PHILOSOPHIC CHALLENGE!
Gene W. Smith
>THe center of Kant's influence is Germany. Eichmann was a Kantian.
>THe Nazis and Marxists continually call for sacrifice. Clinton calls
>for sacrifice. THe environmentalists. The multiculturalists, etc.
This is what I admire about the Objectivists. Using the cold sharp
knife of Reason, they cut to the heart of the issue. "Eichmann was a
Kantian". Need anything more be said? "Clinton calls for sacrifice".
Human, let us hope. Did Kant truly found the Bavarian Illuminati,
even though he lived in East Prussia? Is it an accident that the
Konigsberg is now a part of Russia?
Eichmann was a Kantian
Eichmann was a Kantian
Eichmann was a Kantian
Eichmann was a Kantian
Eichmann was a Kantian
With this as a mantra, I shall become wise.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Mikhail Zeleny
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <CBML0...@umassd.edu>
>pmsc...@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>>THe center of Kant's influence is Germany. Eichmann was a Kantian.
>>THe Nazis and Marxists continually call for sacrifice. Clinton calls
>>for sacrifice. THe environmentalists. The multiculturalists, etc.
>This is what I admire about the Objectivists. Using the cold sharp
>knife of Reason, they cut to the heart of the issue. "Eichmann was a
>Kantian". Need anything more be said? "Clinton calls for sacrifice".
>Human, let us hope. Did Kant truly found the Bavarian Illuminati,
>even though he lived in East Prussia? Is it an accident that the
>Konigsberg is now a part of Russia?
>
>Eichmann was a Kantian
>Eichmann was a Kantian
>Eichmann was a Kantian
>Eichmann was a Kantian
>Eichmann was a Kantian
>
>With this as a mantra, I shall become wise.
At the risk of introducing the perils of vulgar factual information
into a purely intellectual debate between two equally respectable
philosophical authorities, I note that, if Hannah Arendt's report is
to be believed, Adolph Eichmann did claim to follow certain dicta of
Kantian morality whilst discharging his official duties. Whether or
not this claim is sufficient to qualify him as a bona fide Kantian,
is left as an exercise for the reader.
>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
KRESSJA
>>Eichmann was a Kantian
>>Eichmann was a Kantian
>
>At the risk of introducing the perils of vulgar factual information
>into a purely intellectual debate between two equally respectable
>philosophical authorities, I note that, if Hannah Arendt's report is
>to be believed, Adolph Eichmann did claim to follow certain dicta of
>Kantian morality whilst discharging his official duties. Whether or
>not this claim is sufficient to qualify him as a bona fide Kantian,
>is left as an exercise for the reader.
Do you mean to the reader of Arendt's book, or to the reader of your post?
Surely you must have gathered the irony with which Arendt treats the subject
of Eichmann's "Kantianism." It is quite a striking instance of the larger
phenomenon which she called the "banality of evil": Eichmann was so thick,
so unable to grasp his own situation, that he could act as he did, commit the
atrocities that he did--and at the same time think himself a moral man!
Eichmann's claim to be a Kantian strikes us as amazing not because Kant's
thought could ever justify Eichmann's actions, but because Eichmann seems to
have actually believed that he was acting in such a way.
One cannot fault a philosopher if thoroughly unphilosophical people invoke
his name (remember, Rand likes Aristotle...).
-JK
____________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| John Kress | "Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a |
| | rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks." |
| | -Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil |
|________________|___________________________________________________________|
Mikhail Zeleny
kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:
>In article <1993Aug12.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes...
>>>Eichmann was a Kantian
>>>Eichmann was a Kantian
>>At the risk of introducing the perils of vulgar factual information
>>into a purely intellectual debate between two equally respectable
>>philosophical authorities, I note that, if Hannah Arendt's report is
>>to be believed, Adolph Eichmann did claim to follow certain dicta of
>>Kantian morality whilst discharging his official duties. Whether or
>>not this claim is sufficient to qualify him as a bona fide Kantian,
>>is left as an exercise for the reader.
>Do you mean to the reader of Arendt's book, or to the reader of your post?
Which one would you prefer?
>Surely you must have gathered the irony with which Arendt treats the subject
>of Eichmann's "Kantianism." It is quite a striking instance of the larger
>phenomenon which she called the "banality of evil": Eichmann was so thick,
>so unable to grasp his own situation, that he could act as he did, commit the
>atrocities that he did--and at the same time think himself a moral man!
>Eichmann's claim to be a Kantian strikes us as amazing not because Kant's
>thought could ever justify Eichmann's actions, but because Eichmann seems to
>have actually believed that he was acting in such a way.
I doubt that Arendt would know irony, as distinguished from weary
sarcasm or her trademark impotent indignation, if it jammed its
probing appendage up her dried-up and wrinkled cunt. Moreover, to
dare call evil banal would seem to require an extraordinary degree of
moral obtuseness and even obliviousness. I submit that Baudelaire is
a truer and harsher moralist than any boring, anomic Jewish bourgeois
Nazi-fucker. As for the question of "us" being struck by Eichmann's
attempt at self-vindication, I see it as no more amazing than the far
greater carnage perpetrated by the soi-disant Christians throughout
the past two millenia in the name of their creed. Are you prepared to
judge religion and morality by the actions of their self-professed
followers, or would you rather attempt a transcendental deduction of
their intrinsic merits? Please justify your answer.
>One cannot fault a philosopher if thoroughly unphilosophical people invoke
>his name (remember, Rand likes Aristotle...).
Is Marx a philosopher? What about Lenin or Stalin? If not, why not?
Frank Casper
|>
|> I doubt that Arendt would know irony, as distinguished from weary
|> sarcasm or her trademark impotent indignation, if it jammed its
|> probing appendage up her dried-up and wrinkled cunt. Moreover, to
|> dare call evil banal would seem to require an extraordinary degree of
|> moral obtuseness and even obliviousness. I submit that Baudelaire is
|> a truer and harsher moralist than any boring, anomic Jewish bourgeois
|> Nazi-fucker. As for the question of "us" being struck by Eichmann's
|> attempt at self-vindication, I see it as no more amazing than the far
|> greater carnage perpetrated by the soi-disant Christians throughout
|> the past two millenia in the name of their creed. Are you prepared to
|> judge religion and morality by the actions of their self-professed
|> followers, or would you rather attempt a transcendental deduction of
|> their intrinsic merits? Please justify your answer.
|>
|> mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
|> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
|>
As usual, a class act. Mr. Zeleny, meet Mr. Grossman.
Michael LeBlanc
>In article <12AUG199...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>
>kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Aug12.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes...
>
>I doubt that Arendt would know irony, as distinguished from weary
>sarcasm or her trademark impotent indignation, if it jammed its
>probing appendage up her dried-up and wrinkled c*nt. Moreover, to
^
>I submit that Baudelaire is
>a truer and harsher moralist than any boring, anomic Jewish bourgeois
>Nazi-f*cker. As for the question of "us" being struck by Eichmann's
^
...your skills of refutation are truly formidable... Please commit your
subtle verbal hate-crimes elsewhere...
>cordially,
>mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
>
--
:mjleblanc (Opinions are mine. I in no way speak for CSDL)
"I would rather be a man of paradoxes than a man of prejudices" (Rousseau)
Mark Kilgard
unless it has some relevance to fondling vomit.
- Mark
In article <1993Aug13.2...@draper.com>, m...@picchu.draper.com (Michael LeBlanc) writes:
|> In article <1993Aug13.1...@husc14.harvard.edu> zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
|> >In article <12AUG199...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>
|> >kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:
|> >
|> >>In article <1993Aug12.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
|> >>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes...
|> >
|> >[deletia upon deletia]
|>
|> >I doubt that Arendt would know irony, as distinguished from weary
|> >sarcasm or her trademark impotent indignation, if it jammed its
|> >probing appendage up her dried-up and wrinkled c*nt. Moreover, to
|>
|> >I submit that Baudelaire is
|> >a truer and harsher moralist than any boring, anomic Jewish bourgeois
|> >Nazi-f*cker. As for the question of "us" being struck by Eichmann's
|>
|> ...your skills of refutation are truly formidable... Please commit your
|> subtle verbal hate-crimes elsewhere...
|>
|> >cordially,
|> >mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
|> >"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Roxanne Gordon
If you want to know what I think, I think this is a really dumb subject
to talk about on alt.conspiracy. What does this have to do with anything?
Who cares, you know? I bet your just arguing to be hostile.
Roxxy
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* "Scuse me while I kiss the sky" Jimi Hendrix *
* R O X X Y ! (Roxxy Lady!!!) *
*_________________________________________ rgo...@nyx.cs.du.edu *
KRESSJA
>In article <12AUG199...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>
>kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:
>>Surely you must have gathered the irony with which Arendt treats the subject
>>of Eichmann's "Kantianism." It is quite a striking instance of the larger
>>phenomenon which she called the "banality of evil": Eichmann was so thick,
>>so unable to grasp his own situation, that he could act as he did, commit the
>>atrocities that he did--and at the same time think himself a moral man!
>>Eichmann's claim to be a Kantian strikes us as amazing not because Kant's
>>thought could ever justify Eichmann's actions, but because Eichmann seems to
>>have actually believed that he was acting in such a way.
>I doubt that Arendt would know irony, as distinguished from weary
>sarcasm or her trademark impotent indignation, if it jammed its
>probing appendage up her dried-up and wrinkled cunt. Moreover, to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I had thought that you were offering Arendt's
report of Eichmann to help further the philosophical debate. I see now
that you had no pretensions to philosophical, or polite, or even human
discourse. Why are you on this board then? If you don't have anything
better to do than spit sexist, sopomoric, anti-semetic bile, then I
cordially invite you to go away, and not trouble us.
>dare call evil banal would seem to require an extraordinary degree of
>moral obtuseness and even obliviousness.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It would seem that you lack the basic capacity for self-reflection.
>I submit that Baudelaire is
>a truer and harsher moralist than any boring, anomic Jewish bourgeois
>Nazi-fucker. As for the question of "us" being struck by Eichmann's
>attempt at self-vindication, I see it as no more amazing than the far
>greater carnage perpetrated by the soi-disant Christians throughout
>the past two millenia in the name of their creed. Are you prepared to
>judge religion and morality by the actions of their self-professed
>followers, or would you rather attempt a transcendental deduction of
>their intrinsic merits? Please justify your answer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I feel little need to justify myself to you, at this point. Since you
seem to need something to do with your time, however, you might look up
the Fallacy of Composition and the Genetic Fallacy.
>cordially,
^^^^^^^^^
Hardly.
>mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
KRESSJA
thread is being spun of alt.philosophy.misc, and someone decided to add
your groups to a followup. I don't think any of us noticed 'til someone
wrote us, because we were just doing followups, and, as this is a very old
thread, just didn't notice that extra groups has been slipped in.
-JK
Mikhail Zeleny
kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:
>In article <1993Aug13.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <12AUG199...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>
>>kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:
>>>Surely you must have gathered the irony with which Arendt treats the subject
>>>of Eichmann's "Kantianism." It is quite a striking instance of the larger
>>>phenomenon which she called the "banality of evil": Eichmann was so thick,
>>>so unable to grasp his own situation, that he could act as he did, commit the
>>>atrocities that he did--and at the same time think himself a moral man!
>>>Eichmann's claim to be a Kantian strikes us as amazing not because Kant's
>>>thought could ever justify Eichmann's actions, but because Eichmann seems to
>>>have actually believed that he was acting in such a way.
>>I doubt that Arendt would know irony, as distinguished from weary
>>sarcasm or her trademark impotent indignation, if it jammed its
>>probing appendage up her dried-up and wrinkled cunt. Moreover, to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I had thought that you were offering Arendt's
>report of Eichmann to help further the philosophical debate. I see now
>that you had no pretensions to philosophical, or polite, or even human
>discourse. Why are you on this board then? If you don't have anything
>better to do than spit sexist, sopomoric, anti-semetic bile, then I
>cordially invite you to go away, and not trouble us.
What philosophical debate? Do you truly have the naivety required to
dignify the borborygmic exchange of pleasantries between my esteemed
predecessors with that lofty appellation? Still, you are quite right,
-- I have absolutely no pretensions to any sort of "discourse".
Instead, I come here only to speak my mind, and, on occasion, to vent
my spleen. Should you choose to follow up my uncouth expression with
an effort of your own, I offer no guarantees to reply you in kind,
whatever it might be. As regards your charges, I plead guilty on all
counts: sexist and sophomoric and anti-semitic enough to be amused by
the unmitigated schlockiness and banality of an up and coming Jewish
philosophy student advancing her academic career in the traditional
fashion, by fucking her "Blood and Soil" proto-Nazi professor, or by
the unbridled presumption evinced by the same woman three decades
later, in assuming the high moral ground and publishing her scathing
condemnation of the banal, cowardly, and altogether scrofulous
victims, perpetrators, and bystanders in the greatest mass murder in
the human history, ever so nicely typeset on glossy paper, between
full-color advertisements of Steuben crystal, Tiffany jewels, and
Mercedes automobiles. Surely the redoubtable Miss Arendt had earned
the right to advance her career by the customary means; and if in the
midst of unprecedented pan-European carnage that claimed the lives of
twenty million men (including half of my immediate family), and
prompted a like number (including the rest of my kin), man and woman
alike, to take up arms against the oft-unwitting, yet exceedingly
enthusiastic followers of Herr Rektor's snazzy philosophical doctrine,
our intrepid heroine chose to sit out the hostilities in the cushy
haven of the American academe, no one should construe her reticence to
risk her own hide as abridging her subsequent right to decry from her
tony tribune the shameful shortcomings of her contemporaries on both
sides of the great conflict. Mea culpa.
>>dare call evil banal would seem to require an extraordinary degree of
>>moral obtuseness and even obliviousness.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>It would seem that you lack the basic capacity for self-reflection.
Fer sure, whatever you say, bubba.
>>I submit that Baudelaire is
>>a truer and harsher moralist than any boring, anomic Jewish bourgeois
>>Nazi-fucker. As for the question of "us" being struck by Eichmann's
>>attempt at self-vindication, I see it as no more amazing than the far
>>greater carnage perpetrated by the soi-disant Christians throughout
>>the past two millenia in the name of their creed. Are you prepared to
>>judge religion and morality by the actions of their self-professed
>>followers, or would you rather attempt a transcendental deduction of
>>their intrinsic merits? Please justify your answer.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I feel little need to justify myself to you, at this point.
Please do not flatter yourself by presuming that I stand in need of
your self-justification.
> Since you
>seem to need something to do with your time, however, you might look up
>the Fallacy of Composition and the Genetic Fallacy.
I might do just that, but for the fact that neither of the above is
instantiated in anything that has been said earlier.
>>cordially,
> ^^^^^^^^^
>Hardly.
You are mistaken.
Richard Wilson
>sarcasm or her trademark impotent indignation, if it jammed its
>probing appendage up her dried-up and wrinkled cunt. Moreover, to
>dare call evil banal would seem to require an extraordinary degree of
>moral obtuseness and even obliviousness. I submit that Baudelaire is
>a truer and harsher moralist than any boring, anomic Jewish bourgeois
>Nazi-fucker. As for the question of "us" being struck by Eichmann's
>attempt at self-vindication, I see it as no more amazing than the far
>greater carnage perpetrated by the soi-disant Christians throughout
>the past two millenia in the name of their creed. Are you prepared to
>judge religion and morality by the actions of their self-professed
>followers, or would you rather attempt a transcendental deduction of
>their intrinsic merits? Please justify your answer.
Please refrain from posting this crap to sci.philosophy.tech.
Richard Wilson
>
>>sarcasm or her trademark impotent indignation, if it jammed its
>>probing appendage up her dried-up and wrinkled cunt. Moreover, to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I had thought that you were offering Arendt's
>report of Eichmann to help further the philosophical debate. I see now
>that you had no pretensions to philosophical, or polite, or even human
>discourse. Why are you on this board then? If you don't have anything
>cordially invite you to go away, and not trouble us.
Here, here (and not cordially). Why is zeleny firing off this offensive junk
to so many groups anyway?
Mikhail Zeleny
(Richard Wilson) expresses his sincere concern:
>Why is zeleny firing off this offensive junk to so many groups anyway?
Uh, I dunno... could it be because he is replying to widely
crossposted articles, with no way of determining the origin
of each particular nitwit?
James A. Donald
Zeleny is quite funny, and mostly the people he flames
thoroughly deserve it.
Furthermore much philosophy is pure 100% sophomoric garbage,
and deserves no better dismissal.
Zeleny lowers a falsely pretentious debate to its true level.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| We have the right to defend ourselves and our
James A. Donald | property, because of the kind of animals that we
| are. True law derives from this right, not from
jame...@infoserv.com | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Droo the Ponderer
>Richard Wilson (Wil...@LILHD.Logica.com) wrote:
>> Here, here (and not cordially). Why is zeleny firing off this offensive junk
>> to so many groups anyway?
>
>Zeleny is quite funny,
Not by any standard I've seen. Tiresome, nigh onto incoherent, and yes,
offensive (IMO).
Peeve: People who equate offense with humor. Is it still funny when it's
told on your parent? Is it, for that matter, still funny when it's told
on you?
>Furthermore much philosophy is pure 100% sophomoric garbage,
>and deserves no better dismissal.
Hmph. Philosophy is certainly Sturgeoned, but then so is everything
else. I see no reason to assume that philosophy doesn't have its shining
10%, however. Zeleny, for the record, is not it.
>Zeleny lowers a falsely pretentious debate to its true level.
Offense for the sake of offense? Why, if I'd known that I could have
breezed through my freshman philosophy class -- I'd've just cussed out
the prof every chance I got and she'd have given me an A, no question.
Peeve/Suggestion: If you think a debate is "falsely pretentious", just
don't participate. By jumping in with intentionally offensive phrases,
Zeleny removes any claims he had about the quality of the discussion --
he has just joined in.
Besides, Zeleny is dull. Alt.peeves could take him on in thirty seconds
without breaking a sweat any day. We'd let Banta loosen him up, Dac
distract him, and then Not_Al and Charless could move in for the kill.
Ah, if only Hemingway could have lived to have seen it.
--
Andrew Hackard UT wouldn't be caught dead with opinions like this.
"...Usenet, a service that the Internet carries, much as the phone
system carries Dial-a-Dirty-Joke." -- Unca Cece, "The Straight Dope"
J Henderson
Maybe UT has something to recommend it, after all?
--
jeremy henderson jer...@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk
edinburgh university tel +44 (0)31 650 5886 (office)
department of geology and geophysics +44 (0)31 228 1536 (home)
edinburgh eh9 3jw uk fax +44 (0)31 668 3184
Hardy Hulley
: M. Zeleny wrote:
: >
: >I doubt that Arendt would know irony, as distinguished from weary
Hmmm...I've been following this debate with tremendous interest, and I
think Mr Zeleny's contribution provides a welcome alternative to the usual
humdrum articles posted to this group. Furthermore (and I sense that it's
probably quite unfashionable to admit this), I think Mr Zeleny has made a
number of very good points throughout the debate (like the one in the
paragraph quoted above). Unfortunately, his opponents have mostly neglected
to address these points, and have chosen instead to attack his...(ummm)...
floral...style of writing (personally, I find his style of writing most
entertaining).
I'm somewhat perplexed by the strength of the anti-Zeleny sentiment displayed
in this group. Is it because of his tendency to make worm-bait of his
opponents?
Hardy
Gary Bourque
The reason Zeleny write the things he does is he wants attention. I've seen his
kind before. They have a completely childish set of motivations. He's like a brat
that cries louder and harder when his mother tells hime to stop. Any kind of
attention is positive reinforcement. (Unfortunately, this one too.)
Ignore him completely and he'll go away.
--Gary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
242 lbs before cooking
>Besides, Zeleny is dull.
Agreed.
>We'd let Banta loosen him up,
Pardon? The only "loosening up" I'm prepared to do, at your beckon,
is on your mother's portal of ecstacy, for I fear I might cripple
your sister, trying.
Please, Droo, in the future, endeavor not to pick fights for me.
Zeleny's sense of self-importance is strong, but it's impossible to
battle a stench.
drew
ba...@abingdon.sun.com DoD #0961
--
"How do you get a British car to stop leaking oil? Simple. Drain out
all the oil and drive the car around the block. This will teach the
engine what happens when the oil leaks out, and it will henceforth make
every effort to hold it in." --Charlie Rockwell, Rockwell Motor Sports
A. Jing Hippy
|>
|> Hmmm...I've been following this debate with tremendous interest, and I
|> think Mr Zeleny's contribution provides a welcome alternative to the usual
|> humdrum articles posted to this group.
Really? Which of the *7* groups in the Newsgroups line are you referring to?
|> I'm somewhat perplexed by the strength of the anti-Zeleny sentiment displayed
|> in this group. Is it because of his tendency to make worm-bait of his
|> opponents?
Nah, it's more the tendency toward meandering into alt.peeves and
awakening the sleeping trolls who, when well fed, are relatively harmless.
They *do* tend to go after easy prey just for sport, though, and this
particularly prey is lame, diseased, and pretty pig-ignorant.
As a cure for perplexedness, I suggest removing alt.peeves from all future
posts in this thread.
+------------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC |
|coc...@dg-rtp.dg.com |
+------------------------------------------------------+
|"Fine!" -- Name withheld |
+------------------------------------------------------+
242 lbs before cooking
>Besides, Zeleny is dull.
Agreed.
>We'd let Banta loosen him up,
Pardon? The only "loosening up" I'm prepared to do, at your beckon,
William VanHorne
>As a cure for perplexedness, I suggest removing alt.peeves from all future
>posts in this thread.
Ok, consider it done.
---Bill VanHorne
Charles Parr
>jam...@netcom.com (James A. Donald) writes:
>>Richard Wilson (Wil...@LILHD.Logica.com) wrote:
>
>>> Here, here (and not cordially). Why is zeleny firing off this offensive junk
>>> to so many groups anyway?
>>
>>Zeleny is quite funny,
>
>Not by any standard I've seen. Tiresome, nigh onto incoherent, and yes,
>offensive (IMO).
>
>Peeve: People who equate offense with humor. Is it still funny when it's
>told on your parent? Is it, for that matter, still funny when it's told
>on you?
Nope, but it's frigging hilarious when it's perpetrated all over
that self satisfied smirk you have plastered upon your face.
Zeleny is quite obviously an asshole, but he's *my* kind of
asshole, and that makes all the difference.
So, in short, if you can't match his skillful use of invective,
his masterful approach to vitriol, and his apparant deep
knowledge of the subject at hand, then shut up.
>Besides, Zeleny is dull. Alt.peeves could take him on in thirty seconds
>without breaking a sweat any day. We'd let Banta loosen him up, Dac
>distract him, and then Not_Al and Charless could move in for the kill.
I think not, my fine little dove...Banta can certainly match him,
on a good day. Perhaps Curtis. Probably Tim Mefford. In honesty,
though, I'd have to say Zeleny is the baddest hombre ever to
stride into peevton.
This is not adulation or fawning, BTW...I want Zeleny to stick
around. He entertains me...He is, in this, quite distinct from
the bland horde of insipid cowards who have rallied to the
battle cry 'CENSORSHIP'.
>Ah, if only Hemingway could have lived to have seen it.
Oh nonsense. Hemingway was an author, as a peever he would
have been a dismal failure. I refer you to W C Fields,
and of course the eternal Miss Parker.
Regards, Charles
--
Within the span of the last few weeks I have heard elements of
separate threads which, in that they have been conjoined in time,
struck together to form a new chord within my hollow and echoing
gourd. --Unknown net.person