say no to BABYCHEEKS

Posted by DR. port | Mon Dec 30th 2002 1 a.m.

SAY NO TO BABYCHEEKS

man can't you think of somthing better then BABYCHEEKS i do not want to see BABYCHEEKS all of 2003 from you what about analpuss or your good all stand by IDIOT ..........................

depARTURES Vs. arRIVALS
____________________________________ _____________

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
  • D42 Kandinskij | Mon Dec 30th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, NATALIE MYERS wrote:

    > man can't you think of somthing better

    We are not thinking. Avoida ttempting to dictate our behavior
    passive-aggressively with "something better knee-jerks".

    > then BABYCHEEKS i do not want to see BABYCHEEKS

    We do not care about what you want, narcissistic idiota.

    > all of 2003 from you

    Avoid attempting to dictate our behavior.

    > what about analpuss or your good all stand by IDIOT

    As above.

    Go throw your fits elsewhere, natalie.
  • DR. port | Tue Dec 31st 2002 1 a.m.
    suggestion is not dictation..... You may want to consider, Perhaps you have not thought of, It would interesting if you, and thanks please come agian....... i will get my manager. thats great i am sure many have felt the same way before ......boring boring boring i like idiot it has made a remarkable impact on many,babycheeks lacks the guts and integrity of the dail-log ha be that as it may really that is great i can see your point and ohhh that is really remarkable i do not care it does not really matter and this ....WE do you have a mouse in your pocket???? narrasisitic good tale good nuerosis making masterbation more fulfilling for idiots ..... it is much more diffcult to be nice then to be mean......... being that you like a challage you may want to try taking on new personality roles this coming year i could easliy sat you up with our learn to be nice package for on 29.95$ you could be nice to anyone in a matter oof two wonderfull weeks ..... ha ha ha really thats great >>>>>>>

    "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org> wrote:On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, NATALIE MYERS wrote:

    > man can't you think of somthing better

    We are not thinking. Avoida ttempting to dictate our behavior
    passive-aggressively with "something better knee-jerks".

    > then BABYCHEEKS i do not want to see BABYCHEEKS

    We do not care about what you want, narcissistic idiota.

    > all of 2003 from you

    Avoid attempting to dictate our behavior.

    > what about analpuss or your good all stand by IDIOT

    As above.

    Go throw your fits elsewhere, natalie.

    depARTURES Vs. arRIVALS
    ____________________________________ _____________

    ---------------------------------
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
  • D42 Kandinskij | Tue Dec 31st 2002 1 a.m.
    On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, NATALIE MYERS wrote:

    > suggestion is not dictation.....

    You weren't suggesting. You were dictating.
    And yes, it is.

    > You may want to consider,

    We do not "consider".

    > Perhaps you have not thought of,

    We do not "think".

    > It would interesting if you, and thanks please come agian.......

    No, natalie, you didn't do any of the above.
    You did what you did.

    >.boring boring boring

    The only one boring here is you, babycheeks.
    Boredom is a self-initiated knee-jerk, and only you_ are responsible for
    it.

    > babycheeks lacks the guts and integrity of the dail-log ha be that as it
    > may really that is great i can see your point and ohhh that is really
    > remarkable i do not care it does not really matter and this ....WE do

    Meaningless empty self-inflated drivel.
    Avoid attempting to dictate our behavior Natalie.
    There are no "explanations' and "justifications".
    You may wish to play idiotic mindfuck games with yourself
    but you're solo there.
  • DR. port | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    cOMMANDER WE HAVE A SOLO MIND FUCK GAME GOING ON IN THE THRID SECTOR OF RHIZOME ........... IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE ANTAGONIST KARIE WE SENT IS DECONSTRUCTING AND HIS ONE LINERS ARE NOT CONVINCING ENOUGH FOR THE PEOPLE TO SUBCOMB TO OUR MIND CONTROLL.... SOUNDS LIKE KARIE NEEDS TO BE RE PROGRAMMED...REALLY COMMANDER HES CRACKING UP SPOUTING ABOUT BABYCHECKS AND DICTATION HUMMMMM SOUNDS LIKE SMELLS LIKE WE HAVE A FOOL ON OUR HANDS WHAT SHOULD WE DO??? REPROGRAM WITH THE THE LEARN TO BE NICE PACKAGE FOR ONLY 29.95 COMMANDER I HAVE SEEN IT AND IT WORKS PULL KARIE OUT NOW BEFORE THEY BECOME IMMUNE AND LAUGH AT OUR MIND CONTROL.....
    "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org> wrote:On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, NATALIE MYERS wrote:

    > suggestion is not dictation.....

    You weren't suggesting. You were dictating.
    And yes, it is.

    > You may want to consider,

    We do not "consider".

    > Perhaps you have not thought of,

    We do not "think".

    > It would interesting if you, and thanks please come agian.......

    No, natalie, you didn't do any of the above.
    You did what you did.

    >.boring boring boring

    The only one boring here is you, babycheeks.
    Boredom is a self-initiated knee-jerk, and only you_ are responsible for
    it.

    > babycheeks lacks the guts and integrity of the dail-log ha be that as it
    > may really that is great i can see your point and ohhh that is really
    > remarkable i do not care it does not really matter and this ....WE do

    Meaningless empty self-inflated drivel.
    Avoid attempting to dictate our behavior Natalie.
    There are no "explanations' and "justifications".
    You may wish to play idiotic mindfuck games with yourself
    but you're solo there.

    depARTURES Vs. arRIVALS
    ____________________________________ _____________

    ---------------------------------
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
  • D42 Kandinskij | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, NATALIE MYERS wrote:

    More meaningless drivel in order to avoid self-responsibility.
  • marc garrett | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    Yes Natalie,

    'Karei' is now relegated back into the 'Block Sender' now - lost all the
    respect that 'they' potentially had, they are not as interesting as Neoists,
    lack any grace in their communication, lack any depth - therefore I find
    them uninteresting. I advise everyone to do the same in regard to their
    failing to come up with anything imaginative other than their limited
    persona. They are 'literally' A Yawn...

    bye for now - marc

    http://www.furtherfield.org
    http://www.furthernoise.org
    http://www.dido.uk.net
    We Can Make Our Own World.

    >
    > cOMMANDER WE HAVE A SOLO MIND FUCK GAME GOING ON IN THE THRID SECTOR OF
    RHIZOME ........... IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE ANTAGONIST KARIE WE SENT IS
    DECONSTRUCTING AND HIS ONE LINERS ARE NOT CONVINCING ENOUGH FOR THE PEOPLE
    TO SUBCOMB TO OUR MIND CONTROLL.... SOUNDS LIKE KARIE NEEDS TO BE RE
    PROGRAMMED...REALLY COMMANDER HES CRACKING UP SPOUTING ABOUT BABYCHECKS AND
    DICTATION HUMMMMM SOUNDS LIKE SMELLS LIKE WE HAVE A FOOL ON OUR HANDS WHAT
    SHOULD WE DO??? REPROGRAM WITH THE THE LEARN TO BE NICE PACKAGE FOR ONLY
    29.95 COMMANDER I HAVE SEEN IT AND IT WORKS PULL KARIE OUT NOW BEFORE THEY
    BECOME IMMUNE AND LAUGH AT OUR MIND CONTROL.....
    > "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org> wrote:On Tue, 31 Dec
    2002, NATALIE MYERS wrote:
    >
    > > suggestion is not dictation.....
    >
    > You weren't suggesting. You were dictating.
    > And yes, it is.
    >
    > > You may want to consider,
    >
    > We do not "consider".
    >
    > > Perhaps you have not thought of,
    >
    > We do not "think".
    >
    > > It would interesting if you, and thanks please come agian.......
    >
    > No, natalie, you didn't do any of the above.
    > You did what you did.
    >
    > >.boring boring boring
    >
    > The only one boring here is you, babycheeks.
    > Boredom is a self-initiated knee-jerk, and only you_ are responsible for
    > it.
    >
    > > babycheeks lacks the guts and integrity of the dail-log ha be that as it
    > > may really that is great i can see your point and ohhh that is really
    > > remarkable i do not care it does not really matter and this ....WE do
    >
    > Meaningless empty self-inflated drivel.
    > Avoid attempting to dictate our behavior Natalie.
    > There are no "explanations' and "justifications".
    > You may wish to play idiotic mindfuck games with yourself
    > but you're solo there.
    >
    >
    >
    > depARTURES Vs. arRIVALS
    > ____________________________________ _____________
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
  • D42 Kandinskij | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, marc.garrett wrote:

    > 'Karei' is now relegated back into the 'Block Sender' now

    Again? You're going to ignore us because we won't play
    along with your attempted infantilistic mirrorism
    attempt at self-centered narcissism attempted to be
    passed on as love?

    By the way, we do "suggest" that you avoid making slanderous
    and libelous statements such as us being a "sect" without
    any such information.

    And appeal to the masses in a very "charming charismatic leader"
    "graceful" and "soulful" manner? maybe you coould even tell
    them how eros (sexuality) is "soulful love" (philia) proceeding
    to peddle your delusions on matters of which you have no understanding?
    Nevermind that you're not even capable of EROS but rather a subject
    to reproductive mechanisms and culturally / genetically programmed
    "desires' which you confuse and confuse with sexuality, least of
    all "heart(pathos)". Nothing wrong with eros, by the way, but it's
    simply not "philia".

    Nor are your delusions "imagination".
    As a matter of fact you have no contact either with your sexuality
    or imagination (one needs to be in balance to access those, and
    function a bit above infantile obsessions with faux-emotional
    posturing and pseudo-thinking.

    We sympathize : walking a path of one's own where there is
    no "approval" or "disapproval" from another + one is self-responsible
    for one's actions (and totally alone in such) is difficult.

    And it is forgivable that you are ignorant.
    What is not forgivable is wilfull refusal to look at yourself,
    and repeated attempts to damage others instead of dealing
    with yourself.

    There is no such thing as "soulful sex," because the soul does not
    have any sex organs. Nor are the reproductive functions
    and physical expressions of the body "soulful". Sex is just
    sex. And when it's done properly, there is nothing wrong with it.
    Certainly it CAN BE a facet of "soulful love" and do avoid attempting
    to project some aversion on our behalf towards the body,
    because we can discern between the actual functions of the "soul"
    and sexuality. Pardon us, if we don't tell any humans we have
    sex with that we are their "soul/other" or Jesus, and if we enjoy
    sex for what it is.

    Apropos the above the "confusion" of such matter is indeed and in fact a
    cause of lots of suffering world-wide. Yet the source of suffering is
    the delusion_ and it doesn't matter if it comes from "religion" (
    as physically implemented by humans), "philosophy", "science", or from
    "marc garrett".

    And no, we do not care about your middle-class programmatic knee-jerks
    on the matter, marc garrett.

    Sexuality is important. Idiotism about it isn't.
    Sentimentality and infantile emotional-knee jerks about it are not
    either. Nor does it havea nything to do with "creativity" and "art"

    > - lost all the respect that

    You are not capable of respect. Imagination. Creativity.
    "Soul". These are not manifestations which exist in order
    to be used to condescend towards others. They are not knee-jerks
    of your ego. Nor are you capable of understanding them.

    > 'they' potentially had,

    No, you attempted flatulating mirrorism as a passive-aggressive
    "fe-attack" after all the rest of it failed.
    Natirralich, you're going to run away again, as if anyone
    was writing to you, or even interested in communicating
    to you. again, you're attempting to knee-jerk a "dependency"
    "need" which isn't here. If you want to go away, go away.

    What is ugly in the human race is this idiotic drive to
    knee-jerk others as if they need to step away from their
    essence-individuality in order to "pursue" and "beg"
    and self-debase themselves at the doors of some ignorant
    narcissistic delusional princessa or ELSE they will be
    harrassed by said princessa.

    Come back when you are capable of LOVE marc.

    > they are not as interesting as Neoists,

    Meaningless drivel. We are not "comparable" to Neoists.
    Nor do you understand Neoism. Nor are you capable of perceiving
    or judging us (or anyone).

    All you are interested in is your ego, and you have no
    interest in anything else, and you would "subserviate"
    anything and everything to it, if you had it your way.
    And this is not inaccurate nor anything to do with
    some wishfil "obsession" on our behalf. We write this
    because it is applicable to you.

    > lack any grace in their communication,

    No dearest. We are not the wishful projections inside your brain.
    Nor do you have any understanding of grace or communication.
    Nor are you capable of communication. What you are whining about
    is that you will not be treated as what you are not, and that we will
    not be muppets to your ego. Our most sincere apologies for the
    doscomfort, princessa.

    > lack any depth -

    You have no capability to perceive depth, no matter how much you pose
    as if you do. You are ignorant, blind, deaf, and illiterate.

    > therefore I find them uninteresting.

    The princessa "I" has declared.

    > I advise everyone to do the same

    Certainly. The bloated dictatorial ape 'advises" all to act as one
    and do as it does. After all, it needs re-affirmation "luv" and
    "mirroring" because if there is none such, it won't stand on its
    own two feet for two seconds flat.

    > in regard to their failing to come up with anything imaginative

    We are not 'failing" anything dearest princessa.
    Keep your delusional wishful projections to yourself.

    > other than their limited persona.

    You are talking about yourself, dearest. We have no "limited personas".
    There is no such thing as UNLIMITED PERSONAS. Nor do we have any
    personas ;) Nor are you capable of perceiving any personas.

    > They are 'literally' A Yawn...

    No dearest. We are not your wishful projections.
    No matter how much you froth at the mouth.
    Boredom + ennui are characteristic of those disconnected
    from reality + blind.

    > bye for now - marc

    Ciao, princessa. careful that the door does not slam
    your ass on the way out.

    > We Can Make Our Own World.

    Scribbled the dictatorial ape before it learned to percieve,
    exist, appreciate, and be of serrvice to the one created in absolute
    perfection.

    Its poor bleeding "soul".
  • marc garrett | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    Yawn....

    > On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, marc.garrett wrote:
    >
    > > 'Karei' is now relegated back into the 'Block Sender' now
    >
    > Again? You're going to ignore us because we won't play
    > along with your attempted infantilistic mirrorism
    > attempt at self-centered narcissism attempted to be
    > passed on as love?
    >
    > By the way, we do "suggest" that you avoid making slanderous
    > and libelous statements such as us being a "sect" without
    > any such information.
    >
    > And appeal to the masses in a very "charming charismatic leader"
    > "graceful" and "soulful" manner? maybe you coould even tell
    > them how eros (sexuality) is "soulful love" (philia) proceeding
    > to peddle your delusions on matters of which you have no understanding?
    > Nevermind that you're not even capable of EROS but rather a subject
    > to reproductive mechanisms and culturally / genetically programmed
    > "desires' which you confuse and confuse with sexuality, least of
    > all "heart(pathos)". Nothing wrong with eros, by the way, but it's
    > simply not "philia".
    >
    > Nor are your delusions "imagination".
    > As a matter of fact you have no contact either with your sexuality
    > or imagination (one needs to be in balance to access those, and
    > function a bit above infantile obsessions with faux-emotional
    > posturing and pseudo-thinking.
    >
    > We sympathize : walking a path of one's own where there is
    > no "approval" or "disapproval" from another + one is self-responsible
    > for one's actions (and totally alone in such) is difficult.
    >
    > And it is forgivable that you are ignorant.
    > What is not forgivable is wilfull refusal to look at yourself,
    > and repeated attempts to damage others instead of dealing
    > with yourself.
    >
    > There is no such thing as "soulful sex," because the soul does not
    > have any sex organs. Nor are the reproductive functions
    > and physical expressions of the body "soulful". Sex is just
    > sex. And when it's done properly, there is nothing wrong with it.
    > Certainly it CAN BE a facet of "soulful love" and do avoid attempting
    > to project some aversion on our behalf towards the body,
    > because we can discern between the actual functions of the "soul"
    > and sexuality. Pardon us, if we don't tell any humans we have
    > sex with that we are their "soul/other" or Jesus, and if we enjoy
    > sex for what it is.
    >
    > Apropos the above the "confusion" of such matter is indeed and in fact a
    > cause of lots of suffering world-wide. Yet the source of suffering is
    > the delusion_ and it doesn't matter if it comes from "religion" (
    > as physically implemented by humans), "philosophy", "science", or from
    > "marc garrett".
    >
    > And no, we do not care about your middle-class programmatic knee-jerks
    > on the matter, marc garrett.
    >
    > Sexuality is important. Idiotism about it isn't.
    > Sentimentality and infantile emotional-knee jerks about it are not
    > either. Nor does it havea nything to do with "creativity" and "art"
    >
    > > - lost all the respect that
    >
    > You are not capable of respect. Imagination. Creativity.
    > "Soul". These are not manifestations which exist in order
    > to be used to condescend towards others. They are not knee-jerks
    > of your ego. Nor are you capable of understanding them.
    >
    > > 'they' potentially had,
    >
    > No, you attempted flatulating mirrorism as a passive-aggressive
    > "fe-attack" after all the rest of it failed.
    > Natirralich, you're going to run away again, as if anyone
    > was writing to you, or even interested in communicating
    > to you. again, you're attempting to knee-jerk a "dependency"
    > "need" which isn't here. If you want to go away, go away.
    >
    > What is ugly in the human race is this idiotic drive to
    > knee-jerk others as if they need to step away from their
    > essence-individuality in order to "pursue" and "beg"
    > and self-debase themselves at the doors of some ignorant
    > narcissistic delusional princessa or ELSE they will be
    > harrassed by said princessa.
    >
    > Come back when you are capable of LOVE marc.
    >
    > > they are not as interesting as Neoists,
    >
    > Meaningless drivel. We are not "comparable" to Neoists.
    > Nor do you understand Neoism. Nor are you capable of perceiving
    > or judging us (or anyone).
    >
    > All you are interested in is your ego, and you have no
    > interest in anything else, and you would "subserviate"
    > anything and everything to it, if you had it your way.
    > And this is not inaccurate nor anything to do with
    > some wishfil "obsession" on our behalf. We write this
    > because it is applicable to you.
    >
    > > lack any grace in their communication,
    >
    > No dearest. We are not the wishful projections inside your brain.
    > Nor do you have any understanding of grace or communication.
    > Nor are you capable of communication. What you are whining about
    > is that you will not be treated as what you are not, and that we will
    > not be muppets to your ego. Our most sincere apologies for the
    > doscomfort, princessa.
    >
    >
    > > lack any depth -
    >
    > You have no capability to perceive depth, no matter how much you pose
    > as if you do. You are ignorant, blind, deaf, and illiterate.
    >
    > > therefore I find them uninteresting.
    >
    > The princessa "I" has declared.
    >
    > > I advise everyone to do the same
    >
    > Certainly. The bloated dictatorial ape 'advises" all to act as one
    > and do as it does. After all, it needs re-affirmation "luv" and
    > "mirroring" because if there is none such, it won't stand on its
    > own two feet for two seconds flat.
    >
    >
    > > in regard to their failing to come up with anything imaginative
    >
    > We are not 'failing" anything dearest princessa.
    > Keep your delusional wishful projections to yourself.
    >
    > > other than their limited persona.
    >
    > You are talking about yourself, dearest. We have no "limited personas".
    > There is no such thing as UNLIMITED PERSONAS. Nor do we have any
    > personas ;) Nor are you capable of perceiving any personas.
    >
    >
    > > They are 'literally' A Yawn...
    >
    > No dearest. We are not your wishful projections.
    > No matter how much you froth at the mouth.
    > Boredom + ennui are characteristic of those disconnected
    > from reality + blind.
    >
    > > bye for now - marc
    >
    > Ciao, princessa. careful that the door does not slam
    > your ass on the way out.
    >
    > > We Can Make Our Own World.
    >
    > Scribbled the dictatorial ape before it learned to percieve,
    > exist, appreciate, and be of serrvice to the one created in absolute
    > perfection.
    >
    > Its poor bleeding "soul".
    >
    >
  • marc garrett | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    Crap - again...extra large Yawn....

    >Nor are your delusions "imagination".
    As a matter of fact you have no contact either with your sexuality
    or imagination (one needs to be in balance to access those, and
    function a bit above infantile obsessions with faux-emotional
    posturing and pseudo-thinking.

    > On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, marc.garrett wrote:
    >
    > > 'Karei' is now relegated back into the 'Block Sender' now
    >
    > Again? You're going to ignore us because we won't play
    > along with your attempted infantilistic mirrorism
    > attempt at self-centered narcissism attempted to be
    > passed on as love?
    >
    > By the way, we do "suggest" that you avoid making slanderous
    > and libelous statements such as us being a "sect" without
    > any such information.
    >
    > And appeal to the masses in a very "charming charismatic leader"
    > "graceful" and "soulful" manner? maybe you coould even tell
    > them how eros (sexuality) is "soulful love" (philia) proceeding
    > to peddle your delusions on matters of which you have no understanding?
    > Nevermind that you're not even capable of EROS but rather a subject
    > to reproductive mechanisms and culturally / genetically programmed
    > "desires' which you confuse and confuse with sexuality, least of
    > all "heart(pathos)". Nothing wrong with eros, by the way, but it's
    > simply not "philia".
    >
    > Nor are your delusions "imagination".
    > As a matter of fact you have no contact either with your sexuality
    > or imagination (one needs to be in balance to access those, and
    > function a bit above infantile obsessions with faux-emotional
    > posturing and pseudo-thinking.
    >
    > We sympathize : walking a path of one's own where there is
    > no "approval" or "disapproval" from another + one is self-responsible
    > for one's actions (and totally alone in such) is difficult.
    >
    > And it is forgivable that you are ignorant.
    > What is not forgivable is wilfull refusal to look at yourself,
    > and repeated attempts to damage others instead of dealing
    > with yourself.
    >
    > There is no such thing as "soulful sex," because the soul does not
    > have any sex organs. Nor are the reproductive functions
    > and physical expressions of the body "soulful". Sex is just
    > sex. And when it's done properly, there is nothing wrong with it.
    > Certainly it CAN BE a facet of "soulful love" and do avoid attempting
    > to project some aversion on our behalf towards the body,
    > because we can discern between the actual functions of the "soul"
    > and sexuality. Pardon us, if we don't tell any humans we have
    > sex with that we are their "soul/other" or Jesus, and if we enjoy
    > sex for what it is.
    >
    > Apropos the above the "confusion" of such matter is indeed and in fact a
    > cause of lots of suffering world-wide. Yet the source of suffering is
    > the delusion_ and it doesn't matter if it comes from "religion" (
    > as physically implemented by humans), "philosophy", "science", or from
    > "marc garrett".
    >
    > And no, we do not care about your middle-class programmatic knee-jerks
    > on the matter, marc garrett.
    >
    > Sexuality is important. Idiotism about it isn't.
    > Sentimentality and infantile emotional-knee jerks about it are not
    > either. Nor does it havea nything to do with "creativity" and "art"
    >
    > > - lost all the respect that
    >
    > You are not capable of respect. Imagination. Creativity.
    > "Soul". These are not manifestations which exist in order
    > to be used to condescend towards others. They are not knee-jerks
    > of your ego. Nor are you capable of understanding them.
    >
    > > 'they' potentially had,
    >
    > No, you attempted flatulating mirrorism as a passive-aggressive
    > "fe-attack" after all the rest of it failed.
    > Natirralich, you're going to run away again, as if anyone
    > was writing to you, or even interested in communicating
    > to you. again, you're attempting to knee-jerk a "dependency"
    > "need" which isn't here. If you want to go away, go away.
    >
    > What is ugly in the human race is this idiotic drive to
    > knee-jerk others as if they need to step away from their
    > essence-individuality in order to "pursue" and "beg"
    > and self-debase themselves at the doors of some ignorant
    > narcissistic delusional princessa or ELSE they will be
    > harrassed by said princessa.
    >
    > Come back when you are capable of LOVE marc.
    >
    > > they are not as interesting as Neoists,
    >
    > Meaningless drivel. We are not "comparable" to Neoists.
    > Nor do you understand Neoism. Nor are you capable of perceiving
    > or judging us (or anyone).
    >
    > All you are interested in is your ego, and you have no
    > interest in anything else, and you would "subserviate"
    > anything and everything to it, if you had it your way.
    > And this is not inaccurate nor anything to do with
    > some wishfil "obsession" on our behalf. We write this
    > because it is applicable to you.
    >
    > > lack any grace in their communication,
    >
    > No dearest. We are not the wishful projections inside your brain.
    > Nor do you have any understanding of grace or communication.
    > Nor are you capable of communication. What you are whining about
    > is that you will not be treated as what you are not, and that we will
    > not be muppets to your ego. Our most sincere apologies for the
    > doscomfort, princessa.
    >
    >
    > > lack any depth -
    >
    > You have no capability to perceive depth, no matter how much you pose
    > as if you do. You are ignorant, blind, deaf, and illiterate.
    >
    > > therefore I find them uninteresting.
    >
    > The princessa "I" has declared.
    >
    > > I advise everyone to do the same
    >
    > Certainly. The bloated dictatorial ape 'advises" all to act as one
    > and do as it does. After all, it needs re-affirmation "luv" and
    > "mirroring" because if there is none such, it won't stand on its
    > own two feet for two seconds flat.
    >
    >
    > > in regard to their failing to come up with anything imaginative
    >
    > We are not 'failing" anything dearest princessa.
    > Keep your delusional wishful projections to yourself.
    >
    > > other than their limited persona.
    >
    > You are talking about yourself, dearest. We have no "limited personas".
    > There is no such thing as UNLIMITED PERSONAS. Nor do we have any
    > personas ;) Nor are you capable of perceiving any personas.
    >
    >
    > > They are 'literally' A Yawn...
    >
    > No dearest. We are not your wishful projections.
    > No matter how much you froth at the mouth.
    > Boredom + ennui are characteristic of those disconnected
    > from reality + blind.
    >
    > > bye for now - marc
    >
    > Ciao, princessa. careful that the door does not slam
    > your ass on the way out.
    >
    > > We Can Make Our Own World.
    >
    > Scribbled the dictatorial ape before it learned to percieve,
    > exist, appreciate, and be of serrvice to the one created in absolute
    > perfection.
    >
    > Its poor bleeding "soul".
    >
    >
  • D42 Kandinskij | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, marc.garrett wrote:

    > Yawn....

    Meaningless knee-jerk.
    What we wrote is accurate + precise + about "you"
    despite your catatonic "ennui" :)

    > > > 'Karei' is now relegated back into the 'Block Sender' now
    > >
    > > Again? You're going to ignore us because we won't play
    > > along with your attempted infantilistic mirrorism
    > > attempt at self-centered narcissism attempted to be
    > > passed on as love?
    > >
    > > By the way, we do "suggest" that you avoid making slanderous
    > > and libelous statements such as us being a "sect" without
    > > any such information.
    > >
    > > And appeal to the masses in a very "charming charismatic leader"
    > > "graceful" and "soulful" manner? maybe you coould even tell
    > > them how eros (sexuality) is "soulful love" (philia) proceeding
    > > to peddle your delusions on matters of which you have no understanding?
    > > Nevermind that you're not even capable of EROS but rather a subject
    > > to reproductive mechanisms and culturally / genetically programmed
    > > "desires' which you confuse and confuse with sexuality, least of
    > > all "heart(pathos)". Nothing wrong with eros, by the way, but it's
    > > simply not "philia".
    > >
    > > Nor are your delusions "imagination".
    > > As a matter of fact you have no contact either with your sexuality
    > > or imagination (one needs to be in balance to access those, and
    > > function a bit above infantile obsessions with faux-emotional
    > > posturing and pseudo-thinking.
    > >
    > > We sympathize : walking a path of one's own where there is
    > > no "approval" or "disapproval" from another + one is self-responsible
    > > for one's actions (and totally alone in such) is difficult.
    > >
    > > And it is forgivable that you are ignorant.
    > > What is not forgivable is wilfull refusal to look at yourself,
    > > and repeated attempts to damage others instead of dealing
    > > with yourself.
    > >
    > > There is no such thing as "soulful sex," because the soul does not
    > > have any sex organs. Nor are the reproductive functions
    > > and physical expressions of the body "soulful". Sex is just
    > > sex. And when it's done properly, there is nothing wrong with it.
    > > Certainly it CAN BE a facet of "soulful love" and do avoid attempting
    > > to project some aversion on our behalf towards the body,
    > > because we can discern between the actual functions of the "soul"
    > > and sexuality. Pardon us, if we don't tell any humans we have
    > > sex with that we are their "soul/other" or Jesus, and if we enjoy
    > > sex for what it is.
    > >
    > > Apropos the above the "confusion" of such matter is indeed and in fact a
    > > cause of lots of suffering world-wide. Yet the source of suffering is
    > > the delusion_ and it doesn't matter if it comes from "religion" (
    > > as physically implemented by humans), "philosophy", "science", or from
    > > "marc garrett".
    > >
    > > And no, we do not care about your middle-class programmatic knee-jerks
    > > on the matter, marc garrett.
    > >
    > > Sexuality is important. Idiotism about it isn't.
    > > Sentimentality and infantile emotional-knee jerks about it are not
    > > either. Nor does it havea nything to do with "creativity" and "art"
    > >
    > > > - lost all the respect that
    > >
    > > You are not capable of respect. Imagination. Creativity.
    > > "Soul". These are not manifestations which exist in order
    > > to be used to condescend towards others. They are not knee-jerks
    > > of your ego. Nor are you capable of understanding them.
    > >
    > > > 'they' potentially had,
    > >
    > > No, you attempted flatulating mirrorism as a passive-aggressive
    > > "fe-attack" after all the rest of it failed.
    > > Natirralich, you're going to run away again, as if anyone
    > > was writing to you, or even interested in communicating
    > > to you. again, you're attempting to knee-jerk a "dependency"
    > > "need" which isn't here. If you want to go away, go away.
    > >
    > > What is ugly in the human race is this idiotic drive to
    > > knee-jerk others as if they need to step away from their
    > > essence-individuality in order to "pursue" and "beg"
    > > and self-debase themselves at the doors of some ignorant
    > > narcissistic delusional princessa or ELSE they will be
    > > harrassed by said princessa.
    > >
    > > Come back when you are capable of LOVE marc.
    > >
    > > > they are not as interesting as Neoists,
    > >
    > > Meaningless drivel. We are not "comparable" to Neoists.
    > > Nor do you understand Neoism. Nor are you capable of perceiving
    > > or judging us (or anyone).
    > >
    > > All you are interested in is your ego, and you have no
    > > interest in anything else, and you would "subserviate"
    > > anything and everything to it, if you had it your way.
    > > And this is not inaccurate nor anything to do with
    > > some wishfil "obsession" on our behalf. We write this
    > > because it is applicable to you.
    > >
    > > > lack any grace in their communication,
    > >
    > > No dearest. We are not the wishful projections inside your brain.
    > > Nor do you have any understanding of grace or communication.
    > > Nor are you capable of communication. What you are whining about
    > > is that you will not be treated as what you are not, and that we will
    > > not be muppets to your ego. Our most sincere apologies for the
    > > doscomfort, princessa.
    > >
    > >
    > > > lack any depth -
    > >
    > > You have no capability to perceive depth, no matter how much you pose
    > > as if you do. You are ignorant, blind, deaf, and illiterate.
    > >
    > > > therefore I find them uninteresting.
    > >
    > > The princessa "I" has declared.
    > >
    > > > I advise everyone to do the same
    > >
    > > Certainly. The bloated dictatorial ape 'advises" all to act as one
    > > and do as it does. After all, it needs re-affirmation "luv" and
    > > "mirroring" because if there is none such, it won't stand on its
    > > own two feet for two seconds flat.
    > >
    > >
    > > > in regard to their failing to come up with anything imaginative
    > >
    > > We are not 'failing" anything dearest princessa.
    > > Keep your delusional wishful projections to yourself.
    > >
    > > > other than their limited persona.
    > >
    > > You are talking about yourself, dearest. We have no "limited personas".
    > > There is no such thing as UNLIMITED PERSONAS. Nor do we have any
    > > personas ;) Nor are you capable of perceiving any personas.
    > >
    > >
    > > > They are 'literally' A Yawn...
    > >
    > > No dearest. We are not your wishful projections.
    > > No matter how much you froth at the mouth.
    > > Boredom + ennui are characteristic of those disconnected
    > > from reality + blind.
    > >
    > > > bye for now - marc
    > >
    > > Ciao, princessa. careful that the door does not slam
    > > your ass on the way out.
    > >
    > > > We Can Make Our Own World.
    > >
    > > Scribbled the dictatorial ape before it learned to percieve,
    > > exist, appreciate, and be of serrvice to the one created in absolute
    > > perfection.
    > >
    > > Its poor bleeding "soul".
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
  • D42 Kandinskij | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, marc.garrett wrote:

    > Crap - again...extra large Yawn....

    No dearest. It isn't crap AT ALL :)
    No matter how much you "yawn" dictatorial brain obsessed princessa.

    > >Nor are your delusions "imagination".
    > As a matter of fact you have no contact either with your sexuality
    > or imagination (one needs to be in balance to access those, and
    > function a bit above infantile obsessions with faux-emotional
    > posturing and pseudo-thinking.
    >
    >
    > > On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, marc.garrett wrote:
    > >
    > > > 'Karei' is now relegated back into the 'Block Sender' now
    > >
    > > Again? You're going to ignore us because we won't play
    > > along with your attempted infantilistic mirrorism
    > > attempt at self-centered narcissism attempted to be
    > > passed on as love?
    > >
    > > By the way, we do "suggest" that you avoid making slanderous
    > > and libelous statements such as us being a "sect" without
    > > any such information.
    > >
    > > And appeal to the masses in a very "charming charismatic leader"
    > > "graceful" and "soulful" manner? maybe you coould even tell
    > > them how eros (sexuality) is "soulful love" (philia) proceeding
    > > to peddle your delusions on matters of which you have no understanding?
    > > Nevermind that you're not even capable of EROS but rather a subject
    > > to reproductive mechanisms and culturally / genetically programmed
    > > "desires' which you confuse and confuse with sexuality, least of
    > > all "heart(pathos)". Nothing wrong with eros, by the way, but it's
    > > simply not "philia".
    > >
    > > Nor are your delusions "imagination".
    > > As a matter of fact you have no contact either with your sexuality
    > > or imagination (one needs to be in balance to access those, and
    > > function a bit above infantile obsessions with faux-emotional
    > > posturing and pseudo-thinking.
    > >
    > > We sympathize : walking a path of one's own where there is
    > > no "approval" or "disapproval" from another + one is self-responsible
    > > for one's actions (and totally alone in such) is difficult.
    > >
    > > And it is forgivable that you are ignorant.
    > > What is not forgivable is wilfull refusal to look at yourself,
    > > and repeated attempts to damage others instead of dealing
    > > with yourself.
    > >
    > > There is no such thing as "soulful sex," because the soul does not
    > > have any sex organs. Nor are the reproductive functions
    > > and physical expressions of the body "soulful". Sex is just
    > > sex. And when it's done properly, there is nothing wrong with it.
    > > Certainly it CAN BE a facet of "soulful love" and do avoid attempting
    > > to project some aversion on our behalf towards the body,
    > > because we can discern between the actual functions of the "soul"
    > > and sexuality. Pardon us, if we don't tell any humans we have
    > > sex with that we are their "soul/other" or Jesus, and if we enjoy
    > > sex for what it is.
    > >
    > > Apropos the above the "confusion" of such matter is indeed and in fact a
    > > cause of lots of suffering world-wide. Yet the source of suffering is
    > > the delusion_ and it doesn't matter if it comes from "religion" (
    > > as physically implemented by humans), "philosophy", "science", or from
    > > "marc garrett".
    > >
    > > And no, we do not care about your middle-class programmatic knee-jerks
    > > on the matter, marc garrett.
    > >
    > > Sexuality is important. Idiotism about it isn't.
    > > Sentimentality and infantile emotional-knee jerks about it are not
    > > either. Nor does it havea nything to do with "creativity" and "art"
    > >
    > > > - lost all the respect that
    > >
    > > You are not capable of respect. Imagination. Creativity.
    > > "Soul". These are not manifestations which exist in order
    > > to be used to condescend towards others. They are not knee-jerks
    > > of your ego. Nor are you capable of understanding them.
    > >
    > > > 'they' potentially had,
    > >
    > > No, you attempted flatulating mirrorism as a passive-aggressive
    > > "fe-attack" after all the rest of it failed.
    > > Natirralich, you're going to run away again, as if anyone
    > > was writing to you, or even interested in communicating
    > > to you. again, you're attempting to knee-jerk a "dependency"
    > > "need" which isn't here. If you want to go away, go away.
    > >
    > > What is ugly in the human race is this idiotic drive to
    > > knee-jerk others as if they need to step away from their
    > > essence-individuality in order to "pursue" and "beg"
    > > and self-debase themselves at the doors of some ignorant
    > > narcissistic delusional princessa or ELSE they will be
    > > harrassed by said princessa.
    > >
    > > Come back when you are capable of LOVE marc.
    > >
    > > > they are not as interesting as Neoists,
    > >
    > > Meaningless drivel. We are not "comparable" to Neoists.
    > > Nor do you understand Neoism. Nor are you capable of perceiving
    > > or judging us (or anyone).
    > >
    > > All you are interested in is your ego, and you have no
    > > interest in anything else, and you would "subserviate"
    > > anything and everything to it, if you had it your way.
    > > And this is not inaccurate nor anything to do with
    > > some wishfil "obsession" on our behalf. We write this
    > > because it is applicable to you.
    > >
    > > > lack any grace in their communication,
    > >
    > > No dearest. We are not the wishful projections inside your brain.
    > > Nor do you have any understanding of grace or communication.
    > > Nor are you capable of communication. What you are whining about
    > > is that you will not be treated as what you are not, and that we will
    > > not be muppets to your ego. Our most sincere apologies for the
    > > doscomfort, princessa.
    > >
    > >
    > > > lack any depth -
    > >
    > > You have no capability to perceive depth, no matter how much you pose
    > > as if you do. You are ignorant, blind, deaf, and illiterate.
    > >
    > > > therefore I find them uninteresting.
    > >
    > > The princessa "I" has declared.
    > >
    > > > I advise everyone to do the same
    > >
    > > Certainly. The bloated dictatorial ape 'advises" all to act as one
    > > and do as it does. After all, it needs re-affirmation "luv" and
    > > "mirroring" because if there is none such, it won't stand on its
    > > own two feet for two seconds flat.
    > >
    > >
    > > > in regard to their failing to come up with anything imaginative
    > >
    > > We are not 'failing" anything dearest princessa.
    > > Keep your delusional wishful projections to yourself.
    > >
    > > > other than their limited persona.
    > >
    > > You are talking about yourself, dearest. We have no "limited personas".
    > > There is no such thing as UNLIMITED PERSONAS. Nor do we have any
    > > personas ;) Nor are you capable of perceiving any personas.
    > >
    > >
    > > > They are 'literally' A Yawn...
    > >
    > > No dearest. We are not your wishful projections.
    > > No matter how much you froth at the mouth.
    > > Boredom + ennui are characteristic of those disconnected
    > > from reality + blind.
    > >
    > > > bye for now - marc
    > >
    > > Ciao, princessa. careful that the door does not slam
    > > your ass on the way out.
    > >
    > > > We Can Make Our Own World.
    > >
    > > Scribbled the dictatorial ape before it learned to percieve,
    > > exist, appreciate, and be of serrvice to the one created in absolute
    > > perfection.
    > >
    > > Its poor bleeding "soul".
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >

    o
    [ + ]

    + + +

    | '|' |
    _________________________________________
    `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
  • Wally Keeler | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    From: "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
    To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
    >
    > Yawn....

    doubleplus
  • Wally Keeler | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    From: "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
    To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
    >

    > Crap - again...extra large Yawn....

    + +
  • marc garrett | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    I am thinking of submitting you to the Yawn of the millennium club, right
    next the dome in the UK, another failure.

    marc

    >
    > > Crap - again...extra large Yawn....

    >
  • D42 Kandinskij | Wed Jan 1st 2003 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, marc.garrett wrote:

    > I am thinking of submitting you to the Yawn of the millennium club, right
    > next the dome in the UK, another failure.

    The only failure here is you babycheeks.
    We are not a 'yawn' no matter how much you project,
    wishfully + everso desirously.

    It must be "soulful lv" again.
  • DR. port | Thu Jan 2nd 2003 1 a.m.
    IT IS A DAMN SHAME THAT I AM TO DRUNK TO RESPOND BUT TOMMOROW PERHAPS WE PLAYED KANSASA CITY JAZZ FOR THE UPETESS AND I HAD TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FREE AC/HOLE HA HA HA WHAT EVER I DO NOT CARE

    depARTURES Vs. arRIVALS
    ____________________________________ _____________

    ---------------------------------
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
  • neil jenkins | Thu Jan 2nd 2003 1 a.m.
    this yawning is incredibly infectious

    Wally Keeler wrote:
    >
    > From: "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
    > To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
    > >
    > > Yawn....
    >
    > doubleplus
    >
Your Reply