Structure for Humans
Brother Cadfael
For those who are much more wise than I, this is going to be a "Yeah, I
already knew that-- so what?" post:
I was reading a book by J. Michael Farr about changing careers. In the
process of reading it, I began to wonder what is so special about _his_
book compared to the other hundreds of career and job search books.
That's when I realized-- there is no difference.
Almost any book will work, as long as they have the general goal of
acquiring a decent career or career move. What helps people succeed is
the _structure_. The planning and the following of certain career-
search principals and methods.
And it hit me. More than a need to know that there is "meaning to
life", religion gives people _structure_. Nearly all religions do this-
- even Scientology and Marshall Applewhite's Heaven's Gate lunatics.
Regardless of their beliefs, they all subscribe to a set method of
living.
Humans seem to crave a skeleton on which to build their life. Even if
the methods and structure followed are not intrinsically productive (the
Rosary and Hail Mary's in Catholicism or the daily dropping to the knees
and praying of the Moore's); they provide ritualistic comfort by which
to measure one's self.
It makes sense to me, in some manner. People who build a plan and
structure for searching out wonderful jobs (scheduling routine interview
time, researching on the company they're interested in, designing their
resume's and business cards, updating information, submitting resume's,
making cold calls, mapping contacts, etc...) seem to accomplish more
than those who look in the classifieds for ten minutes and simply walk
in without preparation.
At the moment, I find this fascinating. People seem drawn to some form
of structure, even if it is not the typical structure. It isn't that
they want acceptance, but they want guidance. Dinner every night _at_
5:00pm, or being in bed before 10:00pm, watching a particular television
show without fail. They want to know what the next step is, instead of
taking it blindly and they want to be comfortable in knowing tomorrow
will be just like to today.
I, on the other hand, can not stand structure. I like to sleep when I'm
tired and no other time (going to bed at 10:00pm one day, and 10:00am
the next). I enjoy working when I'm inspired-- not from 8:00 to 5:00
just because it's what everyone else does for a routine. I like a
constantly changing set of parameters in my life. In some ways, I'm
certain I still cling to structures.
If anyone has anything at all to add, I'd _love_ to read it. I'm really
curious what other viewpoints and observations are about this. Can you
think of any other forms of structure that people are drawn to? But
like I said, those wiser than I am have likely taken this for granted--
but I've never found the correlation between structure in life and the
adaptation to religion for the same reasons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brother...@earthcorp.com | Boycott Jenny Jones
http://home.fia.net/~cadfael/ | http://home.fia.net/~cadfael/jennyjones/
urisk
(Brother...@earthcorp.com) Brother Cadfael enlightened us with:
> I, on the other hand, can not stand structure. I like to sleep when I'm
> tired and no other time (going to bed at 10:00pm one day, and 10:00am
> the next). I enjoy working when I'm inspired-- not from 8:00 to 5:00
> just because it's what everyone else does for a routine. I like a
> constantly changing set of parameters in my life. In some ways, I'm
> certain I still cling to structures.
That describes me pretty dam well, too. Hence the term chaos.control
-I feel a need for chaos in my life. I see structure as stagnation.
Yet it has also been very disruptive in my life. I've been trying
for a long time to create a sort of psychological control center for
it all, to keep it in check. It's still very much under
construction...
> If anyone has anything at all to add, I'd _love_ to read it. I'm really
> curious what other viewpoints and observations are about this. Can you
> think of any other forms of structure that people are drawn to? But
> like I said, those wiser than I am have likely taken this for granted--
> but I've never found the correlation between structure in life and the
> adaptation to religion for the same reasons.
When I look at our society, almost everything seems like structure
to me. The way people work, the way the relax, the way the eat, and
sleep. And worst of all, the way they think. Have you considered the
vast network of pavement that spans this country? The way they
follow this thing called tradition like it's god's book of laws? The
way they respond when two groups have different structures, and
they are "forced" to co-exist? They tear everything apart for their
precious structure.
I think religion may just be an excuse for them to think their
structures are set in stone...
--
~^v^~ ::: Urisk ::: ~^v^~
~^v^~< MailTo:jab...@vgernet.net >~^v^~
c h a o s . c o n t r o l
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/4997/
Brother Cadfael
urisk <chaosc...@mailexcite.com> wrote:
|When I look at our society, almost everything seems like structure
|to me. The way people work, the way the relax, the way the eat, and
|sleep. And worst of all, the way they think. Have you considered the
|vast network of pavement that spans this country? The way they
|follow this thing called tradition like it's god's book of laws? The
|way they respond when two groups have different structures, and
|they are "forced" to co-exist? They tear everything apart for their
|precious structure.
That's exactly what I've been thinking. You see people _all_ go to work
at the same time. All eating the same fast breakfasts in their cars,
all working the same hours, no one sure why, but they do it anyone. 100
years ago, they wouldn't work 9:00 to 5:00. They'd work until they had
enough food. They'd hunt and they'd till soil. Now we don't do things
for ourselves, we do things for other people to afford to pay other
people to do things and produce things that we need because we don't
produce them for ourselves.
Some magazine (GQ?) put a 'mountain man' on the cover of their magazine
this month. He was a nice looking gentleman who was very educated. He
finally walked away from society and built a log cabin in the woods. He
hunts for food, makes his own _everything_. Can's food, grows food,
fishes, studies, reads, writes... He teaches school-kids about the out-
doors during the summer. He makes money by offering them the lessons
and 'camp' and that is how he survives. His life may not be easier than
the one we drones live, but he has a direct impact and connection to his
survival. We are so disconnected. We pay someone else to grow and kill
our good. To sew our clothes.. which is all good-- saves us from having
to do it. But to afford it, we have to sell 8 hours of our life every
day. If you add travel and all to it, you sell half of your day/life to
the structure.
That's why I can't imagine doing anything in my life _except_ be self
employed (Well, that and the fact that my body odor would drive my co-
workers nuts!-- kidding).
|I think religion may just be an excuse for them to think their
|structures are set in stone...
Exactly. As Alvin Toffler said, social groups, structures, and sub-
cultures serve the purpose of pre-defined thought and judgement.
Because you adhere to their general philosophies and stances, you grow
to follow what they decide-- as it releases you from investing time,
thought, interest. Christianity is _very_ much like this, as are most
other religions and pseudo-religious groups.
XloreleiX
Chaoscontrol wrote:>(Brother...@earthcorp.com) Brother Cadfael enlightened
us with:
>> I, on the other hand, can not stand structure. I like to sleep when I'm
>> tired and no other time (going to bed at 10:00pm one day, and 10:00am
>> the next). I enjoy working when I'm inspired-- not from 8:00 to 5:00
>> just because it's what everyone else does for a routine. I like a
>> constantly changing set of parameters in my life. In some ways, I'm
>> certain I still cling to structures.
>
>That describes me pretty dam well, too. Hence the term chaos.control
>-I feel a need for chaos in my life. I see structure as stagnation.
>Yet it has also been very disruptive in my life. I've been trying
>for a long time to create a sort of psychological control center for
>it all, to keep it in check. It's still very much under
>construction...
I have a similar lifestyle...I go to school in the evening and work
graveyards(when I'm feeling up to it), so my schedule is not as open to whim as
I would like it to be, but it's still not a "normal" schedule by any means.
Maybe it's a right-brain thing? I cringe at the thought of ever having to keep
a "regular," 9-to-5 job. I love going to the grocery store at 6 am and not
having to wait in line. I love driving to work when there's no traffic.
But there is a downside--I often sleep all day, so if I ever need to make an
appointment of some sort, I have to sacrifice a few hours of sleep. Friends and
family get annoyed that I don't answer the phone during the day, even though
they *know* I sleep then, and have done so for several years. And heaven forbid
I would play loud music at 4 am, although it's completely acceptable for my
upstairs neighbor to do so during the day.
>When I look at our society, almost everything seems like structure
>to me. The way people work, the way the relax, the way the eat, and
>sleep. And worst of all, the way they think.
(snip)
People in general (I don't like to use the word "society," but that's a
different thread altogether) are sheeplike. They follow structure because
they've never thought about *why* they do so, and simply accept it as the way
things *are*. As someone surrounded by very old-school, conservative,
lunch-at-noon-dinner-at-six types, I consider myself much like a preprogrammed
robot that developed a mind of its own. The only way to resist structure is to
avoid compromise. I admit that I, too, am forced to follow structure more often
than I'd like to admit, but I hope to one day procure my own island where I can
live in some *semblance* of real freedom. :)
X Lorelei X
"206 bones, 50 miles of small intestine, full,
pouting lips. Why, this fellow is less a
snowman than a god."--J. Montgomery Burns
TSM
In article <MPG.f61111a4...@news.ipns.com>,
Brother...@earthcorp.com wrote:
> For those who are much more wise than I, this is going to be a "Yeah, I
> already knew that-- so what?" post:
Here's a tip,
if you've already gone and made a negative
observation about yourself,
odds are that other people are going to see it
twice as fast.
With this in mind. . .
>I began to wonder what is so special about _his_
> book compared to the other hundreds of career and job search books.
> That's when I realized-- there is no difference.
Duh.
> Almost any book will work, as long as they have the general goal of
> acquiring a decent career or career move. What helps people succeed is
> the _structure_. The planning and the following of certain career-
> search principals and methods.
Close, but not really.
Books like that are -supposed- to be like College in a dust jacket.
What information college actually teaches you may or may not
be of any use whatsoever in your eventual career.
Like college, it's supposed to give you some bearings in a though-process
more than an actual list of steps.
At least I would assume so,
I frequently give people far more credit
than they deserve despite my best efforts [1].
The structure you're talking about isn't so much stucture for the
sake of structure itself,
but more a particular scheme set down by one person that worked for them.
Of course this concept seldom works twice since
given situations are seldom anything other than similar
on the most superficial levels,
and individuals -never- are simply based on the definition of the word.
> And it hit me. More than a need to know that there is "meaning to
> life", religion gives people _structure_.
DUH.
> Humans seem to crave a skeleton on which to build their life. Even if
> the methods and structure followed are not intrinsically productive (the
> Rosary and Hail Mary's in Catholicism or the daily dropping to the knees
> and praying of the Moore's); they provide ritualistic comfort by which
> to measure one's self.
DUUUUUUUH.
<stuff>
> seem to accomplish more
> than those who look in the classifieds for ten minutes and simply walk
> in without preparation.
Discussion of structure aside,
if you walk into an interview without any kind of preparation whatsoever,
you are -prizewinningly- stupid.
That's not so much of a structure as it is an infusion of common-sense.
This probably ought to give you an idea of whom
this book was written for.
> At the moment, I find this fascinating. People seem drawn to some form
> of structure, even if it is not the typical structure. It isn't that
> they want acceptance, but they want guidance. Dinner every night _at_
> 5:00pm, or being in bed before 10:00pm, watching a particular television
> show without fail. They want to know what the next step is, instead of
> taking it blindly and they want to be comfortable in knowing tomorrow
> will be just like to today.
DUUUUUUH DUUUUUUUH DUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!
MOTHERFUCKING DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!!
> I, on the other hand, can not stand structure.
Welcome to alt.gothic, here's your tourniquet.
> If anyone has anything at all to add, I'd _love_ to read it.
Well isn't this just your lucky day?
> Can you think of any other forms of structure that people are drawn to?
Um. . .this?
As much as we all like to say we hate normalness,
structure,
the nine-to-five routine,
this isn't real different.
We get on line,
we write stupid email and hope to get responses from
our same old friends.
Do you or do you not manage to set aside a chunk of
AG time -everyday?- or at least -most days.-
> But like I said, those wiser than I am have likely taken this for granted--
I'm not sure wise is the right word,
I stumbled upon this when I was thirteen and
subsequently refused to accompany my mother to church.
This had more to do with the fact that Church
forced me to get up early on a weekend,
but for the purpose of this letter, just belive my self-serving little lie.
> but I've never found the correlation between structure in life and the
> adaptation to religion for the same reasons.
Most people you will find,
have no more initiative than a stone at rest.
If you have The Learning Channel,
you might have seen some of those documentaries on the human animal.
Some of the best footage on there is of people refusing to
deviate from what everyone else is doing until
someone "breaks spades," at which point everyone else falls into line.
My favorite was the tape of the line of people
in the convenience store.
Some clod comes in and sets a fire in one of the displays
to the end of stealing something while the clerk is distracted.
A guy in line actually -sees- said fire,
but says nothing because he's the only one who's noticed it.
As a result of this, the fire gets out of hand and the store burns down.
I think everyone in the world needs to see that at least
once and then ask themselves the question,
"Why are deviants so awful?"
--TSM
[1] You may choose to bristle at this letter,
I admit that I am somewhat curt.
But, bear in mind that I was previously advised to
kill-file your ass on the basis that "you are a moron."
This letter represents more of a chance than I give
most people in your situation.
Am I asking you to be flattered?
No.
I am just giving you the facts.[2]
[2] Check to SBWE is in the mail.
=Kiss Kiss Bang Bang=
If you can't figure out what to take out of my addy
to actually write to me, I probably don't want to hear from you.
TSM
In article <MPG.f61a46f9...@news.vgernet.net>,
jab...@vgernet.net wrote:
> That describes me pretty dam well, too. Hence the term chaos.control
> -I feel a need for chaos in my life. I see structure as stagnation.
> Yet it has also been very disruptive in my life. I've been trying
> for a long time to create a sort of psychological control center for
> it all, to keep it in check. It's still very much under
> construction...
How very profound.
Tell me, trailblazer,
how does this dogma jive with that
job I know you have down at Cin-a-Bonn?
That warranty on your spine still good?
--TSM
Brother Cadfael
TSM <oldven...@geocities.com> wrote:
| But, bear in mind that I was previously advised to
| kill-file your ass on the basis that "you are a moron."
| This letter represents more of a chance than I give
| most people in your situation.
What do you want for thinking for yourself, a medal?
TSM
In article <MPG.f628a643...@news.ipns.com>,
Brother...@earthcorp.com wrote:
<TSM <oldven...@geocities.com> wrote:
<
<| But, bear in mind that I was previously advised to
<| kill-file your ass on the basis that "you are a moron."
<| This letter represents more of a chance than I give
<| most people in your situation.
<
<What do you want for thinking for yourself, a medal?
I seldom want anything,
I generally expect less,
I always get it.
Congratualtions, cumstain,
you just officially wandered onto my bad side.
--TSM
~twilight~
Brother Cadfael wrote:
*snip*
> I, on the other hand, can not stand structure. I like to sleep when I'm
> tired and no other time (going to bed at 10:00pm one day, and 10:00am
> the next). I enjoy working when I'm inspired-- not from 8:00 to 5:00
> just because it's what everyone else does for a routine. I like a
> constantly changing set of parameters in my life. In some ways, I'm
> certain I still cling to structures.
If I may ask, what sort of job allows you this
freedom of when to sleep? I ask because my
natural sleeping pattern, which I have to go
against, which in turn makes me physically ill
often, is at times which go against when standard
jobs (which start between 6-10 in the morning)
allow me... If this is something that you don't
want to publicly post, feel free to email me.
~twilight~ (little t, needing to go to bed
soon...)
~twilight~
TSM wrote:
*snip*
Thought I *really* like the story at the end,
about the fire and all, I think that you have some
emotional problems.
~twilight~
TSM wrote:
*snnip*
> Congratualtions, cumstain,
> you just officially wandered onto my bad side.
>
> --TSM
*Snicker* Don't worry, Caddy Bro...maybe his
attitude will change once he realises that Phish
rules his life, and accepts this. ;>
~twilight~ (little t, noticing how well fed the
trolls have been lately)
TSM
What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
In article <34F97D8A...@extremezone.com>, twil...@extremezone.com wrote:
< *Snicker* Don't worry, Caddy Bro...maybe his
< attitude will change once he realises that Phish
< rules his life, and accepts this. ;>
You don't get out much, do you?
Originally,
I thought you might have been Twilight,
as in "Twi," who posted here a few years back,
when I was here,
A FEW YEARS BACK,
that is.
I like Twi better.
I can safely say she's a far better judge
of character than you are.
If you hang around people like Cadfael,
it'll get you nothing but trouble.
< ~twilight~ (little t, noticing how well fed the
< trolls have been lately)
Take a look at the AGSF TrollFAQ,
you'll see my name right up top in the
list of contributors.
--TSM
PS, RTFM.
Charlotte Ashley
Brother Cadfael (Brother...@earthcorp.com) writes:
> TSM <oldven...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> | But, bear in mind that I was previously advised to
> | kill-file your ass on the basis that "you are a moron."
> | This letter represents more of a chance than I give
> | most people in your situation.
>
> What do you want for thinking for yourself, a medal?
I'm pretty sure the man has a trophy case...
LEanan Sidhe (no metal for you, but I will now give you yer grade school
deploma- thr last week's posts have proven to me you've finally passed
grade five. Cheerio)
--
Mysterious are thy laws; http://www.interlog.com/~converg4
The vision's finer then the view;
Her landscape nature never drew
So Fair as Fancy draws.
Charlotte Ashley
~twilight~ (twil...@extremezone.com) writes:
> TSM wrote:
> *snnip*
>> Congratualtions, cumstain,
>> you just officially wandered onto my bad side.
>>
>> --TSM
>
> *Snicker* Don't worry, Caddy Bro...maybe his
> attitude will change once he realises that Phish
> rules his life, and accepts this. ;>
>
> ~twilight~ (little t, noticing how well fed the
> trolls have been lately)
*pause*
*reread*
*pause*
*REread*
if brocad = troll, then twilight = yes
elseif then twilight = uhoh
end if
leanan sidhe = watching carfully
-eloquence-
twil...@extremezone.com wrote:
> *Snicker* Don't worry, Caddy Bro...maybe his
> attitude will change once he realises that Phish
> rules his life, and accepts this. ;>
Okay. So here's the deal. You seriously pissed me off
at first, when you INSISTED upon using Twi's nick, when she
had already been here forever and a day. But I didn't say
anything, although it got confusing.
But here, you little skank, you have seriously crossed
the line. You have NO FUCKING CLUE who you are attempting to
flame. Will has an amazing wit and will fry your little ass
before you can recite the words to "This Corrosion". He's one
of the people that you RESPECT on a.g. And if you don't, you'll
get your fucking little whorish ass flamed to hell and back.
So basically, shut the fuck up and lurk. Don't post
shite that you can't begin to comprehend. To rip on Will's
posts, however angry they are, is to doom yourself to a life
on a.g. of nothingness.
Please don't tell me that you thought that he was a TROLL.
-eloquence-
(who usually isn't such a snotty bee-zatch like this, but JEEZ!)
http://www.inxpress.net/~squee/
"i love your hate/your hate makes me grow
i'm your tool/and you're my toy"
-project pitchfork
-eloquence-
> | most people in your situation.
No, no, you really don't understand here. Go play in
Dejanews for a while. You'll notice a pink fuzzy chainsaw.
He has a sharper wit than thou, BroCad...
-eloquence-
Bradley W Zimmerman
~twilight~@extremezone.c
> TSM wrote:
> *snnip*
> > Congratualtions, cumstain,
> > you just officially wandered onto my bad side.
> >
> > --TSM
>
> *Snicker* Don't worry, Caddy Bro...maybe his
> attitude will change once he realises that Phish
> rules his life, and accepts this. ;>
>
> ~twilight~ (little t, noticing how well fed the
> trolls have been lately)
HAH AHHA HAHHAHHAHHAH AH AHA HAHHAHA !!!!!!
no, REALLY....
The Raphrat
http://theratsnest.res.cmu.edu
School of Art, Carnegie Mellon University
"I'm a Steelworker.... I kill what i eat"
BlackIce
In article <19980228140...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
xlor...@aol.com (XloreleiX) wrote about her uncommon hours, then
continued:
€People in general (I don't like to use the word "society," but that's a
€different thread altogether) are sheeplike. They follow structure because
€they've never thought about *why* they do so, and simply accept it as the way
€things *are*. As someone surrounded by very old-school, conservative,
€lunch-at-noon-dinner-at-six types, I consider myself much like a preprogrammed
€robot that developed a mind of its own. The only way to resist structure is to
€avoid compromise. I admit that I, too, am forced to follow structure more often
€than I'd like to admit, but I hope to one day procure my own island where I can
€live in some *semblance* of real freedom. :)
Sorry, but there are other better reasons to accept certain amounts of
structure. Namely, that some people have better things to think about.
If everything I ever did were lacking in structure, I'd spend all my time
thinking about annoying things like whether I should get out of bed or
not, or wondering how much I had in my checking account and then realizing
that it didn't matter anyway because I'd misplaced both the check book and
cash card. I would not have time to think about philosophy or reading
a.g. or archaeology; then again, there wouldn't be any point thinking
about those things without any structure anyway.
Certainly there are specific structures that are irritating and to be
avoided, but that hardly means that structure is evil per se.
#####################
me (contemplating a person lacking in skeletal structure as an example... squishy)
~twilight~
TSM wrote:
>
> What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
What I read was something that appeared to be
posted purely for the effect of being bitchy to
someone. I saw nothing in Cadfael's post that
appeared to be so, uh, inspirational of the
response that it recieved. I don't know BC very
well, but if he's done something to deserve that
kind of hatred, it hasn't been in any threads that
I've read. If I see someone being picked on,
whether online or IRL, and don't see anyone else
jumping to their defense, then I do. 9 times out
of 10 the person being picked on hasn't done
anything to deserve it. The comment about Phish
was a reference to the troll
"bigph...@yahoo.com". As for seeing your name
in the cred. for the FAQ, I read FAQs, I memorize
all of the important info, and then I move on with
my life. I don't memorize them verbatim. As for
me being a newbie, I've been posting here since
August '97. That qualifies me as being one of the
newer people on here, but it's not like I just
delurked yesterday. My ability to judge character
is just fine, and your post bore the semblance of
someone who may or may not be an arrogant and
presumptious bastard, who is really fucking harsh
and judgemental. You know, the type of person who
just assumes that everyone else is a dipshit, and
then goes and treats them accordingly. The type
of person that doesn't give anyone the benefit of
the doubt, who sees someone being picked on, and
immediately thinks something like, "Hey, that
person must be a living piece of shit who did
something to deserve this. If S/he didn't do
something to deserve it, s/he probably will
someday."
That was, of course, only a first impression.
<Smirk>
~twilight~ (little t, who doesn't give a flying
fuck about getting flamed for this)
TSM
In article <squee-01039...@f181-194.net.wisc.edu>,
sq...@inxpress.net (-eloquence-) wrote:
> So basically, shut the fuck up and lurk. Don't post
> shite that you can't begin to comprehend. To rip on Will's
> posts, however angry they are, is to doom yourself to a life
> on a.g. of nothingness.
GODdamn.
Would you like a nacho with that?
It helps to cut the heat. . .
> -eloquence-
> (who usually isn't such a snotty bee-zatch like this, but JEEZ!)
You claiming to be demure carries about
as much weight as Roxie describing herself as "delicate."
As it stands,
I'm not real worried clueless net.feeb #591
getting in my shit about anything.
If it continues. . .
Well, we all remember what Johnny Storm said.
--TSM
--
~twilight~
-eloquence- wrote:
> So basically, shut the fuck up and lurk. Don't post
> shite that you can't begin to comprehend. To rip on Will's
> posts, however angry they are, is to doom yourself to a life
> on a.g. of nothingness.
Lemme see...I *already* get treated like shit by
many people on here, so this threat is supposed to
scare me? You don't like my posts, I'll just
repeat the same thing that I keep repeating.
Killfile me. It will save us both time and
energy. You get pissed at me for making an
assumption about someone, whom I *thought* was
just trying to pick a fight with BC. I had no
other background information, and this was not out
of an idiotic ignorance, but out of the fact that
I *haven't* been here for forever and a week.
You've made waaaaaay more fucking assumptions
about me than I have ever made about anybody here.
> Please don't tell me that you thought that he was a TROLL.
Yes, I *did* think that, which is why I reacted
like I did. Had I known otherwise, I would have
reacted differently.
~twilight~ (little t, who would have apologized,
but not *after* being attacked...)
BlackIce
In article <19980302025...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
xlor...@aol.com (XloreleiX) wrote:
€I took the original post to be about societal-imposed structures that go
€against natural habits. "Structure" is a vague word and I never said that *all*
€structure, of any kind, is bad. It's obviously inherent in anyone's life--it's
€the increasing, inescapable rigidity of American culture and the fact that much
€of it goes against human behavioural patterns that I resist.
Do you think that rigidity is increasing? How? Why? My impression is
that it's decreasing if anything...but I suppose this is just a matter of
personal experience. What do you think goes "against human behaviural
patterns"? If people do it, doesn't that make it a human behavioral
pattern?
####################
me
Pariah
TSM wrote in message ...
>In article <squee-01039...@f181-194.net.wisc.edu>,
> Well, we all remember what Johnny Storm said.
"Dammit, Ben! Get off my woman!"?
"Thing" indeed...
"Devil Bunnies!...
I snort the nose, Lucifer!...
Banana! Banana!"
-=Pariah=-
wendolen
<snip>
: So basically, shut the fuck up and lurk. Don't post
: shite that you can't begin to comprehend. To rip on Will's
: posts, however angry they are, is to doom yourself to a life
: on a.g. of nothingness.
:
: Please don't tell me that you thought that he was a TROLL.
I THINK she was insinuating that BC is no better than a troll, actually...
W, who does tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when they don't
deserve it...
--
ICQ: 4808875 -^*^- WWW: www.nwlink.com/~wendolen
"Any girl can be glamourous. All you have to do is stand still and
look stupid."
- Hedy Lamarr
Bradley W Zimmerman
~twilight~@extremezone.c
> > Please don't tell me that you thought that he was a TROLL.
>
> Yes, I *did* think that, which is why I reacted
> like I did. Had I known otherwise, I would have
> reacted differently.
>
> ~twilight~ (little t, who would have apologized,
> but not *after* being attacked...)
it seems rather strange to
me that after being here for
7 months you NEVER saw any of his posts,
saw any piece of classic a.g.Official
Material with his name on it, _OR_
noticed people referencing him on a
weekly basis in various threads....
it basically shows that you know VERY
LITTLE about this newsgroup, and have NO
ground to ground to get uppity with people.
it's about 3 steps lower on the level of
a.g. ignorance than not knowing who Sexbat
is....
you can't be this dense...
wait a minute, you just admitted you were....
nevermind...
wendolen
In article <34FA0FD2...@extremezone.com>, twil...@extremezone.com wrote:
: My ability to judge character is just fine, and
: your post bore the semblance of someone who may or
: may not be an arrogant and presumptious bastard,
: who is really fucking harsh and judgemental.
Well, that may or may not describe TSM -- but it does NOT, I'm afraid,
describe him completely. For instance, you left out "brilliant."
: You know, the type of person who just assumes that
: everyone else is a dipshit, and then goes and
: treats them accordingly.
No no no, now you're talking about BC again.
W, who did indeed give little t the undeserved benefit of the doubt.
~twilight~
Bradley W Zimmerman wrote:
> it seems rather strange to
> me that after being here for
> 7 months you NEVER saw any of his posts,
> saw any piece of classic a.g.Official
> Material with his name on it, _OR_
> noticed people referencing him on a
> weekly basis in various threads....
His handle is composed of initials. People
frequently refer to people by initials, or
shortened versions of names, or sometimes by real
life names in posts. Sometimes, when I see
initials, I just go oh well and continue on my
merry way. My lack of knowledge about his history
here is partly due to that, and partly due to the
fact that I'm not terribly good with names. Ask
Empty about how I am with names, if you think that
I'm trying to use some lame-ass excuse.
> it basically shows that you know VERY
> LITTLE about this newsgroup, and have NO
> ground to ground to get uppity with people.
> it's about 3 steps lower on the level of
> a.g. ignorance than not knowing who Sexbat
> is....
Sexbat has a very memorable name. I can remember
it by humming an old song by The Birthday Party
("Release the Bats"). I'll remember TSM now, but
I don't have some nifty memory device thing for
every name, which is why I forget.
> you can't be this dense...
>
> wait a minute, you just admitted you were....
> nevermind...
I'm not dense. Bad with remembering names, true,
but this has nothing to do with my cognitive
abilities.
~twilight~ (little t, who has no fucking idea why
you think that I'm getting "uppity", when I was
merely defending myself against being called a lot
of obscene things)
~twilight~
wendolen wrote:
>
> In article <34FA0FD2...@extremezone.com>, twil...@extremezone.com wrote:
>
> : My ability to judge character is just fine, and
> : may not be an arrogant and presumptious bastard,
> : who is really fucking harsh and judgemental.
>
> Well, that may or may not describe TSM -- but it does NOT, I'm afraid,
> describe him completely. For instance, you left out "brilliant."
No person can be described completely in only a
few words. <Shrug> I don't know TSM well enough
to venture a guess at his motives. I thought I
saw what I thought I saw...and that's why *I*
reacted the way that I did. That post was me
defending myself (ironically, I was defending
myself for writing a post defending somebody else
that posted a post like many others that don't get
flamed.) I haven't gone and pleaded with the
people that I know to jump to my rescue. I
haven't sat here and cried about being called mean
names. I'm not somebody who writes whiny "I live
where nobody appreciates my ability to match
shades of black..." type of posts. I'm not
somebody who typically gets into flame wars (minus
those directed against me), because I see most of
those as thinly veiled popularity games. I'm here
to have conversations, and have as much of a right
to be here as others do, despite what Elly thinks
about my "fucking little whorish ass." I know
that she has friends, but I'm not some simpering
little shit who just sits there and takes it when
people say unkind things, out of fear that they
*and* their friends might go and say even *more*
really mean things. People who have read my
replies to people who have flamed me know this.
> : You know, the type of person who just assumes that
> : everyone else is a dipshit, and then goes and
> : treats them accordingly.
>
> No no no, now you're talking about BC again.
Ok, right now I am talking about BC's post, just
to clarify. Nothing he may have said or done in
the past, or anything like that. I saw nothing in
that post that warranted the kind of flame that he
recieved.
> W, who did indeed give little t the undeserved benefit of the doubt.
That's because from what I can tell, you're a
nice person who doesn't suddenly jump to
conclusions that people are shitheads because of
simple miscommunication and/or misunderstanding
related things.
~twilight~ (little t, puzzled by all the hatred
directed toward her)
Brother Cadfael
~twilight~ <twil...@extremezone.com> wrote:
|If I may ask, what sort of job allows you this freedom of when to
|sleep?
No job that I currently have available to me. However, I did enjoy the
job I had about a year ago where I was alone in a massive office for
twelve hours at a time, three times per week. I sat by a telephone and
waited for people to call me about their medical problems (which didn't
happen often, since I started work at 10:00pm and that would make it
1:00am in Oklahoma, where the calls originated from.)
I'd often simply listen to talk-radio, watch television, talk on the
phone to friends, do some paper-work, or screw around on the Internet.
I'd even crash for a few hours on the conference-room table and crank
the phone's ringer to 'high'.
|If this is something that you don't want to publicly post
I would strongly suggest you find something you enjoy doing and see if
you can make a living out of it by doing it on your own. I enjoy
designing web-sites and teaching others about the wonders of the
Internet. So, I've built a little part-time business by teaching local
school-classes and small business-persons how to make the best use of
the world wide web. I hope to actually make a good living at it,
someday.
In the meantime, I'm stuck forcing myself into bed before 10:00pm (I
miss my Art Bell!) and getting up at a God awful time in the morning.
If I can find another job like my last, I'll take it. I *love* working
at night.
~twilight~
Brother Cadfael wrote:
>
> No job that I currently have available to me. However, I did enjoy
*snip*
Jobs like that are hard to find.
> I would strongly suggest you find something you enjoy doing and see if
> you can make a living out of it by doing it on your own. I enjoy
> designing web-sites and teaching others about the wonders of the
> Internet. So, I've built a little part-time business by teaching
*snip*
I've been trying, but the hours outside of when
I'm working my office job get in the way... Which
doesn't mean that I'm giving up, just that I
acknowledge that some things take longer than
others...
~twilight~ (little t, this post is not related to
a flame war)
TSM
In article <6dc735$r...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley) wrote:
> *pause*
>
> *reread*
<etc.>
> if brocad = troll, then twilight = yes
> elseif then twilight = uhoh
> end if
#piss
#vinegar
if
{
TSM==pissed_the_FUCK_off do
{flame++}
}
else
{TSM==live_and_let_live} // In other words,
// I give a flying fuck what a
// grossly underinformed newling says.
> leanan sidhe = watching carfully
What I know about C++ would fit on the head of a pin.
Can't you tell?
And please,
don't anyone come along and tell me
I incorrectly implemented my functions,
you got the damned joke, didn't you?
XloreleiX
BlackIce wrote:
>Sorry, but there are other better reasons to accept certain amounts of
>structure. Namely, that some people have better things to think about.
>
>If everything I ever did were lacking in structure, I'd spend all my time
>thinking about annoying things like whether I should get out of bed or
>not, or wondering how much I had in my checking account and then realizing
>that it didn't matter anyway because I'd misplaced both the check book and
>cash card.
Well, ideally I would like to live on my own island where checkbooks and cash
cards are nonexistant. Still working on it, I admit.
>I would not have time to think about philosophy or reading
>a.g. or archaeology; then again, there wouldn't be any point thinking
>about those things without any structure anyway.
I took the original post to be about societal-imposed structures that go
against natural habits. "Structure" is a vague word and I never said that *all*
structure, of any kind, is bad. It's obviously inherent in anyone's life--it's
the increasing, inescapable rigidity of American culture and the fact that much
of it goes against human behavioural patterns that I resist.
>Certainly there are specific structures that are irritating and to be
>avoided, but that hardly means that structure is evil per se.
True. It's the fact that it permeates life ever more that frightens me.
X Lorelei X
"206 bones, 50 miles of small intestine, full,
pouting lips. Why, this fellow is less a
snowman than a god."--J. Montgomery Burns
Sola
-eloquence- <sq...@inxpress.net> wrote:
> So basically, shut the fuck up and lurk. Don't post
> shite that you can't begin to comprehend. To rip on Will's
> posts, however angry they are, is to doom yourself to a life
> on a.g. of nothingness.
>
> Please don't tell me that you thought that he was a TROLL.
I mus' disagree, Elly. I thought her comment was a cute little
troll-jab.. certainly not worth all this hue and cry that has been
raised up against it. TSM is perfectly capable of proving himself
distinctly untrolllike (if there were ever any doubt, which, judging
again by her comment, i do not think there was, or if it were so,
negligable) within a post.
I'm searching for a sincere way to say that i find your willingness
to defend your friends beautiful but not strictly required at this time,
elly, but every paragraph i think of comes off sounding snobbish.
(including this one. ::rolls her eyes::) I guess you'll just have to
take my word for it. <s>
dreams of the City,
Sola
--
The popemobile | To protect the Pope
Is a real humdinger | As he travels about.
Designed for His Holiness | The people see in,
By Cardinal Ratzinger | But the Pope can't see out.
-eloquence-
twil...@extremezone.com wrote:
> scare me? You don't like my posts, I'll just
> repeat the same thing that I keep repeating.
> Killfile me.
Honey, I don't have a killfile. Not everyone does.
*pats the newbie on the head*
> You've made waaaaaay more fucking assumptions
> about me than I have ever made about anybody here.
No, I haven't. I had to wade through the Twilight
vs. ~twilight~ threads on both a.g. and a.g.f. You were
a twit then, you're a clueless wonder now.
Sola
Sola <bali...@mind.dolly.spring.com> wrote:
> -eloquence- <sq...@inxpress.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
> > Please don't tell me that you thought that he was a TROLL.
>
>
> I mus' disagree, Elly.
<snip>
I retract this post. After a short discussion, it seems i am
mistaken. I took twilight's statement as an extremely subtle and
well-placed jab at BroC's ego, but it seems, after more careful
examination, that this was not so. Never attribute to malice.
dreams of the City,
Sola
who was just accused of being
too goodnatured. ::grumble::
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
... all static and desire...
~twilight~
Sola wrote:
*snip*
> I retract this post. After a short discussion, it seems i am
> mistaken. I took twilight's statement as an extremely subtle and
> well-placed jab at BroC's ego, but it seems, after more careful
> examination, that this was not so. Never attribute to malice.
>
> dreams of the City,
> Sola
Actually, it was a jab at the troll who really,
really likes Phish.
~twilight~
-eloquence- wrote:
> Honey, I don't have a killfile. Not everyone does.
I realise that not *everybody* has one, but
didn't recall you mentioning that you in
particular do not have one in any posts that I've
read in the past.
> *pats the newbie on the head*
*pushes Elly's hand away and glares*
Your attitude is what gives goths the reputation
of being snobs.
You in particular, are acting like an
ill-tempered, childish, little brat who flamed me
mainly for the purpose of kissing up to TSM as
part of some little popularity game. I can just
see the logic there...
<what I think that -eloquence- may have thought>
"TSM posts funny things. Heeeheee, for that
people like him. That chick was meeeeeeean. I
know! If I call her mean names, and try to make
fun of her and get other people to hate her...then
maybe TSM and others will like me more. Yay!"
(*note, this is just a conclusion that I am
jumping to...playing along with the little game)
> > You've made waaaaaay more fucking assumptions
> > about me than I have ever made about anybody here.
>
> No, I haven't. I had to wade through the Twilight
> vs. ~twilight~ threads on both a.g. and a.g.f. You were
> a twit then, you're a clueless wonder now.
I just got done wading through old posts on
DejaNews...didn't see anything implicating this in
posts then. Post the headers and dates, or pick a
favourite and show me. Actually, while you're at
it...go ahead and pick something really recent,
like maybe what I posted in the "healing" thread,
or my advice to Hillary to just pick apart and
flame. You know, something long enough to pick
apart and ridicule. I don't think that I am any
of the unflattering names that you've called
me...prove it...
~twilight~ (little t, amused)
Urisk of the murky depths
(sq...@inxpress.net) -eloquence- enlightened us with:
> Okay. So here's the deal. You seriously pissed me off
> at first, when you INSISTED upon using Twi's nick, when she
> had already been here forever and a day. But I didn't say
> anything, although it got confusing.
Twilight herself *REPEATEDLY* told everyone that this was not a
problem. Twilight is a word, too catchy and too common to have a
monopoly on.
> But here, you little skank, you have seriously crossed
> the line. You have NO FUCKING CLUE who you are attempting to
> flame. Will has an amazing wit and will fry your little ass
> before you can recite the words to "This Corrosion". He's one
> of the people that you RESPECT on a.g. And if you don't, you'll
> get your fucking little whorish ass flamed to hell and back.
Guess what? I don't either. And I just lost a few points of respect
for you too, "you little skank"
> So basically, shut the fuck up and lurk. Don't post
> shite that you can't begin to comprehend. To rip on Will's
> posts, however angry they are, is to doom yourself to a life
> on a.g. of nothingness.
Yes, respect those who They deem respectable, and flame/ignore those
they deem worthless... Fuck that. Each of us here has enough of a
mind to make these decisions of our own accord. You disagree? Fine,
say *you* disagree. Don't pull this Alt.Gothic will hate you crap...
> Please don't tell me that you thought that he was a TROLL.
I made the same mistake once. He doesn't post regularly, and then
out of the blue, he posts something obnoxious. Kinda makes for an
easy mistake.
--
~^v^~ ::: Urisk ::: ~^v^~
~^v^~< MailTo:jab...@vgernet.net >~^v^~
c h a o s . c o n t r o l
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/4997/
Urisk of the murky depths
(twil...@extremezone.com) ~twilight~ enlightened us with:
> ~twilight~ (little t, who would have apologized,
> but not *after* being attacked...)
I know that feeling, a little too well...
Urisk of the murky depths
> to clarify. Nothing he may have said or done in
> the past, or anything like that. I saw nothing in
> that post that warranted the kind of flame that he
> recieved.
I've even scoured DejaNews, and I've found no dirt on Cadfael. He's
even responded so some flames with an impressive amount of restraint
and decency. It hasn't taken me long to decide that I find him to be
one of the more interesting people here...
If anyone wants to enlighten us on what you think makes BC such
scum, please do so. And please back up any claims with DejaNews
references...
chaosc...@mailexcite.com
In article <oldvenomlips-2...@news.cetlink.net>,
oldven...@geocities.POTTEDMEATcom (TSM) wrote:
> DUUUUUUH DUUUUUUUH DUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!
> MOTHERFUCKING DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!!
> [1] You may choose to bristle at this letter,
> I admit that I am somewhat curt.
> But, bear in mind that I was previously advised to
> kill-file your ass on the basis that "you are a moron."
> This letter represents more of a chance than I give
> most people in your situation.
> Am I asking you to be flattered?
> No.
> I am just giving you the facts.[2]
Sounds to me like you know your mistake. But in case your pride has blinded
you, let me point something out: If you want to contribute to a thread,
flaming the poster you're responding to is akin to shooting yourself in the
foot. Unless of course, you don't care whether your point gets across.
I know you have a rep to live up to, but BC was just trying to get an
interesting thread going. Which he was quite succesfull at doing untill you
came along. You've turned it into a flame war. As far as contributing to the
newsgroup goes, that puts you in the red, IMO...
Lord Chaos.Control (back from a family thing that drew me away for 2 days)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
chaosc...@mailexcite.com
In article <6dc6r5$r...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley) wrote:
> Brother Cadfael (Brother...@earthcorp.com) writes:
> > What do you want for thinking for yourself, a medal?
>
> I'm pretty sure the man has a trophy case...
>
> Leanan Sidhe (no metal for you, but I will now give you yer grade school
> deploma- thr last week's posts have proven to me you've finally passed
> grade five. Cheerio)
You keep putting yourself forward as being one of the intelligent people here,
yet I can't think of anything of an intellectual nature which you've posted
(I'm sure my memory may be at fault here) And you've shown yourself to be a
terrible judge of intelligence and character. You might consider this a flame,
but that's not how I intend it. I really would like to see you prove me
wrong...
Urisk
Charlotte Ashley
(chaosc...@mailexcite.com) writes:
> In article <6dc6r5$r...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley) wrote:
>> Brother Cadfael (Brother...@earthcorp.com) writes:
>> > What do you want for thinking for yourself, a medal?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the man has a trophy case...
>>
>> Leanan Sidhe (no metal for you, but I will now give you yer grade school
>> deploma- thr last week's posts have proven to me you've finally passed
>> grade five. Cheerio)
>
> You keep putting yourself forward as being one of the intelligent people here,
> yet I can't think of anything of an intellectual nature which you've posted
> (I'm sure my memory may be at fault here) And you've shown yourself to be a
HEY!
I resent that... *I* never claimed to be intelligent at all... I don't
even think my IQ breaks 100...
I only ever claimed to be able to root out idiocy in others. For reasons
why I don't like cadfael, see the thread having something to do with empty
phones...
leanan sidhe (goddammit, the only people who ever claimed I was smart were
other people who, imo, are somewhat dillusional)
--
Mysterious are thy laws; http://www.interlog.com/~converg4
The vision's finer then the view;
Her landscape nature never drew
So Fair as Fancy draws.
XloreleiX
BlackIce wrote:
>Do you think that rigidity is increasing? How? Why? My impression is
>that it's decreasing if anything...but I suppose this is just a matter of
>personal experience. What do you think goes "against human behaviural
>patterns"? If people do it, doesn't that make it a human behavioral
>pattern?
In urban areas, at least, yes, I do think it's increasing. The standard 8-to-5
work week, combined with long commute times--I've known people with 1 1/2 hour
commutes to work!--carves out a huge chunk of one's life. And there are many (I
wouldn't say most or all) people who don't function well on an 8-to-5 schedule.
Several people in this thread, myself included, have already stated that they
are "night people," and/or that they work better without a fixed schedule.
Therefore, working at the average day job goes against their natural
behavioural tendencies. It doesn't mean they're not good workers; quite the
opposite may be true. But they probably won't perform as well at a "regular"
job.
I know it's not always possible for people to obtain jobs that suit their
schedules, nevertheless obtaining jobs they actually like, and this is where I
draw my disdain for certain structures. Obviously, I'm an idealist, but I think
there are far more important things in life than being a wage slave at a shitty
job. I think a lifetime trapped in a cubicle for 8 hours a day, under
fluorescent lights would be akin to a prison sentence. But I speak only for
myself here.
Urisk of the murky depths
(bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) Charlotte Ashley enlightened us with:
> leanan sidhe (goddammit, the only people who ever claimed I was smart were
> other people who, imo, are somewhat dillusional)
Oh, sorry- I guess I misunderstood all those fluff complaints. My
mistake...
-eloquence-
twil...@extremezone.com wrote:
> -eloquence- wrote:
> > Honey, I don't have a killfile. Not everyone does.
> particular do not have one in any posts that I've
> read in the past.
That's because you haven't BEEN here very long. And do
you expect me to walk around and write in every other post,
"I dont' have a killfile!" or something?
> You in particular, are acting like an
> ill-tempered, childish, little brat who flamed me
> mainly for the purpose of kissing up to TSM as
> part of some little popularity game. I can just
> see the logic there...
*smirks* If that is what you believe, go ahead and
believe it, I don't care. Think what you may to suit your
deranged fantasy of a.g.
(Yeah, I've been posting here for... 3 and a half
years and all I've been concerned with is the popularity
contest. That's why my .sig was "LOOK AT ME I'M SO COOL!"
for so long...)
> <what I think that -eloquence- may have thought>
> "TSM posts funny things. Heeeheee, for that
> people like him. That chick was meeeeeeean. I
> know! If I call her mean names, and try to make
> fun of her and get other people to hate her...then
> maybe TSM and others will like me more. Yay!"
Because as everyone knows, I am just DYING for Will
to think that I'm cool! And everyone else! And I know just the
way to do it! People will think I'm cool for flaming a newbie!
WOO-HOO!
There are several things that you don't realize:
1. this is not the first time that TSM has ever posted.
2. I have met Will in person and have no need to prove
anything to him.
3. If I'm gonna get a brown nose from kissing up to
somebody, it aint' gonna be from Will's ass. Ew!
4. I have no need to prove anything to anyone else on
this newsgroup.
5. People aren't thinking that I'm "cool" for flaming
you. So your reasoning is completely off.
6. If you think that I need to put other people down to
make myself feel better, you obviously don't
know me at all. Which would make sense, because
you haven't been here very long at all.
Possibly I was a wee bit harsh in the original post,
but I still thought that it was pretty good. ;) What you don't
understand are the things listed above, and well, I have yet to
change my opinion about you. And considering that I'm going to
effectively killfile (by not reading) anything you write other
than in direct response to me, then you wont' really be able to
prove otherwise.
Something along the lines of agreeing with Boo, in that
you REALLY hadn't heard of TSM before? Shit girl, you have your
head up your ass for the past six months? I still think that you
need to buy a clue.
zoe
-eloquence- wrote:
> Okay. So here's the deal. You seriously pissed me off
> at first, when you INSISTED upon using Twi's nick, when she
> had already been here forever and a day. But I didn't say
> anything, although it got confusing.
This has been settled BETWEEN the two twilight's forever already.
> But here, you little skank, you have seriously crossed
> the line. You have NO FUCKING CLUE who you are attempting to
> flame. Will has an amazing wit and will fry your little ass
> before you can recite the words to "This Corrosion". He's one
> of the people that you RESPECT on a.g. And if you don't, you'll
> get your fucking little whorish ass flamed to hell and back.
If Will's so capable of frying her why don't you let HIM take care of
it? I don't understand why all your posts in this thread have been so
venomous anyway.
> So basically, shut the fuck up and lurk. Don't post
> shite that you can't begin to comprehend. To rip on Will's
> posts, however angry they are, is to doom yourself to a life
> on a.g. of nothingness.
Oh, so there's a select group on this newsgroup that is not to be
touched? There are people here who I would not insult - because I like
them, not because someone else says not too.
You know what, I won't hate ~twilight~ for ripping on Will's posts. In
fact I respect her for standing up for herself amidst some nast sniping.
I usually like your posts but I don't know what the hell you're
thinking here. If your defending a friend, fine. But from how you stress
Will's wit, he's more than capable of doing it himself. I really, really
resent the "shut the fuck up and lurk" statement. I for one will not
shut up and lurk if I say something that you disagree with, after
reading your posts lately I'd be more inclined to go screaming from the
mountaintops.
> Please don't tell me that you thought that he was a TROLL.
I could understand the mistake.
Zoe
Albatross
~twilight~ wrote:
> Your attitude is what gives goths the reputation
> of being snobs.
goths arent snobs?
> You in particular, are acting like an
> ill-tempered, childish, little brat who flamed me
> mainly for the purpose of kissing up to TSM as
> part of some little popularity game.
The reason you got corrected is because you were wrong.
The reason you've been patronized to is that you are obviously
painfully unaware of a.g. history, and misapprehended someone who some
of us have watched for quite some time. It is simply a matter of facts.
You were ignorant about something. You were told so.
Albatross
Amused
--
++++++++++++++++++++
There is no Shangri-La for denizens... of the Gap...
Nor is there patience in their hearts for anything more
than a fortnight in age.- Harlan Ellison
http://www.drizzle.com/~tparkin/gateway.html
Grimm
On 2 Mar 1998 14:45:01 GMT, xlor...@aol.com (XloreleiX) did decree:
>BlackIce wrote:
>
>>Do you think that rigidity is increasing? How? Why? My impression is
>>that it's decreasing if anything...but I suppose this is just a matter of
>>personal experience. What do you think goes "against human behaviural
>>patterns"? If people do it, doesn't that make it a human behavioral
>>pattern?
>
>In urban areas, at least, yes, I do think it's increasing. The standard 8-to-5
>work week, combined with long commute times--I've known people with 1 1/2 hour
>commutes to work!--carves out a huge chunk of one's life. And there are many (I
>wouldn't say most or all) people who don't function well on an 8-to-5 schedule.
>Several people in this thread, myself included, have already stated that they
>are "night people," and/or that they work better without a fixed schedule.
You know...I think that I'm in that group. Except I have to fix a
deadline for myself, or I'll never get anything done :). Anyways,
this made me think of Enlightenment Literature. Frankly, I hate it.
Too bloody anal. Except for maybe Swift. The reason I hate it so
much is due to the emphasis on order. You can't have a society which
is entirely ordered. Well, maybe it's possible, but I'd rather die
than live in it.
Personally, I think that we're headed out of a rigid order system.
Think about it. This century, we have had writers such as e.e.
cummings, William Burroughs, etc, all who broke the rules of poetry
and prose, grammar and ectera. We have had artists such as Picasso
and Dali who said "Fuck realism". We take part in interactive media
on a daily basis (at least, those on the web do :)). *shrug* That's
just my two cents :).
GoHS3GoMu2)GoAu( TJtAn10 PShSaMo B10/20Bk!"1 cDbr-w5
V6s M3p3w XGoPuoTeiExCl C6op a17+ n6)V( b55 H188 g5T??85A
m)Ea4No)4# w6T v4R r6EBISP p5Z565Zz D77!* h6 SM9M SsYy K3Z
N0796CEWN RSM*2 LcaON4 One of the few, the proud, Marcus Pan's babygoths!
<< More time put aside, sorry, I'm fucked up inside!>>-Skinny Puppy
Urisk of the murky depths
(gr...@ican.net) Grimm enlightened us with:
> Personally, I think that we're headed out of a rigid order system.
> Think about it. This century, we have had writers such as e.e.
> cummings, William Burroughs, etc, all who broke the rules of poetry
> and prose, grammar and ectera. We have had artists such as Picasso
> and Dali who said "Fuck realism". We take part in interactive media
> on a daily basis (at least, those on the web do :)). *shrug* That's
> just my two cents :).
Maybe it's just another aspect of society being polarized. On the on
hand, you're right, but most people aren't artists of any kind, and
have extremely structured lives. Structured by w*rking, but also by
what they do when they get home. TV...
XloreleiX
Grimm wrote:
>Personally, I think that we're headed out of a rigid order system.
>Think about it. This century, we have had writers such as e.e.
>cummings, William Burroughs, etc, all who broke the rules of poetry
>and prose, grammar and ectera. We have had artists such as Picasso
>and Dali who said "Fuck realism". We take part in interactive media
>on a daily basis (at least, those on the web do :)). *shrug* That's
>just my two cents :).
You have a point; however, the things that made Burroughs, Cummings, etc. so
revolutionary was the fact that they went against the grain. And they wouldn't
have had anything to rebel *against* if their ideas fit within normal societal
constructs. As you said, they were breaking the rules.
Postmodernism, dada, surrealism, deconstructionism--these ideas arose because
there was a need for them. Surrender to order or embrace chaos...those who
choose the second option are a sadly distinct minority. But they've expressed
their reaction in a lot of groundbreakingly wonderful art.
Sheryl Kirby
-eloquence- wrote:
> But here, you little skank, you have seriously crossed
> the line. You have NO FUCKING CLUE who you are attempting to
> flame. Will has an amazing wit and will fry your little ass
> before you can recite the words to "This Corrosion". He's one
> of the people that you RESPECT on a.g. And if you don't, you'll
> get your fucking little whorish ass flamed to hell and back.
Weeeeellll now... I dunno...
Respect is something that is earned. It's not just handed over "because".
Certainly not because someone else tells you that you have to. The fact that
TSM has earned our respect with his sharp wit and acerbic sense of humour is
well and good. But ~twilight~ obviously didn't know who he was. TSM wasn't
posting when she started here... even if his name does appear in the FAQ, how
could she know?
While she certainly could have been a little less aggressive in flaming what
she believed to be a troll, she really didn't realize that he was someone that
the rest of us love and respect. I'm sure now that she does realize that, she
will govern herself accordingly.
> So basically, shut the fuck up and lurk. Don't post
> shite that you can't begin to comprehend. To rip on Will's
> posts, however angry they are, is to doom yourself to a life
> on a.g. of nothingness.
Ouch. Speak for yourself, Elly. As much as I like TSM and as much as I enjoy
what he posts, I judge each person by what *they* have to say. I don't care
who is friends with whom... It's stuff like that that earns this group the
reputation of being full of cliques.
Sheryl
(who will probably now get flamed for flaming Elly... que sera sera)
--
Convergence 4, Toronto, August 21 to 23, 1998
http://www.interlog.com/~converg4
Stained Productions
http://www.interlog.com/~stained
~twilight~
XloreleiX wrote:
*snip*
> work week, combined with long commute times--I've known people with 1 1/2 hour
> commutes to work!--carves out a huge chunk of one's life. And there are many (I
> wouldn't say most or all) people who don't function well on an 8-to-5 schedule.
> Several people in this thread, myself included, have already stated that they
> are "night people," and/or that they work better without a fixed schedule.
I wonder how many people are really night people,
or late afternoon people, or have natural sleep
schedules that conflict with what most of the job
market seems to require. I'd bet that the number
is probably a lot higher than most people would
guess. I don't know how high, but I know that I
feel that way, a lot of my friends feel that way,
and people here (as you mentioned) also feel that
way. As for commute times, the people that I know
who use public transportation sometimes have
commutes that are about 2 hours...each way. Then
again, I live when ther public transportation
system sucks and am very thankful for my car
because of this. Also, in many office jobs, I've
seen horrible lighting that makes me
nauseaous/headachey, bad ventilation, and really
uncomfortable chairs. I don't see those as
inconveniences, but as health hazards. There has
been more attention lately to office buildings
making people sick, and I'm just wondering why
I've seen so little attention on job hours...
~twilight~ (little t, thinking of using a search
engne and looking some stuff up)
TSM
In article <34FA421C...@extremezone.com>, twil...@extremezone.com wrote:
<Verbose, but them aren't I always?>
> No person can be described completely in only a
> few words. <Shrug> I don't know TSM well enough
> to venture a guess at his motives. I thought I
> saw what I thought I saw...and that's why *I*
> reacted the way that I did.
Here's something you ought to know about
sensitive social situations,
it's kind of like walking through a minefield,
so you are highly advised to Step Lightly.
I didn't get too hacked off when you tossed that
little jibe at me for several reasons,
first,
I could really give a shit what you say.
I'm not posing that as an insult,
but I don't know you,
I don't like or dislike you,
as such,
any opinions you might have about me
are, to be blunt, utterly meaningless.
Second,
I made the same mistake you did in my younger days,
ever heard of Echo?
I more or less called her a troll in a post she made
to Cusraque.
Silly me,
little did I know that the subject of my accusation
had been posting to the NG since before I
owned my computer.
Of course the difference between MY conduct after the fact
and yours up to this point is that I apologised promptly.
Ask around,
while I might have rep as a firebrand around here,
never let it be said that I didn't know when to
sit on my hands and shut my fucking mouth.
A useful skill.
Look into it.
> That post was me
> defending myself (ironically, I was defending
> myself for writing a post defending somebody else
> that posted a post like many others that don't get
> flamed.) I haven't gone and pleaded with the
> people that I know to jump to my rescue.
Probably a good idea.
Considering the line of people who have
formed in front of your email addy to
verbally shred you,
I can't see the response on such a request
being too high.
Another thing that you might want to contemplate,
if you DO find yourself with a line of people
who are all more than happy to have found an
excuse to flame you into the ground,
there exists the itty-bitty possibility that you
might just have done something to deserve it.
I wasn't here during the much-famed
"Big T / Little t" debate,
but from what I can see developing here,
you seem to have a serious problem conducting
yourself in delicate situations.
Additionally,
there were people here before you,
and like it or not,
they are going to command a whole lot more respect
merely by virtue of their terms-of-office that
a thousand of your self-righteous little temper tantrums will.
Your hands cold yet?
> I haven't sat here and cried about being called mean
> names. I'm not somebody who writes whiny "I live
> where nobody appreciates my ability to match
> shades of black..." type of posts. I'm not
> somebody who typically gets into flame wars (minus
> those directed against me), because I see most of
> those as thinly veiled popularity games. I'm here
> to have conversations, and have as much of a right
> to be here as others do, despite what Elly thinks
> about my "fucking little whorish ass."
This particular argument will get
you about as far as banging your head into a brick
wall seeing as it's not too damn far from the real thing.
You see,
all "those people," Elly included,
have just as much a right to tell you how much they
don't want you here as you do to be here.
Remember,
this newsgroup is unmoderated,
kind of like sex,
it's better that way.
The only limitations that one poster
can bring down on another is their ISP's TOS.
As much as you might like to think that it's not,
an "I don't like you here," is on-topic,
and beyond a slap on the hand from a postmaster,
it's not going to get the offender in trouble.
Oh, before you go writing postmasters about offensive letters,
think first of all about getting another poster
kicked off their ISP,
and then think about how many popularity contests your winning NOW.
> I know
> that she has friends, but I'm not some simpering
> little shit who just sits there and takes it when
> people say unkind things, out of fear that they
> *and* their friends might go and say even *more*
> really mean things. People who have read my
> replies to people who have flamed me know this.
Uh yeah,
a martyr complex and a buck-fifty
will get you the bottomless cup down at the IHOP.
There's a funny thing about NG's,
All consistent-user NG's, not just this one,
they all have alot to offer,
I've gotten conversation,
wisdom,
more belly-laughs than I can count,
and indeed my current SO <sad as it seems> from this NG.
To get -anything- from -any- NG at all, however,
you have to primarily get on good-terms
with the people who are already there.
If no one stops to talk to you save to tell you
to eat shit and die,
then that's all you're going to get.
I know this might sound a little strange coming
from "The Abominable TSM,"
but congeniality gets you places.
It's not even that you have to truncate your
own opinions,
just state them in such a fashon that doesn't
make you look like a pouting child.
> > : You know, the type of person who just assumes that
> > : everyone else is a dipshit, and then goes and
> > : treats them accordingly.
> >
> > No no no, now you're talking about BC again.
>
> Ok, right now I am talking about BC's post, just
> to clarify. Nothing he may have said or done in
> the past, or anything like that. I saw nothing in
> that post that warranted the kind of flame that he
> recieved.
Once again,
you have all the right in the world to your own opinions.
Likewise I have the right to tell you that
I think you are morally deaf, blind, and hamstrung.
<By the way,
the letter in question wasn't even a flame.
If I open up on someone, you'll know it.>
As luck would have it,
recent events eradicated every post in our news-server
that was made since this morning.
<Detailed in my "KA-BLAM" post.>
Tempting as it might be,
I'm not going to hunt through DejaNews
exclusively for the purpose of tearing Cadfael a new asshole.
I'll let him make his own mistakes.
> > W, who did indeed give little t the undeserved benefit of the doubt.
>
> That's because from what I can tell, you're a
> nice person who doesn't suddenly jump to
> conclusions that people are shitheads because of
> simple miscommunication and/or misunderstanding
> related things.
Quite.
However,
you've still failed to satiate the majority
of your detractors by posting something as simple as an "Oops."
This is not hard,
indeed it's fairly self-explanatory.
If a mountain is falling on you,
you're going to get crushed no matter how obstinante you are.
> ~twilight~ (little t, puzzled by all the hatred
> directed toward her)
Here's another one of my metaphors;
if you step in shit,
you can either wipe it off your boot and be done with it,
or you can deny the existance of shit.
<At least I think that's mine. . .>
Once again,
it's up to you.
--TSM
<This was by the way, your last chance.>
=Kiss Kiss Bang Bang=
"I don't feel like Satan, but to them I am."
-N.Young
~twilight~
Albatross wrote:
>
> ~twilight~ wrote:
>
> > Your attitude is what gives goths the reputation
> > of being snobs.
>
> goths arent snobs?
<Grin>
> The reason you got corrected is because you were wrong.
> The reason you've been patronized to is that you are obviously
> painfully unaware of a.g. history, and misapprehended someone who some
> of us have watched for quite some time. It is simply a matter of facts.
> You were ignorant about something. You were told so.
>
> Albatross
> Amused
> --
>
I was wrong about TSM being a troll, I already
acknowledged that. But I saw nothing inflammatory
in BC's post...nothing to warrant the kind of
things said to him. -eloquence- has made
unsubstantiated claims about other posts that I
have written, and the type of person that I am. I
called her on it, and she ignored my request for
her to prove by my other posts (outside of this
thread) that I'm deserving of any of the things
that she called me. Also, I'm getting annoyed
with the way that some of the people are waving
around *TSM's* reputation, like it's *their*
weapon. It's like children saying, "Oh yeah, well
my friend in the next grade who is really big and
scary is going to kick your ass if you don't do
what I want you to..." I think that's a rather
immature attitude. Telling me that I should know
who TSM is because he has a long history here is
one thing, but all this other shit that's been
said is another...
~twilight~ (little t, this post was not meant to
sound like it was flaming Albatross...but stating
my opinion of all this shit that's been happening
in this thread...)
Bradley W Zimmerman
blah...
this is what i get for waking up at 9:30pm.
Damn IRC.....
Structure for Humans by z...@azstarnet.com
>
> Oh, so there's a select group on this newsgroup that is not to be
> touched? There are people here who I would not insult - because I like
> them, not because someone else says not too.
that's not it at all.
flaming of regulars is ONE thing, and
contrary to popular belief, it IS accepted.
HOWEVER,
if you are new-ish and you do it in
such a way that shows your ignorance,
it amounts to shooting yourself in the
foot. It's more _what_ you say than how you
say it. "Twilight" (and i will continue to
refer to the nick snidely because of her
behavior when the shit hit the fan last year)
did something stupid which _SHOWED_ her
ignorance, and said it in a rather forceful
way. granted, a good number of the comments
replying to her were a bit heavy-handed, and i
am of the opinion that they are guilty of
overkill.
> You know what, I won't hate ~twilight~ for ripping on Will's posts. In
> fact I respect her for standing up for herself amidst some nast sniping.
agreed,
however it still does not change the fact that
she for all intents and purposes "brought this upon
herself."
Albatross, Jeff-Boy, The Exhalted Ron Carrier,
and That Twisted Fuck Petro all blasted TSM at
one time or another, and in the two former cases
did it when they were approximately the same "age"
as Twilight. Flamewars escalated and everybody hugged
in the end. It's not the end of the world. TSM has
backed down when he was knowingly in the wrong, as have
all the others w/ the exception of Petro, who we all
know was never wrong...
*grin*
the difference is that "Twilight" didn't
think before she pulled the trigger. But she
apologized (in a sense) and i think that may
have won her a few points.
(i'm feeling like Howard Cosell here...)
> I usually like your posts but I don't know what the hell you're
> thinking here. If your defending a friend, fine. But from how you stress
> Will's wit, he's more than capable of doing it himself. I really, really
> resent the "shut the fuck up and lurk" statement. I for one will not
> shut up and lurk if I say something that you disagree with, after
> reading your posts lately I'd be more inclined to go screaming from the
> mountaintops.
Zoe, you've been here for a bit longer.
That, and _i_ like you. but then again, my
opinion matters little. Elly didn't have her
Mountain Dew at that point yet and kinda let
loose. she's better now....
The Raphrat
http://theratsnest.res.cmu.edu
School of Art, Carnegie Mellon University
"I'm a Steelworker.... I kill what i eat"
TSM
> Sounds to me like you know your mistake.
^^^^^^^
You have no idea who you're talking to, do you?
> But in case your pride has blinded
> you, let me point something out: If you want to contribute to a thread,
> flaming the poster you're responding to is akin to shooting yourself in the
> foot. Unless of course, you don't care whether your point gets across.
Thank you,
but I can do quite well without
your half-assed Jedi councilling.
If you must know,
I'd have probably written something like that
to one of my friends had they posted the same thing.
The main difference there is that it would have been
understood as having been said with a wink and a nod.
Bear in mind,
the "DUH letter" was NOT said with a wink and a nod.
You see, when I'm not here for a while,
I like to read up a touch to reacclimate myself to the
presiding enviornment.
I've formed my opinions and now I'm acting accordingly.
I don't claim to know everything that happened in my absence,
but certain individuals have managed to distingush
themselves by virtue of their actions.
> I know you have a rep to live up to, but BC was just trying to get an
> interesting thread going. Which he was quite succesfull at doing untill you
> came along. You've turned it into a flame war. As far as contributing to the
> newsgroup goes, that puts you in the red, IMO...
I'm sorry?
Okay,
let me get something straight here,
unless you're just someone else who goes by "chaos control,"
then nevermind.
If you are The chaos control,
then you can go fuck yourself you clueless heap of shit.
If you are The chaos control,
then shaking the finger at someone who starts a flamewar
is hypocritical and stupid on a level that would
shame a four year-old.
If you are The chaos control,
the infamous "troll-who-decided-to-stick-around,"
then you can kiss my ass and like it, dirt-for-brains.
The very idea,
that YOU,
a troll,
someone who showed up in this NG for the express purpose
of starting problems,
are getting on me,
ME,
a regular who's been here for YEARS,
for expressing my own <if rather inflammatory> beliefs,
is nothing short of clinically braindead.
If you're living in a glass house,
don't worry with the Goddamned wrecking-ball,
okay sunshine?
Of course this is only if you are The chaos control.
In the event that you're ANOTHER chaos control,
then you may disregard the previous.
> Lord Chaos.Control (back from a family thing that drew me away for 2 days)
--TSM
~twilight~
-eloquence- wrote:
> That's because you haven't BEEN here very long. And do
> you expect me to walk around and write in every other post,
> "I dont' have a killfile!" or something?
No dearie, but with all of the venom that you've
spewed I would have expected a comment like, "I
wish I could killfile you, but I don't have a
killfile." Also, most of your posts are only a
few lines. You don't frequently post anything
very long. I'm not saying never, I'm just saying
frequently.
> > You in particular, are acting like an
> > ill-tempered, childish, little brat who flamed me
> > mainly for the purpose of kissing up to TSM as
> > part of some little popularity game. I can just
> > see the logic there...
>
> *smirks* If that is what you believe, go ahead and
> believe it, I don't care. Think what you may to suit your
> deranged fantasy of a.g.
>
> (Yeah, I've been posting here for... 3 and a half
> years and all I've been concerned with is the popularity
> contest. That's why my .sig was "LOOK AT ME I'M SO COOL!"
> for so long...)
<Sigh> If you weren't sooo concerned, then you
wouldn't have had such a how-dare-you-say-that
attitude toward my reply to TSM.
*snip*
> Because as everyone knows, I am just DYING for Will
> to think that I'm cool! And everyone else! And I know just the
> way to do it! People will think I'm cool for flaming a newbie!
> WOO-HOO!
Whatever.
> There are several things that you don't realize:
>
> 1. this is not the first time that TSM has ever posted.
I *know* that.
> 2. I have met Will in person and have no need to prove
> anything to him.
That, I did not know.
> 3. If I'm gonna get a brown nose from kissing up to
> somebody, it aint' gonna be from Will's ass. Ew!
This is point I put up for debate, because of
how you wave his name around as a threat.
> 4. I have no need to prove anything to anyone else on
> this newsgroup.
You seemed intent to prove that I'm some sort of
imbecile...but then when I ask you for proof, by
reposting something that I've posted outside of
this thread (or just the header, so that I can
look this up), you ignored this. Obviously, it's
because you have *nothing* on me except for a
simple misunderstanding in this thread.
> 5. People aren't thinking that I'm "cool" for flaming
> you. So your reasoning is completely off.
Reaction does not denote motive.
> 6. If you think that I need to put other people down to
> make myself feel better, you obviously don't
> know me at all. Which would make sense, because
> you haven't been here very long at all.
I've been here plenty long enough to see that you
are. That's something that someone could see in a
single post.
> Possibly I was a wee bit harsh in the original post,
> but I still thought that it was pretty good. ;) What you don't
> understand are the things listed above, and well, I have yet to
> change my opinion about you. And considering that I'm going to
> effectively killfile (by not reading) anything you write other
> than in direct response to me, then you wont' really be able to
> prove otherwise.
A *wee* bit harsh? Understatement of the year
award nominee...
> Something along the lines of agreeing with Boo, in that
> you REALLY hadn't heard of TSM before? Shit girl, you have your
> head up your ass for the past six months? I still think that you
> need to buy a clue.
>
> -eloquence-
I already explained about how I am with names.
If I see someone posting stuff, there's a better
chance that I'll remember a name. If I see
initials, or RL names in posts, I just shrug it
off as somebody that I don't know. How would *you*
have reacted in my position? Suppose you thought
that somebody who has a past here was a troll.
Suppose that this person posted a flame to
somebody, and reading the post, you could not
figure out *why* somebody would flame it. So you
post a reply. Suddenly, someone that you had
previously had not thought lowly of, and actually
enjoyed reading some posts by, calls you a bunch
of names? How would you have reacted?
~twilight~ (little t, singing *gimme siren,
child...do you hear me?)
TSM
In article <MPG.f64f541b...@news.vgernet.net>,
jab...@vgernet.net wrote:
> (gr...@ican.net) Grimm enlightened us with:
> > Personally, I think that we're headed out of a rigid order system.
> > Think about it. This century, we have had writers such as e.e.
> > cummings, William Burroughs, etc, all who broke the rules of poetry
> > and prose, grammar and ectera. We have had artists such as Picasso
> > and Dali who said "Fuck realism". We take part in interactive media
> > on a daily basis (at least, those on the web do :)). *shrug* That's
> > just my two cents :).
>
> Maybe it's just another aspect of society being polarized. On the on
> hand, you're right, but most people aren't artists of any kind, and
> have extremely structured lives. Structured by w*rking, but also by
> what they do when they get home. TV...
Even landscapes and entire trees can be
boiled down to a single equation.
At it's heart, everything has a very simple basis.
Read "Chaos" sometime,
<it has half your name in it,>
despite the title,
it'll more or less shake your faith in
randomness down to the very foundations.
Flipping a coin is random,
anything that grows, breeds, or is
somehow formed in nature probably isn't.
The fact that we're all standing on one
gigantic pseudorandom number generator aside,
society never really deviates from some kind of pattern, IMNSFHO.
Even this rebellion that we all revel in isn't
really unpredictable in the least.
I mean all of us "goths" have a number of
common characteristics that define us,
correct?
You could even call it a pattern.
If you wake up every morning and decide
whether you're going to jump off the garage by
flipping a coin,
I would be the first to characterize that as pretty damned random.
Of course I'd also have to say that it was going to
get painful everytime the coin landed flying-leap-side-up.
It's not so much getting away from a pattern,
it's getting away from THAT pattern.
--TSM
This was written after that other note, btw.
To be totally honest, CC,
I DID feel kind of bad about killing
what might have been a pretty interesting discussion,
but I didn't.
Apparently you noticed this, too.
-eloquence-
Bradley W Zimmerman <rap...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
> Elly didn't have her
> Mountain Dew at that point yet and kinda let
> loose. she's better now....
Aint' that the truth. Give me an AMEN, brother!
-eloquence-
twil...@extremezone.com wrote:
> -eloquence- wrote:
> Also, most of your posts are only a
> few lines. You don't frequently post anything
> very long. I'm not saying never, I'm just saying
> frequently.
Well, there's an obvious reason why. I don't know how
to put sentences together in paragraphs, so all I can manage
is a couple of lines about the magical D*ck.
> <Sigh> If you weren't sooo concerned, then you
> wouldn't have had such a how-dare-you-say-that
> attitude toward my reply to TSM.
Basically, it was a harsh way of saying "Look before
you leap." I'd say think before you post, but I'm obviously
guilty of not doing that, so....
> > 1. this is not the first time that TSM has ever posted.
> I *know* that.
Okay, so why did you flame him for being a troll then?
> > 3. If I'm gonna get a brown nose from kissing up to
> > somebody, it aint' gonna be from Will's ass. Ew!
> This is point I put up for debate, because of
> how you wave his name around as a threat.
A threat of what? How about I phrase it like this: Will
is a cool guy and you should have really read his posts before
coming to the conclusion that he was a troll. Better?
> Obviously, it's
> because you have *nothing* on me except for a
> simple misunderstanding in this thread.
No. After having been here for a while, and reading posts
from many newbies, there are two divergent thought patterns that
occur depending upon how people start posting and continue to
post. BroCad of course has completely fucked this method up. I
really don't know what to think about him.
1. The first is that they post intelligently to threads that
are along my lines of interest, they don't step on anyone's toes
right away, and if they do, they admit that they messed up because
they are new.
2. The second are the people who post just not-so-neat
things (and by that, I don't necessarily mean fluff, because fluff
can be intelligent), or flame the heck out of people, or I just
get a sense of not liking them.
As you've probably guessed by now, you have fallen for me
into the second category. It's not something that I can prove by
dragging shit up from DejaNews and saying "Oh, look, here she said
that this person was a stupidhead" or what have you. It's just a
feeling, an instinct as it were. And you have yet to prove that
instinct wrong. And yes, there have been times when I have had a
general feeling of a person to have that person completely turn
around and end up in the other "category" for me.
And don't think I'm an elitist snob anymore than you already
do, because I'm sure that most everyone thinks that way when they
read a newbie's posts. They either warm to that person or begin to
dislike them. Not everyone gets along, in either RL or on the ng.
The same thing happens in RL. Not everyone has compatible personalities,
and I've just gotten the feeling that we would not get along. Capice?
> > 6. If you think that I need to put other people down to
> > make myself feel better, you obviously don't
> > know me at all. Which would make sense, because
> > you haven't been here very long at all.
> I've been here plenty long enough to see that you
> are. That's something that someone could see in a
> single post.
You want to explain your response here? I honestly can't make
sense out of it... did you leave out a word or two? If you're saying
that I need to put other people down to make myself feel better,
well, I still think that you don't know me. And that's fine. You can
think that way. May I mention again that this is probably the first
flame I've written since the rc richards days? I don't get mean on
the ng very often at all.
Yes, I bitched you out where I shouldn't have. It should
have been a much more low-key posting that I made. I should have
followed my own advice and thought before I posted. And no, I
should not have called you those names. But I still don't think
that you should have accosted him as a troll either--as Albatross
stated, you seem to have brought it upon yourself. Not necessarily
in the terms I used, but the general flame. We both fucked up.
*shrugs* Shite happens. And this is as close to an apology as you'll
get.
-eloquence-
(who was very tempted to do some bitch-slapping but refrained, tnx)
Leonora the Lonely KittenLady
In The Year Of Our Lord Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:45:43 -0500,
chaosc...@mailexcite.com (Urisk of the murky depths) Foolishly
Dared To Write:
>(bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) Charlotte Ashley enlightened us with:
>> leanan sidhe (goddammit, the only people who ever claimed I was smart were
>> other people who, imo, are somewhat dillusional)
>
>Oh, sorry- I guess I misunderstood all those fluff complaints. My
>mistake...
well i just gave up on you again. You're like RC Richards half the
time Jesus Christ.
-Leonora (Mistress of All Evil & Goddess Material:)
--
-----I Love You When You Are Alone, But I Hate You In A Crowd-----
| OfficialCDWhorePigCarryingKittenLadyWenchGothOfTheNYRangers |
| Alt.Gothic.Crown.Princess Member-Alt.Gothic.Arrogant.Bastards |
| http://www.geocities.com/~tonygirl/goffhockey ICQ UIN 1962098 |
Angeltear
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 17:54:39 -0500, sq...@inxpress.net (-eloquence-) wrote:
>
> Okay. So here's the deal. You seriously pissed me off
>at first, when you INSISTED upon using Twi's nick, when she
>had already been here forever and a day. But I didn't say
>anything, although it got confusing.
>
> But here, you little skank, you have seriously crossed
>the line. You have NO FUCKING CLUE who you are attempting to
>flame. Will has an amazing wit and will fry your little ass
>before you can recite the words to "This Corrosion". He's one
>of the people that you RESPECT on a.g. And if you don't, you'll
>get your fucking little whorish ass flamed to hell and back.
OK....I admit to being sort of new here (although not really since I used to read
and post a couple of years ago), but don't you think you're going a little overboard?
I have no problem with TSM, he's one of the few people I remember who used to post
here when I did before (you as well) and he has a great caustic sense of humor. What
I'm objecting to is the bitterness and cliquishness I read in your post (perhaps
wrongly). I don't know if you have a personal grudge against this twilight person
but I'm sure TSM can handle her little jab without you jumping to his defense in such
a mean spirited way. I just hate the "you must suck up to the cool people or you will
be ostracised attitude". It's something I've always hated about many goth clubs and
something I never used to notice here. People post, they get into arguments, sure,
but no one should be above criticism in my opinion.
Angeltear (Who respects people because I think they deserve respect, not because
someone else tells me to.)
-
Michael Quinn (Angeltear)
"It only takes a push and china doll will fall apart
yet it only takes a touch and china doll will start
to dance...to laugh, to feel, to hope, to love...."
-(The Legendary Pink Dots)
Grimm
On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 22:07:27 +0000,
oldven...@geocitiesPOTTEDMEAT.com (TSM) did decree:
> Once again,
> you have all the right in the world to your own opinions.
> Likewise I have the right to tell you that
> I think you are morally deaf, blind, and hamstrung.
>
> <By the way,
> the letter in question wasn't even a flame.
> If I open up on someone, you'll know it.>
*re-reads the letter*
*shudders*
*prays that ~twilight~ drops it...*
I don't know you, ~twilight~, and I know TSM only by reputation, but
for your sake, I would honestly suggest you just apologize, forget the
whole incident, whatever. I don't think that anyone in their right
mind would want to provoke this man.
Grimm
On 2 Mar 1998 23:40:37 GMT, xlor...@aol.com (XloreleiX) did decree:
>Grimm wrote:
>
>>Personally, I think that we're headed out of a rigid order system.
>>Think about it. This century, we have had writers such as e.e.
>>cummings, William Burroughs, etc, all who broke the rules of poetry
>>and prose, grammar and ectera. We have had artists such as Picasso
>>and Dali who said "Fuck realism". We take part in interactive media
>>on a daily basis (at least, those on the web do :)). *shrug* That's
>>just my two cents :).
>
>You have a point; however, the things that made Burroughs, Cummings, etc. so
>revolutionary was the fact that they went against the grain. And they wouldn't
>have had anything to rebel *against* if their ideas fit within normal societal
>constructs. As you said, they were breaking the rules.
>
>Postmodernism, dada, surrealism, deconstructionism--these ideas arose because
>there was a need for them. Surrender to order or embrace chaos...those who
>choose the second option are a sadly distinct minority. But they've expressed
>their reaction in a lot of groundbreakingly wonderful art.
Ok, point taken. However, I will argue that artists pave the way for
the rest of society to change. Look at many of the artists that we
consider great today. For example, look at Rembrant during his final
years. People thought he was a hack, because he started painting
looser, and more abstract. However, after he died, people finally
started saying "Hey, maybe he's on to something". Once a boundary is
broken, it is not a boundry anymore. Others *will* follow, given some
time :)
I forgot to add Timothy Leary to my above list :). I think the man is
a genious. I bet after a while, the general populous will begin to
accept what he had to say too.
Grimm, enjoying this conversation
Fecteau Mathieu
50...@news.cetlink.net> <34FA0FD2...@extremezone.com>
<wendolen-010...@ip71.usr2.usw.du.nwlink.com> <34FA421C...@extremezone.com> <MPG.f6441047...@news.vgernet.net>:
Distribution:
Urisk of the murky depths (chaosc...@mailexcite.com) wrote:
:
: I've even scoured DejaNews, and I've found no dirt on Cadfael. He's
: even responded so some flames with an impressive amount of restraint
: and decency. It hasn't taken me long to decide that I find him to be
: one of the more interesting people here...
You Haven't Been Looking Hard Enough, Controlo.
Personaly, I've Found Cadfael To Be Rather Insipid. It's Not That He's
A Troll Or A Particularly Idiotic Person, It's That He Has A Tendency To
Spout Off Some Of The Least Thought Out Nonsense I've Ever Seen.
And After Having Spewed Said Piece Of Infuriatingly BrainDead Opinion,
He'll Will *Not* Defend It.
: If anyone wants to enlighten us on what you think makes BC such
: scum, please do so. And please back up any claims with DejaNews
: references...
Scum Isn't The Correct Word. He's Behaves More Like A LightHeaded Twit.
I'm Not Gonna Look Thru DejaNews For You[1], But I Will Tell You What To
Look For.
One Of The First Things He Ever Posted To The Groups Was About That Kid
Who Shot And Killed Some Students At His High School Because They Were
Praying In The Hallway. BC Said That We Should "Rally" Behind Said
Murderer And Support Him Because He Was An Atheist. I Asked Him to
Explain Said Idiocy, But He Was Quite Incapable (Or Unwilling) To Defend
The Trash He Had Written.
_Casper The Drunken BitterGoff
Doomed!Doomed!Doomed!Doomed!
[1]Why Am I Not Gonna Go Hunt Thru DejaNews? Because I'm Writing
This On My 386 (Nicknamed Old Junker) Using My Dialup To The
University. As Such, My Web Access Is Pretty Much Nil. If Someone
Else Could Check And Post The Appropriate References, I'd Be
Grateful.
XloreleiX
Grimm wrote:
>Ok, point taken. However, I will argue that artists pave the way for
>the rest of society to change. Look at many of the artists that we
>consider great today. For example, look at Rembrant during his final
>years. People thought he was a hack, because he started painting
>looser, and more abstract. However, after he died, people finally
>started saying "Hey, maybe he's on to something". Once a boundary is
>broken, it is not a boundry anymore. Others *will* follow, given some
>time :)
>
>I forgot to add Timothy Leary to my above list :). I think the man is
>a genious. I bet after a while, the general populous will begin to
>accept what he had to say too.
Hmm...I do like to think that art can change the world (god, I sound all
positive and idealistic...how unlike me IRL :) ) It takes a bloody long time,
though, and if I may reiterate something I said earlier--people are sheep-like.
Maybe I'm getting a little obscure here, but there was an Egyptian pharaoh
named Amenkhaten who basically turned the kingdom upside down by introducing a
new religion; he influenced his culture's art to a great degree--it became more
realistic, less abstract, less idealized. All well and good, but then that
pesky Tutankhamen--reactionary conservative that he was--demanded a return to
Ye Olde Ways, and so it went; the people followed and Amenkhaten's moment of
influence only lasted for that--a moment.
>Grimm, enjoying this conversation
Me too, although I'd prefer not having to wend through 10 inflammatory posts to
get to it :)
Charlotte Ashley
*two cents, for psterity*
twilight, I think they's only being defensive 'cause you should have read
up on him afore jabbing at 'im... or at least, had some grounds fer
jabbing him so ye could have gotten into a flamewar (a good one, not these
dinky little back and forths. I mean real, self respecting FLAMES ;)..
other than that... um, way to hold yer ground...
leanan sidhe ( well come on. she *is* holding her ground welll)
--
Mysterious are thy laws; http://www.interlog.com/~converg4
The vision's finer then the view;
Her landscape nature never drew
So Fair as Fancy draws.
Charlotte Ashley
Urisk of the murky depths (chaosc...@mailexcite.com) writes:
> (bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) Charlotte Ashley enlightened us with:
>> leanan sidhe (goddammit, the only people who ever claimed I was smart were
>> other people who, imo, are somewhat dillusional)
>
> Oh, sorry- I guess I misunderstood all those fluff complaints. My
> mistake...
Yes you did. Let me reiterate them for the upteenth billionth time. :)
1) fluff is not bad, too much fluff is bad.
2) intellectual posts are not bad, too many intellectual posts are bad.
3) flamewars aren't bad, too many flame wars are bad.
I preach moderation and effecting, one-time jabs rather than repeated
attempts before hitting it right on...
Leanan Sidhe (either way, just because I encourage something doesn't mean
I can do it *myself* dammit, this ng is a spectator sport at it's best...)
Fecteau Mathieu
50...@news.cetlink.net> <34FA0FD2...@extremezone.com>
<wendolen-010...@ip71.usr2.usw.du.nwlink.com> <34FA421C...@extremezone.com> <oldvenomlips-0...@ppp-025.pm306.rockhill.sc.cetlink.net> <34fb8ca2...@news.ican.net>:
Distribution:
Grimm (gr...@ican.net) wrote:
: <Snipped TSM's "This Is Not A Flame">
:
: I don't know you, ~twilight~, and I know TSM only by reputation, but
: for your sake, I would honestly suggest you just apologize, forget the
: whole incident, whatever. I don't think that anyone in their right
: mind would want to provoke this man.
Actualy, If You've Never Seen TSM Take A Torch To Someone's Ass, I
Highly Suggest You Drop By DejaNews And Try To Find Some Of His
Flames.
Highly Entertaining And Shockingly Brutal, He Is To Flaming What Chow
Yun Fat Is To Gunfights.
~twilight~
--nightshade-- wrote:
*snip*
> > You seemed intent to prove that I'm some sort of
> > imbecile...but then when I ask you for proof, by
> > reposting something that I've posted outside of
> > this thread (or just the header, so that I can
> > look this up), you ignored this.
>
> sooner or later, your own requests, will produce the material you desire.
I'm working on keeping my temper in check in this
situation...
zoe
Bradley W Zimmerman wrote:
snip most everything
Okay, my final thoughts here. Both sides have over-reacted and blown
this out of proportion. There's been nastiness and unnecessary
name-calling (i feel a point can be better made without using the 7
infamous words and all the other combinations people come up with) and a
general sense of being back in pre-school. But it wouldn't feel like
home if that didn't happen and I'm not harboring any grudges (of course
it helps that I didn't get called any names personally :)
> (i'm feeling like Howard Cosell here...)
Isn't he dead? Or is that that other announcer?
> Zoe, you've been here for a bit longer.
> That, and _i_ like you. but then again, my
> opinion matters little. Elly didn't have her
> Mountain Dew at that point yet and kinda let
> loose. she's better now....
I'm liked? I'm really liked! Well if Elly was suffering from MD
withdrawal that would explain *everything*
Zoe
who's been known to be quite petty herself and still harbors a grudge
towards an anonymous person at work who told his girlfriend he didn't
like me. I'm still plotting against him.
Urisk of the murky depths
(oldven...@geocitiesPOTTEDMEAT.com) TSM enlightened us with:
> You have no idea who you're talking to, do you?
Well, as a matter of fact, you've never stayed around long enough
for me to get to know you, while I've been here, so no, I can't
really say that I do. All I really know about you so far is that you
have a hair-trigger flamethrower, and seem to have a tendency to
make personal judgements without a whole lot of knowledge on the
given subject back them up...
> I'd have probably written something like that
> to one of my friends had they posted the same thing.
> The main difference there is that it would have been
> understood as having been said with a wink and a nod.
And we, much like many others reading your post, don't know you, yet
you're still surprised that it was taken the wrong way?
> the "DUH letter" was NOT said with a wink and a nod.
> You see, when I'm not here for a while,
> I like to read up a touch to reacclimate myself to the
> presiding enviornment.
> I've formed my opinions and now I'm acting accordingly.
> I don't claim to know everything that happened in my absence,
> but certain individuals have managed to distingush
> themselves by virtue of their actions.
I did the same thing, yet I came up with very different opinions,
apparently. For example, I saw a lot of attacks on BC, yet could
find no source. People didn't like his opinions, and he was new, so
they flamed him. Somehow that seemed to become a trend. I just don't
follow trends to well.
> let me get something straight here,
> unless you're just someone else who goes by "chaos control,"
> then nevermind.
As a few seconds in DejaNews would have shown, yes, I am The
chaos.control. When I came to AG, I said something that pissed a lot
of people off. They flamed me, so I flamed back. Seems like pretty
standard practice, around here.
> If you are The chaos control,
> then you can go fuck yourself you clueless heap of shit.
> If you are The chaos control,
> then shaking the finger at someone who starts a flamewar
> is hypocritical and stupid on a level that would
> shame a four year-old.
Ok, so tell me EXACTLY what makes me so bad? What did I do to
deserve that reputation? Give me a good answer, and I'll respect
your opinion, and may even apologize. Otherwise, you may want to
reconsider the reliability of whatever you're going by to base your
opinions on about people here.
> If you are The chaos control,
> the infamous "troll-who-decided-to-stick-around,"
> then you can kiss my ass and like it, dirt-for-brains.
> The very idea,
> that YOU,
> a troll,
> someone who showed up in this NG for the express purpose
> of starting problems,
> are getting on me,
> ME,
> a regular who's been here for YEARS,
> for expressing my own <if rather inflammatory> beliefs,
> is nothing short of clinically braindead.
See, maybe I'm deluding myself, but I think the above has nothing to
do with me. It's like you have no idea what I'm about, what I've
posted, or what I'm here for. If you're going to flame someone like
that, I suggest you check DejaNews first, to make sure you're not
missing your mark. I don't care how long you've been here, but
conducting yourself in that manner makes you look a lot more
clueless than I, IMO...
The Chaos.Control
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
-eloquence- (sq...@inxpress.net) wrote:
: twil...@extremezone.com wrote:
: > -eloquence- wrote:
: > > Honey, I don't have a killfile. Not everyone does.
: > didn't recall you mentioning that you in
: > particular do not have one in any posts that I've
: > read in the past.
: That's because you haven't BEEN here very long. And do
: you expect me to walk around and write in every other post,
: "I dont' have a killfile!" or something?
I've got a shit-all account. For reasons unknown, it comes with a
killfile in the newsreader. (Not much of one, but it suffices.)
It's not all that big a mistake, to assume (unless otherwise informed)
that someone has one. It's almost like assuming you have a mouse attached
to your computer. (Not quite that bad, but pretty close.)
(Snip)
: There are several things that you don't realize:
: 1. this is not the first time that TSM has ever posted.
New account; new name in the email-address.
I almost didn't recognize him myself. (That's mostly because, until
recently, what he's posted never made it to my server directly.)
: Possibly I was a wee bit harsh in the original post,
: but I still thought that it was pretty good. ;) What you don't
: understand are the things listed above, and well, I have yet to
: change my opinion about you. And considering that I'm going to
: effectively killfile (by not reading) anything you write other
: than in direct response to me, then you wont' really be able to
: prove otherwise.
Ur... aside from frustration, what would be the point of doing that?
Were it me, I'd take the opposite approach. (Admittedly, I've failed to do
so numerous times. I'm speaking more of how I'd want to approach
something like this, rather than how my inherent weakness has caused me
to before.)
You obviously don't have a high opinion of ~twilight~ - so what would be
the point reading nothing *but* her responses to you? They shouldn't
matter.
--
Glenn.
------
My illusions are shattered,
That I might build a new one from their pieces.
In chaos, all is possible.
Urisk of the murky depths
(oldven...@geocitiesPOTTEDMEAT.com) TSM enlightened us with:
> Even landscapes and entire trees can be
> boiled down to a single equation.
> At it's heart, everything has a very simple basis.
> Read "Chaos" sometime,
> <it has half your name in it,>
> despite the title,
> it'll more or less shake your faith in
> randomness down to the very foundations.
> Flipping a coin is random,
> anything that grows, breeds, or is
> somehow formed in nature probably isn't.
As I see it, the distinction between chaos and order is ultimately
nonexistent. My inclination towards chaos is more towards what I, as
fallibly human as I am, see as chaos. Order arises from chaos, and
chaos from order, yet it's only certain outward manifestations which
we are really referring to.
However, on a more scientific level, as you may have guessed, my
knowledge is not up to par- there are a lot of books I should read,
but haven't. Yet...
> The fact that we're all standing on one
> gigantic pseudorandom number generator aside,
> society never really deviates from some kind of pattern, IMNSFHO.
> Even this rebellion that we all revel in isn't
> really unpredictable in the least.
No, it's not. But the chaos which appeals to me is not always
unpredictable. So mathematically, it's not really chaos, I know...
but the word chaos tends to be rather multi-layered, so unless I
come up with a better word, that still defines my reference pretty
well. So to be more specific about what I often refer to as chaos, I
really mean, 'without human imposed structure.' Natural order is
another animal entirely, which by that definition, can seem pretty
chaotic...
> It's not so much getting away from a pattern,
> it's getting away from THAT pattern.
Well, yeah, good point. It is the common structure which irks me,
and the fact that it's followed by so many simply for being the
accepted norm.
Urisk of the murky depths
(tonyg...@worldnet.att.net) Leonora the Lonely KittenLady
enlightened us with:
> In The Year Of Our Lord Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:45:43 -0500,
> chaosc...@mailexcite.com (Urisk of the murky depths) Foolishly
> Dared To Write:
>
> >> leanan sidhe (goddammit, the only people who ever claimed I was smart were
> >> other people who, imo, are somewhat dillusional)
> >
> >Oh, sorry- I guess I misunderstood all those fluff complaints. My
> >mistake...
>
> time Jesus Christ.
For that little misunderstanding? In case it sounded like sarcasm,
maybe I should clarify- I apologize, Leannan, I didn't mean to put
you on the spot like that. It was my misunderstanding...
Geez, some of you people can be tough, and who the hell is RC
Richards?
Urisk of the murky depths
> for your sake, I would honestly suggest you just apologize, forget the
> whole incident, whatever. I don't think that anyone in their right
> mind would want to provoke this man.
Well, I for one, never claimed to be in my right mind. <g>
Urisk of the murky depths
(fect...@MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA) Fecteau Mathieu enlightened us
with:
> One Of The First Things He Ever Posted To The Groups Was About That Kid
> Who Shot And Killed Some Students At His High School Because They Were
> Praying In The Hallway. BC Said That We Should "Rally" Behind Said
> Murderer And Support Him Because He Was An Atheist. I Asked Him to
> Explain Said Idiocy, But He Was Quite Incapable (Or Unwilling) To Defend
> The Trash He Had Written.
Thanks for the tip. Just got back from DejaNews and was able to read
a bit more (sorry to BC if you find this "reading up on you" thing
insulting) I see that he seems to have toned down his posts a bit.
Or maybe he hasn't been watching the news as much. In any case, I
still think his rep is unwarranted. His opinions aren't always well
thought out, but I see a lot more thought in his posts than most.
His posts make room for discussion, and I appreciate what he's
trying to do. It looks to me like his worst crime is
outspoken eccentricity...
> [1]Why Am I Not Gonna Go Hunt Thru DejaNews? Because I'm Writing
> This On My 386 (Nicknamed Old Junker) Using My Dialup To The
> University. As Such, My Web Access Is Pretty Much Nil. If Someone
> Else Could Check And Post The Appropriate References, I'd Be
> Grateful.
Hey, I didn't expect you to go that far. Pointing me in the right
direction was all I meant to ask. Thanks,
~twilight~
TSM wrote:
> Second,
> I made the same mistake you did in my younger days,
*snip*
I don't know why, but knowing that makes me feel
a little better...a little less hated..or
whatnot...
> Of course the difference between MY conduct after the fact
> and yours up to this point is that I apologised promptly.
I would have apologised immediately, but the way
that I was replied to...not so much by you as by
others, shocked me. If elly had posted something
like, "TSM has been here a long time, and is well
respected. He is not a troll, and for that you
should probably apologize," that's what I would
have done. Even a somewhat patronising reply, I
would have reacted differently. To have been
replied to in the way that I was, to me, seemed to
be asking for a different sort of response than
that. I didn't want to be branded as a pushover,
and have people throw shit at me frequently on the
assumption that I will just sit there and take
it. I am not sorry for defending BC's post. I am
not sorry for defending myself. I am sorry
though, that I insinuated that you are a troll.
*snip*
> Another thing that you might want to contemplate,
> if you DO find yourself with a line of people
> who are all more than happy to have found an
> excuse to flame you into the ground,
> there exists the itty-bitty possibility that you
> might just have done something to deserve it.
That possibility exists along with the
possibility that sometime people get overzealous
and prolong something that could have been
resolved in two or three posts- tops.
> I wasn't here during the much-famed
> "Big T / Little t" debate,
Ok, here's the story of what happened. I lurked
for a little bit, during a time when Twilight had
been taking a break from here, and so I hadn't
seen any posts from her. I've been using the
handle twilight for 5 years on local AZ BBSes, and
that's what a lot of people call me IRL, because
they are so accustomed to it. I think the fact
that it's part of my email address attests to
that. Anyhow, a bunch of people suddenly flamed
me. I said that I would have no problem,
whatsoever, in changing my name here if Twilight
wanted me to. She and I settled it, and she even
made a public post saying that as long as I kept
it t not T, and didn't use her sig, then she
didn't see a problem. Instead of stopping, people
still kept flaming me, ignoring anything that she
had said, or I had said. I would just here and
there reiterating the fact that I would change it
if Twilight, and only she, asks me to do so,
because it'd be her right to do so, but not any of
theirs.
*snip*
> Your hands cold yet?
Nope.
*snip*
> You see,
> all "those people," Elly included,
> have just as much a right to tell you how much they
> don't want you here as you do to be here.
They have that right to disagree, and I have the
right to disagree with their disagreement, and
they have the right to disagree with that
disagreeing, and in turn I still retain the full
right to disagree right back. ;>
> Remember,
> this newsgroup is unmoderated,
> kind of like sex,
> it's better that way.
> The only limitations that one poster
> can bring down on another is their ISP's TOS.
I haven't seen anybody's TOS beng violated in
this thread. Now, if one of the replies to me had
started out with how to make more money and get
pics of nekkid people, you can bet that somebody's
postmaster would have heard about it. ;>
*snip*
> Uh yeah,
> a martyr complex and a buck-fifty
> will get you the bottomless cup down at the IHOP.
<sifting through change purse> I'm not sure if
that stacks up against Denny's offer where $2 and
a cassandra complex gets a Grand Slam breakfast.
;>
*snip*
> To get -anything- from -any- NG at all, however,
> you have to primarily get on good-terms
> with the people who are already there.
> If no one stops to talk to you save to tell you
> to eat shit and die,
> then that's all you're going to get.
Yes, I've been flamed in this thread. However,
that didn't cause all of the people here to just
up and suddenly ignore/hate me.
> I know this might sound a little strange coming
> from "The Abominable TSM,"
> but congeniality gets you places.
> It's not even that you have to truncate your
> own opinions,
> just state them in such a fashon that doesn't
> make you look like a pouting child.
Rereading my own posts, I can only see about two
things that I've said that could be taken that
way.
*snip*
> <By the way,
> the letter in question wasn't even a flame.
> If I open up on someone, you'll know it.>
Until sifting through DejaNews, I hadn't seen you
"open up on someone."
*snip*
> Here's another one of my metaphors;
> if you step in shit,
> you can either wipe it off your boot and be done with it,
> or you can deny the existance of shit.
>
> <At least I think that's mine. . .>
>
> Once again,
> it's up to you.
>
> --TSM
Whether or not the shit comes off of the boot
and/or how easily depends on what type of shit it
is.
~twilight~ (little t, "Sing, child of rght and
wrong, gimme things that don't last long...")
Albatross
Urisk of the murky depths wrote:
> Well, as a matter of fact, you've never stayed around long enough
> for me to get to know you, while I've been here, so no, I can't
> really say that I do. All I really know about you so far is that you
> have a hair-trigger flamethrower, and seem to have a tendency to
> make personal judgements without a whole lot of knowledge on the
> given subject back them up...
Actually, I've never found TSM to have a hair-trigger flamethrower. He
might be gruff, arrogant or sudden; but he wont really lay into someone
personally until hes dismissed them, and then with cause. The fact that
he does consider, that hell wait for the weakness to manifest itself
before he really pounces, is the thing that sets him above the other
fine local flame-types.
I've also seen him swallow his pride with aplomb and go on about
things. He doesnt seem to hold grudges. As usual, it is you who would do
better to hold your tongue until you have sufficient information to form
a solid opinion.
> For example, I saw a lot of attacks on BC, yet could
> find no source. People didn't like his opinions, and he was new, so
> they flamed him. Somehow that seemed to become a trend.
Actually there has always been a bit of division concerning BrC. I
personally think that he is a bright guy with little or no real basis
for most of his opinions. He is the center of his universe, and this
ptolemic misunderstanding causes him to make an ass of himself from time
to time. His intelligence was probably too strongly stressed to him in
those fragile childhood days, when he might have grown a soul.
I reserve the right to call him completely fucking stupid when he is
completely fucking stupid. And, though it is dicier, I also call him a
liar.- fully admitting that this is based on nothing more than a gut
instinct, and a distaste for he something in the way he calls attention
to himself.
> I just don't
> follow trends to well.
Sometimes they're lemmings.
Sometimes they're evacuating a burning building.
Individuation is a long process. We dont become individuals just
because we say we are individuals. Aquiring a truly unique personality
requires subtlety and time. When a person stakes their claim in their
self while that self is still unripe, they wind up as a sour fruit.
A
--
++++++++++++++++++++
There is no Shangri-La for denizens... of the Gap...
Nor is there patience in their hearts for anything more
than a fortnight in age.- Harlan Ellison
http://www.drizzle.com/~tparkin/gateway.html
Sola
~twilight~ <twil...@extremezone.com> wrote:
::grumbles and tags her reply in an arbitrary place, because she can't
seem to find the original post::
>Sola wrote:
> *snip*
>> I retract this post.
<snip>
> Actually, it was a jab at the troll who really,
>really likes Phish.
I realize that now. And frankly, i would have been more amused if
it were aimed at BroC (a known ego who i happen to like) rather than
just a shot at a troll, which was why i retracted it. I guess i'm just
that sort of malicious that prefers a local target.
dreams of the City,
Sola
--
"other than that...
suffer.
it's goth.
right?" --Eileen
David Gerard
On 2 Mar 1998 13:51:18 GMT, bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley)
wrote:
:I resent that... *I* never claimed to be intelligent at all... I don't
:even think my IQ breaks 100...
Then your Clue Quotient is unnaturally high for your alleged IQ.
You are scarily smart. Deal.
:I only ever claimed to be able to root out idiocy in others.
And that's why yo're Punk Rock. Even if you are a bit of a h*ppy.
:leanan sidhe (goddammit, the only people who ever claimed I was smart were
:other people who, imo, are somewhat dillusional)
You're smart. Deal.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
** International Picket Against Scientology: Sat/Sun 13/14 Mar 1998 **
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm
David Gerard
On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 10:13:52 -0500, sq...@inxpress.net (-eloquence-) wrote:
: 5. People aren't thinking that I'm "cool" for flaming
: you.
I'm certainly not. FWIW.
: Possibly I was a wee bit harsh in the original post,
I fail to see why a simple 'no he isn't a troll' would not have sufficed.
:but I still thought that it was pretty good. ;)
Are you sure this is an appropriate forum in which to exercise your abuse
muscles purely for the sake of doing so?
Particularly with a flame that translates to 'you're NEW and CLUELESS and
we're not so fuck off'. It's not something that encourages new and
potentially interesting people to bother; rather the opposite. Would you
want to hang around a newsgroup like that? I wouldn't.
Perhaps followups should have been set to alt.flame; or the original reply
kept to there, if not /dev/null .
Urisk of the murky depths
(tpa...@drizzle.com) Albatross enlightened us with:
> Actually, I've never found TSM to have a hair-trigger flamethrower. He
> might be gruff, arrogant or sudden; but he wont really lay into someone
> personally until hes dismissed them, and then with cause. The fact that
> he does consider, that hell wait for the weakness to manifest itself
> before he really pounces, is the thing that sets him above the other
> fine local flame-types.
Well, he seems to have dismissed me, and pardon my arrogance (ok,
don't :p ) but he couldn't possibly do that unless he's either-
a) an idiot (which he really doesn't seem to be)
b)prone to making unfounded judgements, or
c)Severely judgemental based on rather inconsequential character
variations.
'b' and 'c' may seem alike, but they're are definitely not.
> I've also seen him swallow his pride with aplomb and go on about
> things. He doesnt seem to hold grudges. As usual, it is you who would do
> better to hold your tongue until you have sufficient information to form
> a solid opinion.
I haven't claimed to have formed a solid opinion regarding TSM, yet.
> Actually there has always been a bit of division concerning BrC. I
> personally think that he is a bright guy with little or no real basis
> for most of his opinions.
It depends on his degree of open mindedness about those opinions,
which may not make that such a bad thing.
> His intelligence was probably too strongly stressed to him in
> those fragile childhood days, when he might have grown a soul.
You hit a nerve with that one...
> I reserve the right to call him completely fucking stupid when he is
> completely fucking stupid.
I think he's starting some really interesting threads, so whether
his original statement were right or wrong doesn't matter so much.
If we all responded by flaming him when we disagree, those threads
would have been killed. From what I've seen, his statements
are usually open ended, so neither right nor wrong.
Well, except the anagram thing- that was just plain wrong.
> Sometimes they're lemmings.
> Sometimes they're evacuating a burning building.
If I have no reason to believe there's a fire, I would not follow,
even then.(Except in the case of really high buildings.) I've
learned to trust my senses more than I trust my fellow man.
> Individuation is a long process. We dont become individuals just
> because we say we are individuals. Aquiring a truly unique personality
> requires subtlety and time. When a person stakes their claim in their
> self while that self is still unripe, they wind up as a sour fruit.
From what I've seen you do qualify as unique, though you don't show
it nearly as often as Brother Cadfael, who I also see as unique.
Painfully unique,
Bradley W Zimmerman
Fecteau Mathieu@MAGELLAN
> Grimm (gr...@ican.net) wrote:
> : <Snipped TSM's "This Is Not A Flame">
> :
> : I don't know you, ~twilight~, and I know TSM only by reputation, but
> : for your sake, I would honestly suggest you just apologize, forget the
> : whole incident, whatever. I don't think that anyone in their right
> : mind would want to provoke this man.
>
> Actualy, If You've Never Seen TSM Take A Torch To Someone's Ass, I
> Highly Suggest You Drop By DejaNews And Try To Find Some Of His
> Flames.
Dejanews is the most entertaining waste of
time in the world. it beats the hell out
of "Slap a Spice Girl" and whatever Xthlc's
current perferred form of masturbation is....
> Highly Entertaining And Shockingly Brutal, He Is To Flaming What Chow
> Yun Fat Is To Gunfights.
BWAHAH AHHA HA HA HA HA HAHAHHAHHA HA HA AH AH A!!!!!
OH SWEET JESUS THE PAIN!!!!
oh... oh christ... i'm adding that to his introduction
page...oh shit... oh... oh chris i think i just soiled
myself....
> _Casper The Drunken BitterGoff
> Doomed!Doomed!Doomed!Doomed!
HAH HEH HAHAHH HA HA HA HAHH AH AH!!!!
i'm _still_ laughing...
The Raphrat
http://theratsnest.res.cmu.edu
School of Art, Carnegie Mellon University
"I'm a Steelworker.... I kill what i eat"
David Gerard
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 06:50:43 GMT, fect...@MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA (Fecteau
Mathieu) wrote:
: Actualy, If You've Never Seen TSM Take A Torch To Someone's Ass, I
: Highly Suggest You Drop By DejaNews And Try To Find Some Of His
: Flames.
: Highly Entertaining And Shockingly Brutal, He Is To Flaming What Chow
: Yun Fat Is To Gunfights.
I would point out that TSM would be sorta hard to look up considering he
changes his email address every sojourn.
How about those advocating such posting a few of said addresses?
It's like saying 'read the FAQ' if the thing is never posted and not
webbed.
Sola
Fecteau Mathieu <fect...@MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
> Highly Entertaining And Shockingly Brutal, He Is To Flaming What Chow
> Yun Fat Is To Gunfights.
*blinkblink*
Mine.
dreams of the City,
Sola
announcing her intent
to steal a sig, for once.
--
"Hmm. Patient responds to bananna treatment with hostility."
"Is that bad?"
"*thwap* No peeking."
--The Head In The Water Cooler (AKA Captain Sanity), The Tick
-eloquence-
Bradley W Zimmerman <rap...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
> Fecteau Mathieu@MAGELLAN
> > Yun Fat Is To Gunfights.
I must agree that this is one of THE best descriptions of Will
that I have ever seen/heard/eaten. *applause*
-eloquence-
http://www.inxpress.net/~squee/ ICQ: 9038898
"i love your hate/your hate makes me grow
i'm your tool/and you're my toy"
-project pitchfork
David Gerard
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 01:53:44 GMT, yu23...@yorku.ca (Angeltear) wrote:
:What
:I'm objecting to is the bitterness and cliquishness I read in your post (perhaps
:wrongly).
I read it there too. I'm wondering what went into it.
David Gerard
On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 22:44:15 -0500, sq...@inxpress.net (-eloquence-) wrote:
: Yes, I bitched you out where I shouldn't have. It should
:have been a much more low-key posting that I made. I should have
:followed my own advice and thought before I posted. And no, I
:should not have called you those names. But I still don't think
:that you should have accosted him as a troll either--as Albatross
:stated, you seem to have brought it upon yourself. Not necessarily
:in the terms I used, but the general flame. We both fucked up.
Yes, but you should have known better.
:*shrugs* Shite happens. And this is as close to an apology as you'll
:get.
That's more of a loss to you than anyone else.
David Gerard
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 04:55:29 GMT, gr...@ican.net (Grimm) wrote:
:I don't know you, ~twilight~, and I know TSM only by reputation, but
:for your sake, I would honestly suggest you just apologize, forget the
:whole incident, whatever. I don't think that anyone in their right
:mind would want to provoke this man.
That's no fucking reason.
Urisk of the murky depths
(f...@thingy.apana.org.au) David Gerard enlightened us with:
> I would point out that TSM would be sorta hard to look up considering he
> changes his email address every sojourn.
http://search.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?QRY=*&ST=PS&DBS=1&defaultOp=AN
D&maxhits=100&format=terse&showsort=date&groups=alt.gothic&authors=w
i23*+%28antisocial%29&subjects=&fromdate=&todate=
Attach those 3 lines into one URL and place them in your browser, if
you're unfamiliar with DejaNews.
Or power search for (and this was _really_ difficult):
Group: "alt.gothic"
Author: "wi23* (antisocial)"
That may not be every post (or even close) he's done, but if you're
interested, it should keep you busy for a while...
--
Brother Cadfael
Fecteau Mathieu <fect...@MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
| One Of The First Things He Ever Posted To The Groups Was About That Kid
| Who Shot And Killed Some Students At His High School Because They Were
| Praying In The Hallway. BC Said That We Should "Rally" Behind Said
| Murderer And Support Him Because He Was An Atheist. I Asked Him to
| Explain Said Idiocy, But He Was Quite Incapable (Or Unwilling) To Defend
| The Trash He Had Written.
You Sir, have an unseeming ability to miss sarcasm, then. I did not
feel the need to add a disclaimer to the post because I thought my over-
the-top statements, in and of themselves, were obviously in jest.
Out of that, a long discussion on several topics evolved. I never feel
the need to defend sarcasm, because sarcasm is not the same as stating
how you truly feel about something. It's being absurd to highlight
absurdity. That absurdity being that he killed someone because he was
tired of their prayer circle. If you are unable to distinguish, I'll be
glad to provide a little Alby Sarc-O-Meter scale in my sig line.
Another point is that I never said we should defend him because he was
an atheist. I stated (paraphrasing), "Who among us is not tired of
walking around and having goodie-two-shoes shoving their religion in our
face and treating us like we're inferior because we refuse to believe in
their fairy-tales?-- it's about time someone stood up for us and blew a
few of them away."
If you think that _anyone_ would seriously believe murder is acceptable
if done by an atheist (and for the causes stated) then your view of
human nature is incredibly dim.
----------
Original Post: Praying Students Killed By Classmate
I believe it was in the midwest that this happened this week.
A fourteen-year-old student who had been watching a gathering of 30+
students who voluntarily pray during lunch-hours in the hallways of
this public school, shot them. At least one died.
I would think your god would protect you while you're praying!
Then again, 'God wanted it that way', as they often babble when it
suits their need. Perhaps god wanted them to come to heaven.
Weird weird weird.
Then, my response to Cyberkhrist's follow-up:
"man.. that was COLD... I don't care what anyone's religion is.. they
have the reason to practice it without someone OFFING them.. =(
I don't necessarily *agree* with their point of view... but it's their
right..."
Hey, that's what I hear when a woman wants to have seven kids all at
once even at risk of losing them all. That's what I hear when someone
croaks of high blood-pressure. It's always 'God wanted it that way'.
So, I'm assuming their logic.
----------
As I stated in the second post, "I'M ASSUMING THEIR LOGIC". The seeming
logic of those extremely religious sorts. As I have stated right there
it was not my _personal beliefs_ that I was using, but the assumed
language and assertions of the religious, against themselves. I did not
see the need to repeat that reminder in every single post throughout
that thread.
You'll also note that, in another post to that thread (Replying to
Tempest), I stated:
----------
[*] The views presented do not necessarily reflect those of the sane
[*] side of your host and, where obviously extreme in presentation,
[*] should be considered the opinions of his warped and cynical side
[*] only.
----------
You've probably noticed that I rarely am compelled to defend myself from
personal attacks because, to be honest, I don't give a fuck. It seems
petty for everyone to be taking up arms and starting wars on 'sides' of
whether Cadfael is an asshole or not. When it comes down to the bone--
WHO CARES?!
However, I do feel the need to step-in in *this* case, because I've
scanned through all 222 "Praying Students Killed By Classmate" posts
and, out of those, found the ones I authored. Not once did I say "We
should rally around behind the murderer because he is an atheist". The
closest I came was not only with sheer sarcasm, but was also followed by
some type of glowing-neon sign that said so.
Now, if you're intent on wasting time talking about me, continue-- I'm
off to talk about something a little fucking more interesting and less
petty.
Sarc-O-Meter: |.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brother...@earthcorp.com | Boycott Jenny Jones
http://home.fia.net/~cadfael/ | http://home.fia.net/~cadfael/jennyjones/
Charlotte Ashley
Angeltear (yu23...@yorku.ca) writes:
>
>>
> OK....I admit to being sort of new here (although not really since I used to read
> and post a couple of years ago), but don't you think you're going a little overboard?
*snip*
Um, Mike, yer wrapping funny.
Leanan Sidhe (80 columns, honey. ;)
--
Mysterious are thy laws; http://www.interlog.com/~converg4
The vision's finer then the view;
Her landscape nature never drew
So Fair as Fancy draws.
Charlotte Ashley
David Gerard (f...@thingy.apana.org.au) writes:
> On 2 Mar 1998 13:51:18 GMT, bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley)
> wrote:
>
> :I resent that... *I* never claimed to be intelligent at all... I don't
> :even think my IQ breaks 100...
>
>
> Then your Clue Quotient is unnaturally high for your alleged IQ.
>
> You are scarily smart. Deal.
Give me back those ^$^%& mushrooms.... ;)
>
>
> :I only ever claimed to be able to root out idiocy in others.
>
>
> And that's why yo're Punk Rock. Even if you are a bit of a h*ppy.
>
*whistles innosently as the cat hides the napalm we were eating for
breakkie...*
>
> :leanan sidhe (goddammit, the only people who ever claimed I was smart were
> :other people who, imo, are somewhat dillusional)
>
>
> You're smart. Deal.
How many fingers am I holding up?
Leanan Sidhe (okay, I doth protest too much... I resign myself to
indifferenciality)
Matthew M Mckeon
Bradley W Zimmerman <rap...@CMU.EDU> writes:
>
> Dejanews is the most entertaining waste of
> time in the world. it beats the hell out
> of "Slap a Spice Girl" and whatever Xthlc's
> current perferred form of masturbation is....
>
You're just trying to get me to delurk
and call you a moose-felching arse-peddling
yinzer gimp, aren't you?
Well, it won't work.
> The Raphrat
By the way, hi Will, if you can read this.
I missed you.
ObOnTopic:
The stupid alt.gothic.announce spamfilter ate
the official CV Election Kickoff post.
It made it to alt.gothic.fashion, however.
I'm going to repost it tonite.
+
| Xthlc
+--+--+ http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~mmm/
| Meallan muilte De' go mall ach meallan siad go mion
| ___ + Haven Magazine Online +
| \h/ http://haven.res.cmu.edu
+ V