big brother is coming

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

Some cheap propagandist
ape-in-state-of-stupor-and-unable-to-handle-reality reposted schlock.

Still on about how it's all right to punch people in the face if ya don't
like them? Faces, masks, corporate trademarks / brands are 'faces' you
know.

i am not responding to "faces". i don't hate corporations (in fact, i run
one).

but their are certain policies that i am against. especially those that
inhibit free speech (free expression). many people associate "big brother"
with GOVERNMENT but that is not the case. corporations are the worst "big
brother".

when laws (or corporate policies) are enacted that run counter to the
principles that i believe in … then yes, i speak up and try to fight back.

i try use the system against itself to achieve the results i want.

you seem to sit back and let the "reality" of others dictate "truth".
what's even worse … is that you hammer someone for trying change a piece
of the socio-economic "reality".

people dictate reality and i, unlike you, am a person. therefore i can
affect reality. you cannot.

david goldschmidt



—– Original Message —–
From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: big brother is coming


> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> Some cheap propagandist
> ape-in-state-of-stupor-and-unable-to-handle-reality reposted schlock.
>
> Still on about how it's all right to punch people in the face if ya don't
> like them? Faces, masks, corporate trademarks / brands are 'faces' you
> know.
>
>
>
>

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> i am not responding to "faces".

You are.

> i don't hate corporations (in fact, i run one).

Never implied that you hated. Only your impotence.

> but their are certain policies that i am against. especially those that
> inhibit free speech (free expression).

Yes, especially if those policies inhibit you from punching other
entities faces.

> many people associate "big brother"
> with GOVERNMENT but that is not the case. corporations are the worst "big
> brother".

There is no big brother.

> when laws (or corporate policies) are enacted that run counter to the
> principles that i believe in

You don't believe nor do you have principles.
You simply use big words to justify what you do.
And you're not alone.

>… then yes, i speak up and try to fight back.

I'm all for fighting back. But you're not fighting back.
You're allowing yourself to be programmed, pushed about
and lash out / wave your fists.


> i try use the system against itself to achieve the results i want.

You cannot use the system 'against itself'.

How long will it take for humans to understand that they cannot
want what they want? (Burroughs)

You can 'fight back' only if you see through, and understand.

> you seem to sit back and let the "reality" of others dictate "truth".

I seem nothing of the sort. The evidence is PLENTIFUL.
And in your case, even. Because what you want dearest, is for
YOUR reality to dictate truth.

I allow truth to dictate itself. It's not worse, and it is only
in your IDIOCY that you attempt project your own inverted impotence
on what I do. But that happens to humans identified with their
reproductive organs /sexual polarity). You must project in order
to relate on a base magnetic level.



> what's even worse … is that you hammer someone for trying change a piece
> of the socio-economic "reality".

I do nothing of the sort. Your myopic misinterpretations of my actions
are your own delusions.

> people dictate reality

BAHAHAHAHA. Dictatorial ape.
Nobody 'dictates' anything.

> and i, unlike you, am a person.

No dearest. You're an impotent nada.

> therefore i can
> affect reality. you cannot.

No dearest, I CAN: you can pretend.

i fight without anger
i take action without anger

i occassionally respond to your [online persona] with anger because it is a
presumptuous asshole

your continued mis-intrepretations have encouraged me to
create a special language just for you. read carefully.

david goldschmidt

> > i am not responding to "faces".
>
> You are.

dfghsfghsghsfghsgf


>
> > i don't hate corporations (in fact, i run one).
>
> Never implied that you hated. Only your impotence.
>
> > but their are certain policies that i am against. especially those that
> > inhibit free speech (free expression).
>
> Yes, especially if those policies inhibit you from punching other
> entities faces.

sghsghfsghsgfhsghsghsghgfshsgh

>
> > many people associate "big brother"
> > with GOVERNMENT but that is not the case. corporations are the worst
"big
> > brother".
>
> There is no big brother.
>
> > when laws (or corporate policies) are enacted that run counter to the
> > principles that i believe in
>
> You don't believe nor do you have principles.
> You simply use big words to justify what you do.
> And you're not alone.


sdhfsdhkmj;lkm;dmagfh;kmdsh


>
> >… then yes, i speak up and try to fight back.
>
> I'm all for fighting back. But you're not fighting back.
> You're allowing yourself to be programmed, pushed about
> and lash out / wave your fists.

sdhfsdhm;ldgh;jkds;gfkh

>
>
> > i try use the system against itself to achieve the results i want.
>
> You cannot use the system 'against itself'.
>
> How long will it take for humans to understand that they cannot
> want what they want? (Burroughs)
>
> You can 'fight back' only if you see through, and understand.


sdgh;akjglk;'h;ksdhf;ksdgh


>
> > you seem to sit back and let the "reality" of others dictate "truth".
>
> I seem nothing of the sort. The evidence is PLENTIFUL.
> And in your case, even. Because what you want dearest, is for
> YOUR reality to dictate truth.
>
> I allow truth to dictate itself. It's not worse, and it is only
> in your IDIOCY that you attempt project your own inverted impotence
> on what I do. But that happens to humans identified with their
> reproductive organs /sexual polarity). You must project in order
> to relate on a base magnetic level.
>
>

lakdfgjlajdfg la;djfgl;adfjgh aldifjgladjfg



>
> > what's even worse … is that you hammer someone for trying change a
piece
> > of the socio-economic "reality".
>
> I do nothing of the sort. Your myopic misinterpretations of my actions
> are your own delusions.

adf/gkaldk/fhlkanhflkdndfg

>
> > people dictate reality
>
> BAHAHAHAHA. Dictatorial ape.
> Nobody 'dictates' anything.

gjhfdlsnhd ;'lsjhd;'jh';fdh

>
> > and i, unlike you, am a person.
>
> No dearest. You're an impotent nada.

ad/lfkghlskj s';jhfd;'dsdfjh


>
> > therefore i can
> > affect reality. you cannot.
>
> No dearest, I CAN: you can pretend.
>
ad;'fhkga;dlflhk;'adkhf;ldkh;ldkhf;lsgh

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> i fight without anger
> i take action without anger

Tzzt. How marvelous if it were true.
But incorrect. Dumbing yourself down and making yourself
insensitive is suppression.


> i occassionally respond to your [online persona]

There is no online persona.

> with anger because it is a presumptuous asshole

No dearest. The only presumptuous asshole here is you.

And your anger is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
Nobody 'deserves it'.

> your continued mis-intrepretations

There haven't been any mis-interpretations, love.
You just want everybody to play along with the delusions
you tell yourself :)

> have encouraged me to create a special language just for you.

Drivel. You're illiterate least of all capable of
'creating languages'.


> read carefully.

Always do, dearest. Despite your wishful projections :)

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

> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> Some cheap propagandist
> ape-in-state-of-stupor-and-unable-to-handle-reality reposted schlock.
>
> Still on about how it's all right to punch people in the face if ya don't
> like them? Faces, masks, corporate trademarks / brands are 'faces' you
> know.

How to answer harm without harm? The reality is I have been punched, did the
punch hurt me? Now should I punch back? Did the punch reach through and hurt
my genetic line? If I punch, will it affect anything?

You know David, most of these people in these companies actually think they are
doing a good thing. I have been an Open Source advocate, for a
practical personal agenda and not a political/philosophical one. So I saw all
this passion on both sides that is purely from each thinking they are doing the
"right" thing. Perhaps it is fear of what the other side will do that creates
these flames. Companies are afraid of losing money and market share. Creators
are afraid of losing creative freedom and the ability to have channels to
distribute their creations. These are not actually related at all, other than
the same set of laws are being debated.

Joseph

very true joseph. i know that [corporations] are doing the "right" thing
and i've witnessed the same passion within the corporate culture.

however, i'm very nervous because, at times, it seems as if major issues are
seen only in economic/capitalistic terms rather than constitutional terms.
the declaration of independence says we have the right to life, liberty and
happiness/property (read "property" circa john locke, thomas hobbes). the
bill of rights guarantees free speech.

in my opinion … in my personal agenda … in my propaganda … i believe
that the right to free speech is significantly more important than
protecting copyrights for 70 plus years!!!!!!!! fuck disney!!!!!

i tend to get very excited around "fair use" and "copyright" issues because
i see pop culture icons as an alphabet/language … these images have
meaning. their messages resonate throughout our culture and i believe that
we should have the right to use them … to challenge the message … to
challenge the messenger.

i'm nearly finished with a newmedia essay on "human hell". i hope you will
watch it when its done.

images are language … not property
images are a kind of alphabet … not property

david goldschmidt
www.personify.tv


—– Original Message —–
From: <[email protected]>
To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
Cc: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: big brother is coming


> Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
> >
> > Some cheap propagandist
> > ape-in-state-of-stupor-and-unable-to-handle-reality reposted schlock.
> >
> > Still on about how it's all right to punch people in the face if ya
don't
> > like them? Faces, masks, corporate trademarks / brands are 'faces' you
> > know.
>
> How to answer harm without harm? The reality is I have been punched, did
the
> punch hurt me? Now should I punch back? Did the punch reach through and
hurt
> my genetic line? If I punch, will it affect anything?
>
> You know David, most of these people in these companies actually think
they are
> doing a good thing. I have been an Open Source advocate, for a
> practical personal agenda and not a political/philosophical one. So I saw
all
> this passion on both sides that is purely from each thinking they are
doing the
> "right" thing. Perhaps it is fear of what the other side will do that
creates
> these flames. Companies are afraid of losing money and market share.
Creators
> are afraid of losing creative freedom and the ability to have channels to
> distribute their creations. These are not actually related at all, other
than
> the same set of laws are being debated.
>
> Joseph
>

Quoting David Goldschmidt <[email protected]>:

> very true joseph. i know that [corporations] are doing the "right" thing
> and i've witnessed the same passion within the corporate culture.

[corporations] are a lot of people - the point is that certain people in these
corporations actually think they are doing the "right" thing in terms of good
for society, etc - it is also a happy coincidence that it coincides with the
monetary needs of their corporation and by extension their career status.
Many, many people leave school and enter the corporate world where they live an
incredibly sheltered and shallow existence - thus they have a very limited
world view. They can easily convince themselves that what is good for the
corporation is also good for the world and what threatens the corporation is
bad and even evil. Thus direct confrontation produces a war. Instead of this,
perhaps other ways???

For example, from my previous existence as a CEO, I still have control of the
Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Associate - a pretty
powerful corporate dog. I have started using this Sig as an educational tool
to corporate employees about such issues as fair use, copyright etc.

By chance, does your essay have applications to the software industry in
regards to open source, copyright, fair use, etc? I am looking for a presenter
and topic for the December Sig.

>
> in my opinion … in my personal agenda … in my propaganda … i believe
> that the right to free speech is significantly more important than
> protecting copyrights for 70 plus years!!!!!!!! fuck disney!!!!!

I am personally for free distribution of knowledge, not so much free expression
- however I do believe that it is very possible (likely?) that corporations
will take this to far (via Commerce Laws) for the average person to express
themselves freely.

>
> i'm nearly finished with a newmedia essay on "human hell". i hope you will
> watch it when its done.

Sure, I look forward to it.

>
> images are language … not property
> images are a kind of alphabet … not property

the knowledge/message of images are not property
the expression of images are property

joseph

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> How to answer harm without harm? The reality is I have been punched, did the
> punch hurt me? Now should I punch back? Did the punch reach through and hurt
> my genetic line? If I punch, will it affect anything?
>
> You know David, most of these people in these companies actually think they are
> doing a good thing.

Everybody on this planet is doing 'the good thing'.

You're all very saintly. Mwa.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> however, i'm very nervous because, at times, it seems as if major issues are
> seen only in economic/capitalistic terms rather than constitutional terms.

Yes, and you are a fervent constitutionalist.

> the declaration of independence says we have the right to life, liberty and
> happiness/property (read "property" circa john locke, thomas hobbes).

That applies to humans not being punched in the face as well.

> the bill of rights guarantees free speech.

> in my opinion … in my personal agenda … in my propaganda … i believe
> that the right to free speech is significantly more important than
> protecting copyrights for 70 plus years!!!!!!!! fuck disney!!!!!

What you WANT is not the right of FREE SPEECH.
Abusing other humans and their work is not FREE SPEECH.
And they have the right of PROPERTY, and LIFE.
The latter my dearest over-rides your psychotic
and juvenile mis-reading of the constitution.

> i tend to get very excited around "fair use" and "copyright" issues because
> i see pop culture icons as an alphabet/language

It isn't.

> … these images have meaning. their messages resonate throughout our culture and i believe that
> we should have the right to use them

No Dearest. what you see is that those messages have POWER.
And what you want is to appropriate it by knee-jerk opposition and
destruction.

> … to challenge the message … to
> challenge the messenger.

Destruction and abuse is not challenge.

> images are language

Images are not languages and never will become language
no matter how much you stomp your foot.

> … not property

The 'fervent' constitutionalist now decides what is property and what
isn't.

> images are a kind of alphabet … not property

Images are not an alphabet. And yes, they are in fact property.