Re: Life

[dccxxvii]

dccxxvii ( the.impe...@gmail.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>The geocentric model was based on one observation - that the Sun
>appeared to go round the Earth - the current model is based on
>millions of observations, making refinement much more likely that
>paradigm shift. Our current model is good enough to be workable as
>we use it in the launch and travel of space vehicles and probes.

*more likely _than_

---

>Well you're making even more assumptions there. It's been over 2,300
>years and probably more (anyone by a shoreline would have seen the
>curve of the earth just by looking out to see) since someone figured
>out we were living on a globe, what other Earth shattering discoveries
>are you talking about?

*looking out to _sea_

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

>>>>>>### - might as well ask what is life?
>>>>>>what causes life?
>
>>>>>>well they still have no answers for that one, they can talk a
>>>>>>ton about life and its diversity 'after' it appears but not
>>>>>>how it appeared in the first place, it's a mystery existing
>>>>>>obviously beyond the range of the limited rational mind that
>>>>>>likes/prefers everything broken into two pieces for its
>>>>>>convenience alone but which in such a broken/divided state is
>>>>>>then incapable of seeing/perceiving the one from which all
>>>>>>things actually emerge...
>
>>>>>'They' have many possible answers, just a lack of conclusive
>>>>>evidence. It is clearly not, then, beyond the range of the
>>>>>'limited rational mind.'
>
>>>>### - a 'lack' of conclusive evidence is hardly 'evidence' for it
>>>>being 'in' range? (a lack of conclusive evidence is a euphemism
>>>>for: we don't know:)
>
>>>My point is that a lack of conclusive evidence does not justify your
>>>assertion that it is beyond the range of the limited rational mind,
>>>as your helpful example of the overthrow of the geocentric model of
>>>the solar system clearly shows. As more evidence became available
>>>the 'limited rational mind' figured out the more correct order of
>>>things. Aristarchus had put forward the idea in the 3rd century
>>>BC. It was the irrational superstitious minds of the religious that
>>>helped retard the acceptance of the new model.
>
>>>We have a fair idea of how abiogenesis could occur, our information
>>>gathering may yet fill in the blanks.
>
>>### - and 'maybe' it wont? i.e. it's merely an (supposedly
>>intelligent) assumption that the blanks 'will' be filled in,
>
> No, the intelligent *hope* is that the blanks can be filled in. If
> people wish to devote time and effort in pursuit of that hope then I
> fully support them.

### - well, "hopes" and "may yets" are hardly the rock solid ground you
imply in your argument/ "intelligent assumption" that seems to lend credence
to the 'belief' people (like yourself) harbour that those blanks 'will' in
fact be filled in?

Iow, if you are going to hold up hopes and/or may-yets as being some kind of
valid argument, then the opposite equally applies in that they also 'may
not'be able to fill in said blanks... i mean, one can certainly 'hope' that
that
will be the case, or even assume that will be the case if one is given to
having such faith in the abilities of reason to one day actually grasp it,
but it is by no means guaranteed that that will definitely be the case
(basically because to act in that manner would actually be papering-over the
(95+%) cracks in favour of an argument that can only currently support a
surface 5%)

Now if they already had 95% data and were only looking for the remaining
missing 5%, then i might have even agreed with you, but the reverse is
actually the truth here: i.e. you're 'assuming' the other 95% is going to be
similar to the 5% already gathered, and that's an awful lot of room for
error


> Your argument is akin to saying "What is 2 + (another number we don't
> know)" and deciding maths is beyond the "limited rational mind" if we
> can't solve it.

### - nonsense, the argument is merely suggesting that 5% isn't really
enough to decide the matter finally and thus that one should perhaps (i.e.
intelligently) keep a more open mind to some of that missing 95% (the vast
majority after all) maybe even totally contradicting the little we think we
do know, and coz anything less would be sheer arrogance that is virtually
guaranteed to make dreadful errors, perhaps even fatal ones




>>and until that time everyone's going on an assumption just like they
>>did with the geocentric model, which, incidentally, turned out to be
>>completely in error (couldn't have been more wrong!)
>
> They're going on a practically applicable best model not a baseless
> assumption.

### - right, a best model that is only 5% complete, which although not
'totally' baseless due to that 5%, is still actually assuming an awful lot
about what it can't see and then processing that huge unknown to fit around
the minority (like that's always worked out so well before, ever?)



>> and thus there were supposedly intelligent people in that time
> walking > round thinking that they knew what was going on only of
> course they
>> were almost completely mad...
>
> People who are incorrect are mad? That's a lazy and rather silly
> assumption you're making there.

### - heh well people who are incorrect aren't exactly right in the head are
they? (grin)

i.e. 'insanity' in that sense is to not know what one is actually doing,
and/or to 'think' one does know what they are doing except they're not
actually correct & don't realise it hehehe...

the only leeway i can give you there being that 'deluded' people aren't
always necessarily totally/hopelessly insane, they might just be deluded (in
which case it might be curable, but until it is they're basically definitely
off their trolleys innit!)



>>the point being... so what's to say that the 'current' model is any
>>more correct or any less insane with all its 95+ percent blanks?

>
> The geocentric model was based on one observation - that the Sun
> appeared to go round the Earth - the current model is based on millions
> of observations, making refinement much more likely that paradigm shift.
> Our current model is good enough to be workable as we use it in the
> launch and travel of space vehicles and probes.

### - one cannot deny that it functions... to a fashion... and that based on
that we've created the modern world... it's just some people (most of them
artists as it goes) are of the opinion/conviction that the so called modern
world is actually a travesty (if not a complete disaster) in the making?

So okay, we can send rockets to the moon! Whoo-hoo! But did we really have
have to poison everyone and everything on earth in order to do it, plus if
true, would that not be a form of madness to have done so? (i may speak in
extremes to make my point but you surely still understand what i'm
saying/suggesting no?)



> As for 95+% blanks, so far all you've given me is 'why am I here?.' How
> are you gauging the size of the blanks? Are you just assuming there are
> huge amounts of things we don't know about? How do you know?

### - oh yea of so little short term memory? heh... i.e. this was all said
in direct reference to the 'standard model' of which the majority is
currently made up of dark energy and dark matter (euphemisms for we dunno
wtf it could possibly be coz it's nothing we've looked at so far) all we do
know being that there's a feckin' big something there that we just don't
understand (even as much as maybe 95% of the whole) a kind of 'dark hole'
(heh:) that like black holes, we may never actually be 'able' to see into
due to the nature of it, and wherein physics as we know it could be
completely different, or even completely off the map!



>>>>>>eternity has no plans and never did have any to begin with,
>>>>>>to see patterns in the chaos is something only the rational
>>>>>>mind does, and the next thing one is seeing imaginary poodles
>>>>>>and rabbits in the clouds where no such things actually exist
>>>>>>except the white noise of chaos moving about in reason-less +
>>>>>>purpose-less motion...there's nothing cheesy about it:)
>
>>>>>There may well be a path (though I doubt a conscious plan)
>>>>>'eternity' takes (repetitive expansion/contraction, continuous
>>>>>expansion etc.), again only dolts make firm judgements on
>>>>>insufficient evidence.
>
>>>>### - calling something a path doesn't actually (or necessarily)
>>>>make it one, the "dolts making making firm judgements on
>>>>insufficient evidence" being the rationalists making such
>>>>assertions/assumptions in the first place? (a pot-kettle-black
>>>>thingy for sure;)
>
>>>You seem to be saying there is definitely no path, no pattern, isn't
>>>that your assertion/assumption?
>
>>>Examining the universe to see what we can find out about it without
>>>making your assumption seems better to me.
>
>>### - i know it 'seems' like a worthy cause, but that's only because
>>reason per se figures that that seems the right (plus
> logical/rational) >way to proceed,
>
> You would prefer ignorance and a lack of curiosity?

### - no, if anything i would prefer intelligently/more honestly walking the
tightrope/watershed that exists between the two above extremes (there isn't
anything else;)




>>even if 95+ percent of it is missing,
>> iow reason (perforce justifying itself and its own workings)
>>assumes that the tiny bit of info it's gathered so far (less than 5%)
>>is gonna give us the key to the rest of it...
>
> No it doesn't. It believes that trying to explore our environment is
> more useful than wallowing in ignorance. Even if your assumed figure is
> correct have you no interest in exploring and investigating the
> remainder to our best ability?

### - don't you ever think it odd then how "exploring our environment" has
correlated with destroying our environment? (e.g. sending rockets to the
moon while people here on earth are actually staving to death, i mean,
doesn't that strike you as being oh just a tinge of being totally fucking
insane??)




>>also, there is no discernible path or patterns in the swirling +
>>expanding chaos that is the universe...
>>i.e. chaos is chaos precisely
>>because there's no clearance to it (which is what makes it chaos in
>>the first place), to then let reason find (or more correctly: make)
>>patterns and paths in that swirling cloud of chaos and say that
>>they're actually meaningful is merely reason lying to itself in order
>>to justify its own continuation...
>
> Right, so we can predict the positions of hundreds of thousands of
> stars and stellar objects at any given time in the future by.....
> magic? Is that what you're saying. Planets don't rotate, revolve round
> suns, there are no spiral galaxies revolving around a central point?
> Stars change their course randomly in your world? Even you have
> discerned the pattern of expansion.

### - heh oh we can certainly do wonders even with that only 5%, nothing
less even than the whole of the modern world et al + all the modern
horrors/wonders of it, most of it horrors and getting worse (i mean, haven't
you looked around at it lately? It's tearing itself apart)




>>>As for your strained leap from scientists theorising about how the
>>>universe works to seeing patterns in the clouds.... it seems to me
>>>that it is the poetic, irrational side of us that sees those
>>>patterns. It tends not to be scientists who see the face of Jesus
>>>in their slice of toast, or the wood grain of their table.
>
>>### - one could say/observe that religion preceded reason,
>
> No, reason preceded religion.

### - so the age of reason was 'before' religion?? Wrong!!!

Reason 'replaces' religion, plus what i'm actually arguing is that this is
in appearance only and that ultimately reason is just another form of
religion that is actually more powerful + more inclusive than religion ever
was! (iow, it is religion par excellence)

That if what 'religion' originally set out to do was to ultimately control
people and the way they lived by edict from on high, then this same agenda
is entirely far surpassed by the modern replacement belief in science and
all things rational... ostensibly a religion of now 'tangible'
miracles,one's
you can actually hold in your own hand so it's really convincing so far less
leaps of faith are required to be able to relate to it all as a philosophy,
what people perhaps of course don't realise being that the church (when it
was still in charge i mean) might have even had something to do with
promoting the rise of science to be its replacement when (and after) people
such as the likes of galileo came along showing irrefutable proof that they
were more far fallible than what they'd been previously telling people to
believe and trust in as though their life depended on it (which in many
instances actually did if only because the church itself might destroy you
for not agreeing with them)



>>in that
>>it's almost exactly the same technique that's being applied: that of
>>'making' sense of things where no sense is actually to be found,
>
> Your blind assumption that there are no patterns and no sense
> re-appears.

### - it never went away + has been there all along hehe, chaos isn't order
it's chaos. To find order in chaos is to be making patterns in the clouds
wherein those patterns are existing only in the eye of the beholder who is
projecting them onto that chaos and calling them real... and the next thing
ya know everyone ends up worshipping the easter bunnie or some such far more
rational nonsense (dark matter) that's not doing anyone any good except that
it all looks great on paper and everyone agrees...

"you're all just a bunch of slaves!" -jim morrison:)




>>in which case reason is merely the upgraded version of the same old
>>same old, it is merely religion with bells and whistles on :)
>
> That's facile claptrap. Religions are, very generally, dogmatic and
> believe they have all the answers that are needed. Rationality is
> always open to revising it's models based on the availability of new
> information. Religions are faith based reason is based on empirical
> observation and logic.

### - awww and i really thought you'd like that one! :)

Try to see a different pov? That religion was based on... shit (grin) - and
reason is just a different 'brand' of shit, a far more convincing +
involving brand that's got everyone buying into it like there's no tomorrow,
yourself for example, a staunch party member towing (and toting) all the
party lines, it's the new religion, judiciously deciding what's good and
what's bad for everyone and sundry, what's right and what's wrong, like this
ultimately complex life, that incidentally no one really currently yet fully
understands, can all be reduced and rendered into such simplified terms for
an increasingly simple majority who don't really know what the fuck they're
all doing but are going along with it all anyway coz that's the easiest
thing to do + no one really wants to get into trouble either so they just
let all those bozos do their thinking for them...



>>iow, we have a mania (or rather: reason has a mania) of going around
>>thinking that it knows what's going on, basically because it derives
>>an enormous amount of comfort from thinking this about its own
>>constructs, plus it does this (plus obtains that very comfort)
>>regardless of whether it's actually correct or not,
>
> That's what you think you know, is it? That's what you assume is going
> on?

### - that's certainly part of it alright, but there's plenty more :)




>>history
>>repeatedly showing us that what seems most sensible today is more
>>than likely discovered to be total nonsense again tomorrow...
>
> As I've said, when rational people have more information they change
> the model they work to. The current model of physics is clearly not
> nonsense as it is proven useful in practical circumstances.

### - well it's currently touch and go whether we're actually gonna
'survive' all that illusionary so-called 'useful-ness' you refer to or not,
probably not...



>>>>>>well, yes and no... in that ultimately all words are lies
>>>>>>anyway, so we can never take them or the descriptions they
>>>>>>form-u-late as being accurate beyond a point, thus the only
>>>>>>honest thing to do under the circumstances is take them all
>>>>>>with a pinch of salt, realising from the beginning the very
>>>>>>limited (and thus distorting) tools they are and to never
>>>>>>take them literally lest one falls into the trap of
>>>>>>descriptions and concepts...
>
>>>So if you ordered duck a l'orange in a restaurant and were brought
>>>an old shoe you wouldn't complain, right?
>
>>### - well it would certainly be a bit different wouldn't it lol :)
>
>>the point being, that one shouldn't ever take the workings of said
>>reason as being gospel,
>
> Living in your world must be scary, you can never be sure enough of the
> reasonable and rational people who design boats and planes to get on
> either. When you select TV channel 4 on your remote you must wonder
> what channel will actually appear, assuming your telly doesn't turn
> into a blue whale.

### - more bracing than scary actually, but definitely also pretty scary too
at times...

For example, to often find obviously intelligent people sooo entrenched in
the beliefs + intricate workings of reason that in all likelihood + barring
a miracle they'll just never ever get out, this i do find bloody scary at
times (terrifying actually, a population of lifer's on death row without a
hope in hell, what a world!)



>> else that would be to be treating reason as a faith (which is
>> precisely what it actually is, a belief:)
>
> In your limited understanding of reason that may be true, you can join
> the real world any-time.

### - you cheeky fucker lol (it's ok, i never take things personally ;-)



>>>>>>(the whole human race fell into it and drowned)
>
>>>>>The human race is still alive....
>
>>>>### - if you can 'call' that... living??
>
>>>Yes, were you expecting something more?
>
>>### - well then i'll let 'you' explain that to the kid that's just
>>had all its arms and legs blown off for nothing, ok?
>
> "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
> person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
> misrepresented version of that position."
>
> That kid isn't 'the whole human race.'

### - true, about only 80% of it (but still the majority iow)




>> were you really expecting something more kid?? (duh)
>
> I was expecting more of you than this.

### - i'm definitely not like you if that's what you mean hehe, plus it's
not really my fault exactly if there's something 'you' don't understand? (or
perhaps don't want to understand for reasons of your own) plus i'm not gonna
twist your arm or anything so it's up to you to make the effort (or not) to
at least try to appreciate what someone is saying whether you initially
agree with it or not and then go on from there by yourself on what you
yourself can then see/observe based on what you've heard/seen/experienced...
what else!

I mean, i can see your pov entirely, so much so that i could even adopt your
argument and argue it for you albeit perhaps not quite so eloquently, but it
would still be the very same argument, and coz it's actually a very common
one! (i.e. ya can literally get this bs anywhere with always more or less
the same glib clichés and sound bites thrown in every time!:)

Which is also kinda to say that it's not actually rocket science to be a
rocket scientist, as with enough training just about any moron could
probably do it (lol for some reason i wanted to say mormon instead of moron?
both work;)



>>>>>>>Do you see the connections ?
>
>>>>>>i see exactly what you mean/intend and have done from the
>>>>>>beginning, i also see that you are trying to be kind/helpful
>>>>>>towards someone who appears to you to be not in a nice
>>>>>>place... it's just that my whole struggle is against
>>>>>>precisely that joining of all the dots to make imaginary
>>>>>>shapes and patterns in the clouds... it's what everyone does
>>>>>>and insists is the right thing to do as though there is no
>>>>>>other accepted or valid alternative to the one-size-fits-all
>>>>>>method of the rational mind + what can't be thus made/forced
>>>>>>to fit that criteria is automatically discarded until only
>>>>>>the rational view seems to exist...
>
>>>>>These people who are insisting you think as they do... who are
>>>>>they exactly?
>
>>>>### - well, a bunch of stuffed shirts in the royal scientific
>>>>institution just for starters no?
>
>>>I don't think they give much of a shit what you think, have they
>>>been sending you letters ordering you to think the way they do?
>
>>### - then you're a bit slow? coz those particular bozo's are
>>basically calling all the shots for the rest of us plus dictating how
>>everyone should live + what they should or should not aspire to...
>>was my point:)
>
> Good grief you're paranoid. Anyone with a mind can buck the system.
> Even with huge amounts of evidence to the contrary belief in the
> biblical creation is widespread. People *do* believe whatever shit they
> want, there is no dictatorship. Aspire to whatever you want to aspire
> to, there will be no agents in black helicopters landing on your lawn
> or the mountain you've decided to get away from civilization on to
> tell you the error of your ways.

### - hey aren't they using drones now to sort dissenters out these days?

Chomsky (i think) said that for sure they no longer send out the death
squads to deal with domestic dissenters, but that there are still definite
penalties for dissenting (such as being marginalised and/or unfunded for
example, you would need to see his documentary 'manufacturing consent' to
understand, available on google + make sure it's the full version)



>>>>(loads of people were laughed/ridiculed right out of there for not
>>>>thinking as the others did/do no? often people who actually
>>>>turned out in the end to be even more correct than them!) -
>
>>>No, not often. Mostly people who are ridiculed are ridiculed because
>>>their ideas are ridiculous. There are a few that have been proved
>>>right and caused a paradigm shift. They are famous and because of
>>>this seem more numerous than they are.
>
>>### - you're still missing the actual point here, in that anything
>>that tends to contradict the accepted (i want to say dogma) norm, is
>>typically rejected! and this regardless of whether it's correct or
>>not (something which has occurred often enough anyway to make the
>>point)
>
> Now your arguing *for* rationality?

### - what you should have said there was "Yes advances by rational men have
been stifled by *rational* people acting irrationally." and coz that is
precisely what i was saying occurs/has occurred, that a general consensus
holds sway until replaced by another perhaps more inclusive one, but that
until such times as it is accepted is consider a heresy and thus virtually
the same system as used by religion only now they leave a door open just in
case they get it wrong (see? they did learn a couple of lessons from history
+ have been forced to include that now;)



> Without current working theories we go back to pre stone age levels of
> civilization. Is that what you advocate?

### - well i can't really advocate for that hehe, but if we did at leastwe'd
no longer be destroying ourselves and the world? So perhaps then it would
indeed be better to live a far simpler life while advancing ourselves in
some other way, but this is just conjecture as unless they do blow
themselves up it's unlikely we'll ever be returning to anything like that
soon...

More to the point, is how to reduce one's obsession with said reason as
being the general panacea for absolutely everything so as to at least allow
some kind of genuine sanity to creep back into the equation, plus if you
don't think unbridled reason is a hazard then again i say just look around
at what we've all been doing to ourselves and the planet? It's not all great
you know...



>>>>for everyone else it's just called: going to school :)
>
>>>What would you have taught in schools if not the current findings of
>>>our civilization?
>
>>### - exactly! :)
>
> That's not an answer.
>
>>iow, regardless of how wrong it usually is (and has
>>been to date so far in countless civilisations before ours) it's
>>nevertheless always indoctrinated into the populace as being ipso
>>facto correct, often upon pain of death for dissent,
>
> It's right enough to be useful. Nobody is put to death by rational,
> reasonable people for dissent. What are you talking about?

### - i'm talking history here not paranoia + i totally agree with you that
rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people to death for
dissent, so when they do then obviously they were/are not quite as
rational/reasonable as they've maybe been purporting themselves to be?

That if, for example, one examines the documented methods of the once all
powerful catholic church + how in their history they one time quite
consciously + systematically got rid of all the competition to as to
deliberately force/impose a very one-pointed and intelligently directed yet
ultimately insane view of the world upon all their members, and this without
even bothering to get their members permission to do so (iow, they were a
kind of self-appointed ruling class calling the shots for everyone they
ruled over), then it's possible to see that many of their methods still
persist to the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely different
+ modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the population who lords it
over everyone else...

Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns everything, another
19% do very well working for them, the other 80% don't do very well at
all..." --taken from his manufacturing consent

is... just the way things currently are on this funny little (but ultimately
confused) blue and green planet my intellectual friend, and HAS been for
really quite some time now! (centuries! millennia even! + welcome to planet
earth and the fairly miserable human condition:)




>> or more recently: upon pain of ridicule and marginalisation for an
>> equivalent heresy... (meet the new boss, same as the old boss?:)
>
> People just need enough evidence to effectively convince the
> establishment, you're still arguing that the irrational and
> unreasonable stifle the rational and reasonable from making
> advancements.

### - they not only stifle them, they also deliberately 'direct' it all to
go in certain directions only + change the rules as it suits them!

Take the UN for example, it's generally agreed that interfering in a
sovereign nation is taboo, and then they go and do it anyway?? time and time
again btw, so it's not no accident ya know:)




>>>>>Who is insisting that there are (I assume you mean meaningful)
>>>>>patterns in the clouds? Are you just assuming they exist? "I
>>>>>don't know" is often a reasonable response.
>
>>>>### - i was saying/suggesting that all humanity's rational beliefs
>>>>and cherished mores (polished turds more like;) are mere patterns
>>>>they are finding/making in the proverbial clouds (of otherwise
>>>>chaos) and then calling that reality... iow, everything deemed
>>>>'meaningful' we literally invented ourselves, while at the same
>>>>time totally ignoring anything (everything else iow) that doesn't
>>>>fit the (rational) criteria... you know, the other 99.9 recurring
>>>>percent that we apparently know fuck all about and prolly never
>>>>will and find that very hard to accept kinda thing?:)
>
>>>>>>but take that (rational mind) away and everything is new and
>>>>>>never the same twice, the self-imposed limits and limitations
>>>>>>fall away and the now freed perception expands enormously,
>>>>>>exponentially and without limit... iow, the fallen/divided
>>>>>>atom regains its original entangled superposition and spin
>>>>>>and is again capable of feats of perception beyond the
>>>>>>ability of a divided/fallen state, but even these words are
>>>>>>something less than how things really are and as such are
>>>>>>allusions only (not illusions but allusions) and should only
>>>>>>be taken as such, they are merely fingers pointing at the
>>>>>>moon, so it is no good to examine the fingers for anything
>>>>>>important or meaningful beyond that which they are
>>>>>>pointing/alluding to (the moon:)
>
>>>>>There are things that (under like circumstances) happen without
>>>>>fail. If you doubt this hold a masonry mallet directly above
>>>>>your groin and drop it enough times to make the evaluation that
>>>>>the result will never be pleasant (perversions excluded.)
>
>>>>### - ok so say maybe there's 1% (or much less) of the universe
>>>>that actually fits that criteria, that's no justification for
>>>>viewing said universe exclusively in those terms, is it?? yet
>>>>that's exactly what we do while arrogantly assuming the rest!
>>>>(e.g. there's a 95%+ hole in the standard model and yet they
>>>>insist we view the world according to that holy model)
>
>>>What, that meaningfully impacts your existence, do you feel is
>>>unexplained?
>
>>### - well i don't remember buying tickets to come here, do you? so
>>everything! :)
>
> Well, that's a cop out.
>
> Proto-you swam like a motherfucker to beat off thousands of others to
> get to that egg first.

### - lol and you say *i'm* the one copping out?? (grinz:)



> You seem pretty sure we can never know why we're here and yet you also
> seem to be saying that pondering why you're here affects your
> existence. You're really letting one little unsolved question stop you
> from actually enjoying your life?

### - rather the opposite actually, in that being more aware of the (true)
situation actually heightens one's appreciation as opposed to dulling it?
It's a lot more scary to be awake (to it all) so to speak, but dull it isn't
(boring sometimes tho yes, most of their activities appear inane, like
they're all living in a theme park version of reality:)



>>>>>Bruce was way smarter than you IMO.
>
>>>>>>so, so much for words, language and the rational mind...
>>>>>>which i realise doesn't exactly leave us with very much in
>>>>>>the way of tools to manipulate perception with, but then who
>>>>>>ever said/suggested it should all be manipulated in the first
>>>>>>place anyway! of course there is a lot of comfort in people
>>>>>>thinking they know what we're doing playing these games with
>>>>>>themselves, it's just that doing all that stops/blocks them
>>>>>>from dealing with reality the way IT is and wants to be and
>>>>>>thus everyone is basically walking around in a dream illusion
>>>>>>of their own making, maybe coz it's a lot less scary that way
>>>>>>:)
>
>>>>>Step out of a high window and test if gravity works. There are
>>>>>rules however much you fantasise they don't apply to you.
>
>>>>### - well perhaps now you'll review your above
>>>>statement(s)/affirmations in the light of my reply?
>
>>>Will you review your statement(s)/affirmation(s)? If you truly
>>>believe words are lies then you are just asking me to replace one
>>>lie with another, but you clearly don't really believe this
>
>>### - if one starts with the basic premise that all words are lies
>
> Then you're a dickhead. Words are symbols.

### - well they might also be quite a bit more than just that haha;)



>>anyway, then everything turns into what it really is... poetry
>
> Poetry is not synonymous with lies.
>
>>instead of fact... and fingers pointing at the moon... 'allusions'
>
> Allusions are not synonymous with lies.
>
>>only to what can never actually be described or taken literally
>>without risking madness:)
>
> Yes, if your waiter actually brings you Duck a l'Orange he'll go nuts.
> Get a grip.

### - (cracking up;) nah, he wont go nuts, he's ALREADY nuts! LOL;)

(still laughing;) have you ever seen the movie 'one flew over the cuckoo's
nest with jack nicholson as jesus? (written by ken kesey no less;) the thing
with cheify (from who's pov the story's told/related in the book) being that
he'd always actually had the strength to leave (the asylum lol;) anytime he
wanted, but it wasn't until jack came along that he actually found a reason
to do so? (i think kesey's maybe trying to tell us something important
here;)



>>"lost in a roman wilderness of pain, and all the children are insane"
>>--jim morrison
>
>>>>(they also once believed/insisted that the sun went around the
>>>>earth too didn't they, like how wrong could they have been! was
>>>>the clue;)
>
>>>Like, um, it was rational minds that had to overcome the irrational,
>>>wishful thinking superstitions that reinforced the geocentric model.
>
>>### - well that's what they certainly teach us in school anyway: that
>>they were wrong for all the 'reasons' given, and that consequently we
>>are now more correct than they were... only in another 500 years (if
>>there's anyone still alive
>
> So the human race *is* still alive now?

### - i looked up from what i was doing only the other day to notice an
advert playing on the tv in the background just it was saying: "it's quality
that counts, not quantity" (and then it went into selling expensive cars or
something equally boring/inane)

Yes it's alive, but only barely + it doesn't actually seem too well (i
notice you snipped/removed the dylan quote i posted on this every subject?
tsk now i've got to put it back;)

Hey hey Woody Guthrie I wrote you a song
About a funny old world that's coming along
Seems sick and it's hungry, it's tired and it's torn
It looks like it's dying and it's hardly been born. - bob dylan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hygKtKhSLc




>> and we haven't just destroyed ourselves in
>>our folly that is) they'll probably equally look back and consider us
>>to be just as simple minded and superstitious as we now think of
>>those who lived 500 years ago (and in all likelihood 'they' wont be
>>any more correct either!:)

>
> Well you're making even more assumptions there. It's been over 2,300
> years and probably more (anyone by a shoreline would have seen the
> curve of the earth just by looking out to see) since someone figured
> out we were living on a globe, what other Earth shattering discoveries
> are you talking about?

### - (btw, oddly enough i enjoyed "looking out to see" a bit more?;)

Sigh, what i'm talking about is the same thing we're talking about: the
geocentric view of the world that was literally turned upside down at one
point, sending them all into a mighty panic lol, and the people who really +
genuinely thought they knew what was going on only to suddenly realise they
were idiots (lol) but then not so stupid as to not totally realise the
effect knowledge of their fallibility would likely have upon the rest of the
population! (people might, for example, turn away from the church in droves,
or worse: burn them all at the stake for misleading everyone lol;)

Anyway, they shuffled things around mighty quick + shuffled 'em like never
before, took them 150 years to paper over the cracks + a total of 500 years
to actually own up and even apologise to poor old galileo (wasn't that long
ago actually, around 2000 i think;)




>>>>>>that while it may be acceptable for children to live in
>>>>>>imaginary worlds of santa and the tooth fairy, adults should
>>>>>>be able to take reality more on the chin even if the reality
>>>>>>of it IS a bit scary (fucking scary in fact, maybe even
>>>>>>terrifying heh, reality is definitely not for the weak or the
>>>>>>somehow frightened and feeble, it takes guts and endless
>>>>>>balls just to stand the sight of it and live, yet it's in us
>>>>>>to be able to do it - to find our original innocence...
>
>>>>>Exactly... there are rational rules you can't escape.... scary?
>>>>>That's kind of what we're supposed to decide for ourselves here.
>>>>>Revel in the rational, it can seem miraculous.
>
>>>>heh at such dogma, like we can't escape going for a shit every
>>>>day just as much but let's not go making a philosophy out of that
>>>>either? ;-)
>
>>>That wouldn't be rational....
>
>>### - agreed, and yet that's precisely what we've already done as a
>>species by adopting reason to the exclusion of everything and
>>anything else...
>
> We haven't. You have a warped view of the human race. Reason and
> rationality take second place to emotions in parts of everybody's lives
> - personal relationships, what sports teams we support, etc. and
> supplement it in our politics and philosophy.... You are viewing a self
> made cardboard cut-out of humanity and treating that as reality.

### - smile, well oddly enough in the beatles film yellow submarine it was
the people who'd all been turned into cardboard cut-outs by the blue
meanies, or something no? So perhaps you are just inadvertently intuiting
the truth + reversing it for convenience sake:)




>>basically, we took some turds we made and polished
>>them and now consider them to be 'special' turds that are above the
>>rest... iow, we call ourselves rational and then do the irrational
>>and can't see the flaw in our reasonings... just like they did with a
>>bunch of constructs they called religion!
>
> That just feels to me like a load of crap you read or made up without
> knowing what you're talking about.

### - (laughing at your obvious frustration, but in a nice way heh;) if you
could perhaps see/view religion as previously being a kind of faulty form of
applied reason (just for a minute ok?) then maybe you might more readily
catch on to what i'm trying to say to you, and so ok they've improved on it
since then (lol after galileo they had to!;) but basically it's still the
same old meat and 2 veg diet just being served up by some now fancy tv chef
that everyone's swallowing, hook, line and sinker;)




>>"destroy all rational thought" --William S Burroughs
>
> You obviously don't agree or you wouldn't be trying to have a
> discussion about it with me.

### - again, i notice you've removed the rimbaud quote that was intended to
clarify the above? (i didn't put those two together by accident you know;)

Plus if you think about it, that is precisely what i've been attempting to
do with you, tho not so much to destroy as 'rearrange' (it doesn't need to
be totally destroyed coz with discipline it's possible to just hold it at
bay on occasion instead and then we get 2 options instead of only one or
none;)







--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[slider]

### - oh well, looks like yet another one has bitten the proverbial dust :)

woah yea of such short attention span heh, how can anyone of so little
concentration ever hope to climb the walls of so-called 'progress' and
escape to erm, whatever it is people call it these days that lies beyond the
invented rule and measure that has ultimately confined man to a dungeon hell
of his own creation and from which there is no escape but that of death?

oh yeah, freedom, that's what they called it heh, freedom! ;-)

evil magicians have of course beguiled you's with their measuring wands
with which they have drawn down a veil of sleepiness, creating in such a
fashion the world of the sleepwalkers that don't even know they are dreaming
(awww sad:)

but fear not oh my lost brothers (heh;) for a way still exists for the
somehow couragous and brave, or even just the terminally bored hehe, the
keys to that bolted door existing where one might suspect it least, in the
very things one perforce takes for granted and never questions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkWPOIbsldE

the science delusion! (science set free :)

hohoho! and a very merry xmas to all from slider

(well ya gotta watch out for that sanity clause innit ;-)

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>### - oh well, looks like yet another one has bitten the proverbial
>dust :)

Yet another one? Bites the dust? Do you often just give up like this?

Oh well, never mind.

>woah yea of such short attention span heh,

You could change that about yourself if you wanted to.

>how can anyone of so little concentration ever hope to climb the walls
>of so-called 'progress'

There are no walls to climb, It's more like riding a unicycle toward
the horizon. You can never reach the horizon but you can get very good
at riding the unicycle, and even get to enjoy the view more and more.

>and escape to erm, whatever it is people call it these days that lies
>beyond the invented rule and measure that has ultimately confined man
>to a dungeon hell of his own creation and from which there is no
>escape but that of death?

Do you feel trapped and confined? Do you believe other people feel the
same? Do you *want* to believe other people are confined to a dungeon
of hell?

>oh yeah, freedom, that's what they called it heh, freedom! ;-)

You have freedom now.

>evil magicians have of course beguiled you's with their measuring
>wands with which they have drawn down a veil of sleepiness, creating
>in such a fashion the world of the sleepwalkers that don't even know
>they are dreaming (awww sad:)

You're confusing yourself with bullshit.

>but fear not oh my lost brothers (heh;) for a way still exists for the
>somehow couragous and brave, or even just the terminally bored hehe,
>the keys to that bolted door existing where one might suspect it
>least, in the very things one perforce takes for granted and never
>questions...

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkWPOIbsldE

This fruit loop just makes shit up and you swallow it whole.

He tells you science has 10 dogma's and you believe it, bet he sold you
a book with his fictitious portrayal of these pseudo-dogmas.

He tells you everyone takes these things for granted and you take it
for granted he's right about that.

He gives you an excuse to be a lazy thinker and you grasp it.

>the science delusion! (science set free :)

More like 'science misrepresented and delusion set free'

You start off denigrating rationality and support that position with a
video of Rupert Sheldrake trying to argue rationally (from a totally
slanted point of view) against science. Doing his best to support his
Anglican Christianity by trying to convince the feeble-minded that
science is a religion too.

His view of science appears to be one that isn't shared by just about
anyone who understands science, and he argues against this view of his
own creation.

A pseudo-scientist selling a book, good for him.

He's a boring speaker though.

>hohoho! and a very merry xmas to all from slider

You too.

>(well ya gotta watch out for that sanity clause innit ;-)

Keep taking the meds dude.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

I don't use emoticons, feel free to insert your own.

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

>>### - oh well, looks like yet another one has bitten the proverbial
>>dust :)
>
> Yet another one? Bites the dust? Do you often just give up like this?
>
> Oh well, never mind.

## - ahem, you were the one who stopped replying, not me :)

>>woah yea of such short attention span heh,
>
> You could change that about yourself if you wanted to.
>
>>how can anyone of so little concentration ever hope to climb the walls
>>of so-called 'progress'
>
> There are no walls to climb, It's more like riding a unicycle toward
> the horizon. You can never reach the horizon but you can get very good
> at riding the unicycle, and even get to enjoy the view more and more.

### - walls, unicycles, call it whatever ya want coz there's absolutely
nothing like that at all literally, words beings allusions only and
poetry/metaphors at best it matters not the words or the way they are
employed but the message conveyed thereby to those with the ears to hear it
(iow, you really shouldn't take yourself so seriously all the time and try
to be a little more... open-minded;)

>>and escape to erm, whatever it is people call it these days that lies
>>beyond the invented rule and measure that has ultimately confined man
>>to a dungeon hell of his own creation and from which there is no
>>escape but that of death?
>
> Do you feel trapped and confined? Do you believe other people feel the
> same? Do you *want* to believe other people are confined to a dungeon
> of hell?

### - it's not a matter of 'belief' but of observation that humanity is all
locked up and the key thrown away, as an 'outsider' (you might have to look
that term from literature up;) i am anything but trapped or confined, but
having originally come from that hell myself i can certainly appreciate how
others still are and are forced to live like prisoners on death row, trapped
as they are in a prison-house... of ideas:)

>>oh yeah, freedom, that's what they called it heh, freedom! ;-)
>
> You have freedom now.

### - to know what is freedom first one must know/realise: what is the
prison, glasshopper ;-)

>>evil magicians have of course beguiled you's with their measuring
>>wands with which they have drawn down a veil of sleepiness, creating
>>in such a fashion the world of the sleepwalkers that don't even know
>>they are dreaming (awww sad:)
>
> You're confusing yourself with bullshit.

### - it's not bs to refer to scientists spreading their 'dogma' as being
evil magicians, you just don't personally get it is all (worse, you don't
want to coz you'd have to start over and you're just too proud to do so:)

>>but fear not oh my lost brothers (heh;) for a way still exists for the
>>somehow couragous and brave, or even just the terminally bored hehe,
>>the keys to that bolted door existing where one might suspect it
>>least, in the very things one perforce takes for granted and never
>>questions...
>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkWPOIbsldE
>
> This fruit loop just makes shit up and you swallow it whole.
>
> He tells you science has 10 dogma's and you believe it, bet he sold you
> a book with his fictitious portrayal of these pseudo-dogmas.
>
> He tells you everyone takes these things for granted and you take it
> for granted he's right about that.
>
> He gives you an excuse to be a lazy thinker and you grasp it.

### - nope, he merely puts what i have been arguing for into a nutshell for
you seeing as you've been having such a hard time understanding something
that's really quite simple and an established fact in history albeit talking
about previous so-called rulers of the world (prison officials), go figure:)

>>the science delusion! (science set free :)
>
> More like 'science misrepresented and delusion set free'
>
> You start off denigrating rationality and support that position with a
> video of Rupert Sheldrake trying to argue rationally (from a totally
> slanted point of view) against science. Doing his best to support his
> Anglican Christianity by trying to convince the feeble-minded that
> science is a religion too.
>
> His view of science appears to be one that isn't shared by just about
> anyone who understands science, and he argues against this view of his
> own creation.
>
> A pseudo-scientist selling a book, good for him.

### - he IS actually a scientist according to his qualifications, background
and training, and while i don't agree with 'everything' he says, he
nevertheless makes a good argument and case worthy of discussion and
examination, but if you're too afraid to look at that coz it makes you feel
so terribly threatened then perhaps your own argument and stance needs
urgent reviewing with perhaps a little more, shall we say... objectivity?:)

> He's a boring speaker though.
>
>>hohoho! and a very merry xmas to all from slider
>
> You too.
>
>>(well ya gotta watch out for that sanity clause innit ;-)
>
> Keep taking the meds dude.

### - ah so, the mask eventually beings to slip as we start to see the real
(angry) man behind the loud and eloquent voice eh? (suck it up good dude,
the language you've learned to parrot that makes you feel like you're
somehow actually superior to others who can't speak it, is just more sophist
bullshit that has been plaguing humanity since flim-flam and the con men
using it first appeared:)

> I don't use emoticons, feel free to insert your own.

### - well how unimaginative and staid of you hehe, plus i'm using one right
now that can't been seen but basically means... you're a dickhead;)

---------------------

"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present
moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one
fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and
nothing else to pursue." --from Hagakure, the book of the Samurai

[Bob]

For that you have such great suspicion for words and what you call the
rational mind (you still underestimate the power of rational/irrational
mind (my theory is, that cc got all of his ideas with working with
schizophrenics in the looneybin(what he actually did))), you seem to use
them pretty very much!

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>

>dccxxvii wrote...
>
>>>### - oh well, looks like yet another one has bitten the
>>>proverbial dust :)
>>
>>Yet another one? Bites the dust? Do you often just give up like
>>this?
>>
>>Oh well, never mind.
>
>## - ahem, you were the one who stopped replying, not me :)

My apologies, my newsreader never retrieved any reply to me from the
aoie server, perhaps it came and went in the two days I was away. I
have now retrieved the post from googlegroups and will reply as and
when I can.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

[Snippages for brevity]

>> No, the intelligent *hope* is that the blanks can be filled in. If
>> people wish to devote time and effort in pursuit of that hope then I
>> fully support them.

>### - well, "hopes" and "may yets" are hardly the rock solid ground
you
>imply in your argument/ "intelligent assumption" that seems to lend
>credence to the 'belief' people (like yourself) harbour that those
>blanks 'will' in fact be filled in?

I have never said anything about rock solid ground. If you'd paid
attention you would have noticed that I plainly stated that if the
information changes the model changes.

I have never expressed any 'belief' that the blanks 'will' be filled
in. Are you actually reading what I write. You seem to be reading what
you *want* to argue against instead.

>Iow, if you are going to hold up hopes and/or may-yets as being some
>kind of valid argument,

I'm not, you're making that up as well.

> then the opposite equally applies in that they also 'may not'be able
>to fill in said blanks...

With abiogenesis I am dubious that we will discover the exact mechanism
by which it occurred. That's not terribly important though as we have a
fair idea how it can happen and compelling evidence that it did happen.

>i mean, one can certainly 'hope' that that will be the case, or even
>assume that will be the case if one is given to having such faith in
>the abilities of reason to one day actually grasp it, but it is by no
>means guaranteed that that will definitely be the case

What you're saying is that future discoveries are in the future and we
won't know them until we know them - which is so obvious I don't know
why you bothered to type it.

=====

>>Your argument is akin to saying "What is 2 + (another number we don't
>>know)" and deciding maths is beyond the "limited rational mind" if we
>>can't solve it.

>### - nonsense, the argument is merely suggesting that 5% isn't really
>enough to decide the matter finally and thus that one should perhaps

>(i.e.intelligently) keep a more open mind to some of that missing 95%

>(the vast majority after all) maybe even totally contradicting the
>little we think we do know, and coz anything less would be sheer
>arrogance that is virtually guaranteed to make dreadful errors,
perhaps >even fatal ones

So your whole argument is based on your faith that we only know 5% of
what's going on, how do you know this? Just because dark energy/matter
may make up 95% of the physical universe doesn't mean it will make up
95% of our knowledge, I explain why later.

----

>> People who are incorrect are mad? That's a lazy and rather silly
>> assumption you're making there.

>### - heh well people who are incorrect aren't exactly right in the
>head are they? (grin)

Yes they are, everybody is incorrect at times, it doesn't make them
insane.

>i.e. 'insanity' in that sense is to not know what one is actually
>doing, and/or to 'think' one does know what they are doing except
>they're not actually correct & don't realise it hehehe...

They were as correct as they needed to be. They weren't crazy they were
acting on the information that was available to them.

>the only leeway i can give you there being that 'deluded' people
aren't
>always necessarily totally/hopelessly insane, they might just be
>deluded (in which case it might be curable, but until it is they're
>basically definitely off their trolleys innit!)

No, people aren't insane just because they can't foresee future
discoveries. That's just an insane viewpoint.

---

>>The geocentric model was based on one observation - that the Sun
>>appeared to go round the Earth - the current model is based on

>>millions of observations, making refinement much more likely than

>>paradigm shift. Our current model is good enough to be workable as
we >>use it in the launch and travel of space vehicles and probes.

>### - one cannot deny that it functions... to a fashion... and that
>based on that we've created the modern world... it's just some people
>(most of them artists as it goes) are of the opinion/conviction that
>the so called modern world is actually a travesty (if not a complete
>disaster) in the making?

That's ok, the Earth will be fine if mankind becomes extinct.

>So okay, we can send rockets to the moon! Whoo-hoo! But did we really
>have have to poison everyone and everything on earth in order to do
it, >plus if true, would that not be a form of madness to have done so?
(i
>may speak in extremes to make my point but you surely still understand
>what i'm saying/suggesting no?)

I understand what you're saying but find your view far more pessimistic
than I would consider reasonable. We are part of the environment so
naturally we have an effect upon it. We'll either clean our act up or
eventually become extinct. No big deal.

> As for 95+% blanks, so far all you've given me is 'why am I here?.'
>How are you gauging the size of the blanks? Are you just assuming
there >are huge amounts of things we don't know about? How do you know?

>### - oh yea of so little short term memory? heh... i.e. this was all
>said in direct reference to the 'standard model' of which the majority
>is currently made up of dark energy and dark matter (euphemisms for we

>dunno tf it could possibly be coz it's nothing we've looked at so far)

>all we do know being that there's a feckin' big something there that
we >just don't understand (even as much as maybe 95% of the whole) a
kind
>of 'dark hole' (heh:) that like black holes, we may never actually be
>'able' to see into due to the nature of it, and wherein physics as we
>know it could be completely different, or even completely off the map!

The problem of dark matter and dark energy could be solved by one
discovery or a thousand million. You're confusing the physical
composition of the universe with our knowledge of the universe. A human
body is about 57% water that doesn't mean 57% of our knowledge about
the human body directly pertains to the water. Our bodies are made of
atoms which are 99.99% empty space .'. our bodies are 99.99% empty
space but our knowledge of the human body is not 99.99% about the space.

----

>> You would prefer ignorance and a lack of curiosity?

>### - no, if anything i would prefer intelligently/more honestly
>walking the tightrope/watershed that exists between the two above
>extremes (there isn't anything else;)

What do you think is between 'Examining the universe to see what we can
find out about it without making your assumption' and 'ignorance and a
lack of curiosity'? Making stuff up?

---

>### - don't you ever think it odd then how "exploring our environment"
>has correlated with destroying our environment? (e.g. sending rockets
>to the moon while people here on earth are actually staving to death,
i >mean, doesn't that strike you as being oh just a tinge of being
totally >fucking insane??)

You seem really pissed at humans for being humans. What are *you* doing
to change things? The vast majority of our exploration of our planet
does no harm to anyone, and those that do... well unless you are
willing to give up all the trappings of modern life, travel everywhere
by horse, use only electricity generated by 'green' methods etc. then
you're just an hypocrite.

----

>>Right, so we can predict the positions of hundreds of thousands of
>>stars and stellar objects at any given time in the future by.....
>>magic? Is that what you're saying. Planets don't rotate, revolve
round
>>suns, there are no spiral galaxies revolving around a central point?
>>Stars change their course randomly in your world? Even you have
>>discerned the pattern of expansion.

>### - heh oh we can certainly do wonders even with that only 5%,
>nothing less even than the whole of the modern world et al + all the
>modern horrors/wonders of it, most of it horrors and getting worse (i
>mean, haven't you looked around at it lately? It's tearing itself
>apart)

You say there are no patterns, I give examples that there are and you,
having no argument go off at a tangent.

You are overly pessimistic and have a really low opinion of humans.
Most of the world /isn't/ horrors, it's normal people leading normal
lives.
>> No, reason preceded religion.

---

>### - so the age of reason was 'before' religion?? Wrong!!!

No, religion was a product of faulty reasoning. Something (apparently)
miraculous happens and as a species we find it hard to accept that
things are not explained so we attributed this miracle to a higher
power.

>Reason 'replaces' religion,

No, reason has always co-existed with religion for as long as there
have been religions. Religion for a long time was the dominant force
but reason has always been there, religion is still there for now.

>.. plus what i'm actually arguing is that this this in appearance only

>and that ultimately reason is just another form of religion that is
>actually more powerful + more inclusive than religion ever was! (iow,
>it is religion par excellence)

I know that's what you're arguing. All it shows is that you don't
understand reason.

>That if what 'religion' originally set out to do was to ultimately
>control people and the way they lived by edict from on high, then this
>same agenda is entirely far surpassed by the modern replacement belief
>in science and all things rational...

You think people are being controlled by science? You are really
paranoid aren't you?

>ostensibly a religion of now 'tangible' miracles,one's you can
actually >hold in your own hand

They aren't miracles, miracles require divine intervention and nobody
(but apparently you) is claiming smart phones or tablet computers
require divine intervention. You are dishonestly calling them miracles
to further your warped view of science as a religion.

>so it's really convincing so far less leaps of faith are required to
be >able to relate to it all as a philosophy,

Science is a method not a philosophy. There are no leaps of faith
required to believe in cell phones.

>what people perhaps of course don't realise being that the church
(when >it was still in charge i mean) might have even had something to
do >with promoting the rise of science to be its replacement when (and

A lot of early scientists were priests, monks and the like because they
had pretty much cornered the market in education. Are you saying there
was some form of conspiracy to mould the populace to accept science as
a replacement for religion? That would be risible.

>after) people such as the likes of galileo came along showing
>irrefutable proof that they were more far fallible than what they'd
>been previously telling people to believe and trust in as though their
>life depended on it (which in many instances actually did if only
>because the church itself might destroy you for not agreeing with them)

Whereas with science if you make an advancement that proves an old
theory incorrect you get a Nobel prize.

>>in that it's almost exactly the same technique that's being applied:
>>that of
>>'making' sense of things where no sense is actually to be found,

>> Your blind assumption that there are no patterns and no sense
>> re-appears.

>### - it never went away + has been there all along hehe, chaos isn't
>order it's chaos. To find order in chaos is to be making patterns in
>the clouds wherein those patterns are existing only in the eye of the
>beholder who is projecting them onto that chaos and calling them
>real... and the next thing

I gave you examples of non-illusory patterns in the universe and you
changed the subject. You're still sticking your fingers in your ears.

>ya know everyone ends up worshipping the easter bunnie or some such

far >morerational nonsense (dark matter) that's not doing anyone any

good >except that it all looks great on paper and everyone agrees...

Except that nobody worships dark matter (or, as far as I know the
Easter Bunny) and not everyone agrees.

>"you're all just a bunch of slaves!" -jim morrison:)

You're the one with the blinkered view.

>>>in which case reason is merely the upgraded version of the same old
>>>same old, it is merely religion with bells and whistles on :)

>>That's facile claptrap. Religions are, very generally, dogmatic and
>>believe they have all the answers that are needed. Rationality is
>>always open to revising it's models based on the availability of new
>>information. Religions are faith based reason is based on empirical
>>observation and logic.

>### - awww and i really thought you'd like that one! :)

Thinking is good, you should do more of it.

>Try to see a different pov? That religion was based on... shit (grin)
- >and reason is just a different 'brand' of shit, a far more
convincing +
>involving brand that's got everyone buying into it like there's no
>tomorrow,

I understand the point of view you are putting forward, I just think
it's paranoid claptrap.

> yourself for example, a staunch party member towing (and toting) all
>the party lines, it's the new religion, judiciously deciding what's
>good and what's bad for everyone and sundry, what's right and what's
>wrong,

You're the one with the party line 'it's the new religion.' Scientists
don't tell you what's right and wrong, politicians and priests do that
and a fair few of them pretty much ignore reason to promote their view.

>like this ultimately complex life, that incidentally no one really
>currently yet fully understands, can all be reduced and rendered into
>such simplified terms for an increasingly simple majority who don't
>really know what the fuck they're all doing but are going along with
it >all anyway coz that's the easiest thing to do + no one really wants
to >get into trouble either so they just let all those bozos do their
>thinking for them...

Your low opinion of your fellow man noted.
Your belief that scientists confuse their working models of life with a
total and ineffable summation of life is really weird.

>>>iow, we have a mania (or rather: reason has a mania) of going around
>>>thinking that it knows what's going on, basically because it derives
>>>an enormous amount of comfort from thinking this about its own
>>>constructs, plus it does this (plus obtains that very comfort)
>>>regardless of whether it's actually correct or not,

>>That's what you think you know, is it? That's what you assume is
going
>> on?

>### - that's certainly part of it alright, but there's plenty more :)

They *think* they know what's going on but you *know* what's really
going on? Crazy.

>### - well it's currently touch and go whether we're actually gonna
>'survive' all that illusionary so-called 'useful-ness' you refer to or
>not, probably not...

In the scale of things our survival is pretty insignificant, but people
have been predicting the end of the world throughout man's history.
Don't be so pessimistic.

----

>>Living in your world must be scary, you can never be sure enough of
>>the reasonable and rational people who design boats and planes to get
>>on either. When you select TV channel 4 on your remote you must wonder
>>what channel will actually appear, assuming your telly doesn't turn
>>into a blue whale.

>### - more bracing than scary actually, but definitely also pretty
>scary too at times...

You really worry about those things? Have you considered relaxing and
not being such a paranoid wuss.

>For example, to often find obviously intelligent people sooo
entrenched >in the beliefs + intricate workings of reason that in all
likelihood + >barring a miracle they'll just never ever get out, this i
do find >bloody scary at times (terrifying actually, a population of
lifer's on >death row without a hope in hell, what a world!)

Entrenched? People say there may be patterns to find you say NO there
*definitely* aren't and you think it's the open minded who are
entrenched! I doubt even a miracle could shake your obsession.

>>> else that would be to be treating reason as a faith (which is
>>> precisely what it actually is, a belief:)

>>In your limited understanding of reason that may be true, you can
join
>>the real world any-time.

### - you cheeky fucker lol (it's ok, i never take things personally
;-)

Heh.

---

>>>>Yes, were you expecting something more?

>>>### - well then i'll let 'you' explain that to the kid that's just
>>>had all its arms and legs blown off for nothing, ok?

>> That kid isn't 'the whole human race.'

>### - true, about only 80% of it (but still the majority iow)

The majority of the human race has had it's arms and legs blown off?
You really believe the shit you write?

>> were you really expecting something more kid?? (duh)

> I was expecting more of you than this.

>### - i'm definitely not like you if that's what you mean hehe, plus
>it's not really my fault exactly if there's something 'you' don't
>understand? (or perhaps don't want to understand for reasons of your
>own)

As I said if the information changes my view will change, you're the
one entrenched in that closed view of things.

>plus i'm not gonna twist your arm or anything so it's up to you to
>make the effort (or not) to at least try to appreciate what someone is
>saying whether you initially agree with it or not and then go on from
>there by yourself on what you yourself can then see/observe based on
>what you've heard/seen/experienced... what else!

No you're not trying to twist my arm - scientists are not trying to
twist your arm and force you to conform either,you should stop
believing that. I do appreciate and understand your position.

>I mean, i can see your pov entirely, so much so that i could even
adopt >your argument and argue it for you albeit perhaps not quite so
>eloquently, but it would still be the very same argument, and coz it's
>actually a very common one!
>(i.e. ya can literally get this bs anywhere with always more or less

>the same glib clich?s and sound bites thrown in every time!:)

You get the same arguments because they stand the test of time, you
don't think the 'we were wrong about heliocentrism' isn't also a cliche
I've heard many times before, or 'science is a religion.'

>Which is also kinda to say that it's not actually rocket science to be
>a rocket scientist, as with enough training just about any moron could
>probably do it (lol for some reason i wanted to say mormon instead of
>moron? both work;)

Sheldon Cooper would agree with you that rocket science is not the most
taxing of disciplines (though he might point out that rocket science
is, by definition, rocket science.)

>### - hey aren't they using drones now to sort dissenters out these
>days?

You think mad scientists are sending out drones to eliminate people who
don't follow a scientific viewpoint? That's ridiculous... unless you
have some evidence of it.

>Chomsky (i think) said that for sure they no longer send out the death
>squads to deal with domestic dissenters, but that there are still
>definite penalties for dissenting (such as being marginalised and/or
>unfunded for example,

In a lot of cases that may be true, funding stuff with a perceived
greater chance of success due to being based on previous findings is
common sense however dissenters are often funded by those with a vested
interest. Scientists working in the biological fields are quite often
funded to find ways to undermine the theory of evolution for example. A
lot of research funding is turned down simply because it has no merit.

>you would need to see his documentary 'manufacturing consent' to
>understand, available on google + make sure it's the full version)

OK.

---

>>Now your arguing *for* rationality?

>### - what you should have said there was "Yes advances by rational
men >have been stifled by *rational* people acting irrationally."

Pretty pointless, everyone is a mix of rationality and irrationality to
varying degrees. At the time of the stifling of advances they were
irrational.

>and coz that is precisely what i was saying occurs/has occurred, that
>a general consensus holds sway until replaced by another perhaps more
>inclusive one,

That's what I said, when the information changes new models are used.

>but that until such times as it is accepted is consider a heresy
>and thus virtually the same system as used by religion

Bullshit. Just look in your local bookshop, there are a plethora of
books that dissent from the norm. Books on parapsychology and the
paranormal, different views of science like that of Sheldrake etc.
People like dissenting voices, people make money from their dissent
whether reasonable or not.

>only now they leave a door open just in case they get it wrong
>(see? they did learn a couple of lessons from history + have been
>forced to include that now;)

As you say here, science has no dogma - the door is always open to
change. Why you then try and convince people it does by introducing
Sheldrake is beyond me. It's not forced, it's the basic foundation of
empirical science.

>>Without current working theories we go back to pre stone age levels
of
>>civilization. Is that what you advocate?

>### - well i can't really advocate for that hehe, but if we did at
>leastwe'd no longer be destroying ourselves and the world?

Although we might be destroying ourselves the world would get along
fine without us.

> So perhaps then it would indeed be better to live a far simpler life
>while advancing ourselves in some other way,

So why don't you do that?

>but this is just conjecture as unless they do blow themselves up it's
>unlikely we'll ever be returning to anything like that soon...

When talking about the human race you use at seemingly at random "us",
"they", "we" or "them." Do you consider yourself human or not?

>More to the point, is how to reduce one's obsession with said reason
as
>being the general panacea for absolutely everything

In general people aren't so obsessed as you think, just try talking to
people just about everyone is unreasonable in many ways. You're talking
like a conspiracy theorist.

>so as to at least allow some kind of genuine sanity to creep back into
>the equation, plus if you don't think unbridled reason is a hazard

It isn't much of a hazard, no.

>then again i say just look around at what we've all been doing to
>ourselves and the planet? It's not all great you know...

What we're doing to the planet is the result of using scientific
advancements unwisely and unreasonably. If we were using the
advancements reasonably then there wouldn't be a problem would there?

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

>### - i'm talking history here not paranoia + i totally agree with you
>that rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people to
death >for dissent, so when they do then obviously they were/are not
quite as
>rational/reasonable as they've maybe been purporting themselves to be?

You think scientists are killing off anyone who dares to disagree with
their pet theory? You've been watching too much telly.

>That if, for example, one examines the documented methods of the once
>all powerful catholic church + how in their history they one time quite
>consciously + systematically got rid of all the competition to as to
>deliberately force/impose a very one-pointed and intelligently
directed >yet ultimately insane view of the world upon all their
members, and >this without even bothering to get their members
permission to do so >(iow, they were a kind of self-appointed ruling
class calling the shots >for everyone they ruled over),

You think religious zealots are reasonable people? I don't.

>then it's possible to see that many of their methods still persist to
>the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely different
>+ modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the population who
lords >it over everyone else...

The rich aren't necessarily reasonable either, you're straying from
your point.

>Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns everything,
>another 19% do very well working for them, the other 80% don't do very
>well at all..." --taken from his manufacturing consent

Good grief! Is that where your '80% of people are like a kid that's
just had his arms and legs blown off?' That's a hell of contortion
you're performing. You go to the poorest parts of India or China and
talk to the people there, people aren't as unhappy as you think.

>is... just the way things currently are on this funny little (but
>ultimately confused) blue and green planet my intellectual friend, and
>HAS been for really quite some time now! (centuries! millennia even! +
>welcome to planet earth and the fairly miserable human condition:)

Is it being so cheerful that keeps you going? Most humans aren't
miserable.

---

>### - they not only stifle them, they also deliberately 'direct' it
all >to go in certain directions only + change the rules as it suits
them!

Really?

Take the UN for example,

Ok.

>it's generally agreed that interfering in a sovereign nation is taboo,

I think you'll find that's the prime directive from Star Trek not an UN
taboo, there are conditions where the UN will intervene in a sovereign
nation.

>and then they go and do it anyway?? time and time again btw, so it's
>not no accident ya know:)

But if we abandoned reason they wouldn't have to even try to justify
it. There would be no discussion, no vote.

---

>>>>What, that meaningfully impacts your existence, do you feel is
>>>>unexplained?

>>>### - well i don't remember buying tickets to come here, do you? so
>>>everything! :)

>> Well, that's a cop out.

>>Proto-you swam like a motherfucker to beat off thousands of others
>>to get to that egg first.

>### - lol and you say *i'm* the one copping out?? (grinz:)

I do indeed. You give the impression that you want your life to be
someone else's responsibility.

>>You seem pretty sure we can never know why we're here and yet you
also
>>seem to be saying that pondering why you're here affects your
>>existence. You're really letting one little unsolved question stop
you
>>from actually enjoying your life?

>### - rather the opposite actually, in that being more aware of the
>(true) situation actually heightens one's appreciation as opposed to
>dulling it?

Ahh, you have a divine insight into the true situation do you? Not
buying it.

>It's a lot more scary to be awake (to it all) so to speak, but dull it
>isn't (boring sometimes tho yes, most of their activities appear
inane, >like they're all living in a theme park version of reality:)

You appear to have changed who you're talking about half way through a
sentence there.

---

>>### - if one starts with the basic premise that all words are lies

> Then you're a dickhead. Words are symbols.

{ I should have said 'Then one is a dickhead.'}

### - well they might also be quite a bit more than just that haha;)

Whatever, 'All words are lies' is a self defeating statement as if it
was true it would be a lie (because all words are lies) and therefore
some words are true. And if it was untrue then, again, some words are
true.

>>anyway, then everything turns into what it really is... poetry

> Poetry is not synonymous with lies.

>>instead of fact... and fingers pointing at the moon... 'allusions'

> Allusions are not synonymous with lies.

>>>only to what can never actually be described or taken literally
>>>without risking madness:)

>>Yes, if your waiter actually brings you Duck a l'Orange he'll go
nuts.
>>Get a grip.

>### - (cracking up;) nah, he wont go nuts, he's ALREADY nuts! LOL;)

Heh... but you think anyone who's incorrect about anything is
insane...which is... everybody.

>(still laughing;) have you ever seen the movie 'one flew over the
>cuckoo's nest with jack nicholson as jesus?

I've seen the film, it's probably my favourite of his performances.

>(written by ken kesey no >less;)

He hated the film, apparently.

>the thing with cheify (from who's pov the story's told/related in the
>book) being that he'd always actually had the strength to leave (the
>asylum lol;) anytime he wanted, but it wasn't until jack came along
>that he actually found a reason to do so? (i think kesey's maybe
trying >to tell us something important here;)

Kesey was drawing connections between conformity and the capacity to
wage war. The film lost some of that.

Cue more cheerfulness:

>>"lost in a roman wilderness of pain, and all the children are insane"
>>--jim morrison

---

>> So the human race *is* still alive now?

>Yes it's alive, but only barely + it doesn't actually seem too well (i
>notice you snipped/removed the dylan quote i posted on this every
>subject? tsk now i've got to put it back;)

You *have* to? Great... more happy clappy stuff...

>Hey hey Woody Guthrie I wrote you a song
>About a funny old world that's coming along
>Seems sick and it's hungry, it's tired and it's torn
>It looks like it's dying and it's hardly been born. - bob dylan

You put a lot of store by other peoples words, don't you?
Don't you trust your own?

-----

>> Well you're making even more assumptions there. It's been over 2,300
>> years and probably more (anyone by a shoreline would have seen the
>> curve of the earth just by looking out to see) since someone figured
>> out we were living on a globe, what other Earth shattering
>> discoveries are you talking about?

>### - (btw, oddly enough i enjoyed "looking out to see" a bit more?;)

>Sigh,

Oh for fucks sake cheer up you miserable git.

>what i'm talking about is the same thing we're talking about: the
>geocentric view of the world that was literally turned upside down at
>one point, sending them all into a mighty panic lol, and the people
who >really + genuinely thought they knew what was going on only to
suddenly >realise they were idiots (lol) but then not so stupid as to
not totally >realise the effect knowledge of their fallibility would
likely have >upon the rest of the population! (people might, for
example, turn away >from the church in droves, or worse: burn them all
at the stake for >misleading everyone lol;)

So helio/geo-centricity is still the only example you've got of an
Earth shattering discovery you can give.... You said loads of people
were slapped down and then proved right.

>Anyway, they shuffled things around mighty quick + shuffled 'em like
>never before, took them 150 years to paper over the cracks + a total
of >500 years to actually own up and even apologise to poor old galileo
>(wasn't that long ago actually, around 2000 i think;)

You are absolutely right, the church was unreasonable and irrational. I
don't see how that argues against the reason and rationality that
eventually prevailed.

---

>>supplement it in our politics and philosophy.... You are viewing a
>>self made cardboard cut-out of humanity and treating that as reality.

>### - smile, well oddly enough in the beatles film yellow submarine it
>was the people who'd all been turned into cardboard cut-outs by the
>blue meanies, or something no? So perhaps you are just inadvertently
>intuiting the truth + reversing it for convenience sake:)

Or perhaps it has nothing to do with a film you saw or a book you read
or a song you heard or a poem.

---

>### - (laughing at your obvious frustration, but in a nice way heh;)
if >you could perhaps see/view religion as previously being a kind of
>faulty form of applied reason (just for a minute ok?)

That's not an unreasonable view of it.

>then maybe you might more readily catch on to what i'm trying to say
to >you, and so ok they've improved on it since then (lol after galileo
>they had to!;) but basically it's still the same old meat and 2 veg
>diet just being served up by some now fancy tv chef that everyone's
>swallowing, hook, line and sinker;)

No, I understand. You're still are trying to portray science as a
religion. It's a sloppy and silly comparison.

---

>"I say one must be a seer, make oneself a seer. The poet makes himself
>a seer by an immense, long, deliberate derangement of all the senses."
>-- Arthur Rimbaud"

>>"destroy all rational thought" --William S Burroughs

> You obviously don't agree or you wouldn't be trying to have a
> discussion about it with me.

>### - again, i notice you've removed the rimbaud quote that was
>intended to clarify the above? (i didn't put those two together by
>accident you know;)

There, I've put it back.... It's a poncey, pretentious claptrap - and
yet again someone else's words, not your own.

He wasn't a seer, as far as I know he never predicted anything.

>Plus if you think about it, that is precisely what i've been
attempting >to do with you, tho not so much to destroy as 'rearrange'
(it doesn't >need to be totally destroyed coz with discipline it's
possible to just >hold it at bay on occasion instead and then we get 2
options instead of >only one or none;)

You think self-destruction and re-creation is a new idea?

====

>>There are no walls to climb, It's more like riding a unicycle toward
>>the horizon. You can never reach the horizon but you can get very
>>good at riding the unicycle, and even get to enjoy the view more
>>and more.

>### - walls, unicycles, call it whatever ya want coz there's
>absolutely nothing like that at all literally,

I wasn't talking literally.

>words beings allusions only and poetry/metaphors

Well at least you've had enough sense to stop the 'all words are lies'
crap.

>at best it matters >not the words or the way they are employed but the
>message conveyed thereby to those with the ears to hear it (iow, you
>really shouldn't take yourself so seriously all the time

I don't. I'm not sure that you understand English humour.

>and try to be a little more... open-minded;)

Try not to be so open minded your brain falls out.

>>>and escape to erm, whatever it is people call it these days that
>>>lies beyond the invented rule and measure that has ultimately
>>>confined man to a dungeon hell of his own creation and from which
>>>there is no escape but that of death?

>>Do you feel trapped and confined? Do you believe other people feel

>>the same? Do you want to believe other people are confined to a

>>dungeon of hell?

>### - it's not a matter of 'belief' but of observation that humanity
>is all locked up and the key thrown away, as an 'outsider' (you might
>have to look that term from literature up;) i am anything but trapped
>or confined,
>but having originally come from that hell myself i can
>certainly appreciate how others still are and are forced to live like
>prisoners on death row, trapped as they are in a prison-house... of
>ideas:)

This is just your fantasy view of the world. It bears no resemblance to
how people live their actual lives.

>>>oh yeah, freedom, that's what they called it heh, freedom! ;-)

>>You have freedom now.

>### - to know what is freedom first one must know/realise: what is the
>prison, glasshopper ;-)

You are your own jailer.

>>>evil magicians have of course beguiled you's with their measuring
>>>wands with which they have drawn down a veil of sleepiness,
>>>creating in such a fashion the world of the sleepwalkers that
>>>don't even know they are dreaming (awww sad:)

>>You're confusing yourself with bullshit.

>### - it's not bs to refer to scientists spreading their 'dogma' as
>being evil magicians, you just don't personally get it is all (worse,
>you don't want to coz you'd have to start over and you're just too
>proud to do so:)

Again with the claptrap you've read taking over from any common sense
you had. I'm quite prepared to change my views on anything given proper
cause to do so. You've just regurgitated half digested snippets of the
works that have influenced you while railing against whatever has
influenced others.

>>>but fear not oh my lost brothers (heh;) for a way still exists
>>>for the somehow couragous and brave, or even just the terminally
>>>bored hehe, the keys to that bolted door existing where one might
>>>suspect it least, in the very things one perforce takes for
>>>granted and never questions...

>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkWPOIbsldE

>>This fruit loop just makes shit up and you swallow it whole.

>>He tells you science has 10 dogma's and you believe it, bet he sold
>>you a book with his fictitious portrayal of these pseudo-dogmas.

>>He tells you everyone takes these things for granted and you take it
>>for granted he's right about that.

>>He gives you an excuse to be a lazy thinker and you grasp it.

>### - nope, he merely puts what i have been arguing for into a
>nutshell for you seeing as you've been having such a hard time
>understanding something that's really quite simple and an established
>fact in history albeit talking about previous so-called rulers of the
>world (prison officials), go figure:)

You, while arguing there are no patterns argue that the pattern of
history *must* repeat itself. Is it any wonder that you're difficult to
take seriously.

>>>the science delusion! (science set free :)

>>More like 'science misrepresented and delusion set free'

>>You start off denigrating rationality and support that position
>>with a video of Rupert Sheldrake trying to argue rationally (from a
>>totally slanted point of view) against science. Doing his best to
>>support his Anglican Christianity by trying to convince the
>>feeble-minded that science is a religion too.

>>His view of science appears to be one that isn't shared by just
>>about anyone who understands science, and he argues against this
>>view of his own creation.

>>A pseudo-scientist selling a book, good for him.

>### - he IS actually a scientist according to his qualifications,

Yes, I know... double first at Cambridge... yada, yada... doesn't stop
him being a fruit loop or becoming a pseudo-scientist. Have you seen
his drivel an the 'stare effect' or 'morphic resonance.'

>background and training, and while i don't agree with 'everything' he
>says, he nevertheless makes a good argument and case worthy of
>discussion and examination, but if you're too afraid to look at that
>coz it makes you feel so terribly threatened

Oh I've looked at it, but when he says (as part of his first so called
'dogma') that he sees life as organic where other scientists don't then
this blatant untruth makes everything else he says dubious at best. As
for feeling threatened, why would I be?

>then perhaps your own argument and stance needs urgent reviewing with
>perhaps a little more, shall we say... objectivity?:)

I review my views frequently, do you?

>>He's a boring speaker though.

>>>hohoho! and a very merry xmas to all from slider

>>You too.

>>>(well ya gotta watch out for that sanity clause innit ;-)

>>Keep taking the meds dude.

>### - ah so, the mask eventually beings to slip as we start to see
>the real (angry) man

Angry? You think? How angry must you be then to say the whole human
race is insane? Actually I was just judging you by your own standards,
you think anyone who's incorrect about anything is insane and, unless
you believe you are right about absolutely everything (in which case
you're insane) then you're insane for being incorrect. It seemed kind
of amusing to me as you had yet again brought up sanity, but if you
were offended I apologize.

>behind the loud and eloquent voice eh?

I am neither of these things.

>(suck it up good dude, the language you've learned to parrot that
makes >you feel like you're somehow actually superior to others who
can't >speak it, is just more sophist bullshit that has been plaguing
humanity
>since flim-flam and the con men using it first appeared:)

I don't see my language usage as anything out of the ordinary, but hey,
if you're prejudiced against people who write as I do there's not much
I can do about it. As for your long distance mind reading act, it needs
a lot of work.

>>I don't use emoticons, feel free to insert your own.

>### - well how unimaginative and staid of you hehe, plus i'm using
>one right now that can't been seen but basically means... you're a
>dickhead;)

Heh, and you don't use capital letters because you're all rebellious
and
hoopy, right?

>---------------------

>"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present
>moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If
>one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else
>to do, and nothing else to pursue." --from Hagakure, the book of the
>Samurai

Yet more of other peoples words, yada....

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[thang thylacinus]

You seem to be a reasonably well read fellow - and versatile in the
art of logic.

But, with slider, you are utterly wasting your time.

I took the time and effort to parse his "arguments" over a very long
time, around 5 years or so (intermittently) with no discernible effect
on the unformed inchoate mess that emanates from his brain. His mind
is highly disordered, perhaps pathologically, and he will not ever
admit the error of his thought processes nor the complete misery he
appears to dwell in. He projects his misery (or depression) on the
entire human race imagining that everyone lives in misery which is
simply not the case.

A verse from William Blake comes to mind:

�Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are born.
Every Morn and every Night
Some are born to Sweet Delight,
Some are born to Endless Night. �


thang

[dccxxvii]

thang ( baz...@gmail.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

bazonga? Are you a dyslexic relative of Sheldon Cooper?

>>>then again i say just look around at what we've all been doing to
>>>ourselves and the planet? It's not all great you know...

>>What we're doing to the planet is the result of using scientific
>>advancements unwisely and unreasonably. If we were using the
>>advancements reasonably then there wouldn't be a problem would
>>there?

>You seem to be a reasonably well read fellow - and versatile in the
>art of logic.

Thank you, I endeavour to educate myself as far as I am able.

>But, with slider, you are utterly wasting your time.

If my purpose was to get slider to agree with me then you would be
correct, but then the same could be said of almost all newsgroup
conversations. If I'm passing some of my free time testing my own
arguments as a mental exercise while obtaining some mild amusement?
While it may not be the best use of my time there are worse things to
do.

>I took the time and effort to parse his "arguments" over a very long
>time, around 5 years or so (intermittently) with no discernible effect
>on the unformed inchoate mess that emanates from his brain.
>His mind is highly disordered, perhaps pathologically, and he will not
>ever admit the error of his thought processes

He uses sloppy arguments to rationalize and entrench his sloppy
thinking.

>nor the complete misery he appears to dwell in.

Slider seems to need to feel he is enlightened and is trying to educate
the unenlightened to enable himself to feel 'special' an 'outsider.'

>He projects his misery (or depression) on the entire human race
>imagining that everyone lives in misery which is simply not the case.

His breakdown of the human race is cartoon like...

1% "1% of the population owns everything" (via Chomsky)
19% "19% do very well working for them" (again via Chomsky)
80% - he equates to "the kid that's just had all its arms and legs
blown off for nothing" (his own belief)

...maybe he'll grow out of it.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

(snipped Life (1/2) for brevity + for all the difference it makes anyway;)

Re: Life (2/2)

>### - i'm talking history here not paranoia + i totally agree with you
>that rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people to
death >for dissent, so when they do then obviously they were/are not
quite as rational/reasonable as they've maybe been purporting themselves to
be?

You think scientists are killing off anyone who dares to disagree with
their pet theory? You've been watching too much telly.

### - aha back from my xmas break to 'this' pile of parrot droppings on my
in-tray huh? lol:)

And nooo, i didn't say that at all, what i actually implied, that you've
apparently totally missed (even though you said that you maintained that you
did in fact understand where i'm coming from but which translates now as
just you merely making ignorant + silly sarcastic remarks to cover that very
lack of understanding, plus note i didn't accuse you of dishonesty, not yet
anyway;) was simply that a tiny percentage of the population are basically,
one way or another + in fact many ways, calling the shots for the rest of
us, scientists being merely only one of the layers in the employ of that top
1%, whereas i could have just as easily pointed to politicians and/or big
businesses doing exactly the same thing, only we were actually talking about
science so scientists just seemed more appropriate and in-context with our
present conversation, was all + was that really so very difficult for you?:)

also noted that seeing as you apparently have difficulty then in following
perhaps more complex + convoluted lines of thought, i shall subsequently
simplify accordingly for your benefit heh (and also apparently for thang as
well, lol 2 self-professed logic-based brain boxes who start falling at the
first fence! (+ gawd help ya's when it really 'does' get more complicated
lol, coz this is the easy stuff:)

smile, so are we all awake now and all on the same page already, or do you
really require everything (extra work for me basically) all spelled-out for
ya's?

hmmm we shall see :)

>That if, for example, one examines the documented methods of the once
>all powerful catholic church + how in their history they one time quite
>consciously + systematically got rid of all the competition to as to
>deliberately force/impose a very one-pointed and intelligently
directed >yet ultimately insane view of the world upon all their
members, and >this without even bothering to get their members
permission to do so >(iow, they were a kind of self-appointed ruling
class calling the shots >for everyone they ruled over),

You think religious zealots are reasonable people? I don't.

### - obviously not, especially after i just got through attempting to
explain exactly that to you albeit the shoe being on the other foot (yours)
lol, in that i was accusing zealous scientists of exactly that same
behaviour in following 'their' beliefs/religion (scientism?) - go figure;)

>then it's possible to see that many of their methods still persist to
>the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely different
>+ modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the population who
lords >it over everyone else...

The rich aren't necessarily reasonable either, you're straying from
your point.

### - of course they're not reasonable else they wouldn't have gone all out
for the money in the first place... the salient point being that documented
methods of the past are basically still in force albeit in the hands of a
different/modern power base (for an intellectual you really don't think
and/or extrapolate too well ya know)

>Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns everything,
>another 19% do very well working for them, the other 80% don't do very
>well at all..." --taken from his manufacturing consent

Good grief! Is that where your '80% of people are like a kid that's
just had his arms and legs blown off?' That's a hell of contortion
you're performing. You go to the poorest parts of India or China and
talk to the people there, people aren't as unhappy as you think.

### - well what else would you call a crippled majority (i.e. that 80% that
don't do well at all as according to chomsky) and so okay they've only got
'one' limb metaphorically missing instead of all four (i was merely speaking
in extremes for your benefit was all lol;) they're still fucking 'limping'
along basically barred (by no fault of their own) from living a fuller life,
aren't they?? (sheesh make an effort to do your own homework can't you? or
are you a cripple too;)

>is... just the way things currently are on this funny little (but
>ultimately confused) blue and green planet my intellectual friend, and
>HAS been for really quite some time now! (centuries! millennia even! +
>welcome to planet earth and the fairly miserable human condition:)

Is it being so cheerful that keeps you going? Most humans aren't
miserable.

### - oh yeah that's right, that 80% majority are simply having a 'wondeful'
time of it all aren't they?? lol actually i'm very cheerful + laugh all the
time while you and your kind are the morose ones when you have to come down
from your little clouds and deal with reality (god this is pathetic + i
thought you way smarter than this, you certainly fooled me;)

>### - they not only stifle them, they also deliberately 'direct' it
all >to go in certain directions only + change the rules as it suits
them!

Really?

Take the UN for example,

Ok.

>it's generally agreed that interfering in a sovereign nation is taboo,

I think you'll find that's the prime directive from Star Trek not an UN
taboo, there are conditions where the UN will intervene in a sovereign
nation.

### - yes there are exceptions, which are built into the contract itself and
deemed reasonable under certain conditions, it's just not the generally done
thing old chap - i.e. it just isn't seemly to go into your neighbours house
and tell 'them' how to live etc etc, basically coz that wouldn't BE
democracy would it, got it? (the opposite of democracy being? yup)

>and then they go and do it anyway?? time and time again btw, so it's
>not no accident ya know:)

But if we abandoned reason they wouldn't have to even try to justify
it. There would be no discussion, no vote.

### - oh for sure they go through the motions, but the real decisions are
made behind closed doors beforehand, e.g. the same resolution was previously
passed against israel as was made against iraq but wasn't enforced (iow, on
paper everyone's equal in a democracy but apparently some are more equal
than others;)

>>>>What, that meaningfully impacts your existence, do you feel is
>>>>unexplained?

>>>### - well i don't remember buying tickets to come here, do you? so
>>>everything! :)

>> Well, that's a cop out.

>>Proto-you swam like a motherfucker to beat off thousands of others
>>to get to that egg first.

>### - lol and you say *i'm* the one copping out?? (grinz:)

I do indeed. You give the impression that you want your life to be
someone else's responsibility.

### - not at all, in fact my whole argument is against precisely that 'in
favour' of that 80%, you're the one standing up for that (ostensibly
fascist) minority, not me bro lol ;)

>>You seem pretty sure we can never know why we're here and yet you
also
>>seem to be saying that pondering why you're here affects your
>>existence. You're really letting one little unsolved question stop
you
>>from actually enjoying your life?

>### - rather the opposite actually, in that being more aware of the
>(true) situation actually heightens one's appreciation as opposed to
>dulling it?

Ahh, you have a divine insight into the true situation do you? Not
buying it.

### - nothing 'divine' about it old chum, in fact i would have called it
rather completely fucking ugly! (something i'll forgive you for on this
occasion for not understanding coz you're only really getting it now,
maybe ;-)

>It's a lot more scary to be awake (to it all) so to speak, but dull it
>isn't (boring sometimes tho yes, most of their activities appear
inane, >like they're all living in a theme park version of reality:)

You appear to have changed who you're talking about half way through a
sentence there.

### - oh do try to keep up old fruit, there's a good chap (haha, see? i'm
really laughing!:) - this isn't rocket science ya know! lol;)

>>### - if one starts with the basic premise that all words are lies

> Then you're a dickhead. Words are symbols.

{ I should have said 'Then one is a dickhead.'}

>### - well they might also be quite a bit more than just that haha;)

Whatever, 'All words are lies' is a self defeating statement as if it
was true it would be a lie (because all words are lies) and therefore
some words are true. And if it was untrue then, again, some words are
true.

### - i can't believe that you're really that dense?? that obviously, if all
words are lies, then we're just gonna have to find another/intelligent way
to use/employ them instead of complacently taking everything quite so
'literally' all the time! (there is such a thing as reading 'between' the
lines sometimes ya know, i mean duh;)

>>anyway, then everything turns into what it really is... poetry

> Poetry is not synonymous with lies.

>>instead of fact... and fingers pointing at the moon... 'allusions'

> Allusions are not synonymous with lies.

>>>only to what can never actually be described or taken literally
>>>without risking madness:)

>>Yes, if your waiter actually brings you Duck a l'Orange he'll go
nuts.
>>Get a grip.

>### - (cracking up;) nah, he wont go nuts, he's ALREADY nuts! LOL;)

Heh... but you think anyone who's incorrect about anything is
insane...which is... everybody.

### - lol NOW he's starting to get it LOL (and the actual reason i quoted
that line from morrison: 'lost in a roman wilderness of pain and all the
children are insane' as a point of reference for you! and what did you
do?? you totally ignored it in favour of your own fixed/dogmatic belief lol
(hey can we at least have some objectivity here? so far apparently not:)

>(still laughing;) have you ever seen the movie 'one flew over the
>cuckoo's nest with jack nicholson as jesus?

I've seen the film, it's probably my favourite of his performances.

>(written by ken kesey no >less;)

He hated the film, apparently.

>the thing with cheify (from who's pov the story's told/related in the
>book) being that he'd always actually had the strength to leave (the
>asylum lol;) anytime he wanted, but it wasn't until jack came along
>that he actually found a reason to do so? (i think kesey's maybe
trying >to tell us something important here;)

Kesey was drawing connections between conformity and the capacity to
wage war. The film lost some of that.

Cue more cheerfulness:

### - lol so is that all you saw?? ahhh, so he wasn't at all perhaps
likening society to an insane asylum full of volunteers and run by the miss
ratchets of this world then huh? (i rather think he was you know + you're
probably gonna have to watch it again and maybe get something a bit more
from it this time than jesus (nicholson) merely waging a war;)

>>"lost in a roman wilderness of pain, and all the children are insane"
>>--jim morrison

### - (look, there it is ya missed it? i.e. i deliberately used/inserted it
to qualify my earlier unreferenced remarks)

>> So the human race *is* still alive now?

>Yes it's alive, but only barely + it doesn't actually seem too well (i
>notice you snipped/removed the dylan quote i posted on this every
>subject? tsk now i've got to put it back;)

You *have* to? Great... more happy clappy stuff...

### - such is your piss-poor opinion of art and literature then? (good grief
man, get a grip! better yet; a more decent education:)

>Hey hey Woody Guthrie I wrote you a song
>About a funny old world that's coming along
>Seems sick and it's hungry, it's tired and it's torn
>It looks like it's dying and it's hardly been born. - bob dylan

You put a lot of store by other peoples words, don't you?
Don't you trust your own?

### - oh dear oh dear, well what can i tell ya about 'Literature' and 'Art'
then eh? (hahaha, laffing my friggin' ass off again, see?;)

i mean, you've obviously gotten 'some' kind of an education alright, but
there's just sooo many gaps in it that's a wonder you can function at all...

ahem, and well let me put it this way then: i.e. it ain't exactly 'painting
by numbers', if you get my drift?:)

and coz it's oh-so just a little bit more 'intelligent' than that?? (cheezy
grinz + you were obviously never part of the debate team then is it, else
you'd be a little more familiar with referencing and citing other people's
work so you don't look like an idiot out there all on his own in the wild
pissing into the wind, kinda thing heh;)

(obviously fairly bright, i think slowness must be your curse then innit ;)

>> Well you're making even more assumptions there. It's been over 2,300
>> years and probably more (anyone by a shoreline would have seen the
>> curve of the earth just by looking out to see) since someone figured
>> out we were living on a globe, what other Earth shattering
>> discoveries are you talking about?

>### - (btw, oddly enough i enjoyed "looking out to see" a bit more?;)

>Sigh,

Oh for fucks sake cheer up you miserable git.

### - (grin;) again, you're the dour and moody one here, not moi, who's
actually as light as a feather dealing with some of the, shall we say:
harsher realities of life, compared to you? :)

>what i'm talking about is the same thing we're talking about: the
>geocentric view of the world that was literally turned upside down at
>one point, sending them all into a mighty panic lol, and the people
who >really + genuinely thought they knew what was going on only to
suddenly >realise they were idiots (lol) but then not so stupid as to
not totally >realise the effect knowledge of their fallibility would
likely have >upon the rest of the population! (people might, for
example, turn away >from the church in droves, or worse: burn them all
at the stake for >misleading everyone lol;)

So helio/geo-centricity is still the only example you've got of an
Earth shattering discovery you can give.... You said loads of people
were slapped down and then proved right.

### - well we've got to start 'somewhere' and i thought i'd keep it simple
for you mate, that's it's as good as any other (one of the clearest actually
coz we can view the whole thing with hindsight, beginning, middle and end)

>Anyway, they shuffled things around mighty quick + shuffled 'em like
>never before, took them 150 years to paper over the cracks + a total
of >500 years to actually own up and even apologise to poor old galileo
>(wasn't that long ago actually, around 2000 i think;)

You are absolutely right, the church was unreasonable and irrational. I
don't see how that argues against the reason and rationality that
eventually prevailed.

### - well how about, coz IF they had a hand in inventing it (for our
society as the replacement to what had suddenly proved itself a totally
fallible philosophy, one which they'd placed all OUR eggs into that basket
on our behalf) then it might just be ever so slightly fucking CONTAMINATED
with THEIR (now known to be) totally crappy + liberty-taking agenda??

literally as well as figuratively speaking that is, tada! (so am i good or
what lol, must have been all that xmas rest:)

>>supplement it in our politics and philosophy.... You are viewing a
>>self made cardboard cut-out of humanity and treating that as reality.

>### - smile, well oddly enough in the beatles film yellow submarine it
>was the people who'd all been turned into cardboard cut-outs by the
>blue meanies, or something no? So perhaps you are just inadvertently
>intuiting the truth + reversing it for convenience sake:)

Or perhaps it has nothing to do with a film you saw or a book you read
or a song you heard or a poem.

### - smile, what i'm trying to show you with all the quotes etc, is that
there might just already be a generally accepted + formulated expert
opinion/consensus on the matter under discussion as argued from my pov...

and the fact (which might already be just occurring to you) that i can
basically call on all genuine writers and artists to date to 'back up' my
seemingly strange (to you) arguments and claims, lends strength to it... is
all;)

>### - (laughing at your obvious frustration, but in a nice way heh;)
if >you could perhaps see/view religion as previously being a kind of
>faulty form of applied reason (just for a minute ok?)

That's not an unreasonable view of it.

### - my sentiments entirely! although just a minute ago you seemed to be
falling over (again) on the subject?

which begs the question: are we really so absolutely sure that we've
definitely got it right this time?? (like you'd imagine people would be a
lot more cautious after such a terrible experience haha, but then perhaps
we're just a little proud as well and so quickly + easily sweep the whole
dreadfully messy (stinking actually) matter under the carpet before too many
people noticed it lol;)

so now we got the new priests innit: all the so-called + officially
recognised (and stamped) 'experts' in their respective fields, all
'testifying' to the authenticity of it (basically, they chucked the masses a
few cheap digital watches and calculators... and the crowd went wild! ;-)

>then maybe you might more readily catch on to what i'm trying to say
to >you, and so ok they've improved on it since then (lol after galileo
>they had to!;) but basically it's still the same old meat and 2 veg
>diet just being served up by some now fancy tv chef that everyone's
>swallowing, hook, line and sinker;)

No, I understand. You're still are trying to portray science as a
religion. It's a sloppy and silly comparison.

### - versus your moment ago of: "that's not an unreasonable view of it"??
(flip-flopped?:)

>"I say one must be a seer, make oneself a seer. The poet makes himself
>a seer by an immense, long, deliberate derangement of all the senses."
>-- Arthur Rimbaud"

>>"destroy all rational thought" --William S Burroughs

> You obviously don't agree or you wouldn't be trying to have a
> discussion about it with me.

### - perforce i'm forced to use the only means/language you've got,
limited (and limiting;) though it is (smile:) else it would be like speaking
chinese to a native frenchman and expecting you to savvy up;)

>### - again, i notice you've removed the rimbaud quote that was
>intended to clarify the above? (i didn't put those two together by
>accident you know;)

There, I've put it back.... It's a poncey, pretentious claptrap - and
yet again someone else's words, not your own.

He wasn't a seer, as far as I know he never predicted anything.

### - lol "poncey, pretentious claptrap" is it... and that's your
considered opinion?? (hellooo, rimbaud is accepted fact + isn't called the
'boy genius' for nothing you know;) true, he was definitely young, so he's
kinda 'in yer face' with a lot of it (i.e. imagine a modern punk (from
music) somehow sent back in time to that era and left to his own devices,
totally alone and basically 150 years ahead of that time, which must have
looked ridiculous to him! and in fact did;)


'Priests, professors, masters, you're wrong to hand me over to justice. I've
never been part of this race. I've never been a Christian: I'm of the race
that sings under torture: I don't understand the law: I've no moral sense,
I'm a brute: you're wrong.'

'Yes, I've shut my eyes to your light. I'm a beast, a black. But I can
be saved. You are really blacks, you maniacs; wild beasts, misers. Merchant,
you're a black: magistrate, you're a black: general, you're a black:
emperor, you old sore, you're a black: you've drunk an untaxed liquor,
Satan's make. - This race is inspired by fever and cancer. Old folks and
invalids are so respectable they ask to be boiled. - The cleverest thing is
to quit this continent, where madness prowls to find hostages for these
wretches.I'm off to the true kingdom of the sons of Ham.' --from rimbaud's
'bad blood'

http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/French/Rimbaud3.htm#_Toc202003791

>Plus if you think about it, that is precisely what i've been
attempting >to do with you, tho not so much to destroy as 'rearrange'
(it doesn't >need to be totally destroyed coz with discipline it's
possible to just >hold it at bay on occasion instead and then we get 2
options instead of >only one or none;)

You think self-destruction and re-creation is a new idea?

### - and you accuse 'me' of going off on tangents?? geeze :)

>>There are no walls to climb, It's more like riding a unicycle toward
>>the horizon. You can never reach the horizon but you can get very
>>good at riding the unicycle, and even get to enjoy the view more
>>and more.

>### - walls, unicycles, call it whatever ya want coz there's
>absolutely nothing like that at all literally,

I wasn't talking literally.

>words beings allusions only and poetry/metaphors

Well at least you've had enough sense to stop the 'all words are lies'
crap.

### - they are not (and cannot be) the revealers of truth, i think was the
original point so it's no good trying to weasel out of it now heh heh:)

>at best it matters >not the words or the way they are employed but the
>message conveyed thereby to those with the ears to hear it (iow, you
>really shouldn't take yourself so seriously all the time

I don't. I'm not sure that you understand English humour.

>and try to be a little more... open-minded;)

Try not to be so open minded your brain falls out.

### - versus: not being so totally closed minded that nothing ever gets in,
which is what you're doing - sanity in this instance being to intelligently
walk 'between' the 2 extremes :)

>>>and escape to erm, whatever it is people call it these days that
>>>lies beyond the invented rule and measure that has ultimately
>>>confined man to a dungeon hell of his own creation and from which
>>>there is no escape but that of death?

>>Do you feel trapped and confined? Do you believe other people feel

>>the same? Do you want to believe other people are confined to a

>>dungeon of hell?

>### - it's not a matter of 'belief' but of observation that humanity
>is all locked up and the key thrown away, as an 'outsider' (you might
>have to look that term from literature up;) i am anything but trapped
>or confined,
>but having originally come from that hell myself i can
>certainly appreciate how others still are and are forced to live like
>prisoners on death row, trapped as they are in a prison-house... of
>ideas:)

This is just your fantasy view of the world. It bears no resemblance to
how people live their actual lives.

### - ahem, so all those people actually starving to death out there are in
reality having the time of their lives are they? i think not... plus you
would have to be insane to imagine so in order to justify what you're
currently defending without even considering the facts...

>>>oh yeah, freedom, that's what they called it heh, freedom! ;-)

>>You have freedom now.

>### - to know what is freedom first one must know/realise: what is the
>prison, glasshopper ;-)

You are your own jailer.

### - "we're all just prisoners here of our own device" -the eagles 'hotel
california'

>>>evil magicians have of course beguiled you's with their measuring
>>>wands with which they have drawn down a veil of sleepiness,
>>>creating in such a fashion the world of the sleepwalkers that
>>>don't even know they are dreaming (awww sad:)

>>You're confusing yourself with bullshit.

>### - it's not bs to refer to scientists spreading their 'dogma' as
>being evil magicians, you just don't personally get it is all (worse,
>you don't want to coz you'd have to start over and you're just too
>proud to do so:)

Again with the claptrap you've read taking over from any common sense
you had. I'm quite prepared to change my views on anything given proper
cause to do so. You've just regurgitated half digested snippets of the
works that have influenced you while railing against whatever has
influenced others.

### - well that might be what 'you' do (hmm very revealing actually heh;)
but i'm operating on another track to that entirely (and you should be too!
but you're being a dull witted stuck in the mud, probably deliberately, but
to your own detriment not mine if you but realised it)

>>>but fear not oh my lost brothers (heh;) for a way still exists

>>>for the somehow courageous and brave, or even just the terminally

>>>bored hehe, the keys to that bolted door existing where one might
>>>suspect it least, in the very things one perforce takes for
>>>granted and never questions...

>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkWPOIbsldE

>>This fruit loop just makes shit up and you swallow it whole.

>>He tells you science has 10 dogma's and you believe it, bet he sold
>>you a book with his fictitious portrayal of these pseudo-dogmas.

>>He tells you everyone takes these things for granted and you take it
>>for granted he's right about that.

>>He gives you an excuse to be a lazy thinker and you grasp it.

>### - nope, he merely puts what i have been arguing for into a
>nutshell for you seeing as you've been having such a hard time
>understanding something that's really quite simple and an established
>fact in history albeit talking about previous so-called rulers of the
>world (prison officials), go figure:)

You, while arguing there are no patterns argue that the pattern of
history *must* repeat itself. Is it any wonder that you're difficult to
take seriously.

### - i have indeed said that to someone else in another thread altogether
(to thang actually in a similar argument) but with you i'm maintaining that
it's a continuation as opposed to a repeat per se... iow, it never actually
stopped, it was just upgraded, the faulty reasoning of religion got a fancy
makeover was all, thus i said/quoted meet the new boss same as the old boss
+ maybe you'll get it this time? finally;)

>>>the science delusion! (science set free :)

>>More like 'science misrepresented and delusion set free'

>>You start off denigrating rationality and support that position
>>with a video of Rupert Sheldrake trying to argue rationally (from a
>>totally slanted point of view) against science. Doing his best to
>>support his Anglican Christianity by trying to convince the
>>feeble-minded that science is a religion too.

>>His view of science appears to be one that isn't shared by just
>>about anyone who understands science, and he argues against this
>>view of his own creation.

>>A pseudo-scientist selling a book, good for him.

>### - he IS actually a scientist according to his qualifications,

Yes, I know... double first at Cambridge... yada, yada... doesn't stop
him being a fruit loop or becoming a pseudo-scientist. Have you seen
his drivel an the 'stare effect' or 'morphic resonance.'


>background and training, and while i don't agree with 'everything' he
>says, he nevertheless makes a good argument and case worthy of
>discussion and examination, but if you're too afraid to look at that
>coz it makes you feel so terribly threatened

Oh I've looked at it, but when he says (as part of his first so called
'dogma') that he sees life as organic where other scientists don't then
this blatant untruth makes everything else he says dubious at best. As
for feeling threatened, why would I be?

### - simply and solely because it undermines the seemingly solid ground
you like to think (imagine actually;) you're standing on... i'd certainly
call that threatening + i am totally aware of that being the situation
whereas you're just reacting emotionally to it, i.e. very defensively and in
complete denial :)

>then perhaps your own argument and stance needs urgent reviewing with
>perhaps a little more, shall we say... objectivity?:)

I review my views frequently, do you?

### - art is consistent, whereas science is always up in the air? besides,
the knowledge from art has been around for a very long time to the point
that it's virtually impossible to be original any more so much of the
blanks having been filled in already, whereas science is still the
relatively new kid on the block with 95+ percent of it still to be
discovered (go figure;)

>>He's a boring speaker though.

>>>hohoho! and a very merry xmas to all from slider

>>You too.

>>>(well ya gotta watch out for that sanity clause innit ;-)

>>Keep taking the meds dude.

>### - ah so, the mask eventually beings to slip as we start to see
>the real (angry) man

Angry? You think? How angry must you be then to say the whole human
race is insane? Actually I was just judging you by your own standards,
you think anyone who's incorrect about anything is insane and, unless
you believe you are right about absolutely everything (in which case
you're insane) then you're insane for being incorrect. It seemed kind
of amusing to me as you had yet again brought up sanity, but if you
were offended I apologize.

### - absolutely no offence taken hehe, plus i don't need to be angry to
state certain self evident facts about the deplorable state of humanity, am
saddened if anything coz it's actually a shame (and to our shame) that we've
made such a dogs-dinner of it all and then aren't then even honest enough to
own up to our own absolutely dreadful + unconscionable mistakes, meanwhile
plowing-on regardless (and justifying it all too) in the name of holy
science, who by nature and design (plus all the upgrades) is now claiming to
be more infallible than ever in the eyes of masses? (duh)

>behind the loud and eloquent voice eh?

I am neither of these things.

### - hmmm, but you do trumpet a bit though like you already know it all,
don't you.. only of course science (and you) obviously do not else the world
would already be a far better place:)

>(suck it up good dude, the language you've learned to parrot that
makes >you feel like you're somehow actually superior to others who
can't >speak it, is just more sophist bullshit that has been plaguing
humanity
>since flim-flam and the con men using it first appeared:)

I don't see my language usage as anything out of the ordinary, but hey,
if you're prejudiced against people who write as I do there's not much
I can do about it. As for your long distance mind reading act, it needs
a lot of work.

### - i'm just suggesting that it's 95+ percent bs is all really, plus it's
not prejudice exactly... more like pity for all those lost souls who'll
probably never see the light of day? (zappa comes to mind heh, 'the torture
never stops' excellent:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdbtZqEyE7U

a masterpiece! :)

>>I don't use emoticons, feel free to insert your own.

>### - well how unimaginative and staid of you hehe, plus i'm using
>one right now that can't been seen but basically means... you're a
>dickhead;)

Heh, and you don't use capital letters because you're all rebellious
and hoopy, right?

### - it's just a lot less 'anal' (retentive) and easier is all hehehe, jack
kerouak once wrote a whole novel without any punctuation whatsoever, hows
zat! (incidentally, he also got hold of a long continuous roll of typing
paper for that same novel so he wouldn't have to keep being interrupted
changing the pages lol, and which he subsequently completed in only 72 hours
(did it on speed actually heh:)

>---------------------

>"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present
>moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If
>one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else
>to do, and nothing else to pursue." --from Hagakure, the book of the
>Samurai

Yet more of other peoples words, yada....

### - yeah, the hard earned + painfully accumulated experience of humanity
counts for something alright, or perhaps in your conceit you think it
doesn't?

(quote alert! heh:)

"and disagreed no one durst
the best of course of all the worst" --from zappa's above tune ...

but then you wouldn't exactly ever really get that would you, not without
you having to back up quite a few miles that is heh, and yet one day you
might have to do just exactly that if you're ever gonna come up to speed on
this matter that you're apparently struggling with so badly?

personally, i recommend you just dropping all the bs and mind games and
doing the work instead of merely trying to make yourself look good at other
people's expense for a cheap laugh, and coz ultimately the laugh would
actually be on you and not on the artists and their 'already' well
established pov you apparently currently have missing (huge gaps man!) from
your vocabulary, even though i've already filled in quite a few of them for
ya;)

----------------

In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by
everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the
exact opposite. --Paul Dirac ;-)

(brilliant! :)

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

> bazonga? Are you a dyslexic relative of Sheldon Cooper?
>
>>>>then again i say just look around at what we've all been doing to
>>>>ourselves and the planet? It's not all great you know...
>
>>>What we're doing to the planet is the result of using scientific
>>>advancements unwisely and unreasonably. If we were using the
>>>advancements reasonably then there wouldn't be a problem would
>>>there?
>
>>You seem to be a reasonably well read fellow - and versatile in the
>>art of logic.
>
> Thank you, I endeavour to educate myself as far as I am able.
>
>>But, with slider, you are utterly wasting your time.
>
> If my purpose was to get slider to agree with me then you would be
> correct, but then the same could be said of almost all newsgroup
> conversations. If I'm passing some of my free time testing my own
> arguments as a mental exercise while obtaining some mild amusement?
> While it may not be the best use of my time there are worse things to
> do.

### - heh :) plus you might have to again google-groups my other long reply
to you as the server i normally use apparently puts a strict limit on things
(typical! ;)

>>I took the time and effort to parse his "arguments" over a very long
>>time, around 5 years or so (intermittently) with no discernible effect
>>on the unformed inchoate mess that emanates from his brain.
>>His mind is highly disordered, perhaps pathologically, and he will not
>>ever admit the error of his thought processes
>
> He uses sloppy arguments to rationalize and entrench his sloppy
> thinking.
>
>>nor the complete misery he appears to dwell in.
>
> Slider seems to need to feel he is enlightened and is trying to educate
> the unenlightened to enable himself to feel 'special' an 'outsider.'

### - (laughing;) well here you again merely reveal your ignorance on the
character drawn from literature called the outsider? (albert camus's book
'the stranger' for example, a seemingly odd story that doesn't really seem
to say anything about anything really, that is until a few weeks later when
it starts to rattle around in one's head all by itself heh heh, and which
btw in certain circles is considered required reading old chum;)

i can, however, give you a genuine example (a taste then) of the outsider in
action, in that because of it's 400 year history, south africa at one point
eventually + effectively closed itself off to the rest of the world with its
policy of apartheid, which continued that way for quite a while away from
world opinion and influence, the resulting systematic 'segregation of the
races' over a long period of time resulting in an accumlating list of around
356 different fucking shades from white to black, with a line literally
drawn down the middle of them (the 'code noir') so as to legally define just
who should or shouldn't shop or sit or eat in certain 'white' areas, and
which went on growing + unchallenged for years!

and well ya see the problem with (and for) something like apartheid doing
all that shit and everyone (even those opressed by it) accepting it all as
just being the evolved situation to date, kinda thing... IS the outsider,
who perhaps happens by, takes one look at it all and immediately exclaims,
what the fuck IS all this... crap!!!

which it certainly was! only people (both there and in the world) had gotten
used to just having things that way coz of the way it had all slowly evolved
over 400 long years! that what they had all become almost totally blind to
by dint of becoming inurred to it all, literally stands out a mile as being
totally disgusting and completely unacceptable to an outsider to that
system! (mandela under that regime was actually considered a terrorrist by
the usa (and others) for example, for actively opposing it! did 27 years for
it!)

however, as soon as he got out one of the first things he did was to be
invited to have tea with the queen of england heh heh (well he was oxford
educated after all innit, so maybe he was actually working for us? plus
which might even explain why he wasn't just killed like so many others who
apparently all accidentally fell out of the top floor windows of white
african police stations and things ha!;)

that the fly in any buttermilk (e.g. in this instance a form of right wing
tyranny) is always gonna be... the outsider... who's likely always gonna
turn up just when ya just don't need it, but actually also DO need it
really, if only to put/hasten an end to something, well, pretty bloody awful
actually! lol;)

and here endeth the lesson for today heh ;-)

(well, in a roundabout way you DID ask innit + i hope that helps)

>>He projects his misery (or depression) on the entire human race
>>imagining that everyone lives in misery which is simply not the case.
>
> His breakdown of the human race is cartoon like...
>
> 1% "1% of the population owns everything" (via Chomsky)
> 19% "19% do very well working for them" (again via Chomsky)
> 80% - he equates to "the kid that's just had all its arms and legs
> blown off for nothing" (his own belief)
>
> ...maybe he'll grow out of it.

### - or conversely, maybe you (and thang) will? (grinz;)

(meaning: to both maybe grow up a little/expand your horizons some, see the
bigger picture kinda thing/thang heh :)

plus let's see if you can perhaps both be a little more serious for a minute
(or 10) and actually try to take that all in + adjust/redact accordingly...
(i indeed wonder :)

place yer bets folks! (lol:) 25 to one on the outsider! (grin;)

oooh look! there's one of those terribly elusive flying fucking pink pigs
again! lol

nope, it was just a plane ole plain folks (or is that the other ways around?
i sometimes get confused;)

now 33 to one on the outsider!

(a real long shot heh ;)

plus camus was alright, nobel prize for literature and all that (didn't he
get 2 of them?) he and sartre put their heads together and apparently came
up with... 'the outsider' (l'etranger in french)

a surprisingly short book, but don't let that fool ya none oh boy! :)

50 to one now the outsider!!!

(damn, i might just put a 10 on that me'self lol)

happy landings! ;-)

over and out...

[dccxxvii]

dccxxvii ( the.impe...@gmail.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

*Bump* ....part 1 of my 2 part reply to slider.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

dccxxvii ( the.impe...@gmail.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

*Bump* part 2 of my 2 part reply to slider.

After three days you decided I'd 'biten the proverbial dust' and
wondered 'how can anyone of so little concentration ever hope to climb

the walls of so-called 'progress'

Do you judge yourself by the standards you set others? (It's been 8
days)

Would that be a reasonable thing to expect?

If you can't find my messages on aioe (they have a size limitation)
they are definitely available through google groups.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

> *Bump* part 2 of my 2 part reply to slider.
>
> After three days you decided I'd 'biten the proverbial dust' and
> wondered 'how can anyone of so little concentration ever hope to climb
> the walls of so-called 'progress'
>
> Do you judge yourself by the standards you set others? (It's been 8
> days)
>
> Would that be a reasonable thing to expect?
>
> If you can't find my messages on aioe (they have a size limitation)
> they are definitely available through google groups.

### - LOL well what a coincidence! our messages being posted at exactly the
same time? hehehe...

like, have you ever waited ages for a bus and eventuully got fed up and
decided to walk it, when low and behold what should come right around the
corner but the one you were waiting for? (usually just after one has taken
several steps away requiring one to then hasten back to the stop on the
double lol;)

an outside would, of couse, probably suggest that you somehow 'sensed' it's
arrival/my intention, even though it was immediately rationalised away as
being impatience?

probably best not to mention it to sheldrake though lest he uses it as grist
for his erm, mill heh heh heh ;-)

so then, still need any more erm, proofs? (grin:)

---------------

"no such thing as a coincidence" -- william burroughs;)

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>

>dccxxvii wrote...
>
>>bazonga? Are you a dyslexic relative of Sheldon Cooper?
>>
>>>>>then again i say just look around at what we've all been
>>>>>doing to ourselves and the planet? It's not all great you
>>>>>know...
>>
>>>>What we're doing to the planet is the result of using scientific
>>>>advancements unwisely and unreasonably. If we were using the
>>>>advancements reasonably then there wouldn't be a problem would
>>>>there?
>>
>>>You seem to be a reasonably well read fellow - and versatile in
>>>the art of logic.
>>
>>Thank you, I endeavour to educate myself as far as I am able.
>>
>>>But, with slider, you are utterly wasting your time.
>>
>>If my purpose was to get slider to agree with me then you would be
>>correct, but then the same could be said of almost all newsgroup
>>conversations. If I'm passing some of my free time testing my own
>>arguments as a mental exercise while obtaining some mild amusement?
>>While it may not be the best use of my time there are worse things
>>to do.
>
>### - heh :) plus you might have to again google-groups my other long
>reply to you as the server i normally use apparently puts a strict
>limit on things (typical! ;)

Except that I did and you posted itan hour and twenty minutes agter my
post, plenty of time to whip up a reply you dishonest person you.

>>>I took the time and effort to parse his "arguments" over a very
>>>long time, around 5 years or so (intermittently) with no
>>>discernible effect on the unformed inchoate mess that emanates
>>>from his brain. His mind is highly disordered, perhaps
>>>pathologically, and he will not ever admit the error of his
>>>thought processes
>>
>>He uses sloppy arguments to rationalize and entrench his sloppy
>>thinking.
>>
>>>nor the complete misery he appears to dwell in.
>>
>>Slider seems to need to feel he is enlightened and is trying to
>>educate the unenlightened to enable himself to feel 'special' an
>>'outsider.'

>### - (laughing;) well here you again merely reveal your ignorance on
>the character drawn from literature called the outsider? (albert
>camus's book 'the stranger' for example, a seemingly odd story that
>doesn't really seem to say anything about anything really, that is
>until a few weeks later when it starts to rattle around in one's head
>all by itself heh heh, and which btw in certain circles is considered
>required reading old chum;)

You infatuate yourself with the last word of my post and ignore the
point - your need to feel special. I bet you can't say n your own words
what you understand 'the stranger' to be.

>i can, however, give you a genuine example (a taste then) of the
>outsider in action, in that because of it's 400 year history, south
>africa at one point eventually + effectively closed itself off to the
>rest of the world with its policy of apartheid, which continued that
>way for quite a while away from world opinion and influence, the
>resulting systematic 'segregation of the races' over a long period of
>time resulting in an accumlating list of around 356 different fucking
>shades from white to black, with a line literally drawn down the
>middle of them (the 'code noir') so as to legally define just who
>should or shouldn't shop or sit or eat in certain 'white' areas, and
>which went on growing + unchallenged for years!

You don't say who or what you consider the outsider here.

>and well ya see the problem with (and for) something like apartheid
>doing all that shit and everyone (even those opressed by it)
>accepting it all as just being the evolved situation to date, kinda
>thing... IS the outsider, who perhaps happens by, takes one look at
>it all and immediately exclaims, what the fuck IS all this... crap!!!

Well that seems exactly what I meant by you wanting to feel you're
special and the outsider, trouble is you're seeing things that aren't
there. 80% of people aren;t a kid with all iy's arms and legs blown off.

>which it certainly was! only people (both there and in the world) had
>gotten used to just having things that way coz of the way it had all
>slowly evolved over 400 long years! that what they had all become
>almost totally blind to by dint of becoming inurred to it all,
>literally stands out a mile as being totally disgusting and
>completely unacceptable to an outsider to that system! (mandela under
>that regime was actually considered a terrorrist by the usa (and
>others) for example, for actively opposing it! did 27 years for it!)

>however, as soon as he got out one of the first things he did was to
>be invited to have tea with the queen of england heh heh (well he was
>oxford educated after all innit, so maybe he was actually working for
>us? plus which might even explain why he wasn't just killed like so
>many others who apparently all accidentally fell out of the top floor
>windows of white african police stations and things ha!;)

>that the fly in any buttermilk (e.g. in this instance a form of right
>wing tyranny) is always gonna be... the outsider... who's likely
>always gonna turn up just when ya just don't need it, but actually
>also DO need it really, if only to put/hasten an end to something,
>well, pretty bloody awful actually! lol;)

You aren't that fly. You aren't special. You haven't shown me anything
I didn't already know.You certainly haven't shown any value as an
outsider.

>and here endeth the lesson for today heh ;-)

Teach your grandma to suck eggs... you've said nothing new.

>(well, in a roundabout way you DID ask innit + i hope that helps)

In a roundabout way you've confirmed what I said.

>>>He projects his misery (or depression) on the entire human race
>>>imagining that everyone lives in misery which is simply not the
>>>case.

>>His breakdown of the human race is cartoon like...

>>1% "1% of the population owns everything" (via Chomsky)
>>19% "19% do very well working for them" (again via Chomsky)
>>80% - he equates to "the kid that's just had all its arms and legs
>> blown off for nothing" (his own belief)

>>...maybe he'll grow out of it.

>### - or conversely, maybe you (and thang) will? (grinz;)

You really believe the above and think I'll grow out of thinking you're
wrong? You're even more entrenched in stupidity than I thought. 80% of
people are not a 'kid that's just had all its arms and legs
blown off for nothing' you will never be right about this.

>(meaning: to both maybe grow up a little/expand your horizons some,
>see the bigger picture kinda thing/thang heh :)

I see further than you... you think the human race and it's
interactions have some sort of importance in the universe.

>plus let's see if you can perhaps both be a little more serious for a
>minute (or 10) and actually try to take that all in + adjust/redact
>accordingly... (i indeed wonder :)

If you'd said anything new that would be an option.

>place yer bets folks! (lol:) 25 to one on the outsider! (grin;)

You misinterpret the outsider yet again.

>oooh look! there's one of those terribly elusive flying fucking pink
>pigs again! lol

Right, you see them a lot?

>nope, it was just a plane ole plain folks (or is that the other ways
>around? i sometimes get confused;)

Confused is your default position.

>plus camus was alright, nobel prize for literature and all that
>(didn't he get 2 of them?) he and sartre put their heads together and
>apparently came up with... 'the outsider' (l'etranger in french)

Mistaking literature for fact now?

>a surprisingly short book, but don't let that fool ya none oh boy! :)

You've let it make a fool out of you.

>50 to one now the outsider!!!

That short.

>(damn, i might just put a 10 on that me'self lol)

You aren't the outsider, who is?

>happy landings! ;-)

>over and out...

..for the count?

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>dccxxvii wrote...

>>*Bump* part 2 of my 2 part reply to slider.

>>After three days you decided I'd 'biten the proverbial dust' and
>>wondered 'how can anyone of so little concentration ever hope to
>>climb the walls of so-called 'progress'

>>Do you judge yourself by the standards you set others? (It's been 8
>>days)

>>Would that be a reasonable thing to expect?

>>If you can't find my messages on aioe (they have a size limitation)
>>they are definitely available through google groups.

>### - LOL well what a coincidence! our messages being posted at
>exactly the same time? hehehe...

No, they were posted well after mine.

>like, have you ever waited ages for a bus and eventuully got fed up
>and decided to walk it,

No, generally I cycle or walk.

> when low and behold what should come right around the corner but the
> one you were waiting for?

It's 'lo and behold' - 'lo' being a shortening of 'look' not 'low' a
lack of height or a cow's cry. Literature doesn't require literacy
these days?

>(usually just after one has taken several steps away requiring one to
>then hasten back to the stop on the double lol;)

I've never done that.

>an outside would, of couse, probably suggest....

...I'd been more than lenient in not hassling you sooner.

>that you somehow 'sensed' it's arrival/my intention, even though it
was >immediately rationalised away as being impatience?

You think waiting twice as long as you did is impatience? You think
posting an hour after me is coincidence?

>probably best not to mention it to sheldrake though lest he uses it
>as grist for his erm, mill heh heh heh ;-)

Mention it to any arsehole you want to.

>so then, still need any more erm, proofs? (grin:)

What do you thin you have proved?

>"no such thing as a coincidence" -- william burroughs;)

Exactly

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[Robert Scott Martin]

>>>>But, with slider, you are utterly wasting your time.

>>### - (laughing;) well here you again merely reveal your ignorance on
>>the character drawn from literature called the outsider? (albert
>>camus's book 'the stranger' for example, a seemingly odd story that
>>doesn't really seem to say anything about anything really, that is
>>until a few weeks later when it starts to rattle around in one's head
>>all by itself heh heh, and which btw in certain circles is considered
>>required reading old chum;)

For Christ's sake, The Outsider is Colin Wilson. No need to be so coy
about that.

[dccxxvii]

Robert ( gl...@panix.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

The outsider who couldn't escape his Christian faith when he wrote?

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[Robert Scott Martin]

>>>>>>But, with slider, you are utterly wasting your time.

In article <xn0i7cwsg...@news.aioe.org>,

dccxxvii <the.impe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>For Christ's sake, The Outsider is Colin Wilson. No need to be so coy
>>about that.

>The outsider who couldn't escape his Christian faith when he wrote?

Now there's the most interesting take on the angry young man's career --
much less "the outsider character" -- I've heard in years.

[dccxxvii]

Robert ( gl...@panix.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

It's based on, I think, four books of his I read when a lot younger. If
you have a more considered and better informed viewpoint my mind is not
closed. It was what struck me as an underlying motivation though.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

(snipped Life (1/2) for brevity + for all the difference it makes
anyway;)

You couldn't answer the points so you snipped them? Here are some...

>>>>dccxxvii

>>>> No, the intelligent *hope* is that the blanks can be filled in. If
>>>> people wish to devote time and effort in pursuit of that hope then
I
>>>> fully support them.

>>>slider

>>> well, "hopes" and "may yets" are hardly the rock solid ground
>>>you imply in your argument/ "intelligent assumption" that seems to
lend
>>>credence to the 'belief' people (like yourself) harbour that those
>>>blanks 'will' in fact be filled in?

>>dccxxvii

>>I have never said anything about rock solid ground. If you'd paid
>>attention you would have noticed that I plainly stated that if the
>>information changes the model changes.

No answer? No defence of your delusional position? Hardly surprising.

>>dccxxvii

>> have never expressed any 'belief' that the blanks 'will' be filled
>>in. Are you actually reading what I write. You seem to be reading
what
>>you *want* to argue against instead.

No answer? No defence of your delusional position? Hardly surprising.

>>Iow, if you are going to hold up hopes and/or may-yets as being some
>>kind of valid argument,

>I'm not, you're making that up as well.

No response? No support for your delusional position? Hardly surprising.

===

>>>>dccxxvii

>>>> People who are incorrect are mad? That's a lazy and rather silly
>>>> assumption you're making there.

>>>slider

>>>### - heh well people who are incorrect aren't exactly right in the
>>>head are they? (grin)

>>dccxxvii

>>Yes they are, everybody is incorrect at times, it doesn't make them
>>insane.

No answer? No defence of your delusional position? Hardly surprising.

===

>>>>dccxxvii

>>>> You would prefer ignorance and a lack of curiosity?

>>>slider

>>>### - no, if anything i would prefer intelligently/more honestly
>>>walking the tightrope/watershed that exists between the two above
>>>extremes (there isn't anything else;)

>>dccxxvii

>>What do you think is between 'Examining the universe to see what we
can
>>find out about it without making your assumption' and 'ignorance and
a
>>lack of curiosity'? Making stuff up?

No answer? No defence of your delusional position? Hardly surprising.

===

>>You seem really pissed at humans for being humans. What are *you*
doing
>>to change things?

No answer? No defence of your delusional position? Hardly surprising.

===

>### - aha

With Morton Harket? They were ok I guess.

back from my xmas break to 'this' pile of parrot droppings on my
in-tray huh? lol:)

You act like a parrot of half understood fractions of what you've read
and then
wonder why you have parrot droppings on your floor.

Other unanswered questions from the first bit of my post are.....

You seem really pissed at humans for being humans. What are you doing
to change things?

===

>>>### - heh oh we can certainly do wonders even with that only 5%,
>>>nothing less even than the whole of the modern world et al + all the
>>>modern horrors/wonders of it, most of it horrors and getting worse (i
>>>mean, haven't you looked around at it lately? It's tearing itself
>>>apart)

>>You say there are no patterns, I give examples that there are and you,
>>having no argument go off at a tangent.

No answer? No defence of your delusional position? Hardly surprising.

===

>>>That if what 'religion' originally set out to do was to ultimately
>>>control people and the way they lived by edict from on high, then
this
>>>same agenda is entirely far surpassed by the modern replacement
belief
>>>in science and all things rational...

>>You think people are being controlled by science? You are really
>>paranoid aren't you?

No answer? No defence of your delusional position? Hardly surprising.

===

>>>ostensibly a religion of now 'tangible' miracles,one's you can
>>>actually hold in your own hand

>They aren't miracles, miracles require divine intervention and nobody
>>(but apparently you) is claiming smart phones or tablet computers
>>require divine intervention. You are dishonestly calling them miracles
>>to further your warped view of science as a religion.

No answer? No defence of your delusional position? Hardly surprising.

===

>>>ya know everyone ends up worshipping the easter bunnie or some such
>>>far morerational nonsense (dark matter) that's not doing anyone any
>>>good except that it all looks great on paper and everyone agrees...

>>Except that nobody worships dark matter (or, as far as I know the
>>Easter Bunny) and not everyone agrees.

No response? No defence of your delusional position? Hardly surprising.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[Robert Scott Martin]

>>>The outsider who couldn't escape his Christian faith when he wrote?

In article <xn0i7er9w...@news.aioe.org>,

dccxxvii <the.impe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Now there's the most interesting take on the angry young man's career
>>-- much less "the outsider character" -- I've heard in years.
>
>It's based on, I think, four books of his I read when a lot younger. If
>you have a more considered and better informed viewpoint my mind is not
>closed. It was what struck me as an underlying motivation though.

It's dead on and more fertile than anyone else's endless romanticisation
of "the outsider character" we might get around here these days.

More succinct too, but that goes without saying. Thanks.

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

>>>bazonga? Are you a dyslexic relative of Sheldon Cooper?
>>>
>>>>>>then again i say just look around at what we've all been
>>>>>>doing to ourselves and the planet? It's not all great you
>>>>>>know...
>>>
>>>>>What we're doing to the planet is the result of using scientific
>>>>>advancements unwisely and unreasonably. If we were using the
>>>>>advancements reasonably then there wouldn't be a problem would
>>>>>there?
>>>
>>>>You seem to be a reasonably well read fellow - and versatile in
>>>>the art of logic.
>>>
>>>Thank you, I endeavour to educate myself as far as I am able.
>>>
>>>>But, with slider, you are utterly wasting your time.
>>>
>>>If my purpose was to get slider to agree with me then you would be
>>>correct, but then the same could be said of almost all newsgroup
>>>conversations. If I'm passing some of my free time testing my own
>>>arguments as a mental exercise while obtaining some mild amusement?
>>>While it may not be the best use of my time there are worse things
>>>to do.
>>
>>### - heh :) plus you might have to again google-groups my other long
>>reply to you as the server i normally use apparently puts a strict
>>limit on things (typical! ;)
>
> Except that I did and you posted itan hour and twenty minutes agter my
> post, plenty of time to whip up a reply you dishonest person you.

### - lol @ "itan", "agter"?? :-) hmm, but then it would be extremely petty
of someone, would it not? to have to resort to picking people up on their
typo's coz their argument-proper is lacking an appropriate response innit,
so let's just overlook all such obvious potentially tangent-making material
coz that would probably be the most reasonable + intelligent thing to do,
n'est pa? :)

as for the posts thing, my mail client says 12.42 for all 3 posts, 2 of them
yours + my second response to you and thangs little erm, discussion (2
dogs/bitches of the same breed sniffing each other's butts and liking it,
being what it really looked like heh;)

my first, the long 34k one, is marked for 11.10 earlier, plus it was when i
checked to see that it was on the server this time that i then replied to
your previous day's bitching remarks to thang, which when it was sent is the
one marked 12.42 along with your 2 complaining and demanding that i get busy
responding to you after 8 days lol (i did mention the xmas break having
something to with it in that 12.42 reply but had no idea at that time you
were writing them at the same time as i was until i saw all 3 on the server
marked 12.42)

my subsequent (reply re that coincidence) to your 12.42 is marked 12.59...
and this is correct as seen on at least 3 different servers, the only post
of mine that didn't show up being the initial one (the 34k 11.10 one) which
didn't appear on the aioe or the nttp aioe servers (just like last time
which is why you missed it until you went google groups) but DID show up on
the freenews.netfront.net server, again marked as 11.10 (it's the server i
use when anal-aioe and nttp wont accept messages for, in this instance for
being too long, too many quoted lines being another of its many unreasonable
restrictions among others)

otherwise, personally i have no desire nor need to be dishonest, i've got
nothing to prove + rely on other people's intelligence (or not as the case
may be) to be able to discern what i'm saying through the veil/medium
of words (no pun intended heh;), failing that, they may just learn
(eventually) to be able to discern that which i'm saying... (i always give
people that chance anyway, even although ultimately it doesn't really matter
if they do or they dont coz the outcome is basically the same anyway;)

>>>>I took the time and effort to parse his "arguments" over a very
>>>>long time, around 5 years or so (intermittently) with no
>>>>discernible effect on the unformed inchoate mess that emanates
>>>>from his brain. His mind is highly disordered, perhaps
>>>>pathologically, and he will not ever admit the error of his
>>>>thought processes
>>>
>>>He uses sloppy arguments to rationalize and entrench his sloppy
>>>thinking.
>>>
>>>>nor the complete misery he appears to dwell in.
>>>
>>>Slider seems to need to feel he is enlightened and is trying to
>>>educate the unenlightened to enable himself to feel 'special' an
>>>'outsider.'
>
>>### - (laughing;) well here you again merely reveal your ignorance on
>>the character drawn from literature called the outsider? (albert
>>camus's book 'the stranger' for example, a seemingly odd story that
>>doesn't really seem to say anything about anything really, that is
>>until a few weeks later when it starts to rattle around in one's head
>>all by itself heh heh, and which btw in certain circles is considered
>>required reading old chum;)
>
> You infatuate yourself with the last word of my post and ignore the
> point - your need to feel special. I bet you can't say n your own words
> what you understand 'the stranger' to be.

### - but i already have! (that stuff about s.africa is original;)

the 'real' problem being that you want everything all spelled out in clear
detail and cogent terms, long after i've already explained (till i'm blue in
the face lol:) that words are not and cannot be the true measure of erm,
'certain' things that 'also' exist in the world besides the mundane
catalogues and indexes created by reason and rationality! and you (and thang
too) just have quite a lot of difficulty 'accepting' that being a
possibility, is all :)

however, being the patient/tolerant (plus heh: very understanding;) person
that i am (grinz;) let's see if you can get it in another way this time ok?

i.e.... in the uk we have all these really dreadful and completely inane
soap operas on the telly, that are watched (almost religiously!) by millions
several times a week! coronation street and eastenders being the worst in
those terms (utter drivel and bilge! as all soaps ultimately are)

supposedly reflecting real life, the whole thing is, however, completely
scripted from start to finish, rehearsed and then perfected by practised
actors, directors, produces and camera crews etc etc, until it all runs and
flows seamlessly just like real life does! (i mean, some have commented that
it is perhaps art imitating real life or something?? but in reality it's
more like just 'shit' imitating 'shit' (lol:)

now then heh, plus that said (and please listen very carefully this time)
the 'outsider' in 'that' context would thus be someone who's *escaped* from
the script of eastenders, and is now going around writing & performing their
'own' productions! get it? (and that's original too ;)

>>i can, however, give you a genuine example (a taste then) of the
>>outsider in action, in that because of it's 400 year history, south
>>africa at one point eventually + effectively closed itself off to the
>>rest of the world with its policy of apartheid, which continued that
>>way for quite a while away from world opinion and influence, the
>>resulting systematic 'segregation of the races' over a long period of

>>time resulting in an accumulating list of around 356 different fucking

>>shades from white to black, with a line literally drawn down the
>>middle of them (the 'code noir') so as to legally define just who
>>should or shouldn't shop or sit or eat in certain 'white' areas, and
>>which went on growing + unchallenged for years!
>
> You don't say who or what you consider the outsider here.

### - times just changed in the world beyond isolated/insular s.african
living there in its ivory tower, it suddenly becoming politically incorrect
in that other (outside) world to ignore discrimination based on such
bollocks any longer! (the code noir makes for literally disgusting reading,
worse than even the nazis!) plus there was also the question of white,
extreme right wing s.africa actually owning nukes that they would
undoubtedly use as their last resort to preserve (or perhaps pre-serve might
be a little more apt) themselves, which incidentally, it almost came down
to but for mandela!

and coz make no mistakes, the downfall of 2 million whites ruling s.africa
in the face of 20 million pissed-off africans coming down the road to bash
all their brains in with those long sticks with a big lump on the end of it
(heh:), was immanent! only mandela persuaded them not to do it, and to
forgive instead of taking revenge, else there'd probably still be just a big
smoking + smouldering crater where s.africa used to be, one that still glows
in the dark if you get my drift, and everyone would have been the losers!

such was the totally self destructive course they'd set themselves upon
anyway, plus it took a mandela to divert them from their inexorable decent
into the abyss (i.e. neither side was never ever gonna back down at that
stage so the scene was set... to literally explode!)

plus some very useful + meaningful examples were set for the rest of us by
the whole protracted event, in that basically the rest of the world is
actually still in a very similar + precarious situation and/or predicament
to that existing in s.africa before everything came to a head, the way
things went in s.africa setting almost a blueprint for the ways things are
likely to go for the rest of the western world too!

the real question at that juncture being: so who's gonna be 'our' mandela
when our time comes! plus at that scale will there (or rather: can there)
even be one! (i.e. probably nothing less than aliens could do it but don't
hold your breath while waiting for something like 'that' to turn up coz it
just ain't happening!;)

>
>>and well ya see the problem with (and for) something like apartheid

>>doing all that shit and everyone (even those oppressed by it)

>>accepting it all as just being the evolved situation to date, kinda
>>thing... IS the outsider, who perhaps happens by, takes one look at
>>it all and immediately exclaims, what the fuck IS all this... crap!!!
>
> Well that seems exactly what I meant by you wanting to feel you're
> special and the outsider, trouble is you're seeing things that aren't

> there. 80% of people aren't a kid with all it's arms and legs blown off.

### - i already answered this in more detail in my long post

>>which it certainly was! only people (both there and in the world) had
>>gotten used to just having things that way coz of the way it had all
>>slowly evolved over 400 long years! that what they had all become

>>almost totally blind to by dint of becoming inured to it all,

>>literally stands out a mile as being totally disgusting and
>>completely unacceptable to an outsider to that system! (mandela under

>>that regime was actually considered a terrorist by the usa (and

>>others) for example, for actively opposing it! did 27 years for it!)
>
>>however, as soon as he got out one of the first things he did was to
>>be invited to have tea with the queen of england heh heh (well he was
>>oxford educated after all innit, so maybe he was actually working for
>>us? plus which might even explain why he wasn't just killed like so
>>many others who apparently all accidentally fell out of the top floor
>>windows of white african police stations and things ha!;)
>
>>that the fly in any buttermilk (e.g. in this instance a form of right
>>wing tyranny) is always gonna be... the outsider... who's likely
>>always gonna turn up just when ya just don't need it, but actually
>>also DO need it really, if only to put/hasten an end to something,
>>well, pretty bloody awful actually! lol;)
>
> You aren't that fly. You aren't special. You haven't shown me anything
> I didn't already know.You certainly haven't shown any value as an
> outsider.

### - outsiders aren't special in any way or sense of the word, they don't
even think in those terms! (which is something that contributes to being
outsiders in the first place)

they don't... belong... period :)

>>and here endeth the lesson for today heh ;-)
>
> Teach your grandma to suck eggs... you've said nothing new.

### - ah, the response of the sophisticated 'rational' man, "Teach your
grandma to suck eggs" lol

(i'm not angry! don't call me mr angry! yeah right;)

>
>>(well, in a roundabout way you DID ask innit + i hope that helps)
>
> In a roundabout way you've confirmed what I said.

### - smile, well i wouldn't have exactly called you a moron either, but you
do a pretty good imitation of one sometimes (grinz:)

>
>>>>He projects his misery (or depression) on the entire human race
>>>>imagining that everyone lives in misery which is simply not the
>>>>case.
>
>>>His breakdown of the human race is cartoon like...
>
>>>1% "1% of the population owns everything" (via Chomsky)
>>>19% "19% do very well working for them" (again via Chomsky)
>>>80% - he equates to "the kid that's just had all its arms and legs
>>> blown off for nothing" (his own belief)
>
>>>...maybe he'll grow out of it.
>
>>### - or conversely, maybe you (and thang) will? (grinz;)
>
> You really believe the above and think I'll grow out of thinking you're
> wrong? You're even more entrenched in stupidity than I thought. 80% of
> people are not a 'kid that's just had all its arms and legs
> blown off for nothing' you will never be right about this.

### - hey did the record get stuck again? stuck again? stuck again?;)

plus you've become over-fond of that word (entrenched) since i used it huh?
(agreed, it's a nice term:)

as for you growing out of your old erm, shell... well there's always hope i
say ;-)

>>(meaning: to both maybe grow up a little/expand your horizons some,
>>see the bigger picture kinda thing/thang heh :)
>
> I see further than you... you think the human race and it's
> interactions have some sort of importance in the universe.

### - well it's pretty obvious that you think you see farther (not further
btw coz that's wrong:) else you'd put well structured questions to work for
you instead of barking, complaining + dictating in a conceited fashion like
you arrogantly already know everything there is to know? (i.e. there's
really no need for that kind of behaviour, if you were really so sure of
your own knowledge that is, else it just makes you look like you're insecure
+ hamming your way through life with a scripted version of reality, one that
wasn't even written by you;)

>>plus let's see if you can perhaps both be a little more serious for a
>>minute (or 10) and actually try to take that all in + adjust/redact
>>accordingly... (i indeed wonder :)
>
> If you'd said anything new that would be an option.

### - there is nothing new under the sun, just some fools who haven't really
looked around all that much creating that impression coz it's all new to
them ;)

>
>>place yer bets folks! (lol:) 25 to one on the outsider! (grin;)
>
> You misinterpret the outsider yet again.
>
>>oooh look! there's one of those terribly elusive flying fucking pink
>>pigs again! lol
>
> Right, you see them a lot?
>
>>nope, it was just a plane ole plain folks (or is that the other ways
>>around? i sometimes get confused;)
>
> Confused is your default position.
>
>>plus camus was alright, nobel prize for literature and all that
>>(didn't he get 2 of them?) he and sartre put their heads together and
>>apparently came up with... 'the outsider' (l'etranger in french)
>
> Mistaking literature for fact now?
>
>>a surprisingly short book, but don't let that fool ya none oh boy! :)
>
> You've let it make a fool out of you.
>
>>50 to one now the outsider!!!
>
> That short.
>
>>(damn, i might just put a 10 on that me'self lol)
>
> You aren't the outsider, who is?
>
>>happy landings! ;-)
>
>>over and out...
>
> ..for the count?

### - well i don't think you're entirely out for the count hehe, there's
always the possibility you'll make a come back... this time hopefully with a
lot less conceit, arrogance and boorishness that makes people feel like they
are taking to a ''prick wall' (and that's no a typo either ;)

[slider]

Robert Wrongly Wrote...

### - oh cock-a-doodle-dooo! The Outsider (L'�tranger) by Albert Camus was
published in 1942... (and btw "Christ" had nothing to do with it! :)

colin (who? oh yeah): wil-son (heh:) published his ripoff version 14 years
later in 1956

hmmm, now which came first i wonder, the egg, or the erm, funky chicken
version?

;-)

------------------

"some people are sooo respectable they require boiling!" --arthur rimbaud :)

[Robert Scott Martin]

Hit dog barks!

In article <kbn3bd$fiq$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,

slider <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:

>colin (who? oh yeah): wil-son (heh:) published his ripoff version 14 years
>later in 1956

So "The Outsider" is some kind of ripoff version of "The Stranger," which
created a genre back in 1942?

Just so we're clear.

[slider]

Robert wrote...

> Hit dog barks!

>>colin (who? oh yeah): wil-son (heh:) published his ripoff version 14 years
>>later in 1956
>
> So "The Outsider" is some kind of ripoff version of "The Stranger," which
> created a genre back in 1942?
>
> Just so we're clear.

### - interesting idea you got there + you're welcome to think in those
terms if you wish (woof woof :)

i was, however, referring to camus' title which no one english speaking ever
calls the stranger...

e.g...

Translations of the title

In French, "étranger" can mean: "foreign", "overseas", "unknown",
"extraneous", "outsider", "stranger", "alien", "unconnected", and
"irrelevant". Meursault does not understand the necessity of adhering to the
stock gestures and emotions in everyday life, which is his downfall in the
very end. As he is oblivious of the motifs he lives, he is unencumbered by
any meaning exterior to his sensory experience, a character trait rendering
him "foreign" to his contemporaries; thus, most English translations of the
French title L'Étranger are rendered as The Outsider, and less frequently as
The Stranger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel)

and wilson was almost certainly aware of this :)

added note: the above link is faulty in that the closing bracket right at
the end gets removed and has to be added again afterwards, or just cut/paste
the complete link into any browser (if i was the suspicious type i'd
probably think it a government plot to deliberately mis-direct, or something
heh (i.e. let's face it, they don't really want people reading that stuff;)

--------------------

"Immature poets imitate. Mature poets steal" --t.s.elliot

[Robert Scott Martin]

>> So "The Outsider" is some kind of ripoff version of "The Stranger," which
>> created a genre back in 1942?

Evasion noted.

>i was, however, referring to camus' title which no one english speaking ever
>calls the stranger...

Nobody who speaks English ever calls it "The Stranger?"

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel)

http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Albert-Camus/dp/0679720200

http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/20th/camus.stranger.html

http://www.lib.iium.edu.my/mom2/cm/content/view/view.jsp?key=PpIP06bcz0LM3PGTQcA5tgBiMAZPqbIC20080206114624734

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

Yes, and exactly what I'd expect of you.

>coz their argument-proper is lacking an
>appropriate response innit,

Just like you tried to 'overlook' part 1/2 and ignore the points I
raised?

>so let's just overlook all such obvious
>potentially tangent-making material coz that would probably be the
>most reasonable + intelligent thing to do, n'est pa? :)

If it means you'll get to the point then lets...

>the 'real' problem being that you want everything all spelled out in
>clear detail and cogent terms,

You don't even explain things in loose terms.

>long after i've already explained
>(till i'm blue in the face lol:)

You're a smurf?

>that words are not and cannot be the true measure of erm, 'certain'
>things that 'also' exist in the world besides the mundane catalogues
>and indexes created by reason and rationality!

/Your/ words are insufficient.

>and you (and thang too) just have quite a lot of
>difficulty 'accepting' that being a possibility, is all :)

I try to avoid the digestion of bullshit, I can't speak for thang.

>however, being the patient/tolerant (plus heh: very understanding;)
>person that i am (grinz;) let's see if you can get it in another way
>this time ok?

The 'heh's and 'grinz' are a futile attempt to deflect from your misery?

>i.e.... in the uk we have all these really dreadful and completely
>inane soap operas on the telly,

Indeed

>that are watched (almost
>religiously!) by millions several times a week! coronation street and
>eastenders being the worst in those terms (utter drivel and bilge! as
>all soaps ultimately are)

It's more about voyeurism, discontent and a need to belong. Religion is
just your obsession.

>supposedly reflecting real life,

Really? Another misconception of yours enters the light.

>now then heh, plus that said (and please listen very carefully this
>time) the 'outsider' in 'that' context would thus be someone who's

>escaped from the script of eastenders, and is now going around

>writing & performing their 'own' productions! get it? (and that's
>original too ;)

'Listen to me slowly.' - Sam Goldwyn.

I understand how you try to portray yourself. I have from the start.
You just fail to understand that you are _not_ the stranger.

>>You don't say who or what you consider the outsider here.

>Wafle

>Wafle , wafle wafle...

>Wafle...

>Wafle Wafle...

>(ohh here we go)...

>the real question at that juncture being: so who's gonna be 'our'
>mandela when our time comes!

We are our own freedom, fool. We do not need salvation just motivation.
Self-motivation is voluntary not compulsory.

==

>>Well that seems exactly what I meant by you wanting to feel you're
>>special and the outsider, trouble is you're seeing things that
>>aren't there. 80% of people aren't a kid with all it's arms and
>>legs blown off.

>### - i already answered this in more detail in my long post

Well there's something to look forard to.

==

>>You aren't that fly. You aren't special. You haven't shown me
>>anything I didn't already know.You certainly haven't shown any
>>value as an outsider.

>### - outsiders aren't special in any way or sense of the word, they
>don't even think in those terms! (which is something that contributes
>to being outsiders in the first place)

They are special in that they bring an untainted perspective to a
situation. Something that you with all your baggage and
preconceptionscan never do.

>they don't... belong... period :)

Thats.... right.... and what I've understood all along.


you.... are... not... in.... any.... way...... the..... outsider.

>>>and here endeth the lesson for today heh ;-)

What did you learn?

>>Teach your grandma to suck eggs... you've said nothing new.

>### - ah, the response of the sophisticated 'rational' man, "Teach
>your grandma to suck eggs" lol

You're the one presuming to be the teacher 'here endeth the lesson'
when all our doing is reciting well worn idiocies.

>(i'm not angry!

Yes you are.

===

>>>(well, in a roundabout way you DID ask innit + i hope that helps)

>>In a roundabout way you've confirmed what I said.

>### - smile, well i wouldn't have exactly called you a moron either,
>but you do a pretty good imitation of one sometimes (grinz:)

Sure you can name call without believing you're angry but if others
doubt your credibility they must be angry. Hypocrite.

>>>>>He projects his misery (or depression) on the entire human
>>>>>race imagining that everyone lives in misery which is simply
>>>>>not the case.
>>
>>>>His breakdown of the human race is cartoon like...

>>>>1% "1% of the population owns everything" (via Chomsky)
>>>>19% "19% do very well working for them" (again via Chomsky)
>>>>80% - he equates to "the kid that's just had all its arms and
>>>>legs blown off for nothing" (his own belief)

>>>>...maybe he'll grow out of it.

>>>### - or conversely, maybe you (and thang) will? (grinz;)

>>You really believe the above and think I'll grow out of thinking
>>you're wrong? You're even more entrenched in stupidity than I
>>thought. 80% of people are not a 'kid that's just had all its arms
>>and legs blown off for nothing' you will never be right about this.

>### - hey did the record get stuck again? stuck again? stuck again?;)

>plus you've become over-fond of that word (entrenched) since i used
>it huh? (agreed, it's a nice term:)

>as for you growing out of your old erm, shell... well there's always
>hope i say ;-)

If you were to be so stupid as to use the words "I think 80% of people
are like the kid that's just had all its arms and legs blown off for
nothing" we could move on. Are you that stupid?

===

>>If you'd said anything new that would be an option.

>### - there is nothing new under the sun, just some fools who haven't
>really looked around all that much creating that impression coz it's
>all new to them ;)

===

>..for the count?
>
>### - well i don't think you're entirely out for the count hehe,
>there's always the possibility you'll make a come back... this time
>hopefully with a lot less conceit, arrogance and boorishness that

Conceit and arrogance like trying to portray yourself as the outsider?
the teacher 'here endeth todays lesson' and such?

>makes people feel like they are taking to a ''prick wall' (and that's
>no a typo either ;)

Boorishness?

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>

>Robert wrote...
>
>>Hit dog barks!
>
>>>colin (who? oh yeah): wil-son (heh:) published his ripoff version
>>>14 years later in 1956
>>
>>So "The Outsider" is some kind of ripoff version of "The Stranger,"
>>which created a genre back in 1942?
>>
>>Just so we're clear.
>
>### - interesting idea you got there + you're welcome to think in
>those terms if you wish (woof woof :)
>
>i was, however, referring to camus' title which no one english
>speaking ever calls the stranger...
>
>e.g...
>
>Translations of the title
>

>In French, "itranger" can mean: "foreign", "overseas", "unknown",

>"extraneous", "outsider", "stranger",

Errr.... didn't you say no-one calls it that?

>"alien", "unconnected", and
>"irrelevant". Meursault does not understand the necessity of adhering
>to the stock gestures and emotions in everyday life, which is his
>downfall in the very end. As he is oblivious of the motifs he lives,
>he is unencumbered by any meaning exterior to his sensory experience,
>a character trait rendering him "foreign" to his contemporaries;

>thus, most English translations of the French title L'Itranger are

>rendered as The Outsider, and less frequently as The Stranger.

So some people do call it that? What was your point again?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel)

>and wilson was almost certainly aware of this :)

>added note: the above link is faulty in that the closing bracket
>right at the end gets removed and has to be added again afterwards,
>or just cut/paste the complete link into any browser (if i was the
>suspicious type i'd probably think it a government plot to
>deliberately mis-direct, or something heh (i.e. let's face it, they
>don't really want people reading that stuff;)

Nobody gives a shit what you read you paranoid git. The only person
controlling you is you.

>"Immature poets imitate. Mature poets steal" --t.s.elliot

Good ole' toilets..... (there's only one 'l' in his name for a
reason....

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

Robert ( gl...@panix.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>More succinct too, but that goes without saying.

That sentence is beautiful.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

dccxxvii ( the.impe...@gmail.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

Just in case you are having trouble, I will make this as cler as I
can.... Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorbtion of it's
message forever precludes you rom being 'The Outsider' because you have
a peconcieved idea of what the outsider is. (The Outsider did not.)

OK?

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[Bassos]

On 30-12-2012 14:50, dccxxvii wrote:
> Robert ( gl...@panix.com ) wrote to alt.magick:
>
>> More succinct too, but that goes without saying.
>
> That sentence is beautiful.

Known for beauty might seem moar appealing to outside strangers, peering
through the window on christmass eve, while outside, they seem cold and
full of snow, cos it is freezing outside.

And here, inside the warm and cozy 'familiar' feeling of
Bassos-mass-effect every day, we look at those dickensian figures
outside, and point and laugh. (sweeeet by comparison fte :P)

Initiation into the warm circle of true love that is alt.magick never
befoar seemed so sugary.

PS:
FTE: For The Experience!

[Bassos]

On 30-12-2012 5:14, slider wrote:

> i was, however, referring to camus' title which no one english speaking ever
> calls the stranger...
>
> e.g...

Is the following:

fake ?

A youtube video, so always fake ?

Irrelevant if it is fake, cos the message pwns ?

An interesting way ...

If a hero is needed,; where would a hero be needed most ?

Hearts a bit, minds alot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDdPuCsOLaQ

[dccxxvii]

Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:

Or irrelevant because it doesn't follow through to show what such
dancing does to help with rehabillitation? ... you decide......

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

I need a new keyboard......

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:

>And here, inside the warm and cozy 'familiar' feeling of
>Bassos-mass-effect every day, we look at those dickensian figures
>outside, and point and laugh. (sweeeet by comparison fte :P)

You're Christ??? Who's going to tell slider it's not MacMurphy??

You're a nutjob Bassos but I love you anyway.....

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[Bassos]

Ze mindz, zey are wunderfulz to wazte.

> ... you decide......

Ok.

[Bassos]

*Need* is sucha limited term.

[Bassos]

On 30-12-2012 17:44, dccxxvii wrote:
> Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:
>
>> And here, inside the warm and cozy 'familiar' feeling of
>> Bassos-mass-effect every day, we look at those dickensian figures
>> outside, and point and laugh. (sweeeet by comparison fte :P)
>
> You're Christ???

Nah.

King of alt.magick does imp-lie second cummings.
(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1579753/)

> Who's going to tell slider it's not MacMurphy??

Some insiders joke/yoke, again;

> You're a nutjob Bassos but I love you anyway.....

A nutjob, something that sometimes get's landed on non-appreciative
soil, and then sometimes, ah well, bible thingy, innit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rh44ghQR3Y

ohr is IT a specific season ?

nut's tend to occur in autumn, yet i am moar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-dYNttdgl0

[dccxxvii]

Maybe love was too fulsome a term....

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

Ze mindz.....zey are ours to choose zeir destiny.....

>>... you decide......

>Ok.

Do you know if I'm your enemy yet?

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[Robert Scott Martin]

>> You're Christ???

>> Who's going to tell slider it's not MacMurphy??

In article <50e0793b$0$3493$e4fe...@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl>,

Bassos <Root@Wan> wrote:

>A nutjob, something that sometimes get's landed on non-appreciative
>soil, and then sometimes, ah well, bible thingy, innit.

Yeah. A reading from the book of alt.magick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-dYNttdgl0

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-dYNttdgl0

Blocked! EMI XV

[Robert Scott Martin]

>>> You're Christ???
>>> Who's going to tell slider it's not MacMurphy??

Here we go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W45XhDPTnX0

[slider]

Bassos wrote...

### - fantastic video lol, were did you find it!

laughingly surreal and yet so sad at the same time, coz there's reprobate
humanity all locked up/imprisoned + wearing their bright line dancing
uni-forms, trying, perhaps in vain, to find ways of rehabilitating
themselves other than just more of the usual in-house struggle for
domination, fighting and murder that is the trademark of every
insititution (and i ain't just talking about yer' royal scientific
institution here either! + wink to dccxxvii ;-)

shame the full movie isn't on there of some outsider's view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQAzpV7GC0U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxiT30N6ti4

oh and this one too, which IS about the scientific institution ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsxgLjGXGI

[dccxxvii]

Robert ( gl...@panix.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

Fantastic... however, as endearing as Nicholson makes McMurphy we all
know he's not the hero..... we do all know that right??

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:

>On 30-12-2012 17:44, dccxxvii wrote:
>>Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:
>>
>>>And here, inside the warm and cozy 'familiar' feeling of
>>>Bassos-mass-effect every day, we look at those dickensian figures
>>>outside, and point and laugh. (sweeeet by comparison fte :P)

>>You're Christ???

>Nah.

>King of alt.magick does imp-lie second cummings.
>(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1579753/)

Whitney Cummings??? From Two Broke Girls (Second/Two is pretty tenuous
- maybe I'm missing something)

>>Who's going to tell slider it's not MacMurphy??

>Some insiders joke/yoke, again;

Errr.. Slider equates McMurphy (I spelled it incorrectly before) with
Jesus. A sex offending, manipulative, self-motivated, charming cunt -
some people would quite like to view Jesus in this light.

>>You're a nutjob Bassos but I love you anyway.....

>A nutjob, something that sometimes get's landed on non-appreciative
>soil, and then sometimes, ah well, bible thingy, innit.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rh44ghQR3Y

>ohr is IT a specific season ?
>
>nut's tend to occur in autumn, yet i am moar:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-dYNttdgl0

Vivaldi is the staple of telephone waiting queues in the UK, I'm
tainted by that- and you are overanalysing.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

dccxxvii ( the.impe...@gmail.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

2 of Several

>>>### - i'm talking history here not paranoia + i totally agree with
>>>you that rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people
>>>to death for dissent, so when they do then obviously they were/are
>>>not quite as rational/reasonable as they've maybe been purporting
>>>themselves to be?

>>You think scientists are killing off anyone who dares to disagree
>>with their pet theory? You've been watching too much telly.

>And nooo, i didn't say that at all,

Yes you did ."rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people
to death for dissent, so when they do..." "when they do" definitely
saying people are being put to death. It wasn't what you meant? Who's
fault is that. Stop with the over-egging and playing to stupid
overstatements and I'll stop calling you on it.

>what i actually implied, that you've apparently totally missed (even
>though you said that you maintained that you did in fact understand
>where i'm coming from but which translates now as just you merely
>making ignorant + silly sarcastic remarks to cover that >very lack of
> understanding, plus note i didn't accuse you of dishonesty, not yet
>anyway;) was simply that a tiny percentage of the population are
>basically, one way or another + in fact many ways, calling the shots
>for the rest of us,

If you said what you meant rather than using over-dramatic bull-crap
maybe we could talk sensibly.

Your sentences are running on more and more, are you upset?

>scientists being merely only one of the layers in the employ of that
>top 1%, whereas i could have just as easily pointed to politicians
>and/or big businesses doing exactly the same thing, only we were
>actually talking about science so scientists just seemed more
>appropriate and in-context with our present conversation, was all +
was >that really so very difficult for you?:)

Not at all, it's your pretentious drivel that scientists are part of a
conspiracy to control you, and in extension everyone (though you also
try to be seen as the outsider and beyond their control.)

>also noted that seeing as you apparently have difficulty then in
>following perhaps more complex + convoluted lines of thought, i shall
>subsequently simplify accordingly for your benefit heh

Just stop talking bull-crap.

>(and also apparently for thang as well, lol

Shall we count your 'lol's and other affectations?

>2 self-professed logic-based brain boxes

Out and out lies now slider?

Where did I profess that?

>who start falling at the first fence! (+ gawd help ya's when it
really >'does' get more complicated lol, coz this is the easy stuff:)

Another 'lol' and a 'gawd' and a 'ya's' are there points in this game?

>smile,

Oohh.. 'smile'? Do you really think this faux emotionality helps convey
your message?

>so are we all awake now and all on the same page already, or do you
>really require everything (extra work for me basically) all
spelled-out >for ya's?

I know you think you're being controlled by the elite, but that's your
delusion not mine. I can get what I need without any monetary reliance,
I can find out what I need to know without restriction - where is the
trap slider?

>hmmm we shall see :)

I doubt you will.

>>>That if, for example, one examines the documented methods of the
>>>once all powerful catholic church + how in their history they one
>>>time quite consciously + systematically got rid of all the
>>>competition to as to deliberately force/impose a very one-pointed
and >>>intelligently directed yet ultimately insane view of the world
upon >>>all their members, and this without even bothering to get their
>>>members permission to do so >iow, they were a kind of self-appointed
>>>ruling class calling the shots for everyone they ruled over),

>>You think religious zealots are reasonable people? I don't.

>### - obviously not, especially after i just got through attempting to
>explain exactly that to you albeit the shoe being on the other foot
>(yours) lol, in that i was accusing zealous scientists of exactly that
>same behaviour in following 'their' beliefs/religion (scientism?) - go
>figure;)

I know you think science is a religious plot to control the populace,
it's what makes you so funny to talk at.

>then it's possible to see that many of their methods still persist to
>the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely different
>+ modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the population who
>lords it over everyone else...

Stop being lorded over then. Just STOP!It's a choice....

>>The rich aren't necessarily reasonable either, you're straying from
>>your point.

>### - of course they're not reasonable else they wouldn't have gone
all >out for the money in the first place...

Not all of them did, some inherited (should they be found guilty of the
sins of their fathers (or mothers)), some were lucky (are lottery
winners evil) some are just clever and some back through charitable
means to give others a hand up. You have a one dimensional view of the
world, and of people.

>the salient point being that documented methods of the past are
>basically still in force albeit in the hands of a different/modern
>power base.

In exactly what way do you feel controlled?

>(for an intellectual you

I'm not an intellectual, I'm just some guy.

>really don't think and/or extrapolate too well ya know)

You extrapolate from 2+2 and find a worldwide conspiracy theory instead
of 4 (Base 10 for pedants)

>>Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns everything,
>>another 19% do very well working for them, the other 80% don't do
>>very well at all..." --taken from his manufacturing consent

>>Good grief! Is that where your '80% of people are like a kid that's
>>just had his arms and legs blown off?' That's a hell of contortion
>>you're performing. You go to the poorest parts of India or China and
>>talk to the people there, people aren't as unhappy as you think.

>### - well what else would you call a crippled majority (i.e. that 80%
>that don't do well at all as according to chomsky)

I would NOT call them 'that kid that's had all it's arms and legs blown
off for nothing.' That you do should ring alarm bells in your head that
there's something wrong in there - and it isn't 'being the outsider.'


>and so okay they've only got 'one' >limb metaphorically missing
>instead of all four (i was merely speaking in extremes for your
benefit >was all lol;)

You tried to call things what they demonstrably weren't to keep things
clear? No, you just got it wrong.

>they're still fucking 'limping' along basically barred (by no fault of
>their own) from living a fuller life, aren't they??

You're seeing your unhappiness reflected in others. It's an illusion.


--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

> Just in case you are having trouble, I will make this as cler as I
> can....

### - yep, that's cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell lol ;-)

Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorbtion of it's
> message forever precludes you rom being 'The Outsider'

### - well i agree you should defo preclude 'rom' out of it :)

because you have
> a peconcieved idea

### - peconceived? peeconceived?? so lol is that perhaps, like taking the
piss? :)

of what the outsider is. (The Outsider did not.)
>
> OK?

### - rubbish, heh you were so angry and in such a mad rush to post this
crappy after-thought addition and see it up on the server that you fell over
yourself + didn't even bother to make sure it was all there or spell check
it (duh + oh well so much for the rational approach as recommended by people
like you:)

well i suppose now the 'rational' thing to do is to just blame your computer
or something for all 'your' failings and mistakes instead of owning up to
them and moving forward innit heh ;)

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

>>>Except that I did and you posted itan hour and twenty minutes agter
>>>my post, plenty of time to whip up a reply you dishonest person you.
>>
>>### - lol @ "itan", "agter"?? :-) hmm, but then it would be extremely
>>petty of someone, would it not? to have to resort to picking people
>>up on their typo's
>
> Yes, and exactly what I'd expect of you.

### - lol you started it pal, not me :)

>>coz their argument-proper is lacking an
>>appropriate response innit,
>
> Just like you tried to 'overlook' part 1/2 and ignore the points I
> raised?

### - i'd already answered you in other places in other ways, and now you
just want me to keep repeating myself...

"and here's a message for the hard of hearing - fucking listen!!" --peter
cook;)

>>so let's just overlook all such obvious
>>potentially tangent-making material coz that would probably be the
>>most reasonable + intelligent thing to do, n'est pa? :)
>
> If it means you'll get to the point then lets...

### - cloth-ears!:) the points have ALL been made several times in many
ways! albeit mostly indirectly, plus i've said over and over to you that
there are things in the universe that cannot BE spelled out in clear,
concise and cogent terms as the rational mind would like/demands + even why
that is the case, and you STILL wont make ANY effort to do things except in
the standard (impossible) way even though it has already been clearly
explained that reason isn't the measure of certain, perhaps more esoteric,
things, things one has to accordingly 'read between the lines' to arrive
at... and then you wonder (and of course blame everyone else for it lol) why
'you' can't understand??

>>the 'real' problem being that you want everything all spelled out in
>>clear detail and cogent terms,
>
> You don't even explain things in loose terms.

### - oh i have indeed, many times in fact, but it's like trying to get the
deaf to hear by shouting louder, ya know? ;)

>>long after i've already explained
>>(till i'm blue in the face lol:)
>
> You're a smurf?

### - see? you call yourself a rational man etc etc, and then you keep
shitting yourself and thinking yourself really clever for doing so (look wot
i done! ewwww:)

>>that words are not and cannot be the true measure of erm, 'certain'
>>things that 'also' exist in the world besides the mundane catalogues
>>and indexes created by reason and rationality!
>
> /Your/ words are insufficient.

### - same as your keyboard i suppose (grinz;)

>>and you (and thang too) just have quite a lot of
>>difficulty 'accepting' that being a possibility, is all :)
>
> I try to avoid the digestion of bullshit, I can't speak for thang.

### - funny then how bullshit is all you basically say innit (i.e. you must
have already digested an awful lot of it by your own accord to be so full of
it hehe;) plus if you hadn't bitch-slapped thang for making friendly
overtones to you then you might have even found an ally to support you in
your faith based religion of: 'rationalism to the exclusion of all else' :)

>>however, being the patient/tolerant (plus heh: very understanding;)
>>person that i am (grinz;) let's see if you can get it in another way
>>this time ok?
>
> The 'heh's and 'grinz' are a futile attempt to deflect from your misery?

### - everything you've written so far is like someone talking in monotone,
and it's not even your own monotone but an imitation of someone else's to
boot! it has no colour, no character, no life, no... vibrancy... basically a
bunch of soundbites that you personally bought into coz it all sounded so...
plausable... and probably coz it was... easy :)

>>i.e.... in the uk we have all these really dreadful and completely
>>inane soap operas on the telly,
>
> Indeed
>
>>that are watched (almost
>>religiously!) by millions several times a week! coronation street and
>>eastenders being the worst in those terms (utter drivel and bilge! as
>>all soaps ultimately are)
>
> It's more about voyeurism, discontent and a need to belong. Religion is
> just your obsession.

### - actually it's your obsession not mine (you're the one following one i
mean) whereas i'm against all that, remember? :)

>>supposedly reflecting real life,
>
> Really? Another misconception of yours enters the light.

### - oh come off it! + talk about you painting yourself into a corner with
a nobrainer argument? so if what you say is true, then how come so many
typical topical scenarios are always played out on them like a set of daily
instructions? (i suppose you watch the scientific channel innit lol;)

>>now then heh, plus that said (and please listen very carefully this
>>time) the 'outsider' in 'that' context would thus be someone who's
>>escaped from the script of eastenders, and is now going around
>>writing & performing their 'own' productions! get it? (and that's
>>original too ;)
>
> 'Listen to me slowly.' - Sam Goldwyn.
>
> I understand how you try to portray yourself. I have from the start.
> You just fail to understand that you are _not_ the stranger.

### - i never said i was until more recently in our discussion so how could
you have understood that from the start?? (lol you tell lies + how
'rational' is that?;) added to which, the outsider was originally brought up
as a topic of explanation and it's been 'you' that has had been foisting it
onto me as a way of weasalling your way out of confronting certain issues
that i've raised, while at the same time accusing me of going off on
tangents lol (like that's really rational that is innit, you can't even
stick to what you espouse!:)

>>>You don't say who or what you consider the outsider here.
>
>>Wafle
>
>>Wafle , wafle wafle...
>
>>Wafle...
>
>>Wafle Wafle...

### - lol 'actual' history is waffle to this guy, even though it's an
accepted branch of his own rationale! (duh + yeah fuck history;)

>>(ohh here we go)...
>
>>the real question at that juncture being: so who's gonna be 'our'
>>mandela when our time comes!
>
> We are our own freedom, fool. We do not need salvation just motivation.
> Self-motivation is voluntary not compulsory.

### - well that IS what 'actually' happened in s.africa you know, their
so-called "self motivation" was actually gonna destroy them! (was the point
after all) plus which just proves that you didn't watch that chomsky doc.
re: 'manufacturing consent' either innit, else you'd realise what
deliberately designed/measured effect propagander actually has on the masses
+ why it's applied and by whom for what purposes (chomsky makes it so very
plain that even a moron could understand it;)

>>>Well that seems exactly what I meant by you wanting to feel you're
>>>special and the outsider, trouble is you're seeing things that
>>>aren't there. 80% of people aren't a kid with all it's arms and
>>>legs blown off.
>
>>### - i already answered this in more detail in my long post
>
> Well there's something to look forard to.

### - it's just those pesky cheap keyboards again folks, no biggies :)

>>>You aren't that fly. You aren't special. You haven't shown me
>>>anything I didn't already know.You certainly haven't shown any
>>>value as an outsider.
>
>>### - outsiders aren't special in any way or sense of the word, they
>>don't even think in those terms! (which is something that contributes
>>to being outsiders in the first place)
>
> They are special in that they bring an untainted perspective to a
> situation. Something that you with all your baggage and
> preconceptionscan never do.

### - so it's 'you' who believes in 'special' then and not me after all
innit hehe (i.e. no genuine outsider would ever claim to be special coz
'special' is all part of that bs 'rational bullshit' that everyone's being
literally force fed from the cradle to the grave (aided by people like you)
that any outsider worth his salt (daft expression that) would avoid like the
proverbial plague! the deliberate avoidance of which probably made him an
outsider in the first place! - go figure;)

>>they don't... belong... period :)
>
> Thats.... right.... and what I've understood all along.

### - really... so i guess that's precisely why you're currently a 'member'
of this group then i suppose huh?

> you.... are... not... in.... any.... way...... the..... outsider.

### - i am 'not' a... m e m b e r... of this group, being at least 'one' way
i can think of? (cheezy grinz;)

>>>>and here endeth the lesson for today heh ;-)
>
> What did you learn?

### - perhaps not to cast one's pearls before swans?

btw am off now to see swine lake hehe, old joke;)

>>>Teach your grandma to suck eggs... you've said nothing new.
>
>>### - ah, the response of the sophisticated 'rational' man, "Teach
>>your grandma to suck eggs" lol
>
> You're the one presuming to be the teacher 'here endeth the lesson'
> when all our doing is reciting well worn idiocies.

### - (coffee spurt!) lol well that's good coming from you innit! (who's
done little else but cite rote + mundane policy and dogma all along) +
obviously sarcasm goes right over your head ... totally humourless too
apparently, oh well...

>>(i'm not angry!
>
> Yes you are.

### - lol oooooh noooo i'm not!

your turn moron :)

>>>>(well, in a roundabout way you DID ask innit + i hope that helps)
>
>>>In a roundabout way you've confirmed what I said.
>
>>### - smile, well i wouldn't have exactly called you a moron either,
>>but you do a pretty good imitation of one sometimes (grinz:)
>
> Sure you can name call without believing you're angry but if others
> doubt your credibility they must be angry. Hypocrite.

### - ahem, one doesn't have to be angry to be amused at the idiocies of a
rational moron? (cracking up :)

>>>>>>He projects his misery (or depression) on the entire human
>>>>>>race imagining that everyone lives in misery which is simply
>>>>>>not the case.
>>>
>>>>>His breakdown of the human race is cartoon like...
>
>>>>>1% "1% of the population owns everything" (via Chomsky)
>>>>>19% "19% do very well working for them" (again via Chomsky)
>>>>>80% - he equates to "the kid that's just had all its arms and
>>>>>legs blown off for nothing" (his own belief)
>
>>>>>...maybe he'll grow out of it.
>
>>>>### - or conversely, maybe you (and thang) will? (grinz;)
>
>>>You really believe the above and think I'll grow out of thinking
>>>you're wrong? You're even more entrenched in stupidity than I
>>>thought. 80% of people are not a 'kid that's just had all its arms
>>>and legs blown off for nothing' you will never be right about this.
>
>>### - hey did the record get stuck again? stuck again? stuck again?;)
>
>>plus you've become over-fond of that word (entrenched) since i used
>>it huh? (agreed, it's a nice term:)
>
>>as for you growing out of your old erm, shell... well there's always
>>hope i say ;-)
>
> If you were to be so stupid as to use the words "I think 80% of people
> are like the kid that's just had all its arms and legs blown off for
> nothing" we could move on. Are you that stupid?

### - no, but apparently you are for belabouring utterly redundant (i.e.
totally unnecessary) assinine points that ultimately make absolutely no
fucking difference whatsoever other than for you to stall for time while you
increasingly desperately try to figure out how to carry on trying to make
yourself look clever at someone else's expence... and you're not even good
at it!!! LOL (i.e. instead of trying to trip me up you'd have prolly done
better just arguing your points properly instead of getting the nark at some
of the implications upon yourself (and for example: the scientific
community) and losing the thread altogether in the process thereby making
yourself look like a complete fool even though you advertise/pride yourself
on being the opposite)

>>>If you'd said anything new that would be an option.
>
>>### - there is nothing new under the sun, just some fools who haven't
>>really looked around all that much creating that impression coz it's
>>all new to them ;)
>
> ===
>
>>..for the count?
>>
>>### - well i don't think you're entirely out for the count hehe,
>>there's always the possibility you'll make a come back... this time
>>hopefully with a lot less conceit, arrogance and boorishness that
>
> Conceit and arrogance like trying to portray yourself as the outsider?
> the teacher 'here endeth todays lesson' and such?

### - ('an' outsider not 'the' outsider, there 'is' a difference + the facts
are that i AM in fact an outsider to this group;) and all you wanna talk
about is... shit :)

>>makes people feel like they are taking to a ''prick wall' (and that's
>>no a typo either ;)
>
> Boorishness?

### - smile, i'd give it up as a lost cause if i were you and get real +
perhaps even consider arguing properly instead of all this 'flim-flam' - i'm
more clever than you, sophist-bull shite... coz it's not working! and coz
you're actually falling behind + making yourself look stuuuwpid into the
bargain? :)

i.e. put yer fragile ego away (where it wont keep getting dented heh;) and
just be 'honest' in your arguments! you'd maybe be surprised just how far
simple honesty can go/reach, even for pigs, fishes & fools (that last was a
multiple choice btw, pick any one will do;)

---------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAhwySvCOPs

Miraculous you call it babe
You ain't seen nothing yet
They got Pepsi in the Andes
They got McDonalds in Tibet
Yosemite's been turned
into a golf course For
the Japs
And the Dead Sea is alive with rap
Between the Tigris and Euphrates
There's a leisure centre now
They got all kinds of sports
They got Bermuda shorts
They had sex in Pennsylvania
A Brazilian grew a tree
And a doctor in Manhattan
Saved a dying man for free

It's a miracle
It's a miracle
It's a miracle
Another miracle
By the grace of God Almighty
And the pressures of the marketplace
The human race has civilized itself
It's a miracle

We got warehouses of butter
We got oceans of wine
We got famine when we need it
We got designer crime
We got Mercedes
We got Porsche, Ferrari
and Rolls Royce
Yeah, we got choice
She said meet me
In the Garden of Gethsemene my dear
The Lord said, Peter I can see
your house from here
An honest man
Finally reaped what he had sown
And a farmer in Ohio has
just repaid a loan

It's a miracle
It's a miracle
It's a miracle
Another miracle
By the grace of God Almighty
And the pressures of the marketplace
The human race has civilized itself
It's a miracle

We cower in our shelters
With our hands over our ears
Lloyd-Webber's awful stuff
Runs for years and years and years
An earthquake hits the theatre
But the operetta lingers
Then the piano lid comes down
And breaks his fucking fingers
It's a miracle

[Bassos]

On 30-12-2012 20:07, dccxxvii wrote:
> Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:

> Do you know if I'm your enemy yet?

What a curious question.

I am not aware of having any enemies.

There may be disgruntled minions, yet a good slapping would put them in
place.

Really, when did enemies come into any of this ?

Do you not understand the fight to the max, and enjoy a beer together
after ?

A bit more alt.magick oriented:

Posting here is an initiation of sorts.
Like all new things are.

There is reason to crush a toe being gently entered into a hot pool.
(eg burn hot enough that mistakes are easily withdrawn)

When someone actually get's comfortable in a pool that is hot enough to
scare away cozy warmth lovers, that changes you.

Be prepared for some sirious changes if you do.

Yet, no enemies in the pool, mostly just hot-heads :()

[Bassos]

There is a reason, f'r sure, the bible says so!
(erm, looks up the alt.magick bible, faithfully held online by the
sacred google keepers, it says write there on page 1717 of the new count
since the inauguration of hir Kingly-nessi, worst poster on usenet, King
of alt.magick, etc etc;

Triumphant, yet solemn and kinda silent:

Google shall be used as an initiation tool for the lazy and internet
unwary types, and lo and behold, noobs that did not install javascript
and tracker blockers where impacted sev'rly by plagues of online
marketing scams, and thus also extra restricted interpretations of the
law where enforced, and manipulated by the Fari-tainment industry
moneybenders in the modern day temples of worshippers to mammon as Poke
once, etc etc)

BTW:

What colo(u)rs did your book of alt.magick come in ?
Did you get the only one GOD signed version aswell ?

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>>Just in case you are having trouble, I will make this as cler as I
>>can....

>### - yep, that's cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell lol ;-)

You make spelling flames because that's all you've got, I understand..

'Yep' not yep(or _yes_ if that's what you meant. Cler should have been
'cler' if you were quoting me. There should be a comma before your
'lol.'

>Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorbtion of it's

>>message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'

>### - well i agree you should defo preclude 'rom' out of it :)

'Well' and 'I' - What about you?

>because you have a peconcieved idea

>### - peconceived?

If you are trying to quote me 'peconcieved' - don't you understand
quote marks? They're well named.

>peeconceived??

Has nothing to do with anything does it?

>so lol is that perhaps, like taking the piss? :)

Urine all sorts of trouble.....

Preconcieved as you well knew.

>of what the outsider is.

>### - rubbish, heh you were so angry and in such a mad rush to post
>this crappy after-thought addition and see it up on the server that
>you fell over yourself + didn't even bother to make sure it was all
>there or spell check it (duh + oh well so much for the rational
>approach as recommended by people like you:)

'Rubbish', 'and'... in a run on sentence.

Do you deny that your knowledge of 'the outsider' as a concept
precludes you from being it. An 'outsider' wouldn't have knowledge of
past religions or their relation to todays concepts, how could they?

>well i suppose now the 'rational' thing to do is to just blame your
>computer or something for all 'your' failings and mistakes instead of
>owning up to them and moving forward innit heh ;)

'Well' and 'I'.
You are correct though I should get a news program with a spell-checker
rather than support the little guys like 'Xana' struggling against the
big corporations - but isn't that against your philosophy? They are
available with grammar checkers too and even a spell-checker would help
you make 'i's 'I's... and 'innit' for shame...

Do you deny that your knowledge of 'the outsider' as a concept
precludes you from being it. An 'outsider' wouldn't have knowledge of
past religions or their relation to todays concepts, how could they?

Keep pretending you don't understand, it's all you have left.
--
========
dccxxvii
========

[Bassos]

On 30-12-2012 21:02, Robert Scott Martin wrote:

> EMI XV

Did not find out what you reference here.

some EMI 15

pick one:
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/EMI
And prolly not on the list.

I kinda like the look into the future and see:

Oh joy, wonder and spectacles:

It

IS

Emergent Material Intelligence fifteen.
(no idea what number we would be at now, but fifteen seems close to 17,
and well, <3 17)

[Bassos]

On 31-12-2012 1:44, slider wrote:
> Bassos wrote...
>
>>> i was, however, referring to camus' title which no one english speaking
>>> ever
>>> calls the stranger...
>>>
>>> e.g...
>>
>> Is the following:
>>
>> fake ?
>>
>> A youtube video, so always fake ?
>>
>> Irrelevant if it is fake, cos the message pwns ?
>>
>> An interesting way ...
>>
>> If a hero is needed,; where would a hero be needed most ?
>>
>> Hearts a bit, minds alot.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDdPuCsOLaQ
>
> ### - fantastic video lol, were did you find it!

<3 Bonnie; duh.

> laughingly surreal and yet so sad at the same time, coz there's reprobate
> humanity all locked up/imprisoned + wearing their bright line dancing
> uni-forms, trying, perhaps in vain, to find ways of rehabilitating
> themselves other than just more of the usual in-house struggle for
> domination, fighting and murder that is the trademark of every
> insititution (and i ain't just talking about yer' royal scientific
> institution here either! + wink to dccxxvii ;-)

That, maybe somewhat, or it is simply fake.

Or IT is real, and approves of such messages spreading amongst humans.

Some looked kinda gay, and that maybe an extra reason they might be
locked up, but it is also a reason why it would be fake.

Not a dilemma at all, just see the concept, and enjoy the performance.

<snipped unremembered as relevant, prolly opened them links, yet no
response is a pretty good indication of no 'nice' response>

Just remember:

<3 Bonnie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9IekssrYAY
(i mean, that dude calls hirselves ZEdutchgandalf, there has to be a
joke there :P)

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>dccxxvii wrote...
>
>>>>Except that I did and you posted itan hour and twenty minutes
>>>>agter my post, plenty of time to whip up a reply you dishonest
>>>>person you.

>>>### - lol @ "itan", "agter"?? :-) hmm, but then it would be
>>>extremely petty of someone, would it not? to have to resort to
>>>picking people up on their typo's

>>Yes, and exactly what I'd expect of you.

>### - lol you started it pal, not me :)

Quote me.

>>>coz their argument-proper is lacking an
>>>appropriate response innit,

>>Just like you tried to 'overlook' part 1/2 and ignore the points I
>>raised?

>### - i'd already answered you in other places in other ways, and now
>you just want me to keep repeating myself...

No, that's not how I saw things.

I want you to understand you're a paranoid twat who thinks saying 80%
of people are like 'the kid who's had all has arms and legs blown off
for nothing.'

>"and here's a message for the hard of hearing - fucking listen!!"
>--peter cook;)

Someone else's words again, and not some you take notice of.

>>>so let's just overlook all such obvious
>>>potentially tangent-making material coz that would probably be the
>>>most reasonable + intelligent thing to do, n'est pa? :)

>>If it means you'll get to the point then lets...

>### - cloth-ears!:) the points have ALL been made several times in
>many ways! albeit mostly indirectly, plus i've said over and over to
>you that there are things in the universe that cannot BE spelled out
>in clear, concise and cogent terms as the rational mind would
>like/demands + even why that is the case, and you STILL wont make ANY
>effort to do things except in the standard (impossible) way even
>though it has already been clearly explained that reason isn't the
>measure of certain, perhaps more esoteric, things, things one has to
>accordingly 'read between the lines' to arrive at... and then you
>wonder (and of course blame everyone else for it lol) why 'you' can't
>understand??

Fucking hell, That sentence (such as it is) is nearly a hundred words,
and almost all bullcrap. Learn sentence structure... paragraphs are
good too.

Your argument as I see it (tell me if I'm wrong):

Let's wipe away all the other crap and distill here..

People (the vast majority) are controlled by by the few (Chomsky's 1%)
who do it through an elite (Chomsky's 19%) made up not just of
scientists but bankers and businessmen) and (if I get your drift) the
social elite (+ to a degree sportspeople entertainers [actor/singers
etc.] maybe a few others. You're twisted logic is sometimes hard to
follow. You think they use age old religious means to do so and they
conspire in this control. Is this what you think? If not say what is.

You're wrong.

Anyone can walk out of the system at any time.

The system doesn't control anyone who doesn't assent to that control.

>>>the 'real' problem being that you want everything all spelled out
>>>in clear detail and cogent terms,

The real problem here is that you call 'all words lies' then tell
blatant untruths in what you already claim are lies and expect to be
understood and believed.

>>You don't even explain things in loose terms.

>### - oh i have indeed, many times in fact, but it's like trying to
>get the deaf to hear by shouting louder, ya know? ;)

So stop shouting and stop your lies.

>>>long after i've already explained
>>>(till i'm blue in the face lol:)

>>You're a smurf?

>### - see? you call yourself a rational man etc etc,

Did I? Quote!

> and then you keep shitting yourself and thinking yourself really
>clever for doing so (look wot i done! ewwww:)

Do you think that sentence made sense?

>>>that words are not and cannot be the true measure of erm,
>>>'certain' things that 'also' exist in the world besides the
>>>mundane catalogues and indexes created by reason and rationality!

>>/Your/ words are insufficient.

>### - same as your keyboard i suppose (grinz;)

No, you knew which words I meant, it wasn't the spelling you
misunderstood so nothing to do with the keyboard.You deliberately
misunderstand and equate that to using inaccurate words (that you think
are lies anyway.

>>>and you (and thang too) just have quite a lot of
>>>difficulty 'accepting' that being a possibility, is all :)

>>I try to avoid the digestion of bullshit, I can't speak for thang.

>### - funny then how bullshit is all you basically say innit (i.e.
>you must have already digested an awful lot of it by your own accord
>to be so full of it hehe;)

Oh fine, insults. You claim to be immune to them 'I don't take things
personally' (sorry I inserted a capital 'I' there)

> plus if you hadn't bitch-slapped thang for
>making friendly overtones to you then you might have even found an
>ally to support you in your faith based religion of: 'rationalism to
>the exclusion of all else' :)

I didn't bitchslap thang, I honestly answered him. I have told you
repeatedly that I don't think anyone uses 'rationalism to
the exclusion of all else' listening isn't your strong point though.

>>however, being the patient/tolerant (plus heh: very
>>>understanding;) person that i am (grinz;) let's see if you can
>>>get it in another way this time ok?

>>The 'heh's and 'grinz' are a futile attempt to deflect from your
>>misery?

>### - everything you've written so far is like someone talking in
>monotone, and it's not even your own monotone but an imitation of
>someone else's to boot! it has no colour, no character, no life,
>no... vibrancy... basically a bunch of soundbites that you personally
>bought into coz it all sounded so... plausable... and probably coz
>it was... easy :)

Oh no, you took my notes that you keep using other peoples words and
"You're the one with the party line 'it's(science) the new religion.'"
and tried to return the thought...... I don't think you're convincing
anybody.

>>>i.e.... in the uk we have all these really dreadful and completely
>>>inane soap operas on the telly,

>>Indeed

>>>that are watched (almost
>>>religiously!) by millions several times a week! coronation street
>>>and eastenders being the worst in those terms (utter drivel and
>>>bilge! as all soaps ultimately are)

>>It's more about voyeurism, discontent and a need to belong.
>>Religion is just your obsession.

>### - actually it's your obsession not mine (you're the one following
>one i mean) whereas i'm against all that, remember? :)

No, I can walk out of everyday life, I've done it before. Huge numbers
of people do, Britain is beautiful if sometimes inclement. If you knew
how many did it you might not be so entrenched.

>>>supposedly reflecting real life,

>>Really? Another misconception of yours enters the light.

>### - oh come off it! + talk about you painting yourself into a
>corner with a nobrainer argument? so if what you say is true, then
>how come so many typical topical scenarios are always played out on
>them like a set of daily instructions? (i suppose you watch the
>scientific channel innit lol;)

Soaps are _entertainment_! They reflect *caricatures* of real life not
real life. Find somewhere that has has a murder every Christmas...
Soaps aren't real.

>>>now then heh, plus that said (and please listen very carefully
>>>this time) the 'outsider' in 'that' context would thus be someone
>>>who's escaped from the script of eastenders, and is now going
>>>around writing & performing their 'own' productions! get it? (and
>>>that's original too ;)

>>'Listen to me slowly.' - Sam Goldwyn.

>>I understand how you try to portray yourself. I have from the start.

>>You just fail to understand that you are not the stranger.

>### - i never said i was until more recently in our discussion so how
>could you have understood that from the start??

'The Stranger' is an introduced name that shows explicitly how you see
yourself. Before you introduced the label I might have described you as
having a 'Messiah Delusion' or just that you thoght you were 'special.'
You use stupid terms for what you mean but pretend you don't understand
mine?

>(lol you tell lies + how 'rational' is that?;)

I give in, what lies? You change terms (kids don't have four limbs
blown of they're adults with one limb blown off?) you expect constancy
in mine?

> added to which, the outsider was originally
>brought up as a topic of explanation

You brought it up - you thought it was appropriate.

>and it's been 'you' that has had
>been foisting it onto me

Then deny it, it's been that easy all along.

>it onto me as a way of weasalling your way out of
>confronting certain issues that i've raised,

How is telling you you aren't the outsider 'foisting' ot on you? You
are not in any way the outsider!

>while at the same time
>accusing me of going off on tangents lol (like that's really rational
>that is innit, you can't even stick to what you espouse!:)

>>>Wafle , wafle wafle...

>>>Wafle...

>>>Wafle Wafle...

>### - lol 'actual' history is waffle to this guy, even though it's an
>accepted branch of his own rationale! (duh + yeah fuck history;)

*your* view of history is waffle (bothing to do with 'history'.

>>>(ohh here we go)...

>>>the real question at that juncture being: so who's gonna be 'our'
>>>mandela when our time comes!

You don't even think Mandela deserves capitalisation, punk?

>>We are our own freedom, fool. We do not need salvation just
>>motivation. Self-motivation is voluntary not compulsory.

....

>else you'd realise what deliberately designed/measured effect
>propagander

'propoganda'

If you can indeed show that I started any spelling war I promise I will
appologise - no catches, I can be a dick at times.

>actually has on the masses + why it's applied and by whom
>for what purposes (chomsky makes it so very plain that even a moron
>could understand it;)

>>>>Well that seems exactly what I meant by you wanting to feel
>>>>you're special and the outsider, trouble is you're seeing
>>>>things that aren't there. 80% of people aren't a kid with all
>>>>it's arms and legs blown off.

>>>### - i already answered this in more detail in my long post
>>
>>Well there's something to look forard to.
>
>### - it's just those pesky cheap keyboards again folks, no biggies :)

Goosey, goosey, propagander? Let he.... (who is without sin shut the
fuck up.)

>>>>You aren't that fly. You aren't special. You haven't shown me
>>>>anything I didn't already know.You certainly haven't shown any
>>>>value as an outsider.
>
>>>### - outsiders aren't special in any way or sense of the word,
>>>they don't even think in those terms! (which is something that
>>>contributes to being outsiders in the first place)

>>They are special in that they bring an untainted perspective to a
>>situation. Something that you with all your baggage and
>>preconceptionscan never do.

>### - so it's 'you' who believes in 'special' then and not me after
>all innit hehe

You think 'after all innit hehe' unpunctiated makes sense?

>(i.e. no genuine outsider would ever claim to be special coz 'special'
>is all part of that bs

NO! an outsider is not part of the bs, that's the point. Someone who
understands the bs (and has enough knowledge of it to have conspiracy
theories about it can't be special (in the special case of the
outsider.)

>'rational bullshit' that everyone's being literally force fed from the
>cradle to the grave (aided by people like you) that any outsider worth
>his salt (daft expression that) would avoid like the proverbial
plague! >the deliberate avoidance of which probably made him an
outsider in the
>first place! - go figure;)

People are not fed rationality, certainly not from the cradle nor to
the grave. You argue they believe soaps for-instance.

----

>>Thats.... right.... and what I've understood all along.

>### - really... so i guess that's precisely why you're currently a
>'member' of this group then i suppose huh?

Tell me what you think I believe slider.

>>you.... are... not... in.... any.... way...... the..... outsider.
>
>### - i am 'not' a... m e m b e r... of this group, being at least
>'one' way i can think of? (cheezy grinz;)

You know what it is you don't believe in... if you were the outsider
you couldn't. Try a few other ways to argue you can.

>>>>>and here endeth the lesson for today heh ;-)

>>What did you learn?

>### - perhaps not to cast one's pearls before swans?

You have no pearls, there are no swans.

>btw am off now to see swine lake hehe, old joke;)

That's OK ducky. (New joke [I can])

>real + perhaps even consider arguing properly instead of

Your lies.

>all this
>'flim-flam' - i'm more clever

'Cleverer'... no.

>than you, sophist-bull shite... coz

>it's not working! and coz you're actually falling behind + making
>yourself look stuuuwpid into the bargain? :)

You know using words like 'stuuuwpid' make you seem stupid right?

>i.e. put yer

'your'

>fragile ego away (where it wont keep getting dented
>heh;) and just be 'honest' in your arguments!

I am, it's your words that are lies remember? You said so explicitly.

>you'd maybe be surprised just how far simple honesty can go/reach,
even >for pigs, fishes & fools (that last was a multiple choice btw,
pick any >one>will do;)

Name calling from someone who thinks they're above taking things
personally, how quaint.

I hope people are enjoying reading this as much as I'm enjoying writing
it but I have my doubts.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[Robert Scott Martin]

In article <xn0ickc49...@news.aioe.org>,

dccxxvii <the.impe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I hope people are enjoying reading this as much as I'm enjoying writing
>it but I have my doubts.

Oh, you know, who cares if we're enjoying the gesture. It keeps the
channel open and refreshes the otherwise depleted "soil."

[Robert Scott Martin]

>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W45XhDPTnX0

In article <xn0i7h37c...@news.aioe.org>,

dccxxvii <the.impe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Fantastic... however, as endearing as Nicholson makes McMurphy we all
>know he's not the hero..... we do all know that right??

He definitely loses the bet with the control panel. No amount of rhetoric
or willpower in itself will push that thing through any windows.

[Robert Scott Martin]

In article <50e30044$0$3204$e4fe...@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl>,

Bassos <Root@Wan> wrote:

>Google shall be used as an initiation tool for the lazy and internet
>unwary types, and lo and behold, noobs that did not install javascript
>and tracker blockers where impacted sev'rly by plagues of online
>marketing scams, and thus also extra restricted interpretations of the
>law where enforced, and manipulated by the Fari-tainment industry
>moneybenders in the modern day temples of worshippers to mammon as Poke
>once, etc etc)

Same as it ever was!

>What colo(u)rs did your book of alt.magick come in ?

Black on white, 80 column.

>Did you get the only one GOD signed version aswell ?

So far, but EMI XV leads inexorably toward MGDL XVI. And that is good.

Come, let us go down.

[dccxxvii]

Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:

>On 30-12-2012 20:07, dccxxvii wrote:
>>Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:
>
>>Do you know if I'm your enemy yet?
>
>What a curious question.
>
>I am not aware of having any enemies.
>
>There may be disgruntled minions, yet a good slapping would put them
>in place.
>
>Really, when did enemies come into any of this ?

It seems to be a slider thing, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

>Do you not understand the fight to the max, and enjoy a beer together
>after ?

I'm English, if there's no-one else to fight we fight eachother. I'm
nobodies enemy thoughh.

>A bit more alt.magick oriented:
>
>Posting here is an initiation of sorts.
>Like all new things are.
>
>There is reason to crush a toe being gently entered into a hot pool.
>(eg burn hot enough that mistakes are easily withdrawn)

Taking the toe out of the pool until it adjusts is less drastic.

>When someone actually get's comfortable in a pool that is hot enough
>to scare away cozy warmth lovers, that changes you.

>Be prepared for some sirious changes if you do.

....

>Yet, no enemies in the pool, mostly just hot-heads :()

Surprisingly correct.


--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

Robert ( gl...@panix.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>In article <50e30044$0$3204$e4fe...@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl>,
>Bassos <Root@Wan> wrote:
>
>>Google shall be used as an initiation tool for the lazy and
>>internet unwary types, and lo and behold, noobs that did not
>>install javascript and tracker blockers where impacted sev'rly by
>>plagues of online marketing scams, and thus also extra restricted
>>interpretations of the law where enforced, and manipulated by the
>>Fari-tainment industry moneybenders in the modern day temples of
>>worshippers to mammon as Poke once, etc etc)
>
>Same as it ever was!
>
>>What colo(u)rs did your book of alt.magick come in ?
>
>Black on white, 80 column.

Black on pink, I ot the FT version.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

Bassos wrote...

>>>> i was, however, referring to camus' title which no one english speaking
>>>> ever
>>>> calls the stranger...
>>>>
>>>> e.g...
>>>
>>> Is the following:
>>>
>>> fake ?
>>>
>>> A youtube video, so always fake ?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant if it is fake, cos the message pwns ?
>>>
>>> An interesting way ...
>>>
>>> If a hero is needed,; where would a hero be needed most ?
>>>
>>> Hearts a bit, minds alot.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDdPuCsOLaQ
>>
>> ### - fantastic video lol, were did you find it!
>
> <3 Bonnie; duh.
>
>> laughingly surreal and yet so sad at the same time, coz there's reprobate
>> humanity all locked up/imprisoned + wearing their bright line dancing
>> uni-forms, trying, perhaps in vain, to find ways of rehabilitating
>> themselves other than just more of the usual in-house struggle for
>> domination, fighting and murder that is the trademark of every
>> insititution (and i ain't just talking about yer' royal scientific
>> institution here either! + wink to dccxxvii ;-)
>
> That, maybe somewhat, or it is simply fake.
>
> Or IT is real, and approves of such messages spreading amongst humans.

### - if it's genuine then it's yet another amazing example of sleeping
humans actually hitting it/the nail (truth) right on the head never
realising/suspecting the genuine revelatory profundity of it whereby the
truth is there to see for anyone with the eyes to read/see it...

anothert example of which i posted recently re some advert headline for cars
asserting "it's all about quality not quantity", which 'is' the absolute
truth in terms of what life is minimally all about, only of course they
aren't really asking the question in that context so it goes right over
their head... another case of wisdom appearing out of the mouths of babes
and sucklings etc etc...

if otoh it's fake/scripted entirely for effect... then it's art making a
social comment... so either way it's actually great :)

> Some looked kinda gay, and that maybe an extra reason they might be locked
> up,

### - lol :)

but it is also a reason why it would be fake.
>
> Not a dilemma at all, just see the concept, and enjoy the performance.

### - the concept is precisely what delighted me, art or genuine it hammers
home a very cler message (spot the deliberate mistake? grinz;)

> <snipped unremembered as relevant, prolly opened them links, yet no
> response is a pretty good indication of no 'nice' response>
>
> Just remember:

### - it was more for our anal friend (heh:) than you (for you it was the
movie itself 'network' coz i know you like good movies that have something
to say, and this is one of the greats:)

> <3 Bonnie
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9IekssrYAY
> (i mean, that dude calls hirselves ZEdutchgandalf, there has to be a joke
> there :P)

### - it's ok friend + i can see how you (and even our anal friend too:)
might think so, but there's really no eclipse going on here, rather the
opposite actually in that the (human) world is already eclipsed (by shadows
and murk long-time) and you'd be surprised what it takes to remove it
(and/or to at least breach a small (w)hole in it...

that said, 6 planets in leo hasn't exactly been easy either lol but there's
no occlusion in this double leo;)

one thing that defo doesn't part the clouds is peeps all walking around with
their head up their ass (or even some one else's haha:) thinking
everything's all just fine and dandy and progressing (as demonstrated in
those network clips for example) which is also precisely what happens to
people who have spent too long in prison... they become institutionalised
and thus incapable of living in the outside world... like orca whales in
captivity; their main dorsel fin tilts/flops over to one side and stays
there, often permanently (bit of a sad sight that i mean innit)

hey i know another movie you might like... 'instinct' in which the anal but
educated doctor get a 'real' lesson in life from anthony hopkins heh (good
film if you haven't seen it already + not so bad/even better the 2nd and 3rd
time too)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-o5sxKm1C0

"you taught me how to live!" --our re-educated doctor friend in the above
full movie heh:)

enjoy + a hippy new year to ya's :):)

[Bassos]

On 1-1-2013 19:30, Robert Scott Martin wrote:
> In article <50e30044$0$3204$e4fe...@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl>,
> Bassos <Root@Wan> wrote:
>
>> What colo(u)rs did your book of alt.magick come in ?
>
> Black on white, 80 column.

You can change that on the video settings page from one of the
appendices to the Book.

Crowley seemed to want red on black.

Hard to get the color and especially font 'just' right for that one.

>> Did you get the only one GOD signed version aswell ?
>
> So far, but EMI XV leads inexorably toward MGDL XVI. And that is good.

so the details of the devil preventing access leads to the tower of
destruction on a tuesday.

For the EMI and MGDL i would need moar hints.

Perhaps someone else knows that reference ?

> Come, let us go down.

Down to the Star ?

Such is reflection, it seems.

Down to the river we go;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82_bhD0_Trw

[Bassos]

On 1-1-2013 19:38, dccxxvii wrote:
> Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:
>
>> On 30-12-2012 20:07, dccxxvii wrote:
>>> Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:
>>
>>> Do you know if I'm your enemy yet?
>>
>> What a curious question.
>>
>> I am not aware of having any enemies.
>>
>> There may be disgruntled minions, yet a good slapping would put them
>> in place.
>>
>> Really, when did enemies come into any of this ?
>
> It seems to be a slider thing, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

You asked me that above starting question.

Perhaps you misattributed posters ?

>> Do you not understand the fight to the max, and enjoy a beer together
>> after ?
>
> I'm English, if there's no-one else to fight we fight eachother. I'm

> nobodies enemy though.

Heh, typical Aries behaviour, cos England would most resemble Aries of
the 12 signs.

As an aries, you would then object to that, and as perhaps a somewhat
more thinking person you would find some other way to bully the notion
of astrology, yet not based on actuality, so be forearmed and donned in
asbestos-impervious armour and then proceed to do exactly what you mean
to do.

>> A bit more alt.magick oriented:
>>
>> Posting here is an initiation of sorts.
>> Like all new things are.
>>
>> There is reason to crush a toe being gently entered into a hot pool.
>> (eg burn hot enough that mistakes are easily withdrawn)
>
> Taking the toe out of the pool until it adjusts is less drastic.

Ah, the drug dealer approach (the pusher role) give a free sample ;)

>> When someone actually get's comfortable in a pool that is hot enough
>> to scare away cozy warmth lovers, that changes you.
>
>> Be prepared for some sirious changes if you do.
>
> ....

Does not seem prepared, seems more like:

Well, i dipped my toe in, and am starting to ease in, but well, the
boiling pool of Dragon fire infused lava will soon reach your scrotum,
and well, that will just hurt, alot, unless you did *THE WORK* [{(spooky
sound effects)}]

>> Yet, no enemies in the pool, mostly just hot-heads :()
>
> Surprisingly correct.

If you get surprised i am correct, you can rejoice, cos then many more
surprises await you.

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote

>>>>### - i'm talking history here not paranoia + i totally agree with
>>>>you that rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people
>>>>to death for dissent, so when they do then obviously they were/are
>>>>not quite as rational/reasonable as they've maybe been purporting
>>>>themselves to be?
>
>>>You think scientists are killing off anyone who dares to disagree
>>>with their pet theory? You've been watching too much telly.
>
>>And nooo, i didn't say that at all,
>
> Yes you did ."rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people
> to death for dissent, so when they do..." "when they do" definitely
> saying people are being put to death. It wasn't what you meant? Who's
> fault is that. Stop with the over-egging and playing to stupid
> overstatements and I'll stop calling you on it.

### - but they do hehe, so 'when' they do it just means that they were/are
not as reasonable nor rational as they were claiming to be, that even though
chomsky reckoned that they no longer send out death squads to deal with
dissenters as they once did more openly, it still happens occasionally as
when, for example, not that long ago the israelis were actually filmed
taking some dissident guy out in a hotel, some/all of them using false
passports that were fabricated at the top most level so as to be virtually
undetectable...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/aftermath-of-dubai-assassination-israel-against-extradition-of-suspected-mossad-agent-to-germany-a-700507.html

>>what i actually implied, that you've apparently totally missed (even
>>though you said that you maintained that you did in fact understand
>>where i'm coming from but which translates now as just you merely
>>making ignorant + silly sarcastic remarks to cover that >very lack of
>> understanding, plus note i didn't accuse you of dishonesty, not yet
>>anyway;) was simply that a tiny percentage of the population are
>>basically, one way or another + in fact many ways, calling the shots
>>for the rest of us,
>
> If you said what you meant rather than using over-dramatic bull-crap
> maybe we could talk sensibly.

### - you mean if i talk like you that is?? well sorry mate i talk like me
in the way i choose to say and do things and not like 'you' or 'anyone' come
to that (lol next you'll be telling how to think! damn cheek!;)

>
> Your sentences are running on more and more, are you upset?

### - and now i suppose you want me to write like you as well eh? and if i
don't then there's something wrong with 'me'?? you certainly are conceited!

>
>>scientists being merely only one of the layers in the employ of that
>>top 1%, whereas i could have just as easily pointed to politicians
>>and/or big businesses doing exactly the same thing, only we were
>>actually talking about science so scientists just seemed more
>>appropriate and in-context with our present conversation, was all +
> was >that really so very difficult for you?:)
>
> Not at all, it's your pretentious drivel that scientists are part of a
> conspiracy to control you, and in extension everyone (though you also
> try to be seen as the outsider and beyond their control.)

### - people who don't abide by the laws of the land are punished and
controlled, it's got nothing to do with conspiracy, that's just the ways
things are... conform or be forced to conform is how society works! it's
what it's based on, and non conformists are not welcome! i mean, oh for sure
they'll allow 'some' non conformity and even protests as long as they're
'approved', 'organised' and 'policed' (literally!) but go too far and you'll
see they other side of the coin! plenty examples of which are currently
occuring world wide!

>
>>also noted that seeing as you apparently have difficulty then in
>>following perhaps more complex + convoluted lines of thought, i shall
>>subsequently simplify accordingly for your benefit heh
>
> Just stop talking bull-crap.

### - well you're obviously a 'supporter' of said society (as i already
said) so of course you defend it coz you don't like the 'idea' that
everything's not all hunky-dory in the wallyworld you live in and support:)

>
>>(and also apparently for thang as well, lol
>
> Shall we count your 'lol's and other affectations?
>
>>2 self-professed logic-based brain boxes
>
> Out and out lies now slider?
>
> Where did I profess that?

### - you profess it with your thoughts and words and the stance you take on
these matters, it's implicit in everything you say and do like when you
argue for logic and reason as though that's the only way of doing things and
by claiming that anyone who doesn't 'conform' to that standard must have
something wrong with 'them'... and thang is exactly the same! :)

>>who start falling at the first fence! (+ gawd help ya's when it
> really >'does' get more complicated lol, coz this is the easy stuff:)
>
> Another 'lol' and a 'gawd' and a 'ya's' are there points in this game?

### - have you been playing a game?? well i haven't, i'm totally serious, i
may laugh and joke a lot about serious matters but that doesn't mean i'm not
taking it all quite seriously, humour being like a shield that allows one to
get close to difficult things without going crazy or becoming depressed, the
only other alternative being to pretend (like you) that everything's cool
and not deal with it (the equivilent of wearing a blindfold) and i refuse to
go through life in that manner... i mean, c'mon take your blindfold off and
see the world the way it 'really' is instead of all this 'oh aren't we all
so wonderful and clever and everything's fine' bs! coz we're actually in a
lot of trouble on this planet! and it's not improving!

>>smile,
>
> Oohh.. 'smile'? Do you really think this faux emotionality helps convey
> your message?

### - oh i see hehe, it's my 'style' you object to is it? (yeah well fuck
you haha, so bite me! and then let's move on;)

>>so are we all awake now and all on the same page already, or do you
>>really require everything (extra work for me basically) all
> spelled-out >for ya's?
>
> I know you think you're being controlled by the elite, but that's your
> delusion not mine. I can get what I need without any monetary reliance,
> I can find out what I need to know without restriction - where is the
> trap slider?

### - 'society' is what's being controlled by an elite, and in virtually the
same manner the catholic church once used, it's just a lot more subtle these
days is all but the methods are almost identical (why? coz it works!;)

>
>>hmmm we shall see :)
>
> I doubt you will.
>
>>>>That if, for example, one examines the documented methods of the
>>>>once all powerful catholic church + how in their history they one
>>>>time quite consciously + systematically got rid of all the
>>>>competition to as to deliberately force/impose a very one-pointed
> and >>>intelligently directed yet ultimately insane view of the world
> upon >>>all their members, and this without even bothering to get their
>>>>members permission to do so >iow, they were a kind of self-appointed
>>>>ruling class calling the shots for everyone they ruled over),
>
>>>You think religious zealots are reasonable people? I don't.
>
>>### - obviously not, especially after i just got through attempting to
>>explain exactly that to you albeit the shoe being on the other foot
>>(yours) lol, in that i was accusing zealous scientists of exactly that
>>same behaviour in following 'their' beliefs/religion (scientism?) - go
>>figure;)
>
> I know you think science is a religious plot to control the populace,
> it's what makes you so funny to talk at.

### - oh i see, not talk to but at?? (i rest my case?:)

>>then it's possible to see that many of their methods still persist to
>>the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely different
>>+ modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the population who
>>lords it over everyone else...
>
> Stop being lorded over then. Just STOP!It's a choice....

### - didn't you see what happened to the 'occupy wall street' protestors?
where was the choice in that?? (crazy images of that new york police chief
wading in there himself with a batton to demonstrate to his men just how ya
'deal' with protestors)

>
>>>The rich aren't necessarily reasonable either, you're straying from
>>>your point.
>
>>### - of course they're not reasonable else they wouldn't have gone
> all >out for the money in the first place...
>
> Not all of them did, some inherited (should they be found guilty of the
> sins of their fathers (or mothers)), some were lucky (are lottery
> winners evil) some are just clever and some back through charitable
> means to give others a hand up. You have a one dimensional view of the
> world, and of people.

### - but i'm making a point here (rather graphically perhaps heh) that it's
not all how you like to paint things, that there's a lot more going on just
below the surface! (a heck of a lot actually, most of it quite
horrible/ugly)

>>the salient point being that documented methods of the past are
>>basically still in force albeit in the hands of a different/modern
>>power base.
>
> In exactly what way do you feel controlled?

### - you 'keep' wanting to make this about 'me' (coz that's the only part
you can go on the offensive with) whereas i'm merely making a social comment
here, and i understand: you wanna shoot the messenger coz then you wont have
to deal with the message! (you wanna hide your head in the sand is fine by
me, just don't expect everyone to be like you:)

>
>>(for an intellectual you
>
> I'm not an intellectual, I'm just some guy.

### - you make yourself out to be one in the dreadfully condescending manner
you use, whereby anything less than the way you talk and see things is
looked down on, and then 'put' down with great relish on your part (i.e. you
don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold anyone who disagrees with
you, is a fascist approach)

>
>>really don't think and/or extrapolate too well ya know)
>
> You extrapolate from 2+2 and find a worldwide conspiracy theory instead
> of 4 (Base 10 for pedants)

### - i like history is all (smile:) you can learn things from history! :)

>>>Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns everything,
>>>another 19% do very well working for them, the other 80% don't do
>>>very well at all..." --taken from his manufacturing consent
>
>>>Good grief! Is that where your '80% of people are like a kid that's
>>>just had his arms and legs blown off?' That's a hell of contortion
>>>you're performing. You go to the poorest parts of India or China and
>>>talk to the people there, people aren't as unhappy as you think.

### - (slider rolls his eye lol:) so then, do you know how you get a monkey
to stand at an ultimately boring + soul destroying factory bench all day
without complaining, for the rest of his fucking life? well, you have to
'damage' him is the quick answer, else he'll just wanna go and play in the
trees like all his mates, iow, first you have to 'civil-ise' him (literally:
made civil) and then indocrinate him with a load of old shit about how's a
good way to live and spend all that money he gets for doing so, which of
course is never actually enough to ever go and do anything else other than
to return to work again next monday morning (any longer than 4 weeks holiday
per annum and they might decide not to come back: seems to be the tried and
tested happy medium;)

>
>>### - well what else would you call a crippled majority (i.e. that 80%
>>that don't do well at all as according to chomsky)
>
> I would NOT call them 'that kid that's had all it's arms and legs blown
> off for nothing.' That you do should ring alarm bells in your head that
> there's something wrong in there - and it isn't 'being the outsider.'

### - whatever, you got my point is all that actually matters, and this
whether you personally agree with it or not... 'damaged' is the real point,
hobbled and made to go slower so they'll all be good workers (assuming
there's enough jobs for 'em that is lol:) damaged enough anyway so that
they'll never ever be able to fulfill doing something far more important for
themselves (attend to their own personal evolution i mean) WAS the point...
80 fucking percent!!! (4 fifths of the human race!) i mean, talk about
crimes against humanity?? and anyone who knowingly 'supports' that
(unwitting doesn't count) is either an asshole or just a cunt;)

>
>
>>and so okay they've only got 'one' >limb metaphorically missing
>>instead of all four (i was merely speaking in extremes for your
> benefit >was all lol;)
>
> You tried to call things what they demonstrably weren't to keep things
> clear? No, you just got it wrong.

### - i exaggerated the image for the sake of clarity is all, and you got my
point, and so ok now turn the volume down from 9 to two and a half (so it's
no longer blaring) + try to get over the way i personally talk/put things...
coz all that's beside the point and not really relevent so there's no need
to make an issue out of it (i.e. it's not easy to talk to erm, monkeys as
it's hard to get 'em to stop jabbering and jumping around like they've all
got a bunch of fleas up their arse hehe:)

>
>>they're still fucking 'limping' along basically barred (by no fault of
>>their own) from living a fuller life, aren't they??
>
> You're seeing your unhappiness reflected in others. It's an illusion.

### - try to be objective can't you, this isn't even about me or you
personally but the state of our world, the knowledge of which empowers one
to know more clearly/correctly how to better comport oneself/live on this
planet, that one's 'illusions' are reduced to the minimum (i mean, how can
ya know what to do if ya doesn't really know what's actually going on, seems
fairly obvious)

to 'not' be fully thus aware perforce risks a lifetime of barking (sometimes
literally heh;) up the wrong tree altogether, a mistake (a travesty
actually) that no one can possibly ever afford to make coz we only ever get
the one shot...

i dunno if you're into films but you could try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7dXCRM6EOM

alan sillitoe apparently took this to 17 different publishers before one of
them finally realised the value of it, starring a very young albert finney,
an important work... unfortunately it's not the full movie on there + it's
actually quite hard to get a copy of it anymore (hmm now i wonder why;)

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote

>>>>### - i'm talking history here not paranoia + i totally agree with
>>>>you that rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people
>>>>to death for dissent, so when they do then obviously they were/are
>>>>not quite as rational/reasonable as they've maybe been purporting
>>>>themselves to be?
>
>>>You think scientists are killing off anyone who dares to disagree
>>>with their pet theory? You've been watching too much telly.
>
>>And nooo, i didn't say that at all,
>
> Yes you did ."rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people
> to death for dissent, so when they do..." "when they do" definitely
> saying people are being put to death. It wasn't what you meant? Who's
> fault is that. Stop with the over-egging and playing to stupid
> overstatements and I'll stop calling you on it.

### - but they do hehe, so 'when' they do it just means that they were/are
not as reasonable nor rational as they were claiming to be, that even though
chomsky reckoned that they no longer send out death squads to deal with
dissenters as they once did more openly, it still happens occasionally as
when, for example, not that long ago the israelis were actually filmed
taking some dissident guy out in a hotel, some/all of them using false
passports that were fabricated at the top most level so as to be virtually
undetectable...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/aftermath-of-dubai-assassination-israel-against-extradition-of-suspected-mossad-agent-to-germany-a-700507.html

>>what i actually implied, that you've apparently totally missed (even
>>though you said that you maintained that you did in fact understand
>>where i'm coming from but which translates now as just you merely
>>making ignorant + silly sarcastic remarks to cover that >very lack of
>> understanding, plus note i didn't accuse you of dishonesty, not yet
>>anyway;) was simply that a tiny percentage of the population are
>>basically, one way or another + in fact many ways, calling the shots
>>for the rest of us,
>
> If you said what you meant rather than using over-dramatic bull-crap
> maybe we could talk sensibly.

### - you mean if i talk like you that is?? well sorry mate i talk like me
in the way i choose to say and do things and not like 'you' or 'anyone' come
to that (lol next you'll be telling how to think! damn cheek!;)



>

> Your sentences are running on more and more, are you upset?

### - and now i suppose you want me to write like you as well eh? and if i
don't then there's something wrong with 'me'?? you certainly are conceited!



>

>>scientists being merely only one of the layers in the employ of that
>>top 1%, whereas i could have just as easily pointed to politicians
>>and/or big businesses doing exactly the same thing, only we were
>>actually talking about science so scientists just seemed more
>>appropriate and in-context with our present conversation, was all +
> was >that really so very difficult for you?:)
>
> Not at all, it's your pretentious drivel that scientists are part of a
> conspiracy to control you, and in extension everyone (though you also
> try to be seen as the outsider and beyond their control.)

### - people who don't abide by the laws of the land are punished and
controlled, it's got nothing to do with conspiracy, that's just the ways
things are... conform or be forced to conform is how society works! it's
what it's based on, and non conformists are not welcome! i mean, oh for sure
they'll allow 'some' non conformity and even protests as long as they're
'approved', 'organised' and 'policed' (literally!) but go too far and you'll
see they other side of the coin! plenty examples of which are currently
occuring world wide!



>

>>also noted that seeing as you apparently have difficulty then in
>>following perhaps more complex + convoluted lines of thought, i shall
>>subsequently simplify accordingly for your benefit heh
>
> Just stop talking bull-crap.

### - well you're obviously a 'supporter' of said society (as i already
said) so of course you defend it coz you don't like the 'idea' that
everything's not all hunky-dory in the wallyworld you live in and support:)



>

>>(and also apparently for thang as well, lol
>
> Shall we count your 'lol's and other affectations?
>
>>2 self-professed logic-based brain boxes
>
> Out and out lies now slider?
>
> Where did I profess that?

### - you profess it with your thoughts and words and the stance you take on
these matters, it's implicit in everything you say and do like when you
argue for logic and reason as though that's the only way of doing things and
by claiming that anyone who doesn't 'conform' to that standard must have
something wrong with 'them'... and thang is exactly the same! :)

>>who start falling at the first fence! (+ gawd help ya's when it
> really >'does' get more complicated lol, coz this is the easy stuff:)
>
> Another 'lol' and a 'gawd' and a 'ya's' are there points in this game?

### - have you been playing a game?? well i haven't, i'm totally serious, i
may laugh and joke a lot about serious matters but that doesn't mean i'm not
taking it all quite seriously, humour being like a shield that allows one to
get close to difficult things without going crazy or becoming depressed, the
only other alternative being to pretend (like you) that everything's cool
and not deal with it (the equivilent of wearing a blindfold) and i refuse to
go through life in that manner... i mean, c'mon take your blindfold off and
see the world the way it 'really' is instead of all this 'oh aren't we all
so wonderful and clever and everything's fine' bs! coz we're actually in a
lot of trouble on this planet! and it's not improving!

>>smile,
>
> Oohh.. 'smile'? Do you really think this faux emotionality helps convey
> your message?

### - oh i see hehe, it's my 'style' you object to is it? (yeah well fuck
you haha, so bite me! and then let's move on;)

>>so are we all awake now and all on the same page already, or do you
>>really require everything (extra work for me basically) all
> spelled-out >for ya's?
>
> I know you think you're being controlled by the elite, but that's your
> delusion not mine. I can get what I need without any monetary reliance,
> I can find out what I need to know without restriction - where is the
> trap slider?

### - 'society' is what's being controlled by an elite, and in virtually the
same manner the catholic church once used, it's just a lot more subtle these
days is all but the methods are almost identical (why? coz it works!;)




>

>>hmmm we shall see :)
>
> I doubt you will.
>
>>>>That if, for example, one examines the documented methods of the
>>>>once all powerful catholic church + how in their history they one
>>>>time quite consciously + systematically got rid of all the
>>>>competition to as to deliberately force/impose a very one-pointed
> and >>>intelligently directed yet ultimately insane view of the world
> upon >>>all their members, and this without even bothering to get their
>>>>members permission to do so >iow, they were a kind of self-appointed
>>>>ruling class calling the shots for everyone they ruled over),
>
>>>You think religious zealots are reasonable people? I don't.
>
>>### - obviously not, especially after i just got through attempting to
>>explain exactly that to you albeit the shoe being on the other foot
>>(yours) lol, in that i was accusing zealous scientists of exactly that
>>same behaviour in following 'their' beliefs/religion (scientism?) - go
>>figure;)
>
> I know you think science is a religious plot to control the populace,
> it's what makes you so funny to talk at.

### - oh i see, not talk to but at?? (i rest my case?:)

>>then it's possible to see that many of their methods still persist to
>>the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely different
>>+ modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the population who
>>lords it over everyone else...
>
> Stop being lorded over then. Just STOP!It's a choice....

### - didn't you see what happened to the 'occupy wall street' protestors?
where was the choice in that?? (crazy images of that new york police chief
wading in there himself with a batton to demonstrate to his men just how ya
'deal' with protestors)



>

>>>The rich aren't necessarily reasonable either, you're straying from
>>>your point.
>
>>### - of course they're not reasonable else they wouldn't have gone
> all >out for the money in the first place...
>
> Not all of them did, some inherited (should they be found guilty of the
> sins of their fathers (or mothers)), some were lucky (are lottery
> winners evil) some are just clever and some back through charitable
> means to give others a hand up. You have a one dimensional view of the
> world, and of people.

### - but i'm making a point here (rather graphically perhaps heh) that it's
not all how you like to paint things, that there's a lot more going on just
below the surface! (a heck of a lot actually, most of it quite
horrible/ugly)

>>the salient point being that documented methods of the past are
>>basically still in force albeit in the hands of a different/modern
>>power base.
>
> In exactly what way do you feel controlled?

### - you 'keep' wanting to make this about 'me' (coz that's the only part
you can go on the offensive with) whereas i'm merely making a social comment
here, and i understand: you wanna shoot the messenger coz then you wont have
to deal with the message! (you wanna hide your head in the sand is fine by
me, just don't expect everyone to be like you:)




>

>>(for an intellectual you
>
> I'm not an intellectual, I'm just some guy.

### - you make yourself out to be one in the dreadfully condescending manner
you use, whereby anything less than the way you talk and see things is
looked down on, and then 'put' down with great relish on your part (i.e. you
don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold anyone who disagrees with
you, is a fascist approach)



>

>>really don't think and/or extrapolate too well ya know)
>
> You extrapolate from 2+2 and find a worldwide conspiracy theory instead
> of 4 (Base 10 for pedants)

### - i like history is all (smile:) you can learn things from history! :)

>>>Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns everything,
>>>another 19% do very well working for them, the other 80% don't do
>>>very well at all..." --taken from his manufacturing consent
>
>>>Good grief! Is that where your '80% of people are like a kid that's
>>>just had his arms and legs blown off?' That's a hell of contortion
>>>you're performing. You go to the poorest parts of India or China and
>>>talk to the people there, people aren't as unhappy as you think.

### - (slider rolls his eye lol:) so then, do you know how you get a monkey
to stand at an ultimately boring + soul destroying factory bench all day
without complaining, for the rest of his fucking life? well, you have to
'damage' him is the quick answer, else he'll just wanna go and play in the
trees like all his mates, iow, first you have to 'civil-ise' him (literally:
made civil) and then indocrinate him with a load of old shit about how's a
good way to live and spend all that money he gets for doing so, which of
course is never actually enough to ever go and do anything else other than
to return to work again next monday morning (any longer than 4 weeks holiday
per annum and they might decide not to come back: seems to be the tried and
tested happy medium;)




>

>>### - well what else would you call a crippled majority (i.e. that 80%
>>that don't do well at all as according to chomsky)
>
> I would NOT call them 'that kid that's had all it's arms and legs blown
> off for nothing.' That you do should ring alarm bells in your head that
> there's something wrong in there - and it isn't 'being the outsider.'

### - whatever, you got my point is all that actually matters, and this
whether you personally agree with it or not... 'damaged' is the real point,
hobbled and made to go slower so they'll all be good workers (assuming
there's enough jobs for 'em that is lol:) damaged enough anyway so that
they'll never ever be able to fulfill doing something far more important for
themselves (attend to their own personal evolution i mean) WAS the point...
80 fucking percent!!! (4 fifths of the human race!) i mean, talk about
crimes against humanity?? and anyone who knowingly 'supports' that
(unwitting doesn't count) is either an asshole or just a cunt;)




>
>

>>and so okay they've only got 'one' >limb metaphorically missing
>>instead of all four (i was merely speaking in extremes for your
> benefit >was all lol;)
>
> You tried to call things what they demonstrably weren't to keep things
> clear? No, you just got it wrong.

### - i exaggerated the image for the sake of clarity is all, and you got my
point, and so ok now turn the volume down from 9 to two and a half (so it's
no longer blaring) + try to get over the way i personally talk/put things...
coz all that's beside the point and not really relevent so there's no need
to make an issue out of it (i.e. it's not easy to talk to erm, monkeys as
it's hard to get 'em to stop jabbering and jumping around like they've all
got a bunch of fleas up their arse hehe:)


>

>>they're still fucking 'limping' along basically barred (by no fault of
>>their own) from living a fuller life, aren't they??
>
> You're seeing your unhappiness reflected in others. It's an illusion.

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote

>>>>### - i'm talking history here not paranoia + i totally agree with
>>>>you that rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people
>>>>to death for dissent, so when they do then obviously they were/are
>>>>not quite as rational/reasonable as they've maybe been purporting
>>>>themselves to be?
>
>>>You think scientists are killing off anyone who dares to disagree
>>>with their pet theory? You've been watching too much telly.
>
>>And nooo, i didn't say that at all,
>
> Yes you did ."rational/reasonable people don't go around putting people
> to death for dissent, so when they do..." "when they do" definitely
> saying people are being put to death. It wasn't what you meant? Who's
> fault is that. Stop with the over-egging and playing to stupid
> overstatements and I'll stop calling you on it.

### - but they do hehe, so 'when' they do it just means that they were/are
not as reasonable nor rational as they were claiming to be, that even though
chomsky reckoned that they no longer send out death squads to deal with
dissenters as they once did more openly, it still happens occasionally as
when, for example, not that long ago the israelis were actually filmed
taking some dissident guy out in a hotel, some/all of them using false
passports that were fabricated at the top most level so as to be virtually
undetectable...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/aftermath-of-dubai-assassination-israel-against-extradition-of-suspected-mossad-agent-to-germany-a-700507.html

>>what i actually implied, that you've apparently totally missed (even
>>though you said that you maintained that you did in fact understand
>>where i'm coming from but which translates now as just you merely
>>making ignorant + silly sarcastic remarks to cover that >very lack of
>> understanding, plus note i didn't accuse you of dishonesty, not yet
>>anyway;) was simply that a tiny percentage of the population are
>>basically, one way or another + in fact many ways, calling the shots
>>for the rest of us,
>
> If you said what you meant rather than using over-dramatic bull-crap
> maybe we could talk sensibly.

### - you mean if i talk like you that is?? well sorry mate i talk like me
in the way i choose to say and do things and not like 'you' or 'anyone' come
to that (lol next you'll be telling how to think! damn cheek!;)



>

> Your sentences are running on more and more, are you upset?

### - and now i suppose you want me to write like you as well eh? and if i
don't then there's something wrong with 'me'?? you certainly are conceited!



>

>>scientists being merely only one of the layers in the employ of that
>>top 1%, whereas i could have just as easily pointed to politicians
>>and/or big businesses doing exactly the same thing, only we were
>>actually talking about science so scientists just seemed more
>>appropriate and in-context with our present conversation, was all +
> was >that really so very difficult for you?:)
>
> Not at all, it's your pretentious drivel that scientists are part of a
> conspiracy to control you, and in extension everyone (though you also
> try to be seen as the outsider and beyond their control.)

### - people who don't abide by the laws of the land are punished and
controlled, it's got nothing to do with conspiracy, that's just the ways
things are... conform or be forced to conform is how society works! it's
what it's based on, and non conformists are not welcome! i mean, oh for sure
they'll allow 'some' non conformity and even protests as long as they're
'approved', 'organised' and 'policed' (literally!) but go too far and you'll
see they other side of the coin! plenty examples of which are currently
occuring world wide!



>

>>also noted that seeing as you apparently have difficulty then in
>>following perhaps more complex + convoluted lines of thought, i shall
>>subsequently simplify accordingly for your benefit heh
>
> Just stop talking bull-crap.

### - well you're obviously a 'supporter' of said society (as i already
said) so of course you defend it coz you don't like the 'idea' that
everything's not all hunky-dory in the wallyworld you live in and support:)



>

>>(and also apparently for thang as well, lol
>
> Shall we count your 'lol's and other affectations?
>
>>2 self-professed logic-based brain boxes
>
> Out and out lies now slider?
>
> Where did I profess that?

### - you profess it with your thoughts and words and the stance you take on
these matters, it's implicit in everything you say and do like when you
argue for logic and reason as though that's the only way of doing things and
by claiming that anyone who doesn't 'conform' to that standard must have
something wrong with 'them'... and thang is exactly the same! :)

>>who start falling at the first fence! (+ gawd help ya's when it
> really >'does' get more complicated lol, coz this is the easy stuff:)
>
> Another 'lol' and a 'gawd' and a 'ya's' are there points in this game?

### - have you been playing a game?? well i haven't, i'm totally serious, i
may laugh and joke a lot about serious matters but that doesn't mean i'm not
taking it all quite seriously, humour being like a shield that allows one to
get close to difficult things without going crazy or becoming depressed, the
only other alternative being to pretend (like you) that everything's cool
and not deal with it (the equivilent of wearing a blindfold) and i refuse to
go through life in that manner... i mean, c'mon take your blindfold off and
see the world the way it 'really' is instead of all this 'oh aren't we all
so wonderful and clever and everything's fine' bs! coz we're actually in a
lot of trouble on this planet! and it's not improving!

>>smile,
>
> Oohh.. 'smile'? Do you really think this faux emotionality helps convey
> your message?

### - oh i see hehe, it's my 'style' you object to is it? (yeah well fuck
you haha, so bite me! and then let's move on;)

>>so are we all awake now and all on the same page already, or do you
>>really require everything (extra work for me basically) all
> spelled-out >for ya's?
>
> I know you think you're being controlled by the elite, but that's your
> delusion not mine. I can get what I need without any monetary reliance,
> I can find out what I need to know without restriction - where is the
> trap slider?

### - 'society' is what's being controlled by an elite, and in virtually the
same manner the catholic church once used, it's just a lot more subtle these
days is all but the methods are almost identical (why? coz it works!;)




>

>>hmmm we shall see :)
>
> I doubt you will.
>
>>>>That if, for example, one examines the documented methods of the
>>>>once all powerful catholic church + how in their history they one
>>>>time quite consciously + systematically got rid of all the
>>>>competition to as to deliberately force/impose a very one-pointed
> and >>>intelligently directed yet ultimately insane view of the world
> upon >>>all their members, and this without even bothering to get their
>>>>members permission to do so >iow, they were a kind of self-appointed
>>>>ruling class calling the shots for everyone they ruled over),
>
>>>You think religious zealots are reasonable people? I don't.
>
>>### - obviously not, especially after i just got through attempting to
>>explain exactly that to you albeit the shoe being on the other foot
>>(yours) lol, in that i was accusing zealous scientists of exactly that
>>same behaviour in following 'their' beliefs/religion (scientism?) - go
>>figure;)
>
> I know you think science is a religious plot to control the populace,
> it's what makes you so funny to talk at.

### - oh i see, not talk to but at?? (i rest my case?:)

>>then it's possible to see that many of their methods still persist to
>>the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely different
>>+ modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the population who
>>lords it over everyone else...
>
> Stop being lorded over then. Just STOP!It's a choice....

### - didn't you see what happened to the 'occupy wall street' protestors?
where was the choice in that?? (crazy images of that new york police chief
wading in there himself with a batton to demonstrate to his men just how ya
'deal' with protestors)



>

>>>The rich aren't necessarily reasonable either, you're straying from
>>>your point.
>
>>### - of course they're not reasonable else they wouldn't have gone
> all >out for the money in the first place...
>
> Not all of them did, some inherited (should they be found guilty of the
> sins of their fathers (or mothers)), some were lucky (are lottery
> winners evil) some are just clever and some back through charitable
> means to give others a hand up. You have a one dimensional view of the
> world, and of people.

### - but i'm making a point here (rather graphically perhaps heh) that it's
not all how you like to paint things, that there's a lot more going on just
below the surface! (a heck of a lot actually, most of it quite
horrible/ugly)

>>the salient point being that documented methods of the past are
>>basically still in force albeit in the hands of a different/modern
>>power base.
>
> In exactly what way do you feel controlled?

### - you 'keep' wanting to make this about 'me' (coz that's the only part
you can go on the offensive with) whereas i'm merely making a social comment
here, and i understand: you wanna shoot the messenger coz then you wont have
to deal with the message! (you wanna hide your head in the sand is fine by
me, just don't expect everyone to be like you:)




>

>>(for an intellectual you
>
> I'm not an intellectual, I'm just some guy.

### - you make yourself out to be one in the dreadfully condescending manner
you use, whereby anything less than the way you talk and see things is
looked down on, and then 'put' down with great relish on your part (i.e. you
don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold anyone who disagrees with
you, is a fascist approach)



>

>>really don't think and/or extrapolate too well ya know)
>
> You extrapolate from 2+2 and find a worldwide conspiracy theory instead
> of 4 (Base 10 for pedants)

### - i like history is all (smile:) you can learn things from history! :)

>>>Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns everything,
>>>another 19% do very well working for them, the other 80% don't do
>>>very well at all..." --taken from his manufacturing consent
>
>>>Good grief! Is that where your '80% of people are like a kid that's
>>>just had his arms and legs blown off?' That's a hell of contortion
>>>you're performing. You go to the poorest parts of India or China and
>>>talk to the people there, people aren't as unhappy as you think.

### - (slider rolls his eye lol:) so then, do you know how you get a monkey
to stand at an ultimately boring + soul destroying factory bench all day
without complaining, for the rest of his fucking life? well, you have to
'damage' him is the quick answer, else he'll just wanna go and play in the
trees like all his mates, iow, first you have to 'civil-ise' him (literally:
made civil) and then indocrinate him with a load of old shit about how's a
good way to live and spend all that money he gets for doing so, which of
course is never actually enough to ever go and do anything else other than
to return to work again next monday morning (any longer than 4 weeks holiday
per annum and they might decide not to come back: seems to be the tried and
tested happy medium;)




>

>>### - well what else would you call a crippled majority (i.e. that 80%
>>that don't do well at all as according to chomsky)
>
> I would NOT call them 'that kid that's had all it's arms and legs blown
> off for nothing.' That you do should ring alarm bells in your head that
> there's something wrong in there - and it isn't 'being the outsider.'

### - whatever, you got my point is all that actually matters, and this
whether you personally agree with it or not... 'damaged' is the real point,
hobbled and made to go slower so they'll all be good workers (assuming
there's enough jobs for 'em that is lol:) damaged enough anyway so that
they'll never ever be able to fulfill doing something far more important for
themselves (attend to their own personal evolution i mean) WAS the point...
80 fucking percent!!! (4 fifths of the human race!) i mean, talk about
crimes against humanity?? and anyone who knowingly 'supports' that
(unwitting doesn't count) is either an asshole or just a cunt;)




>
>

>>and so okay they've only got 'one' >limb metaphorically missing
>>instead of all four (i was merely speaking in extremes for your
> benefit >was all lol;)
>
> You tried to call things what they demonstrably weren't to keep things
> clear? No, you just got it wrong.

### - i exaggerated the image for the sake of clarity is all, and you got my
point, and so ok now turn the volume down from 9 to two and a half (so it's
no longer blaring) + try to get over the way i personally talk/put things...
coz all that's beside the point and not really relevent so there's no need
to make an issue out of it (i.e. it's not easy to talk to erm, monkeys as
it's hard to get 'em to stop jabbering and jumping around like they've all
got a bunch of fleas up their arse hehe:)


>

>>they're still fucking 'limping' along basically barred (by no fault of
>>their own) from living a fuller life, aren't they??
>
> You're seeing your unhappiness reflected in others. It's an illusion.

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>

>dccxxvii wrote
>
>>>>>### - i'm talking history here not paranoia + i totally agree
>>>>>with you that rational/reasonable people don't go around
>>>>>putting people to death for dissent, so when they do then
>>>>>obviously they were/are not quite as rational/reasonable as
>>>>>they've maybe been purporting themselves to be?
>>
>>>>You think scientists are killing off anyone who dares to
>>>>disagree with their pet theory? You've been watching too much
>>>>telly.

>>>And nooo, i didn't say that at all,

>>Yes you did ."rational/reasonable people don't go around putting
>>people to death for dissent, so when they do..." "when they do"
>>definitely saying people are being put to death. It wasn't what you
>>meant? Who's fault is that. Stop with the over-egging and playing
>>to stupid overstatements and I'll stop calling you on it.

>### - but they do hehe, so 'when' they do it just means that they
>were/are not as reasonable nor rational as they were claiming to be,

Which is an argument for people being more rational (and therefore not
putting people to death) instead of just claiming to be rational, yes?
I thought you were against people being rational, if you're just
against murderous bastards *rationalizing* (attempting to explain or
justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these
are not appropriate:) rather than actually being rational and
reasonable that's fine by me, but not what you've said.

>that even though chomsky reckoned that they no longer send out death
>squads to deal with dissenters as they once did more openly, it still
>happens occasionally as when, for example, not that long ago the
>israelis were actually filmed taking some dissident guy out in a
>hotel, some/all of them using false passports that were fabricated at
>the top most level so as to be virtually undetectable...
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh

>http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/aftermath-of-dubai-assassina
tion-israel-against-extradition-of-suspected-mossad-agent-to-germany-a
-700507.html

It's quite an assumption that he was killed just for his political
dissent, he'd murdered 2 Israeli soldiers and pissed off numerous other
parties across the middle-east with actual actions not just words. It's
not as if he'd just been killed for 'dissent' so to speak. I'm not
saying revenge killings are always justifiable or even reasonable, but
this guy was in a war and knew it.

>>>what i actually implied, that you've apparently totally missed
>>>(even though you said that you maintained that you did in fact
>>>understand where i'm coming from but which translates now as
>>>just you merely making ignorant + silly sarcastic remarks to
>>>cover that >very lack of understanding, plus note i didn't accuse
>>>you of dishonesty, not yet anyway;) was simply that a tiny
>>>percentage of the population are basically, one way or another +
>>>in fact many ways, calling the shots for the rest of us,
>>
>>If you said what you meant rather than using over-dramatic bull-crap
>>maybe we could talk sensibly.
>
>### - you mean if i talk like you that is?? well sorry mate i talk
>like me in the way i choose to say and do things and not like 'you'
>or 'anyone' come to that (lol next you'll be telling how to think!
>damn cheek!;)

No, I have never had any intention of telling you what to think; as for
how to write when parts of it are demonstrably totally false (all lims
blown off / one limb blown off / (will you go down to 80% of people
have neuralgia next?) it's difficult to take anything you say
seriously. How keen are you to communicate?

>>Your sentences are running on more and more, are you upset?

>>### - and now i suppose you want me to write like you as well eh? and
>if i don't then there's something wrong with 'me'?? you certainly are
>conceited!

Your mind reading skills get worse and worse. Your suppositions are
entirely wrong.

>>>scientists being merely only one of the layers in the employ of
>>>that top 1%, whereas i could have just as easily pointed to
>>>politicians and/or big businesses doing exactly the same thing,
>>>only we were actually talking about science so scientists just
>>>seemed more appropriate and in-context with our present
>>>conversation, was all +
>>was >that really so very difficult for you?:)

>>Not at all, it's your pretentious drivel that scientists are part
>>of a conspiracy to control you, and in extension everyone (though
>>you also try to be seen as the outsider and beyond their control.)

>### - people who don't abide by the laws of the land are punished and
>controlled, it's got nothing to do with conspiracy, that's just the
>ways things are...

It's the only way large groups of people can live in a society, yes.

>conform or be forced to conform is how society works! it's what it's
>based on, and non conformists are not welcome!

They won't allow rape or murder or theft (one individual person forcing
another to conform to anothers control.) Either there is a group
consensus of things that are controlled or individuals are free to
force others to conform to their individual view of things ('I want
your wife and I'm going to take her.') I don't think I've met anybody
who fully complies with every regulation though, control is a lot
looser than you think.

>i mean, oh for sure they'll allow 'some' non conformity and even
>protests as long as they're 'approved', 'organised' and 'policed'

Unfortunately, in England, we have groups of people who hijack
otherwise peaceful protests with the intention of turning a crowd into
a riot through manipulation of mob dynamics. Allowing them just to go
unpoliced leads to normal people having to conform to the will of the
mob, replace burned cars and wrecked shops etc.) When there is human
interaction there is always some form of control. I prefer it to be
consensus rather than individual might. I'm quite prepared to break the
rules, as I see fit, through necessity though.

>(literally!) but go too far and you'll see they other side of the
>coin! plenty examples of which are currently occuring world wide!

Yes, again there are some very unreasonable parts of the world.

>>>also noted that seeing as you apparently have difficulty then in
>>>following perhaps more complex + convoluted lines of thought, i
>>>shall subsequently simplify accordingly for your benefit heh

>>Just stop talking bull-crap.

>### - well you're obviously a 'supporter' of said society (as i
>already said) so of course you defend it coz you don't like the
>'idea' that everything's not all hunky-dory in the wallyworld you
>live in and support:)

I don't think everything is hunky dory, I just don't find it as
challenging as you seem to. If you don't like the society you're living
in, and feel strongly about it, then get out there and convince people.
Get elected. Change things. Whining does nothing.

>>>(and also apparently for thang as well, lol

>>Shall we count your 'lol's and other affectations?

>>>2 self-professed logic-based brain boxes

>>Out and out lies now slider?

>>Where did I profess that?

>### - you profess it with your thoughts and words and the stance you
>take on these matters,

People that disagree with your bullshit fit into this catagory, they
have to conform to your view. No.

>it's implicit in everything you say and do
>like when you argue for logic and reason as though that's the only
>way of doing things and by claiming that anyone who doesn't 'conform'
>to that standard must have something wrong with 'them'...

I've told you several times that nobody operate only on logic and
reason - not me, not thang and you'll be pleased to know not you
either. I'd say someone that never uses reason has something wrong with
them, but there's no-on like that either.

>and thang
>is exactly the same! :)

>>>who start falling at the first fence! (+ gawd help ya's when it
>>really >'does' get more complicated lol, coz this is the easy
>>stuff:)

>>Another 'lol' and a 'gawd' and a 'ya's' are there points in this
>>game?

>### - have you been playing a game??

Yes, of course. Figuratively and literally (I usually write bits
between hands of poker.)

>well i haven't, i'm totally serious, i may laugh and joke a lot about
>serious matters but that doesn't mean i'm not taking it all quite
>seriously,

Then here isn't the best place to do it. By all means use it to test
yourself and your arguments but writing here won't change a damn thing.
If you think society is flawed and you want it to change you need to be
much more proactive than it seems that you are. Get out there and
*make* things change. Otherwise you're just moaning in the wind.

>humour being like a shield that allows one to get close to
>difficult things without going crazy or becoming depressed,

I agree with you on this.

>the only other alternative being to pretend (like you) that
>everything's cool and not deal with it (the equivilent of wearing a
>blindfold)

That's not what I do.

>and i refuse to go through life in that manner...

No, you don't wear a blindfold, you have magnifying optics which makes
you blow things out of proportion

>i mean, c'mon take your blindfold off and see the world the way it
>'really' is instead of all this 'oh aren't we all so wonderful and
>clever and everything's fine' bs!

I've never said anything like that. My bit of the world is fine and I
work dilligently to keep it that way. You want to be a philanthropist
and change the world? You can't do it here dude.

>coz we're actually in a lot of trouble on this planet! and it's not
>improving!

People have been predicting the end of the world since BCE. People have
been whining about society ever since there's been such a thing I guess

>>>smile,
>>
>>Oohh.. 'smile'? Do you really think this faux emotionality helps
>>convey your message?
>
>### - oh i see hehe, it's my 'style' you object to is it? (yeah well
>fuck you haha, so bite me! and then let's move on;)

Oh, amongst other things. It just seems false.

>>>so are we all awake now and all on the same page already, or do
>>>you really require everything (extra work for me basically) all
>>spelled-out >for ya's?

>>I know you think you're being controlled by the elite, but that's
>>your delusion not mine. I can get what I need without any monetary
>>reliance, I can find out what I need to know without restriction -
>>where is the trap slider?

>### - 'society' is what's being controlled by an elite, and in
>virtually the same manner the catholic church once used, it's just a
>lot more subtle these days is all but the methods are almost
>identical (why? coz it works!;)

Well thank goodness you're here to save us.

>>>hmmm we shall see :)

>>I doubt you will.

>>>>>That if, for example, one examines the documented methods of
>>>>>the once all powerful catholic church + how in their history
>>>>>they one time quite consciously + systematically got rid of
>>>>>all the competition to as to deliberately force/impose a very
>>>>>one-pointed
>>and >>>intelligently directed yet ultimately insane view of the
>>world upon >>>all their members, and this without even bothering to
>>get their
>>>>>members permission to do so >iow, they were a kind of
>>>>>self-appointed ruling class calling the shots for everyone
>>>>>they ruled over),
>>
>>>>You think religious zealots are reasonable people? I don't.
>>
>>>### - obviously not, especially after i just got through
>>>attempting to explain exactly that to you albeit the shoe being
>>>on the other foot (yours) lol, in that i was accusing zealous
>>>scientists of exactly that same behaviour in following 'their'
>>>beliefs/religion (scientism?) - go figure;)

>>I know you think science is a religious plot to control the
>>populace, it's what makes you so funny to talk at.

>### - oh i see, not talk to but at?? (i rest my case?:)

If someone isn't listening when you talk you're talking at them, not to
them. You're not listening.

>>>then it's possible to see that many of their methods still
>>>persist to the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely
>>>different + modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the
>>>population who lords it over everyone else...

>>Stop being lorded over then. Just STOP!It's a choice....

>### - didn't you see what happened to the 'occupy wall street'
>protestors?

The NY police overreacted.

>where was the choice in that??

Where was the choice for the people who were trying to go about their
normal lives while the protesters were trying to make them conform to
their wishes??

Trying to lord it over other people isn't the way to go about stopping
being lorded over.

>(crazy images of that new york police chief wading in there himself
>with a batton to demonstrate to his men just how ya 'deal' with
>protestors)

Didn't see them, I wasn't overly interested. Didn't you see it first
hand? If you thought they were right why not? If enough people are
pissed off enough enough of them will turn out to overwhelm the police,

>>>>The rich aren't necessarily reasonable either, you're straying
>>>>from your point.

>>>### - of course they're not reasonable else they wouldn't have
>>>gone
>>all >out for the money in the first place...

>>Not all of them did, some inherited (should they be found guilty of
>>the sins of their fathers (or mothers)), some were lucky (are
>>lottery winners evil) some are just clever and some back through
>>charitable means to give others a hand up. You have a one
>>dimensional view of the world, and of people.

>### - but i'm making a point here (rather graphically perhaps heh)
>that it's not all how you like to paint things, that there's a lot
>more going on just below the surface! (a heck of a lot actually, most
>of it quite horrible/ugly)

>>>the salient point being that documented methods of the past are
>>>basically still in force albeit in the hands of a different/modern
>>>power base.
>>
>>In exactly what way do you feel controlled?
>
>### - you 'keep' wanting to make this about 'me' (coz that's the only
>part you can go on the offensive with) whereas i'm merely making a
>social comment here, and i understand:

You're getting offended on behalf of others? Who elected you? Who even
asked you? If _you_ aren't being controlled who exactly is complaining
to you about being controlled? In what way do they tell you they are
being controlled? Who do they tell you is doing the controlling? Either
you're involved or you're not, which?

>you wanna shoot the messenger coz then you wont have to deal with the
>message! (you wanna hide your head in the sand is fine by me, just
>don't expect everyone to be like you:)

Have you convinced many people then? Enough to get elected to change
things?

>>>(for an intellectual you

>>I'm not an intellectual, I'm just some guy.

>### - you make yourself out to be one in the dreadfully condescending
>manner you use,

You make shit like that up so you can feel put upon, the martyr. I
treat people how I find them, usually better.

>whereby anything less than the way you talk and see
>things is looked down on, and then 'put' down with great relish on
>your part (i.e. you don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold
>anyone who disagrees with you,

I argue with things I disagree with, or I think are stupid. If you
don't have some relish in writing why write?

>(i.e. you don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold
>anyone who disagrees with you,

Woe betide? Lo' and behold? Whatever... what do you think I'm going to
do to you? You claim I don't like your style of writing but you think I
should conform to something you find acceptable?

> is a fascist approach)

You really want to move this closer to a 'Godwin' thing?

>>>really don't think and/or extrapolate too well ya know)

>>You extrapolate from 2+2 and find a worldwide conspiracy theory
>>instead of 4 (Base 10 for pedants)

>### - i like history is all (smile:) you can learn things from
>history! :)

Yeah, there are patterns there alright....

>>>>Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns
>>>>everything, another 19% do very well working for them, the
>>>>other 80% don't do very well at all..." --taken from his
>>>>manufacturing consent
>>
>>>>Good grief! Is that where your '80% of people are like a kid
>>>>that's just had his arms and legs blown off?' That's a hell of
>>>>contortion you're performing. You go to the poorest parts of
>>>>India or China and talk to the people there, people aren't as
>>>>unhappy as you think.

>### - (slider rolls his eye lol:) so then, do you know how you get a
>monkey to stand at an ultimately boring + soul destroying factory
>bench all day without complaining, for the rest of his fucking life?
>well, you have to 'damage' him is the quick answer, else he'll just
>wanna go and play in the trees like all his mates, iow, first you
>have to 'civil-ise' him (literally: made civil) and then indocrinate
>him with a load of old shit about how's a good way to live and spend
>all that money he gets for doing so, which of course is never
>actually enough to ever go and do anything else other than to return
>to work again next monday morning (any longer than 4 weeks holiday
>per annum and they might decide not to come back: seems to be the
>tried and tested happy medium;)

Heh, nice theory....

>>>### - well what else would you call a crippled majority (i.e.
>>>that 80% that don't do well at all as according to chomsky)

>>I would NOT call them 'that kid that's had all it's arms and legs
>>blown off for nothing.' That you do should ring alarm bells in your
>>head that there's something wrong in there - and it isn't 'being
>>the outsider.'

>### - whatever, you got my point is all that actually matters, and
>this whether you personally agree with it or not... 'damaged' is the
>real point, hobbled and made to go slower so they'll all be good
>workers (assuming there's enough jobs for 'em that is lol:) damaged
>enough anyway so that they'll never ever be able to fulfill doing
>something far more important for themselves (attend to their own
>personal evolution i mean) WAS the point... 80 fucking percent!!! (4
>fifths of the human race!)

One guy said it and you believe it, many disagree or at least think its
an exaggeration. Society is not utopian, it can't be because everyone
has their own view of utopia. What do you intend to replace what we
have now with? Communism? Anarchy? You do have a better plan don't you,
you wouldn't just be pissing in the wind?

>i mean, talk about crimes against humanity??

Yeah, you want to be responsible for the world? Get out there and fix
it.

>and anyone who knowingly 'supports' that (unwitting
>doesn't count) is either an asshole or just a cunt;)

Anyone who doesn't believe you're right is an asshole or a cunt and you
say I'm dictatorial and arrogant, that I don't debate?

>>>and so okay they've only got 'one' >limb metaphorically missing
>>>instead of all four (i was merely speaking in extremes for your
>>benefit >was all lol;)

>>You tried to call things what they demonstrably weren't to keep
>>things clear? No, you just got it wrong.

>### - i exaggerated the image for the sake of clarity is all, and you
>got my point, and so ok now turn the volume down from 9 to two and a
>half (so it's no longer blaring) + try to get over the way i
>personally talk/put things... coz all that's beside the point and not
>really relevent so there's no need to make an issue out of it (i.e.
>it's not easy to talk to erm, monkeys as it's hard to get 'em to stop
>jabbering and jumping around like they've all got a bunch of fleas up
>their arse hehe:)

If you talk bollocks to start with like you did how will I know when
you stop? Because you tell me you have? Could be more bollecks.

>>>they're still fucking 'limping' along basically barred (by no
>>>fault of their own) from living a fuller life, aren't they??

>>You're seeing your unhappiness reflected in others. It's an
>>illusion.

>### - try to be objective can't you,

I am. It's you that isn't, you're being emotive.

>this isn't even about me or you
>personally but the state of our world, the knowledge of which
>empowers one to know more clearly/correctly how to better comport
>oneself/live on this planet, that one's 'illusions' are reduced to
>the minimum (i mean, how can ya know what to do if ya doesn't really
>know what's actually going on, seems fairly obvious)

OK, here's your chance to tell me how you think we can improve things
and exactly how you're think we can achieve these changes. Be specific.

>to 'not' be fully thus aware perforce risks a lifetime of barking
>(sometimes literally heh;) up the wrong tree altogether, a mistake (a
>travesty actually) that no one can possibly ever afford to make coz
>we only ever get the one shot...

And you're spending your shot pondering the supposed misery of others
(so you'd have me believe.)

>i dunno if you're into films but you could try this

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7dXCRM6EOM

>alan sillitoe apparently took this to 17 different publishers before
>one of them finally realised the value of it, starring a very young
>albert finney, an important work... unfortunately it's not the full
>movie on there + it's actually quite hard to get a copy of it anymore
>(hmm now i wonder why;)

I have it somewhere on a dvd given away free in one of the weekend
papers (the mail I think) several years ago, so I don't think
suggesting it's been suppressed is fair. It's still widely available
for purchase even on order from some supermarkets.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>
>dccxxvii wrote

>>>>You think scientists are killing off anyone who dares to
>>>>disagree with their pet theory? You've been watching too much
>>>>telly.

>>>And nooo, i didn't say that at all,

>>Yes you did ."rational/reasonable people don't go around putting
>>people to death for dissent, so when they do..." "when they do"
>>definitely saying people are being put to death. It wasn't what you
>>meant? Who's fault is that. Stop with the over-egging and playing
>>to stupid overstatements and I'll stop calling you on it.

>### - but they do hehe, so 'when' they do it just means that they
>were/are not as reasonable nor rational as they were claiming to be,

Which is an argument for people being more rational (and therefore not
putting people to death) instead of just claiming to be rational, yes?
I thought you were against people being rational, if you're just
against murderous bastards *rationalizing* (attempting to explain or
justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these
are not appropriate:) rather than actually being rational and
reasonable that's fine by me, but not what you've said.

>that even though chomsky reckoned that they no longer send out death
>squads to deal with dissenters as they once did more openly, it still
>happens occasionally as when, for example, not that long ago the
>israelis were actually filmed taking some dissident guy out in a
>hotel, some/all of them using false passports that were fabricated at
>the top most level so as to be virtually undetectable...
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh

>http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/aftermath-of-dubai-assassina
tion-israel-against-extradition-of-suspected-mossad-agent-to-germany-a
-700507.html

It's quite an assumption that he was killed just for his political
dissent, he'd murdered 2 Israeli soldiers and pissed off numerous other
parties across the middle-east with actual actions not just words. It's
not as if he'd just been killed for 'dissent' so to speak. I'm not
saying revenge killings are always justifiable or even reasonable, but
this guy was in a war and knew it.

>>If you said what you meant rather than using over-dramatic bull-crap
>>maybe we could talk sensibly.
>
>### - you mean if i talk like you that is?? well sorry mate i talk
>like me in the way i choose to say and do things and not like 'you'
>or 'anyone' come to that (lol next you'll be telling how to think!
>damn cheek!;)

No, I have never had any intention of telling you what to think; as for
how to write when parts of it are demonstrably totally false (all lims
blown off / one limb blown off / (will you go down to 80% of people
have neuralgia next?) it's difficult to take anything you say
seriously. How keen are you to communicate?

>>Your sentences are running on more and more, are you upset?

>>### - and now i suppose you want me to write like you as well eh? and
>if i don't then there's something wrong with 'me'?? you certainly are
>conceited!

Your mind reading skills get worse and worse. Your suppositions are
entirely wrong.

>>Not at all, it's your pretentious drivel that scientists are part
>>of a conspiracy to control you, and in extension everyone (though
>>you also try to be seen as the outsider and beyond their control.)

>### - people who don't abide by the laws of the land are punished and
>controlled, it's got nothing to do with conspiracy, that's just the
>ways things are...

It's the only way large groups of people can live in a society, yes.

>conform or be forced to conform is how society works! it's what it's
>based on, and non conformists are not welcome!

They won't allow rape or murder or theft (one individual person forcing
another to conform to anothers control.) Either there is a group
consensus of things that are controlled or individuals are free to
force others to conform to their individual view of things ('I want
your wife and I'm going to take her.') I don't think I've met anybody
who fully complies with every regulation though, control is a lot
looser than you think.

>i mean, oh for sure they'll allow 'some' non conformity and even
>protests as long as they're 'approved', 'organised' and 'policed'

Unfortunately, in England, we have groups of people who hijack
otherwise peaceful protests with the intention of turning a crowd into
a riot through manipulation of mob dynamics. Allowing them just to go
unpoliced leads to normal people having to conform to the will of the
mob, replace burned cars and wrecked shops etc.) When there is human
interaction there is always some form of control. I prefer it to be
consensus rather than individual might. I'm quite prepared to break the
rules, as I see fit, through necessity though.

>(literally!) but go too far and you'll see they other side of the
>coin! plenty examples of which are currently occuring world wide!

Yes, again there are some very unreasonable parts of the world.

>>>also noted that seeing as you apparently have difficulty then in
>>>following perhaps more complex + convoluted lines of thought, i
>>>shall subsequently simplify accordingly for your benefit heh

>>Just stop talking bull-crap.

>### - well you're obviously a 'supporter' of said society (as i
>already said) so of course you defend it coz you don't like the
>'idea' that everything's not all hunky-dory in the wallyworld you
>live in and support:)

I don't think everything is hunky dory, I just don't find it as
challenging as you seem to. If you don't like the society you're living
in, and feel strongly about it, then get out there and convince people.
Get elected. Change things. Whining does nothing.

>>>(and also apparently for thang as well, lol

>>Shall we count your 'lol's and other affectations?

>>>2 self-professed logic-based brain boxes

>>Out and out lies now slider?

>>Where did I profess that?

>### - you profess it with your thoughts and words and the stance you
>take on these matters,

People that disagree with your bullshit fit into this catagory, they
have to conform to your view. No.

>it's implicit in everything you say and do
>like when you argue for logic and reason as though that's the only
>way of doing things and by claiming that anyone who doesn't 'conform'
>to that standard must have something wrong with 'them'...

I've told you several times that nobody operate only on logic and
reason - not me, not thang and you'll be pleased to know not you
either. I'd say someone that never uses reason has something wrong with
them, but there's no-on like that either.

>and thang
>is exactly the same! :)

>>Another 'lol' and a 'gawd' and a 'ya's' are there points in this
>>game?

>### - have you been playing a game??

Yes, of course. Figuratively and literally (I usually write bits
between hands of poker.)

>well i haven't, i'm totally serious, i may laugh and joke a lot about
>serious matters but that doesn't mean i'm not taking it all quite
>seriously,

Then here isn't the best place to do it. By all means use it to test
yourself and your arguments but writing here won't change a damn thing.
If you think society is flawed and you want it to change you need to be
much more proactive than it seems that you are. Get out there and
*make* things change. Otherwise you're just moaning in the wind.

>humour being like a shield that allows one to get close to
>difficult things without going crazy or becoming depressed,

I agree with you on this.

>the only other alternative being to pretend (like you) that
>everything's cool and not deal with it (the equivilent of wearing a
>blindfold)

That's not what I do.

>and i refuse to go through life in that manner...

No, you don't wear a blindfold, you have magnifying optics which makes
you blow things out of proportion

>i mean, c'mon take your blindfold off and see the world the way it
>'really' is instead of all this 'oh aren't we all so wonderful and
>clever and everything's fine' bs!

I've never said anything like that. My bit of the world is fine and I
work dilligently to keep it that way. You want to be a philanthropist
and change the world? You can't do it here dude.

>coz we're actually in a lot of trouble on this planet! and it's not
>improving!

People have been predicting the end of the world since BCE. People have
been whining about society ever since there's been such a thing I guess

>>>smile,
>>
>>Oohh.. 'smile'? Do you really think this faux emotionality helps
>>convey your message?
>
>### - oh i see hehe, it's my 'style' you object to is it? (yeah well
>fuck you haha, so bite me! and then let's move on;)

Oh, amongst other things. It just seems false.

>### - 'society' is what's being controlled by an elite, and in
>virtually the same manner the catholic church once used, it's just a
>lot more subtle these days is all but the methods are almost
>identical (why? coz it works!;)

Well thank goodness you're here to save us.

>>>hmmm we shall see :)

>>I doubt you will.

>>I know you think science is a religious plot to control the
>>populace, it's what makes you so funny to talk at.

>### - oh i see, not talk to but at?? (i rest my case?:)

If someone isn't listening when you talk you're talking at them, not to
them. You're not listening.

>>>then it's possible to see that many of their methods still
>>>persist to the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely
>>>different + modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the
>>>population who lords it over everyone else...

>>Stop being lorded over then. Just STOP!It's a choice....

>### - didn't you see what happened to the 'occupy wall street'
>protestors?

The NY police overreacted.

>where was the choice in that??

Where was the choice for the people who were trying to go about their
normal lives while the protesters were trying to make them conform to
their wishes??

Trying to lord it over other people isn't the way to go about stopping
being lorded over.

>(crazy images of that new york police chief wading in there himself
>with a batton to demonstrate to his men just how ya 'deal' with
>protestors)

Didn't see them, I wasn't overly interested. Didn't you see it first
hand? If you thought they were right why not? If enough people are
pissed off enough enough of them will turn out to overwhelm the police,

>>>the salient point being that documented methods of the past are
>>>basically still in force albeit in the hands of a different/modern
>>>power base.
>>
>>In exactly what way do you feel controlled?
>
>### - you 'keep' wanting to make this about 'me' (coz that's the only
>part you can go on the offensive with) whereas i'm merely making a
>social comment here, and i understand:

You're getting offended on behalf of others? Who elected you? Who even
asked you? If _you_ aren't being controlled who exactly is complaining
to you about being controlled? In what way do they tell you they are
being controlled? Who do they tell you is doing the controlling? Either
you're involved or you're not, which?

>you wanna shoot the messenger coz then you wont have to deal with the
>message! (you wanna hide your head in the sand is fine by me, just
>don't expect everyone to be like you:)

Have you convinced many people then? Enough to get elected to change
things?

>>>(for an intellectual you

>>I'm not an intellectual, I'm just some guy.

>### - you make yourself out to be one in the dreadfully condescending
>manner you use,

You make shit like that up so you can feel put upon, the martyr. I
treat people how I find them, usually better.

>whereby anything less than the way you talk and see
>things is looked down on, and then 'put' down with great relish on
>your part (i.e. you don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold
>anyone who disagrees with you,

I argue with things I disagree with, or I think are stupid. If you
don't have some relish in writing why write?

>(i.e. you don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold
>anyone who disagrees with you,

Woe betide? Lo' and behold? Whatever... what do you think I'm going to
do to you? You claim I don't like your style of writing but you think I
should conform to something you find acceptable?

> is a fascist approach)

You really want to move this closer to a 'Godwin' thing?

>>>really don't think and/or extrapolate too well ya know)

>>You extrapolate from 2+2 and find a worldwide conspiracy theory
>>instead of 4 (Base 10 for pedants)

>### - i like history is all (smile:) you can learn things from
>history! :)

Yeah, there are patterns there alright....

>>>>Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns
>>>>everything, another 19% do very well working for them, the
>>>>other 80% don't do very well at all..." --taken from his
>>>>manufacturing consent
>>
>>>>Good grief! Is that where your '80% of people are like a kid
>>>>that's just had his arms and legs blown off?' That's a hell of
>>>>contortion you're performing. You go to the poorest parts of
>>>>India or China and talk to the people there, people aren't as
>>>>unhappy as you think.

>### - (slider rolls his eye lol:) so then, do you know how you get a
>monkey to stand at an ultimately boring + soul destroying factory
>bench all day without complaining, for the rest of his fucking life?
>well, you have to 'damage' him is the quick answer, else he'll just
>wanna go and play in the trees like all his mates, iow, first you
>have to 'civil-ise' him (literally: made civil) and then indocrinate
>him with a load of old shit about how's a good way to live and spend
>all that money he gets for doing so, which of course is never
>actually enough to ever go and do anything else other than to return
>to work again next monday morning (any longer than 4 weeks holiday
>per annum and they might decide not to come back: seems to be the
>tried and tested happy medium;)

Heh, nice theory....

>>>### - well what else would you call a crippled majority (i.e.
>>>that 80% that don't do well at all as according to chomsky)

>>I would NOT call them 'that kid that's had all it's arms and legs
>>blown off for nothing.' That you do should ring alarm bells in your
>>head that there's something wrong in there - and it isn't 'being
>>the outsider.'

>### - whatever, you got my point is all that actually matters, and
>this whether you personally agree with it or not... 'damaged' is the
>real point, hobbled and made to go slower so they'll all be good
>workers (assuming there's enough jobs for 'em that is lol:) damaged
>enough anyway so that they'll never ever be able to fulfill doing
>something far more important for themselves (attend to their own
>personal evolution i mean) WAS the point... 80 fucking percent!!! (4
>fifths of the human race!)

One guy said it and you believe it, many disagree or at least think its
an exaggeration. Society is not utopian, it can't be because everyone
has their own view of utopia. What do you intend to replace what we
have now with? Communism? Anarchy? You do have a better plan don't you,
you wouldn't just be pissing in the wind?

>i mean, talk about crimes against humanity??

Yeah, you want to be responsible for the world? Get out there and fix
it.

>and anyone who knowingly 'supports' that (unwitting
>doesn't count) is either an asshole or just a cunt;)

Anyone who doesn't believe you're right is an asshole or a cunt and you
say I'm dictatorial and arrogant, that I don't debate?

>>>and so okay they've only got 'one' >limb metaphorically missing
>>>instead of all four (i was merely speaking in extremes for your
>>benefit >was all lol;)

>>You tried to call things what they demonstrably weren't to keep
>>things clear? No, you just got it wrong.

>### - i exaggerated the image for the sake of clarity is all, and you
>got my point, and so ok now turn the volume down from 9 to two and a
>half (so it's no longer blaring) + try to get over the way i
>personally talk/put things... coz all that's beside the point and not
>really relevent so there's no need to make an issue out of it (i.e.
>it's not easy to talk to erm, monkeys as it's hard to get 'em to stop
>jabbering and jumping around like they've all got a bunch of fleas up
>their arse hehe:)

If you talk bollocks to start with like you did how will I know when
you stop? Because you tell me you have? Could be more bollecks.

>>>they're still fucking 'limping' along basically barred (by no
>>>fault of their own) from living a fuller life, aren't they??

>>You're seeing your unhappiness reflected in others. It's an
>>illusion.

>### - try to be objective can't you,

I am. It's you that isn't, you're being emotive.

>this isn't even about me or you
>personally but the state of our world, the knowledge of which
>empowers one to know more clearly/correctly how to better comport
>oneself/live on this planet, that one's 'illusions' are reduced to
>the minimum (i mean, how can ya know what to do if ya doesn't really
>know what's actually going on, seems fairly obvious)

OK, here's your chance to tell me how you think we can improve things
and exactly how you're think we can achieve these changes. Be specific.

>to 'not' be fully thus aware perforce risks a lifetime of barking
>(sometimes literally heh;) up the wrong tree altogether, a mistake (a
>travesty actually) that no one can possibly ever afford to make coz
>we only ever get the one shot...

And you're spending your shot pondering the supposed misery of others
(so you'd have me believe.)

>i dunno if you're into films but you could try this

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7dXCRM6EOM

>alan sillitoe apparently took this to 17 different publishers before
>one of them finally realised the value of it, starring a very young
>albert finney, an important work... unfortunately it's not the full
>movie on there + it's actually quite hard to get a copy of it anymore
>(hmm now i wonder why;)

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>
>dccxxvii wrote

>>>>You think scientists are killing off anyone who dares to
>>>>disagree with their pet theory? You've been watching too much
>>>>telly.

>>>And nooo, i didn't say that at all,

>>Yes you did ."rational/reasonable people don't go around putting
>>people to death for dissent, so when they do..." "when they do"
>>definitely saying people are being put to death. It wasn't what you
>>meant? Who's fault is that. Stop with the over-egging and playing
>>to stupid overstatements and I'll stop calling you on it.

>### - but they do hehe, so 'when' they do it just means that they
>were/are not as reasonable nor rational as they were claiming to be,

Which is an argument for people being more rational (and therefore not
putting people to death) instead of just claiming to be rational, yes?
I thought you were against people being rational, if you're just
against murderous bastards *rationalizing* (attempting to explain or
justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these
are not appropriate:) rather than actually being rational and
reasonable that's fine by me, but not what you've said.

>that even though chomsky reckoned that they no longer send out death
>squads to deal with dissenters as they once did more openly, it still
>happens occasionally as when, for example, not that long ago the
>israelis were actually filmed taking some dissident guy out in a
>hotel, some/all of them using false passports that were fabricated at
>the top most level so as to be virtually undetectable...
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh

>http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/aftermath-of-dubai-assassina
tion-israel-against-extradition-of-suspected-mossad-agent-to-germany-a
-700507.html

It's quite an assumption that he was killed just for his political
dissent, he'd murdered 2 Israeli soldiers and pissed off numerous other
parties across the middle-east with actual actions not just words. It's
not as if he'd just been killed for 'dissent' so to speak. I'm not
saying revenge killings are always justifiable or even reasonable, but
this guy was in a war and knew it.

>>If you said what you meant rather than using over-dramatic bull-crap
>>maybe we could talk sensibly.
>
>### - you mean if i talk like you that is?? well sorry mate i talk
>like me in the way i choose to say and do things and not like 'you'
>or 'anyone' come to that (lol next you'll be telling how to think!
>damn cheek!;)

No, I have never had any intention of telling you what to think; as for
how to write when parts of it are demonstrably totally false (all lims
blown off / one limb blown off / (will you go down to 80% of people
have neuralgia next?) it's difficult to take anything you say
seriously. How keen are you to communicate?

>>Your sentences are running on more and more, are you upset?

>>### - and now i suppose you want me to write like you as well eh? and
>if i don't then there's something wrong with 'me'?? you certainly are
>conceited!

Your mind reading skills get worse and worse. Your suppositions are
entirely wrong.

>>Not at all, it's your pretentious drivel that scientists are part
>>of a conspiracy to control you, and in extension everyone (though
>>you also try to be seen as the outsider and beyond their control.)

>### - people who don't abide by the laws of the land are punished and
>controlled, it's got nothing to do with conspiracy, that's just the
>ways things are...

It's the only way large groups of people can live in a society, yes.

>conform or be forced to conform is how society works! it's what it's
>based on, and non conformists are not welcome!

They won't allow rape or murder or theft (one individual person forcing
another to conform to anothers control.) Either there is a group
consensus of things that are controlled or individuals are free to
force others to conform to their individual view of things ('I want
your wife and I'm going to take her.') I don't think I've met anybody
who fully complies with every regulation though, control is a lot
looser than you think.

>i mean, oh for sure they'll allow 'some' non conformity and even
>protests as long as they're 'approved', 'organised' and 'policed'

Unfortunately, in England, we have groups of people who hijack
otherwise peaceful protests with the intention of turning a crowd into
a riot through manipulation of mob dynamics. Allowing them just to go
unpoliced leads to normal people having to conform to the will of the
mob, replace burned cars and wrecked shops etc.) When there is human
interaction there is always some form of control. I prefer it to be
consensus rather than individual might. I'm quite prepared to break the
rules, as I see fit, through necessity though.

>(literally!) but go too far and you'll see they other side of the
>coin! plenty examples of which are currently occuring world wide!

Yes, again there are some very unreasonable parts of the world.

>>>also noted that seeing as you apparently have difficulty then in
>>>following perhaps more complex + convoluted lines of thought, i
>>>shall subsequently simplify accordingly for your benefit heh

>>Just stop talking bull-crap.

>### - well you're obviously a 'supporter' of said society (as i
>already said) so of course you defend it coz you don't like the
>'idea' that everything's not all hunky-dory in the wallyworld you
>live in and support:)

I don't think everything is hunky dory, I just don't find it as
challenging as you seem to. If you don't like the society you're living
in, and feel strongly about it, then get out there and convince people.
Get elected. Change things. Whining does nothing.

>>>(and also apparently for thang as well, lol

>>Shall we count your 'lol's and other affectations?

>>>2 self-professed logic-based brain boxes

>>Out and out lies now slider?

>>Where did I profess that?

>### - you profess it with your thoughts and words and the stance you
>take on these matters,

People that disagree with your bullshit fit into this catagory, they
have to conform to your view. No.

>it's implicit in everything you say and do
>like when you argue for logic and reason as though that's the only
>way of doing things and by claiming that anyone who doesn't 'conform'
>to that standard must have something wrong with 'them'...

I've told you several times that nobody operate only on logic and
reason - not me, not thang and you'll be pleased to know not you
either. I'd say someone that never uses reason has something wrong with
them, but there's no-on like that either.

>and thang
>is exactly the same! :)

>>Another 'lol' and a 'gawd' and a 'ya's' are there points in this
>>game?

>### - have you been playing a game??

Yes, of course. Figuratively and literally (I usually write bits
between hands of poker.)

>well i haven't, i'm totally serious, i may laugh and joke a lot about
>serious matters but that doesn't mean i'm not taking it all quite
>seriously,

Then here isn't the best place to do it. By all means use it to test
yourself and your arguments but writing here won't change a damn thing.
If you think society is flawed and you want it to change you need to be
much more proactive than it seems that you are. Get out there and
*make* things change. Otherwise you're just moaning in the wind.

>humour being like a shield that allows one to get close to
>difficult things without going crazy or becoming depressed,

I agree with you on this.

>the only other alternative being to pretend (like you) that
>everything's cool and not deal with it (the equivilent of wearing a
>blindfold)

That's not what I do.

>and i refuse to go through life in that manner...

No, you don't wear a blindfold, you have magnifying optics which makes
you blow things out of proportion

>i mean, c'mon take your blindfold off and see the world the way it
>'really' is instead of all this 'oh aren't we all so wonderful and
>clever and everything's fine' bs!

I've never said anything like that. My bit of the world is fine and I
work dilligently to keep it that way. You want to be a philanthropist
and change the world? You can't do it here dude.

>coz we're actually in a lot of trouble on this planet! and it's not
>improving!

People have been predicting the end of the world since BCE. People have
been whining about society ever since there's been such a thing I guess

>>>smile,
>>
>>Oohh.. 'smile'? Do you really think this faux emotionality helps
>>convey your message?
>
>### - oh i see hehe, it's my 'style' you object to is it? (yeah well
>fuck you haha, so bite me! and then let's move on;)

Oh, amongst other things. It just seems false.

>### - 'society' is what's being controlled by an elite, and in
>virtually the same manner the catholic church once used, it's just a
>lot more subtle these days is all but the methods are almost
>identical (why? coz it works!;)

Well thank goodness you're here to save us.

>>>hmmm we shall see :)

>>I doubt you will.

>>I know you think science is a religious plot to control the
>>populace, it's what makes you so funny to talk at.

>### - oh i see, not talk to but at?? (i rest my case?:)

If someone isn't listening when you talk you're talking at them, not to
them. You're not listening.

>>>then it's possible to see that many of their methods still
>>>persist to the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely
>>>different + modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the
>>>population who lords it over everyone else...

>>Stop being lorded over then. Just STOP!It's a choice....

>### - didn't you see what happened to the 'occupy wall street'
>protestors?

The NY police overreacted.

>where was the choice in that??

Where was the choice for the people who were trying to go about their
normal lives while the protesters were trying to make them conform to
their wishes??

Trying to lord it over other people isn't the way to go about stopping
being lorded over.

>(crazy images of that new york police chief wading in there himself
>with a batton to demonstrate to his men just how ya 'deal' with
>protestors)

Didn't see them, I wasn't overly interested. Didn't you see it first
hand? If you thought they were right why not? If enough people are
pissed off enough enough of them will turn out to overwhelm the police,

>>>the salient point being that documented methods of the past are
>>>basically still in force albeit in the hands of a different/modern
>>>power base.
>>
>>In exactly what way do you feel controlled?
>
>### - you 'keep' wanting to make this about 'me' (coz that's the only
>part you can go on the offensive with) whereas i'm merely making a
>social comment here, and i understand:

You're getting offended on behalf of others? Who elected you? Who even
asked you? If _you_ aren't being controlled who exactly is complaining
to you about being controlled? In what way do they tell you they are
being controlled? Who do they tell you is doing the controlling? Either
you're involved or you're not, which?

>you wanna shoot the messenger coz then you wont have to deal with the
>message! (you wanna hide your head in the sand is fine by me, just
>don't expect everyone to be like you:)

Have you convinced many people then? Enough to get elected to change
things?

>>>(for an intellectual you

>>I'm not an intellectual, I'm just some guy.

>### - you make yourself out to be one in the dreadfully condescending
>manner you use,

You make shit like that up so you can feel put upon, the martyr. I
treat people how I find them, usually better.

>whereby anything less than the way you talk and see
>things is looked down on, and then 'put' down with great relish on
>your part (i.e. you don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold
>anyone who disagrees with you,

I argue with things I disagree with, or I think are stupid. If you
don't have some relish in writing why write?

>(i.e. you don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold
>anyone who disagrees with you,

Woe betide? Lo' and behold? Whatever... what do you think I'm going to
do to you? You claim I don't like your style of writing but you think I
should conform to something you find acceptable?

> is a fascist approach)

You really want to move this closer to a 'Godwin' thing?

>>>really don't think and/or extrapolate too well ya know)

>>You extrapolate from 2+2 and find a worldwide conspiracy theory
>>instead of 4 (Base 10 for pedants)

>### - i like history is all (smile:) you can learn things from
>history! :)

Yeah, there are patterns there alright....

>>>>Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns
>>>>everything, another 19% do very well working for them, the
>>>>other 80% don't do very well at all..." --taken from his
>>>>manufacturing consent
>>
>>>>Good grief! Is that where your '80% of people are like a kid
>>>>that's just had his arms and legs blown off?' That's a hell of
>>>>contortion you're performing. You go to the poorest parts of
>>>>India or China and talk to the people there, people aren't as
>>>>unhappy as you think.

>### - (slider rolls his eye lol:) so then, do you know how you get a
>monkey to stand at an ultimately boring + soul destroying factory
>bench all day without complaining, for the rest of his fucking life?
>well, you have to 'damage' him is the quick answer, else he'll just
>wanna go and play in the trees like all his mates, iow, first you
>have to 'civil-ise' him (literally: made civil) and then indocrinate
>him with a load of old shit about how's a good way to live and spend
>all that money he gets for doing so, which of course is never
>actually enough to ever go and do anything else other than to return
>to work again next monday morning (any longer than 4 weeks holiday
>per annum and they might decide not to come back: seems to be the
>tried and tested happy medium;)

Heh, nice theory....

>>>### - well what else would you call a crippled majority (i.e.
>>>that 80% that don't do well at all as according to chomsky)

>>I would NOT call them 'that kid that's had all it's arms and legs
>>blown off for nothing.' That you do should ring alarm bells in your
>>head that there's something wrong in there - and it isn't 'being
>>the outsider.'

>### - whatever, you got my point is all that actually matters, and
>this whether you personally agree with it or not... 'damaged' is the
>real point, hobbled and made to go slower so they'll all be good
>workers (assuming there's enough jobs for 'em that is lol:) damaged
>enough anyway so that they'll never ever be able to fulfill doing
>something far more important for themselves (attend to their own
>personal evolution i mean) WAS the point... 80 fucking percent!!! (4
>fifths of the human race!)

One guy said it and you believe it, many disagree or at least think its
an exaggeration. Society is not utopian, it can't be because everyone
has their own view of utopia. What do you intend to replace what we
have now with? Communism? Anarchy? You do have a better plan don't you,
you wouldn't just be pissing in the wind?

>i mean, talk about crimes against humanity??

Yeah, you want to be responsible for the world? Get out there and fix
it.

>and anyone who knowingly 'supports' that (unwitting
>doesn't count) is either an asshole or just a cunt;)

Anyone who doesn't believe you're right is an asshole or a cunt and you
say I'm dictatorial and arrogant, that I don't debate?

>>>and so okay they've only got 'one' >limb metaphorically missing
>>>instead of all four (i was merely speaking in extremes for your
>>benefit >was all lol;)

>>You tried to call things what they demonstrably weren't to keep
>>things clear? No, you just got it wrong.

>### - i exaggerated the image for the sake of clarity is all, and you
>got my point, and so ok now turn the volume down from 9 to two and a
>half (so it's no longer blaring) + try to get over the way i
>personally talk/put things... coz all that's beside the point and not
>really relevent so there's no need to make an issue out of it (i.e.
>it's not easy to talk to erm, monkeys as it's hard to get 'em to stop
>jabbering and jumping around like they've all got a bunch of fleas up
>their arse hehe:)

If you talk bollocks to start with like you did how will I know when
you stop? Because you tell me you have? Could be more bollecks.

>>>they're still fucking 'limping' along basically barred (by no
>>>fault of their own) from living a fuller life, aren't they??

>>You're seeing your unhappiness reflected in others. It's an
>>illusion.

>### - try to be objective can't you,

I am. It's you that isn't, you're being emotive.

>this isn't even about me or you
>personally but the state of our world, the knowledge of which
>empowers one to know more clearly/correctly how to better comport
>oneself/live on this planet, that one's 'illusions' are reduced to
>the minimum (i mean, how can ya know what to do if ya doesn't really
>know what's actually going on, seems fairly obvious)

OK, here's your chance to tell me how you think we can improve things
and exactly how you're think we can achieve these changes. Be specific.

>to 'not' be fully thus aware perforce risks a lifetime of barking
>(sometimes literally heh;) up the wrong tree altogether, a mistake (a
>travesty actually) that no one can possibly ever afford to make coz
>we only ever get the one shot...

And you're spending your shot pondering the supposed misery of others
(so you'd have me believe.)

>i dunno if you're into films but you could try this

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7dXCRM6EOM

>alan sillitoe apparently took this to 17 different publishers before
>one of them finally realised the value of it, starring a very young
>albert finney, an important work... unfortunately it's not the full
>movie on there + it's actually quite hard to get a copy of it anymore
>(hmm now i wonder why;)

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote

>>>>>>### - i'm talking history here not paranoia + i totally agree
>>>>>>with you that rational/reasonable people don't go around
>>>>>>putting people to death for dissent, so when they do then
>>>>>>obviously they were/are not quite as rational/reasonable as
>>>>>>they've maybe been purporting themselves to be?
>>>

>>>>>You think scientists are killing off anyone who dares to
>>>>>disagree with their pet theory? You've been watching too much
>>>>>telly.
>
>>>>And nooo, i didn't say that at all,
>
>>>Yes you did ."rational/reasonable people don't go around putting
>>>people to death for dissent, so when they do..." "when they do"
>>>definitely saying people are being put to death. It wasn't what you
>>>meant? Who's fault is that. Stop with the over-egging and playing
>>>to stupid overstatements and I'll stop calling you on it.
>
>>### - but they do hehe, so 'when' they do it just means that they
>>were/are not as reasonable nor rational as they were claiming to be,
>
> Which is an argument for people being more rational (and therefore not
> putting people to death) instead of just claiming to be rational, yes?
> I thought you were against people being rational, if you're just
> against murderous bastards *rationalizing* (attempting to explain or
> justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these
> are not appropriate:) rather than actually being rational and
> reasonable that's fine by me, but not what you've said.

### - that would be included of course but that's not really the point, the
problem is with rationality per se in that it's open to interpretation and
manipulation in order to further selfish ends and/or ends that are not
necessarily in the best interests of the majority which is what democracy is
supposed to be all about (hence some people being more equal than others etc
etc, as in if they've got more money or more political clout, one law for
the rich and one for the poor etc etc etc until democracy per se itself
starts to look like a sham in the same way religion was a sham used only for
controlling society, and if you can't see that (or refuse to) then that's
the same as wearing a blindfold and living in hunky-dory la la land)

>
>>that even though chomsky reckoned that they no longer send out death
>>squads to deal with dissenters as they once did more openly, it still
>>happens occasionally as when, for example, not that long ago the
>>israelis were actually filmed taking some dissident guy out in a
>>hotel, some/all of them using false passports that were fabricated at
>>the top most level so as to be virtually undetectable...
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh
>
>>http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/aftermath-of-dubai-assassina
> tion-israel-against-extradition-of-suspected-mossad-agent-to-germany-a
> -700507.html
>
> It's quite an assumption that he was killed just for his political
> dissent, he'd murdered 2 Israeli soldiers and pissed off numerous other
> parties across the middle-east with actual actions not just words. It's
> not as if he'd just been killed for 'dissent' so to speak. I'm not
> saying revenge killings are always justifiable or even reasonable, but
> this guy was in a war and knew it.

### - well that's what they said alright to justify their own unlawful
behaviour, but ya can't trust that to be truthful when they themselves were
found to be committing unlawful acts, governments capable of forging high
quality passports for nefarious purposes can't then be trusted to tell the
truth about the whole situation as they have vested interests

lol even the police chief received death threats afterwards for chrissakes!
or are you really that naive?:)

>
>>>>what i actually implied, that you've apparently totally missed
>>>>(even though you said that you maintained that you did in fact
>>>>understand where i'm coming from but which translates now as
>>>>just you merely making ignorant + silly sarcastic remarks to
>>>>cover that >very lack of understanding, plus note i didn't accuse
>>>>you of dishonesty, not yet anyway;) was simply that a tiny
>>>>percentage of the population are basically, one way or another +
>>>>in fact many ways, calling the shots for the rest of us,
>>>

>>>If you said what you meant rather than using over-dramatic bull-crap
>>>maybe we could talk sensibly.
>>
>>### - you mean if i talk like you that is?? well sorry mate i talk
>>like me in the way i choose to say and do things and not like 'you'
>>or 'anyone' come to that (lol next you'll be telling how to think!
>>damn cheek!;)
>
> No, I have never had any intention of telling you what to think; as for
> how to write when parts of it are demonstrably totally false (all lims
> blown off / one limb blown off / (will you go down to 80% of people
> have neuralgia next?) it's difficult to take anything you say
> seriously. How keen are you to communicate?

### - yeah i've said all these strange things haven't i hehe, and yet you
still understand what i'm saying innit, even if you don't ultimately agree

>
>>>Your sentences are running on more and more, are you upset?
>
>>>### - and now i suppose you want me to write like you as well eh? and
>>if i don't then there's something wrong with 'me'?? you certainly are
>>conceited!
>
> Your mind reading skills get worse and worse. Your suppositions are
> entirely wrong.

### - well you just got through telling me (previous paragraph) how i don't
write or talk properly as according to you people should or aught to, so
where exactly am i wrong or doing mind reading?

>>>>scientists being merely only one of the layers in the employ of
>>>>that top 1%, whereas i could have just as easily pointed to
>>>>politicians and/or big businesses doing exactly the same thing,
>>>>only we were actually talking about science so scientists just
>>>>seemed more appropriate and in-context with our present
>>>>conversation, was all +
>>>was >that really so very difficult for you?:)
>

>>>Not at all, it's your pretentious drivel that scientists are part
>>>of a conspiracy to control you, and in extension everyone (though
>>>you also try to be seen as the outsider and beyond their control.)
>
>>### - people who don't abide by the laws of the land are punished and
>>controlled, it's got nothing to do with conspiracy, that's just the
>>ways things are...
>
> It's the only way large groups of people can live in a society, yes.

### - well that's right, drum into people's heads over a couple of thousand
years not to kill or steal or covet or commit adultery or lie (at least 10
commandments) and you might just arrive at a semblance of organised society,
if in fact the direct result of all that drumming is precisely what produced
it... plus now it's even possible to more clearly see the role religion has
directly played in that production (i.e. the church 'was' the state at one
time and then they're supposed to have separated in the sense that the end
result of all that work (modern society) now wants to distance itself from
its own antecedence (i.e. coz it's revolting and untenable) but did they
really separate or has one just turned into the other! (hence meet the new
boss same as the old boss and what was meant by that;)

>
>>conform or be forced to conform is how society works! it's what it's
>>based on, and non conformists are not welcome!
>
> They won't allow rape or murder or theft (one individual person forcing

> another to conform to another's control.) Either there is a group

> consensus of things that are controlled or individuals are free to
> force others to conform to their individual view of things ('I want
> your wife and I'm going to take her.') I don't think I've met anybody
> who fully complies with every regulation though, control is a lot
> looser than you think.

### - well that's just great... on paper! and then ya get one law for the
rich and another for the poor?

"we don't live in a democracy, we live in a hypocrisy!" --malcomb x

>
>>i mean, oh for sure they'll allow 'some' non conformity and even
>>protests as long as they're 'approved', 'organised' and 'policed'
>
> Unfortunately, in England, we have groups of people who hijack
> otherwise peaceful protests with the intention of turning a crowd into
> a riot through manipulation of mob dynamics. Allowing them just to go
> unpoliced leads to normal people having to conform to the will of the
> mob, replace burned cars and wrecked shops etc.) When there is human
> interaction there is always some form of control. I prefer it to be
> consensus rather than individual might. I'm quite prepared to break the
> rules, as I see fit, through necessity though.

### - agent provocateurs on both sides "hijack" crowds, plus if you
don't think governments also use those same methods to 'reinforce' and/or
'deter' certain behaviour among the populace, then not only are you wearing
a blindfold; you've also got a brown paper bag over your head as well (which
is a bit of a private joke heh in that a friend once said to me that the
only way 'he' could ever be in a nudist colony would be to wear a brown
paper bag over his head haha:)

>
>>(literally!) but go too far and you'll see they other side of the

>>coin! plenty examples of which are currently occurring world wide!

>
> Yes, again there are some very unreasonable parts of the world.

### - some?? it's everywhere pal... they even do it here in england too...
in fact england is famous for it and for teaching it to the rest of the
world :)

>
>>>>also noted that seeing as you apparently have difficulty then in
>>>>following perhaps more complex + convoluted lines of thought, i
>>>>shall subsequently simplify accordingly for your benefit heh
>
>>>Just stop talking bull-crap.
>
>>### - well you're obviously a 'supporter' of said society (as i
>>already said) so of course you defend it coz you don't like the
>>'idea' that everything's not all hunky-dory in the wallyworld you
>>live in and support:)
>
> I don't think everything is hunky dory, I just don't find it as
> challenging as you seem to. If you don't like the society you're living
> in, and feel strongly about it, then get out there and convince people.
> Get elected. Change things. Whining does nothing.

### - well, when that route doesn't work/is frustrated (coz it doesn't/isn't
allowed to beyond a point) people turn to anarchy as the only solution left,
but which, when one examines it, also doesn't work as what only always ends
up happening is yet more people getting hurt and nothing actually changing
(i.e. they have tried, tested and long evolved measures to deal directly
with anarchy as that is the most substantial threat (from within) to any
society, and is backed up with warplanes if necessary to put it down)

>
>>>>(and also apparently for thang as well, lol
>
>>>Shall we count your 'lol's and other affectations?
>
>>>>2 self-professed logic-based brain boxes
>
>>>Out and out lies now slider?
>
>>>Where did I profess that?
>
>>### - you profess it with your thoughts and words and the stance you
>>take on these matters,
>
> People that disagree with your bullshit fit into this catagory, they
> have to conform to your view. No.

### - my style might well be bs heh, but the information is correct :)

>
>>it's implicit in everything you say and do
>>like when you argue for logic and reason as though that's the only
>>way of doing things and by claiming that anyone who doesn't 'conform'
>>to that standard must have something wrong with 'them'...
>
> I've told you several times that nobody operate only on logic and
> reason - not me, not thang and you'll be pleased to know not you
> either. I'd say someone that never uses reason has something wrong with
> them, but there's no-on like that either.

### - zen masters are reputedly like that + from their pov there's something
not quite right with everyone else too, so it's hard to nail things down
completely either one way or the other (which is precisely what i've been
saying/suggesting all along:)

>
>>and thang
>>is exactly the same! :)
>

>>>>who start falling at the first fence! (+ gawd help ya's when it
>>>really >'does' get more complicated lol, coz this is the easy

>>>stuff:)

>
>>>Another 'lol' and a 'gawd' and a 'ya's' are there points in this
>>>game?
>
>>### - have you been playing a game??
>
> Yes, of course. Figuratively and literally (I usually write bits
> between hands of poker.)
>
>>well i haven't, i'm totally serious, i may laugh and joke a lot about
>>serious matters but that doesn't mean i'm not taking it all quite
>>seriously,
>
> Then here isn't the best place to do it. By all means use it to test
> yourself and your arguments but writing here won't change a damn thing.
> If you think society is flawed and you want it to change you need to be
> much more proactive than it seems that you are. Get out there and
> *make* things change. Otherwise you're just moaning in the wind.

### - arguably here is as good as anywhere for all the good it will likely
ultimately do anyway hehehe, plus the only reason i'm here at all is by
invitation ;-)

otoh, in the world of art it is often said that if you can reach even only
'one' other person then you've already succeeded! so who knows :)

>>humour being like a shield that allows one to get close to
>>difficult things without going crazy or becoming depressed,
>
> I agree with you on this.
>
>>the only other alternative being to pretend (like you) that

>>everything's cool and not deal with it (the equivalent of wearing a

>>blindfold)
>
> That's not what I do.

### - are you still really quite so sure about that?

>>and i refuse to go through life in that manner...
>
> No, you don't wear a blindfold, you have magnifying optics which makes
> you blow things out of proportion

### - (laughing;) well, maybe you could do with a pair of magnifying
glasses yourself mate innit (and then maybe even the blind might begin to
see? :-)

>>i mean, c'mon take your blindfold off and see the world the way it
>>'really' is instead of all this 'oh aren't we all so wonderful and
>>clever and everything's fine' bs!
>
> I've never said anything like that. My bit of the world is fine and I
> work dilligently to keep it that way. You want to be a philanthropist
> and change the world? You can't do it here dude.

### - actually (plus sadly) it can't be done anywhere (i.e. one cannot save
the impossible) it's a ship heading for the rocks under its own inertia, its
turning circle too great now to avoid anything even if they see it (you must
have seen titanic?;) that in terms of practical reality + barring a miracle
(say aliens turning up in the nick of time to save us from ourselves kinda
miracle, iow no fucking chance!) it just can't be done! basically we're
screwed :)

>>coz we're actually in a lot of trouble on this planet! and it's not
>>improving!
>
> People have been predicting the end of the world since BCE. People have
> been whining about society ever since there's been such a thing I guess

### - and well maybe they were actually right, that what we've 'created' (a
monster?) flies in the face of nature and/or is anathema to nature, that
what we all like to think/dream is so very cool, is, in reality, so fucking
ugly that it can never ultimately survive... (mary shelly certainly didn't
think so;)

>
>>>>smile,
>>>
>>>Oohh.. 'smile'? Do you really think this faux emotionality helps
>>>convey your message?
>>
>>### - oh i see hehe, it's my 'style' you object to is it? (yeah well
>>fuck you haha, so bite me! and then let's move on;)
>
> Oh, amongst other things. It just seems false.

### - versus... don't always judge a book by its, erm, cover? :)

>
>>>>so are we all awake now and all on the same page already, or do
>>>>you really require everything (extra work for me basically) all
>>>spelled-out >for ya's?
>
>>>I know you think you're being controlled by the elite, but that's
>>>your delusion not mine. I can get what I need without any monetary
>>>reliance, I can find out what I need to know without restriction -
>>>where is the trap slider?
>

>>### - 'society' is what's being controlled by an elite, and in
>>virtually the same manner the catholic church once used, it's just a
>>lot more subtle these days is all but the methods are almost
>>identical (why? coz it works!;)
>
> Well thank goodness you're here to save us.

### - lol i can't save ya, perforce one has to save one's self (if you ever
decide to do so that is, or indeed even see/recognise the need to do so, and
coz no one will be twisting your arm either way;)

indeed, you might be so completely content (like proverbial pigs in shite
perhaps) that you wouldn't want to be saved even if ya could be!

e.g.... throw open the gates of 'any' prison and there's some in there that
will refuse to come out (coz they been in there too long i mean, and just
couldn't hack it like that old gorilla in the film instinct who had given
up, his spirit broken)

>
>>>>hmmm we shall see :)
>
>>>I doubt you will.
>

>>>>>>That if, for example, one examines the documented methods of
>>>>>>the once all powerful catholic church + how in their history
>>>>>>they one time quite consciously + systematically got rid of
>>>>>>all the competition to as to deliberately force/impose a very
>>>>>>one-pointed
>>>and >>>intelligently directed yet ultimately insane view of the
>>>world upon >>>all their members, and this without even bothering to
>>>get their
>>>>>>members permission to do so >iow, they were a kind of
>>>>>>self-appointed ruling class calling the shots for everyone
>>>>>>they ruled over),
>>>
>>>>>You think religious zealots are reasonable people? I don't.
>>>
>>>>### - obviously not, especially after i just got through
>>>>attempting to explain exactly that to you albeit the shoe being
>>>>on the other foot (yours) lol, in that i was accusing zealous
>>>>scientists of exactly that same behaviour in following 'their'
>>>>beliefs/religion (scientism?) - go figure;)
>

>>>I know you think science is a religious plot to control the
>>>populace, it's what makes you so funny to talk at.
>
>>### - oh i see, not talk to but at?? (i rest my case?:)
>
> If someone isn't listening when you talk you're talking at them, not to
> them. You're not listening.

### - well you ain't actually saying anything so far :)

>
>>>>then it's possible to see that many of their methods still
>>>>persist to the present day albeit now in the hands of an entirely
>>>>different + modern ruling class (the wealthy), the 1% of the
>>>>population who lords it over everyone else...
>
>>>Stop being lorded over then. Just STOP!It's a choice....
>
>>### - didn't you see what happened to the 'occupy wall street'

>>protesters?

>
> The NY police overreacted.
>
>>where was the choice in that??
>
> Where was the choice for the people who were trying to go about their
> normal lives while the protesters were trying to make them conform to
> their wishes??

### - oh those 19% you mean? yeah, i can see how that must have been simply
really terrible for 'em innit, the poor dears not earning their huge bonuses
today while the protesting majority starves or lose their homes, awww
shame... i know, why don't we just get the nypd to kick all their fucking
heads in as it's about time they earned their public servants pay innit (lol
are you MAD or what?? :)

>
> Trying to lord it over other people isn't the way to go about stopping
> being lorded over.

### - versus: i've already agreed that anarchy is not (and cannot ever be)
the answer, which basically leaves us (humanity) still well up shite creek
and no paddle: a horrendous state of affairs that ain't gonna be solved
anytime soon! (iow, perforce it's only gonna get worse not better)

>
>>(crazy images of that new york police chief wading in there himself
>>with a batton to demonstrate to his men just how ya 'deal' with
>>protestors)
>
> Didn't see them, I wasn't overly interested. Didn't you see it first
> hand? If you thought they were right why not? If enough people are
> pissed off enough enough of them will turn out to overwhelm the police,

### - i dunno how you missed it as it was literally on every news station on
a rolling news basis for ages, or perhaps you just didn't notice? (we're
forced to look the other way sometimes, or perhaps all the time until one is
blind to it, who knows;)

>>>>>The rich aren't necessarily reasonable either, you're straying
>>>>>from your point.
>
>>>>### - of course they're not reasonable else they wouldn't have
>>>>gone
>>>all >out for the money in the first place...
>
>>>Not all of them did, some inherited (should they be found guilty of
>>>the sins of their fathers (or mothers)), some were lucky (are
>>>lottery winners evil) some are just clever and some back through
>>>charitable means to give others a hand up. You have a one
>>>dimensional view of the world, and of people.
>
>>### - but i'm making a point here (rather graphically perhaps heh)
>>that it's not all how you like to paint things, that there's a lot
>>more going on just below the surface! (a heck of a lot actually, most
>>of it quite horrible/ugly)
>

>>>>the salient point being that documented methods of the past are
>>>>basically still in force albeit in the hands of a different/modern
>>>>power base.
>>>
>>>In exactly what way do you feel controlled?
>>
>>### - you 'keep' wanting to make this about 'me' (coz that's the only
>>part you can go on the offensive with) whereas i'm merely making a
>>social comment here, and i understand:
>
> You're getting offended on behalf of others? Who elected you? Who even
> asked you? If _you_ aren't being controlled who exactly is complaining
> to you about being controlled? In what way do they tell you they are
> being controlled? Who do they tell you is doing the controlling? Either
> you're involved or you're not, which?

### - are you really saying that people starving to death (for example)
means absolutely nothing to you? you don't seem like a psychopath to me...

ever seen the film 'logans run'? there's a paraphrased sartre quote in there
(oooh look, no capital s for sartre, i should be flogged no?;) re: logan
saying to jessica that he 'has' to go back because they're killing people
there every day for nothing + how can he ever really live free knowing it's
all going on not try to do something about it? (or words to that effect)

>
>>you wanna shoot the messenger coz then you wont have to deal with the
>>message! (you wanna hide your head in the sand is fine by me, just
>>don't expect everyone to be like you:)
>
> Have you convinced many people then? Enough to get elected to change
> things?

### - forget being elected (or even going that route) coz that's all a sham
too + there could never be enough to actually change things that drastically
anyway and/or you'd undoubtedly be assassinated if it even looked like you
might succeed, those 1 percenters don't want things to change coz it's
suited them perfectly the way it is until now, they in fact created it :)

>
>>>>(for an intellectual you
>
>>>I'm not an intellectual, I'm just some guy.
>
>>### - you make yourself out to be one in the dreadfully condescending
>>manner you use,
>
> You make shit like that up so you can feel put upon, the martyr. I
> treat people how I find them, usually better.

### - actually, in the way you argue (if one could call it that exactly
heh;) you remind me of that fucking foolish finn i encountered on here some
time back? and also your friend tom here who both use almost the same high
handed (pretty offensive actually) manner and tone like they already know
fucking everything, but when ya talk to them obviously don't? (so are you
lot all copying each other or what? plus where's the originality in that;)

>>whereby anything less than the way you talk and see
>>things is looked down on, and then 'put' down with great relish on
>>your part (i.e. you don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold
>>anyone who disagrees with you,
>
> I argue with things I disagree with, or I think are stupid. If you
> don't have some relish in writing why write?

### - well maybe it's just that 'some' people actually have something to,
offer/say? (anyone can be a critic but not everyone produces something to
criticise:)

>
>>(i.e. you don't debate, you dictate, and then woe behold
>>anyone who disagrees with you,
>
> Woe betide? Lo' and behold? Whatever... what do you think I'm going to
> do to you? You claim I don't like your style of writing but you think I
> should conform to something you find acceptable?

### - (laughing;) well so far there's been at least a dozen things you've
accused me of that just isn't correct, and that were in fact all from you!
there's no open-ness in you! no flexibility, no adaptability, and your tools
are very crude... it's like you have this hammer you bash things with, and
that's it + when that doesn't work lol you get a bigger hammer! and then you
expect people to take you... seriously?

put it another way then... if this all turned out to be a 'test' of you,
then you're not actually doing very well are ya mate! (i wouldn't give
ya a chance in hell at the moment)

>
>> is a fascist approach)
>
> You really want to move this closer to a 'Godwin' thing?
>
>>>>really don't think and/or extrapolate too well ya know)
>
>>>You extrapolate from 2+2 and find a worldwide conspiracy theory
>>>instead of 4 (Base 10 for pedants)
>
>>### - i like history is all (smile:) you can learn things from
>>history! :)
>
> Yeah, there are patterns there alright....

### - yeah... and all of them entirely humanly created! (go figure!:)

>
>>>>>Again referring to chomsky: "1% of the population owns
>>>>>everything, another 19% do very well working for them, the
>>>>>other 80% don't do very well at all..." --taken from his
>>>>>manufacturing consent
>>>
>>>>>Good grief! Is that where your '80% of people are like a kid
>>>>>that's just had his arms and legs blown off?' That's a hell of
>>>>>contortion you're performing. You go to the poorest parts of
>>>>>India or China and talk to the people there, people aren't as
>>>>>unhappy as you think.
>
>>### - (slider rolls his eye lol:) so then, do you know how you get a
>>monkey to stand at an ultimately boring + soul destroying factory
>>bench all day without complaining, for the rest of his fucking life?
>>well, you have to 'damage' him is the quick answer, else he'll just
>>wanna go and play in the trees like all his mates, iow, first you

>>have to 'civil-ise' him (literally: made civil) and then indoctrinate

>>him with a load of old shit about how's a good way to live and spend
>>all that money he gets for doing so, which of course is never
>>actually enough to ever go and do anything else other than to return
>>to work again next monday morning (any longer than 4 weeks holiday
>>per annum and they might decide not to come back: seems to be the
>>tried and tested happy medium;)
>
> Heh, nice theory....

### - lol if 'only' it was a theory and not just the way things are done!
(and has been done, for centuries!)

>
>>>>### - well what else would you call a crippled majority (i.e.
>>>>that 80% that don't do well at all as according to chomsky)
>
>>>I would NOT call them 'that kid that's had all it's arms and legs
>>>blown off for nothing.' That you do should ring alarm bells in your
>>>head that there's something wrong in there - and it isn't 'being
>>>the outsider.'
>
>>### - whatever, you got my point is all that actually matters, and
>>this whether you personally agree with it or not... 'damaged' is the
>>real point, hobbled and made to go slower so they'll all be good
>>workers (assuming there's enough jobs for 'em that is lol:) damaged
>>enough anyway so that they'll never ever be able to fulfill doing
>>something far more important for themselves (attend to their own
>>personal evolution i mean) WAS the point... 80 fucking percent!!! (4
>>fifths of the human race!)
>
> One guy said it and you believe it, many disagree or at least think its
> an exaggeration. Society is not utopian, it can't be because everyone
> has their own view of utopia. What do you intend to replace what we
> have now with? Communism? Anarchy? You do have a better plan don't you,
> you wouldn't just be pissing in the wind?

### - i chose chomsky coz he's an acknowledged figure/academic whos' spent
a lifetime checking it out + if you'd watched that doc of his you'd have
also seen the excruciating detail and lengths he goes to etc etc, plus is
hard to fault, but he's not the only one who's says such things, e.g. the
whole world of art and literature also says it too albeit in varying
manners, ways and genres...

>
>>i mean, talk about crimes against humanity??
>
> Yeah, you want to be responsible for the world? Get out there and fix
> it.

### - it can't BE saved ya twit! (laughing:) which IS the fucking point
after all? (at least that's what i've saying all along anyway;) plus perhaps
now you can maybe also see why! (ya can't save the impossible!)

so then, ahem, are you perhaps starting to realise how to erm, actually live
yet?:)

>
>>and anyone who knowingly 'supports' that (unwitting
>>doesn't count) is either an asshole or just a cunt;)
>
> Anyone who doesn't believe you're right is an asshole or a cunt and you
> say I'm dictatorial and arrogant, that I don't debate?

### - noooo, anyone who 'condones' or who 'deliberately' turns a blind eye
to all that shite (like coz maybe they just got a nice big phat bonus or
summat for being a good little robber) is either an asshole or a cunt
plus i automatically 'assume' you (or anyone) wouldn't ever wannabe either
of those (lol any cunt can be a cunt:)

>>>>and so okay they've only got 'one' >limb metaphorically missing
>>>>instead of all four (i was merely speaking in extremes for your
>>>benefit >was all lol;)
>
>>>You tried to call things what they demonstrably weren't to keep
>>>things clear? No, you just got it wrong.
>
>>### - i exaggerated the image for the sake of clarity is all, and you
>>got my point, and so ok now turn the volume down from 9 to two and a
>>half (so it's no longer blaring) + try to get over the way i
>>personally talk/put things... coz all that's beside the point and not

>>really relevant so there's no need to make an issue out of it (i.e.

>>it's not easy to talk to erm, monkeys as it's hard to get 'em to stop
>>jabbering and jumping around like they've all got a bunch of fleas up
>>their arse hehe:)
>
> If you talk bollocks to start with like you did how will I know when
> you stop? Because you tell me you have? Could be more bollecks.

### - ahahaha! (actually it's for 'you' to make sense of it all bro;)

one hint i will give you however (and did already give you) is that it's ALL
bollocks, ALL of it, our whole wallyworld is a bollocks construct, holy
invented and wholly fabricated by people with their heads stuck up their
assholes to begin with! so no wonder it's bollocks! :)

'getting out' from 'under' all that bollocks is another thing entirely
though, and not everyone makes it :)

>
>>>>they're still fucking 'limping' along basically barred (by no
>>>>fault of their own) from living a fuller life, aren't they??
>
>>>You're seeing your unhappiness reflected in others. It's an
>>>illusion.
>
>>### - try to be objective can't you,
>
> I am. It's you that isn't, you're being emotive.

### - well sometimes ya have to be, ya know? how else to rouse the
sleepy-heads from their nightmares of their daymares of their nightmares??
(worse, they don't even wanna wake up;)

>
>>this isn't even about me or you
>>personally but the state of our world, the knowledge of which
>>empowers one to know more clearly/correctly how to better comport
>>oneself/live on this planet, that one's 'illusions' are reduced to
>>the minimum (i mean, how can ya know what to do if ya doesn't really
>>know what's actually going on, seems fairly obvious)
>
> OK, here's your chance to tell me how you think we can improve things
> and exactly how you're think we can achieve these changes. Be specific.

### - be specific huh? (grinz;) well (slider takes a deep breath for
dramatic effect hehehe;) i'd suggest; putting your head between your legs
and kissing your fat arse goodbye for all the effort you're currently ever
likely to make to save... yourself?? (kinda joking? ;-)

iow, it's not about changing things or saving the world (nothing short of
aliens kicking our mad butts back into shape and repairing all the damage
we've done could ever accomplish that) no, it's more about realising one's
true life situation, stopping all the mental masturbation one so loves and
is totally ad-dick-ted to, and getting the hell out of dodge city (at least
mentally and emotionally anyway coz there's nowhere to actually go) and
living a bit of 'real' life (and the appreciation of it) before 'last day'
(from logans run) arrives?

>
>>to 'not' be fully thus aware perforce risks a lifetime of barking
>>(sometimes literally heh;) up the wrong tree altogether, a mistake (a
>>travesty actually) that no one can possibly ever afford to make coz
>>we only ever get the one shot...
>
> And you're spending your shot pondering the supposed misery of others
> (so you'd have me believe.)

### - some people draw, some people paint, others make things, some even
write, some of them are actors, loads of 'em are musicians, most of them are
the bleeding hearts and artists (and everyone knows some) who walk up and
down outside the wall...

and when they've given you their all
some stagger and fall after all it's not easy
banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV-HlBCmnDY

(damn piece of shit aioe servers complaining about size again duh)










--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

>>>Just in case you are having trouble, I will make this as cler as I
>>>can....
>
>>### - yep, that's cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell lol ;-)
>
> You make spelling flames because that's all you've got, I understand..
>
> 'Yep' not yep(or _yes_ if that's what you meant. Cler should have been
> 'cler' if you were quoting me. There should be a comma before your
> 'lol.'

### - lol this stuff really matters to you doesn't it :)

>
>>Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorbtion of it's
>>>message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'
>
>>### - well i agree you should defo preclude 'rom' out of it :)
>
> 'Well' and 'I' - What about you?

### - i think you love all these handy tangents innit, iow for reasons known
only to you, you're stalling :)

>
>>because you have a peconcieved idea
>
>>### - peconceived?
>
> If you are trying to quote me 'peconcieved' - don't you understand
> quote marks? They're well named.

### - so then , what in your great resevoir of knowledge can you tell me
about the term 'anal retentive' and what it means (grinz;-)

>>peeconceived??
>
> Has nothing to do with anything does it?

### - bingo! :)

>
>>so lol is that perhaps, like taking the piss? :)
>
> Urine all sorts of trouble.....

### - omg! it's actually developing a sense of humour already?? (at last! :)

>
> Preconcieved as you well knew.

### - yeah, i knew :)

>
>>of what the outsider is.
>
>>### - rubbish, heh you were so angry and in such a mad rush to post
>>this crappy after-thought addition and see it up on the server that
>>you fell over yourself + didn't even bother to make sure it was all
>>there or spell check it (duh + oh well so much for the rational
>>approach as recommended by people like you:)
>
> 'Rubbish', 'and'... in a run on sentence.
>
> Do you deny that your knowledge of 'the outsider' as a concept
> precludes you from being it. An 'outsider' wouldn't have knowledge of
> past religions or their relation to todays concepts, how could they?

### - why not? or perhaps you think outsiders only ever originate from
outside, i mean, what about the ones who used to belong and left to become
outsiders (or rather: became outsiders upon leaving) do outsiders, according
to you, also have to have amnesia? (hint: robin hood became a kind of
outsider: an out-law, literally;)

>>well i suppose now the 'rational' thing to do is to just blame your
>>computer or something for all 'your' failings and mistakes instead of
>>owning up to them and moving forward innit heh ;)
>
> 'Well' and 'I'.
> You are correct though I should get a news program with a spell-checker
> rather than support the little guys like 'Xana' struggling against the
> big corporations - but isn't that against your philosophy? They are
> available with grammar checkers too and even a spell-checker would help
> you make 'i's 'I's... and 'innit' for shame...

### - well, if it's that important to you so how about accessing openofifce
which contains the dictionaries to be able to perform spell-checks? a bit of
copy/paste between programs would do it, and then perhaps we could all move
on from all this deliberate time-wasting... pettiness?

> Do you deny that your knowledge of 'the outsider' as a concept
> precludes you from being it. An 'outsider' wouldn't have knowledge of
> past religions or their relation to todays concepts, how could they?
>
> Keep pretending you don't understand, it's all you have left.

### - it's you that doesn't (yet) understand that a 'concept' of the
outsider isn't at all the same as being one... that the 'description' of it
falls short of actually defning what is ostendibly beyond definition, and
that consequently, there is a whole (another) world of experience that also
defies said conceptualisation, another world that is actually the same
world when viewed/experienced (perceived) from outside the necessarily
imposed limitations of language which creates only a cheap version
representation of reality, a vastly simplified version that allows monkeys
to basically count their bananas while imagining that they are accomplishing
great things :)

Ps... did you forget to look on google groups again for replies? i sent one
dated jan 4th almost imediately to your last reply that might be more
interesting than being petty about the proper uses of the now holy banana
language (i.e. being about their bananas it was bound to become ultimately
important to 'em innit :)

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>

>dccxxvii wrote...
>
>>>>Just in case you are having trouble, I will make this as cler
>>>>as I can....
>>
>>>### - yep, that's cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell lol ;-)
>>
>>You make spelling flames because that's all you've got, I
>>understand..
>>

>>'Yep' not yep(or yes if that's what you meant. Cler should have been

>>'cler' if you were quoting me. There should be a comma before your
>>'lol.'
>
>### - lol this stuff really matters to you doesn't it :)

What sort of stuff?

>>>Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorbtion of it's
>>>>message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'

>>>### - well i agree you should defo preclude 'rom' out of it :)

>>'Well' and 'I' - What about you?

>### - i think you love all these handy tangents innit, iow for
>reasons known only to you, you're stalling :)

If you don't like tangents why do you go off on so many?

Like not dealing with the point...

"Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorption of it's

message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'"

...it was you who went off at the tangent.

This is a pass-time.

>>>because you have a preconceived idea

>>>### - preconceived?

>>If you are trying to quote me 'peconcieved' - don't you understand
>>quote marks? They're well named.

>### - so then , what in your great resevoir of knowledge can you tell
>me about the term 'anal retentive' and what it means (grinz;-)

Yes, someon who'd write 'cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell'

>>>peeconceived??

>>Has nothing to do with anything does it?

>### - bingo! :)

Another tangent from you?

>>>so lol is that perhaps, like taking the piss? :)

>>Urine all sorts of trouble.....

>### - omg! it's actually developing a sense of humour already?? (at
>last! :)

Just because you don't usually get the jokes doesn't mean they're not
there.

>>Preconceived as you well knew.

>### - yeah, i knew :)

>>>of what the outsider is.

>>>### - rubbish, heh you were so angry and in such a mad rush to
>>>post this crappy after-thought addition and see it up on the
>>>server that you fell over yourself + didn't even bother to make
>>>sure it was all there or spell check it (duh + oh well so much
>>>for the rational approach as recommended by people like you:)

>>'Rubbish', 'and'... in a run on sentence.

>>Do you deny that your knowledge of 'the outsider' as a concept
>>precludes you from being it. An 'outsider' wouldn't have knowledge
>>of past religions or their relation to todays concepts, how could
>>they?

>### - why not? or perhaps you think outsiders only ever originate from
>outside, i mean, what about the ones who used to belong and left to
>become outsiders (or rather: became outsiders upon leaving) do
>outsiders, according to you, also have to have amnesia? (hint: robin
>hood became a kind of outsider: an out-law, literally;)

Outlaw and outsider are a long way from being the same thing. Robin
Hood (of legend (either version)) was a supporter of the old
establishment and reinstatement of King Richard to the throne. Leaving
does not in and of itself make you an outsider.

The outsider is more like John from 'Brave New World.'

>>>well i suppose now the 'rational' thing to do is to just blame
>>>your computer or something for all 'your' failings and mistakes
>>>instead of owning up to them and moving forward innit heh ;)

>>'Well' and 'I'.

>>You are correct though I should get a news program with a
>>spell-checker rather than support the little guys like 'Xana'
>>struggling against the big corporations - but isn't that against
>>your philosophy? They are available with grammar checkers too and
>>even a spell-checker would help you make 'i's 'I's... and 'innit'
>>for shame...

>### - well, if it's that important to you so how about accessing
>openofifce which contains the dictionaries to be able to perform
>spell-checks? a bit of copy/paste between programs would do it,

Or I could go back to using pan or Gravity, I just fancied a change.

> and then perhaps we could all move on from all this deliberate
>time-wasting... pettiness?

If you didn't enjoy it why were you doing it?

>>Do you deny that your knowledge of 'the outsider' as a concept
>>precludes you from being it. An 'outsider' wouldn't have knowledge
>>of past religions or their relation to todays concepts, how could
>>they?

>>Keep pretending you don't understand, it's all you have left.

>### - it's you that doesn't (yet) understand that a 'concept' of the
>outsider isn't at all the same as being one... that the 'description'
>of it falls short of actually defning what is ostendibly beyond
>definition, and that consequently, there is a whole (another) world
>of experience that also defies said conceptualisation, another world
>that is actually the same world when viewed/experienced (perceived)
>from outside the necessarily imposed limitations of language which
>creates only a cheap version representation of reality, a vastly

That seems to have nothing to do with the absurdism of Camus' novel
(his version of the outsider,) or to earlier works dealing with seeing
society with clarity from without.

>simplified version that allows monkeys to basically count their
>bananas while imagining that they are accomplishing great things :)

You think monkeys do that? You're bananas.

>Ps... did you forget to look on google groups again for replies? i
>sent one dated jan 4th almost imediately to your last reply that
>might be more interesting than being petty about the proper uses of
>the now holy banana language (i.e. being about their bananas it was
>bound to become ultimately important to 'em innit :)

I have a life, and am in no hurry.

There are 4 on there now, for size reasons.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[Bassos]

So quick to conclude/judge.

Stay in doubt.

Like the next example is in the same genre, but is siriously Bad!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKtdTJP_GUI

Kinda the difference between Die Welle, and the wave.

Hardcore versus holly-wood.
(i kinda prefer the wave, but Die Welle is far moar hardcore)

In that MJ dancing inmates version, they where led and whore(!) not
inmate clothes, but a 'special' uniform, and thus separated themselves
from the rest.

Good thing about the Bonnie version is that they kinda where all
similar, working together.

The Bad (besides the MJ ref) thing about the above one is that they do :

follow the leader, and thus a good thing gets turned into a thingy that
can be.

Now: do those three dudes in front playing 'ze leader' look americain to
you ?

[Bassos]

On 9-1-2013 17:04, dccxxvii wrote:
>
> Like not dealing with the point...
>
> "Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorption of it's
> message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'"

Okay,

What is 'THE' outsider ?

What is any old outsider ?

How do they differ ?

Is the fool an outsider ?
(trick question)

[slider]

### - the ones at the front are obviously real dancers brought in for the
job, the ones at the back look like the real thing, dancing is more simple +
mistakes with timings, so will vote real on both accounts that prisoners
actually took part + with lyrics like that no surprise really then that old
jacko got hirself bumped off eventually innit, no penal-ties for diss-cent
tho, nah off-course not! (yeah right + perhaps our eloquent friend here
(might actually be a friend) can explain that to the syrians whore being
pounded to peace(s) for it;)

hey fancy an olde yoke?

some really strait-laced rich english dude dies and of course goes straight
to hell for all his crimes and is met at reception by the devil who explains
that the way we do things down here is to give new people a choice of any
one of three chambers in which to spend the rest of eternity...

intrigued, the dude opens the 1st door and is confronted with a typically
classic vision of hell in all it's gory glory, lost souls being brutally
ripped apart and devoured in various ways by monsters, over and over again
for all eternity... and the english dude says, ahh yes, quite so, but
shrinks back horrified hoping for maybe something a little less awful in
either of the other two chambers...

the devil nods and dramatically throws opens the second door, whereon the
english dude is presented with a very similar picture to that of the first,
except in this one everyone is chained up and having various sized red hot
pokers stuffed up their assholes over and over again all screaming their
heads off, for the rest of eternity...

ahem, cough, ahh yes exclaims the english dude, casting a somewhat scornful
eye upon the dreadful scene... erm don't exactly fancy 'that' one very much
either? which isn't really any better than the first, both alternatives to
him being absolutely unthinkable! so then, he says, better check out the
last chamber and just hope for the best... the devil nods and with a gleam
in his eye slowly opens the last and final door...

and although by now prepared for the absolute worst, the guy is totally
surprised! for as far as the eye can see were well dressed people engaged in
polite conversation and sipping earl grey tea from best quality china
cups, the only drawback being that they were all apparently standing
waist-deep in a sea of unbelievably foul smelling liquid shit...

well, he says, actually somewhat rather relieved, if it comes to it at a
pinch i suppose this wouldn't be 'too' awful to have to put up with for the
rest of eternity, i guess... i'll choose this one please!

the devil claps his hands to make it so, just as a big gong sounds and a
loud commanding voice is distinctly heard over the growing sound of cracking
whips, shouting...

ok everyone! tea break's over! back under you all go!!! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucgU2DJlBiw

[dccxxvii]

Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:

>Okay,

Dokey

>What is 'THE' outsider ?

In literature there are many artefacts called 'the outsider.' Although
slider cites Camus (as if Camus version is the only one), his version
seems to be his own.

>What is any old outsider ?

The window cleaner?

>How do they differ ?

'The' outsider is mentally separated from what they observe, generally
critiquing the within.

>Is the fool an outsider ?
>(trick question)

How judgemental is the fool? (either (also (a) trick question(s)))

If you aren't judging then what are you outside?

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

>>>>>Just in case you are having trouble, I will make this as cler
>>>>>as I can....
>>>
>>>>### - yep, that's cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell lol ;-)
>>>
>>>You make spelling flames because that's all you've got, I
>>>understand..
>>>
>>>'Yep' not yep(or yes if that's what you meant. Cler should have been
>>>'cler' if you were quoting me. There should be a comma before your
>>>'lol.'
>>
>>### - lol this stuff really matters to you doesn't it :)
>
> What sort of stuff?

### - in this instance obviously the correct (or not) use of language which
really seems to bug you to the point of making totally irrelevant
issues/tangents out of it...

>>>>Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorbtion of it's
>>>>>message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'
>
>>>>### - well i agree you should defo preclude 'rom' out of it :)
>
>>>'Well' and 'I' - What about you?
>
>>### - i think you love all these handy tangents innit, iow for
>>reasons known only to you, you're stalling :)
>
> If you don't like tangents why do you go off on so many?
>
> Like not dealing with the point...
>
> "Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorption of it's
> message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'"

### - 'did' deal it below rather than keep repeating myself like you seem to
want me to do...

> ...it was you who went off at the tangent.
>
> This is a pass-time.

### - (slider sniffs suspiciously at what is obviously a sprung trap
designed to catch him out;) erm yeah mate, am the tangent king me lol :)

>>>>because you have a preconceived idea
>
>>>>### - preconceived?
>
>>>If you are trying to quote me 'peconcieved' - don't you understand
>>>quote marks? They're well named.
>

>>### - so then , what in your great reservoir of knowledge can you tell

>>me about the term 'anal retentive' and what it means (grinz;-)
>
> Yes, someon who'd write 'cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell'

### - that was a joke ya twit, can't ya tell the difference?? but then as it
concerned you personally i see that your still remaining ego got in the way
is all, thus preventing you from appreciating it as it was intended as
opposed to how you took it (not my fault if you can't understand english
humour innit heh;)

>>>>peeconceived??
>
>>>Has nothing to do with anything does it?
>
>>### - bingo! :)
>
> Another tangent from you?

### - no, more the resolving of one.of yours by highlighting the futility of
it :)

>>>>so lol is that perhaps, like taking the piss? :)
>
>>>Urine all sorts of trouble.....
>
>>### - omg! it's actually developing a sense of humour already?? (at
>>last! :)
>
> Just because you don't usually get the jokes doesn't mean they're not
> there.

### - so perhaps that's what the use of emoticons (that you don't use) are
for eh? :)

>>>Preconceived as you well knew.
>
>>### - yeah, i knew :)
>
>>>>of what the outsider is.
>
>>>>### - rubbish, heh you were so angry and in such a mad rush to
>>>>post this crappy after-thought addition and see it up on the
>>>>server that you fell over yourself + didn't even bother to make
>>>>sure it was all there or spell check it (duh + oh well so much
>>>>for the rational approach as recommended by people like you:)
>
>>>'Rubbish', 'and'... in a run on sentence.
>
>>>Do you deny that your knowledge of 'the outsider' as a concept
>>>precludes you from being it. An 'outsider' wouldn't have knowledge
>>>of past religions or their relation to todays concepts, how could
>>>they?
>
>>### - why not? or perhaps you think outsiders only ever originate from
>>outside, i mean, what about the ones who used to belong and left to
>>become outsiders (or rather: became outsiders upon leaving) do
>>outsiders, according to you, also have to have amnesia? (hint: robin
>>hood became a kind of outsider: an out-law, literally;)
>
> Outlaw and outsider are a long way from being the same thing. Robin
> Hood (of legend (either version)) was a supporter of the old
> establishment and reinstatement of King Richard to the throne. Leaving
> does not in and of itself make you an outsider.

### - nope, in the story it wasn't until robin hood was forced to live
outside the society he belonged to (outlawed) that he became aware of
'another' society, a loose collection of unorganised outsiders that he
organised based on his better education of how the system works and that
they were (for whatever various reasons) outside of...

> The outsider is more like John from 'Brave New World.'
>
>>>>well i suppose now the 'rational' thing to do is to just blame
>>>>your computer or something for all 'your' failings and mistakes
>>>>instead of owning up to them and moving forward innit heh ;)
>
>>>'Well' and 'I'.
>
>>>You are correct though I should get a news program with a
>>>spell-checker rather than support the little guys like 'Xana'
>>>struggling against the big corporations - but isn't that against
>>>your philosophy? They are available with grammar checkers too and
>>>even a spell-checker would help you make 'i's 'I's... and 'innit'
>>>for shame...
>
>>### - well, if it's that important to you so how about accessing
>>openofifce which contains the dictionaries to be able to perform
>>spell-checks? a bit of copy/paste between programs would do it,
>
> Or I could go back to using pan or Gravity, I just fancied a change.
>
>> and then perhaps we could all move on from all this deliberate
>>time-wasting... pettiness?
>
> If you didn't enjoy it why were you doing it?

### - now don't get upset or anything, but all i did was to hold up a small
mirror to you so as to give you a glimpse of the futility of your actions
(looks like it kinda worked too, cool:)

>>>Do you deny that your knowledge of 'the outsider' as a concept
>>>precludes you from being it. An 'outsider' wouldn't have knowledge
>>>of past religions or their relation to todays concepts, how could
>>>they?
>
>>>Keep pretending you don't understand, it's all you have left.
>
>>### - it's you that doesn't (yet) understand that a 'concept' of the
>>outsider isn't at all the same as being one... that the 'description'

>>of it falls short of actually defining what is ostensibly beyond

>>definition, and that consequently, there is a whole (another) world
>>of experience that also defies said conceptualisation, another world
>>that is actually the same world when viewed/experienced (perceived)
>>from outside the necessarily imposed limitations of language which
>>creates only a cheap version representation of reality, a vastly
>
> That seems to have nothing to do with the absurdism of Camus' novel
> (his version of the outsider,) or to earlier works dealing with seeing
> society with clarity from without.

### - the outsider was originally cited to provide you a pov of what people
more usually take for granted as illustrated by the s.african true example
provided, and the above is a fairly good summation of my whole + consistent
argument to date that language isn't the measure of reality plus why that is
the case + the implications of same... consequently, it is wallyworld (and
its arbitrary + ever changing values) that is absurd, as is anyone who takes
them seriously or as being gospel... thus seeing society with greater
clarity from without is crucial to being/becoming sane, the rest being
insane by default coz their perception is one-sided/partial/ isn't whole...

>>simplified version that allows monkeys to basically count their
>>bananas while imagining that they are accomplishing great things :)
>
> You think monkeys do that? You're bananas.

### - that is 'exactly' what the monkeys on this planet have been doing lol
(human monkeys i meant + you do realise that we're monkeys don't you, or
perhaps you wanted us to be 'special' monkeys? :)

>>Ps... did you forget to look on google groups again for replies? i
>>sent one dated jan 4th almost imediately to your last reply that
>>might be more interesting than being petty about the proper uses of
>>the now holy banana language (i.e. being about their bananas it was
>>bound to become ultimately important to 'em innit :)
>
> I have a life, and am in no hurry.

### - complacency noted... i.e. no man knowing the time nor the place of his
demise etc; perforce there is a premium on time to get something right (in
one's life i mean) before one's time runs out (there are no second chances
for example), that something 'right' being almost impossible to talk about
coz it's not part of the rational pov and/or the resulting engendered
rational(ised) perception of the world...

i.e. (and for example)

"He who dies not before he dies is ruined when he dies." --Jacob Boehme
(apparently some religious nut who just so happened to hit the nail on the
head;)

that what one has to 'die to' is one's former perception (and attachment to
it) of the one-sided default view of the world (wallyworld iow)

and 'key' to escaping/doing that is understanding... the outsider ;-)

(interestingly enough, plus i know you don't think it's important, but what
went on to happen in s.africa was the (white) right wing actually merging
with the left rather than being dissolved/submerged altogether... duality
being replaced by a kind of unity being the only possible solution to save
the day that would have otherwise ended in complete disaster for all
concerned + that likely 'will' end in disaster for the rest of the planet if
it too doesn't do something fairly similar, s.africa being the rest of the
world in microcosm it all came to a head there first, something (which if
true) makes that whole event in fact highly significant ;)

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>dccxxvii wrote...
>
>>>>>>Just in case you are having trouble, I will make this as
>>>>>>cler as I can....
>>>>
>>>>>### - yep, that's cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell lol ;-)
>>>>
>>>>You make spelling flames because that's all you've got, I
>>>>understand..
>>>>
>>>>'Yep' not yep(or yes if that's what you meant. Cler should have
>>>>been 'cler' if you were quoting me. There should be a comma
>>>>before your 'lol.'
>>>
>>>### - lol this stuff really matters to you doesn't it :)
>>
>>What sort of stuff?
>
>### - in this instance obviously the correct (or not) use of language
>which really seems to bug you to the point of making totally
>irrelevant issues/tangents out of it...

This stuff really matters to you doesn't it?

>>>>>Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorbtion of it's
>>>>>>message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'

>>>>>### - well i agree you should defo preclude 'rom' out of it :)

>>>>'Well' and 'I' - What about you?

>>>### - i think you love all these handy tangents innit, iow for
>>>reasons known only to you, you're stalling :)

>>If you don't like tangents why do you go off on so many?

>>Like not dealing with the point...

>>"Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorption of it's
>>message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'"

>### - 'did' deal it below rather than keep repeating myself like you
>seem to want me to do...

>>...it was you who went off at the tangent.

>>This is a pass-time.

>### - (slider sniffs suspiciously at what is obviously a sprung trap
>designed to catch him out;) erm yeah mate, am the tangent king me lol
>:)

King would suggest you're good at it, so no.

>>>>>because you have a preconceived idea

>>>>>### - preconceived?

>>>>If you are trying to quote me 'peconcieved' - don't you
>>>>understand quote marks? They're well named.

>>>### - so then , what in your great reservoir of knowledge can you
>>>tell me about the term 'anal retentive' and what it means
>>>(grinz;-)

>>Yes, someon who'd write 'cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell'

>### - that was a joke ya twit, can't ya tell the difference??

An anal retentive joke, I know.

>>>>>peeconceived??

>>>>Has nothing to do with anything does it?

>>>### - bingo! :)

>>Another tangent from you?

>### - no, more the resolving of one.of yours by highlighting the
>futility of it :)

You knew what I meant, you've even admitted as much. So you went off at
an irrelevant tangent.

>>>>>so lol is that perhaps, like taking the piss? :)

>>>>Urine all sorts of trouble.....

>>>### - omg! it's actually developing a sense of humour already??
>>>(at last! :)

>>Just because you don't usually get the jokes doesn't mean they're
>>not there.

>### - so perhaps that's what the use of emoticons (that you don't
>use) are for eh? :)

Not really, you use them a lot but you aren't humourous. I've already
told you you're free to insert your own.

Stories.

>it wasn't until robin hood was forced to live outside the society he
>belonged to (outlawed) that he became aware of

Outlawed meant unprotected by the law.

>'another' society, a loose collection of unorganised outsiders that he
>organised based on his better education of how the system works and
>that they were (for whatever various reasons) outside of...

Those 'outsiders' were a resultant part of the society in which they
lived. You're allowing *one* of his legendary origins to cloud your
thoughts here.

>>The outsider is more like John from 'Brave New World.'

>>>>>well i suppose now the 'rational' thing to do is to just blame
>>>>>your computer or something for all 'your' failings and
>>>>>mistakes instead of owning up to them and moving forward
>>>>>innit heh ;)

>>>>'Well' and 'I'.

>>>>You are correct though I should get a news program with a
>>>>spell-checker rather than support the little guys like 'Xana'
>>>>struggling against the big corporations - but isn't that against
>>>>your philosophy? They are available with grammar checkers too
>>>>and even a spell-checker would help you make 'i's 'I's... and
>>>>'innit' for shame...

>>>### - well, if it's that important to you so how about accessing
>>>openofifce which contains the dictionaries to be able to perform
>>>spell-checks? a bit of copy/paste between programs would do it,

>>Or I could go back to using pan or Gravity, I just fancied a change.

>>>and then perhaps we could all move on from all this deliberate
>>>time-wasting... pettiness?

>>If you didn't enjoy it why were you doing it?

>### - now don't get upset or anything, but all i did was to hold up a
>small mirror to you so as to give you a glimpse of the futility of
>your actions (looks like it kinda worked too, cool:)

Started with your irrelevant petulism about my non-use of emoticons.
Your futility, which you are now choosing to give up - good.

>>>>Do you deny that your knowledge of 'the outsider' as a concept
>>>>precludes you from being it. An 'outsider' wouldn't have
>>>>knowledge of past religions or their relation to todays
>>>>concepts, how could they?

>>>>Keep pretending you don't understand, it's all you have left.

>>>### - it's you that doesn't (yet) understand that a 'concept' of
>>>the outsider isn't at all the same as being one... that the
>>>'description' of it falls short of actually defining what is
>>>ostensibly beyond definition, and that consequently, there is a
>>>whole (another) world of experience that also defies said
>>>conceptualisation, another world that is actually the same world
>>>when viewed/experienced (perceived) from outside the necessarily
>>>imposed limitations of language which creates only a cheap
>>>version representation of reality, a vastly

>>That seems to have nothing to do with the absurdism of Camus' novel
>>(his version of the outsider,) or to earlier works dealing with
>>seeing society with clarity from without.

>### - the outsider was originally cited to provide you a pov of what
>people more usually take for granted as illustrated by the s.african
>true example provided,

So you cited an outsider who found the human condition absurd to
convince people how serious the human condition is? Ridiculous.

You're stepping away from the outsider now?

>and the above is a fairly good summation of my whole + consistent
>argument to date that language isn't the measure of reality plus why

>that is the case + the implications of same...consequently, it is

>wallyworld (and its arbitrary + ever changing values) that is absurd,
>as is anyone who takes them seriously or as being gospel... thus
seeing >society with greater clarity from without is crucial to
being/becoming >sane, the rest being insane by default coz their
perception is one-
>sided/partial/ isn't whole...

Seing the human condition from without makes no difference to Camus'
outsider. Human existence is ridiculous to him, not just it's values -
there was no sanity to be found in the human condition for him.

Camus rejected spiritualism and religion as being 'philosophical
suicide.' So what are you on about?

>>>simplified version that allows monkeys to basically count their
>>>bananas while imagining that they are accomplishing great things
>>>:)

>>You think monkeys do that? You're bananas.

>### - that is 'exactly' what the monkeys on this planet have been
>doing lol (human monkeys i meant + you do realise that we're monkeys
>don't you, or perhaps you wanted us to be 'special' monkeys? :)

Learn evolution, humans diverged from the same trunk monkeys did (they
had a common ancestor) but men were never monkeys, nor are they now -
they descended through apes.

I've told you several times that the extinction of the human species
would be no big deal yet you extrapolate from that that I think humans
are 'special?' Try to make sense.

>>>Ps... did you forget to look on google groups again for replies? i
>>>sent one dated jan 4th almost imediately to your last reply that
>>>might be more interesting than being petty about the proper uses
>>>of the now holy banana language (i.e. being about their bananas
>>>it was bound to become ultimately important to 'em innit :)

>>I have a life, and am in no hurry.

>### - complacency noted... i.e. no man knowing the time nor the place
>of his demise etc

Nor does it matter.

> perforce there is a premium on time to get something right (in one's
>life i mean) before one's time runs out

You reject Camus' outsider and it's whole point, then?

>(there are no second chances for example), that something 'right'
>being almost impossible to talk about coz it's not part of the
>rational pov and/or the resulting engendered rational(ised)
>perception of the world...

It's impossible for you to talk about it because you don't have a clue
what you're talking about.

>i.e. (and for example)

>"He who dies not before he dies is ruined when he dies." --Jacob
>Boehme (apparently some religious nut who just so happened to hit the
>nail on the head;)

Die daily.

>that what one has to 'die to' is one's former perception (and
>attachment to it) of the one-sided default view of the world
>(wallyworld iow)

>and 'key' to escaping/doing that is understanding... the outsider ;-)

Not Camus' outsider then. Which outsider are you wittering about now?

>(interestingly enough, plus i know you don't think it's important,
>but what went on to happen in s.africa was the (white) right wing
>actually merging with the left rather than being dissolved/submerged
>altogether... duality being replaced by a kind of unity being the
>only possible solution to save the day that would have otherwise
>ended in complete disaster for all concerned + that likely 'will' end
>in disaster for the rest of the planet if it too doesn't do something
>fairly similar, s.africa being the rest of the world in microcosm it
>all came to a head there first, something (which if true) makes that
>whole event in fact highly significant ;)

But *we* can't be saved - you've said so, so you must believe it,
right? It's your whole excuse for not even trying to change the things
you see as wrong.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

>>>>>>>Just in case you are having trouble, I will make this as
>>>>>>>cler as I can....
>>>>>
>>>>>>### - yep, that's cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell lol ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>You make spelling flames because that's all you've got, I
>>>>>understand..
>>>>>
>>>>>'Yep' not yep(or yes if that's what you meant. Cler should have
>>>>>been 'cler' if you were quoting me. There should be a comma
>>>>>before your 'lol.'
>>>>
>>>>### - lol this stuff really matters to you doesn't it :)
>>>
>>>What sort of stuff?
>>
>>### - in this instance obviously the correct (or not) use of language
>>which really seems to bug you to the point of making totally
>>irrelevant issues/tangents out of it...
>
> This stuff really matters to you doesn't it?

### - it's only a concern coz you keep hiding behind it (and other things)
instead of being up front, perhaps your a-priori agenda of merely "amusing
yourself" (while rome burns?;) has something to do with it? :)

>>>>>>Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorbtion of it's
>>>>>>>message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'
>
>>>>>>### - well i agree you should defo preclude 'rom' out of it :)
>
>>>>>'Well' and 'I' - What about you?
>
>>>>### - i think you love all these handy tangents innit, iow for
>>>>reasons known only to you, you're stalling :)
>
>>>If you don't like tangents why do you go off on so many?
>
>>>Like not dealing with the point...
>
>>>"Your reading of 'The Outsider' and your absorption of it's
>>>message forever precludes you from being 'The Outsider'"
>
>>### - 'did' deal it below rather than keep repeating myself like you
>>seem to want me to do...
>
>>>...it was you who went off at the tangent.
>
>>>This is a pass-time.
>
>>### - (slider sniffs suspiciously at what is obviously a sprung trap
>>designed to catch him out;) erm yeah mate, am the tangent king me lol
>>:)
>
> King would suggest you're good at it, so no.

### - heh, royalty in exile would prolly be more apt :)

>>>>>>because you have a preconceived idea
>
>>>>>>### - preconceived?
>
>>>>>If you are trying to quote me 'peconcieved' - don't you
>>>>>understand quote marks? They're well named.
>
>>>>### - so then , what in your great reservoir of knowledge can you
>>>>tell me about the term 'anal retentive' and what it means
>>>>(grinz;-)
>
>>>Yes, someon who'd write 'cler as a bell mate, cler as a bell'
>
>>### - that was a joke ya twit, can't ya tell the difference??
>
> An anal retentive joke, I know.

### - got to ya enough to repeat it tho eh? :)

>>>>>>peeconceived??
>
>>>>>Has nothing to do with anything does it?
>
>>>>### - bingo! :)
>
>>>Another tangent from you?
>
>>### - no, more the resolving of one.of yours by highlighting the
>>futility of it :)
>
> You knew what I meant, you've even admitted as much. So you went off at
> an irrelevant tangent.

### - one created by you, yeah... but only in an effort to stop it:)

>>>>>>so lol is that perhaps, like taking the piss? :)
>
>>>>>Urine all sorts of trouble.....
>
>>>>### - omg! it's actually developing a sense of humour already??
>>>>(at last! :)
>
>>>Just because you don't usually get the jokes doesn't mean they're
>>>not there.
>
>>### - so perhaps that's what the use of emoticons (that you don't
>>use) are for eh? :)
>
> Not really, you use them a lot but you aren't humourous. I've already
> told you you're free to insert your own.

### - as are you... between the cheeks of your arse haha :)

### - yeah, strange innit literature is full of 'em written by some of the
most intelligent + perceptive people that ever lived, so what's up with
that?:)

>>it wasn't until robin hood was forced to live outside the society he
>>belonged to (outlawed) that he became aware of
>
> Outlawed meant unprotected by the law.

### - heh @ unprotected, a clear euphmism for being at the sharp end of it,
kinda like how the mob's protection rackets work innit , not being protected
by the sherrif of nottingham being the same as being beaten up by him,
unprotected lol:)

>>'another' society, a loose collection of unorganised outsiders that he
>>organised based on his better education of how the system works and
>>that they were (for whatever various reasons) outside of...
>
> Those 'outsiders' were a resultant part of the society in which they
> lived. You're allowing *one* of his legendary origins to cloud your
> thoughts here.

### - "resultant part of the society in which they lived" being what i
claimed earlier for how some outsiders may indeed be familiar with the
workings of society and other things like history, only you denied that
possibility + argued against it... so now you're directly contradicting
yourself + making it look like you have no real argument to begin with other
than that of mere contradiction, and any fool can do that :)

>>>The outsider is more like John from 'Brave New World.'
>
>>>>>>well i suppose now the 'rational' thing to do is to just blame
>>>>>>your computer or something for all 'your' failings and
>>>>>>mistakes instead of owning up to them and moving forward
>>>>>>innit heh ;)
>
>>>>>'Well' and 'I'.
>
>>>>>You are correct though I should get a news program with a
>>>>>spell-checker rather than support the little guys like 'Xana'
>>>>>struggling against the big corporations - but isn't that against
>>>>>your philosophy? They are available with grammar checkers too
>>>>>and even a spell-checker would help you make 'i's 'I's... and
>>>>>'innit' for shame...
>
>>>>### - well, if it's that important to you so how about accessing
>>>>openofifce which contains the dictionaries to be able to perform
>>>>spell-checks? a bit of copy/paste between programs would do it,
>
>>>Or I could go back to using pan or Gravity, I just fancied a change.
>
>>>>and then perhaps we could all move on from all this deliberate
>>>>time-wasting... pettiness?
>
>>>If you didn't enjoy it why were you doing it?
>
>>### - now don't get upset or anything, but all i did was to hold up a
>>small mirror to you so as to give you a glimpse of the futility of
>>your actions (looks like it kinda worked too, cool:)
>
> Started with your irrelevant petulism about my non-use of emoticons.
> Your futility, which you are now choosing to give up - good.

### - hey i said don't get upset didn't i? :)

>>>>>Do you deny that your knowledge of 'the outsider' as a concept
>>>>>precludes you from being it. An 'outsider' wouldn't have
>>>>>knowledge of past religions or their relation to todays
>>>>>concepts, how could they?
>
>>>>>Keep pretending you don't understand, it's all you have left.
>
>>>>### - it's you that doesn't (yet) understand that a 'concept' of
>>>>the outsider isn't at all the same as being one... that the
>>>>'description' of it falls short of actually defining what is
>>>>ostensibly beyond definition, and that consequently, there is a
>>>>whole (another) world of experience that also defies said
>>>>conceptualisation, another world that is actually the same world
>>>>when viewed/experienced (perceived) from outside the necessarily
>>>>imposed limitations of language which creates only a cheap
>>>>version representation of reality, a vastly
>
>>>That seems to have nothing to do with the absurdism of Camus' novel
>>>(his version of the outsider,) or to earlier works dealing with
>>>seeing society with clarity from without.
>
>>### - the outsider was originally cited to provide you a pov of what
>>people more usually take for granted as illustrated by the s.african
>>true example provided,
>
> So you cited an outsider who found the human condition absurd to
> convince people how serious the human condition is? Ridiculous.
>
> You're stepping away from the outsider now?

### - so is that camus outsider, or just the stuff you scanned in wikipedia?
(grinz:)

>>and the above is a fairly good summation of my whole + consistent
>>argument to date that language isn't the measure of reality plus why
>>that is the case + the implications of same...consequently, it is
>>wallyworld (and its arbitrary + ever changing values) that is absurd,
>>as is anyone who takes them seriously or as being gospel... thus
> seeing >society with greater clarity from without is crucial to
> being/becoming >sane, the rest being insane by default coz their
> perception is one-
>>sided/partial/ isn't whole...
>
> Seing the human condition from without makes no difference to Camus'
> outsider. Human existence is ridiculous to him, not just it's values -
> there was no sanity to be found in the human condition for him.

### - which is more or less what i've said all along about there being no
sanity in humanly invented activities innit, existance being absurd; the
plots and plans of mankind are indeed ridiculous, but you just try tellin'
them that and they'll come up with the most absurd arguments (like yours) to
deny it :)

> Camus rejected spiritualism and religion as being 'philosophical
> suicide.' So what are you on about?

### - the fact that there IS no philosophy to begin with, so anyone
following one or even inventing their own is literally barking up the wrong
tree (and boy do they bark! woof! woof! and in so many flavours:)

>>>>simplified version that allows monkeys to basically count their
>>>>bananas while imagining that they are accomplishing great things
>>>>:)
>
>>>You think monkeys do that? You're bananas.
>
>>### - that is 'exactly' what the monkeys on this planet have been
>>doing lol (human monkeys i meant + you do realise that we're monkeys
>>don't you, or perhaps you wanted us to be 'special' monkeys? :)
>
> Learn evolution, humans diverged from the same trunk monkeys did (they
> had a common ancestor) but men were never monkeys, nor are they now -
> they descended through apes.

### - so you went for (bought into) being 'special' monkeys then eh?

good news people! we're not monkeys we're great apes lol :)

i feel sooo much better now! (yeah right;)

> I've told you several times that the extinction of the human species
> would be no big deal yet you extrapolate from that that I think humans
> are 'special?' Try to make sense.

### - well they 'are' a bit different aren't they, the top of the tree? the
end result of 'all' that trial and error evolution (billions of years of
it!) all going to nothing coz they basically went totally insane... it's a
damn shame that's what it is! plus you claiming it's "no big deal" being
just so cynical/in total denial being truly symptomatic of the apathy and
complancency involved that will prolly even bring them down in the end, and
yet you claim your argument makes more sense?? duh :)

>>>>Ps... did you forget to look on google groups again for replies? i
>>>>sent one dated jan 4th almost imediately to your last reply that
>>>>might be more interesting than being petty about the proper uses
>>>>of the now holy banana language (i.e. being about their bananas
>>>>it was bound to become ultimately important to 'em innit :)
>
>>>I have a life, and am in no hurry.
>
>>### - complacency noted... i.e. no man knowing the time nor the place
>>of his demise etc
>
> Nor does it matter.

### - oh really? so i suppose that's why people with say only 6 months to
live due to cancer all rush out to purchase 30 year mortgages is it??
(totally daft :)

>> perforce there is a premium on time to get something right (in one's
>>life i mean) before one's time runs out
>
> You reject Camus' outsider and it's whole point, then?

### - it's only by realising the absurdity/futility of society and its
aspirations that one truly gets the chance to do something 'other' than
becoming insane like the rest of them... i mean, be insane if you want but
there might be better options:)

>>(there are no second chances for example), that something 'right'
>>being almost impossible to talk about coz it's not part of the
>>rational pov and/or the resulting engendered rational(ised)
>>perception of the world...
>
> It's impossible for you to talk about it because you don't have a clue
> what you're talking about.

### - you're entitled to your opinion for all it's worth anyway hehehe:)

>>i.e. (and for example)
>
>>"He who dies not before he dies is ruined when he dies." --Jacob
>>Boehme (apparently some religious nut who just so happened to hit the
>>nail on the head;)
>
> Die daily.

### - like that's really what you and your scientist bozo friends really do
huh? (not a chance:)

>>that what one has to 'die to' is one's former perception (and
>>attachment to it) of the one-sided default view of the world
>>(wallyworld iow)
>
>>and 'key' to escaping/doing that is understanding... the outsider ;-)
>
> Not Camus' outsider then. Which outsider are you wittering about now?

### - was talking about the principle involved, not the person :)

>>(interestingly enough, plus i know you don't think it's important,
>>but what went on to happen in s.africa was the (white) right wing
>>actually merging with the left rather than being dissolved/submerged
>>altogether... duality being replaced by a kind of unity being the
>>only possible solution to save the day that would have otherwise
>>ended in complete disaster for all concerned + that likely 'will' end
>>in disaster for the rest of the planet if it too doesn't do something
>>fairly similar, s.africa being the rest of the world in microcosm it
>>all came to a head there first, something (which if true) makes that
>>whole event in fact highly significant ;)
>
> But *we* can't be saved - you've said so, so you must believe it,
> right? It's your whole excuse for not even trying to change the things
> you see as wrong.

### - correct! "we" (and i assume like me you mean humanity) can't be saved
either en-mass or collectively on a global scale, it's just too big and too
far gone to turn it all around! (i did mention titanic didn't i?:)

individuals otoh can (and still do) make it while humanity still exists, a
certain percentage in every generation making the proverbial grade, prolly
coz that's how nature has worked all along (some turtles, for example, lay
200 eggs just to ensure that at least one or 2 survive to repeat the cycle
plus why should humanity really be any different to that?)

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>>>### - (slider sniffs suspiciously at what is obviously a sprung
>>>trap designed to catch him out;) erm yeah mate, am the tangent
>>>king me lol :)

>>King would suggest you're good at it, so no.

>### - heh, royalty in exile would prolly be more apt :)

Sure, you're really the King of Wan, right?

Well should I list some of the issues you've so far avoided by going
off at tangents?

===

>>You knew what I meant, you've even admitted as much. So you went
>>off at an irrelevant tangent.

>### - one created by you, yeah... but only in an effort to stop it:)

Going off at a tangent to stop a tangent from arising is about as
sensible as I should expect from you.

===

>>>### - so perhaps that's what the use of emoticons (that you don't
>>>use) are for eh? :)

>>Not really, you use them a lot but you aren't humorous. I've

>>already told you you're free to insert your own.

>### - as are you... between the cheeks of your arse haha :)

More banal anality? Showing your true colours and trying to hide behind
your 'haha's' and 'grinz' and emoticons while snidely sniping. A nasty
impotent egotist.

===

>### - "resultant part of the society in which they lived" being what i
>claimed earlier for how some outsiders may indeed be familiar with the
>workings of society and other things like history, only you denied
>that possibility + argued against it... so now you're directly
>contradicting yourself +

Only if you think the outsider needs no clearer view that normal
members of society and no need to be free from normally arising
prejudice and preconception.

>making it look like you have no real
>argument to begin with other than that of mere contradiction, and any
>fool can do that :)

No they can't. (As you seem rather challenged in the hunour department
I'll point out that this is a joke.)

>>>>The outsider is more like John from 'Brave New World.'

===

>>>>>and then perhaps we could all move on from all this deliberate
>>>>>time-wasting... pettiness?

>>>>If you didn't enjoy it why were you doing it?

>>>### - now don't get upset or anything, but all i did was to hold
>>>up a small mirror to you so as to give you a glimpse of the
>>>futility of your actions (looks like it kinda worked too, cool:)

>>Started with your irrelevant petulance about my non-use of emoticons.

>>Your futility, which you are now choosing to give up - good.

>### - hey i said don't get upset didn't i? :)

>>>>That seems to have nothing to do with the absurdism of Camus'
>>>>novel (his version of the outsider,) or to earlier works
>>>>dealing with seeing society with clarity from without.

>>>### - the outsider was originally cited to provide you a pov of
>>>what people more usually take for granted as illustrated by the
>>>s.african true example provided,

>>So you cited an outsider who found the human condition absurd to
>>convince people how serious the human condition is? Ridiculous.

>>You're stepping away from the outsider now?

>### - so is that camus outsider, or just the stuff you scanned in
>wikipedia? (grinz:)

It's what Camus and others thought.

>>Seing the human condition from without makes no difference to Camus'
>>outsider. Human existence is ridiculous to him, not just it's
>>values - there was no sanity to be found in the human condition for
>>him.

>### - which is more or less what i've said all along about there
>being no sanity in humanly invented activities innit, existance being
>absurd; the plots and plans of mankind are indeed ridiculous, but you
>just try tellin' them that and they'll come up with the most absurd
>arguments (like yours) to deny it :)

So why are you (insanely according to you) bothering with life at all?
If you truly accepted the human condition absurd you wouldn't try to
make people understand it, you wouldn't be angered by the 1% or the 19%
you say are conspiring with them or be thinking of 80% of the
population are crippled prisoners.

>>Camus rejected spiritualism and religion as being 'philosophical
>>suicide.' So what are you on about?

>### - the fact that there IS no philosophy to begin with, so anyone
>following one or even inventing their own is literally barking up the

>wrong tree.

But here you are doing exactly that, expounding your philosophy.

>>>>>simplified version that allows monkeys to basically count
>>>>>their bananas while imagining that they are accomplishing
>>>>>great things :)

>>>>You think monkeys do that? You're bananas.

>>>### - that is 'exactly' what the monkeys on this planet have been
>>>doing lol (human monkeys i meant + you do realise that we're
>>>monkeys don't you, or perhaps you wanted us to be 'special'
>>>monkeys? :)

>>Learn evolution, humans diverged from the same trunk monkeys did
>>(they had a common ancestor) but men were never monkeys, nor are
>>they now - they descended through apes.

>### - so you went for (bought into) being 'special' monkeys then eh?

Did you read what I wrote above?

>good news people! we're not monkeys we're great apes lol :)
>i feel sooo much better now! (yeah right;)

You really don't like your silly mistakes being pointed out to you, do
you?

Might as well say we're descended from camelss if you're ok with monkeys

>>I've told you several times that the extinction of the human species
>>would be no big deal yet you extrapolate from that that I think
>>humans are 'special?' Try to make sense.

>### - well they 'are' a bit different aren't they, the top of the
>tree?

So *you* think we're 'special' 'monkeys' now?

>the end result of 'all' that trial and error evolution (billions of
>years of it!) all going to nothing coz they basically went totally
>insane...

I thought you found the 'human condition' insane, if it's insane now
then it always has been.

>it's a damn shame that's what it is!

More whining....

>plus you claiming it's "no big deal" being just so cynical/in total
>denial being truly symptomatic of the apathy and complancency involved
>that will prolly even bring them down in the end,

You *do* think we're 'special' 'monkeys'! Species come and species
usually go, ours will be no different.

>and yet you claim your argument makes more sense?? duh :)

Than just endlessly whining like you? Yes.

===

>>>### - complacency noted... i.e. no man knowing the time nor the
>>>place of his demise etc

>>Nor does it matter.

>### - oh really? so i suppose that's why people with say only 6
>months to live due to cancer all rush out to purchase 30 year
>mortgages is it?? (totally daft :)

You're now saying no man knows the time of their death except the ones
that do, yet another change in position from you.

I was talking in the grand sweep of things, as you must have known.

>>>perforce there is a premium on time to get something right (in
>>>one's life i mean) before one's time runs out

>>You reject Camus' outsider and it's whole point, then?

>### - it's only by realising the absurdity/futility of society and its
>aspirations that one truly gets the chance to do something 'other'
>than becoming insane like the rest of them...

So, as I've said leave society. You don't have the guts to do that
though.

Or change society, but you're too timid and ineffectual to do that.

Or, like you, pretend you're 'special' or an 'outsider' to allow you to
feel less out of control.

>i mean, be insane if you want but there might be better options:)

Whining seems to be your preferred option

>>Not Camus' outsider then. Which outsider are you wittering about
>>now?

>### - was talking about the principle involved, not the person :)

>>>(interestingly enough, plus i know you don't think it's important,
>>>but what went on to happen in s.africa was the (white) right wing
>>>actually merging with the left rather than being
>>>dissolved/submerged altogether... duality being replaced by a
>>>kind of unity being the only possible solution to save the day
>>>that would have otherwise ended in complete disaster for all
>>>concerned + that likely 'will' end in disaster for the rest of
>>>the planet if it too doesn't do something fairly similar,

So now there is a possibility that we'll all be saved (disaster is only
'likely' rather than certain now)? Another change in position?

>>>s.africa being the rest of the world in microcosm it all came to
>>>a head there first, something (which if true) makes that whole
>>>event in fact highly significant ;)

>>But we can't be saved - you've said so, so you must believe it,

>>right? It's your whole excuse for not even trying to change the
>>things you see as wrong.

>### - correct! "we" (and i assume like me you mean humanity) can't be
>saved either en-mass or collectively on a global scale, it's just too
>big and too far gone to turn it all around! (i did mention titanic
>didn't i?:)

So how long do you give the patient, doc?

You've just finished saying doom is only 'likely' now and 'if it too
doesn't do something fairly similar' suggesting a way out.

>individuals otoh can (and still do) make it while humanity still
>exists, a certain percentage in every generation making the
>proverbial grade, prolly coz that's how nature has worked all along

This is the nub of it, your cloying need to think of yourself as a
'special monkey' amongst the cripples, prisoners and elitist
conspirators. Hilarious.

You rail at the elitist society while aspiring to one day belong to an
even more elitist group 'making the grade' ensuring wisdom (or whatever
else you kid yourself these elite have) passes to the next generation.
If you haven't grown out of this juvenile fantasy by the time you get
to 22 or 23 you really should start worrying.

>(some turtles, for example, lay 200 eggs just to ensure that at least
>one or 2 survive to repeat the cycle plus why should humanity really
>be any different to that?)

Another pattern? Patterns don't exist though, or so you've stated.

Humanity reproduces much more efficiently. My genes are already in the
next two generations.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

>>>>### - (slider sniffs suspiciously at what is obviously a sprung
>>>>trap designed to catch him out;) erm yeah mate, am the tangent
>>>>king me lol :)
>
>>>King would suggest you're good at it, so no.
>
>>### - heh, royalty in exile would prolly be more apt :)
>
> Sure, you're really the King of Wan, right?
>
> Well should I list some of the issues you've so far avoided by going
> off at tangents?

### - asides are different to tangents + i didn't start the tangents, you
did... all i've done in that direction was to try to head you off on them
but to no avail as you appear to need to hide behind 'something', your mask
perhaps :)

>>>You knew what I meant, you've even admitted as much. So you went
>>>off at an irrelevant tangent.
>
>>### - one created by you, yeah... but only in an effort to stop it:)
>
> Going off at a tangent to stop a tangent from arising is about as
> sensible as I should expect from you.

### - heh it's at least as sensible as your philospohy of no philosophy
innit:)

>>>>### - so perhaps that's what the use of emoticons (that you don't
>>>>use) are for eh? :)
>
>>>Not really, you use them a lot but you aren't humorous. I've
>>>already told you you're free to insert your own.
>
>>### - as are you... between the cheeks of your arse haha :)
>
> More banal anality? Showing your true colours and trying to hide behind
> your 'haha's' and 'grinz' and emoticons while snidely sniping. A nasty
> impotent egotist.

### - ahhh quickly back to the name calling again huh? the rest was merely
english humour and pun that apparently goes right over yer' head... again!
duh :)

>>### - "resultant part of the society in which they lived" being what i
>>claimed earlier for how some outsiders may indeed be familiar with the
>>workings of society and other things like history, only you denied
>>that possibility + argued against it... so now you're directly
>>contradicting yourself +
>
> Only if you think the outsider needs no clearer view that normal
> members of society and no need to be free from normally arising
> prejudice and preconception.

### - in a prison there's certainly rules of that nature but outside no such
rules exist, and so now you want to put rules on outsiders who have no rules
because they escaped from them thus making them outsiders... haha you're
insane + obviously describing outsiders merely from a purely academic
concept and pov with absolutely no personal experience of same... (i.e. if
you really had any 'real' experience of it you couldn't possibly talk such
shite;)

>>making it look like you have no real
>>argument to begin with other than that of mere contradiction, and any
>>fool can do that :)
>
> No they can't. (As you seem rather challenged in the hunour department
> I'll point out that this is a joke.)

### - ya call that a joke?? duh inane is what that is mate more befitting of
the schoolyard where you obviously still belong and play... and you're not
even a good student heh (and that's the real joke:)

>>>>>The outsider is more like John from 'Brave New World.'
>
> ===
>
>>>>>>and then perhaps we could all move on from all this deliberate
>>>>>>time-wasting... pettiness?
>
>>>>>If you didn't enjoy it why were you doing it?
>
>>>>### - now don't get upset or anything, but all i did was to hold
>>>>up a small mirror to you so as to give you a glimpse of the
>>>>futility of your actions (looks like it kinda worked too, cool:)
>
>>>Started with your irrelevant petulance about my non-use of emoticons.
>>>Your futility, which you are now choosing to give up - good.
>
>>### - hey i said don't get upset didn't i? :)
>
>
>>>>>That seems to have nothing to do with the absurdism of Camus'
>>>>>novel (his version of the outsider,) or to earlier works
>>>>>dealing with seeing society with clarity from without.
>
>>>>### - the outsider was originally cited to provide you a pov of
>>>>what people more usually take for granted as illustrated by the
>>>>s.african true example provided,
>
>>>So you cited an outsider who found the human condition absurd to
>>>convince people how serious the human condition is? Ridiculous.
>
>>>You're stepping away from the outsider now?
>
>>### - so is that camus outsider, or just the stuff you scanned in
>>wikipedia? (grinz:)
>
> It's what Camus and others thought.

### - more like your banal understanding of what they thought which is no
understanding at all, especially if thought was involved :)

>>>Seing the human condition from without makes no difference to Camus'
>>>outsider. Human existence is ridiculous to him, not just it's
>>>values - there was no sanity to be found in the human condition for
>>>him.
>
>>### - which is more or less what i've said all along about there
>>being no sanity in humanly invented activities innit, existance being
>>absurd; the plots and plans of mankind are indeed ridiculous, but you
>>just try tellin' them that and they'll come up with the most absurd
>>arguments (like yours) to deny it :)
>
> So why are you (insanely according to you) bothering with life at all?

### - hang on, i'll see if i can get a refund on that ticket i bought to
come here then ok? sorry apparently no refunds coz there were no tickets
issued nor anyone (or anywhere) to buy them from... duh :)

> If you truly accepted the human condition absurd you wouldn't try to
> make people understand it, you wouldn't be angered by the 1% or the 19%
> you say are conspiring with them or be thinking of 80% of the
> population are crippled prisoners.

### - i'll repeat it just this once for you as you appear to be really quite
slow on the uptake? there is no anger involved in making detached
observations, else may as well say one is angry at the sky coz it's blue...

also, it's not just that 80% that are prisoners, the other 19.9% being more
like prison guards in that same prison doing their time just like all the
rest even though they like to think (console themselves) that they're better
off... well they aint :)

>>>Camus rejected spiritualism and religion as being 'philosophical
>>>suicide.' So what are you on about?
>
>>### - the fact that there IS no philosophy to begin with, so anyone
>>following one or even inventing their own is literally barking up the
>>wrong tree.
>
> But here you are doing exactly that, expounding your philosophy.

### - are you cracked?? a philosophy of no philosophy is a contradiction of
terms, yet it somehow makes sense to you does it? and although i do know
what you mean with the observation you are making it's still a ridiculous +
utterly specious argument to 'actually' go there like it's a valid point to
raise, duh:)

>
>>>>>>simplified version that allows monkeys to basically count
>>>>>>their bananas while imagining that they are accomplishing
>>>>>>great things :)
>
>>>>>You think monkeys do that? You're bananas.
>
>>>>### - that is 'exactly' what the monkeys on this planet have been
>>>>doing lol (human monkeys i meant + you do realise that we're
>>>>monkeys don't you, or perhaps you wanted us to be 'special'
>>>>monkeys? :)
>
>>>Learn evolution, humans diverged from the same trunk monkeys did
>>>(they had a common ancestor) but men were never monkeys, nor are
>>>they now - they descended through apes.
>
>>### - so you went for (bought into) being 'special' monkeys then eh?
>
> Did you read what I wrote above?

### - yep i read it, it's just that you ain't actually saying anything of
any import or relevance requiring any other responce than... duh :)

>
>>good news people! we're not monkeys we're great apes lol :)
>>i feel sooo much better now! (yeah right;)
>
> You really don't like your silly mistakes being pointed out to you, do
> you?

### - well, i knew what i meant even if you didn't + it's really not my
fault if there's something 'you' don't (or can't) understand with your
limited vocabulary and education that makes it impossible for you to jump
outside the mould (actually, mold is probably more appropriate than mould
hehe, and it's getting crusty!;)

> Might as well say we're descended from camelss if you're ok with monkeys

### - you might be descended from camels alright haha! (they spit quite a
lot apparently;) plus if i wish to refer to humans as being monkeys (human
monkeys heh:) there's nothing that says i can't do that if it's used to make
a subtle point... unless i was as anal retentive about everything like you
are that is ;)

>>>I've told you several times that the extinction of the human species
>>>would be no big deal yet you extrapolate from that that I think
>>>humans are 'special?' Try to make sense.
>
>>### - well they 'are' a bit different aren't they, the top of the
>>tree?
>
> So *you* think we're 'special' 'monkeys' now?

### - top predators aren't special, they're just top predators... so it's
you who thinks in terms of being special or not, not moi (pot-kettle-black
syndrome all over again innit folks:)

>>the end result of 'all' that trial and error evolution (billions of
>>years of it!) all going to nothing coz they basically went totally
>>insane...
>
> I thought you found the 'human condition' insane, if it's insane now
> then it always has been.

### - 'went' insane is different to always being insane duh, i.e. if chimps
suddenly started working 9 to 5 as slaves now that (and they) would be
insane, whereas just being chimps in and of themselves + living like chimps
more usually + naturally do, doesn't make them insane like your above wonky
logic otherwise suggests...

>
>>it's a damn shame that's what it is!
>
> More whining....

### - you might confuse lamenting with whining, but are actually 2 different
terms :)

>>plus you claiming it's "no big deal" being just so cynical/in total
>>denial being truly symptomatic of the apathy and complancency involved
>>that will prolly even bring them down in the end,
>
> You *do* think we're 'special' 'monkeys'! Species come and species
> usually go, ours will be no different.

### - true, nothing lasts forever, but that's entirely beside the point when
our species is virtually commiting suicide coz the balance of their mind is
all screwed up/insane...

>>and yet you claim your argument makes more sense?? duh :)
>
> Than just endlessly whining like you? Yes.

### - and that was supposed to provoke an emotional responce was it?? well
here's one for ya: duh! :)

>>>>### - complacency noted... i.e. no man knowing the time nor the
>>>>place of his demise etc
>
>>>Nor does it matter.
>
>>### - oh really? so i suppose that's why people with say only 6
>>months to live due to cancer all rush out to purchase 30 year
>>mortgages is it?? (totally daft :)
>
> You're now saying no man knows the time of their death except the ones
> that do, yet another change in position from you.

### - lol and you advocate for logical?? i.e. if you weren't so analy
inclined (heh;) perhaps you wouldn't have to keep going around in circles
chasing your own tale (pun intended;)

> I was talking in the grand sweep of things, as you must have known.

### - and i was making the point that sometimes under certain circumstances
is can and does matter, thus indirectly suggesting that absolutes have no
place here (said you were slow didn't i:)

>>>>perforce there is a premium on time to get something right (in
>>>>one's life i mean) before one's time runs out
>
>>>You reject Camus' outsider and it's whole point, then?
>
>>### - it's only by realising the absurdity/futility of society and its
>>aspirations that one truly gets the chance to do something 'other'
>>than becoming insane like the rest of them...
>
> So, as I've said leave society. You don't have the guts to do that
> though.

### - oh here we go with the same standard specious + soundbite-based
argument again lol, e.g. next you'll be calling me a ludite? (iow try to at
least have something of your own to argue with other than these utterly glib
and pretentious comments:)

>
> Or change society, but you're too timid and ineffectual to do that.

### - already stated that it can't be changed to any real effect but you
ignore that in favour of continuing to make daft comments of no real moment
whatsoever other than you think it's somehow clever to do so, again duh :)

>
> Or, like you, pretend you're 'special' or an 'outsider' to allow you to
> feel less out of control.

### - control is an illusion that's important only to anals like yourself,
get a life:)

>>i mean, be insane if you want but there might be better options:)
>
> Whining seems to be your preferred option

### - and you accused moi of sniping?? (that's actually all you do + have
offered to date)

>>>Not Camus' outsider then. Which outsider are you wittering about
>>>now?
>
>>### - was talking about the principle involved, not the person :)
>
>>>>(interestingly enough, plus i know you don't think it's important,
>>>>but what went on to happen in s.africa was the (white) right wing
>>>>actually merging with the left rather than being
>>>>dissolved/submerged altogether... duality being replaced by a
>>>>kind of unity being the only possible solution to save the day
>>>>that would have otherwise ended in complete disaster for all
>>>>concerned + that likely 'will' end in disaster for the rest of
>>>>the planet if it too doesn't do something fairly similar,
>
> So now there is a possibility that we'll all be saved (disaster is only
> 'likely' rather than certain now)? Another change in position?

### - look i know it's difficult for you, stuck as you are (and sinking) in
a completely polarised and thus vastly simplified pov of an either/or
perception of the world with nothing in-between, but there might just be a
little more to it than your limited 2-dimentional (iow: flat) appreciation
of it... such as depth and colour for example?

but to answer your question (yet again + geeze you're so slow coz i've
adaquately already covered all this) yes there is a miniscule chance it
could all be saved (as it was in microcosm in s.africa) it's just highly
unlikely and/or about as likely then on a global scale as aliens turning up
to save us from ourselves: ridiculously small...

so much so it would actually take a genuine miracle to accomplish it, and
thus basically are we screwed in practical terms... i mean, it could
actually be done! but would neccessarily require a rare kind of sanity that
isn't at all prevalent on this planet (such as that found in a mandela for
example) whereas another kind of insanity instead prevails: one very similar
indeed to your own so you should be able to understand it ;-)

>
>>>>s.africa being the rest of the world in microcosm it all came to
>>>>a head there first, something (which if true) makes that whole
>>>>event in fact highly significant ;)
>
>>>But we can't be saved - you've said so, so you must believe it,
>>>right? It's your whole excuse for not even trying to change the
>>>things you see as wrong.
>
>>### - correct! "we" (and i assume like me you mean humanity) can't be
>>saved either en-mass or collectively on a global scale, it's just too
>>big and too far gone to turn it all around! (i did mention titanic
>>didn't i?:)
>
> So how long do you give the patient, doc?

### - prolly not too much longer unfortunately, i.e. east and west are
dividing increasingly instead of coming together (to intelligently
compromise) like they did in s.africa... it's a powder keg and all it takes
is one uncompromising asshole (or rather: someone like you who refuses to
compromise heh;) to light the fucking fuse and it'll all kick off...

so then, perhaps now you can even see/sense the danger that your willfully
obtuse refusal to change (that i know you 'think' is funny, only it isn't
coz there's so much more at stake than just the obvious) is actually
perpetuating in the world instead of helping to de-fuse the situation...
(but then what do you care huh?)

> You've just finished saying doom is only 'likely' now and 'if it too
> doesn't do something fairly similar' suggesting a way out.

### - just figures of speech for the sake of clarity old chap + some slight
novel use of language for the purposes of trying to explain things to banana
worshipping monkeys who apparently don't know any better and/or who simply
refuse to do so coz they do so love them bananas innit heh :)

>
>>individuals otoh can (and still do) make it while humanity still
>>exists, a certain percentage in every generation making the
>>proverbial grade, prolly coz that's how nature has worked all along
>
> This is the nub of it, your cloying need to think of yourself as a
> 'special monkey' amongst the cripples, prisoners and elitist
> conspirators. Hilarious.

### - what's hilarious is a bunch of either/or-limited monkeys all chasing
their own tales whose actions are actually destroying the world while
thinking they're actually better than everyone else... (it's actually rather
sad :)

>
> You rail at the elitist society while aspiring to one day belong to an
> even more elitist group 'making the grade' ensuring wisdom (or whatever
> else you kid yourself these elite have) passes to the next generation.
> If you haven't grown out of this juvenile fantasy by the time you get
> to 22 or 23 you really should start worrying.

### - heh i merely painted a picture that you haven't been able to 'stop'
railing at ever since, is the real + simple truth here... you have, however,
been given all the relevent information so it's about time you started
putting it to work for you instead of trying to merely emulate my methods
for your own amusement, methods you do not (and obviously cannot) yet grasp
coz you've yet to do the work involved that brings understanding to them...

>
>>(some turtles, for example, lay 200 eggs just to ensure that at least
>>one or 2 survive to repeat the cycle plus why should humanity really
>>be any different to that?)
>
> Another pattern? Patterns don't exist though, or so you've stated.

### - and that's really the 'best' you can offer after all this?? (you
really 'are' slow, or just lazy who knows, probably both;)

however! sometimes it does take an almighty kick up the arse (or equivilent)
to set things a-working ya know? the equivilent of shaking the medicine
'after' one has already taken it perhaps hehe, but that's just the way it
sometimes goes considering people's innate indolence and their
reluctance/resistance to change...

>
> Humanity reproduces much more efficiently. My genes are already in the
> next two generations.

### - haha, dunno why but somehow that prospect almost completely disgusts
me (lol:)

---------------

"your old road is rapidly ageing
get out of the new one if ya can't lend a hand" --bobby dylan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2sYIIjS-cQ

[Bassos]

On 10-1-2013 17:40, dccxxvii wrote:
> Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:
>
>
>> Okay,
>
> Dokey

Do not start to turn into a follower, like slider tries to do.

Alt.magick is free for all, like the law.

You are not performing, you are interacting.

Then ffs stop performing, and interact.

>> What is 'THE' outsider ?
>
> In literature there are many artefacts called 'the outsider.' Although
> slider cites Camus (as if Camus version is the only one), his version
> seems to be his own.
>
>> What is any old outsider ?
>
> The window cleaner?

No feel for timing noted.

>> How do they differ ?
>
> 'The' outsider is mentally separated from what they observe, generally
> critiquing the within.

So a mix of detachment and folly.

right...

Outside and commenting on within seems incongruous.
Experience wise.

Be in the world, while off the world.

Whining about the world seems just plain silly.

>> Is the fool an outsider ?
>> (trick question)
>
> How judgemental is the fool?

Every experience is new to the fool.

Yet the fool is inside the world.

> If you aren't judging then what are you outside?

Quite my question ...

Is there an outsider even possible ?

Is every single experience a judgement anyway ?

[dccxxvii]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>>>>King would suggest you're good at it, so no.

>>>### - heh, royalty in exile would prolly be more apt :)

>>Sure, you're really the King of Wan, right?

>>Well should I list some of the issues you've so far avoided by going
>>off at tangents?

>### - asides are different to tangents +

If I do it it's a tangent, if you do it an aside. I do understand - you
use double standards.

>i didn't start the tangents, you did...

"He started it, mum!" If you thought things were tangents you could
just have snipped them but your sense of self importance wouldn't let
you.

>all i've done in that direction was to try to head you off
>on them but to no avail as you appear to need to hide behind
>'something', your mask perhaps :)

This is what your ego tells you you've done. Let's see some questions
you've avoided by going off at tangents so far:

I've asked:
Who is insisting that there are (I assume you mean meaningful) patterns
in the clouds? Are you just assuming they exist?

You seem to be saying there is definitely no path, no pattern, isn't
that your assertion/assumption?

What would you have taught in schools if not the current findings of our
civilization?

What, that meaningfully impacts your existence, do you feel is
unexplained?

You would prefer ignorance and a lack of curiosity?

what other Earth shattering discoveries are you talking about?

So your whole argument is based on your faith that we only know 5% of
what's going on, how do you know this?

What do you think is between 'Examining the universe to see what we can
find out about it without making your assumption' and 'ignorance and a
lack of curiosity'? Making stuff up?

All in the first few posts. So why are you hiding behind your mask?

>>>>You knew what I meant, you've even admitted as much. So you went
>>>>off at an irrelevant tangent.

>>>### - one created by you, yeah... but only in an effort to stop it:)

>>Going off at a tangent to stop a tangent from arising is about as
>>sensible as I should expect from you.

### - heh it's at least as sensible as your philospohy of no philosophy
innit:)

Totally refusing to engage with the point that going off at a tangent
to stop a tangent from arising is a stupid thing to do.
#Sliders first tangent of the post.#

>>>>>### - so perhaps that's what the use of emoticons (that you don't
>>>>>use) are for eh? :)

>>>>Not really, you use them a lot but you aren't humorous. I've
>>>>already told you you're free to insert your own.

>>>### - as are you... between the cheeks of your arse haha :)

>>More banal anality? Showing your true colours and trying to hide
>>behind your 'haha's' and 'grinz' and emoticons while snidely sniping.

>>nasty impotent egotist.

>### - ahhh quickly back to the name calling again huh? the rest was
>merely english humour and pun that apparently goes right over yer'
>head... again! duh >:)

Telling someone to stick it up their arse is not English humour.

>>Only if you think the outsider needs no clearer view that normal
>>members of society and no need to be free from normally arising
>>prejudice and preconception.

>### - in a prison there's certainly rules of that nature but outside
no >such rules exist,

Sure, you can escape rules of nature, like gravity, death etc., sure.

>>>making it look like you have no real
>>>argument to begin with other than that of mere contradiction, and any
>>>fool can do that :)

>>No they can't. (As you seem rather challenged in the humour department

>>I'll point out that this is a joke.)

>### - ya call that a joke?? duh inane is what that is mate more
>befitting of the schoolyard where you obviously still belong and
>play...

It's good enough for Monty so it's good enough for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY

One of the most famous Python scenes and you didn't get the reference.

>and you're not even a good student heh (and that's the real joke:)

You think you're a teacher? Now *that's* a funny.

>>>>>>The outsider is more like John from 'Brave New World.'

>===

>>>>>>That seems to have nothing to do with the absurdism of Camus'
>>>>>>novel (his version of the outsider,) or to earlier works
>>>>>>dealing with seeing society with clarity from without.

>>>>>### - the outsider was originally cited to provide you a pov of
>>>>>what people more usually take for granted as illustrated by the
>>>>>s.african true example provided,

>>>>So you cited an outsider who found the human condition absurd to
>>>>convince people how serious the human condition is? Ridiculous.

>>>>You're stepping away from the outsider now?

>>>### - so is that camus outsider, or just the stuff you scanned in
>>>wikipedia? (grinz:)

>>It's what Camus and others thought.

>### - more like your banal understanding of what they thought which is
>no understanding at all, especially if thought was involved :)

It's stuff they said and wrote that they thought. You don't care about
that though, you just make up any shit to fit your current, ever
changing, view.

>>>### - which is more or less what i've said all along about there
>>>being no sanity in humanly invented activities innit, existance being
>>>absurd; the plots and plans of mankind are indeed ridiculous, but you
>>>just try tellin' them that and they'll come up with the most absurd
>>>arguments (like yours) to deny it :)

>>So why are you (insanely according to you) bothering with life at all?

>### - hang on, i'll see if i can get a refund on that ticket i bought
>to come here then ok? sorry apparently no refunds coz there were no
>tickets issued nor anyone (or anywhere) to buy them from... duh :)

Why on Earth would you expect a ticket? Another tangent.

Leaving isn't hard, you'll do it eventually - one way or another.

>>If you truly accepted the human condition absurd you wouldn't try to
>>make people understand it, you wouldn't be angered by the 1% or the

>>19%you say are conspiring with them or be thinking of 80% of the

>>population are crippled prisoners.

>### - i'll repeat it just this once for you as you appear to be really
>quite slow on the uptake? there is no anger involved in making
detached >observations, else may as well say one is angry at the sky
coz it's
>blue...

Detached? No, you judge.? You are an angry man, your emotive language
gives you away.

<slider>

"are you really saying that people starving to death (for example)
means absolutely nothing to you? you don't seem like a psychopath to
me..."

<slider>

"anyone who 'condones' or who 'deliberately' turns a blind eye to all
that shite (like coz maybe they just got a nice big phat bonus or
summat for being a good little robber) is either an asshole or a cunt"

>also, it's not just that 80% that are prisoners, the other 19.9% being
>more like prison guards in that same prison doing their time just like
>all the rest even though they like to think (console themselves) that
>they're better off... well they aint :)

The only one whining is you, most are getting on with living.

>>>>Camus rejected spiritualism and religion as being 'philosophical
>>>>suicide.' So what are you on about?

>>>### - the fact that there IS no philosophy to begin with, so anyone
>>>following one or even inventing their own is literally barking up the
>>>wrong tree.

>>But here you are doing exactly that, expounding your philosophy.

>### - are you cracked?? a philosophy of no philosophy is a

Just because you say you have no philosophy doesn't make it so.

5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
6. a personal outlook or viewpoint

Two definitions from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy,
either of which show you're wrong.

>contradiction of terms, yet it somehow makes sense to you does it?

I don't expect the things you say to make sense any more.
Are you clearer now?

>and although i do know what you mean with the observation you are
>making it's still a ridiculous + utterly specious argument to
>'actually' go there like it's a valid point to raise, duh:)

Try again.

>>>>Learn evolution, humans diverged from the same trunk monkeys did
>>>>(they had a common ancestor) but men were never monkeys, nor are
>>>>they now - they descended through apes.

>>>### - so you went for (bought into) being 'special' monkeys then eh?

>>Did you read what I wrote above?

>### - yep i read it, it's just that you ain't actually saying anything
>of any import or relevance >requiring any other responce than... duh :)

I didn't say anything about 'special' monkeys at all, which is what you
seem to have read.

>>>good news people! we're not monkeys we're great apes lol :)
>>>i feel sooo much better now! (yeah right;)

>>You really don't like your silly mistakes being pointed out to you, do
>>you?

>### - well, i knew what i meant even if you didn't

>it's really not my fault

Nothing ever is with you, at least you'd never admit it. Too proud.

>>Might as well say we're descended from camels if you're ok with

>>monkeys

>### - you might be descended from camels alright haha!

Am I giving you the hump?

>plus if i wish to refer to humans as being monkeys (human monkeys
heh:) >there's nothing that says i can't do that if it's used to make a
subtle >point...

Sure, you can call bananas 'postboxes' if you want.

>unless i was as anal retentive about everything like you are that is ;)

Your obsession with calling me anal retentive is anally retentive.

>>>>I've told you several times that the extinction of the human species
>>>>would be no big deal yet you extrapolate from that that I think
>>>>humans are 'special?' Try to make sense.

>>>### - well they 'are' a bit different aren't they, the top of the
>>>tree?

>>So you think we're 'special' 'monkeys' now?

>### - top predators aren't special, they're just top predators...

Flip, flop, flip, flop.

>so it's you who thinks in terms of being special or not, not moi

Show where I've said anything of the sort. Your reasoning often seems
to be of the order 'I don't think that so you must think it.'

>>>the end result of 'all' that trial and error evolution (billions of
>>>years of it!) all going to nothing coz they basically went totally
>>>insane...

>>I thought you found the 'human condition' insane, if it's insane now
>>then it always has been.

>### - 'went' insane is different to always being insane duh,

The human condition being insane is not the same as humans being
insane.

Try again.

>>>it's a damn shame that's what it is!

>>More whining....

>### - you might confuse lamenting with whining, but are actually 2
>different terms :)

Again showing a lack of the detachment you claim. Lamenting requires
attachment. Still sounds like whining to me.

>>>plus you claiming it's "no big deal" being just so cynical/in total
>>>denial being truly symptomatic of the apathy and complancency
involved
>>>that will prolly even bring them down in the end,

>>You do think we're 'special' 'monkeys'! Species come and species

>>usually go, ours will be no different.

>### - true, nothing lasts forever, but that's entirely beside the

>point.

No, it's exactly the point.

>when our species is virtually commiting suicide coz the balance of
>their mind is all screwed up/insane...

The human race will outlast you, of that I'm sure.

>>>and yet you claim your argument makes more sense?? duh :)

>>Than just endlessly whining like you? Yes.

>### - and that was supposed to provoke an emotional responce was it??
>well here's one for ya: duh! >:)

No, it's meant to encourage you to stop whining.

>>>>>### - complacency noted... i.e. no man knowing the time nor the
>>>>>place of his demise etc

>>>>Nor does it matter.

>>>### - oh really? so i suppose that's why people with say only 6
>>>months to live due to cancer all rush out to purchase 30 year
>>>mortgages is it?? (totally daft :)

>>You're now saying no man knows the time of their death except the ones
>>that do, yet another change in position from you.

>### - lol and you advocate for logical??

Do I?

>i.e. if you weren't so analy inclined (heh;)

You're obsessed with my anus, try to control yourself.

>>I was talking in the grand sweep of things, as you must have known.

>### - and i was making the point that sometimes under certain
>circumstances is can and does matter,

In a minor, insignificant and material way. Why bother with
trivialities?

Knowing when you're going to die won't stop it happening.

>thus indirectly suggesting that absolutes have no place here

You're absolutely sure absolutes have no place? Perhaps they do. No?
You're absolutely certain of that? Your statement is self-contradictory.

>(said you were slow didn't I ;)

Yes, you try to denigrate others to bolster yourself against your
insecurities.

>>>>>perforce there is a premium on time to get something right (in
>>>>>one's life i mean) before one's time runs out

>>>>You reject Camus' outsider and it's whole point, then?

>>>### - it's only by realising the absurdity/futility of society and
>>>its aspirations that one truly gets the chance to do something
>>>'other'than becoming insane like the rest of them...

Your way is the only way? There are many paths to tread.

>>So, as I've said leave society. You don't have the guts to do that
>>though.

>### - oh here we go with the same standard specious

No, really, go and live on your own with nature - it's an astounding
experience.

> + soundbite-based argument again lol, e.g. next you'll be calling me
a >ludite?

No, why would you think I'd accuse you of fearing new technology? This
is a total non-sequitar, and you are trying to deflect the point and go
off at a tangent again.

>(iow try to at least have something of your own to argue with other >
>than these utterly glib and pretentious comments:)

There is nothing glib or pretentious (coming from someone who believes
he's a teacher and can become one of the new elite that's hilarious)
about turning your back on everyday society, even for a little while.
Try some wilderness years, you might like it.

>>Or change society, but you're too timid and ineffectual to do that.

>### - already stated that it can't be changed to any real effect but
>you ignore that in favour of continuing to make daft comments of no
>real moment >whatsoever other than you think it's somehow clever to do
>so, again duh :)

So you gave the example of S.A. and apartheid as a microcosm of how
society can be saved and then say it's not salvageable then say it's
disaster is now only 'likely.' If you picked one then we wouldn't be
stuck here. Considering your position in your second post "but they
might make it in the end;)" It's difficult to know your current opinion.

Try to keep the same P.O.V. for two posts on the trot, it'd be a start.

>>Or, like you, pretend you're 'special' or an 'outsider' to allow you
>>to feel less out of control.

>### - control is an illusion that's important only to anals like
>yourself, get a life:)

Again your obsession with my bottom.
Control is certainly an illusion for you.

Ignoring the point that you're trying to feel 'special,' another
tangent.

I'm fine with my life, and my world. You're the one bleating on about
how dreadful everything is.

>>>i mean, be insane if you want but there might be better options:)

>>Whining seems to be your preferred option

>### - and you accused moi

"Pretentious? Moi?" Yes - vous!

>>So now there is a possibility that we'll all be saved (disaster is
>>only'likely' rather than certain now)? Another change in position?

>### - look i know it's difficult for you, stuck as you are (and
>sinking) in a completely polarised and thus vastly simplified pov of
an >either/or perception of the world with nothing in-between,

Simplified, how about your cartoon view of 80% of humans are 'that kid
with all his arms and legs blown off?' Your cartoon caricature of the
rich, etc. etc.

>but to answer your question (yet again + geeze you're so slow coz i've
>adaquately already covered all this) yes there is a miniscule chance
it >could all be saved (as it was in microcosm in s.africa) it's just
>highly unlikely and/or about as likely then on a global scale as
aliens >turning up to save us from ourselves: ridiculously small...

I've pointed out your flip-flopping around (probably changing your
opinion to 'clarify' things) makes your current opinion difficult to
judge.

Perhaps you think aliens turned up to save S.A.

So you see this disaster looming and are deliberately turning a blind
eye (you're not doing anything to try to bring about that 'ridiculously
small possibility') making you, in your words, a cunt.

>so much so it would actually take a genuine miracle to accomplish it,

S.A. Didn't take a miracle, it took hard work. You won't do any work
though.

'Genuine miracle' is oxymoronic.

>and thus basically are we screwed in practical terms... i mean, it
>could actually be done!

But you've said it definitely can't.

>but would neccessarily require a rare kind of sanity that
>isn't at all prevalent on this planet (such as that found in a mandela
>for >example) whereas another kind of insanity instead prevails: one
>very similar >indeed to your own so you should be able to understand
it >;-)

Mandela was a figurehead, others did huge amounts of work.

Now it doesn't need a miracle just 'a rare kind of sanity.' #Flip-flop#

>>>>>s.africa being the rest of the world in microcosm it all came to
>>>>>a head there first, something (which if true) makes that whole
>>>>>event in fact highly significant ;)

>>>>But we can't be saved - you've said so, so you must believe it,
>>>>right? It's your whole excuse for not even trying to change the
>>>>things you see as wrong.

>>>### - correct! "we" (and i assume like me you mean humanity) can't be
>>>saved either en-mass or collectively on a global scale, it's just too
>>>big and too far gone to turn it all around! (i did mention titanic
>>>didn't i?:)

>>So how long do you give the patient, doc?

>### - prolly not too much longer unfortunately, i.e. east and west are
>dividing increasingly instead of coming together (to intelligently
>compromise) like they did in s.africa... it's a powder keg and all it
takes is >one uncompromising asshole (or rather: someone like you who
refuses to >compromise heh;)

I don't refuse to compromise, I refuse to take your bullcrap seriously.

The world has always been a mix of order and chaos, peace and war.
People like you have always shouted "The sky is falling!"

>to light the fucking fuse and it'll all kick off...

Oh gosh, I'm personally responsible for the end of the world now....

From someone who thinks Cameron is Hitler I shouldn't be surprised.

>so then, perhaps now you can even see/sense the danger that your
>willfully obtuse refusal to change

'Refusing to change 'and 'refusing to change the way you think I
should' are two different things.

>(that i know you 'think' is funny, only it isn't coz there's so much
>more at stake than just the obvious)

Why would you care, you claim to be detached?

It is funny.

>is actually perpetuating in the world instead of helping to de-fuse
the >situation... (but then what do you care huh?)

You're the one saying 'look at all these problems that we can't do
anything about' instead of getting on living your life.

>>You've just finished saying doom is only 'likely' now and 'if it too
>>doesn't do something fairly similar' suggesting a way out.

>### - just figures of speech for the sake of clarity old chap

They are not figures of speech.

> + some slight novel use of language for the purposes of trying to
>explain things to banana

Humpty Dumpty language, your words change their meaning when you can't
stand by them.

>worshipping monkeys who apparently don't know any better and/or who
>simply refuse to do so coz they do so love them bananas innit heh :)

You do love that banana that is your overly pessimistic view of the
world, don't you monkey?

>>>individuals otoh can (and still do) make it while humanity still
>>>exists, a certain percentage in every generation making the
>>>proverbial grade, prolly coz that's how nature has worked all along

>>This is the nub of it, your cloying need to think of yourself as a
>>'special monkey' amongst the cripples, prisoners and elitist
>>conspirators. Hilarious.

>### - what's hilarious is a bunch of either/or-limited monkeys

Who has the two dimensional view - you!

> all
>chasing their own tales whose actions are actually destroying the
world >while thinking >they're actually better than everyone else...
(it's
>actually rather sad :)

What's ridiculous is you in your Chicken Little costume shouting "the
sky is falling, the sky is falling."

>>You rail at the elitist society while aspiring to one day belong to an
>>even more elitist group 'making the grade' ensuring wisdom (or
>>whatever else you kid yourself these elite have) passes to the next
>>generation. If you haven't grown out of this juvenile fantasy by the
>>time you get to 22 or 23 you really should start worrying.

>### - heh i merely painted a picture that you haven't been able to
>'stop' railing at ever since, is the real + simple truth here...

I merely point out what bullcrap you're portraying.

You wouldn't know the truth if it was branded on your brain.

Painting? There are horses that could sell their paintings for more.

>you have, however, been given all the relevent information so it's
>about time you started putting it to work for you instead of trying to
>merely emulate my methods for your own >amusement, methods you do not
>(and obviously cannot) yet grasp coz you've yet >to do >the work
>involved that brings understanding to them...

If you understood anything you'd be able to explain it clearly without
all the flip flopping and emotive language, but you can't. Again you
pretend to enlightenment, again you pretend to teaching. Ego at work.

>>>(some turtles, for example, lay 200 eggs just to ensure that at least
>>>one or 2 survive to repeat the cycle plus why should humanity really
>>>be any different to that?)

>>Another pattern? Patterns don't exist though, or so you've stated.

>### - and that's really the 'best' you can offer after all this?? (you
>really 'are' slow, or just lazy who knows, probably both;)

Another tangent you want to go off on to avoid facing how ridiculous
your 'no patterns' stance is.

>however! sometimes it does take an almighty kick up the arse (or
>equivilent) to set things a-working ya know? the equivilent of shaking
>the medicine 'after' one has already taken it perhaps hehe,

But you can't save the patient (or perhaps you can but it seems like
it'll take a miracle and you can't be bothered with the effort)

>but that's just the way it sometimes goes considering people's innate
>indolence and their reluctance/resistance to change...

Berating humans for being humans is rather silly.

>>Humanity reproduces much more efficiently. My genes are already in the
>>next two generations.

>### - haha, dunno why but somehow that prospect almost completely
>disgusts me (lol:)

Because you're not as detached as you claim.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

Bassos wrote...

>>> What is 'THE' outsider ?
>>
>> In literature there are many artefacts called 'the outsider.' Although
>> slider cites Camus (as if Camus version is the only one), his version
>> seems to be his own.
>>
>>> What is any old outsider ?
>>
>> The window cleaner?
>
> No feel for timing noted.
>
>>> How do they differ ?
>>
>> 'The' outsider is mentally separated from what they observe, generally
>> critiquing the within.
>
> So a mix of detachment and folly.
>
> right...
>
> Outside and commenting on within seems incongruous.
> Experience wise.
>
> Be in the world, while off the world.

### - a kind of high-wire act perhaps?

the 'fool' has no idea what he's talking about! (double barrelled)

so try a glass of 'this' whine? (i'm paying, so it's on me, it's vintage;)

http://taicarmen.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/the-outsider-part-1/

> Whining about the world seems just plain silly.

### - agreed, so perhaps then it's not actually whining at all but could
seem like it to people with no corresponding referrance point to, erm, refer
(i.e: personally relate) to... a case of people filling in the blanks with
their own (or commonly known) values/projections (in this instance:
whining/complaining) coz that's all they have on the subject (currently) to
refer to, and so therefore (very logically heh;) it simply 'must' be that
then innit!

even when they obviously dunno wtf they're talkin' about :)

------------------

"I get a kick out of being an outsider constantly. It allows me to be
creative." --Bill Hicks

"And we... kill those people!" --also bill hicks :)

[Bassos]

On 11-1-2013 18:23, dccxxvii wrote:
> slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>> ### - heh, royalty in exile would prolly be more apt :)
>
> Sure, you're really the King of Wan, right?

Tsk tsk; Root at Wan

[Bassos]

On 12-1-2013 16:05, slider wrote:
> Bassos wrote...
>
>>>> What is 'THE' outsider ?
>>>
>>> In literature there are many artefacts called 'the outsider.' Although
>>> slider cites Camus (as if Camus version is the only one), his version
>>> seems to be his own.
>>>
>>>> What is any old outsider ?
>>>
>>> The window cleaner?
>>
>> No feel for timing noted.
>>
>>>> How do they differ ?
>>>
>>> 'The' outsider is mentally separated from what they observe, generally
>>> critiquing the within.
>>
>> So a mix of detachment and folly.
>>
>> right...
>>
>> Outside and commenting on within seems incongruous.
>> Experience wise.
>>
>> Be in the world, while off the world.
>
> ### - a kind of high-wire act perhaps?

What about interaction >>>>> performance did you not understand ?

> the 'fool' has no idea what he's talking about! (double barrelled)
>
> so try a glass of 'this' whine? (i'm paying, so it's on me, it's vintage;)
>
> http://taicarmen.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/the-outsider-part-1/

I already claimed you wannabe a follower, and i also already explained
why being a follower (who follows) is Baaaaad.

>> Whining about the world seems just plain silly.
>
> ### - agreed,

Then celebrate what is nice.

[dccxxvii]

Bassos ( Root@Wan ) wrote to alt.magick:

Yet slider thinks *he's* Wan-King.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

Bassos wrote...

>>>>> What is 'THE' outsider ?
>>>>
>>>> In literature there are many artefacts called 'the outsider.' Although
>>>> slider cites Camus (as if Camus version is the only one), his version
>>>> seems to be his own.
>>>>
>>>>> What is any old outsider ?
>>>>
>>>> The window cleaner?
>>>
>>> No feel for timing noted.
>>>
>>>>> How do they differ ?
>>>>
>>>> 'The' outsider is mentally separated from what they observe, generally
>>>> critiquing the within.
>>>
>>> So a mix of detachment and folly.
>>>
>>> right...
>>>
>>> Outside and commenting on within seems incongruous.
>>> Experience wise.
>>>
>>> Be in the world, while off the world.
>>
>> ### - a kind of high-wire act perhaps?
>
> What about interaction >>>>> performance did you not understand ?

### - i understand but just don't agree, i.e. i see no problem with
performers and their audiance and the clear interaction they both
experience? indeed, good performers often have their audiance sitting right
on the edge of their seats so strong is their interaction connection...

>
>> the 'fool' has no idea what he's talking about! (double barrelled)
>>
>> so try a glass of 'this' whine? (i'm paying, so it's on me, it's
>> vintage;)
>>
>> http://taicarmen.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/the-outsider-part-1/
>
> I already claimed you wannabe a follower, and i also already explained why
> being a follower (who follows) is Baaaaad.

### - sigh, outsiders are so far o u t t h e r e (in no-man's land) that
there's no possibility of following anything or anyone whatsoever... they're
totally alone! (i wasn't calling you the fool btw)

>
>>> Whining about the world seems just plain silly.
>>
>> ### - agreed,
>
> Then celebrate what is nice.

### - awww, you're alright bassos + you said once that you quite liked me,
and well, i quite like you as well hehehe, it's your nice temperment that
does it even though you sometimes appear as being mr hard as nails and as
tough as old boots (daft english expressions:) i still see a clear streak of
kindness/decency in you, and that's not baaaaad (is also why i'm never be
mean to you:)

as for celebrating niceness.. i do! all the time! am even doing it right
now! on the inside hehehe :)

in fact (as i recently said to old silly billy over there) outsiders
actually have (and suffer) a heightened sense of what is nice... especially
when, for example, they can perhaps more clearly see than most that that
something nice is dying out or becoming extinct right in front of their
eyes!

e.g... tigers are very nice! incredible actually!

Tiger Tiger. burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye.
Could frame thy fearful symmetry? --blake

but to realise that they will likely go extinct even in our lifetime due to
the dumb and stupid ways of mankind hell-bent on so-called 'progress' of the
worst kind, kinda makes them even more intensely nice!

well ya wouldn't wanna keep one in cage anyway innit :)

[727]

slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:

>>I already claimed you wannabe a follower, and i also already
>>explained why being a follower (who follows) is Baaaaad.

>### - sigh, outsiders are so far o u t t h e r e (in no-man's land)
>that there's no possibility of following anything or anyone
>whatsoever... they're totally alone!

He was talking about you, not outsiders.

Outsider is just another thing you wannabe

>(i wasn't calling you the fool btw)

I doubt he'd be offended.

==

>but to realise that they will likely go extinct even in our lifetime
>due to the dumb and stupid ways of mankind hell-bent on so-called
>'progress' of the worst kind, kinda makes them even more intensely
>nice!

I don't suppose you're doing anything about that either.
That's probably too hard for you too.

--
========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

727 smote...

### - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp66OqIzUuo

(english humour says it all ;-)

[dccxxvii]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:06:56 +0000, slider wrote:

>>>but to realise that they will likely go extinct even in our lifetime
>>>due to the dumb and stupid ways of mankind hell-bent on so-called
>>>'progress' of the worst kind, kinda makes them even more intensely
>>>nice!

>> I don't suppose you're doing anything about that either.
>> That's probably too hard for you too.

> ### - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp66OqIzUuo

> (english humour says it all ;-)

The clip isn't funny.

A Clockwork Orange isn't a comedy and Pulp Fiction isn't even English.

But these things are inconvenient to your point so you just ignore that.

========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

dccxxvii continues being a time waster...

>>>>but to realise that they will likely go extinct even in our lifetime
>>>>due to the dumb and stupid ways of mankind hell-bent on so-called
>>>>'progress' of the worst kind, kinda makes them even more intensely
>>>>nice!
>
>>> I don't suppose you're doing anything about that either.
>>> That's probably too hard for you too.
>
>> ### - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp66OqIzUuo
>
>> (english humour says it all ;-)
>
> The clip isn't funny.
>
> A Clockwork Orange isn't a comedy and Pulp Fiction isn't even English.
>
> But these things are inconvenient to your point so you just ignore that.

### - lol your inability to extrapolate/accept even simple + correct
information is completely ridiculous, not to mention utterly ludicrous, as
indeed is your 'mania' for deliberately wasting other people's irreplaceable
time with repetitious nonsense, do your OWN flippin' homework!! :)

now fyi, 'up yer' arse' is VERY english hehe, as is 'up yours!' plus a
veritable host of variations of same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqxo5HoVtrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VESAnP5gj0Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo0GI_zE59w

am not replying to your other message in which you: made a list??

i mean ffs! just how 'anal' is that!!! LOL i rest my case!

;-)

[dccxxvii]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:41:13 +0000, slider wrote:

>>> (english humour says it all ;-)

>> The clip isn't funny.

>> A Clockwork Orange isn't a comedy and Pulp Fiction isn't even English.

>> But these things are inconvenient to your point so you just ignore
>> that.

> ### - lol your inability to extrapolate/accept even simple + correct
> information is completely ridiculous,

Your inability to provide correct information is what I was pointing out.

As I've said before, you don't like your errors being pointed out to you,
do you?

> not to mention utterly ludicrous, as indeed is your 'mania' for
> deliberately wasting other people's irreplaceable time with repetitious
> nonsense,

You're the one pointlessly droning on and on about things you don't think
anyone can do anything about.

> do your OWN flippin' homework!! :)

I think this qualifies as your *OBES*.

> now fyi, 'up yer' arse' is VERY english hehe, as is 'up yours!' plus a
> veritable host of variations of same:

English yes, but not humorous to anyone above the age of about 13. Were
you so juvenile as to 'lol' at any of the clips you posted?

The urban dictionary defines 'up yours' thus..
"Short for shove it up your ass. If you're not using it as an insult,
you're an idiot"

> am not replying to your other message in which you: made a list??

OK, so this *is* your OBES.

It did contain a lot of stuff you found hard to reasonably answer I take
it, ok.

>in which you: made a list??

You mean where I gave a few examples of you doing exactly what you accused
me of doing. Giving examples is what reasonable people do, but that would
be beyond your understanding.

> i mean ffs! just how 'anal' is that!!!

Back with 'anal', you love that word almost as much as you love 'insane'

> LOL i rest my case!

So you're taking your ball and going home.

Still telling yourself you're the outsider despite having no new
perspective to add, just rehashed anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-
discrimination and absurdism (all well over 150 years old)?

========
dccxxvii
========

[slider]

dccxxvii wrote...

>> now fyi, 'up yer' arse' is VERY english hehe, as is 'up yours!' plus a
>> veritable host of variations of same:
>
> English yes, but not humorous

### - oh dear, you've put your foot right in the brown and smelly
again (give someone enough rope etc innit heh;)

so now it IS english?? coz only just a moment ago you totally + very
emphatically denied it ever was! (sheesh, and he accuses 'me' of
flip-flopping?? duh!)

e.g...

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

>>>>>### - so perhaps that's what the use of emoticons (that you don't
>>>>>use) are for eh? :)

>>>>Not really, you use them a lot but you aren't humorous. I've
>>>>already told you you're free to insert your own.

>>>### - as are you... between the cheeks of your arse haha :)

>>More banal anality? Showing your true colours and trying to hide
>>behind your 'haha's' and 'grinz' and emoticons while snidely sniping.
>>nasty impotent egotist.

>### - ahhh quickly back to the name calling again huh? the rest was
>merely english humour and pun that apparently goes right over yer'
>head... again! duh >:)

"Telling someone to stick it up their arse is not English humour. " --727

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

(now all together everyone...)

OHHH YESSS IT ISSSS! (roflmo :)

to anyone above the age of about 13. Were
> you so juvenile as to 'lol' at any of the clips you posted?

### - this coming from the guy who tried to make a joke out of "Wan-King"??

yeah right... :)

> The urban dictionary defines 'up yours' thus..
> "Short for shove it up your ass. If you're not using it as an insult,
> you're an idiot"
>
>> am not replying to your other message in which you: made a list??
>
> OK, so this *is* your OBES.

### - code words now? what sophist nonsense is this?? + how much are they
charging the uneducated (i.e. the unwitting) these days for what is
ostensibly only common knowledge anyway? :)

> It did contain a lot of stuff you found hard to reasonably answer I take
> it, ok.
>
>>in which you: made a list??
>
> You mean where I gave a few examples of you doing exactly what you accused
> me of doing. Giving examples is what reasonable people do, but that would
> be beyond your understanding.
>
>> i mean ffs! just how 'anal' is that!!!
>
> Back with 'anal', you love that word almost as much as you love 'insane'

### - laughingly, it's just that both these terms now go hand in hand in
direct general referance to 'you' (cracking up :)

>> LOL i rest my case!
>
> So you're taking your ball and going home.
>
> Still telling yourself you're the outsider despite having no new
> perspective to add, just rehashed anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-
> discrimination and absurdism (all well over 150 years old)?

### - only 150? this is really rich coming from a member of a newsgroup
given over mostly to the studying of the arcane?? (hypocrate!)

plus... 'an' outsider, yes... not 'the' outsider, which is the title of a
book (something bassos and robert even hinted at to help you out, but alas
to no avail as you've got yer' fingers stuck in your ears and yer' thumb up
yer arse (has big hands :)

as for the rest? there IS only the one truth, and Art, which arguably
attempts to communicate that truth is, well... ageless :)

hence the paul dirac quote of before...

"In science, one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by
everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the
exact opposite." -- Paul Dirac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQozTxQSiE

go figure :)

[Robert Scott Martin]

Some demonstrations of willful stupidity get even this old dog to snarl.

In article <kd84d2$mei$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

slider <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:

>> English yes, but not humorous

>so now it IS english?? coz only just a moment ago you totally + very
>emphatically denied it ever was! (sheesh, and he accuses 'me' of
>flip-flopping?? duh!)

For fuck's sake, you toxic narcissist, he said it wasn't English HUMOUR.

>"Telling someone to stick it up their arse is not English humour. " --727

Nobody is challenging the cultural origins of your favorite scatalogical
idiom.

It's English. We all get that. But is it humourous? He argued it was
actually an act of verbal aggression, an insult.

And now back to your preening.

>
>(now all together everyone...)
>
>OHHH YESSS IT ISSSS! (roflmo :)

>> "Short for shove it up your ass. If you're not using it as an insult,
>> you're an idiot"

Stick it up your arse, get out of this newsgroup, shut up, go away, drop
dead.

[Robert Scott Martin]

In article <kd84d2$mei$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
slider <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQozTxQSiE

God, you have become a simpering cretin. Be the change you want to see in
the world. Come back when it happens. I wish you everything you desire.

[Robert Scott Martin]

Quoting for truth, whatever I tell you three times is true:

In article <kd6kjd$5me$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

dccxxvii <the.impe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>English yes, but not humorous to anyone above the age of about 13. Were
>you so juvenile as to 'lol' at any of the clips you posted?

And to refract the conclusions through the adamant cloud of flatus:

[dccxxvii]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 slider wrote:
dccxxvii wrote...

>>>>> (english humour says it all ;-)

>>>>The clip isn't funny.
>>>>A Clockwork Orange isn't a comedy and Pulp Fiction isn't even English.

>>> now fyi, 'up yer' arse' is VERY english hehe, as is 'up yours!' plus a
>>> veritable host of variations of same:

>> English yes, but not humorous

>### - oh dear, you've put your foot right in the brown and smelly
>again (give someone enough rope etc innit heh;)

>so now it IS english?? coz only just a moment ago you totally + very
>emphatically denied it ever was!

I never denied it's English, although it's more multi-national rather than
exclusively so. I've always said it's not humorous, I still do. You
claimed it was both (I've re-inserted your original claim that it's
*English humour* not just *English*.

> (sheesh, and he accuses 'me' of
>flip-flopping?? duh!)

I state clearly that you do.

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

>>>>>>### - so perhaps that's what the use of emoticons (that you don't
>>>>>>use) are for eh? :)

>>>>>Not really, you use them a lot but you aren't humorous. I've
>>>>>already told you you're free to insert your own.

>>>>### - as are you... between the cheeks of your arse haha :)

>>>More banal anality? Showing your true colours and trying to hide
>>>behind your 'haha's' and 'grinz' and emoticons while snidely sniping.
>>>nasty impotent egotist.

>>### - ahhh quickly back to the name calling again huh? the rest was
>>merely english humour and pun that apparently goes right over yer'
>>head... again! duh >:)

>"Telling someone to stick it up their arse is not English humour. "

That's right it's *not* English _humour_.

Your inability to understand and accept even simple, correct
information is completely ridiculous.

>(now all together everyone...)
>OHHH YESSS IT ISSSS! (roflmo :)

I don't think there's anyone else in this group likely to confuse
'English' with 'English humour.' You're letting your emotional involvement
make you stupid.

>> The urban dictionary defines 'up yours' thus..
>> "Short for shove it up your ass. If you're not using it as an insult,
>> you're an idiot"

>>> am not replying to your other message in which you: made a list??

>> OK, so this *is* your OBES.

>### - code words now? what sophist nonsense is this?? + how much are they
>charging the uneducated (i.e. the unwitting) these days for what is
>ostensibly only common knowledge anyway? :)

It's a fairly common newsgroup acronym standing for Obligatory Brave Exit
Speech. When someone finally realises they've made a fool of themselves
and doesn't want to face the argument any more they make a show of bravado
and try to save face as they back out of the conversation.

>> Back with 'anal', you love that word almost as much as you love
>>'insane'

>### - laughingly, it's just that both these terms now go hand in hand in
>direct general referance to 'you' (cracking up :)

If you're calling me names I know I'm doing OK.

>(cracking up :)

Yes you are.

>>> LOL i rest my case!

>> So you're taking your ball and going home.

>> Still telling yourself you're the outsider despite having no new
>> perspective to add, just rehashed anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-
>> discrimination and absurdism (all well over 150 years old)?

>### - only 150? this is really rich coming from a member of a newsgroup
>given over mostly to the studying of the arcane?? (hypocrate!)

Magick is what you do now, and deals with the present and shaping ones
future.

You claim to be 'outsider and say.

"outsiders are so far o u t t h e r e (in no-man's land) that
there's no possibility of following anything or anyone whatsoever...
they're totally alone!"

Yet in every view you espouse you are following others, and you are
definitely *not* alone.

>(hypocrite!)

Yes you are.

>plus... 'an' outsider, yes... not 'the' outsider, which is the title of a
>book (something bassos and robert even hinted at to help you out, but

>as to no avail as you've got yer' fingers stuck in your ears and yer'
>thumb up yer arse (has big hands :)

You aren't even that, all the ideas you've stated have global distribution
and, generally, organisation.

Your obsession with my arse returns, eh?

>as for the rest? there IS only the one truth, and Art, which arguably
>attempts to communicate that truth is, well... ageless :)

You aren't an artist as far as I can tell.

>hence the paul dirac quote of before...

>"In science, one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood
>by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's
>the exact opposite." -- Paul Dirac

... and you're definitely not a poet.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQozTxQSiE

Now you think you're Neo? Morpheus?

>go figure :)

Indeed you should.

========
dccxxvii
========