Kandinskij Walking the Dog Mama

> "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
> > > Evolution is perhaps a better term.
>
> Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama
> Dog mama >From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" Dog mama
> Dog mama >No, it isn't. And there is no 'evolution' Dog mama
> Dog mama >without a startling, outside jolt. There is Dog mama
> Dog mama >no gradual, there is no safe, there is no Dog mama
> Dog mama >common sense sensible, reasonable Dog mama
> Dog mama >'evolution'. This is not that Middle path. Dog mama
> Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:

> Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama
> Dog mama >From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]> Dog
> mama
> Dog mama >No, it isn't. And there is no 'evolution' without a startling,
> outside Dog mama
> Dog mama >jolt. There is no gradual, there is no safe, there is no common
> sense Dog mama
> Dog mama >sensible, reasonable 'evolution'. This is not that Middle path.
> Dog mama
> Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama Dog mama


Any more programmatic idiocy?

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler frothed at the mouth and typed:

> It's all the bearings that I need, and since I am a Unit of Verse of the
> UnitVerse, the central Unit of Verse of my UnitVerse.

Drivel.

> I only need one sexual being to revolve on it for satisfactory results. The
> rest of the world can wait or walk away. In the meantime, it feeeeels good
> to me.

Admission to sexual inability + impotence.

> > You are not qualified. This is not an assertion or is it mine.
>
> Of course it is yours, silly.

No, it isn't. I am not you, and the way I write does
not have any correlation or resemblance to the way you do.

> As I asserted it's you that has been walking the dog mama.

You haven't asserted anything. You simply shuffle words about
with bigmeanings that you don't understand. You must be able to
assert before you can assert. And you cannot.

Go write on your window: I can fly. I can fly. I can fly.
Then jump.

> Oh yes I am, and have made my judgement – it is not subject to recall.

Nzzt. Wrong again. You may type a million times that you're
capable of judgement–you will not become capable of it.
Come on, froth at the mouth again.
Little impotent brain monkey.

> > No baby. You're throwing a fit.
>
> In your imagination. It's all lower case type.

Ne. Nothing is in my 'imagination'.

> > You may choose to be self-delusional about it–and likely you will
> > but there is no such thing as 'merely replying'.
>
> There is.

Nep. No wonder you're impotent, love.

> > Ne. No presumptions and no errors. Just a very clear observation
> > of your mode of functionining.
>
> Obviously to me it is not clear at all.

And it won't become clearer because you like your ego.

> > You can froth at the mouth
>
> There is no frothing. It's still lower case type.

OH yes there is, and it's hilarious.

> Of course your observation is there. And it is wrong concerning me.

No baby. It's not 'my observation'. It is an objerctive observation,
and it is absolutely correct.


> I expect to die. But not today.

You're already dead, baby.

> > No baby, it hasn't been calm. maybe you should start denying
> > what goes on inside you to yourself.
>
> Still lower case typing.

Literalistic ape.

> > You don't know what a dogma is. Anything that isn't
> > according to your ego is 'dogma'.
>
> Reading problems again? The word I used is "dog mama"

No reading problems baby. Literalistic, illiterate ape.


> > I make no assertion baby. You're a pathetically logical ape.
> > Nor do you know what dogma is.
>
> I know what dog mama is, and you walk it.

No you do not. You know nothing.
And no, I don't. Your delusional fantasizing,
is purely within the domains of your brain.

> > I do speal for myself.
>
> Yes you do speal.

Idiotic typo-picking.

> > Consciousness is not singular.
>
> I prefer consciousmess.

Drivel.

> > Queen Victoria hasn't got anything to do with it,
> > besides with your pathetic card-board cut out knee-jerks.
>
> Knee-jerks. Can't you come up with something more witty, or creative, or
> entertaining?

I am not here to entertain you.

> > Yet another one who thinks logic will get him out of anything.
>
> Consciousmess is not.

True. You're conscious not.


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

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:

> > Drivel.
>
> wit-infested.

No, drivel.

> > Admission to sexual inability + impotence.
>
> Nope.

Yep.

> > No, it isn't. I am not you, and the way I write does
> > not have any correlation or resemblance to the way you do.
>
> How gratefule I am for that.

Nothing you're capable of.

> > You haven't asserted anything. You simply shuffle words about
> > with bigmeanings that you don't understand. You must be able to
> > assert before you can assert. And you cannot.
>
> You must be able to assert before you can assert. LOL!

LOL indeed. The disease of the brain obsessed ape.
Look, I can shift words! Must mean I automatically
possess all the abilities these words indicate!

> > Go write on your window: I can fly. I can fly. I can fly.
> > Then jump.
>
> No.

Are you trying to give me orders with this refusal?????

> > Nzzt. Wrong again. You may type a million times that you're
> > capable of judgement–you will not become capable of it.
> > Come on, froth at the mouth again.
> > Little impotent brain monkey.
>
> lower-case

Literal ape. Still frothing at the mouth.


> > Ne. Nothing is in my 'imagination'.
>
> True

But not in the way you wishfully ascribe to ut.

> > Nep. No wonder you're impotent, love.
>
> poetent.

Ne. Impotent.

> > And it won't become clearer because you like your ego.
>
> more than "like" – I LOVE my ego.

No, you like it. You are incapable of love.

> > OH yes there is, and it's hilarious.
>
> yawn.

Go fly.

> > No baby. It's not 'my observation'. It is an objerctive observation,
> > and it is absolutely correct.
>
> You are not capable of "objerctive" anything.

I am. And you're not qualified to judge that.
Objective is not the result of literalistic, logical, automatic
'thinking'.

> > You're already dead, baby.
>
> and you dialogue with them. LOL

Reactionary impotence.

> > No reading problems baby. Literalistic, illiterate ape.
>
> yes, you have reading problems.

No, I don't. Nor are you qualified to judge that, as you are illiterate.
And impotent. Funny how the two are connected, ne?

> > > > I do speal for myself.
> > >
> > > Yes you do speal.
> >
> > Idiotic typo-picking.
>
> Idiotic typer.

No sorry. Typos haven't got anything to do with idiocy.

> > Drivel.
>
> your bland gland working overtime again?

You're talking about yourself.

> > I am not here to entertain you.
>
> That may not be your intent, but I've enjoyed toying with you.

You haven't 'toyed' with anything but yourself.
Keep toying and you'll self-destruct.
You have no ability to reach outside, due to ego-shell.

> My ego has been enjoying it for the time being, but time to go. You bore me.

Pretentious + false bore.
You're bored because you like being bored.
I have nothing to do with it.


> > > > Yet another one who thinks logic will get him out of anything.
> > >
> > > Consciousmess is not.
> >
> > True. You're conscious not.
>
> another misreading.

No misreading baby. I read you quite well.
You're just pissy that I don't read what you delusionally would like
me to follow.


> Goodnight.

Later, impotent-illiterate ape.

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