Re: For Kj (my core)

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance]
Art[ist] wrote:

> Kandinskij, I am growing quite fond of you - always so irritable.

Avoid qualifying my behavior with wishful projections.
No irritability here. And that's nota subject to your opinion.

> I look inside myself and I find fear. Like a schoolboy facing his first day of
> school, I wake each day wondering what I should do next.

How touching. Do you wet your panties too?

> I don't pretend to find a "truth" or "formula for success" that takes the fear away.

What does this have to do with conversation between you and I?
Touching, but thoroughly uninteresting.

> I don't
> pretend to have advanced knowledge or abilities to protect me from my fears. I
> don't convince others of my wisdom such that by large numbers of followers I
> justify to myself that I have found a truth.

No, you do it small-time–and you play the humble ordinary man.
Frankly, if you're going to be a con-man, I'd rather you do it
en masse. I like things being done 'properly'–not just timid toe
dipping and giggling. But then again, I'm not much for timid ballerinas.


> So what to do with my fear? I have a cute little saying I made up "Fear's feast
> I was, Fear's famine I shall be" which I take to mean that the fertile ground
> of my imagination, which used to be consumed by thoughts of protection from the
> things I fear, will be used for thoughts of living and creative practices. I
> let my fears take me, let the things I fear to happen, happen and try to
> survive them. I find that while my fears are always replaced with new ones, my
> reaction to fear becomes almost a loving relationship.

Mais oui.

> And the big fear - Death? I find that in times of quiet, or reflection, I
> start remembering the many events of my life with pleasure and I have come to
> expect that as Death nears me, I will have an intense period of reflection, a
> profound moment of pleasure. To increase this profound moment, I try to live
> as much as possible, to experience many events and meet many people. Since I
> am not searching for "truth," I have no real concern with what comes after
> Death. Not that I do not fear an abrupt ending to my existence, just that I
> will let whatever happens after Death happen.

Mais oui, mais oui. Some things are not for everybody.
However, passing judgement on things you care not to pursue–
and perceive fallaciously is out of place.


> As for fears and concerns for the world, I am very wary of any abrupt changes
> in power structures and instant gratification techniques such as revolution and
> ideological insurgencies… I view them as one group of power mad people trying
> to replace another group of power mad people. Nor does complete destruction of
> the world and starting over appeal to me, since a rather barbaric class would
> be the first kings. No, I believe that properly motivated people should
> attempt to gain power within existing structures and then modify those
> structures. No whining about change, just attempting and succeeding at doing
> it.

This is the same as revolution. And 'properly' motivated people
cannot come about without full awareness-including of death.

> I am not a moral man. I don't do things because a higher power has commanded
> that these are "right" or "wrong."

As if such a situation exists. Why do you ascribe your 'human'
ego-dictatorial tendencies to 'higher powers'? Especially since
you have no interest in such??

> I try to do things that make practical
> sense within a society of individuals.

To be practical requires awareness. Otherwise one must follow orders.
I don't say the latter in derogatory manner either.

> Murder is wrong, not because a god says
> so, but because if murder is condoned or unpunished, it is very likely that I
> will face an untimely end.
The same for keeping my word, if this were a
> marriage, long term friendship, or business deal, I would probably keep my word
> since I would like the same in return (though I know this will not always be
> the case). I view "moral" behavior has an attempt to bring stability to an
> otherwise chaotic existence.

Ie, a function of the brain. Your brain is your core?


> Finally, you said you choose to accept an unchanging reality with our
> perceptions of it easily manipulated.

No. I've never said that. I can't see how the rest of the comments are
relevant. I'm afraid you misunderstood completely what I said.
I said that 'reality' is not a function of your perceptions–that is
all. Your PERCEPTIONS have no impact on it. Nowhere did I imply
or say that reality is unchanging.


Ciao.

—– Original Message —–
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
<[email protected]>
> No, I use revolution in the sense of first destroying old institutions and
then
> creating new ones. My preferred method is to assume control of old
> institutions and then take them apart peacefully and rebuild them over a
period
> of time - such that a population never knows that a "revolution" took
place.

In this case, could it be that you are referring to evolution rather than
revolution. Sometimes the social/cultural difference between Canada and the
USA has been explained away because the USA was born from revolution whereas
Canada was born from evolution. Or perhaps you are involved in revolution by
stealth, which may also be evolution, but evolution by direction, yours of
course.

>
> No, there are no fears. And I have no soft side.
> The 'soft' side is a function of the ego.
> I examined my soft side along time ago,
> and at the time had extensive practice with
> techniques to deal with fear to deal away with it.
> Though I had no idea it was possible + again,
> I've received help.

This is called Priapism and its a serious condition.
I suggest you consult a medical professional
immediately.

-josh



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:

> Aw, you didn't tell me your core.

The 'core' is not subject to words. Idiot.

> Well, your techniques have a crude effectiveness

My techniques are not crude; they simply don't
conform to your impotent mannerisms.

> label people as idiots

I don't label. Certainly not 'people'.
Don't ascribe non-existent actions to me.

> until they give intellectual ground to your opinions,

I have no opinions.

> respond more positively until they are yours.

I don't care to 'have' people.
That has been made abundantly clear–and anything that I do is against
this. I require no 'armies'.

> See ya bucko, you are a trap for the curious and needy.

Not at all, dear. The 'trap' for the curious & needy are the likes of
you. Tell us again about those imaginary 'hawks' feeding from
the core–abusing people's fears too.

+ You didn't address anything that I wrote to you,
which was perfectly valid. Why? Because you expected to present
some human-all-too-human face to me in attempt to evoke my ego
ie 'soft spot' and feed on that.

You tried to do that to Max also: so you're not perfect, so what.
Let me lick your wounds.

Vulture.

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

> > Kandinskij, I am growing quite fond of you - always so irritable.
>
> Avoid qualifying my behavior with wishful projections.
> No irritability here. And that's nota subject to your opinion.

Actually, you are not in a position to supress or judge what is appropriate as
a subject for my opinion, this is a blustering that has no value. Please
refrain from using this meaningless type argument with me.

>
> How touching. Do you wet your panties too?
>

I think precedent has been set in that past that allows one to color their
conversations with metaphors and analogies. And while I cannot judge, it does
make me wonder if there are fears that you have not faced, such as allowing
yourself to explore your softer side in public (and please do not answer with
the "you are right, you cannot judge" obvious evasion)

> What does this have to do with conversation between you and I?
> Touching, but thoroughly uninteresting.

Actually nothing, but as in most conversations, subtexts exists from other
thoughts and conversations. Perhaps uninteresting to you, but as this is a
public forum, I am aware (and I am sure you are as well) that we do have an
audience. Sometimes I play to the audience (my only self-proclaimed title is
Corporate Performance Artist after all)

>
> No, you do it small-time–and you play the humble ordinary man.
> Frankly, if you're going to be a con-man, I'd rather you do it
> en masse. I like things being done 'properly'–not just timid toe
> dipping and giggling. But then again, I'm not much for timid ballerinas.

I don't play humble at all. I am rather arrogant and pompous. And I don't play
small time - I have made the big play a few times, so far to various degrees of
success - but artists, entrepreneurs who succeed, most fail several times
before they are successful. As for the "con man", if you mean someone who
takes advantage of somebody's confidence in them, I am sure I am "guilty" of
this. However, I do not place the "moral wrong" on this behavior that you do.
I have found in my experience that everyone is a "con man" - just a matter of
degree. While I can imagine someone loving their fear, I cannot imagine
someone who constantly corrects every misunderstanding that somebody else has
that is to their advantage.

>
> Mais oui.
>

Now we are getting somewhere, it is taking me a little while to get a glimmer
of understanding of your language, and you are only now getting a chance to
learn mine ( I know, you don't care).

> Mais oui, mais oui. Some things are not for everybody.
> However, passing judgement on things you care not to pursue–
> and perceive fallaciously is out of place.

I don't see any practical reason to call it "wrong" - perhaps it offends your
sense of propriety, but it does not offend mine. I am not concerned with
"true" or "false" - I am amused by the binary (thus my use of the 01 mantra to
be a little ironic)

> This is the same as revolution. And 'properly' motivated people
> cannot come about without full awareness-including of death.

No, I use revolution in the sense of first destroying old institutions and then
creating new ones. My preferred method is to assume control of old
institutions and then take them apart peacefully and rebuild them over a period
of time - such that a population never knows that a "revolution" took place.

>
> > I am not a moral man. I don't do things because a higher power has
> commanded
> > that these are "right" or "wrong."
>
> As if such a situation exists. Why do you ascribe your 'human'
> ego-dictatorial tendencies to 'higher powers'? Especially since
> you have no interest in such??

I don't understand you? Where do I ascribe my tendencies to "higher powers"?
As for ego, I fully admit to large ego which I go about deflating and using as
a source of amusement. I aspire to large things and am amused by myself for
being so. It is like this third voice in my head, commenting wryly on my
actions and thoughts.

> > I try to do things that make practical
> > sense within a society of individuals.
>
> To be practical requires awareness. Otherwise one must follow orders.
> I don't say the latter in derogatory manner either.

Yes, you have to be aware through many iterations of the consequences of
actions. Not many people can do this, thus their need for a book or leader to
follow.

>
> Ie, a function of the brain. Your brain is your core?

Which part and function of the brain? While I can use all the tools the brain
provides, I rely a great deal upon a reasoned intuition. Intuition being
function of the brain and not some supernatural power. However, being a
somewhat fanciful person, I imagine a connection to a large reservior of
thought power produced by the cummulated human race. This is more fantasy than
belief.

So what is your core?

–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:

> Actually, you are not in a position to supress or judge what is appropriate as
> a subject for my opinion, this is a blustering that has no value. Please
> refrain from using this meaningless type argument with me.

Actually, I am. This is no argument.
That you will not listen because you prefer your own brain-noise
is patently obvious. Because you don't have to hear it from me–
what I wrote to you is 'everywhere'–nor does it have anything to
do with 'me'.

> I think precedent has been set in that past that allows one to color their
> conversations with metaphors and analogies. And while I cannot judge, it does
> make me wonder if there are fears that you have not faced, such as allowing
> yourself to explore your softer side in public

No, there are no fears. And I have no soft side.
The 'soft' side is a function of the ego.
I examined my soft side along time ago,
and at the time had extensive practice with
techniques to deal with fear to deal away with it.
Though I had no idea it was possible + again,
I've received help.

So spare me the 'human' 'soft' waaa bit.

> I don't play humble at all. I am rather arrogant and pompous.

It's not like the two are contradictory. Observe Hitler + Stalin.
They were the most humblest, popular down to earth arrogant
and pompous figures. I'm not making comparisons, by the way.

> And I don't play small time -

You do. You just delude yourself that what you do is big time.
I mean big time baby–Hollywood, Third World Country Dictator,
Nobel Prizes, President of US, Pop-star of the Madonna Type,
Crowley-type poser–that sort of thing.

You try to make a half-assed 'big-time'. I meant real extremes.

> As for the "con man", if you mean someone who
> takes advantage of somebody's confidence in them, I am sure I am "guilty" of
> this.

Nein.

> However, I do not place the "moral wrong" on this behavior that you do.

I don't place any 'morals' or morals baby. Ethics can be reasonably
expected from conscious beings–and you're not. You're internally
knee-jerking in a 'moral' programmatic way and outwardly projecting on
me.


> I have found in my experience that everyone is a "con man" - just a matter of
> degree.

Nein. Abr. 99.99% of humans are. Allow me to rephrase: less than
100 people on the whole planet are.

> While I can imagine someone loving their fear, I cannot imagine
> someone who constantly corrects every misunderstanding that somebody else has
> that is to their advantage.

?(/67867867676?

> Now we are getting somewhere, it is taking me a little while to get a glimmer
> of understanding of your language, and you are only now getting a chance to
> learn mine ( I know, you don't care).

No + nein. There is no 'your' language or 'my' language.
Language ist. And you're not languaging. At this point,
I am not either.

> I don't see any practical reason to call it "wrong" -

It is wrong. You may not see or understand how / why / etc, but it is.
It isn't *calling it wrong*–it IS wrong.
That is proper languaging–labeling isn't.
And labeling is not a matter of the 'pleasantness' of the 'words'.


> perhaps it offends your sense of propriety, but it does not offend mine.

No, dear, it hasn't got anything to do with you or I.
It exists outside of you and I, and IS objectively wrong.
It's not relative to your ego.

> I am not concerned with
> "true" or "false" - I am amused by the binary (thus my use of the 01 mantra to
> be a little ironic)

This is not 'binary' at all. You make the idiotic mistake to
THINK that objective reality is 'relative'–and when presented with it
you can only perceive a binary surface (which is little but your brain
imposing the limits of its capacities).

> No, I use revolution in the sense of first destroying old institutions and then
> creating new ones.

Idiocy.

> My preferred method is to assume control of old
> institutions and then take them apart peacefully and rebuild them over a period
> of time

Ie, sadism. This won't hurt a bit. Dictatorial. Brutish.
Like ALL revolutions. Ego-justified murder + massacre.

> - such that a population never knows that a "revolution" took place.

Mais oui, n'est pas? The impulse to 'fuck over' w/o the
victim noticing. Sheer idiocy.

Genuine revolution requires ACTIVE VOLITION.

What you're doing is scientific-brain-human-control-freak dictatorial
butchering. Objectively.

> > As if such a situation exists. Why do you ascribe your 'human'
> > ego-dictatorial tendencies to 'higher powers'? Especially since
> > you have no interest in such??
>
> I don't understand you?

And you won't until you continue reading me as if what I write
is relative to you and your ego–because that's the only thing that
perceives things 'disconnectedly'–ie 'relatively' via the brain.

Not sure if you read the Buddhist metaphor I used to Eryk:
but the body is like a chariot with no master–and it runs around
as it is pushed by outside forces. Typically instead of linking
to the real core (i) it is controlled by the false (i) ego–
and since it is not Real and has no objective essence–everything
is relative.


> As for ego, I fully admit to large ego which I go about deflating and using as
> a source of amusement. I aspire to large things and am amused by myself for
> being so. It is like this third voice in my head, commenting wryly on my
> actions and thoughts.

Ie, self-debasing impulse. again: I wrote this before:
ego-self-importance and self-pity (soft side) are
two aspects of the same force–one of the major three
(as far as my observations go) maintaining + feeding
the ego. What does the ego feed on? YOUR_ energy.
Hence most ppl make the idiotic mistake that the
'ruling' class feed on them–very few (hybristic) individuals do.
Most of the time the ruling class have 'suppressed'
information on how to get out of this situation–that is all.
Hence all of this storming of insitutions is utter nonsense.

> Yes, you have to be aware through many iterations of the consequences of
> actions. Not many people can do this, thus their need for a book or leader to
> follow.

Nein. Awareness is just awareness. There is no object.

> Which part and function of the brain? While I can use all the tools the brain
> provides, I rely a great deal upon a reasoned intuition. Intuition being
> function of the brain and not some supernatural power.

Intuition is not a function of the brain. It begins at
the (mercurial) sexual center (not to be falsely coagulated with
brain / instincts / reproductive organs (male-standard)
'heart' / instincts / reproductive organs (female-standard)).
While reason is necessary at an early stage–it no longe is past certain
development– when the individual has access to 'logos' or
'shiva' or however one wishes to term these things.
Reason (the brain) is the master of the physical senses–and not of
internal senses and development. About as far as it can go is
when I say to you: I just put 6756756756 USD in your bank account,
and you go and look and say 'no there isn't'.


> However, being a
> somewhat fanciful person, I imagine a connection to a large reservior of
> thought power produced by the cummulated human race. This is more fantasy than
> belief.

Sure is. Humans are not connected by 'thought power'.

> So what is your core?

Not something subject to words + available to most.
Abr. I can tell you a common feature of all
'human' cores: destruction of 01 human being
causes more energetic + psychic damage to ALL
than detonation of 01 nuclear weapon (alone w/o
human victims).

Hence I find the abuse of humans under the guise
of protesting against 'war' ludicrious, wrong+
unacceptable + far more dangerous than any bombs.

Aw, you didn't tell me your core. Well, your techniques have a crude
effectiveness - label people as idiots until they give intellectual ground to
your opinions, respond more positively until they are yours.

See ya bucko, you are a trap for the curious and needy.

–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]

—– Original Message —–
From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:
>
> > In this case, could it be that you are referring to evolution rather
than
> > revolution. Sometimes the social/cultural difference between Canada and
the
> > USA has been explained away because the USA was born from revolution
whereas
> > Canada was born from evolution. Or perhaps you are involved in
revolution by
> > stealth, which may also be evolution, but evolution by direction, yours
of
> > course.
>
> Keep up that nationalistic Canadian attitude, brother.

I find immense value in both cultures, although I have a preference for
hockey pucks, I could not think of a better neighbour on the entire planet.

> I like maple stuff, even if it is 'sugary'.

And I like dynamic creativity, both evolutionary and revolutionary.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, josh zeidner wrote:

> This is called Priapism and its a serious condition.
> I suggest you consult a medical professional
> immediately.

No, it isn't. This is called a pathetic white monkey playing docteur.
I suggest jumping from a cliff: immediately.

Deal with yourself + come back to me with 'advice' again, baby.
Your ignorance is not amusing.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:

> In this case, could it be that you are referring to evolution rather than
> revolution. Sometimes the social/cultural difference between Canada and the
> USA has been explained away because the USA was born from revolution whereas
> Canada was born from evolution. Or perhaps you are involved in revolution by
> stealth, which may also be evolution, but evolution by direction, yours of
> course.

Keep up that nationalistic Canadian attitude, brother.
I like maple stuff, even if it is 'sugary'.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler attempted to mastyrbate on his keyboard:


> > Those are not orders. You have no rights over my being.
>
> Nor do you have any rights over my being, so don't tell me "don't
> ascribe" – I don;t take orders from people, whether they are from you or
> anyone else.

I am not claiming rights over your being–I am claiming rights over
mine, as you're attempting murder. Secondly, ou have no being.
Lastly, your last sentence is little but an idiotic pose:
your whole existence is little but happless order-taking.
A doll subject to outside forces, continuously.

> I have no interest in anyone's being belonging to me.

Untrue. You ascribe YOURSELF to another. This is invasive control
attempt.

> I don't want that responsibility.

You are not capabe of responsubility.

> However, I will continue to ascribe whatever please me

The price will be your own self-delusional destruction.

You will continue empty memetic invasive murder attempts.

> there is not a single thing your impoetent self

Nein. The only impotent self here is you.
Hence yoy feel the need to murder.

> can do to interfere with my intent.

You have no intent baby. You're a murderous mechanism going klik klik
klik.

> > Murderous animal brute.
>
> Yes.

= impotent.

> > No baby. The world does not revolve around your dick.
>
> I never asserted that it did. Making a chimera yourself?

Oh but you did. With your whole behavior.
No chimeras. Just truthful observation of you.

> I find immense value in chimeras, regardless of whether you do or not.

No, you don't. You simply run a sentence through your brain.
Let's see you do it again. Klik, Klik. Klik.

> > And your opinion on the matter is worth zero.
>
> As I regard yours – haven't you noticed?

No. Because I am not writing any opinions.
But you're choosing to disregard what I say because you don't want
to hear what is the uncomfortable truth about yyourself–that is quite
obvious.

> > But I'm sure your self-delusional self-importance tells ya otherwise.
>
> Well I am important to myself, and it's not a delusion for me.

The value of things is not determined by you (your ego).
The world does not revolve around you (your dick).

> > > Sorry, but I am the one who is doing the finding, not you;
> >
> > This is not about me, baby. I am not self-expressing.
>
> It's noticable.

And admirable.

> > No, you don't.
>
> Yes I do, regardless of your dog mama.

No, baby. There is no dogma here.
Don't you get bored with throwing fits and using words you don't
understand?

The only one 'dogmatic' here is you.
With regards to logic that is–but that is innate in brain-obsessed
apes.

> > You have no 'I' beside a delusional ego.
>
> I know what I have. I also know that you are wrong in this particular
> regard.

No baby. I am not wrong. And you know absolutely nada.
Nothing. Zip. Zero. You possess no knowledge whatsoever,
and are hence worthless.

> > I'm sure you fantasize about value though.
>
> Sometimes I have done that also. I have a rich fantasy life and indulge,
> nourish it; imagine that.

Ie, daydreaming. Brain masturbation for the impotent.

> I have trained myself, quite satisfactory to me, and find immense value in
> those particular chimeras and other chimeras as well.

You haven't trained yourself. You have been trained.

> Preface to the Second Edition: Programming & Metaprogramming in the Human
> Biocomputer
>
> All human beings' all persons who reach adulthood in the world today are
> programmed biocomputers. No one of us can escape our own nature as
> programmable entities. Literally, each of us may be our programs, nothing
> more, nothing less.


Complete drivel. And dogmatic at that.


Rest of Juvenile 'scientific' drivel is snipped.
Oh look–the boy thinks that reading gives one knowledge.
Moreso reading idiotic drivel–preicted as a result of
degeberation of the human ape over 100 years ago.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:
> > I am not claiming rights over your being–I am claiming rights over
> > mine, as you're attempting murder.
>
> LOL

'lol' indeed. impotent re-actionary behavior of a dense brute.

> > Secondly, ou have no being.
>
> Regardless of whether you say I do or not, it is my assessment which has
> meaning to me – I am a human being.

Self-referential egotism an 'i am' constitutes not.
A being is not human, nor can it ever be.

> So saith the Omnimpoetent One

Drivel.

> I have no interest in anyone's being belonging to me.

Self-delusional lie contradicting your behavior.

> > You are not capabe of responsubility.
>
> For myself, I am.

Drivel.

> > The price will be your own self-delusional destruction.
>
> I determine what price I will pay.

No, you don't baby.

> > You will continue empty memetic invasive murder attempts.
>
> Sure.

Additional impotence.


> I feel no need whatsoever. I have felt the sensate-impulse of it on rare
> occassions. Haven't succumbed to it. Given proper circumstances, I'm sure I
> could do it.

Abs. untrue.

> > You have no intent baby. You're a murderous mechanism going klik klik
> > klik.
>
> Sure. Right. Whatever you say oh Omnimpoetent One.

What a pity this is only a pose.

> > > > Murderous animal brute.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > = impotent.
>
> Not me.

Yes, you.

> Sorry, but your chimeras don't trump mine.

There are no chimeras of mine.

> > No. Because I am not writing any opinions.
>
> You are walking the dog mama.

No, and I will not start doing so no matter how much you froth at the
mouth.

> I can hear you alright,

No you cannot. narcissism precludes that.

> > The value of things is not determined by you (your ego).
>
> Yes it is.

No, it isn't.

> > The world does not revolve around you (your dick).
>
> Only certain individuals who have freely chosen to do such revolving. It
> feeeeeels so good.

People do not automatically posses the ability of choice.
Least of all free choice. And no, it doesn't feel good–
you're inept.

> > > It's noticable.
> >
> > And admirable.
>
> irrelevent.

Quite relevant, baby.

> I understand that you walk the dog mama.

You lack the capability to understand baby. Anything.

> I prefer consciousmess.

You have none.

> Not according to my consciousmess.

You have none.

> > > > I'm sure you fantasize about value though.


> > You haven't trained yourself. You have been trained.
>
> I've taken over the programming. You can stomp your little piroutte tooties
> all you want – it doesn't change my fact.

It's not a fact–but a delusion. You have no ability to perceive facts.
Only to shuffle lexical categories.

> > Complete drivel. And dogmatic at that.
> >
> > Rest of Juvenile 'scientific' drivel is snipped.
> > Oh look–the boy thinks that reading gives one knowledge.
>
> You have a point. I've been reading you and finding nothing. Why? Because
> there is nothing.

No. Because you are illiterate.

> yawn!

As I said: go fly from a window or bat a few things in your backyard.
I am not here to entertain you.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:

> Of course they are. How clever of you to state the obvious.

Nothing clever: don't ascribe your own idiotic knee-jerks to me.

> Nevertheless, I find immense value in both chimeras,

There is no value in chimeras, cuckoo.

> As I said, I find immense value in it – however, you are under no
> obligation to concur.

You're not finding any value: there simply isn't any.
You think you're finding value because you have been trained to do so.

> > There is no such thing as revolutionary (dynamic) creativity.
>
> Yes there is.

No there isn't. And you may stomp your little foot all you please, but
it's not going to appear miraculously.


> > As for the other–you haven't even been within miles of such.
>
> Your presumption is erroneous.

It's not a presumption, it's an observation.
It is not erroneous, it is accurate.


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

—– Original Message —–
From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:
>
> > Of course they are. How clever of you to state the obvious.
>
> Nothing clever: don't ascribe your own idiotic knee-jerks to me.

Giving orders again? Don't do this, don't do that. I will ascribe whatever
pleases me, regardless of your orders.

> > Nevertheless, I find immense value in both chimeras,
>
> There is no value in chimeras, cuckoo.

I find immense value in chimeras, regardless of whether you do or not.

> > As I said, I find immense value in it – however, you are under no
> > obligation to concur.
>
> You're not finding any value: there simply isn't any.

Sorry, but I am the one who is doing the finding, not you; I find immense
value in those chimeras regardless of whether you or anyone else does or
not.

> You think you're finding value because you have been trained to do so.

I have trained myself, quite satisfactory to me, and find immense value in
those particular chimeras and other chimeras as well.

> > > There is no such thing as revolutionary (dynamic) creativity.
> >
> > Yes there is.
>
> No there isn't. And you may stomp your little foot all you please, but
> it's not going to appear miraculously.

You can beat your gums all you want, but there is such. Whether it appears
"miraculously" is irrelevent and beside the point.

> > > As for the other–you haven't even been within miles of such.
> >
> > Your presumption is erroneous.
>
> It's not a presumption, it's an observation.
> It is not erroneous, it is accurate.

I know me from the inside out; your presumption is erroneous.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:

> > Nothing clever: don't ascribe your own idiotic knee-jerks to me.
>
> Giving orders again? Don't do this, don't do that.

Those are not orders. You have no rights over my being.

> I will ascribe whatever pleases me, regardless of your orders.

No, you will not. Unless you wish for your self-destruction.
Nobody's being belongs to you.

Murderous animal brute.

> > There is no value in chimeras, cuckoo.
>
> I find immense value in chimeras, regardless of whether you do or not.

No baby. The world does not revolve around your dick.
This is not my opinion. There simply IS NOT any value in chimeras.
And your opinion on the matter is worth zero.
But I'm sure your self-delusional self-importance tells ya otherwise.


> Sorry, but I am the one who is doing the finding, not you;

This is not about me, baby. I am not self-expressing.

> I find immense value in those chimeras regardless of whether you or anyone else does or
> not.

No, you don't. You have no 'I' beside a delusional ego.
I'm sure you fantasize about value though.


> > You think you're finding value because you have been trained to do so.
>
> I have trained myself, quite satisfactory to me, and find immense value in
> those particular chimeras and other chimeras as well.

No baby. You have BEEN trained. You haven't done anything to yourself.
And 'you' find no value in chimeras.

> > No there isn't. And you may stomp your little foot all you please, but
> > it's not going to appear miraculously.
>
> You can beat your gums all you want, but there is such.

Um, don't ascribe pathetic modes of behavior belonging to you to me.
The only one 'beating its gums' is you–and that is because you cannot
speech.

And no–there isn't any revolutionary idiocy art.

> > > > As for the other–you haven't even been within miles of such.
> > >
> > > Your presumption is erroneous.
> >
> > It's not a presumption, it's an observation.
> > It is not erroneous, it is accurate.
>
> I know me from the inside out;

No baby, you don't know yourself in the least bit.
You're hilariously in denial.


> your presumption is erroneous.

There is no presumption, nor error.

You're like a precocious child refusing to acknowledge
that its behavior might be more obvious tooutsiders than to itself.

Truly sad. I mean that without pity.

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

> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:
>
> > I find immense value in both cultures, although I have a preference for
> > hockey pucks, I could not think of a better neighbour on the entire
planet.
>
> Bzzt. Those cultures are chimeras.

Of course they are. How clever of you to state the obvious. Nevertheless, I
find immense value in both chimeras, although I have a preference for one
particular chimera, but of all available chimeras, I like the neighbor
next-best.

> There is no value in such_
> asleep + mechanical nationalism.

As I said, I find immense value in it – however, you are under no
obligation to concur.

> > > I like maple stuff, even if it is 'sugary'.
> >
> > And I like dynamic creativity, both evolutionary and revolutionary.
>
> There is no such thing as revolutionary (dynamic) creativity.

Yes there is.

> As for the other–you haven't even been within miles of such.

Your presumption is erroneous.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:

> I find immense value in both cultures, although I have a preference for
> hockey pucks, I could not think of a better neighbour on the entire planet.


Bzzt. Those cultures are chimeras. There is no value in such_
asleep + mechanical nationalism.

> > I like maple stuff, even if it is 'sugary'.
>
> And I like dynamic creativity, both evolutionary and revolutionary.

There is no such thing as revolutionary (dynamic) creativity.
As for the other–you haven't even been within miles of such.