RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Easy Like Sunday Morning Q&A

Fascinating.

-e.


-IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:

>So questions for you Eryk:
>
>Why did you erase all points of contact from your reply,
>and only addressed things which gave you the opportunity to
>a. degrade yourself with idiotic posing
>b. attempt to degrade me?
>
>Why were you so condescending about my 'getting' your general quote,
>when in fact I did–and having replied in the same vein, I'm accused
>of being 'absurd'? Nevermind that your understanding of the Tao Te
>Ching is excessively poor as demonstrated by your flippant and
>inappropriate use of quotations.
>
>Did you expect the Tao Te Ching parroting to give you final word
>on authority?
>
>Why do you project your own behaviors (conjecture, hypocrisy)
>outwardly?
>
>Why are you dishonest and back out when asked to assume the
>responsibility accompanying the kind of statements you make?
>
>I'm reading religious arguing / preaching as we speak,
>and all they do is quote their authority of choice at each other.
>
>They're all simple Jesus men, btw, trying to find their light,
>and make the world a better place.
>
>Isn't that nice?
>
>Kinda reminds me of 'scientists' too.
>
>By the way, I'll tell you a very precise term for your interest
>in compassion: spiritual greed.
>
>`, . ` `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 Fri, 6 Sep 2002, chiara turati wrote:

> please never send me nothing.

This is a public list, still, chiara.

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

It is. Wht won't you reply baby?
Doesn't fit with your self-styled iconic image?
Saint Eryk has deemed us 'boring'.
that's mightily 'compassionate' of you.

Try answering the questions, coward.


On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> Fascinating.
> -e.
>
>
> -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>
> >So questions for you Eryk:
> >
> >Why did you erase all points of contact from your reply,
> >and only addressed things which gave you the opportunity to
> >a. degrade yourself with idiotic posing
> >b. attempt to degrade me?
> >
> >Why were you so condescending about my 'getting' your general quote,
> >when in fact I did–and having replied in the same vein, I'm accused
> >of being 'absurd'? Nevermind that your understanding of the Tao Te
> >Ching is excessively poor as demonstrated by your flippant and
> >inappropriate use of quotations.
> >
> >Did you expect the Tao Te Ching parroting to give you final word
> >on authority?
> >
> >Why do you project your own behaviors (conjecture, hypocrisy)
> >outwardly?
> >
> >Why are you dishonest and back out when asked to assume the
> >responsibility accompanying the kind of statements you make?
> >
> >I'm reading religious arguing / preaching as we speak,
> >and all they do is quote their authority of choice at each other.
> >
> >They're all simple Jesus men, btw, trying to find their light,
> >and make the world a better place.
> >
> >Isn't that nice?
> >
> >Kinda reminds me of 'scientists' too.
> >
> >By the way, I'll tell you a very precise term for your interest
> >in compassion: spiritual greed.
> >
> >`, . ` `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
> >
>
>
>
> + 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
>

They sure are. Certainly if you're interested in
being honest about yourself. But you aren't.

It's far easier to make up a grand vague agenda
such as 'making the world a better place' than
do your job.

Much of the reasoning behind 'art' too.
An escape, and a safety blanket.

By the way, want to tell New Yorkers that
the world is a simple, non-dangerous place?

Or do you label anything that happens which
doesn't fit your propaganda 'needless suffering'
and 'needlessly boring'?

Just curious :)

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> Those are some good questions.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>
> >It is. Wht won't you reply baby?
> >Doesn't fit with your self-styled iconic image?
> >Saint Eryk has deemed us 'boring'.
> >that's mightily 'compassionate' of you.
> >
> >Try answering the questions, coward.
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >
> >>Fascinating.
> >>-e.
> >>
> >>
> >>-IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
> >>
> >>>So questions for you Eryk:
> >>>
> >>>Why did you erase all points of contact from your reply,
> >>>and only addressed things which gave you the opportunity to
> >>>a. degrade yourself with idiotic posing
> >>>b. attempt to degrade me?
> >>>
> >>>Why were you so condescending about my 'getting' your general quote,
> >>>when in fact I did–and having replied in the same vein, I'm accused
> >>>of being 'absurd'? Nevermind that your understanding of the Tao Te
> >>>Ching is excessively poor as demonstrated by your flippant and
> >>>inappropriate use of quotations.
> >>>
> >>>Did you expect the Tao Te Ching parroting to give you final word
> >>>on authority?
> >>>
> >>>Why do you project your own behaviors (conjecture, hypocrisy)
> >>>outwardly?
> >>>
> >>>Why are you dishonest and back out when asked to assume the
> >>>responsibility accompanying the kind of statements you make?
> >>>
> >>>I'm reading religious arguing / preaching as we speak,
> >>>and all they do is quote their authority of choice at each other.
> >>>
> >>>They're all simple Jesus men, btw, trying to find their light,
> >>>and make the world a better place.
> >>>
> >>>Isn't that nice?
> >>>
> >>>Kinda reminds me of 'scientists' too.
> >>>
> >>>By the way, I'll tell you a very precise term for your interest
> >>>in compassion: spiritual greed.
> >>>
> >>>`, . ` `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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>+ 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
> >>
> >
> >+ 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
> >
>
>

o
[ + ]

+ + +


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

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> >It is. Wht won't you reply baby?
> >
>
> Why should I bother?

Squint. Because you are an honest about yourself kind of guy,
but only as long as it makes you feel comfortable.

> >Doesn't fit with your self-styled iconic image?
> >
>
> I guess not.

I guess so.

> >Saint Eryk has deemed us 'boring'.
> >
>
> That sure woke me up.

I ain't your Prince Charming.
You're like a girl who lies there and doesn't move.
Not to my taste.

> >>>Why did you erase all points of contact from your reply,
> >>>
>
> There weren't any.

Yes there were. Denial won't help.


> I'm too stupid, shallow and ignorant to degrade you.

Playing stupid yes. Ignorant yes. Shallow–no.
Besides an intelligent and un-ignorant being wouldn't
degrade. Specifically a stupid and ignorant would.
And don't pout because you didn't like what I had
to say and started acting like a dork.

> Why should my conception of you matter?

What does this have to do with anything?
Not degrading others is a matter of YOUR development,
not a matter of 'conceptions about others'.

> Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

You didn't. That doesn't justify the idiocy of your behavior.

> You didn't get it.

I did. Not only that, but I played along with it,
which you didn't get. Came along acting all confused.

> I never claimed it was good. I took it off the shelf and started
> quoting. You're the "master" who can't recognize it.

Uh, you're completely delusional. I did recognize it,
hence I was talking to you in terms of 'generals and soldiers'.
I guess you're still not getting it, but that's preposterous.

> Yeah, I did. Guess I blew that one huh?

Playing dumb again.

> Because I am a conjecturing hypocrite.

Lovely. What a pity it's not sincere.

> Because I'm dishonest.

Indeed. But you're motioning out, which isn't helping any.
You're more adolescent than originally suspected :)

> >>>They're all simple Jesus men, btw, trying to find their light,
> >>>and make the world a better place.
> >>>
>
> Your point?

It's obvious. Apathy is not detachment, baby.

> >>>By the way, I'll tell you a very precise term for your interest
> >>>in compassion: spiritual greed.
> >>>
>
> You're right, good call.

Certainly is. And an accurate one at that.
Regardless of what you 'think' about it.

So why don't you enjoy uncomfortable questions about yourself?

Doesn't feel good to be part of THEM?

Tsk, tsk.

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

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> >They sure are. Certainly if you're interested in
> >being honest about yourself. But you aren't.
> >
>
> You're right.

Yup. And there's nothing wrong with that.

> >It's far easier to make up a grand vague agenda
> >such as 'making the world a better place' than
> >do your job.
> >
>
> Yeah, totally.

And absolutely .)

> >Much of the reasoning behind 'art' too.
> >An escape, and a safety blanket.
> >
>
> Wow I totally never even thought of that before dude!

I'm not trying to be 'original' Eryk.
By the way, not only does sarcasm and irony drain energy,
but it also messes up your ability to discern reality.
Keep it up. Maybe one day you'll get rid of your
'ego conditioning'.

> >By the way, want to tell New Yorkers that
> >the world is a simple, non-dangerous place?
> >
>
> I dunno, do you?

I'm not claiming it is–you are.

> >Or do you label anything that happens which
> >doesn't fit your propaganda 'needless suffering'
> >and 'needlessly boring'?
> >
>
> Pretty much!

Unfortunately. Your idiotic posturing taken into account.


> Ha ha dude yeah! SMILY FACE RULES!

Don't know. That seems to be your opinion.
Not why I used it.

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

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> >I know quite a few individuals.

> Oh neat! I'm proud of you!

Right. Derogatory comments about non-present individuals.

> >No, you peg yourself. We watch.

> We do?

We do.

> >And a simpleton, and a bully.

> Sooooorrrrry Mr. Kandinskiiiiiij…………

No, you arent. And that's a pity.

> Gosh I'm so relieved!

Tripping yourself again, baby.

> >>The ones who don't get it your way, Eryk.
> >>
>
> You mean like, all the dudes, dude?

No, I don't.

> >> Those humans to whom you try to preach that the world
> >>
>
> I preach?

On more than one occasion.


> Yeah but we're all God,

No we aren't.

> that's why I am God,

No you are not.

> and that is why God can't exist.

Brilliant conclusion.

> I thought I said this already?

You can repeat it all you want.
It's not going to become more valid or true or meaningful.

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