White Flag

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> Well Kandinksij, one thing is right, you're managing to suck my energy
> down the toilet and into your mouth.

Not at all. dear. I do not take energy. Let's not start again with that
poor martyr victim. Please avoid acting like an ass, and then setting up
yourself as the innocent baa–this is not kindergarten, and I'm not
your evil dad, or those evil.. outside forces.

You are subject to something that drains energy–and feeds on it,
yep–and that's not me. And the more you degrade yourself, the
more you make yourself available to it.

> You've suckered me with your insults into affecting a self-defensive pose,

I haven't suckered you into anything, love. You are responsible for your
own actions. Quit being so self-deprecating. You make the choice to act
like you do. HENCE, my requests to not be an idiot and attempt debasing.

All I've posted to you, points to the way out of your shit–instead you
choose to self-degrade, and self-degrade, and throw temper tanturms.

That's what your desire to 'change the world' is too–a middle-class
spoiled, refusing to work on itself–child. I don't see how more
psychic childish pornography is necessary.

But among other things, love–and if you want to be an artist, and to
change the world, you must learn how to be self-responsible. And note,
that I haven't indicated to you that that's not possible–but not if
you keep it up like this.

This has been my point all along: that you're not qualified, and that
the result of the affair would be your destruction–and that the public
victimization that you're stting yourself up for causes incredible
damage to EVERYBODY.

Enough with this self-crucifixion silliness–and I'm not saying
this just to you.

> you've misquoted

I have only quoted what you've posted, in similar format.

> and misapplied various statement I have made,

No, I haven't. Baa. Poor victim you.

> you've rejected my previous desire for communication with your lack of
> compassion,

Oh, no dear. No lack of compassion here. You want pity.
You're have no idea what compassion is, besides the crap
you've been fed. Compassion is not a 'human' quality either.

> empathy

No lack of empathy, dear. You want what you think is
'understanding'. You want your actions OK-ed. 'Empathy'
is not a 'human' quality either. But I don't think I can
possibly talk to you about this–without knee-jerk
reactions to fiction, fantasy, games, and robots that
your head is standardly full of. And that's a pity,
and a double pity since you have posed that 'memetic
distribution' is slavery–but you don't practice what
you preach. I suppose it'sa catch phrase that gives you?
art credibility and makes you sound important, and
intelligent, and makes you appear 'wise' and 'knowledgeable'.

> and supportiveness

No, I have no 'supportiveness'. You're not 2 years old.
I am not your mommy. I guess you dismissed my comment
about souvereign authorities co-existing, in genuine
compassion and empathy. I'm afraid you're way too ignorant
to make these commentaries–and your age hasn't got anything
to do with it.

And before you become an 'adult' communication is not possible.

> and then you accuse me of blocking you off with a wall of
> "bitterness" and "sarcasm".

I am not 'accusing' you. You are bitter and sarcastic.
There is no 'wall of' said either. I merely pointed out
that you're wasting / sapping your energy (and that's YOU,
not ME doing it) by chosing to be defensive, self-debasing,
and gloss over things with sarcasm and irony.


> You imply that because I react to your insults and passive-aggresive behavior,

Snicker. Your parents are quite something.
I said: you're passive-aggressive, and here it comes back at me.
Sorry: no insults, and no passive-aggressiveness here.
Those are your_ characteristics.

And again: you will not be capable of 'perceiving me'
until you grow up and get rid of your ego. Until you then–
you only talk about yourself, to yourself.


> then I am clearly not "really compassionate"

Talk about misquoting. I am not asking for compassion
from you. AT ALL. You're not capable of it–and I don't
see that as a major character flaw–rather my comments
have been in regards to dropping the compassion pretense,
as well as indicating that this 'interest' of yours
in compassion is little but spiritual greed.
I've urged you to STOP BEING 'COMPASSIONATE'–
because your 'compassion' only damages whatever it touches.

> nor do I "understand what I am talking about".

You don't.

> This is your entire pose,

No, this is not a pose. It's a Reality Check for you.
I would have preferred it done differently, but
I don't care to 'control' human beings.

> but anyway, you win,

You suck, but you win. Let's see–passive aggressive behavior,
attempt at insult. Nay–you will not change the world in this manner.

> you and Anton Levey

LaVey

> the president of the Smithsonian's African History Museum win.

Martyr! Martyr! Cue: note the irony.

> It's my fault- my method of arguing is always to exaggerate the other persons claims until
> they are revealed to be completely ridiculous,

My claims are hardly ridiculous–as I haven't made any claims.
what are you talking about? This has always been about you.

> which I did with you

No, you didn't.

> and you didn't get it

There's nothing to get. The omly one whose claims have been under
scrutiny here is you–and you reacted by running around trying to
find trasha bout me.

> and I'm tired of doing that now,

Yes, unconscious idiocy tends to 'tire' one out.
And boredom / ennui posing too.

> and I've made myself look like I believe in a lot of things I don't actually believe in
> because you accused me of believing them, but really I don't have the
> energy anymore.

No. It's YOUR responsibility, love. Nobody else's.


> I'm gonna go drive to work now and cut some people off and then maybe
> I'll try to steal some pencils from a blind guy. But I'm going to leave
> the lists now, so I guess whatever you set out to accomplish has been
> achieved, I won't talk anymore and pollute the world with my radioactive
> aggression and imbecility.

Waa.

> You win, go ahead and fax the Church of Satan that you won again,

The Church of Satan is defunct–nor does anyone involved care
about 'winning'. Nor about 'not winning'. All your posing
about not caring about winning is little but an inverted
obsession with 'not winning' which is a psychic trigger
that satisfies the WINNING impulse. You ain't that
enlightened, and dealing with that mechanism is not
as simple as–I read some stuff that winning is bad,
so I quit winning–cold turkey. And I quit smoking,
and became a vegan in the same day too!

Oh and the Church of Satan was created in the 60s
much in the spirit of dada / surrealism obsession
with satanism, and with the agenda of poking
middle-class fashionable-pacifist-religion-of
-the-day bourgeois (like you)–while Goth– a
completely separate affair is a fashion / music
thing that appeared in the 80s.


> you made some guy leave a mailing list.

I didn't make you do anything. You're doing it yourself,
and STILL abrogating responsibility for your own actions.
You're probably tired of this passivity-martyr game too,
and it's MY fault yes? And if your diapers are not changed,
that's MY fault too, yes?


> I'm sure it will be a new holiday or something.

Certainly. 9-11-2002–a year later, evil still lurks.
The next victim was: Eryk Salvaggio: Art-Martyr extraordinaire.
He offered himself on the altar, so that others may live.

Can we have a star-memorial for you in Hollywood, next to
all of the movie stars?

> You've "cleaned up the list" or whatever you want to do,

I think that's been pretty clear–and the above is not it.

> made sure that the imbeciles [ie, those who don't agree with you and the guy who runs the African American Wing of
> the Smithsonian Museum]

No, dear. Enough of attempting to degrade me while martyring yourself
out. This is not a matter of 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing'.
You're an imbecile because that's how you choose to act.
Nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me.

> are either afraid or terrified of speaking.

Wilfully oblivious too? Like a broken record.
I am not interested in 'terrifying' anyone–
in fact I've stated exactly the opposite, on
multiple occasions. You're not misquiting me,
you're simply attempting to ascribe to me
things that I never did.

Your 'fear' is not caused by me. Secondly,
I am aware of somea spects of it happening–
and I've stated clearly that I find some
people's use of this naturally arising fear
to manipulate and degrade people–objectionable.

Hence also my objection (a facet) to a lot of fashionable
Nazi-esque 'discussions' and rehashing, and your exclusive
image–which works on that principle–and you've done that
'evil American' pose too. Don't tell me it's 'funny'–
it isn't. Nor do I care for your mediocre sense of 'humor'
which abuses people's re-actionary behavior to 'ok'
anything–because it's funny.

What you're doing is the same as your example of the dog's
death 'mediated'–in your case the 'mediator' is 'humor.'
And you're doing it to yourself–and attempting to do it to
others.

I am glad that you described your 'method' of arguing–
because you state clearly what you do: you verbally
inflate people's egos (the dog) and watch the person psychicly
die–and it's all funny. Real nice fella.

Tell us about compassion again. And how I should
have empathy for poor righteous you.


> I'm not afraid of you

Why keep repeating this, Eryk?
Are you trying to convince somebody of something?

> or ashamed of anything I've done, but I am sick of
> people trying to convince me that I should be.

Of course. Nobody's asked you to be ashamed.
And likely people are not asking you to be ASHAMED–
but pointing out the imbecility of what you do.

Making people's egos inflate and attempting
to push the self-destruct mechanism is NOT FUNNY.
MURDER is NOT FUNNY. damaging others is NOT FUNNY.
And 'irony' is not an excuse.

It's pathological–and betrays fear of people
in general and inability to deal with them.

You've got a long way to go before claiming to be an artist.
And I'm not trying to disencourage you. But hacks who
slash are a dime a dozen.

> You have managed to do one positive thing, though: You're such a fucking
> passive aggressive shit head

Right. The one 'positive' thing I am is a derogatory remark.
Let's take a slowed-down second-look: this is what you're
saying 'the only thing that's good about you is that
you're a shithead'–did that come out of your
deep-seated understanding and possession of compassion?

No, dear–spare us your–at this point abusive behavior.
The 'good' thing about anyone is not their negative characteristics.
And moreso, I am neither passive aggressive, nor a shithead.

Those are YOUR qualities–and your whole behavior reeks of it,
including this post. To the last second you try to self-martyr
glorify by baselesly degrading abother.

You go down, and you try to drag as many people as you can with you.
And you bite the offer out too–such self-righteous hatred for
authority.

> that I'm going to try to be a lot nicer to people from now on.

I guess I don't qualify <laughing>.
You never give up do you? You'll always be the RIGHTEOUS
HERO in the end.

Self-responsibility? What's that?
If you want to do something positive, quit trying to be
'nice'. Your vanity will displace a small iceland's
population worth.


Cowardly dog.


`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42