Dear Ivan Pope,
Having stated that you don't care about God, or religion
do you mind why you have expectations of people talking about 'God'
to never say 'sod off'? Moreso, you imply that people interested
in 'God' are not really so, if they say 'sod off'–and that people
interested in 'God' by all accounts should conform to your idea
of what a person interested in 'God' should behave like?
On one hand you claim ignorance on the issue, on another you
pose as an authority on the issue. Curious.
Why do you purposefully distort things that I said to another person,
specifically to this person, and not to you?
Why do you baselessly attempt to debase things which you have no clue
about?
And finally, why do you back all of this up with the image of
your 'publicly identified ego'–and that all in the good old pose–
I'm a righteous, good man?
Why didn't you address again–my perfectly valid comments on your
imbecilic mail to another list–but instead keep trying to attack me
with out any basis besides being a pissy jerk?
Allow me to assure you that not only *God* but all the 'angels'
curse, and with great de-light–when it is APPROPRIATE.
But hey didn't you say you have no religious interest?
Why's your psycho-sexual (religious) impulse showing its horns
through what you write and do, then, oh righteous saint icon of
Ivan Pope?
shriek + halleluja
amen & sod off,
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Ivan Pope Q&A
-
Type: discussion
Comments
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Ivan Pope wrote:
> I don't connect talking about god and saying or not saying sod off. All I
> said was that a recourse to telling someone to 'sod off' is just cheap
> invective.
No, it isn't. Telling someone to sod off when they are asking for it,
is just that. And yes, you did connect them. wake up.
> It adds nothing to the position
This is not a 'debate' and I don't have a position.
Quit attempting to dictate my mode of communication
and fit it into idiotic moulds.
> and smacks of desperation.
No, it doesn't. This smacks of your wishful thinking,
and pathetic rudeness.
> Nothing to do with god or not god one way or another.
Yes, it did. re-read your original statement.
> I have no idea what a person interested in god should behave like.
Then don't make statements like the one you did.
> I can't see that it has any relevance on the Rhizome list.
It does. Go look at some Art.
> You pick fights with all and sundry.
No, I don't. I dont 'pick fights'.
I say things people dislike, and they react in an inflammatory manner.
> You are on a public list, causing grief,
No, i am not 'causing grief'. They are causing grief
with their reactionary behavior. Go take that guilt trip
and stuff it in your arse.
> and, as far as I can see, talking nonsense.
You are blind as a bat. and I wasn't talking to you anyhow.
what I say isn't nor has ever been 'nonsense'.
Condescending twit.
> So I want to pick you up on this occasionally.
No–you want to pick a fight. All of your posts to me have
been baseless condescension.
> I don't know what comments on another list you are
> referring to
Aren't you such an innocent lamb. You know quite well.
You've been posting idiotic comments to me on the generative
art mailing list. Hope that refreshes your memory.
> (the thought of wading through all your postings to all the
> lists fills me with ennui),
Go jump from a cliff, you idiotic twit.
> but if you repeat them, I will attempt to
> answer.
No. find them yourself.
> I have no religious belief.
You do. You simply choose to be unaware of it.
Denial seems to be your strong point.
> I am sure there is no such thing as an organised or sentient 'god', though on the other hand I'm up for all sorts of views of
> the world.
That's fine with me. Discussion of *God* is not the best way to address
the issue, in your case. Not my favorite construct either.
> Your language has no impact on my worldview at all.
No? Snicker. Language doesn't have 'impact' on anyone's worldview.
And I'm not trying even remotely to force a discussion about 'God'
on you though you keep sticking your nose there.
> Telling me that god an the angels curse makes me want to laugh.
Laugh. That was the intention. Never can one get people to get so
humorless and stuck up as in talking about a. science b. religion.
> Or fear for your sanity.
My sanity is just fine. Spare me your condesending derogatory 'concern'.
> But, in a rational way,
Reality is not rational.
> even if you were totally correct, that you did have a hotline
> to god and were friends with angels - what of it?
Baa. Dergoatory denigration.
> What use is that to me
Why must everything be about you, you imbecile?
> to the list?
that's not for YOU to judge, idiot.
> It's just a bit of your own ego massaging in public.
No, it isn't. You're simply attempting to degrade me to your own level.
Besides, people with 'direct hotline' to god don't have egos.
One doesn't get a connection to its higher Self with the ego in place.
Why are you talking about God and angels as if they are my buddies and
I'm 'bragging' about it? This is not at all what is going on.
Methinks your intolerence is knee-jerking real hard, baby.
> We all do it, so what?
No, 'we' don't all do it. Don't force identification of me with you.
I am not you, i am not 'like' you, we are not the same, and we are not
equal. One difference is that you have an ego, and I don't.
Another is, that I know what I am talking about when I speak of the ego
and you use speaking about that to degrade others. And yet another is,
that I don't debase people nor do I pretend to be an authority on things
I have no experience with.
> > Why's your psycho-sexual (religious) impulse showing its horns
> > through what you write and do, then, oh righteous saint icon of
>
> Hey, you started it with the panties, kiddo.
No, baby. psycho-sexual impulse is not the same as genitalia.
Your comment was an arrogant dismissal. As is your dismissal
of the rest of the questions, one of which was a referent
to your OTHEr posts on that OTHER mailing lists of which
you claim no recollection. How convenient,
ta,loser.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
And I omitted one question: why do you attempt to 'peg' people down by
forcing them to wear a static, non-changing 'public identity' mask?
People are not slots. Nobody owes you a 'public identity'.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42