Citations:rule of three

English citations of rule of three and Rule of Three

• 1998 September 14, Poul Fiil Dalsgaard <bacchus@post6.tele.dk>, “Rule of Three”, in alt.sci.math.statistics.prediction‎^[1] (Usenet), message-ID <6tjsci$e2a$1@news-inn.inet.tele.dk>:

  Could anybody tell me what the term ”Rule of Three” covers?

Proper noun: the religious tenet of return of energy

• 1999 June 11, Dragonmama <dragonma@netcom.com>, “Re: The Rule of Three”, in alt.religion.wicca.moderated‎^[2] (Usenet), message-ID <dragonmaFD6GF5.6ns@netcom.com>:

  All such concepts are not literal. If you don't see the Rule of Three in action, look around you. It does work, it just doesn't wear a "X3" label in all cases, or even in most. If I do harm to another, it will come back on me 3X, though usually not in the same form I out out. If I trip you so that you fall down, I won't be tripped by the next three folks I meet on the road, but I will have a flat tire, lose a $20 bill, and perhaps be stood up by a date. That is how it works. If I help you find your keys, my love will bring me chocolate, my "too small" jeans will suddenly fit, and perhaps I will win $5 on the lottery. No direct returns but I will have three or more things happen in return for what I put out to the World.

• 1999 June 11, Markessa <markessa@aol.comNOSPAM>, “Re: The Rule of Three”, in alt.religion.wicca.moderated‎^[3] (Usenet), message-ID <19990611155311.22950.00000246@ngol08.aol.com>:

  This goes back to the probelms of "most wiccans" who do anything. Noone can say that "most wiccans" take the Rule of Three literally. Who can tell?

  I would think it safe to say that the majority of pagans believe that what you do will affect you in some fashion. If you "curse" someone to break their leg, you will not break your leg three times. Rather, something three times worse than breaking your leg will happen to you.

  Call it karma. Sounds as good a label as any and is probably pretty accurate.

• 1999 June 11, <oldone900@my-deja.com>, “Re: The Rule of Three”, in alt.religion.wicca.moderated‎^[4] (Usenet), message-ID <7jrr45$p16$1@nnrp1.deja.com>:

  I take the rule of three quite literally. Others do not. We don't always get back the good we do in life right away. It may also be that the good we do get back will come to someone we love as opposed to ourselves. I am positive that if I do harm to someone, it will come back to haunt me, so I am careful in deed and try to be so in thought. This is a choice that only you can make for yourself.

• 1999 June 12, Shiva <shiva@totcon.com>, “Re: The Rule of Three”, in alt.religion.wicca.moderated‎^[5] (Usenet), message-ID <37620076.8510449@news.totcon.com>:

  In my experience, it is very rare for the rule of three to be taken literally. There are just too many factors and possibilities to take into account for us to be able to quantify exactly what "three times x ="

• 1999 June 12, Baird Stafford <baird@gate.net>, “Re: The Rule of Three”, in alt.religion.wicca.moderated‎^[6] (Usenet), message-ID <1dtb7yu.lx46tb1hrxpz4N@tskis2-2.gate.net>:

  And yes, I think that the good I've put out has come back to me threefold. I have a job I like, a spouse who loves me and whom I love in return; we own our own house and make enough to support ourselves in the lifestyle to which we never thought we'd be able to become accustomed; and I'm doing volunteer work here on usenet which I think is truly making a positive difference in the world. And all these good things add up to about three times as much good as I expended on other people in the past. That expenditure, though, seems to have been a long-term investment rather than having granted an immediate return. Perhaps the Rule of Three isn't instantaneous....

• 1999 June 13, .Nisaba Merrieweathe <nisaba@primus.com.au>, “Re: The Rule of Three”, in alt.religion.wicca.moderated‎^[7] (Usenet), message-ID <929276010.838998@diddley.primus.com.au>:

  I take the Rule of Three seriously, but not literally.

  Firstly, there is the issue of "payback". Just say we have two people, a millionaire, and someone struggling very hard on a small income. The poor person was looking forward to spending $3.95 at Mcdonalds this week. The millionaire mugs the poor person, and steals a hundred and fifty dollars, their rent for the week and ten dollars towards food, leaving them with not enough money to pay for their housing, and they end up evicted and homeless.

  The poor person steals three times that sum from the millionaire as revenge, four hundred and fifty dollars. The millionaire probably spends tens of thousands of dollars in a week, on maintaining several expensive homes and office suites, fuelling his private jet, and eating four hundred dollar meals in top restaurants every day.What kind of karmic punishment would the loss of $450 be to hiim^[sic]? Considerably less, I'll bet, than the $3.95 that would have bought a burger for the pauper. As a threefold return on a theft of a hundred and fifty from soneone who couldn't afford it, it is woefully inadequate. Clearly, an equitable threefold return would have to cause proportional suffering to the person as they have caused to others.

• 1999 June 13, Gale <gale@futuresouth.com>, “Re: The Rule of Three”, in alt.religion.wicca.moderated‎^[8] (Usenet), message-ID <3763B193.2F625A46@futuresouth.com>:

  Monotheistic Western faiths tend to turn their deity into a great judge -- as evidenced by Kant's proof for the existence of God (very simplified): there must be justice; there is no justice on earth; therefore a divine judge exists. Most neo-Pagans firmly reject this "great judge" notion but also embrace the notion of an ultimately just Universe. Thus the Rule of Three is necessary for karmic balance (justice!).

• 2002 January 3, Ze kat lady <zekatlady@aol.com>, “Re: How Do I Get Info On Wicca?”, in alt.religion.wicca‎^[9] (Usenet), message-ID <20020102220424.14110.00001989@mb-ft.aol.com>:

  All Magickal people? Since when is there a Unified Pagan Ethic, and why wasn't a memo sent out? That's pure tripe. For example, if you are at all familiar with the Asatruar, you know that they follow Norse Paganism with heavy emphasis on honor and the way of the Warrior. How logical is it, then, to assume that they follow the idea of "Harm None" as do so many Neo-Wiccans? A good many non-Neo-Wiccan Witches also do not believe in any such thing as the "Rule of Three" or in limiting their options with a "Harm None" clause. That doesn't mean they prowl the streets at night looking for someone to smite, it simply means they won't hesitate to smite under the right circumstances.

• 2002 January 3, Ze kat lady <zekatlady@aol.com>, “Re: How Do I Get Info On Wicca?”, in alt.religion.wicca‎^[10] (Usenet), message-ID <20020102220424.14110.00001989@mb-ft.aol.com>:

  "Real Witches do not...

  ...hurt people physically, mentally, spiritually, or magickally. Witches have taken an oath to help

  people, not hurt people. You are not a real Witch if you hurt anybody.

  ...work black magick - that's those other guys. Real Witches know that whatever you do,

  whether in this world or in the magickal world, comes back to you three times. If you do good

  stuff, then you get rewarded. If you do bad stuff, you pay the price - and, let me add, you will

  pay dearly. Wiccans have a poem that goes: Ever mind the rule of three, what you give out

  comes back to thee."

  Oh please. Just because someone doesn't conform to the ethical standpoint of her personal choice, they aren't a "Real Witch"? As for the "Rule of Three" and "Harm None" see my prior comment.