my nom de plume for any future writing will be "Jack Newhouse". See if you can figure it out. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 09:45, 12 December 2008 (EST)
 * Sounds more like you're applying your own personal sense of taste and assuming that should be the standard. I don't see anything particularly wrong with the name myself.  As a pen name, it's awesome.  It's instantly recognizable, it's interesting, it stands out from the crowd, and it fits the subject matter well. Given I've known non-pagans who have legally changed their name to even more outré things, I'm not sure why it's a big deal. --Kels 09:50, 12 December 2008 (EST)
 * Nah, I'm just a Pratchett reader... Terry has some choice things to say about craft names in the Lancre novels. Particularly "Never choose yourself a name you can't scrub a floor in". WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 09:55, 12 December 2008 (EST)
 * Eh, I imagine Pratchett's one of those folks who take an opposite reaction to the fluffbunny types. Could be Ravenwolf's one of those, but somehow I doubt it.  I haven't read much of her stuff, but from what I've heard about her she's a bit more grounded than that.  But I guess it's easy to make fun of people to get enthusiastic about such things, and the easy way out is always best, eh? --Kels 09:57, 12 December 2008 (EST)
 * I can't see anything funny about the name ;-) Silver Sloth 09:59, 12 December 2008 (EST)
 * I think it would be good to remember that most names have a particular meaning that would sound equally strange. We've just gotten so used to the more "usual" ones that we don't really think about it. For instance, put in modern English, my name would be "Manlike Son of a Sacrifical Cauldron". -- 11:21, 12 December 2008 (EST)
 * Wow! That's like, really creepy! It's exactly how I've always pictured you!--Bobbing up 04:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
 * If I were to have a writer pseudonym, it would be something silly like "Timothy Skittles" or "Brian Brianson". The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577 (talk)
 * Gotta love the name though, I actually picked up a copy of teen witch, it was hilarious.

Ah, "Mama" Ravenwolf
You have managed to put up an article about one of the most polarizing people in modern Neopaganism, and have so far avoided flames. Congrats. Researcher 15:23, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Polarizing? Nah, full of shit is more like it.  I especially love how she equates Wiccan beliefs and concepts with those of Christianity, even though they are completely different religions altogether, and how she assumes all Neopagan groups, let alone Wiccan groups, have the same beliefs and ethics.The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe me, there are parts of the internet where merely mentioning her in a bad light gets you flamed, and other parts where mentioning her in a positive light gets you flamed. I personally can't stand her, but my ex-wife (and my brother's wife) both call her "Mama" Ravenwolf.  Researcher 14:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. Though I think part of that is due to RW. I can't imagine most people here jumping on the "SRW love-in" bandwagon too quickly. That said, I've got no love for the woman. --TheEgyptian 14:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous anti-pagan slam
Is that really necessary? There are/were a lot of neopagans on here. (I don't know if most of them still are or not, but I remember meeting a few others, including several Norse heathens). Researcher 19:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is "Do we say the same sort of things about Christianity and other mainstream religions?". I think we do, and we have Christians, among others, here, and as neopaganism (barring Listener's stupid essay) is no more rational than the others I don't see why we should give it preferential treatment. 20:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes. Why on Earth should neopaganism (of all things) get a free ride?  Is it somehow less weird then any other religion?--BobNot Jim 20:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I edited that remark to make it a little less overt, and to make it more of a slam against, not just Neopaganism, but all religions. I think that might work a little more.  Please note, I, myself, am a Neopagan.  20:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given out mission statements are: 1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.  2. Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. I assumed she was here for either 1 or 2.  Either crank or pseudoscience.  To be honest I know nothing about her.  Is she in some way important?  And why the reference to some "Oral" chap?  Why should he not be told? --BobNot Jim 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, unless you consider a lot of her trying to make Neopaganism "just like every other religion", I don't know why she'd have an article here, either. 20:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of talk awhile back (I think it was the last time I tuned out) about how anti-religion we wanted to be. I'd thought we'd come down on not gratuitously slamming religions in general, but instead slamming the particular bits of religion that were particularly nutty or stupid, and believe me I'll be the first to slam particular neopagans or neopagan beliefs on that score.  However, I'm also willing to fully accept that I haven't been around that much recently, or could even be just entirely misremembering.  As to why she's on here, I'm not sure, except that she is a figure of particular scorn for dumbing down neopaganism.  Though, we could also add her most recent book where she claimed that magic worked via quantum woo. Researcher 21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the quantum woo stuff. Seeing as how I'm not an avid fan of hers and haven't read that book, can you add that to the article?  21:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I no longer have the book (my ex-wife owns it), but I'll see what I can do. Researcher 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that we should only slam ideas that are nutty or stupid. We need to leave all the sensible clever parts of religion alone.  Mmmm.  But wait a minute ... --BobNot Jim 21:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first to admit that my religion isn't fully rational, but there's pointing out the parts that aren't, and then there's just being nasty. I'm totally ok with the way it is now, though.  Researcher 22:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(UNINDENT) "I don't see why we should give it preferential treatment." We should judge each idea on its own merits without a thought to whether or not its adherents are offended by the judgment. On the other hand, unsubstantiated libel should be avoided.

"...(barring Listener's stupid essay)..." The essay firstly argued for a parity between the rationality of the two religions in theory, and secondly discussed certain irrationalities in the practice of atheism that do not show up in the practice of Odinism, in general. 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What practices are required to not believe in something? --Kels 00:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandalizing Conservapedia, JK. 74.89.192.173 (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)