
Scottish witchcraft book published online - Hooke
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-37789413
======
Zikes
> "We're delighted to share this insight into the past with a wider audience."

No links to the book in the article. There's a branded link to Ancestry.com in
the article, though. But no indication of where to go once you get there.
Incredibly irritating when the headline of the article is about something
being published online.

Eventually found it by looking on the Wellcome Library web site:
[http://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b19111319#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&...](http://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b19111319#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&z=-0.4254%2C0%2C1.8508%2C1.1626)

~~~
shmerl
Is the book loading for you? It just shows a spinning circle.

UDPATE: I found a working link in the source:
[https://dlcs.io/pdf/wellcome/pdf-
item/b19111319/0](https://dlcs.io/pdf/wellcome/pdf-item/b19111319/0)

Seems to be just a bunch of names. So "Scottish witchcraft book" is a pretty
misleading title.

~~~
Zikes
The linked page is loading for me, but if it's seeing a lot of traffic there
may be a lot of factors involved.

------
drzaiusapelord
For those expecting a grimoire, nope, this is just a historical document of
people accused of witchcraft and such.

------
ChuckMcM
Great, now ancestry.com com can tell you when you are literally the spawn of
an unholy love child?

------
rapsacnz
This is an ad for Ancestry.com. Why is this article here?

------
pjc50
\- Not very hackerish

\- May be disguised ad for ancestry.com

\- Comments here have gone very weird very fast

=> Flag and move on.

------
rokosbasilisk
is this because of that ridiculous spirit cooking rumor?

~~~
Kenji
What do you mean, "ridiculous" "rumour"?

Do you not accept the authenticity of DKIM-authenticated Wikileaks e-mails? It
is written there, black on white, byte for byte.

EDIT: Just to clarify. The e-mail in question specifically contains "spirit
cooking" so it is in no way a rumour. What that means exactly - well, yes,
that is open to your interpretation and imagination.

~~~
geofft
The authenticity of the emails is one thing. The _meaning_ of the
authenticated words is quite another.

What is, apparently, authenticated is that John Podesta's brother invited him
to a "Spirit Cooking dinner" (those are the relevant three words that are part
of the authenticated email) hosted by a performance artist named Marina
Abramovic. What is not authenticated at all is what "Spirit Cooking dinner"
means. One possibility is that it is a Satanic orgy ritual. One possibility is
that it is a perfectly normal dinner with normal human food, celebrating /
related to a performance art project named Spirit Cooking (see, e.g.,
[https://www.moma.org/collection/works/143945](https://www.moma.org/collection/works/143945)).
The email doesn't rule either of those possibilities out.

~~~
Joeboy
The Satanic Orgy suggestions are just crazy people crazying, aren't they? I
mean there's no sensible reason to think it's anything more sinister than a
slightly insalubrious performance art thing.

------
macawfish
Powerful quote:

 _" It gives us a fleeting view of a world beyond orthodox medicine and
expensively trained physicians, in which people in small towns and villages
looked for their own routes to understanding the world and came into conflict
with the state for doing it"_

It may be unpopular for me to say this, but I believe that the very same
energy behind witchhunts is recapitulated today by overzealous "skeptics".

~~~
GlennS
Well it's an interesting group to single out.

Speaking as a moderately zealous skeptic. Yeah, we can gang up on people, and
sometimes talk down to them out of exasperation. And those are bad things.

But...

Unlike a lot of internet public shaming (and probably unlike these witchcraft
cases), there's no sexual element or threats of violence.

Scientists don't blow up people for not believing in thermodynamics.

So, I'd say there are probably better candidates.

~~~
metaphorm
> Scientists don't blow up people for not believing in thermodynamics.

wrong example. you should be thinking about the way a certain particular
faction ostracizes people for expressing views containing any content that
might be considered "religion" or "spirituality".

~~~
EdHominem
No, for letting those views pollute otherwise scientific discussion.

If you say you know that sugar is bad for rats I expect you to have tested it,
not prayed about it.

As for ostracizing, if you're on a medical review board you'd better believe
I'd try to get you removed.

~~~
_wmd
What constitutes non-scientific discussion?

