Pall Thayer
Since the beginning
Works in Greenwich, Connecticut United States of America

PORTFOLIO (10)
BIO
Pall Thayer is an artist.

http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
Discussions (772) Opportunities (2) Events (4) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: new subscription notes


Hinn 9.09.2002 kl. 09:44 ritadhi Jess Loseby:

> In my new appointment as rhizome raw dictator (Kandinskij nominated me
> so it must be true) I give the following petition to the list...
>
>
> We, the undersigned do accept that that IID4" Kandinskij @27+, also
> known as`, .

DISCUSSION

Re: all is God


Quotes have quotation marks and a reference to the source.
Anything else is plagiarism as well as an infringement on copyright law.
Do you really think that everyone on this list just happened to know
that your text belonged to someone else? You started a new thread with
it. Then how are people supposed to "know" that it had something to do
with a post from Eryk. If you really believe that plagiarist.org is a
place to learn what plagiarism means then you're even more confused than
you appear to be.
I'm filtering you out from now on.

Hinn 8.09.2002 kl. 12:45 ritadhi -IID42 Kandinskij @27+:

> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> Unethical, grounds for a lawsuit.
>
> I am sorry, Palle, what are you talking about?
>
>> That wasn't a quote.
>
> Yes, it was, dear. wake up.
>
>> You took someone elses text and put your name
>
> No, that was a signature of the e-mail.
>
>> under it without any mention of the fact that the text belongs to
>> someone else.
>
> That was fairly obvious, Palle. Only an idiotic moron would think
> that I
> was claiming the text as mine--or someone bent on correcting my proper
> English usage, typos, and all around 'feeding' leech--due to my fight
> with Max.
>
>
>> That's plagiarism and I'm sure that Mr. Hoeller would agree with me.
>
> No, he won't. Mr. Hoeller is hardly the twit that you are,
> and I sincerely doubt he would find himself 'plagiarized'
> for being quoted on a mailing list. Get a grip on whatever is
> bugging your panties.
>
>> Well, of course you know where you stole it from.
>
> I haven't 'stolen' anything--I reposted a textwith regards
> to Eryk Salvaggio's comments. Does the mention of the word God
> get your panties in a knot or what?
>
> Did you go to plagiarist, baby?
>
> And did you learn what plagiarism is?
>
> No, really Palle.
>
> Pathetic idiot.
>
>
_____________________________________
Pall Thayer
myndlistamadhur/kennari
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
http://www.this.is/pallit
_____________________________________

DISCUSSION

Re: all is God


Hinn 8.09.2002 kl. 00:35 ritadhi -IID42 Kandinskij @27+:

> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> Hey D42,
>>
>> You know, plagiarism is illegal.
>
> No, it isn't. Besides I was quoting, not plagiarising.
Unethical, grounds for a lawsuit. That wasn't a quote. You took someone
elses text and put your name under it without any mention of the fact
that the text belongs to someone else. That's plagiarism and I'm sure
that Mr. Hoeller would agree with me.

>
>
>> Your text is by Stephan A. Hoeller (Tau Stephanus, Gnostic Bishop)
>> from http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
>
> NO KIDDING! I'm shocked.
> It like totally surprises me.
Well, of course you know where you stole it from.

> Palle, learn English if you want to make these kind of comments.
>
> And while you're at it, visit plagiarist.org
>
> xo
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> 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
>
>
_____________________________________
Pall Thayer
myndlistamadhur/kennari
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
http://www.this.is/pallit
_____________________________________

DISCUSSION

Re: all is God


Hey D42,

You know, plagiarism is illegal.

Your text is by Stephan A. Hoeller (Tau Stephanus, Gnostic Bishop)
from http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

Hinn 7.09.2002 kl. 14:54 ritadhi -IID42 Kandinskij @27+:

> The Human Being
> Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made
> by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the
> True
> God. Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic component, as
> well as a spiritual component which is a fragment of the divine essence.
> This latter part is often symbolically referred to as the divine spark.
> The recognition of this dual nature of the world and of the human being
> has earned the Gnostic tradition the epithet of dualist.
>
> Humans are generally ignorant of the divine spark resident within them.
> This ignorance is fostered in human nature by the influence of the false
> creator and his Archons, who together are intent upon keeping men and
> women ignorant of their true nature and destiny. Anything that causes us
> to remain attached to earthly things serves to keep us in enslavement to
> these lower cosmic rulers. Death releases the divine spark from its
> lowly
> prison, but if there has not been a substantial work of Gnosis
> undertaken
> by the soul prior to death, it becomes likely that the divine spark will
> be hurled back into, and then re-embodied within, the pangs and slavery=

> of
> the physical world.
>
> Not all humans are spiritual (pneumatics) and thus ready for Gnosis and
> liberation. Some are earthbound and materialistic beings (hyletics), who
> recognize only the physical reality. Others live largely in their psyche
> (psychics). Such people usually mistake the Demiurge for the True God
> and
> have little or no awareness of the spiritual world beyond matter and
> mind.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> 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
>
>
_____________________________________
Pall Thayer
myndlistamadhur/kennari
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
http://www.this.is/pallit
_____________________________________

DISCUSSION

Re: Sorta Like the Schoenberg one plus the malaise and Weimar and WW3


OK, I've thought about it and here comes my take on post-modernism. A
good example of post-modernism would be IID42. Not exactly a lack of
understanding of predefined concepts and basic knowledge but rather a
redefinition. Disregard for ideas seen by others as truths or rules. For
instance claiming that someone elses English is "bearly" legible. Now
most of us would understand this as something to be read only by bears.
But IID42 appears to mean that the English in question doesn't adhere to
his/her own private set of rules. Very post-modern.

Hinn 7.09.2002 kl. 03:08 ritadhi Max Herman:

>
>
> Post-Modernism?!
> Michael Albert
>
>
> A little over two years ago, preparing to ride from Boston to New York
> to
> attend the Socialist Scholars Conference, I asked a scholar friend to
> explain "post-modernism" in the four to five hours we would spend on the
> road. He accepted, and we rode-he lecturing and me listening.
>
> When we got to New York if someone had walked up and asked, "What is
> post-modernism?" I could not have answered. Four hours and I still
> didn't
> know what "post-modernism" referred to. Three interpretations spring to
> mind.
>
> My tutor was an idiot incapable of explaining one concept in four hours.
>
> I am an idiot incapable of understanding one concept in four hours.
>
> The concept is idiotic, a vague pastiche of mush covering a range too
> broad
> to clarify in four hours.
>
> The third possibility, as you might guess, is my favorite. But how
> could a
> concept which engenders shelves of books be nearly empty? Here's my
> hypothesis: Literary theory is largely a sham literary theorists use to
> cajole regal treatment from their professional cohorts, bosses,
> students,
> and broader intellectual community.
>
> How can I commit such blasphemy?
>
> First, calling an academic discipline phony is often common sense, not
> blasphemy.
>
> Take mainstream economics. Nearly the entire "neoclassical" economic
> edifice
> is constructed to legitimate the rewards of economists by pleasing the
> corporate piper who pays the bills. Thus, mainstream economists mainly
> "prove" capitalism's worth or indicate how capitalists can better pursue
> their own ends and rarely try to understand how the system works, who
> benefits, who loses, and why.
>
> Or take academic political science. Again, the idea is not actually to
> understand the government-who would pay scholars to do this?-but to
> "theorize government" in ways that justify official behavior.
>
> I doubt that Z readers would recoil in horror at these condemnations of
> mainstream economics and politics. I even think most Z readers would
> probably find supporting evidence quite convincing. For example, surveys
> reveal that economics graduate students accept these horrible assertions
> about their own profession, and the best first-hand documentation of the
> inner workings of the U.S. government, such as the Pentagon Papers, are
> exactly the materials that political science departments never bother to
> study.
>
> But literary theory? Surely this can't be phony. After all, the most
> obscure
> practitioners of literary theory are often radicals and self-serving
> mystification is never radical.
>
> Nonetheless, suppose you are an English literature teacher and you
> want a
> high salary, intellectual status, and tenure. How does reading and
> discussing literature warrant receipt of such goodies? Wouldn't
> admitting
> that such matter-of-fact activity was the essence of teaching English
> literature make it hard to justify big bucks, big status, tenure, and
> paid
> trips to distant conferences? To justify these rewards there must be a
> "theory" that takes years to master and that some people employ better
> than
> others, at least in their own eyes.
>
> Enter literary theory, an incomprehensible tangle of concepts and
> phrases
> made so dense and vague that:
>
> No one who isn't willing to suspend rationality can use it.
>
> No one can possibly get enough of a grip on it to counter or refute it.
>
> Anyone who attempts to can be ridiculed on the grounds of not
> understanding
> the theory in the first place.
>
> Thus, with their incomprehensible "discourse" in place, literary
> theorists
> have a defensible academic niche. The fact that many students feel like
> dummies because they don't have a clue what's going on is apparently
> insufficient reason for anyone in the club to rock the boat.
>
> Now I admit that the above is very harsh and no more than an undefended
> hypothesis. And I also admit that the reason for the lack of supporting
> textual evidence is because my attempts to find a literary theory book
> that
> I can comprehend sufficiently to assess have been futile. Here's the
> kind of
> "discourse" you have to comprehend to read even what the less obscure
> literary theorists say about novels, movies, MTV, modern architecture,
> pop
> songs, and modern literature: post-modern moment, binarisms,
> overdetermined
> conflict, pure systematicity, post-structuralism, hermeneutic,
> metanarrative, deconstruction, irreducible materiality, semiotics, and
> dialogism.
>
> Not understanding these tangled terms and doubting the need to use them=

> to
> comment sensibly on pop music's Talking Heads, TV's "The Young and the
> Restless," Hollywood's Star Wars, baseball's Dodgers Stadium, or
> literature's Ishmael Reed, I more than happily grant that my hypothesis=

> that
> these terms mean nothing may be wrong. Perhaps "irreducible
> materiality" and
> "pure systematicity" are exactly the concepts needed to "theorize"
> Madonna.
> But if so, it still ought to be possible for literary theorists to
> describe,
> popularize, and generally make understandable what their results are so=

> the
> rest of us can know there is something real going on behind all the
> obscure
> terminology. Even the most difficult physics can be described so average
> persons get a good idea of the main results and questions. If it can be=

> done
> for theories about quarks, gluons, big bangs, and black holes, it ought=

> to
> be able to be done for theories about everyday culture and
> communication.
>
> So, please, someone tell me what I can read to understand literary
> theory so
> that I can withdraw my hypothesis and write an informative summary.
> I'll bet
> not one percent of Z's readers can define the earlier listed terms. So
> wouldn't it be sensible to let the rest of us in on the action, assuming
> there is any?
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> 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
>
>
_____________________________________
Pall Thayer
myndlistamadhur/kennari
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
http://www.this.is/pallit
_____________________________________