Contrary to the apparent opinions of recent discources, the ability to
insult does not create a plausible argument. An insult is understandable
when it is drawn from personal beliefs (as in the case of my dear
brother), because then it is a simple statement of a subjective
principle and is in fact the crux of the argument. However, to use an
insult in place of an argument is to surrender the argument. No amount
of dripping sarcasm in such addresses as "my dearest lady" or impotent
rage in "you filthy dog" will serve to change the reader's mind as to
the nature of Magick - thus, we must infer that the purpose of these
treatises is simply the vindication of one's own unsureties, which
further necessitates the forcing of said unsureties upon the world at
large.

To both sides of the argument - whatever your reasons for loving or
hating magick, let them be your own. Each sentient being takes on a
crutch in this life, whether it is the power and shield of the Gods or
the riskier (yet, in my mind, far more invigorating) sword of Magick. To
need no such crutch is to be Divine. If you must argue, then by all
means present theories and conjectures - by the art of logic, of reason,
of factual persuasion. If your goal is to educate or convert, then
present the issue from all sides and provide support as to why YOUR
point of view is optimal. Surely there must be a better way to debate an
issue that has painted our history with blood and war than to degrade
this most crucial argument by the petty impotence of baseless insults.

- Lidara

Penned by my hand on the 13th of Fas, in the year 458 AD.