My first Kilt article.

[Father Bill]

The point is, male dress wasn't always trousers. Incidently the clerical collar derives from shamans wearing clothing back to front to confuse dark spirits, some cross dressed for the same reason.

I don't know where you got that particular piece of nonsense, but a white band of cloth tied around the neck was originally an indication that the wearer was literate back when that was a rare event. The "mandarin style" notched collar had another provenance entirely, but the combined look as a whole is maintained today only by clergy.

As an interesting side note that the words "clergy," "cleric," and "clerk" are all actually variations and derivations from the same root, a "clerk" being someone who can read and write. Since "clark" is another version of that, I suspect that it is part of the origin of clergy wearing the same tartan as clan "Clark/Clarke".

[Mel1721L]

I don't know where you got that particular piece of nonsense, but a white band of cloth tied around the neck was originally an indication that the wearer was literate back when that was a rare event. The "mandarin style" notched collar had another provenance entirely, but the combined look as a whole is maintained today only by clergy.

As an interesting side note that the words "clergy," "cleric," and "clerk" are all actually variations and derivations from the same root, a "clerk" being someone who can read and write. Since "clark" is another version of that, I suspect that it is part of the origin of clergy wearing the same tartan as clan "Clark/Clarke".

I wish I could find the source, but it's something I've read in a couple of different books on Shamanism. The clerk or clerical link is logical though.

[Father Bill]

Well, be cautious. A lot of writing these days that claims to be ancient shamanism, wiccan, druidism, etc. is just stuff that folks have cooked up and tried to dress in ancient clothing. The vast majority of it is Internet style hooey.

[Mel1721L]

Well, be cautious. A lot of writing these days that claims to be ancient shamanism, wiccan, druidism, etc. is just stuff that folks have cooked up and tried to dress in ancient clothing. The vast majority of it is Internet style hooey.

Here is a link to the practice of one particular people who have the tradition of doing things backwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heyoka However I can't recall where I read it now, it was a long time ago. I don't want to get into a religious discussion here though, as I'll end up getting banned under S5.

[BCAC]

Here is a link to the practice of one particular people who have the tradition of doing things backwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heyoka However I can't recall where I read it now, it was a long time ago. I don't want to get into a religious discussion here though, as I'll end up getting banned under S5.

Don't forget that wikipedia is not a very sure source because absolutely anyone (you, or even me included) can edit the page and put in any old baloney that we would like to publish. Just because it's published doesn't make it right.

[Father Bill]

Don't forget that wikipedia is not a very sure source because absolutely anyone (you, or even me included) can edit the page and put in any old baloney that we would like to publish. Just because it's published doesn't make it right.

...which is exactly what I'm talking about when I refer to peer-reviewed articles published in respected journals. Anything less starts to open the door to nonsense.

[OC Richard]

...peer-reviewed articles published in respected journals. Anything less starts to open the door to nonsense.

And there's plenty of nonsense published in those journals, too!

In two different subjects I got in deep enough (though a layman) to find two major opposing viewpoints, each supported by at least one eminent scholar, each scholar having had surrounded himself with an army of yes-men sycophantic toadies, the scholars and toadies slinging mud at each other in the most respected scholarly journals in the field, the attacks often being ad hominem juvenile name-calling.

The modus operandi is to trumpet the evidence that supports your viewpoint, and try to marginalize evidence to the contrary by 1) twisting it to fit your pet theory 2) casting dispersions on the methodology used in acquiring it 3) slinging mud at the scholars who support it (all of this done in highfaluting pompous condescending sneering obfuscating language).