I prefer Regardie's definition, personally.

Hm. Didn't find it that way.

Typically I find carefully reasoned things that work more interesting that incoherent things that don't, though....

Crowley is fun for the head-explody - kind of like later Nietzsche writings - he's full of shit and makes no sense but it's fun just to read his ravings. At the end of the day I just find him a bore, myself; Regardie was a scholar.

Crowley should have gotten more into creative endeavors; he had balls and certainly the ego for it, just.... nothing much to say, I guess, beyond his first few spurts of material. Again like Nietzsche.

Doing Crowley's bidding seems like the pastime for dabblers. Regardie's work - though more scholarly than intuitive - was for building understanding of process, not setting down a rote. It's always interesting to me when thelemites &c pooh pooh him - I always imagine it's because there are no comic books or rock anthems dedicated to him.

Enh. To all their own, I suppose. At the end of the day, both men's work and the vast preponderance of related material as well - all make believe. :)