Dear Beautrice Beaubien & Co.
Seeing as how this is more than one 'mechanisms' which I wouldn't
qualify as beings typing, I must congratulate you on the trick. Very soon,
you may learn to balance a plastic ball on your nose, and then you can run
away and join the circus. I promise to send you flowers to your dressing
rooms, to each and every one of you, personally, when you're all finally
the 'intelligent + elite stars' that you are. After all, isn't one of
you, specifically the one with all this 'hidden' info about who I REALLY
AM, a danish twit that Biti slept with, who falsely claims associations
with the Northern Europe O.T.O? I don't know if it ever occurs to you
to condescend hat I have a clue–no, would I now, being an upper class
twit with no brains?–about what I am doing, and that I never give out
information that I don't care to have known?
> Yesterday I was involved w/ some rather tedious work &
Yes, we care. Apparently, as evident, you seem to have a problem with
work, which hence you find tedious, and being a lazy middle-class
half-wit wish to deal away with. What's worse, you fantasize that that's
exactly what being 'powerful & rich' is about–truly. That's how one
gets & remains there.
> took frequent breaks in which I responded to your last post (to me) in a
> desultory fashion.
Of course. Making slight of the matter. If it were that EASY, Beatrice,
you wouldn't need to pointificate–and you'd know that easy is not
trivial.
> I then had to go out for the evening before I'd quite finished it.
Thanks. And the value of all of this babble is worth total 0.
But then again, that's the total value of all of your behavior,
not just your verbal one either, so nothing surprising there.
> I had a couple of minutes this morning & finished it then… but by that
> point I reread it & changed my mind.
Typical indication of a diseased intellectual ape which acts from
its brain and fancies it the center from which its activities must
originate.
> It is too long & too repetitive
Mechanical, dull + symptomatic of the state you're in.
On your conviction that I am a fantasy, all I can say, yes it's true.
But then again, it's not my fault you can't perceive anything besides
what your thoughts project on the inside of your skull.
Also, I am not a woman pretending to be a man.
I am a male. Stomp & froth & pose intellectually if you please,
you may take out your O.T.O. books, Carl Jung, other 'insightful'
nonsense–but this is not about to have any bearing on reality
whatsoever. Sorry–you lack any such power.
> A European (albeit one who's spent time in the States)
I've never been a European. Perhaps you should check
the validity of your sources. I've spent time in Europe, yes.
rather the opposite of what you're claiming.
> pretending to be an American.
I don't know about that Biti. Europeans? Pretending to be Americans?
In the United States? You must be joking! How about them native
Canadians?
Seeing as to how I've spent the last 15 physical years of my life
in the US, and have spent the entirety of my conscious existence
in North America, have received the necessary energetic support
from the land of North America to become what I am, have received
my knowledge there, my commitment is to the greatest extent to
occurrences, events, and beings in that country, and since my choice
is to work and live in that country–I am an American, like it or not.
And whether you like this or not, you're not authorized to qualify
what I am. Nor anybody for that matter, as you seem to confuse
flat nationalism and your own self-importance as a basis for you to
dictate who is what.
Typically, I would not care for such frivolous bable as yours,
except for I am aware of general events concerning human beings,
and of my promise that I made to beings whom I hold in highest
respect, admiration, and love, to complete my work as a balancing
factor in the States. There are other issues involved, but I'm afraid
you're not priviliged enough to have access to them, and too much of
a simpleton to be trusted to misuse them.
> An ignoramus pretending to be an authority.
That would be you. You never addressed anything I said to you,
specifically my countering your fallacious statements, and instead
hurl unbased insults as the above which aren't based in observations,
but in the spite and jealousy of a group of individuals who have
nothing better to do than attempt to sink their claws into
famous, or rich people, and when rejected on valid grounds
resort to rumor-mongering, gossiping, backstabbing, and
fucking around with your self-proclaimed 'occult' & 'consciousness'
powers. In other words, you're a psychic leech.
Additionally, you attempt to present yourself an authority
on variety of issues, all of which you haven't a clue about.
No, your degress and 'accomplishments' don't hold any water.
Anyone with any sort of intelligence whatsoever is aware of
the situation in the European-based part of the world today–
all sorts of quacks with all sort of papers–none of whom
know anything.
I am hardly an ignoramus, and furthermore I AM an authority.
Unlike you, I'm also aware what being an authority means,
that the authority is given to me and I don't own it, that
it comes with responsibility far more than you'll ever be able
to stomach, and with the appropriate level of non-attachment
and being-work. You on the other hand seem to wield your
delusion self-perceived 'power' like a farmer with a machete
who cannot handle her life, so she needs to pick on those
beings who have done work and whose life is less miserable
and chaotic than yours.
> A (relatively) young person
Not at all, Biti. I am a very old person. Likely older than you.
And yes, I am greatly entertained at people's perceptions of
my physical appearance as I appear to be very young. This, however,
is amatter of consciousness, proper balance and awareness of energies,
and a few other things–which I don't care to share with you.
To make matters worse–neither you nor your source have ever met me,
nor seen any paper work pertaining to dates with regards to me,
nor seen any images of me. This being said allin light, that what you're
repeating here, is a story told to a very specific person, with a few
things which I've purposefully slightly misrepresented. Seeing as how
you're repeating the story verbatim, with themistakes in place–
your 'insights' into me are not worth a nickel.
> You come from a wealthy & powerful family (which you have not actually
> denied)
Why should I deny it? This is hilarious.
You're acting as if you're leveraging something against me
that I am guilty of, and that I must confess. I'm sorry, Biti.
Being born in a wealthy & powerful–in a genuine way–family
is many things which you're not aware of, and never will be,
and this is not ny fault–and notanybody's fault for that
matter, none of which is a crime.
> & have never had to work a day in your life.
Ah no, my dearest. Never having to work a day in their life,
+ continuous consummatory existence is a privilege of middle-class
white families. Nobody else's. It never ceases to amaze me how
you project your attitude towards things as characteristic of
things you've never come in any substantial contact with.
> There is one word for you: "spoiled"… rotten.
No, Biti. Just because I come from a wealthy & powerful family,
it doesn't mean that I am 'spoiled' 'rotten'. By all accounts,
you certainly are coming in spades up to all descriptions I've
heard of you in terms of maliciousness, bitterness, spite,
denseness, and general stupidity.
> You may have some brains but you've never had to use them.
I use my brains just the appropriate amount, as necessary,
and in a far more intelligent manner than most humans,
including the lot of you behind this e-mail.
> You've been educated in the company of truly moronic people & this has
> given you the idea that you're some kind of genius.
And this is spoken from what evidence? You have absolutely not
an inkling of a clue by whom and how I've been educated at all,
but feel the need to qualify them as 'truly moronic'?
What is this based on? Your wishful spiteful desire to
degrade anything of a higher status than you?
> Likewise that they are completely inarticulate
I am sorry, Beatrice Beaubien. Do you mind telling the list
at least one name of a person or institution from which I've
received education? Not that I value education one bit, mind you,
but if I actually bothered mentioning those things you'd be
hard pressed but to look like the vicious, idiotic, malicious
and mediocre fool that you are.
> has given you the idea that you are somehow an effective communicator.
Hello? Knock-knock? The phrase 'effective communicator'
does not mean a thing–nor have I ever had any such ideas
about myself. Unlike you, I actually have a fair bit of
actual (read not intellectual) knowledge about language,
and words, as well as a fluency in 8+ languages
(unlike you, who claims to speak French, but when taken to speak
to a real Frenchman, you apparently failed to understand a word he
said), to know that language has never been or even intended to
as a means for communication.
Hence your statement than men RECOUNT when they WRITE is sheer
ignorant imbecility. No, hanging around like a groupie, around
people who do net.work with language doesn't make you someone
who has a clue. Most of them don't have one themselves anyways.
Like children discovering a new toy, they allow themselves to
be dictated a mode of communication by the medium, and fancy themselves
geniuses. Nothing wrong with playing, and experimentation,
exhibiting, being excited about it–but false authority posing
is a far more serious matter.
> Furthermore the only partially literate people you've ever
> met have been
> boring pedants whose information was of no use to you,
I've never had the displeasure of meeting any boring pedants aside
from yourself, nor is there such a thing as a 'partially literate'
person. You personally are completely, and thoroughly illiterate.
In addition, I have no problem with illiteracy, and I enjoy
'illiterate' people quite a bit. Literacy is not for everyone,
nor is the blathering mass ov verbiage produced by humans
qualifiable as literate, and even language.
> the rest of your associations have been w/ functional illiterates.
It's just that easy, isn't it? Who are my associations?
Do you have an actual clue? No. You have absolutely no
information or experience about who I am aside from
this very public exchange, no you haven't any 'secret'
associations and info on me, my life, my family,
my education, and my associations.
So do you care to explain what do you think you're doing?
Attempting psychotic character association, and attacking
people not only who are NOT HERE to defend themselves,
but also people with whom you've never even had contact with,
nor do you know whether they even exist?? You suffer from
some advanced case of psychosis.
Do you plan to come out and wage war on my whole family,
associates, etc?. Do you intend to go through my trash?
Sell some story to the tabloids and act as a revolutionary?
Pass around a petition to have me guillotined for being
born in a wealthy & powerful family? Please do drop us
a note before running into our bedroom with a machete.
> Again, this has given you the idea that your level
> of erudition
I have no intentions whatsoever to be bothered with
idiotic concepts such as 'erudition' which hold
little meaning and value aside from something to
impress the 'people' with.
> is adequate to your purposes
Dear Biti, you have no udea what my purposes are at all,
nor will you ever, due to your already-inherent inability
to grasp the kind of activity I am involved in, nor are you
nor will you ever be a qualified judge whether I am adequate
for the job–this has already been taken care of–and I've been
given the kind of knowledge applicable, as well as the necessary
energy.
> & that more is either impossible or undesirable.
What are you babbling about? More spiteful crap about
things you haven't a clue about?
> [I find it interesting to note that this gen description also fits
> G.W.B.]
No, it doesn't. Your spiteful and malicious projection, does not fit.
Nor will it ever.
> In writing to you I said almost nothing about myself
Complete nonsense. You spoke exclusively about yourself–
and you will continue to do so until you rid yourself of
your cultural conditioning and genetic influences–which
in your case will be NEVER:
> but merely reflected your own verbiage.
You didn't. You spewed forth filth which you are now attempting
to present as reflection. First, reflection doesn't occur on
a tonal or language or verbal or intellectual level. Not only
that but:
> This provoked a series of compulsive, hysterical responses
Nothing of the sort. There was absolutely no trace of anything
'compusive, hysterical' in my response to you, and you may
wishful project attempting to misrepresent my behavior as such,
but this is mere falsification. What I was, was appalled at
what you were actually doing, which was, attempting to take
advantage of weaknesses in a western female's brain with
regards to spoken language (very ineffectively, sloppily,
and in WRITING) in order to cripple the person, meanwhile
attempting to tap energy from energy centers at my feet
and sexual centers. This amounts to the energetic
equivalent of physically bashing a person over the head
and drinking their blood.
Truly, and genuinely you are a psychik leech, and
a murderer. Non-surprising that considering that you
actually feed on your own's child's pure sexual energy,
and attemptto use him as amuppet into your games.
> wherein you said you do not comprehend the words & phrases I used,
I said nothing of the sort. Beatrice Beaubien.
I said that the words & phrases you used were meaningless,
which they were–you weren't saying anything, but attempting to use
verbiage in a purely mesmeric manner, and which if followed through
and sincerely read by the reader would cause physical damage to the
person.
> & yet even so were able to characterize them as "babble";
No, I characterized it as babble–no quotation marks.
Because this is what it was–an ape attempting to mesmerize
and impress with the word juggling trick it's picked up
somewhere.
> the contradiction there being invisible to you.
There are no contradictions, and THIs is what is invisible to you.
> The overwhelming majority of allusions & references used by myself
You haven't made any allusions & appropriate references–
that wouldrequire that you have the requisite mastery of language,
and you don't. Not any ape who claims to be a writer and froths
at the mouth is one.
> many of the others you've dialogued w/
I haven't dialogued or attempted to dialogue with anyone.
In fact I don't dialogue.
> here have simply gone over your head.
No, they were simply imbecilic noise, and will remain such.
> You frantically attempt to relate
I do not do anything 'frantically'–your degradatory impulse is
clearly running amok, dear. Nor do I attempt to 'relate'.
This is simply not how I operate.
> extremely limited experiential base
My 'experiential base' is far larger than yours could ever be, dear,
due both to my background from a wealthy & powerful family, and my
own efforts, work, and abilities.
> w/ some unintentionally comical results.
No, all of the comical results are fully intentional.
Courtesy of your knee-jerk brain. Merci.
> could not A any of my Q's
Yes? I failed the test? Most of the *Q's* were meaningless schlock,
dear. Nor am I obliged to answer any crap.
> your standard response seems to be simply to take what you think are
> accusations
No dear, I don't think. In fact very little of what I do has to
do with thinking as you know it.
> & throw them back, e.g. "I'm not doing that, you're doing that!"
This is notat all what I did. Your perceptions are.. skewed towards
your ego-agenda.
> However what I (& many others here) can do, which you cannot, is *read*.
No dear. what +I+ can do is read. You and many others have been trained
to do a certain activity and conned to think that this is reading.
> You have tells, signs, & very clear indicators associated w/ your
> utterance.
You have no idea about my UTTERANCE. Secondly, unlike you I do not
speak a crippled language, and for me written and oral traditions
are not oneand the same. In other words, my writing is not
directly connected to my speech–as with proper conscious development
the two separate.
> We are not making them up, they are THERE.
You are making them up. You are projecting your own internalized
impulses into words. Ie, you're reading into words whatever you want.
> We only read them.
No, sorry. You're illiterate and can't read.
> You can't do this,
I can do whatever I please, thank you. And this has got nothing
with my family background, but with an understanding of the
real motivational force behind any_ human.
> or to the extent that you can, you work w/ small pieces of a set of
> associations you've invented.
I do nothing of the sort. You're hallucinating.
> There is nothing wrong w/ that per se (& you seem to think my objection
> to you is based on being self-invented,
I couldn't be further away from thinking, least of all thinking
anything of the sort. Nor do you have any right to have 'objections'
to me.
> yet one must also have some notion of the overarching structure of
> thought itself
Which I do. And you don't.
> particular discipline or ideology) & you do not.
The opposite. Magnetik.
> Therefore as far as you're concerned many of the rest of us are speaking
> in a code you simply cannot comprehend –
Could I possibly? Did I ever tell you that my mother language is
American English? Not that I care. I've erased all that.
No, you're not speaking a 'code' that I don't understand, you
self-important ape, you. You seem to have an awfully elevated
opinion of yourself and your excremental exercises.
> & this is what actually disturbed me…
No doubt. Disturbed your spite and condescension. Isn't this nice?
The good language doctor is going to 'help me'. You'd make a perfect
colonialist preacher, Biti. I think you should be sent to the Amazons
to try to explain to those half-literate natives about the glories of
your code, and see if they listen to you, or throw you in the river
so you may explain it to the piranhas.
> I think you could if you bothered to *try*,
Really, if I bothered to TRY maybe ONE day I could aspire
to your levelof intellectual development. My, my.
Blind, deaf, dumb, self-important and gloating.
> if you could accept that you had (relative) inadequacies,
Yes, if I could accept myself as lower, less intelligent,
inadequate, victim, maybe you could teach me about the
wonders of language and the beautiful liberating path
of feminism.
You know what? Fuck off. You and your patronizing,
self-righteous, IGNORANT and idiotic attitude.
I am not 'inadequate' have never been, nor will I ever be.
Pathetic. NOt only are you ignorant and hypocritical, but now you're
playing to play the shrink / saint.
Idiot.
> if you could u/stand the concept of relativity at all.
What a load of condescending idiotic schlock.
> Maybe your shit works somewhere else;
No sorry. The only *SHIT* here is yours. In copious amounts.
And it stinks. And you'reattempting topresent it as intelligence.
> I'm honestly telling you it doesn't work here.
It does. Not for you maybe, but your stubborn idiocy is your own
problem. Please avoid acting like a shrink and qualifying anybody
with more intelligence than you as 'clinical' or 'inadequate'.
You're merely qualifying yourself. Neither are you in any way
an authority on these issues.
> In this context you merely seem stupid,
I am not stupid, nor do I seem so, no matter how much you'd like
to ascribe that to my actions.
> ignorant,
I am not ignorant, nor do I seem so, no matter how much you'd like
to ascribe that to my actions. In fact I have far more of a clue than
you what I am doing.
> slow,
And don't forget inadequate. Just like those poor, uneducated
kids in Tibet.
> egotistical,
Sorry. You're not qualified tojudge whether one is egotistical or not.
In order to do that, you musthave dealt with your own ego first.
In your case, that'll never happen.
> vicious, & styleless (& a few other things I'll not mention).
Why not dear Beatrice Beaubien? Until you get rid of your intellectual
conditioning, you will be forever and ever speaking about yourself
to yourself. Do you think your words are reflective of REALITY? or of
ME? No, sorry. They're only reflective of you.
> In short, you are a spoiled, ignorant brat.
No, that would be you. And the only thing you're interested in
is degrading me because you're spiteful, jealous, and because
I have access to things, experiences, people, and beings
that you so desperately try to claw your way to, and you never will.
> I think everyone has now read enuf of you to draw similar conclusions.
Yes, everyone thinks excatly like you. And you speak for all.
By the way, does it ever occur to you that you never ONCE answered my
Questions? No.
> Many of the people here will naturally look down on you
There is nothing 'natural' about condescension. It's a hideous feature
of the ego.
> & I'm sure you won't like that.
Of course not. I've never be fond of egotistical manifestation in
people. Condescension is little but the external manifestation of
self-pity and self-loathing. Similarly as sadism is a deeply
ingrained inward masochism.
> Your accustomed privilege means nothing here
Dear Beatrice Beaubien, have I EVER mentioned my background on these
lists? No. Will I ever? No. You're the one who feels the need to bring
it up–exclusively due to your intolerant and vicious, spiteful nature.
So what are you talking about? I've never expected anyone to award me
any privileges, not since the day I was born actually, DESPITE my
family's status. The value of my BEING comes from CONSCIOUS WORK,
and this I have full rights to demand appropriate recognition of,
and I fully intend to do so. My family hasn't got anything to do with
it, nor have I been in contact with them for any duration of my adult
life. Nor have I ever used them as a leverage in any situation.
So, all of what I have is by my own means, and it's truly and genuinely
worthwhile and lacking any pretentious :)
> & your limitations are painfully evident.
I have no limitations dear. The ONLY limitations to a human being
are the ones imposed by reason's ckutch and the ego on its being.
Sorry. The limitations don't come from 'rich & powerful families'
who dare to procreate without your permission (laughing its head off)
and produce healthy and intelligent children like myself DESPITE
a whole slew of middle class idiots who'd like nothing better to
degrade anything above them.
> There is every possibility that you somehow feed off dialogic process itself
No dear, that is YOUR speciality. Not only that but you feed on any
being that comes into physical contact with, as evidenced by my
acquaintance. And funnily enough, you tried to feed on me too–
this is all that your attempts at degradation while repeating
a semi-factual story I told an 'occultist' lunatic in Denmark.
Seeing as how most of it is false, your insights are pure spiteful
projectionist crap.
> or require it to continue, therefore I doubt I will speak to you again.
I soncrely hope so. Or my acquaintance. Or any other lovely, illiterate
creature I decide to work with.
> You are not worth talking to (except perhaps as an object lesson).
How could I possibly be worth talking to? Such an expert on
communication you are. People who don't toe in line with
the dictatorial ape fits of your brain which is the
result of a sedated, lazy, consummatory middle-class housewife
existence spent largely in an alcoholic haze are 'inadequate'
or 'clinical'. How grotesque.
> There are plenty of other lists, boards & fora. You don't belong here.
I'm sorry Biti, who the fuck do you think you are?
> Please go somewhere else.
No. Idiotic cunt.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Re: [thingist] Re: enuf rope
-
Type: discussion