Hi there, just to fill you in on my insulting-looking newspaper article fromlast Sunday…There was so much stuff that was paraphrased, or totally peripheral to whatthe journalist and I were talking about. I’m really cross about the “weakand opressed” angle, because that came from a little side comment I madeabout magic, (not the religion of witchcraft) but magic, being a technologyoften resorted to by the powerless, which I felt that I illustrated quitewell with an example of Islamic women using magic as domestic power (thetopic of a lecture I recently attended) – obviously that was simply a dumbthing for me to have said at all, seeing what became of that comment. Also,a friend of mine said that it looked like Witches were a pile of women outfor sex, which is also plain embarassing as I’m not single or desparate – ifI was, I certainly wouldn’t be confiding in some reporter! – and I don’tthink a lot of Australian Pagan women become Witches to “score” aboyfriend – although there are many more women to men. When I am asked by ajournalist to talk about my favourite subject, I do my best never to talkutter crap. I enjoy the challenge of being cautious, factual andinformative. I try and hard as poss not to say anything incriminating,especially something which would reflect on other people.I can understand a terrible rag of a paper hacking up aninterview with a Pagan… but I’m really surprised when an allegedly’high-brow’ newspaper (which The Age newspaper in Australia thinks itself tobe) comes up with the most immature, badly written piece of junk.The journalist who wrote the piece apologised on the afternoon of the paper’s release for what he said was a very heavily edited and cobbled together conglomeration of two separate articles.~Caroline Tully.

interesting.Caroline Tully, I am curious for your next event. Care to email me at rob.montrose@hotmail.com ?Thank you,Rob