Free speech....
alienmunoz
other whiners too) Osama Bin Alien here! I kinda like that actually!
I've got a link here that you and the rest of you Authentic Hermetic
Order of the Golden Dawners who post and incessantly whine here should
read.
Funny, it seems that you only whine about posters who are not on our
side. You like to do your hate group shit, but can't take what you
dish out. Wimps! Since I can't change all your diapers for you, I can
suggest that you read this and grow up:
Fr. A.o.C.
alienmunoz wrote:
> Funny, it seems that you only whine about posters who are not on our
> side. You like to do your hate group shit, but can't take what you
> dish out. Wimps! Since I can't change all your diapers for you, I can
> suggest that you read this and grow up:
>
> http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet/freedom.html
How cute. A lot of punk-geek anarchist raving about "The Freedom Knights
of Usenet<tm>" and the eeeeevul Usenet "cabals" and "dishonorable" ISPs.
Wow, them Knights got philosophies and credos and everything! And you
think Golden Dawners behave like pathetic role playing gamers? Hand me a
Jolt Cola and roll another one, jeeves, while I log on -- us "Knights"
are fightin' fer FREEEEEE-DUM!
Read it yourself and grow up.
And tell the conehead poindexter that wrote it to fix his bugged up HTML
code, and then get back to writing that term paper, or his PoliSci
teacher is going to fail him this term. No wait, it was written six
years ago -- he's probably flunked out by this time already.
Impersonations and identity theft aren't even mentioned in that screed,
because they aren't
forms of "free speech". That's not free expression, that's stealing
someone else's expression and putting words in their mouths they didn't
say. Those are the things I complain to ISPs about. Please, feel free to
make a blithering idiot of yourself in public as often as you want. I
won't stop you.
If you walk into a public place, disguised as someone else, throw up on
the floor, and try to blame that someone else for it, don't call it
"free speech." Disinformation is not free speech.
Mailbombing, which YOU do regularly on Yahoo forums, is functionally the
same as hacking a server, something your geek-oid manifesto writer
himself called actual "net abuse." It's inducing a deliberate
malfunction of the system. Mailbombing restricts speech, by forcing
other people's messages to scroll pages and pages away from the top of
the message list and filling people's mailboxes with repetitious crap.
So spare us the bullshit moralizing about "free speech", with links to a
"manifesto" you don't live up to yourself.
No, you're like a real Geek, the freak who bites the heads off chickens
in some traveling backwoods carnival, but you're a modernized Geek who
thinks he can bite the heads off of people.
So when you stand there with chicken blood running down your mouth,
picking feathers out of your teeth and whining about "free speech", I'm
going to laugh in your face. Loser.
I bet your mother is really proud of you.
- Fr. A.o.C.
-----
"When I tell any truth it is not for the sake of convincing those who do
not know it, but for the sake of defending those who do." -- William Blake
alienmunoz
I thought that was funny! Maybe you can join my writing staff someday.
And, BTW, I often use chickens in my "special" rituals. Maybe it's
time to make a new doll for you as the old one I have here is getting
a bit crusty. Oh......Did I tell you that I think you are cute?
Osama Bin Alien
P.S. Did you actually Read Dave's manifesto, or are you just shooting
blanks from the hip? I actually found it thru one of the "Anon"
remailers that you and the other Griffin thugs like to use. Funny,
this one had a Mac/Mozilla interface. You seem to like that. BTW, are
YOU the one who keeps filling up my mailbox with viruses and mail-back
bots?
Meltdarok
news:f8d53315b9ed5fc9...@news.teranews.com...
> Hey Maxx,
>
> I thought that was funny! Maybe you can join my writing staff someday.
> And, BTW, I often use chickens in my "special" rituals. Maybe it's
> time to make a new doll for you as the old one I have here is getting
> a bit crusty. Oh......Did I tell you that I think you are cute?
>
> Osama Bin Alien
>
> P.S. Did you actually Read Dave's manifesto, or are you just shooting
> blanks from the hip? I actually found it thru one of the "Anon"
> remailers that you and the other Griffin thugs like to use. Funny,
> this one had a Mac/Mozilla interface. You seem to like that. BTW, are
> YOU the one who keeps filling up my mailbox with viruses and mail-back
> bots?
>
Man, your shit is too greasy and smelly for anyone who is truly searching
for what is right. Sorry you can't try to explain it to me, because you
effect my posts
also. I hope you have had a lot of fun; now shut up and go away.
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Fr. A.o.C.
alienmunoz wrote:
>
> Hey Maxx,
>
> I thought that was funny! Maybe you can join my writing staff someday.
> And, BTW, I often use chickens in my "special" rituals. Maybe it's
> time to make a new doll for you as the old one I have here is getting
> a bit crusty.
Is that the best you can do, Mr. Free Speech? Have another bong hit and
try again.
> Oh......Did I tell you that I think you are cute?
Is that supposed to be offensive? Sorry, brat-boy, I don't quake in fear
that some "homo" is going to jump on my tender heterosexual bones.
Unlike you.
> P.S. Did you actually Read Dave's manifesto, or are you just shooting
> blanks from the hip?
I read it, geekoid. And cruised through the sophomoric "Freedom Knights
of Usenet" site it's attached to as well. I notice the guy hasn't
updated the site in three years. Maybe he's re-assessing his opinion of
spam, now that it's making up 50% of all e-mail messages.
As Dave puts it:
"4.3) What is net abuse? Any action that stops a properly configured
transport system from
performing its normal store and forward services."
Mailbombing identical messages to a forum in order to bury other
people's messages in page upon page of crap fits the definition. You're
a net abuser. I notice you don't even try to deny it.
> I actually found it thru one of the "Anon"
> remailers that you and the other Griffin thugs like to use.
I don't use anon remailers, geekoid, you do. Because you're a coward.
And I'm not a "Griffin thug". You haven't been listening, have you?
Try listening to your mentor, big Dave:
"Suddenly, we have a human who has a bad case of the Savior Syndrome.
This person will stop at nothing to "Fight the Good Fight", and "Save
The World" from the "Evil Menace". It's sad, really. Some of these
people would otherwise grow and progress spiritually, if it weren't for this
syndrome in the way. Once in a state like this, it literally takes an
Act of God to inform the Savior that his or her "benevolent swordplay"
is not needed. At this point, you might be saying "Horrors! What can we
do about these Saviors?". Be careful. Are you sure you want to "Save"
the "Savior"? Remember that you can't control another. I'd recommend
completely ignoring them, even if they are beating down your door. If
you can't ignore them, be polite but firm, explaining to them why you
aren't participating in their jihad. In extreme cases, you may actually
have to act. In all cases, keep your ego out of it, and you'll do fine."
You and your anti-Griffin campaign are the most pathetic example of a
"Save the world from the evil menace" I can think of. And I refuse to
participate in your jihad. Your "benevolent swordplay" is not needed. Do
you even realize how stupid you look, posting links to a website that
denounces exactly what you yourself are doing? Probably not. I guess an
"Act of God" is the only hope you have. A lightning strike would fit the
bill nicely.
> Funny,
> this one had a Mac/Mozilla interface. You seem to like that. BTW, are
> YOU the one who keeps filling up my mailbox with viruses and mail-back
> bots?
Sorry, loser, those are "X-mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC)",
mine are "X-mailer: Mozilla 4.73 (Macintosh; U; PPC)". Nice try though.
No wait, actually it was a pathetic try. No line of crank for you today.
- Fr. A.o.C.
-----
"Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge." - Paul Gauguin
Richard Ballard
More below.
In article <3FAD668D...@slip.net>,
"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> writes:
>Try listening to your mentor, big Dave:
>
>"Suddenly, we have a human who has a bad case of the Savior Syndrome.
Somebody just made a value judgment.
>This person will stop at nothing to "Fight the Good Fight", and
>"Save The World" from the "Evil Menace". It's sad, really. Some
>of these people would otherwise grow and progress spiritually,
>if it weren't for this syndrome in the way. Once in a state like
>this, it literally takes an Act of God to inform the Savior that
>his or her "benevolent swordplay" is not needed. At this point,
>you might be saying "Horrors! What can we do about these Saviors?".
>Be careful. Are you sure you want to "Save" the "Savior"? Remember
>that you can't control another. I'd recommend completely ignoring
>them, even if they are beating down your door. If you can't ignore
>them, be polite but firm, explaining to them why you aren't
>participating ...
Times are hard and many people merely are trying to get
stay of the way of trouble. But that isn't always possible.
Do you remember Edgar Allen Poe's short story "The Pit
and the Pendulum"? Like many other people, the protagonist
merely was trying to "get out of the way", but events had
conspired against him. Ultimately the rats freed him, but
you can't count on rats ...
I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Combatting Cult Mind Control"
by Steven Hassan
Fr. A.o.C.
Richard Ballard wrote:
> What ever happened to "A smile turnth away wrath"?
I'm smiling.
> >"Suddenly, we have a human who has a bad case of the Savior Syndrome.
>
> Somebody just made a value judgment.
Indeed. The person who first invoked "Dave's" web essays made it,
regarding so-called "free speech" on Usenet issues. But he doesn't live
up to the values he invoked. I was merely pointing out the inconsistancy.
> >This person will stop at nothing to "Fight the Good Fight", and
> >"Save The World" from the "Evil Menace". It's sad, really. Some
> >of these people would otherwise grow and progress spiritually,
> >if it weren't for this syndrome in the way. Once in a state like
> >this, it literally takes an Act of God to inform the Savior that
> >his or her "benevolent swordplay" is not needed. At this point,
> >you might be saying "Horrors! What can we do about these Saviors?".
> >Be careful. Are you sure you want to "Save" the "Savior"? Remember
> >that you can't control another. I'd recommend completely ignoring
> >them, even if they are beating down your door. If you can't ignore
> >them, be polite but firm, explaining to them why you aren't
> >participating ...
>
> Times are hard and many people merely are trying to get
> stay of the way of trouble.
Argel bargle?
> But that isn't always possible.
> Do you remember Edgar Allen Poe's short story "The Pit
> and the Pendulum"? Like many other people, the protagonist
> merely was trying to "get out of the way", but events had
> conspired against him. Ultimately the rats freed him, but
> you can't count on rats ...
As I recall the story, he rubbed meat on his ropes to induce the rats to
gnaw on them. Not exactly the same thing as counting on "deus ex
machina" -- or in this case, "ratso ex machina".
> I got no problems.
> Other people got problems.
> 00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09
Hike!!!
- Fr. A.o.C.
-----
"I grow. I prosper. Now, gods, stand up for bastards!" - Shakespeare
Richard Ballard
"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> writes:
>Richard Ballard wrote:
>
>>What ever happened to "A smile turnth away wrath"?
>
>I'm smiling.
I didn't observe any wrath.
>>>"Suddenly, we have a human who has a bad case of the
>>>Savior Syndrome.
>>
>>Somebody just made a value judgment.
>
>Indeed. The person who first invoked "Dave's" web essays made it,
>regarding so-called "free speech" on Usenet issues. But he doesn't
>live up to the values he invoked. I was merely pointing out
>the inconsistancy.
Somebody just made another value judgment.
>>>This person will stop at nothing to "Fight the Good Fight", and
>>>"Save The World" from the "Evil Menace". It's sad, really. Some
>>>of these people would otherwise grow and progress spiritually,
>>>if it weren't for this syndrome in the way. Once in a state like
>>>this, it literally takes an Act of God to inform the Savior that
>>>his or her "benevolent swordplay" is not needed. At this point,
>>>you might be saying "Horrors! What can we do about these Saviors?".
>>>Be careful. Are you sure you want to "Save" the "Savior"? Remember
>>>that you can't control another. I'd recommend completely ignoring
>>>them, even if they are beating down your door. If you can't ignore
>>>them, be polite but firm, explaining to them why you aren't
>>>participating ...
>>
>>Times are hard and many people merely are trying to get
>>stay of the way of trouble.
>
>Argel bargle?
Trouble is like a hornet's nest. It is best not to step into
a hornet's nest. And if you do step into a hornet's nest
you get little credit for saying "I will persevere ..."
>>But that isn't always possible.
>>Do you remember Edgar Allen Poe's short story "The Pit
>>and the Pendulum"? Like many other people, the protagonist
>>merely was trying to "get out of the way", but events had
>>conspired against him. Ultimately the rats freed him, but
>>you can't count on rats ...
>
>As I recall the story, he rubbed meat on his ropes to induce
>the rats to gnaw on them.
Highly spiced meat -- no water.
>Not exactly the same thing as counting on "deus ex
>machina" -- or in this case, "ratso ex machina".
As I remember "The Pit and The Pendulum", the rats did
gnaw through the leather straps that bound the protagonist
to the table, but then the walls literally began closing in,
pushing the protagonist ever closer to the pit. At the last
second the walls withdrew, a portal opened and a hand
reached in to grasp the protagonist.
I have visited the Sistine Chapel and observed Michelangelo's
painting of God reaching down to man. Michelangelo and
Poe intended different messages.
I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
seer
> In article <3FAD9D2E...@slip.net>, "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> writes:
>
> >>>"Suddenly, we have a human who has a bad case of the
> >>>Savior Syndrome.
> >>
> >>Somebody just made a value judgment.
> >
> >Indeed. The person who first invoked "Dave's" web essays made it,
> >regarding so-called "free speech" on Usenet issues. But he doesn't
> >live up to the values he invoked. I was merely pointing out
> >the inconsistancy.
>
> Somebody just made another value judgment.
are you trying to imply that it is somehow either correct or incorrect
to make value judgments?
are you using the mechanism of a value judgment to imply this?
are your posts here intended to be expressive of any particular points?
are you aware that an internally inconsistent presentation of thetical points
weakens their substantive force, according to reasoned analysis?
is there value in your points?
do you attempt to present your points as reasonable?
if there is no value or reason in your points
is there motive in your presentation of them?
what is your motive in presenting points?
do you see my point?
...
Richard Ballard
seerm...@yahoo.com (seer) writes:
>rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:
>
>>In article <3FAD9D2E...@slip.net>,
>>"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> writes:
>>
>>>>>"Suddenly, we have a human who has a bad case of the
>>>>>Savior Syndrome.
>>>>
>>>>Somebody just made a value judgment.
>>>
>>>Indeed. The person who first invoked "Dave's" web essays made it,
>>>regarding so-called "free speech" on Usenet issues. But he doesn't
>>>live up to the values he invoked. I was merely pointing out
>>>the inconsistancy.
>>
>>Somebody just made another value judgment.
>
>are you trying to imply that it is somehow either correct or
>incorrect to make value judgments?
My statement implies that the author is decrying another individual
Dave (?) who (purportedly) is on a crusade ("the Saviour Syndrome")
while the author simultaneously advances a cause of his own [don't
support Dave's (?) crusade]. The author also states that Dave (?)
is a hypocrite but the author does not corroborate his statement
with factual information.
Major omission: nowhere is the worthiness of Dave's (?) (purported)
crusade's goal discussed.
There are sins of commission and sins of omission.
That's *my* point tersely expressed, and I choose to leave
your other questions and assertions unanswered.
Fr. A.o.C.
Richard Ballard wrote:
> In article <582245ce.03110...@posting.google.com>,
> seerm...@yahoo.com (seer) writes:
>
> >rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3FAD9D2E...@slip.net>,
> >>"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> writes:
> >>
> >>>>>"Suddenly, we have a human who has a bad case of the
> >>>>>Savior Syndrome.
> >>>>
> >>>>Somebody just made a value judgment.
> >>>
> >>>Indeed. The person who first invoked "Dave's" web essays made it,
> >>>regarding so-called "free speech" on Usenet issues. But he doesn't
> >>>live up to the values he invoked. I was merely pointing out
> >>>the inconsistancy.
> >>
> >>Somebody just made another value judgment.
> >
> >are you trying to imply that it is somehow either correct or
> >incorrect to make value judgments?
>
> My statement implies that the author is decrying another individual
> Dave (?) who (purportedly) is on a crusade ("the Saviour Syndrome")
Not quite. "Dave", in his essay, decries this so-called "Savior
Syndrome" -- Dave's on an anti-Savior Syndrome crusade. "Alienmunoz"
supposedly believes in Dave's various positions on Usenet posting and
uses links to Dave's website to support his own positions. But Alienmunoz
is on a "savior syndrome" crusade himself (an activity denounced by
Dave) by his own admission and by the clear examples of his conduct.
Therefore it is hypocritical for him to invoke Dave's writings for support.
> while the author simultaneously advances a cause of his own [don't
> support Dave's (?) crusade].
I never spoke to the merits or lack thereof of Dave's crusade. As far as
it goes, I think Dave is short-sighted and his somewhat dated essay
doesn't take into account the various changes that have occurred in
Internet use over the last few years since he's updated his website. For
example, he doesn't consider spamming to be "net abuse", but that was
before spam became nearly 50% of all e-mail traffic. As such, it begins
to interfere with the normal operation of ISP servers (who must carry,
forward, and archive the overload of useless e-mail), so as such it
falls under Dave's own definition of "net abuse". This calls for a
clarification of these competing principles that Dave has not made.
Also, the essay doesn't refer to the use of the newer anon remailers
that allow the user to change the message headers to any name or e-mail
address they wish; this is unlike the original anon remailers like
anon.penet.fi, which did not allow this clear avenue for abusive
impersonation of other posters to a forum. Since Dave's essay is
silent on this specific aspect of net abuse, his essays can't be
legitimately invoked to to support such abuse.
> The author also states that Dave (?)
> is a hypocrite but the author does not corroborate his statement
> with factual information.
I submit that Dave needs to update his essays to reflect these changes
in the situation. That he has not done so in over three years is
evidence that his cherished ideals of "free usenet speech" and
definitions of "abuse" might be in need of re-examination, and perhaps
he is reluctant to have to backpedal on his original statements.
> Major omission: nowhere is the worthiness of Dave's (?) (purported)
> crusade's goal discussed.
There's no need to. Whether or not I personally agree with Dave's
position has no bearing on its being used by someone else to support
their arguments; what matters is whether that person adheres to it
or not.
It's as if someone invoked Ghandi's teachings about non-violent
political action to justify their own use of violence against political
enemies. I can point out the hypocrisy of such a position no matter what
I personally think of Ghandi's tenets myself.
- Fr. A.o.C.
-----
"And if a man goes through fire for his doctrine -- what does that
prove? Verily, it is more if your own doctrine comes out of your own
fire." -- Fredrick Nietzsche
catherine yronwode
> [snip it all!]
Max, i've been following the alienmunoz et al attacks on the Golden
Dawn(s); the attacks from other GDs on HOMSI; the attacks on the SRIA
(and the defenses thereof); the attacks on OSOGD by Sar Draconis; the
attacks on the various OTOs by the (c)OTO. I've watched CHSOTA get
dragged through the mud by various entities with supposed allegience to
the (c)OTO, GDs-of-several-stripes, and so forth. I've watched non-Jews
claim that the Kabbalah isn't Jewish, Neo-Pagans claim that Christians
aren't spiritual, Christians claim that Neo-Pagans are Satanists,
Satanists claim that Setians are apostates, and UGLe-affiliated
Freemasonry slagged by M&M and Co-Freemasonry for being anti-symbolic,
while UGLE-Affiliated Freemasons claim that M&M and Co-Freemasonry (not
to mention Prince Hall, in states where applicable) are both clandestine
and irregular. Each "my way or the highway" message claims that his/her
own organization has proof of true descent, real warrants of hisgh
degree, and/or a pipeline to God and that the other guys are everything
from lying scoundrals to porno-peddling pederasts or amphetamine
tweakers who woudn't know an Archangel if she walked up and slpeed them
on the face with a radiantly glowing palm leaf. Is this about money?
Publishing rights? Dues fees? Personall power? Are there actual lawsuits
ongoing beyond those that the (c)OTO is continually fomenting? Is this
about winning hearts and minds in Usenet?
A few candid words of illumination from the trenches would help. Failing
that, a few words of illuminism would not be taken amiss. I'd just like
to see it all laid out in one concise synoptic narrative, you know?
Bonus points for answering the question "What is Whare Ra?"
Thanks,
cat yronwode
Joe Cosby
>Bonus points for answering the question "What is Whare Ra?"
A GD temple in New Zealand.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"Sister Agatha looked up from flat on her back, on
the mat, to see the five hundred pound, nude female sumo wrestler
descending on her, and she was forced to admit to herself that the
Pope had betrayed her."
Richard Ballard
"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> writes:
IMO it is unfortunate that you edited out the original statements
discussing Dave and the so-called "Saviour Syndrome".
>>while the author simultaneously advances a cause of his own [don't
>>support Dave's (?) crusade].
>
>I never spoke to the merits or lack thereof of Dave's crusade. As
>far as it goes, I think Dave is short-sighted and his somewhat
>dated essay doesn't take into account the various changes that have
>occurred in Internet use over the last few years since he's updated
>his website. For example, he doesn't consider spamming to be
>"net abuse", but that was before spam became nearly 50% of all
>e-mail traffic. As such, it begins to interfere with the normal
>operation of ISP servers (who must carry, forward, and archive the
>overload of useless e-mail), so as such it falls under Dave's own
>definition of "net abuse". This calls for a clarification of these
>competing principles that Dave has not made.
Remember the Reagan / Carter presidental debates? "There you
go again ..." and I consider myself to be playing the Carter role
in a mirroring manner.
>Also, the essay doesn't refer to the use of the newer anon
>remailers that allow the user to change the message headers
>to any name or e-mail address they wish; this is unlike the
>original anon remailers like anon.penet.fi, which did not allow
>this clear avenue for abusive impersonation of other posters to
>a forum. Since Dave's essay is silent on this specific aspect of
>net abuse, his essays can't be legitimately invoked to to support
>such abuse.
*Not corroborated* additional information --
(purposefully chaotic?) bad editing.
>>The author also states that Dave (?)
>>is a hypocrite but the author does not corroborate his statement
>>with factual information.
>
>I submit that Dave needs to update his essays to reflect these
>changes in the situation. That he has not done so in over three
>years is evidence that his cherished ideals of "free usenet speech"
>and definitions of "abuse" might be in need of re-examination, and
>perhaps he is reluctant to have to backpedal on his original
>statements.
*Not corroborated* (purposefully chaotic?) opinion.
>>Major omission: nowhere is the worthiness of Dave's (?) (purported)
>>crusade's goal discussed.
>
>There's no need to. Whether or not I personally agree with Dave's
>position has no bearing on its being used by someone else to support
>their arguments; what matters is whether that person adheres to it
>or not.
Your statement is nonsensical (and purposefully chaotic?).
>It's as if someone invoked Ghandi's teachings about non-violent
>political action to justify their own use of violence against
>political enemies. I can point out the hypocrisy of such a position
>no matter what I personally think of Ghandi's tenets myself.
Your explanation is nonsensical (and purposefully chaotic?).
>- Fr. A.o.C.
>
>-----
>
>"And if a man goes through fire for his doctrine -- what does
>that prove? Verily, it is more if your own doctrine comes out
>of your own fire." -- Fredrick Nietzsche
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was not one of Nietzsche's "supermen",
but Gandhi's political theories can be summarized by two simple
understandable statements:
1) I will fight no more. [A statement I originally attribute
to the warrior Cochese of the Cherekowa (sp?) Apaches. The
U.S. Cavalry starved the Apaches into submission and onto
the reservation. The Apaches lost their lands and were
displaced onto land that the Government deemed not habitable.
In the 21st Century the analogous action is declaring
financial bankruptcy and losing all of your property, forcing
you to return home 'with your tail between your legs' to
live submissively with your mother or former partner.
(E.g., the song lyric "... don't try to feed me ...".)]
2) I will not submit. [Gandhi's Indian Nationalist Party
reclaimed their lands from the British through passive
resistance.]
IMO there is elegance in simplicity.
Tom
"Joe Cosby" <joec...@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:pu21rv8onaft8r834...@4ax.com...
>
> "Sister Agatha looked up from flat on her back, on
> the mat, to see the five hundred pound, nude female sumo wrestler
> descending on her, and she was forced to admit to herself that the
> Pope had betrayed her."
Bad misquote. Got it from Poke Runyon, didn't you? I like to keep these
humor citations straight.
The original is an entry into the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, a
world-famous annual competition hosted by the English Department at San Jose
State University to find the most atrocious opening sentences to a
hypothetical lousy novel.
It was submitted by Richard J. Savastio, of Media, Pennsylvania, and was
cited in "It Was a Dark and Stormy Night: The Best (?) from the
Bulwer-Lytton Contest", a collection of winning and otherwise notable
entries compiled by Scott Rice, a professor of English from San Jose State.
"As she fell face down into the black muck of the mud-wrestling pit, her
sweaty, three-hundred pound opponent muttering soft curses in Latin on top
of her, Sister Marie thought, "There is no doubt about it: the Pope has
betrayed me!"
It's interesting to note the changes made to Poke's memory by his
imagination.
BTW, the 2003 Grand Prize winner was that submitted by Ms. Mariann Simms. of
Wetumpka, AL.
"They had but one last remaining night together, so they embraced each other
as tightly as that two-flavor entwined string cheese this is orange and
yellowish-white, the orange probably being a bland Cheddar and the white . .
. Mozzarella, although it could possibly be Provolone or just plain
American, as it really doesn't taste distinctly dissimilar from the orange,
yet they would have you believe that it does by coloring it differently."
Joe Cosby
>
>"Joe Cosby" <joec...@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:pu21rv8onaft8r834...@4ax.com...
>>
>> "Sister Agatha looked up from flat on her back, on
>> the mat, to see the five hundred pound, nude female sumo wrestler
>> descending on her, and she was forced to admit to herself that the
>> Pope had betrayed her."
>
>Bad misquote. Got it from Poke Runyon, didn't you? I like to keep these
>humor citations straight.
>
>The original is an entry into the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, a
>world-famous annual competition hosted by the English Department at San Jose
>State University to find the most atrocious opening sentences to a
>hypothetical lousy novel.
>
>It was submitted by Richard J. Savastio, of Media, Pennsylvania, and was
>cited in "It Was a Dark and Stormy Night: The Best (?) from the
>Bulwer-Lytton Contest", a collection of winning and otherwise notable
>entries compiled by Scott Rice, a professor of English from San Jose State.
>
>"As she fell face down into the black muck of the mud-wrestling pit, her
>sweaty, three-hundred pound opponent muttering soft curses in Latin on top
>of her, Sister Marie thought, "There is no doubt about it: the Pope has
>betrayed me!"
>
>It's interesting to note the changes made to Poke's memory by his
>imagination.
No, I didn't get it from Poke Runyon.
Not all things that happen in the world originate with your enemies.
I've had the quote corrected before, I really prefer the version I
have. It's dada, it just doesn't matter if it's quoted correctly.
It's not rocket science.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
not,
of course,
that i'm TENSE or anything.
- kevbob the tense
Richard Ballard
Joe Cosby <joec...@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com> writes:
On a New Orleans vacation after supper my companion was
tired, and I went out alone. My companion and I already
had explored the French Quarter, but I wanted an
after-supper walk and I enjoyed the cool evening air. As
I wandered through the French Quarter I came upon an alley
we had not previously explored. Shouts sounded from the
alley and a building at the alley end was gaily lit. I walked
down the alley and found the building advertised women's
mud wrestling -- five dollars admittance. I never had seen
women's mud wrestling and I was curious, so I paid the
five dollar fee and entered.
Inside, the building was brightly lit and noisy -- the crowd
was enthusiastic. Two women wearing two-piece swimsuits were
struggling in the mud-filled ring. I looked around, decided
not to linger, and left five dollars poorer.
I did not learn rocket science, but I learned two lessons
for my five dollars. I learned that few woman begin their
professional careers as female mud wrestlers, and I learned
that gravity is persistent.
Nihilist
> "Joe Cosby" <joec...@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:pu21rv8onaft8r834...@4ax.com...
> >
> > "Sister Agatha looked up from flat on her back, on
> > the mat, to see the five hundred pound, nude female sumo wrestler
> > descending on her, and she was forced to admit to herself that the
> > Pope had betrayed her."
>
> Bad misquote. Got it from Poke Runyon, didn't you? I like to keep these
> humor citations straight.
>
> "As she fell face down into the black muck of the mud-wrestling pit, her
> sweaty, three-hundred pound opponent muttering soft curses in Latin on top
> of her, Sister Marie thought, "There is no doubt about it: the Pope has
> betrayed me!"
>
> It's interesting to note the changes made to Poke's memory by his
> imagination.
Joe and Tom,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The modified version is Qabalistically sound and consistent.
The weight was changed from 300 lbs to 500 lbs, a 200 lb increase.
In Liber 777...
... "bone" has the value of 200
... "humerus" has the value of 500
... 500 is the "Duke of Edom"
There are 162 alphanumeric characters in the modified version, with 4
commas bringing the non-space character count to 166.
... 166 is the "King of Edom"
There are 18 alphanumeric characters in the first line of the modified
version.
... 18 is "antique Serpent"
If we take all the capital letters in the modified version (in words
Sister, Agatha, and Pope) and rearrange them Qabalistically...
... we get "ASP"
Finally, I assume you performed the following Qabalistic operation to
determine authorship:
"Sister Agatha" rearranged becomes "I shag Astarte"
Take care.
Love is the law, love under will.
--
e_nih...@yahoo.com
21/m - philosophy, magick, literature, hip hop
Joe Cosby
>"Sister Agatha" rearranged becomes "I shag Astarte"
Also "A Teargas Shit".
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Common sense is that layer of prejudices which we acquire before we
are sixteen.
Albert Einstein
Old Coyote
Hi cat.
I doubt that you would *not* take what I have to say amiss, however,
I believe I probably share this opinion with a lot of other people.
To wit: the problems you are pointing out are due to a certain kind
of mismatch. i.e. a mismatch of memes. Consider that in the 'old days',
there was a certain hierachical structure in place, that was based
on something that was not money. I am reffering of course to the class
system in England. I'm sure you know about Crowley's aspirations (however
futile) to the 'upper class'. One could say that the prevalent social meme
of that time was the class system. It follows that the formation of secret
societies etc. at the time was some kind of response to that meme, in fact
was likely a symptom of it's changing.
It should be pretty obvious by this point that that meme is no longer
the prevalent one. The meme that is in operation now is capatalism, for
sure and certain. No longer is anyone better than any other by birth, now
we judge status by possesions.
Which brings us to the point. In regard to secret societies and so on,
if one grants the previous argument, there is not the same drive for them
to exist as there was previously. Members are not joining up in response
to high-handed upper class activity, instead one must look to the current
meme to suss thier motives. At first glance, it seems reasonable that the
grades are being looked upon as possesions.
Thus the current arguments and so on can be seen as people fighting to
maintain or increase the value of thier possesions. At least, that's how
I see it, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that.
Cheers,
Martin
P.S. Consider also as a corollary that there *is* a hierachical structure
that exists in modern society, & that it's base is the capatalist meme.
In other words, it is a job. I am reffering of course to the military.
Fr. A.o.C.
catherine yronwode wrote:
>
> "Fr. A.o.C." wrote:
>
> > [snip it all!]
>
> Max, i've been following the alienmunoz et al attacks on the Golden
> Dawn(s); the attacks from other GDs on HOMSI; the attacks on the SRIA
> (and the defenses thereof); the attacks on OSOGD by Sar Draconis; the
> attacks on the various OTOs by the (c)OTO. I've watched CHSOTA get
> dragged through the mud by various entities with supposed allegience to
> the (c)OTO, GDs-of-several-stripes, and so forth. I've watched non-Jews
> claim that the Kabbalah isn't Jewish, Neo-Pagans claim that Christians
> aren't spiritual, Christians claim that Neo-Pagans are Satanists,
> Satanists claim that Setians are apostates, and UGLe-affiliated
> Freemasonry slagged by M&M and Co-Freemasonry for being anti-symbolic,
> while UGLE-Affiliated Freemasons claim that M&M and Co-Freemasonry (not
> to mention Prince Hall, in states where applicable) are both clandestine
> and irregular. Each "my way or the highway" message claims that his/her
> own organization has proof of true descent, real warrants of hisgh
> degree, and/or a pipeline to God and that the other guys are everything
> from lying scoundrals to porno-peddling pederasts or amphetamine
> tweakers who woudn't know an Archangel if she walked up and slpeed them
> on the face with a radiantly glowing palm leaf.
I can only speak for myself and in a limited sense, for my organization.
> Is this about money?
Not for the OSOGD. We don't have membership fees, we don't charge for
initiations, we are not a business. OSOGD lodges are free to set up
whatever internal dues/donations structure they want to fund their own operations.
So far as I know, only David Griffin's HOGD/A+O and Robert Zink's HOMSI
charge for memberships and/or initiations. I have no idea how Chic does
things in that respect.
It could be about money in the negative sense: if someone joins our
order for free, then they might be less inclined to join another one
that charges dues and initiation fees. But since we don't believe in
"astral initiation", anyone who wants to be a member has to come to
either the San Francisco or Seattle areas for initiations, so that
certainly limits how many members we can "steal" from Orders with
mail-order instruction and long distance "astral initiations".
> Publishing rights?
Anyone is free to use OSOGD rituals as published on our website at no
charge, and are free to modify them as they see fit.
Since scores of books have been published about that GD and it's ritual
texts over the years, I don't think there's any publishing rights to be
had. Unique derivative works can naturally be copyrighted.
> Dues fees? Personall power?
People can have all kind of interpretations about what "personal power"
means. Power to do what?
The OSOGD doesn't want to be the one-and-only Golden Dawn. We just want
to be ourselves.
> Are there actual lawsuits ongoing
I understand that David Griffin has filed a lawsuit against Robert Zink
of HOMSI charging improper use of trademarks. That was several months
ago -- I have no idea where it stands now.
> beyond those that the (c)OTO is continually fomenting?
I thought that had been settled.
> Is this about winning hearts and minds in Usenet?
Hmmm, there's not much left besides that, is there?
Personally speaking, the "disclaimers" I've written in response to the
malicious impostures are simply to set the record straight. Usenet
messages go into the Google and other archives and are, in a sense, a
matter of public record. If anyone ever claims in the future that I made
some statement I never made, and refers to a Google archive, I want a
disclaimer from me to be in the same thread.
Someone remarked (I can't recall who, and I can't seem to locate the
message) that if the impostor is posing as me and saying something I
"agree with", or even quoting me directly from elsewhere, why should I
care? I care because it's being subtly twisted and edited to alter the
meaning. Usually, it's altered to have me promoting a very blatant
"Thelemic" viewpoint, with a lot of implied hero-worship of Crowley.
For example, this was posted falsely under my name and e-mail return address:
> Aleister Crowley is the real reason that there is still a Golden Dawn in any
> form today. Out of the ashes of the destruction of the original Order, rose
> the Phoenix of the Argentum Astrum or A:. A:. . There are many out there
> who still want to revive the corpse of the old time, but we must make way
> for the New Aeon, heralded in by the child Horus! To learn more about
> Crowley and his important place in magickal history check us out at
> www.osogd.org . That's the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, a modern
> repository of Crowley and modern hermetic arts--the way YOU want it.
This is a misrepresentation of my own opinions, as well as the doctrine
of the OSOGD. And it prompted some negative responses from various other
people on the newsgroup. That was it's purpose.
In another example, the impostor posted what he called "excerpts from
the OSOGD Manifesto", and some of the message text does appear in that document:
> As Western Civilization enters a new Aeon, so must its esoteric traditions.
> Our solution is not to destroy the old traditions, but to make them new
> again.
But then this was followed by a passage that is NOT from our Manifesto,
and does not accurately represent us:
> The New Aeon is as the Child Horus, who represents the true renewal of the
> old traditions. Initiations unto Horus renew the soul and make ready the
> aspirant for the coming times.
> "Man is ignorant of the nature of his own being and powers. Even his idea of
> his limitations is based on experience of the past, and every step in his
> progress extends his empire. There is therefore no reason to assign
> theoretical limits to what he may be, or to what he may do." This quote says
> in itself why the old Golden Dawn system is no longer workable, but is
> instead "doomed to failure."
Then after the insertion, the text reverts back to actual quotes from
our document:
> Het-Nuit bases its authority to redact the GD system on the concept of
> Aeonic Evolution...
In yet another example, an impostor posted a verbatim copy of my "Open
Source Magick" essay, but added the traditional Thelemic salutations
("Do what thou wilt..." at the beginning and "...love under Will" at the
end). Again, this is meant to portray me falsely as some kind of
doctrinaire Thelemite, which I am not.
These persons seem to be obsessed with portraying OSOGD as a sort of OTO
with a GD twist. I've argued this point before; using materials from
Crowley's works such as Liber AL doesn't make us Thelemic, any more than
using materials from the Qabalah makes us Jewish. We can borrow and
incorporate from both those sources without adhering to the religious
doctrines that accompany them. We can build a model of magick on the
Aeon of Horus and finding one's True Will, just as we can build a model
on the Spheres and Paths of the Tree of Life, without being either
Thelemites or Jews.
But some people on the GD path view Crowley very negatively, so any
"tainting" in the slightest of the GD system with anything that
originated with Uncle Al -- regardless of its merit or applicability --
is tantamount to sacrilege. Their possible intention (I'm speculating
here) is to "scare people away" from us by painting us as zealous
Crowley-worshippers in public, which they can then refer to (by a Google
URL reference) if anyone asks. ("That OSOGD order is just OTO-style
Crowleyanity -- read what they posted to alt.magick last year...")
> A few candid words of illumination from the trenches would help. Failing
> that, a few words of illuminism would not be taken amiss. I'd just like
> to see it all laid out in one concise synoptic narrative, you know?
I hope this helped.
- Fr. A.o.C.
-----
"There are bad people who would be less dangerous if they were quite
devoid of goodness." - La Rochefoucauld