Re: Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of ourcivilization"]

—————————- Original Message —————————-
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of
ourcivilization" From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, March 22, 2006 11:17 am
To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
————————————————————————–

acting!!! simply marvelous!!!

> There is never any emotion in anything written here, to clarify.
>
> Nothing fuzzy either, but diamonds are not logical.
> Likewise it is silly to qualify any of te responses as "reaction" just
because they are evasive of logical thinking.
>
> angels always ravel sideways on silver mercurial wires
>
> maybe you should make an effort
>
> xoxo,
> 007
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:
>
>
>> when i read the reaction to my original post, i was surprised at the
level of emotion it elicited.
>
> in other words you were surprised at your own emocion?
>
> de.lightful
>
>> The original post pointed to current tendencies in a remote field of
critical discourse.
>
> only known to the "selekt.few"
>
>> The proposed passing of McLuhan's Global Vision to Virilio's Dromology
seemed pretty straightforward to me when I was pointed it out.
>
> It must be?
>
>> It wasn't transformable, it wasn't about a new sociological
> representation of a networked community.
>
>> It was a way to identify where and why we do what we now do as humans
> interacting physically and virtually.
>
> A very dry martini, as it were.
>
>> The virtual was intended as a background field , a field tied in with
> the figure ground relationship.
>> Unfortunately that wasn't the perception.
>
>> Perhaps the listserv is a bad place to make bold statements.
>
> Boldness? Where? Mr. Picabia, please.
>
>
>
>> But those of you who make confusing statements,
>
> There is absolutely nothing confusing about our statements.
>
>> and employ otherworldly metaphors
>
> Or otherworldly, for that matter mr. stiff my nose is stuck in my pants
and I am sticking to it.
>
>> simply obscure our view.
>
> You have no view.
>
>> The use of pseudonyms and alias' simply makes understanding cloudier,
>
> Your understanding mr. cloud-cock.
>
>> and there is nothing clever about it.
>
> The last thing we are is clever.
>
>> I am sorry, but I find most of these reactions
>
>
> They are not reactions and your dismissive slap-labeling doesn't make
them such.
>
>> difficult to follow.
>
> There is nothing difficult. Anywhere, at all.
>
>> They seem to offer up a way to make things fuzzy and inaccessible.
>
>
> You should refer to Mr. Kurt Schwitter's "impenetrable text".
>
>> At least Virilio makes things clear and understandable.
>
> Mano a mano.
>
> Neither Eryk, Machinus?, and Kandinsky
> (I don't care how you spell your pseudonym)
>
>
> It's not a pseudonym. It's a Real name.
>
>> have added anything to this discussion.
>
> Au contraire amigo. Are you trying to say that we subtract and divide?
>
> Aliiiice!
> _________________________________________
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>