We Are the Priests of the Temple

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:

> http://artforum.com/talkback/id`80

How unfortunate. More drivel by people who are not even 'followers'
of Zen. Amazing, however, to see the 'non-practicioners' delusional
opinions. Training monks and control. Aw yeah. Whole armies of
monks. And the Buddha was a corrupt bastard. And Jesus was a liar.

Mediocre drivel by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

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

Quit sending me emails please you dirty liar and scumsucking freak.

Just send them to list.

It's too late for you to make nice anymore.

Jerk.

Max

++

>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>To: Max Herman <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: We Are the Priests of the Temple
>Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 07:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> By the way Max–the corruption in 'Zen' hierarchies is perfectly natural,
> I've already written quite a number of times, that as is, spiritual
> hierarchies are being dissolved due to the lack of necessity for such
> structure. So what's new? My teacher was something else–not involved
> in these things. Nor is he a public figure, nor will he ever be.
>
> As for your 'tormentor'–your behavior is laughable.
>
> Max: I'm here to nuke the pny.
>
> 5 mins later.
>
> Max: ou! ou! No, it hurts!
>
> Biensur, all you care about is peddling G2K.
> And to make matters worse, you'll use any means.
> Including degrading things you don't understand.
>
> Truly pathetic.
>
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>




\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:

> Quit sending me emails please you dirty liar and scumsucking freak.

Yawn.


> Just send them to list.

I do.

> It's too late for you to make nice anymore.

I am not interested in 'making nice' Max.
You missed your chance long ago.
I was friendly to you, and you tried to take advantage of it.

You reap what you sow. And I am not a 'jerk'
for not putting up with your pseudo-literate,
pseudo-intellectual, malinformed and undeveloped
childish babble, and pseudo-savior-martyr posing.

You who are unjustly, unlawfully flayed! Bla bla.

Dearie me.

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

Max=Kandiski
—– Original Message —–
From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
To: "Max Herman" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: We Are the Priests of the Temple


> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:
>
> > http://artforum.com/talkback/id`80
>
> How unfortunate. More drivel by people who are not even 'followers'
> of Zen. Amazing, however, to see the 'non-practicioners' delusional
> opinions. Training monks and control. Aw yeah. Whole armies of
> monks. And the Buddha was a corrupt bastard. And Jesus was a liar.
>
> Mediocre drivel by people who have no idea what they're talking about.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, manik wrote:

> Max=Kandiski

No. Twit.

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

Twit?Flower/Adis Abeba/Copacabana/Apocalipsa.Nasty,nasty young
deliqvent.It's wery fani to chat with you.Filthy,nasty Twitgenstein.
—– Original Message —–
From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
To: "manik" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Max Herman" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: We Are the Priests of the Temple


> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, manik wrote:
>
> > Max=Kandiski
>
> No. Twit.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, manik wrote:

> Twit?

You are indeed.

> Flower/Adis Abeba/Copacabana/Apocalipsa.Nasty,nasty young
> deliqvent.

I'm sure you fancy yourself.

> It's wery fani to chat with you.

Yes, I'm sure it does wonders for your ego-esteem.

> Filthy,nasty Twitgenstein.

You certainly are.

But tell us something, being a Slowenian–and a European,
how come in the all lovely Europa countries who are on
the continent have to bend backward over and homogenized
to a standard before they can be 'accepted into the European
community'?

Right.

>> Filthy,nasty Twitgenstein.
>
> You certainly are.
>
> But tell us something, being a Slowenian–and a European,
> how come in the all lovely Europa countries who are on
> the continent have to bend backward over and homogenized
> to a standard before they can be 'accepted into the European
> community'?
>
Kandinski, If this is the best you can do, please leave the politics and the
insults in the schoolyard where you got them from. Ivan

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Ivan Pope wrote:

> Kandinski, If this is the best you can do,

Dear Ivan Pope–why don't you sod off? You never addressed
what I wrote to you on another list, and now you're pissing
out of context, still with your cheap, inaccurate, and pathetic
attempts at insults.

> please leave the politics

No politics here, baby.

> and the insults

Nor insults. Don't like looking at your not-so nice side?
Feel insulted by it?

> in the schoolyard where you got them from. Ivan

Follow your own advice 'baby'.
That's 'the best you can do'.


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

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

>> Kandinski, If this is the best you can do,
>
> Dear Ivan Pope–why don't you sod off?

Oooh, dear, dear Kandinski. Now we knuckle down to your real nature. All
that turgid stuff about the nature of god, and your struggle to merge with
the godhead, or whatever. But when it comes down to it, there's nothing like
a good old 'sod off' to make one feel better, is there.

> Why don't you tell us again, how you create and destroy
> worlds at a whim because you're an artist, Ivan Pope?
> You never addressed that before–and that's a rather
> 'schoolyardish' masturbatory view on art.

Oooh, you slay me baby.
Tell you what though, I can take it or leave it. I'm public, I don't hide my
identity. I'm not scared. I have changed the world. I have debated in
public, in real public. I have won and lost arguments. I have created art,
and business. And when I do, the evidence is there for the world to chew
over, should it choose. But you, Kandinski baby, hide yourself.

On September 8th (which happens to be my birthday), you sent 41 emails to
the Rhizome list. On the other hand, I took my family to a working museum
where I learned how to burn chalk to create lime. That's art to me.
Get a life, K.
Ivan

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Ivan Pope wrote:

> Oooh, dear, dear Kandinski. Now we knuckle down to your real nature.

No, we don't, baby. My 'real nature' will never be apparent to you, in
the state you are.

> All that turgid stuff about the nature of god,

There was nothing 'turgid' about what I posted, save for your own
impulse to baselessly degrade things other than your 'self'.

> and your struggle to merge with the godhead, or whatever.

I never mentioned anything about 'my struggle to merge with
the Godhead'. I was talking to Eryk about his claims of the sort.
Not a white of a word about anything of 'mine'.

> But when it comes down to it, there's nothing like
> a good old 'sod off' to make one feel better, is there.

No, dear. I didn't say it to make myself feel better.
I said it because it's appropriate. Besides, you're
attempting to pass judgement on–and dismiss an issue
you have no clue about: so I say again, and with great
de-light: sod off, idiot.

> Oooh, you slay me baby.

Ne. Don't project your imbecillic impulses on me.

> Tell you what though, I can take it or leave it.

Right-o.

> I'm public,

Bravo. And I aren't?

> I don't hide my identity.

Yes, you identify with your ego fully, and manifest it in public.
Proudly.

> I'm not scared.

Yes you are. Because if you're invited to look beyond your
'public identity' you scream and scram.

> I have changed the world.

No, you haven't. All you've done is made grandiose statements
and posed.


> I have debated in public, in real public.

'Real public'.

> I have won and lost arguments.

Good for you. Have a medal.

> I have created art,

No, you haven't.

> and business. And when I do, the evidence is there for the world to chew
> over, should it choose.

How brave of you!

> But you, Kandinski baby, hide yourself.

Ne, baby. I don't 'hide' myself. I simply refuse to play your idiotic
identification with ego-game. Much of your ego structure is exactly
maintained by resumes, lists of 'things you've done' etc, and
identification with a public, singular, flat figure.


> On September 8th (which happens to be my birthday), you sent 41 emails to
> the Rhizome list.

And?

> On the other hand, I took my family to a working museum
> where I learned how to burn chalk to create lime. That's art to me.

Yup, except for you know nothing about art.
Burning chalk to create lime is not 'art'–it's a skill.
And I really don't care about your 'righteous' posing
about yourself and your 'family'.

> Get a life, K.

I already have one–unlike you. If you insist on idiotic
pre-occupation with things mechanical and approved by you–
no thanks.

Idiot.

> Ivan

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

—– Original Message —–
From: -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ <[email protected]>
> > But when it comes down to it, there's nothing like
> > a good old 'sod off' to make one feel better, is there.
>
> No, dear. I didn't say it to make myself feel better.
> I said it because it's appropriate. Besides, you're
> attempting to pass judgement on–and dismiss an issue
> you have no clue about: so I say again, and with great
> de-light: sod off, idiot.

> > But you, Kandinski baby, hide yourself.
>
> Ne, baby. I don't 'hide' myself. I simply refuse to play your idiotic
> identification with ego-game.

> > On September 8th (which happens to be my birthday), you sent 41 emails
to
> > the Rhizome list.
>
> And?

Dear Wassily,
And I rest my case. You are on a trip into your own self importance. You
can't keep your fingers off the keyboard. You can't resist a response, no
matter how trivial the exchange has become. Your facade of ultra-smart all
knowingness quickly dissolves into one line name calling. 'Sod off, idiot.'
Jeez, my five year old can do better than that, and with a knowing look.
Sure, you are good at keeping meaningless conversations going and drowning
out the list. But I've met a lot sadder, and a lot wiser than you who can do
that.
Of course, in your bubble where you are right and everyone else is an idiot,
this won't mean much.
Bye,
Ivan

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Ivan Pope wrote:

> Dear Wassily,

My name is not wassily.

> And I rest my case.

You have no case.

> You are on a trip into your own self importance.

Sorry, but I am not. The only one 'tripping' here is you,
with your 'art' and 'museum visits' and 'family'.


> You can't keep your fingers off the keyboard.

Oh I see. I'm afraid that's not the case.
This is a mailing list, and I am 'writing' to you.

> You can't resist a response,

Sorry–would you prefer it if you spread ridiculous rumors,
and I didn't speak back?

> no matter how trivial the exchange has become.

The only one 'trivial' here is you. Being an artist you should
know that nothing in life is 'trivial'.

> Your facade of ultra-smart all knowingness

I've presented, nor attempted to present such a facade.

> quickly dissolves into one line name calling.

Quickly dissolves? I am quite certain I started doing that from
the very beginning. Secondly, it's appropriate name calling.

> 'Sod off, idiot.'

Please do!

> Jeez, my five year old can do better than that,

Doubtful that. Your kid can likely only parrot.

> and with a knowing look.

Except for this is not what I am doing–so please avoid
attempting to present your idiotic projections on my behavior.

> Sure, you are good at keeping meaningless conversations

These conversations are not meaningless-unlike most of the drivel
passed to and fro on most lists.

> going and drowning out the list.

Huh? I'm npt preventing anyone else from posting.

> But I've met a lot sadder,

I am not 'sad' baby. In any sense of the word.

> and a lot wiser

I doubt you've met people 'wiser'. Don't you mean older?
And with accumulation of useless 'life experience'?

> Of course, in your bubble

Tchuss, baby. Unlike you, I'm not in a bubble.

> where you are right

I am right. And I am an idiot.

> and everyone else is an idiot

I have no problem with idiots baby.

> this won't mean much.

You're right. What you're saying is pathetic posing–
and doesn't mean much. Nothing to do with my 'non'existent'
bubble. But I'm sure you'll enjoy your own, in which you're
a 'meaningful, wise, lived, valuable artist' and an upright
member of humanity.

My eyes tear. Someone pass me a tissue.

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

By the way, Ivan–mind telling us the following:

–Why do you refuse to address perfectly valid points,
but instead dismiss them and come up with more idiotic,
pathetic, baseless and derogatory shit?

–Why are you so insistently bent on debasing others,
and using your best friend–the previous time, and
then your child–towards both of whom you reveal a
deplorably condescending self-important attitude,
as templates for that?

–I get a feeling that this is how you 'relate' to
people in general, likely even your wife–with pity
and condescension–no doubt stemming from your
fraudulent self-importance.

–Why do you attempt to destroy genuine and proper
self-importance (ie, self-worth)?

–Why do you ascribe the qualities in yourself that you detest
(being trivial, unable to keep your fingers of the keyboard, etc.)
to me?

Sorry, I'm 'afraid' your 'observations' have little to do
with my behavior. And please don't whore your family out
in your pathetic attempts to debase others–anda lso thank you
for demonstrating that particular mode of behavior.

x+o