Re: sorry

No need to insult all of us in the US.

Most of us filter the dorks. I suggest you apply your filters liberally
and swiftly.



> Rhizome
>
> sorry - i just discovered you all seem to be addicted to insulting
each
> other over a safe distence… it hadn't occured to me that this was
> going to be the normal approach of the list… is this a reflection of
> the normalised aggression of the US citizen?
>
> s
–
<t.whid>
http://www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

Having just spent the summer travelling the US in an RV, I can only assume you
live in a insulated world where you visit safe havens in cities and don't
venture forth beyond those environs. There are vast numbers of americans (us
citizens) who don't fit your description very well.

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

not everyone at rhizome participates in the kind of dialogue you are
referring to
just a handful of members are involved
i recommend that you use your email client or hotmail or yahoo account to
block the senders that you don't want to appear in your inbox everyday
this is what i have done
and i enjoy rhizome much more since i did this
cheers,
augie
www.litob.com
www.amazon-salon.com
www.atlantic-ploughshares.com
www.thebookburningdepartment.com
www.thebrainjuicepress.com
www.antigenreelitecorps.com
www.inkbombdisposalunit.com
www.post-mortem-telepathic-society.com
www.pornalisa.com
www.digital-media-generation.com
www.newliteraryunderground.com
www.textmodificationstudio.com
www.advancedliterarysciences.com
www.cultureanimal.com
www.muse-apprentice-guild.com
www.literaturebuzz.com
www.bookcrazed.com
—– Original Message —–
From: "sbrockbank" <[email protected]>
To: "arc .- -. –. . .-.." <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: sorry


> Rhizome
>
> sorry - i just discovered you all seem to be addicted to insulting each
> other over a safe distence… it hadn't occured to me that this was
> going to be the normal approach of the list… is this a reflection of
> the normalised aggression of the US citizen?
>
> s
>
>
>
> + une dans la gueule, and two for tea !
> -> 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
>


—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 9/9/2002

On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, t.whid wrote:

> No need to insult all of us in the US.

Yes, only inslt 'those' dorks.

> Most of us filter the dorks. I suggest you apply your filters liberally
> and swiftly.

I suggest concentration camps for dorks.
Keeps them clean & nice out of the way.

On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, sbrockbank wrote:

> Rhizome
>
> sorry - i just discovered you all seem to be addicted to insulting each
> other over a safe distence..


Klik, klik: it is an unfortunate habit of humans to debase others
in order to make themselves feel better. The larger the population
debased, the more one's ego inflates.

> it hadn't occured to me that this was going to be the normal approach of the list..

projectional mortification of the 'list'.

> is this a reflection of the normalised aggression of the US citizen?

Aie! Bashing the 'US' citizen.
Isn't that fashionable.
Insightful, not.

But hey why stop at debasing rhizome.
Let's bash the US citizens also.
Not individually, mind you. Abstract them into a 'mass' into your brain.

It's 'cleaner' that way.

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

K

you are correct that my 'bashing the US citizen' is politically
incorrect - but personally I'd recommend analysis if debasing the
'other' helps you feel better, however the US citizen quote remains
pertinent - given that we began this interaction discussing archetypes,
and the stereotypical US citizen does fit within my implicating your
response as a fairly stereotypical and reactionary responses to the
world at large. On a personal note I just returned from the US this
morning and having met and observed as usual 'the young well tanned
slightly overweight and repulsively slick yuppies' (as Zizek put it
recently precisely mirroring my eternally recurring experiences of the
USA) believing and acting as stereotypically as expected - it is for
this reason that it occured to me that your response and elements of the
lists responses reflects the mainstream culture of the USA.

Of course you might argue that you are following the different
stereotypical line established by 'avant-gardes' and 'modernists'
throughout the last 150 years - but let's not go there…

regards
s

On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, sbrockbank wrote:

> you are correct that my 'bashing the US citizen' is politically
> incorrect -

Dear, I never wrote, said, or implied anything about political
correctness. What are you babbling about?

Besides it is_ politically correct and.. very fashionable
to bash americans. Especially in your country.

> but personally I'd recommend analysis if debasing the
> 'other' helps you feel better,

Drivel.

> however the US citizen quote remains pertinent

It isn't nor has it ever been.

> - given that we began this interaction discussing archetypes,

I never discussed anything. I wrote to you that you have
no idea what archetypes are–and you still don't.

> and the stereotypical US citizen

There is no such thing as a 'stereotypical' US Citizen.
The 'stereotypical US citizen' is a card-board cut out stuck in your
brain.

> does fit within my implicating your response as a fairly stereotypical and reactionary responses to the
> world at large.

There is nothing 'stereotypical' or 'reactionary' about my response.
But I'm sure your 'world' is full of stereotypes. Which it seems
you also confuse with archetypes.

> On a personal note I just returned from the US this morning and
> having met and observed as usual 'the young well tanned
> slightly overweight and repulsively slick yuppies'

You were in the WHOLE of the US simultaneously?! What a feat.
There are some people who are young, well tanned, slightly overweight,
and yuppies–that's hardly your average US citizen–moreso that
there aren't any such.

But if you go into a country looking for such specimens,
you'll find them–and then you'll say–oh yes! I was right!
Standard brain phenomenon. Note–not stereotypical.

> (as Zizek put it recently

Zizek not being a nationalistic ape himself. No-no-no.

> precisely mirroring my eternally recurring experiences of the
> USA)

Largely due to your own faults.
Abrogating responsibility + bashing others for it.
Flippant + childish.

> believing and acting as stereotypically as expected

No, sorry dear. You simply project on their behavior
the derogatory stereotype you are programmed to do.


> - it is for this reason that it occured to me that your response and elements of the
> lists responses reflects the mainstream culture of the USA.

You're truly laughable if you think that there is ONE mainstream
culture in the US of A. And my response reflects neither of them.
Avoid ascribing your wishful derogatory stereotyping to my words.

> Of course you might argue that you are following the different
> stereotypical line established by 'avant-gardes' and 'modernists'
> throughout the last 150 years - but let's not go there…

I won't. I don't even know where you get that idea–besides
your pathetic murderous desire to stereotype + fixate
people as static icons–ie flatten them into stereotypes,
instead of regard them as the individual beings that they are.


> regards


The only 'regards' you have are internally turned in,
narcisstistic impulses. And the only place a 'stereotypical
US citizen exists' is inside your skull.

Later.

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

lets not go there.

right

don't go to America to find stereotypes they are in every country if you
look for them.

T.


>From: sbrockbank <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: sbrockbank <[email protected]>
>To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: sorry
>Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 20:57:56 +0100
>
>K
>
>you are correct that my 'bashing the US citizen' is politically incorrect -
>but personally I'd recommend analysis if debasing the 'other' helps you
>feel better, however the US citizen quote remains pertinent - given that we
>began this interaction discussing archetypes, and the stereotypical US
>citizen does fit within my implicating your response as a fairly
>stereotypical and reactionary responses to the world at large. On a
>personal note I just returned from the US this morning and having met and
>observed as usual 'the young well tanned slightly overweight and
>repulsively slick yuppies' (as Zizek put it recently precisely mirroring my
>eternally recurring experiences of the USA) believing and acting as
>stereotypically as expected - it is for this reason that it occured to me
>that your response and elements of the lists responses reflects the
>mainstream culture of the USA.
>
>Of course you might argue that you are following the different
>stereotypical line established by 'avant-gardes' and 'modernists'
>throughout the last 150 years - but let's not go there…
>
>regards
>s
>
>
>+ une dans la gueule, and two for tea !
>-> 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





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

shit come to kansas and i will show you personally a
whole other universe oppisite the description you gave
ha ha you should go to walmart sometime aint no
yuppies there thats for sure they'd get their ass
kicked real fast ha ha ha ha i crack myself up one
thousand pieces good luck to the GERMANS!!!!!!!

— "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e
[Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Having just spent the summer travelling the US in an
> RV, I can only assume you
> live in a insulated world where you visit safe
> havens in cities and don't
> venture forth beyond those environs. There are vast
> numbers of americans (us
> citizens) who don't fit your description very well.
>
> –
> Joseph Franklyn McElroy
> Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]

Terrence writes;

I wonder if he has a valid point? I mean you rarely get many Celebes here.
There's mostly dorks? bantering here to keep themselves amused, Its mostly
irrelelevant crap as far as web art is concerned, so why do we put up with
it? I fid it amazing how many i have to filter to keep my hot mail from
going critical every day.

Are they another dead group of "nare do wells, buzz off nice try uncool too
embarrassing for those who strive for a correct cv say no more say no more."
But are they all? I really used to wonder there for a while, could they
amount to something some day? ( *l*) Could some really piss off the cia or
some senators or even make friends with some arts group in Iraq? Or are they
just here with nothing better to do? Maybe they need a challenge of some
sort? Oh ya.

Many like myself don't even have a web site. It that uncool or just too
cool? I just don't find its that inviting to have done so. I am stuck. Maybe
I need encouragement? I dunno.

Did it seem hopeful 3 years ago when web art history was being written but
we were told over with? Why bother? I mean the heroes have there laurels
and it is obviously really beneath them to slum on Raw where some seem to be
actualizing themselves or acting out with e-mail. Role-playing like D&D?
Maybe wee need to attract some decent dialogue by kicking off the crazies
who just post to piss people off?

Maybe all that is left is some irritable freaks/ dudes on a web art list to
make it seem real in a sort o' way. Powerless and just attacking one
another? It is kind of sad when you get someone coming on the list to
stereotype the American outsiders cutting up a list. Are they drunk or are
they just having fun one may wonder?

The best moments come when someone invites the raw list code deficient to
network on their sites.

Perhaps we need a web art kindergarten for the crazies who don't let code to
their talking. It would be cooler here if a few would just please, shut up
or put up. Like put the energy into a decent site or lock into a form of
some sort that dose'nt pollute this list into e-dirt.

T-


>From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
>To: sbrockbank <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: sorry
>Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:26:49 -0400
>
>No need to insult all of us in the US.
>
>Most of us filter the dorks. I suggest you apply your filters liberally
>and swiftly.
>
>
>
> > Rhizome
> >
> > sorry - i just discovered you all seem to be addicted to insulting
>each
> > other over a safe distence… it hadn't occured to me that this was
> > going to be the normal approach of the list… is this a reflection of
> > the normalised aggression of the US citizen?
> >
> > s
>–
><t.whid>
>http://www.mteww.com
></t.whid>
>+ une dans la gueule, and two for tea !
>-> 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





_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

> sorry - i just discovered you all seem to be addicted to
> insulting each other over a safe distence…

No, it's really just one person and his enormous agrro-gravitational
pull, a force which some of us (Max, McElroy, etc) can't seem to resist.


-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

Yes, the event of the season and I got turned down. Real heavy man. But if you
ever want to answer me about your Core, I'll try to get another invite. I
won't hold my breath.

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

Quoting "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <[email protected]>:

> No, it's really just one person and his enormous agrro-gravitational
> pull, a force which some of us (Max, McElroy, etc) can't seem to resist.
>

Y'all take your inbox way too seriously, and figure what you read is what you
get.

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

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:

> No, it's really just one person and his enormous agrro-gravitational
> pull, a force which some of us (Max, McElroy, etc) can't seem to resist.

Nothing 'aggro' about it. As for my gravitational pull,

ah yes. You're all moving along.

But then again, that's how things go.

Max + Joseph are a different case.

While it applied for the former briefly, the latter attempted to invite'
himself unsucessfully. As did many others–including your lovely self,
AskRom.

xo

On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:

> > > You're an imbecilic twit.
>
> A twit is a "foolishly annoying person." A imbecilic person is "well below par
> in mental acumen"
>
> How is it possible that you can let yourself be annoyed by someone with below
> par mental acumen?

I am not annoyed my dearest–and quoting 'a dictionary'
isn't goingto TELL you what my words mean.
Avoid ab-using such devices in order to misrepresent
what I wrote.

> > > The 'core' is nothing that can or should be talked about.
>
> But don't people talk about the Original Face,

People talk? Last I saw they make noises.

> our specifically human core that differentiates us from the Naked Ape,

Ha ha ha. Nonsense.

> the anthropoid. And should not each of us
> be invited to listen in a way such that we keep asking the questions "Who am
> I?" "What is reality?"

That is provided you can listen. And listening is not something which
you're born with, nor something you acquire automatically.

> In the martial arts we are taught respect.

PROPER respect. Servility and empty mannerisms are not respect.
I doubt you'd find a real sen-sei putting up with an idiot in his dojo
out of 'manners'.

lastly, avoid attempting to use 'martial arts' quotations which you do
not understand in order to attempt to dictate my behavior.

I am perfectly respectful, and I do not 'report' to you on such matters.
You are neither qualified, nor authorized to be a judge of my behavior.

Monkey.


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

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
>
> I am not annoyed my dearest–and quoting 'a dictionary'
> isn't goingto TELL you what my words mean.
> Avoid ab-using such devices in order to misrepresent
> what I wrote.

You said I was an imbecilic twit. I looked it up. There are more authoritative
sources than your precise mind for the definition of words. I am not
misrepresenting or misquoting or taking out of context. You specifically said
I am imbecilic twit. Thus a foolishing annoying person with below par mental
acumen. By your own words, I am annoying you. Or you are not precise in your
use of language.

>
> People talk? Last I saw they make noises.
>

What are you? A car horn?

> > our specifically human core that differentiates us from the Naked Ape,
>
> Ha ha ha. Nonsense.


I was quoting from a speech by Frederick Franck, author of "The Zen of Seeing"
upon receipt of his World Citizenship Award. Quite a successful and
accomplished man.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/wca/2001franck.htm

>
> > the anthropoid. And should not each of us
> > be invited to listen in a way such that we keep asking the questions "Who
> am
> > I?" "What is reality?"
>
> That is provided you can listen. And listening is not something which
> you're born with, nor something you acquire automatically.

Unless you are born deaf, you can listen - which is to "hear" or "pay
attention" - You mean that not every one can automatically comprehend what
they have heard. Again, please be more precise in your use of language.

>
> > In the martial arts we are taught respect.
>
> PROPER respect. Servility and empty mannerisms are not respect.
> I doubt you'd find a real sen-sei putting up with an idiot in his dojo
> out of 'manners'.

Perhaps, but did I mention manners? What has manners to do with our
conversation?

>
> lastly, avoid attempting to use 'martial arts' quotations which you do
> not understand in order to attempt to dictate my behavior.

Did I ask you to behave in any fashion other than you are so doing? I
specifically state that if you talked, I would listen. You have said that you
could not speak of the core, I demonstrated other people who have done so. I am
not dictating anything, I am asking that you provide enough explanatory
material so that I can have a partial understanding of your view of reality,
death, and life.

>
> I am perfectly respectful, and I do not 'report' to you on such matters.
> You are neither qualified, nor authorized to be a judge of my behavior.

Have I questioned or judged your behavior? I am trying to get knowledge, from
you, the sun, the moon, and the girl next door. Not book knowledge - words,
history, and such - but "core" knowledge.

>
> Monkey.

I take that to mean the iron block of a pile driver. An image of strength.
Thanks.

You are a lost purple chinese house. Do you get it?

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

On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:

> You said I was an imbecilic twit.

You are.

> I looked it up.

Dictionaries are lexical referential books.
They are not indicators of word-meaning.

Secondly, dictionaries are degenerated.
Thirdly, English language use is degenerated.
Fourthly, my English is very_ old_.

> There are more authoritative sources

Dictionaries (and for that matter books) have never been authorititative
sources on anything. They lack the capability of being so.

Apropos, the creators of dictionaries cannot keep with actual language
mutations, and currently, dictionaries are a flailing attempt from
academics to statify language. Sheer illiterate imbecilic foolishness.

> than your precise mind

Pathetic ape. My 'precision' does not come from my brain.
Nor does my athority–and yes, it over-writes 'dictionaries'.

Idiotic slave.

Avoid ascribing your qualities to me; I am not like you.

> for the definition of words.

There is no such thing as 'defintion of words'–nor are
you literate. You may recite books if you please–if you
lack the inner ability to read–as you do–you'll be simply a fool
attempting to parade in king's clothes–as you are.


> I am not misrepresenting

You are. You're attempting to use your pathetic myopic use
of a fraudulent REFERENCE book to dictate the intent of my words.

BASTA ape. English existed long before dictionaries.

> What are you? A car horn?

I am not people.

> I was quoting from a speech by Frederick Franck, author of "The Zen of Seeing"
> upon receipt of his World Citizenship Award. Quite a successful and
> accomplished man.


It doesn't matter where you are quoting from: Franck lacks understanding
or qualifications as Zen master. You live in a world where con-men are
hailed as authorities. Fredrerick Franck is a monkey who plays along
due t vanity + blindness.

> > That is provided you can listen. And listening is not something which
> > you're born with, nor something you acquire automatically.
>
> Unless you are born deaf, you can listen - which is to "hear" or "pay
> attention"

Bzzt. Wrong. People are born without ability to pay attention, and
without ability to listen. These are capabilities of an evolved
being. Humans are born animals. One can WORK towards achieving
those–but you don't have them automatically.

> - You mean that not every one can automatically comprehend what
> they have heard. Again, please be more precise in your use of language.

My use of language is EXTREMELY precise love, you're simply ILLITERATE.
Avoid attempting to dictate to me how I should use language, illiterate
ape.

> Perhaps, but did I mention manners? What has manners to do with our
> conversation?

This is the intent of your words + the level of understanding of the
concept you transferred.

> specifically state that if you talked, I would listen. You have said that you
> could not speak of the core, I demonstrated other people who have done so. I am
> not dictating anything,

They haven't. For one what he refers to as the Core is NOT the core.
The person is a con-man. The one Face is something else–the animal
mould. Valid zen practices aim at breaking + overcoming that One face
human mould.

And so does Jesus in the Nag Hammadi texts–if one knows how to read.

And so does Buddhism. And so do Native Americans.

This society does not rewrad accomplished men–it rewards cripples.

To make it reward the former–is a different story.


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

This whole "core" bullshit by Karei is just his own near-core grid,
near-core near-core near-core, look it up.

You gwinna answer Karei? Cowardly dogwater Joe Shit the Ragman.

Max Herman

++


>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>To: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
><[email protected]>
>CC: "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <[email protected]>, "'sbrockbank'"
><[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: sorry
>Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance]
>Art[ist] wrote:
>
> > Yes, the event of the season and I got turned down.
>
> Nah, you stick your nose where it is uninvited,
> and you expect a good treatment. Tsk. Nein.
>
> > Real heavy man.
>
> Nothing heavy; you got what you deserve.
> Don't try to make it like I approached you either.
>
>
> > But if you ever want to answer me about your Core, I'll try to get
>another invite. I
> > won't hold my breath.
>
> You're an imbecilic twit. The 'core' is nothing that can or should be
> talked about. Ttzt, you have a whole set of laws making it invisible
> from those for whom it is meant to remain a mystery, and only an
> imbecilic peasant would dare to demand talk of another's core.
>
> You are not even remotely qualified to KNOW anything about
> human cores, nor will you ever be.
>
> As for those qualified, they can 'see' yours–without words,
> whether you like it or not. And they know you better than you
> know yourself–or will ever.
>
> xo.
>
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
>+ http://rhizome.org/cgi/slogan.cgi
>-> 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




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:

> This whole "core" bullshit by Karei is just his own near-core grid,
> near-core near-core near-core, look it up.

Not at all. And what I wrote is not what I did, do or will do.

> You gwinna answer Karei?

Not at all, dear.

> Cowardly dogwater Joe Shit the Ragman.

Not at all. Play that 'daredevil' shit elsewhere, and talk to me when
you learn what courage is. Idiotic fool-headedness knee-jerk responses
to 'challenges' are not courage–reproductory 'male' mechanisms +++
mating combat.

The 'combat' inclinations of humans should be re-channeled from
'reproductory' (music) (mating) animal-programmatory behavior to
self-evolutionary impulses (directing of energies as appropriate).

The most the lot of you know about any 'cores' is identification with
your penises.

I find that amusing–because biologically, by default, you make
yourselves disposable + expendible that way + as males are
designed to self-destruct (as NN so aptly takes advantage of that).
Such is the programme of the male animal.

The self-destruct female animal impulse is in programmatic-motherhood
or on the flipside asexual matronly-dictatorial behavior,
a la madame Helen Blavatsky.

Mr. Max G2K ALSO attempts to 'push' people's self-destructive buttons
that way–CONTINUOUSLY. First you attempt to rally them under g2k,
then some sort of 'anti-war' campaign, then by talking shite about
'cores'.

Ie, you are a murderer.

+ You attempt to keep people as slaves to their impulses.

As long as people are slaves, they will be subjects to suffering + war.

G2K murders humans + causes war.


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

This reminds me of the marx brothers well know joke -

"You remind me of Emanuel Ravelli."
"But I am Emanuel Ravelli!"
"Then no wonder you look like him!"

isn't interpellation wonderful.

s


-IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:
>
>>This whole "core" bullshit by Karei is just his own near-core grid,
>>near-core near-core near-core, look it up.
>>
>
> Not at all. And what I wrote is not what I did, do or will do.
>
>>You gwinna answer Karei?
>>
>
> Not at all, dear.
>
>> Cowardly dogwater Joe Shit the Ragman.
>>
>
> Not at all. Play that 'daredevil' shit elsewhere, and talk to me when
> you learn what courage is. Idiotic fool-headedness knee-jerk responses
> to 'challenges' are not courage–reproductory 'male' mechanisms +++
> mating combat.
>
> The 'combat' inclinations of humans should be re-channeled from
> 'reproductory' (music) (mating) animal-programmatory behavior to
> self-evolutionary impulses (directing of energies as appropriate).
>
> The most the lot of you know about any 'cores' is identification with
> your penises.
>
> I find that amusing–because biologically, by default, you make
> yourselves disposable + expendible that way + as males are
> designed to self-destruct (as NN so aptly takes advantage of that).
> Such is the programme of the male animal.
>
> The self-destruct female animal impulse is in programmatic-motherhood
> or on the flipside asexual matronly-dictatorial behavior,
> a la madame Helen Blavatsky.
>
> Mr. Max G2K ALSO attempts to 'push' people's self-destructive buttons
> that way–CONTINUOUSLY. First you attempt to rally them under g2k,
> then some sort of 'anti-war' campaign, then by talking shite about
> 'cores'.
>
> Ie, you are a murderer.
>
> + You attempt to keep people as slaves to their impulses.
>
> As long as people are slaves, they will be subjects to suffering + war.
>
> G2K murders humans + causes war.
>
>
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>

On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, sbrockbank wrote:

> This reminds me of the marx brothers well know joke -

No, it doesn't. This is what your brain knee-jerk coughs up.
Come on, try to peddle your derogatory destructive impulses
as 'insight'. I 'dare you'. Har.

> "You remind me of Emanuel Ravelli."
> "But I am Emanuel Ravelli!"
> "Then no wonder you look like him!"
>
> isn't interpellation wonderful.

No, it isn't. What you're posting is masturbatory irrelevant c-r-ap.

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

> > You're an imbecilic twit.

A twit is a "foolishly annoying person." A imbecilic person is "well below par
in mental acumen"

How is it possible that you can let yourself be annoyed by someone with below
par mental acumen?

> > The 'core' is nothing that can or should be talked about.

But don't people talk about the Original Face, our specifically human core that
differentiates us from the Naked Ape, the anthropoid. And should not each of us
be invited to listen in a way such that we keep asking the questions "Who am
I?" "What is reality?"

In the martial arts we are taught respect. This is from the martial arts -
Seido Karate

Respect

"If we truly have respect for others, it is inevitable that we treat them with
courtesy and equanimity. It is when we do not have respect for others that we
become angry with them, that we disparage them, that we find no value in what
they say, and that we engage in destructive action. This lack of respect for
others, oddly enough, is related to a lack of respect for ourselves. Karate,
through the practice of zazen, makes us look at ourselves. If we do this
sincerely, we inevitably find our beautiful, truly human core. To find this,
however, we will have to wipe away many layers of dust and dirt, which cloud
the bright surface of what the Zen masters call our "mirror mind" or "Buddha
nature." When we see ourselves clearly, not with a vain love or callous self-
indulgence, but with a healthy respect,we shall inevitably see others the same
way. The Zen master says we shall see no separation, there is no self, and no
other."

> > Ttzt, you have a whole set of laws making it invisible
> > from those for whom it is meant to remain a mystery, and only an
> > imbecilic peasant would dare to demand talk of another's core.

I haven't demanded anything, I said if you would talk I would listen.

> >
> > You are not even remotely qualified to KNOW anything about
> > human cores, nor will you ever be.

Regardless of whether I am qualified to KNOW, I am qualified to listen since I
have eyes and ears.

> >
> > As for those qualified, they can 'see' yours–without words,
> > whether you like it or not. And they know you better than you
> > know yourself–or will ever.

This may be so, however I am sure that at some point in your learning you were
spoken to (I assume that you are born of natural birth and went through an
education process to learn language and then had teachers that pointed you to
an enlightened path)

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

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:

> Yes, the event of the season and I got turned down.

Nah, you stick your nose where it is uninvited,
and you expect a good treatment. Tsk. Nein.

> Real heavy man.

Nothing heavy; you got what you deserve.
Don't try to make it like I approached you either.


> But if you ever want to answer me about your Core, I'll try to get another invite. I
> won't hold my breath.

You're an imbecilic twit. The 'core' is nothing that can or should be
talked about. Ttzt, you have a whole set of laws making it invisible
from those for whom it is meant to remain a mystery, and only an
imbecilic peasant would dare to demand talk of another's core.

You are not even remotely qualified to KNOW anything about
human cores, nor will you ever be.

As for those qualified, they can 'see' yours–without words,
whether you like it or not. And they know you better than you
know yourself–or will ever.

xo.

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

From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
> You're an imbecilic twit.

Sophomoronic.

but K everything you say, which constitutes your observable behavior
'proves' the case. Of course I am using the word 'proof' in the
scientific sense of the term and not the sense of 'common sense'.
Just to clarify - acceptance of a theory or proposition involves a
certain amount of agnosticism, or suspension of belief. In this
specific case to discuss whether the 'hey you' of interpellation works
requires a discussion of meaning and intent - however not engaging in
that just proves that the 'hey you' aspect works… since it
demonstrates that you behavior is recognisable and predictable…. hence
the adequacy of the Marxist (of te Grouch tendency) joke to demonstrate
your behaviour is provable - or something like that anyway.

of course i understand what your reply, if any, is likely to be, but
since that will be an empirically adequate reply…

regards
s

-IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
>>see told you all, interpellation does work.. this proves it!
>>
>
> hftjhtkgu? What you wrote is unintelligible drivel,
> as for proofs.. there are no such things
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, sbrockbank wrote:

> but K everything you say, which constitutes your observable behavior
> 'proves' the case.

No, dear. it doesn't. You've simply run a programme in
your head and distorting all external jabs to fit.

> Of course I am using the word 'proof' in the scientific sense

HA HA.

> of the term and not the sense of 'common sense'.

As above.

> Just to clarify - acceptance of a theory or proposition involves a
> certain amount of agnosticism, or suspension of belief.

Nonsense.

> In this specific case to discuss whether the 'hey you' of interpellation works
> requires a discussion of meaning and intent - however not engaging in
> that just proves that the 'hey you' aspect works… since it
> demonstrates that you behavior is recognisable and predictable…. hence
> the adequacy of the Marxist (of te Grouch tendency) joke to demonstrate
> your behaviour is provable - or something like that anyway.

More nonsense.

> of course i understand what your reply, if any, is likely to be, but
> since that will be an empirically adequate reply…


Since you already have a preset in your brain, and are unable toperceive
anything outside of it….. just like with them Americans.

Sorry for that inconvenience…

We posted our new website link
before removing some old code causing pc Netscape
to return 404s…

(further!) thanks to Ruth who reported that !

all the best,
c2

______please visit______

http://www.candela2.net
______________________

Sorry for that inconvenience…

We posted our new website link
before removing some old code causing pc Netscape
to return 404s…

(further!) thanks to Ruth who reported that !

all the best,
c2

______please visit______

http://www.candela2.net
______________________

+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> 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

http://www.artknowledge.net/trashconnection/video/touristenziel.ram