Portrait Update -- Say No To Scieno! [Ebay]
Nikolaus Maack
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
I'm still auctioning off the L. Ron Hubbard portrait. However, I have
decided that there is no way in hell I will sell this painting to anyone
who is a member of the Church of Scientology. For this reason, if the
winning bidder turns out to be a Scientologist, I will not sell them the
painting. I don't care what Ebay says.
Several critics of the Church of Scientology have written me email,
praising my artwork, saying that they will place a bid in the next few
days. (They're holding off making a bid immediately for strategic
reasons.) They all feel that the portrait is a wonderful, comical
rendition of L. Ron. However, they question my (former) willingness to
sell the work to the Church. They point out that the Co$ is an evil
entity that has destroyed many lives. Selling my portrait to them would
be, for all intents and purposes, like selling a satirical portrait of
Hitler to the nazis.
The artwork is satirical in nature. Up until now I've tried to pretend
that it wasn't created with that intent in mind. I felt that if I
downplayed the irony of the piece, I'd get a buyer. However, most of you
noticed how the colourful, fragmented style of the work strongly reflects
the clownish, pretentious insanity that is the character of L. Ron Hubbard.
I can't hide that aspect of the portrait -- it's there for all to see.
So I'm going to admit it -- the portrait is satirical. And there's
something more important at stake here than simply selling a painting.
The critics of the Co$ have convinced me that the church is evil, and
deserves my HATE. So I won't sell my painting to them. They'll have to
break into my home in the middle of the night and steal it, if they want
it.
Oh, and they do want the portrait. Of that I am quite sure. Whether they
want to destroy it or worship it, I do not know, but they definitely want
it. Well, so long as I'm alive and kicking, there's no goddamn way
they're going to get their bloody hands on it.
I'd like to thank those critics who wrote me email, taking the time to
help me see the light. You're a wonderful group of people, and I
appreciate the common sense and the patience you've shown.
Nik
--
"I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
James Wood
Maack) wrote:
>I have made a horrible mistake. Please accept my apologies.
>
Nik, I really have to admire your itegrity. Good luck with the
auction. (I love the piece, by the way. Really nice work.)
James
Chris Leithiser
>
> I have made a horrible mistake. Please accept my apologies.
>
>
> I'm still auctioning off the L. Ron Hubbard portrait. However, I have
> decided that there is no way in hell I will sell this painting to anyone
> who is a member of the Church of Scientology. For this reason, if the
> winning bidder turns out to be a Scientologist, I will not sell them the
> painting. I don't care what Ebay says.
Sorry, this is a _bad_ idea. If I were you, I would simply remove the
item from sale. Anything else is likely to get you in serious legal
trouble. IANAL, but many here can attest to how $cientology views the
US legal system.
Kelly Martin
<clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>> I'm still auctioning off the L. Ron Hubbard portrait. However, I have
>> decided that there is no way in hell I will sell this painting to anyone
>> who is a member of the Church of Scientology. For this reason, if the
>> winning bidder turns out to be a Scientologist, I will not sell them the
>> painting. I don't care what Ebay says.
>
>Sorry, this is a _bad_ idea. If I were you, I would simply remove the
>item from sale. Anything else is likely to get you in serious legal
>trouble. IANAL, but many here can attest to how $cientology views the
>US legal system.
I would tend to agree. eBay's rules state that a binding contract is
formed with the winning bidder. You can rest assured that if the
Church or one of its agents is the winning bidder, and you refuse to
sell, they WILL sue you on the contract. The fact that you're in
Canada won't make a damn bit of a difference, since you consented to
jurisdiction in the United States by placing the item for auction on
eBay (read eBay's T&Cs), and Canada is obliged to assist in service of
process against you by the terms of the North American Free Trade
Agreement as well as other treaties between the United States and
Canada.
Kelly
James Wood
<clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>Sorry, this is a _bad_ idea. If I were you, I would simply remove the
>item from sale. Anything else is likely to get you in serious legal
>trouble. IANAL, but many here can attest to how $cientology views the
>US legal system.
What he said. You really don't want to get into a legal battle with
scientology. Really.
James
Nikolaus Maack
> Sorry, this is a _bad_ idea. If I were you, I would simply remove the
> item from sale. Anything else is likely to get you in serious legal
> trouble. IANAL, but many here can attest to how $cientology views the
> US legal system.
As many have pointed out, it is debatable whether or not the Co$ would
have a legal leg to stand on. But that's not the point. I'm not going to
back down simply because a piece of artwork makes someone upset. I won't
back down because I offend an individual or a group or even a litigation
happy cult. If I back down, they win. I do not want them to win.
Neither should you.
Tilman Hausherr
>I have made a horrible mistake. Please accept my apologies.
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
>
>I'm still auctioning off the L. Ron Hubbard portrait. However, I have
>decided that there is no way in hell I will sell this painting to anyone
>who is a member of the Church of Scientology. For this reason, if the
>winning bidder turns out to be a Scientologist, I will not sell them the
>painting. I don't care what Ebay says.
I have a better suggestion. eBay will probably lock you out if you
"discriminate". Instead, advertise that you will donate a small % to an
organisation that warns about cults, e.g. AFF or the Leo Ryan foundation
or the Lisa McPherson trust. No scientologist would bid :-)
Tilman
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.xenu.de
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Chris Leithiser
>
> Chris Leithiser (clei...@bc.cc.ca.us) writes:
> > Sorry, this is a _bad_ idea. If I were you, I would simply remove the
> > item from sale. Anything else is likely to get you in serious legal
> > trouble. IANAL, but many here can attest to how $cientology views the
> > US legal system.
>
> As many have pointed out, it is debatable whether or not the Co$ would
> have a legal leg to stand on. But that's not the point. I'm not going to
> back down simply because a piece of artwork makes someone upset. I won't
> back down because I offend an individual or a group or even a litigation
> happy cult. If I back down, they win. I do not want them to win.
> Neither should you.
It's not only a probable legal problem for you, it's the WRONG thing to
do, to deny a sale to someone based solely on their religion.
You don't approve of that religion, fine. Neither do I. That's beside
the point.
It's not the artwork that would be upsetting, but the religious
discrimination. If you want to exclude $cientologists from purchasing
the artwork, then produce art they won't want to buy.
If you've offered it to the public, then Scientologists are included.
Period.
To look at the situation in another light, consider this--if a "public"
Scientologist pays you $400 (or more) for your artwork, that's $400 that
_doesn't_ go to the cult, _doesn't_ go towards "fair-game" attacks on
critics, or paying for lawyers, whatever. And the publicity generated
by a "refusal to sell based on religion" would be a propaganda bonus for
the cult.
I have no control over other critics--none of us does. But I'm telling
you that from my viewpoint only, what you propose to do is:
1. Probably illegal, though I am not a lawyer.
2. Certainly wrong.
3. Playing right into the hands of the people--and I am not speaking of
individual Scientologists here--who killed Lisa McPherson and many
others.
Do what you will.
Chris Leithiser
>
> On 13 Oct 2000 12:55:26 GMT, ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack)
> wrote in <8s70nu$jtp$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>:
>
> >I have made a horrible mistake. Please accept my apologies.
> >
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
> >
> >I'm still auctioning off the L. Ron Hubbard portrait. However, I have
> >decided that there is no way in hell I will sell this painting to anyone
> >who is a member of the Church of Scientology. For this reason, if the
> >winning bidder turns out to be a Scientologist, I will not sell them the
> >painting. I don't care what Ebay says.
>
> I have a better suggestion. eBay will probably lock you out if you
> "discriminate". Instead, advertise that you will donate a small % to an
> organisation that warns about cults, e.g. AFF or the Leo Ryan foundation
> or the Lisa McPherson trust. No scientologist would bid :-)
>
Nikolaus Maack
> What he said. You really don't want to get into a legal battle with
> scientology. Really.
I don't foresee any problems unless:
1) Someone from the Co$ places a bid on the painting. That has yet to
happen.
2) They get the winning bid.
If I reach that stage, I will refuse to give them the painting, and then
legal difficulties might occur. I'm not going to worry too much until I
reach that point, if I reach that point.
Yes, I'm pretty sure the Church will make a bid for the work. I'm not so
certain they will place the winning bid. There are, after all, other
interested parties.
Starshadow
"Chris Leithiser" <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
news:39E75002...@bc.cc.ca.us...
This I also think is a terrific idea. I'm sure that no Scn'ist would bid
if you named Lisa McPherson Trust as a possible beneficiary of a percentage.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
Kelly Martin
Maack) wrote:
>As many have pointed out, it is debatable whether or not the Co$ would
>have a legal leg to stand on. But that's not the point. I'm not going to
>back down simply because a piece of artwork makes someone upset. I won't
>back down because I offend an individual or a group or even a litigation
>happy cult. If I back down, they win. I do not want them to win.
>Neither should you.
Just be aware that there is the distinct possibility of having a squad
of Mounties come knocking on your door demanding that you turn over
the painting.
Kelly
ethercat
On 13 Oct 2000 12:55:26 GMT, ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus
Maack) wrote in <8s70nu$jtp$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>:
>I have made a horrible mistake. Please accept my apologies.
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
>
>I'm still auctioning off the L. Ron Hubbard portrait. However, I have
>decided that there is no way in hell I will sell this painting to anyone
>who is a member of the Church of Scientology. For this reason, if the
>winning bidder turns out to be a Scientologist, I will not sell them the
>painting. I don't care what Ebay says.
Aside from the legal concerns of others, how will you know if it is
a scientologist (or an agent of) that buys your painting?
You said this in a previous post:
>However, one of the things I have learned as an artist is that once a work
>is out of my hands, it has a life of its own. If someone wants to buy
>this work in order to smash it to pieces, I can't stop them. I would
>prefer that they didn't smash it. I often miss my paintings after I sell
>them, and hope that they are being treated well.
Maybe you could adopt a new attitude with this piece in particular.
When you sell the original, reserve the rights to reproduction for
yourself. (Perhaps someone else here can tell you more about how this
works legally.) This will not prevent your work from being bought to
be destroyed, but will assure that your work will not be censored, as
you can make as many reproductions as you wish.
That being said, consider putting the image on merchandise at
www.cafepress.com (Thanks, Lianna!) It will not dilute the value of
the original, and will accomplish these other things:
* Allow critics (or scientologists) without $400 to purchase a copy.
* Prevent it being removed from circulation by a purchase made by a
scientologist.
* Remove any incentive for purchasing it with the intent to censor or
destroy it, since other copies will exist.
* Allow you to keep making money from it after the original is sold,
and to do anything you want with the copies.
* Allow you to follow Tilman's suggestion and donate any part of the
proceeds from the original or the copies to an organization that warns
about cults.
>They'll have to
>break into my home in the middle of the night and steal it, if they want
>it.
Don't tempt them. :-)
|\__/,| (\
_.|o o |_ ) )
---| ethercat |-------(((---(((----------(ascii art by Mike Rosulek)
Island Boy
> I have made a horrible mistake.
One look at your "art" told us that already.
> Please accept my apologies.
Sure: just don't make any more.
---
"I want to dance." --- Lisa McPherson, 18 Nov 95 http://holysmoke.org/lm/lm.htm
David Rice, "rogue canceler."
"This [Jim Jones' People's Temple] wasn't a cult. This was a respectible, mainline
Christian group." --- J. Gordon Melton
"I first found Scientology in a waste paper backet." -- Ray Kemp
Brent Stone
>Chris Leithiser (clei...@bc.cc.ca.us) writes:
>> Sorry, this is a _bad_ idea. If I were you, I would simply remove the
>> item from sale. Anything else is likely to get you in serious legal
>> trouble. IANAL, but many here can attest to how $cientology views the
>> US legal system.
>
>As many have pointed out, it is debatable whether or not the Co$ would
>have a legal leg to stand on. But that's not the point. I'm not going to
>back down simply because a piece of artwork makes someone upset. I won't
>back down because I offend an individual or a group or even a litigation
>happy cult. If I back down, they win. I do not want them to win.
>Neither should you.
>
> Nik
You can always close the auction early after a bid.
- Brent
Kelly Martin
>Loophole: Set an insanely high "reserve price". Then, if no-one bids that high,
>you can refuse to sell it to the winner if you feel like it. BTW, there have
>been E-Meter auctions where the seller stated that they would only sell to
>Scientologists. Is that illegal too?
The normal legal rules of auctions allow the seller to set
"qualifications" on who may bid, but such qualifications must be
stated up front. I don't know if eBay allows a seller to do this; I
don't recall anything one way or the other in their T&Cs but it's been
a while since I read them.
Selling or refusing to sell something in interstate commerce on the
basis of the religious belief of the purchaser might violate the Civil
Rights Act, although an isolated sale may not be covered. I'd have to
check the language more closely.
Kelly
Kelly Martin
>There's also a distinct possibility he may destroy it before it
>reaches their hands.
In which case they can sue him for damages in breach of contract and
possibly have him arrested.
Kelly
Kaeli
reaches their hands.
wrote:
>Just be aware that there is the distinct possibility of having a squad
>of Mounties come knocking on your door demanding that you turn over
>the painting.
>
>Kelly
>
Kaeli A.
(KoX)
ka...@klis.com
"In this fateful hour, all heaven with its power, the sun with its brightness, the snow with its whiteness, the fire with all the strength it hath, the lightning with its rapid wrath, the winds with their swiftness, the sea with its deepness, the rocks with its starkness, All these I place, Between myself and the powers of darkness."
Madeline L'Engle, "A Swiftly Twilting Planet"
"Why should someone destructive have the same rights as those who are trying to improve a society?" dorsai666, aka Dan Bryenton, Toronto Scientologist.
Byll23
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:24:54 -0700, Chris Leithiser
><clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>> I'm still auctioning off the L. Ron Hubbard portrait. However, I have
>>> decided that there is no way in hell I will sell this painting to anyone
>>> who is a member of the Church of Scientology. For this reason, if the
>>> winning bidder turns out to be a Scientologist, I will not sell them the
>>> painting. I don't care what Ebay says.
>>
>>Sorry, this is a _bad_ idea. If I were you, I would simply remove the
>>item from sale. Anything else is likely to get you in serious legal
>>trouble. IANAL, but many here can attest to how $cientology views the
>>US legal system.
>
>I would tend to agree. eBay's rules state that a binding contract is
>formed with the winning bidder.
Loophole: Set an insanely high "reserve price". Then, if no-one bids that high,
Nikolaus Maack
> Just be aware that there is the distinct possibility of having a squad
> of Mounties come knocking on your door demanding that you turn over
> the painting.
If the Scientologists wish to come take the painting away, they first have
to figure out where I live. Meanwhile, I will continue to promote my work.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
So there.
I know that many of you have been through some major Scientology
harrassment, but I still find it rather odd that you all seem to cower
before the power of the Co$. I would think that if anyone would suggest
standing up to them, it would be the people in this newsgroup.
"Go for it, Nik! Charge full steam ahead! Stick it to them!"
Instead, what I'm hearing is a lot of tricks and maneuvers I can use in
order to avoid being sued or attacked by the church. This strikes me as
rather silly. I'm trying to sell a painting and I don't want the Scienos
to get it. I also want to promote my artworks in general. If the Co$
wants to cause trouble, by all means, let them. I'm not going to change
my style one iota because a group of sociopathic cultists are displeased.
Once I change my ways to "play it safe" and avoid their wrath, they win.
Some of the comments I have heard in here make me wonder -- how many of
you are currently not saying things you want to say, not doing things you
want to do, not thinking things you want to think, all because you imagine
that the Co$ will rain down on you and make your life a hell? Is this any
way to live?
Nikolaus Maack
> Aside from the legal concerns of others, how will you know if it is
> a scientologist (or an agent of) that buys your painting?
I'm not sure. That's a good question. I'll have to think about that.
>
> Maybe you could adopt a new attitude with this piece in particular.
> When you sell the original, reserve the rights to reproduction for
> yourself. (Perhaps someone else here can tell you more about how this
> works legally.) This will not prevent your work from being bought to
> be destroyed, but will assure that your work will not be censored, as
> you can make as many reproductions as you wish.
>
> That being said, consider putting the image on merchandise at
> www.cafepress.com (Thanks, Lianna!) It will not dilute the value of
> the original, and will accomplish these other things:
Wow. I checked out that site and I had no idea it existed. I'll
definitely be looking into putting some of my artwork up there. Thanks
very much for pointing it out to me.
Tilman Hausherr
The money that the cultist will pay him is money that won't go to the
cult.
ptsc
wrote:
>Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>It's not the artwork that would be upsetting, but the religious
>discrimination. If you want to exclude $cientologists from purchasing
>the artwork, then produce art they won't want to buy.
Actually it's the method he's using to sell it. He is using eBay which creates
a binding contract to sell the item to the winning bid.
If he were selling it as an individual he could sell it to whomever he chose
with whatever conditions he wanted.
>If you've offered it to the public, then Scientologists are included.
>Period.
A Christian artist could refuse to sell to a Satanist. A Jewish artist could
refuse to sell to a Nazi. An art gallery owned by either of the two could not
refuse service to anyone based on discrimination, unless the art gallery were
somehow a private club; IANAL and I'm not certain whether an art gallery could
exhibit art with purchase conditions attached, but I'm fairly comfortable in
saying that an individual artist not selling in a public store could place any
conditions whatsoever on the sale of a piece of artwork.
eBay is different and doing business through eBay creates a binding contract.
I believe an eBay seller can yank an auction prior to bids.
>To look at the situation in another light, consider this--if a "public"
>Scientologist pays you $400 (or more) for your artwork, that's $400 that
>_doesn't_ go to the cult, _doesn't_ go towards "fair-game" attacks on
>critics, or paying for lawyers, whatever. And the publicity generated
>by a "refusal to sell based on religion" would be a propaganda bonus for
>the cult.
>I have no control over other critics--none of us does. But I'm telling
>you that from my viewpoint only, what you propose to do is:
>1. Probably illegal, though I am not a lawyer.
>2. Certainly wrong.
>3. Playing right into the hands of the people--and I am not speaking of
>individual Scientologists here--who killed Lisa McPherson and many
>others.
>Do what you will.
I'd say that a Scientologist wouldn't pay an SP.
This all may be mooted by Scientology sending a Verified Rights Owner
statement to eBay complaining that the auction violates their intellectual
property rights as they own the copyright to the photo the work is based on.
(You can see the resemblance clearly.) I'd say Leibovitz v. Paramount would
be instructive in any legal case based on this, but they would of course have
to sue for that, and they're highly unlikely actually to sue unless the piece
in question becomes a widely-distributed print.
Since eBay apparently does not comply with the DMCA with regard to
notification/counternotification and instead uses their own protocol I also
doubt they've immunized themselves against a copyright infringement suit with
their silly made-up protocol.
They probably would eventually be found not to be liable if they have yanked
something based on actual notice, but they would not be able simply to duck
under the cover of the blanket immunity the DMCA grants, as they obviously
don't follow the law to the letter with the proper
notification/counternotification tango, but prefer instead to make up some
stupidity of their own.
ptsc
ptsc
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:24:54 -0700, Chris Leithiser
><clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>>> I'm still auctioning off the L. Ron Hubbard portrait. However, I have
>>> decided that there is no way in hell I will sell this painting to anyone
>>> who is a member of the Church of Scientology. For this reason, if the
>>> winning bidder turns out to be a Scientologist, I will not sell them the
>>> painting. I don't care what Ebay says.
>>Sorry, this is a _bad_ idea. If I were you, I would simply remove the
>>item from sale. Anything else is likely to get you in serious legal
>>trouble. IANAL, but many here can attest to how $cientology views the
>>US legal system.
>I would tend to agree. eBay's rules state that a binding contract is
>formed with the winning bidder. You can rest assured that if the
>Church or one of its agents is the winning bidder, and you refuse to
>sell, they WILL sue you on the contract. The fact that you're in
>Canada won't make a damn bit of a difference, since you consented to
>jurisdiction in the United States by placing the item for auction on
>eBay (read eBay's T&Cs), and Canada is obliged to assist in service of
>process against you by the terms of the North American Free Trade
>Agreement as well as other treaties between the United States and
>Canada.
However if you withdrew if from eBay or (if for some reason you can't)
submitted a Verified Rights Owner statement that your auction violates your
rights, eBay would probably yank it without question, as they yank any auction
for which such a statement is sent, regardless of how ridiculous.
Then you could sell it on any terms you like. An artist selling a work of art
isn't a public accomodation, and IANAL.
ptsc
ptsc
>Kelly Martin (kma...@kiva.net) writes:
>> Just be aware that there is the distinct possibility of having a squad
>> of Mounties come knocking on your door demanding that you turn over
>> the painting.
>If the Scientologists wish to come take the painting away, they first have
>to figure out where I live. Meanwhile, I will continue to promote my work.
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
>So there.
>I know that many of you have been through some major Scientology
>harrassment, but I still find it rather odd that you all seem to cower
>before the power of the Co$. I would think that if anyone would suggest
>standing up to them, it would be the people in this newsgroup.
>"Go for it, Nik! Charge full steam ahead! Stick it to them!"
If you stay entirely legal and shaft the hell out of the cult, they can do
nothing about it. They can sue, but they will end up looking like a big bunch
of losers and whiners and crybabies, which of course they are. If you do
actually break the law, they will gladly plunk down a few million bucks to sue
you for a few grand. That's just the way they are. Then they will win, and you
will lose, and that's not good. If the cult sues, let them just get so
frustrated they sue over a complete loser cause of action and look like stupid
losers.
That is good.
Do not actually break the law, unless you want to be found liable in a nasty
civil verdict and have the cult able to print up nasty pamphlets to leave round
your neighborhood and glossy magazines to give their members about how they have
successfully crushed a critic like an insect because he was a CRIMINAL.
That is not good.
Legal shaftings, lost lawsuits, that's nice and I like to see that.
Lost lawsuits by critics, no. Unless the critic in question actually does feel
something is important enough to get sued over and lose. Even then it's best to
stick to a very high moral ground when deliberately breaking the law. I don't
view most lawbreaking as justifiable in this pursuit. Some laws I do not
particularly care for and intellectual property law is in this category. Arnie
Lerma posted an affidavit containing all their secret OT levels and they spent
millions upon millions suing him, but then won a measly little $2500 because the
judge viewed their lawsuit as pure harassment, even though it was meritorious by
the strictest definition. So she gave them the lowest award allowed by law and
wrote a scathing opinion so horrible that the cult desperately tried to get it
sealed, and failed to do so. Then they announced victory. Then they appealed
this victory they were so happy about all the way to the Supreme Court, and
lost.
Now that is the kind of Scientology victory I'm glad to see. Pissing away
millions for nothing. That's good. Arnie Lerma is still here and laughs at
them.
>Instead, what I'm hearing is a lot of tricks and maneuvers I can use in
>order to avoid being sued or attacked by the church. This strikes me as
>rather silly. I'm trying to sell a painting and I don't want the Scienos
It strikes you as rather silly if you do not wish to spend the rest of your life
having your paycheck garnished to give to a despicable crime cult.
That is not good.
>to get it. I also want to promote my artworks in general. If the Co$
>wants to cause trouble, by all means, let them. I'm not going to change
>my style one iota because a group of sociopathic cultists are displeased.
>Once I change my ways to "play it safe" and avoid their wrath, they win.
Obey the law and they can't do anything. Well, they can come round to your
house and leave a dead cat on your doorstep, or frame you for crimes or
whatever, but you'll likely win.
>Some of the comments I have heard in here make me wonder -- how many of
>you are currently not saying things you want to say, not doing things you
>want to do, not thinking things you want to think, all because you imagine
>that the Co$ will rain down on you and make your life a hell? Is this any
>way to live?
They will do that anyway. The point is to win when they do. That requires
being brave as a lion but crafty as a fox.
With the emphasis on the fox.
> Nik
ptsc
Kaeli
their money, and says sorry I've changed my mind, what can be done?
There is nothing that can be done on that, as the seller has rights as
well to do business with whom they please.
He does not have to give a reason as to why he changed his mind.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:41:17 -0500, Kelly Martin <kma...@kiva.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 02:12:04 GMT, ka...@klis.com (Kaeli ) wrote:
>
>>There's also a distinct possibility he may destroy it before it
>>reaches their hands.
>
>In which case they can sue him for damages in breach of contract and
>possibly have him arrested.
>
Kelly Martin
>Kelly, it is his portrait and his work of art. If he refuses to take
>their money, and says sorry I've changed my mind, what can be done?
If he agrees to sell it, and then (once the agreement is struck)
changes his mind, the other party to the agreement can sue him for
breach of contract.
By placing his artwork up for bid in an auction, he agreed to sell it
to the highest bidder, and cannot back out, at least not after the
auction has ended with a valid winning bidder. Such is the nature of
placing an item up for sale at auction.
>There is nothing that can be done on that, as the seller has rights as
>well to do business with whom they please.
You can't back out of a contract, once entered into, by saying "I
don't like you. I'm not going to perform on the contract." (Well,
you can, but expect to be sued if you do.) If he wants to pick and
choose who he will sell to, he can't sell it at auction; he has to
sell it at auction "with right of reservation", make a "solicitation
for offers to purchase", or choose some method OTHER than a standard
auction sale.
Kelly
Kelly Martin
>Then you could sell it on any terms you like. An artist selling a work of art
>isn't a public accomodation, and IANAL.
I won't comment on whether he can discriminate in a nonfacilitated
sale since he's in Canada and I don't have a clue what Canadian law on
point might be. In the US, he probably would not be prohibited from
discrimination unless he sold it out of a gallery, but I could very
easily be wrong (I simply haven't looked at the rules for
nondiscrimination in interstate commerce in a long time).
Kelly
barb
Some people have been stomped on by the cult harder than others. Others
have jobs and families to protect. As for me, I would paint my arse blue
and wave it at them if I felt like it, because the people I work for are
in London, and 3 of 4 in the office have had unpleasant experiences with
the cult. They would not be sympathetic if the cult came whining around
their door! Lately it seems, the worst Scientology can do is drag your
butt into court, which is enough to deter many people. What you are
getting here is the voices of experience from people kind enough to
share their knowlege with you. I think your opinion of them is made from
a towering point of ignorance, no offense. But if you read some of
Hubbard's own words on the subject of critics, and understand that these
culties believe this shit, it would definately chill your core
temperature a few degrees. There's probably no chance of a critic being
snatched and locked in a tiger cage, which is where my line is drawn.
Others have their own tolerance levels. I personally like going to
court, wearing my suit, and using polysyllabic words, which, outside of
this NG, I don't get a hell of a lot of chances to do. "Working at home"
generally means slopping around in slippers and sweatpants, so it's a
treat that Scientology has so far withheld from me.
Hopes this helps you grasp the milieu better!
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
barb
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> ethercat (ethe...@arscc-atl.com) writes:
> > Aside from the legal concerns of others, how will you know if it is
> > a scientologist (or an agent of) that buys your painting?
>
> I'm not sure. That's a good question. I'll have to think about that.
>
> >
> > Maybe you could adopt a new attitude with this piece in particular.
> > When you sell the original, reserve the rights to reproduction for
> > yourself. (Perhaps someone else here can tell you more about how this
> > works legally.) This will not prevent your work from being bought to
> > be destroyed, but will assure that your work will not be censored, as
> > you can make as many reproductions as you wish.
> >
> > That being said, consider putting the image on merchandise at
> > www.cafepress.com (Thanks, Lianna!) It will not dilute the value of
> > the original, and will accomplish these other things:
>
> Wow. I checked out that site and I had no idea it existed. I'll
> definitely be looking into putting some of my artwork up there. Thanks
> very much for pointing it out to me.
>
> Nik
You should. All you need do, apparently, is upload artwork and they do
the rest, and take their cut, of course. I would love to have L.Ron on a
teeshirt and coffee mug. Don't forget to let us know the URL of your
store should you do it!
>
> --
> "I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://www.nikart.com
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
Steve Zadarnowski
>I have made a horrible mistake. Please accept my apologies.
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
>
>I'm still auctioning off the L. Ron Hubbard portrait. However, I have
>decided that there is no way in hell I will sell this painting to anyone
>who is a member of the Church of Scientology. For this reason, if the
>winning bidder turns out to be a Scientologist, I will not sell them the
>painting. I don't care what Ebay says.
Well that's fucked it then. The Cof$ will bid for it and then try
and sue you for breaches. However, if you can find out if they
are clams early on, you can dummy bid them up to a few grand and
just let them have it anyway!
S
---
"If it smells like ass, its Scientology!"
"Just bum data, bum data, bum data, bum data,
alter-is, alter-is, bum data." - LRH, SHSBC
Steve Zadarnowski
>Just be aware that there is the distinct possibility of having a squad
>of Mounties come knocking on your door demanding that you turn over
>the painting.
Well, that'd make good "News at Nine" footage!
Nikolaus Maack
> Some people have been stomped on by the cult harder than others.
What was once a steel toed boot stomping has since become the barefoot
stomping of a person with several painful ingrown toenails. That is, the
church used to kick ass. Nowadays, when they kick, the foot doesn't
always connect with its target.
I sincerely doubt that Scientologists will go out of their way to mess
with me over my beautiful artwork. However, if they do, I intend to keep
you all informed.
It is interesting to note that only one person, so far, has been
courageous enough to place a bid.
>I personally like going to
> court, wearing my suit, and using polysyllabic words, which, outside of
> this NG, I don't get a hell of a lot of chances to do.
I agree. It might be fun to go to court for my art. It would give me a
chance to prove, once and for all, how seriously I believe in my art, and
that I think it deserves respect.
That the work is generating all this conversation and contraversy
indicates that it is a successful piece of art.
> Hopes this helps you grasp the milieu better!
Does this mean I can expect John Travolta and Tom Cruise to show up at my
door to rough me up?
Nikolaus Maack
> You should. All you need do, apparently, is upload artwork and they do
> the rest, and take their cut, of course. I would love to have L.Ron on a
> teeshirt and coffee mug. Don't forget to let us know the URL of your
> store should you do it!
If/when I put my portrait of L. Ron on t-shirts and coffee mugs, I will
most definitely mention it in this newsgroup. I'll have to discuss this
with whoever ends up buying the painting, of course. I suspect many
people would be interested in these products, given how many people said
they like the painting, but not the price-tag.
Nikolaus Maack
> Well that's fucked it then. The Cof$ will bid for it and then try
> and sue you for breaches. However, if you can find out if they
> are clams early on, you can dummy bid them up to a few grand and
> just let them have it anyway!
That's a little unethical, don't you think? Besides, I do want whoever
buys the painting to treat it with respect. No, if a Scientologist wins
the bidding, I just won't give them the artwork.
I.S.Rennie
>
> barb (bwa...@home.com) writes:
> > Some people have been stomped on by the cult harder than others.
>
> What was once a steel toed boot stomping has since become the barefoot
> stomping of a person with several painful ingrown toenails. That is, the
> church used to kick ass. Nowadays, when they kick, the foot doesn't
> always connect with its target.
>
> I sincerely doubt that Scientologists will go out of their way to mess
> with me over my beautiful artwork. However, if they do, I intend to keep
> you all informed.
>
> It is interesting to note that only one person, so far, has been
> courageous enough to place a bid.
Ever consider that only one person made a bid because only one person
wants to buy it and has the money?
it's nothing to do with courage, only finance.
Dave Bird
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>It is interesting to note that only one person, so far, has
>been courageous
"had the money AND the inclination to buy the work", I suspect.
In article<39E8DB12...@sheffield.ac.uk>, I.S.Rennie
<LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Ever consider that only one person made a bid because only one person
>wants to buy it and has the money?
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
Nikolaus Maack
> Ever consider that only one person made a bid because only one person
> wants to buy it and has the money?
Well, a lot of people are extremely concerned about "drawing fire" from
the Co$. I'm sure people are hesitating from putting a bid on something
contraversial, that might upset the church, and get their name on a
"list". Or god forbid, get a folder on themselves started up.
Steve Zadarnowski
>Steve Zadarnowski (fan...@iinet.com.au) writes:
>> Well that's fucked it then. The Cof$ will bid for it and then try
>> and sue you for breaches. However, if you can find out if they
>> are clams early on, you can dummy bid them up to a few grand and
>> just let them have it anyway!
>
>That's a little unethical, don't you think? Besides, I do want whoever
>buys the painting to treat it with respect. No, if a Scientologist wins
>the bidding, I just won't give them the artwork.
Yes, it is unethical, but considering that Scientology is a criminal
organisation with deep pockets, not something to lose sleep about.
That said, I can't see why they wouldn't respect it as it is not
disrespectful of L Ron Hubbard, and might be seen as a good
acquisition for AOLA walls. Lets face it: it's not every
decade a non-scientologist produces a portrait of their beloved
Elron!
I.S.Rennie
>
> "I.S.Rennie" (LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk) writes:
> > Ever consider that only one person made a bid because only one person
> > wants to buy it and has the money?
> > it's nothing to do with courage, only finance.
>
> Well, a lot of people are extremely concerned about "drawing fire" from
> the Co$. I'm sure people are hesitating from putting a bid on something
> contraversial, that might upset the church, and get their name on a
> "list". Or god forbid, get a folder on themselves started up.
*spit take* pfft!
let me get this straight:
you think that the people who post to this board and therefore put their
names and email addresses immediately within reach of the CO$ will be
wary to buy A FUCKING PICTURE because of the consequences?
You think they will be reluctant to use a username though a secure
server with a huge reputable company like ebay which would NEVER give
out addresses to third parties?
talk about an inflated sense of self-importance.
Nikolaus Maack
> Lets face it: it's not every
> decade a non-scientologist produces a portrait of their beloved
> Elron!
L. Ron has a great face. My portrait has his weary head held in hand.
Ron looks smug and bored.
"Yes, yes -- I'm God. Now go make me some mashed potatoes."
You have to wonder WHY he thinks he is God when he looks suspiciously like
an encyclopedia salesman just back from having a very satisfying bowel
movement. His eyes are glazed over, his skin is thick and rubbery, and
his hair is a wispy spray of dull red. And the pose he selected is
incredibly artificial. Head in hand is supposed to be the pose of a
thinker. In the portrait, Hubbard is a man who clearly doesn't like to
think, but likes to pretend that he likes to think.
A good alternate title for the work would be "The Unthinker".
Nikolaus Maack
> you think that the people who post to this board and therefore put their
> names and email addresses immediately within reach of the CO$ will be
> wary to buy A FUCKING PICTURE because of the consequences?
Posting to a newsgroup is not much of a risk. Taking any real action, in
the real world -- even something as small as buying a painting -- could be
seen as "too much" by some people.
People love to talk. They'll talk and talk and talk about just about
anything. Poverty is bad. Hitler is bad. All sorts of things, they'll
tell you, are bad. Actually taking action requires effort. Requires
risk. That's when you get to see whether or not they're all talk.
"Work down at the homeless shelter? Well, gee, I do hate poverty... But,
y'know, I'm pretty busy and... Gosh, homeless people do smell kinda
rank..."
So people post here. We all say Scientology is bad. We all congratulate
ourselves for having escaped the clutches of the church. We support each
other emotionally -- which is good -- but what action do we take? Posting
to a newsgroup? Maybe setting up a webpage?
Making a painting, offering it for sale -- requires effort.
Buying the painting -- putting your money where your mouth is -- requires
effort.
Talk is cheap.
> You think they will be reluctant to use a username though a secure
> server with a huge reputable company like ebay which would NEVER give
> out addresses to third parties?
Yes. I think some people are irrational enough to be afraid to take
action, to make a bid on this painting. One person has shown some
bravery, and that person deserves our praise.
> talk about an inflated sense of self-importance.
You seem quite upset. Have I hit a nerve, perhaps?
I.S.Rennie
>
> "I.S.Rennie" (LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk) writes:
> > you think that the people who post to this board and therefore put their
> > names and email addresses immediately within reach of the CO$ will be
> > wary to buy A FUCKING PICTURE because of the consequences?
>
> Posting to a newsgroup is not much of a risk.
I've no doubt the OSA had my name and email address in their records.
I've personally never been dead-agented just for posting here, but
others (for example, Barb) have.
> Taking any real action, in
> the real world -- even something as small as buying a painting -- could be
> seen as "too much" by some people.
tell me, how will buying or not buying this painting affect the CO$ in
ANY WAY?
> People love to talk. They'll talk and talk and talk about just about
> anything. Poverty is bad. Hitler is bad. All sorts of things, they'll
> tell you, are bad. Actually taking action requires effort. Requires
> risk. That's when you get to see whether or not they're all talk.
>
> "Work down at the homeless shelter? Well, gee, I do hate poverty... But,
> y'know, I'm pretty busy and... Gosh, homeless people do smell kinda
> rank..."
oh PLEASE
you're not comparing someone paying YOU money for a piece of art to
someone taking direct charitable action.
> So people post here. We all say Scientology is bad. We all congratulate
> ourselves for having escaped the clutches of the church. We support each
> other emotionally -- which is good -- but what action do we take? Posting
> to a newsgroup? Maybe setting up a webpage?
>
> Making a painting, offering it for sale -- requires effort.
effort which is directly rewarded. I mean, the money you'll be getting
for this picture - you're keeping it, right?
> Buying the painting -- putting your money where your mouth is -- requires
> effort.
it's still purchasing a piece of artwork. It's not going to set the
walls tumbling down.
> Talk is cheap.
your painting is expensive. And the money goes directly to YOU.
> > You think they will be reluctant to use a username though a secure
> > server with a huge reputable company like ebay which would NEVER give
> > out addresses to third parties?
>
> Yes. I think some people are irrational enough to be afraid to take
> action, to make a bid on this painting. One person has shown some
> bravery, and that person deserves our praise.
or, just possibly, only one person liked the painting enough to buy it
and had the money.
Please, at least admit this is a possibility.
> > talk about an inflated sense of self-importance.
>
> You seem quite upset. Have I hit a nerve, perhaps?
I just think you're laughably self important.
If someone puts in a bid for your painting, they're not striking ablow
for freedom, they're buying a picture.
Nikolaus Maack
> I've no doubt the OSA had my name and email address in their records.
> I've personally never been dead-agented just for posting here, but
> others (for example, Barb) have.
"Dead-agented"?
> tell me, how will buying or not buying this painting affect the CO$ in
> ANY WAY?
I'm not trying to suggest that by buying my painting you're going to
single-handedly wipe out Scientology everywhere. I'm saying that it takes
a certain amount of courage to act, to do something, to place a bid.
That's all.
The old physics truism -- an object at rest likes to stay at rest --
applies to human psychology as well.
> effort which is directly rewarded. I mean, the money you'll be getting
> for this picture - you're keeping it, right?
Assume I sell it for $400. $60 of that is going to a friend of mine,
paying him to help put up the Ebay ad, taking digital pictures, etc. $250
is going to the friends who paid to get the picture framed. While whoever
buys the painting pays for shipping, I'm going to pay to have the sucker
boxed -- which I figure will cost me $40. Which leaves me next to nothing.
Alas, like most artists, I'm not especially profit-minded.
> If someone puts in a bid for your painting, they're not striking ablow
> for freedom, they're buying a picture.
I don't believe I ever said they're striking a blow for freedom. What I
said was that doing so requires a certain amount of courage, and they
deserve our praise.
ptsc
wrote:
>Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>> I don't believe I ever said they're striking a blow for freedom. What I
>> said was that doing so requires a certain amount of courage, and they
>> deserve our praise.
>they deserve your praise, I'll agree with that. What you have failed to
>establish is how it affects anyone other than you.
>Look, I don't have any beef against you. I just don't think you can
>honestly say that you selling this picture will do anything whatsoever
>to the CoS. It won't give any money to bodies like the LMT, or help get
>anyone out of the CO$. It will cover your losses on making the
>picture. That's fine, I have no problem with that, it doesn't HAVE to
>do anything. However, you represent those who bid for the picture as
>being 'brave'. Why?
Because he is amusing himself, attacking the cult, as well as puckishly pulling
the leg of the newsgroup. Subtlety can get lost in Usenet very easily.
I appreciate his entertaining combination of satire, self-promotion and
self-deprecating irony.
ptsc
I.S.Rennie
>
> "I.S.Rennie" (LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk) writes:
> > I've no doubt the OSA had my name and email address in their records.
> > I've personally never been dead-agented just for posting here, but
> > others (for example, Barb) have.
>
> "Dead-agented"?
having your neighbourhood picketed, having false and defaming material
about you posted around the place. Not nice.
> > tell me, how will buying or not buying this painting affect the CO$ in
> > ANY WAY?
>
> I'm not trying to suggest that by buying my painting you're going to
> single-handedly wipe out Scientology everywhere.
that wasn't the question. How will giving you money for artwork affect
the Church of Scientology?
I'm saying that it takes
> a certain amount of courage to act, to do something, to place a bid.
> That's all.
why would it take courage to bid for this painting? The existence of
this painting doesn't hurt the Church of Scientology. Giving you money
for it doesn't hurt the Church.
> The old physics truism -- an object at rest likes to stay at rest --
> applies to human psychology as well.
that's as may be but does it have ANY relevance to this discussion?
> > effort which is directly rewarded. I mean, the money you'll be getting
> > for this picture - you're keeping it, right?
>
> Assume I sell it for $400. $60 of that is going to a friend of mine,
> paying him to help put up the Ebay ad, taking digital pictures, etc. $250
> is going to the friends who paid to get the picture framed. While whoever
> buys the painting pays for shipping, I'm going to pay to have the sucker
> boxed -- which I figure will cost me $40. Which leaves me next to nothing.
but none of it is going on the fight against scientology, which was the
purpose of my question.
> Alas, like most artists, I'm not especially profit-minded.
>
> > If someone puts in a bid for your painting, they're not striking ablow
> > for freedom, they're buying a picture.
>
Dave Bird
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>"I.S.Rennie" (LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk) writes:
>> I've no doubt the OSA had my name and email address in their records.
>> I've personally never been dead-agented just for posting here, but
>> others (for example, Barb) have.
>
>"Dead-agented"?
Reply to your argument or activity which annoys them
by character assassination (systematic lying personal attacks):
"don't play the ball, play the man". This is Hubbard doctrine.
I don't just mean in debate: I mean it might be leafleted through
every door on your street, or sent to all your potential clients.
More like organised crime than organised religion, in fact.
-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___.
uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:': :' .:':' :. . : (") #oH|
' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~|
< > __ ,;;,. \\::// R_) |
'-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' ' ___..\||/....L\. ...|
____||--|_'--/__\___ '' .--''':::::::::::::::::::::
\ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^
LRon Hubbard is shelled by goats in hell. www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/
Nikolaus Maack
[...]
In my previous message, I stated as flatly as possible, that buying a
painting from me -- even if it is a portrait of L. Ron -- will not hurt
Scientology in any way. It won't help fight the good fight, or anything
like that.
What I am saying is:
1) It takes guts to do anything in the public eye that might draw the
wrath of the Co$ upon you.
2) Putting a bid on my painting might do such a thing.
3) Ergo, someone who makes a bid on my painting is brave.
Will putting a bid on my painting kill the cult and save the dinosaurs
from extinction? Alas, no. It will not.
Rennie, if you don't understand what I'm saying, then forget asking for
more clarifications because they ain't coming.
> that wasn't the question. How will giving you money for artwork affect
> the Church of Scientology?
See above. (ie. It won't.)
> why would it take courage to bid for this painting? The existence of
> this painting doesn't hurt the Church of Scientology. Giving you money
> for it doesn't hurt the Church.
See above. (ie. the painting pisses off the church. Do you want to get
involved with something that pisses off the church? Do you want to risk
their wrath? I don't think so.)
Ergo, a person who puts themselves at risk is BRAVE.
How can I make this any simpler?
>> The old physics truism -- an object at rest likes to stay at rest --
>> applies to human psychology as well.
>
> that's as may be but does it have ANY relevance to this discussion?
Making an action -- any action -- is extremely difficult. You are an
object that wishes to stay at rest.
In other words, sitting around and talking is easy. Doing something --
even placing a bid on a painting -- takes effort.
> but none of it is going on the fight against scientology, which was the
> purpose of my question.
No, none of it is going towards the fight against Scientology. The money
is going to 1) the person who put up the ad for me, 2) the person who got
the picture framed for me, and 3) whatever is left over (not much) goes to
me. Is this clear?
> Look, I don't have any beef against you. I just don't think you can
> honestly say that you selling this picture will do anything whatsoever
> to the CoS.
I never said it would. Who are you having this argument with? Me, or
yourself?
The painting will only affect the church in that it is an insult to them.
They want to buy it, they want to destroy it, they hate me now. I have a
file folder with my name on it. I'm taking a risk selling it, and saying,
"If a Scientologist places a winning bid -- fuck them. They aren't
getting it. They'll sue me? Let them fucking sue."
Can you see how, on this level at least, I'm DOING SOMETHING?
If you buy the painting from me, you're getting involved. They're going
to put your name on a list, and maybe be mad at you.
But I think this is a worthwhile risk to take. Because the alternative is
that you let the Co$ push you around.
Make sense?
Selling the painting doesn't fight the church -- it ignores them. I'm
going about my business, even though it will piss them off. If you go
about your business, and make a bid, you're going to piss them off too.
Yes, yes -- most of the people who aren't bidding simply can't afford to
buy original art. I understand that. But I think there are some people
who can afford it and are afraid.
I say to these people, RISK IT. Go about your business. Make a bid.
> However, you represent those who bid for the picture as
> being 'brave'. Why?
I hope this is clear to you now.
I.S.Rennie
>
> "I.S.Rennie" (LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk) writes:
> [...]
>
> In my previous message, I stated as flatly as possible, that buying a
> painting from me -- even if it is a portrait of L. Ron -- will not hurt
> Scientology in any way.
no you didn't.
the closest you came to saying this was 'I'm not trying to suggest that
by buying my painting you're going to single-handedly wipe out
Scientology everywhere.'
anyway, I'm not going to post any more on this, sorry if I've annoyed
you.
I still disagree with you about why people aren't bidding in the numbers
you think they are, and I think you are severely underestimating the
bravery of people on this board, but I won't press the matter further.
Nikolaus Maack
> anyway, I'm not going to post any more on this, sorry if I've annoyed
> you.
The only way you've annoyed me is by being too cheap and too stubborn to
buy my excellent art, which you clearly need hanging on your wall at work
or at home. You come across online as a pastry that's been sitting out on
the counter a little too long -- sweet and sincere, somewhat tempting,
but stale.
My art in your life could be the first step towards a whole new you.
Imagine becoming someone who doesn't wear brown socks. No more
turtle-neck sweaters. A complete abscence of Old Spice. YOU could be
that man!
> I still disagree with you about why people aren't bidding in the numbers
> you think they are
I believe your explanation for this phenomena is that people are
cheapskates, and that they would rather spend their money on pornography.
No, wait -- you just said that the painting was expensive.
By the way, almost every single painting on Ebay that has a nude woman in
it will be bought. This depresses me.
> and I think you are severely underestimating the
> bravery of people on this board
I'm sure everyone here is quite brave. They've had their souls scratched
by a bad SF writer's pet cult. Getting out and admitting that you were
wrong to get in in the first place takes courage and strength.
Now they should put the cherry on top of all their experiences,
symbolically speaking, by putting a bid on my artwork. Hang it on their
wall, and they find they now have a tangible represenation of their scars.
> but I won't press the matter further.
Oh yes you will.
Playfully,
barb
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> "I.S.Rennie" (LIP0...@sheffield.ac.uk) writes:
> Nik
>
> --
> "I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://www.nikart.com
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
Island Boy
> Maybe you should have painted Elron in the nude...
The horror! The HORROR!
---
"I want to dance." --- Lisa McPherson, 18 Nov 95 http://holysmoke.org/lm/lm.htm
"This [Jim Jones' People's Temple] wasn't a cult. This was a respectible, mainline
Christian group." --- J. Gordon Melton
I.S.Rennie
>
<snippings>
> > I still disagree with you about why people aren't bidding in the numbers
> > you think they are
>
> I believe your explanation for this phenomena is that people are
> cheapskates, and that they would rather spend their money on pornography.
> No, wait -- you just said that the painting was expensive.
well my real explanation was that it's $400, and maybe not everyone
likes it. No offence to your artistic abilities, but I actually wan't
that fond of it. Not fond enough to put it on my wall anyway.
> By the way, almost every single painting on Ebay that has a nude woman in
> it will be bought. This depresses me.
maybe we could commission a nude elron!
> > and I think you are severely underestimating the
> > bravery of people on this board
>
> I'm sure everyone here is quite brave. They've had their souls scratched
> by a bad SF writer's pet cult. Getting out and admitting that you were
> wrong to get in in the first place takes courage and strength.
>
> Now they should put the cherry on top of all their experiences,
> symbolically speaking, by putting a bid on my artwork. Hang it on their
> wall, and they find they now have a tangible represenation of their scars.
I was more thinking that people here are brave because they, you know,
picket the Church, get sued by the Church and so forth.
I'm trying not to press, I'm just making conversation
I.S.Rennie
I hate it when my jokes aren't original.
barb wrote:
>
> Maybe you should have painted Elron in the nude...
>
<schnipp>
barb
GMTA, Ian.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
I.S.Rennie
I have no knowledge of acronyms. wha?
barb
"I.S.Rennie" wrote:
>
> barb wrote:
> > GMTA, Ian.
>
> I have no knowledge of acronyms. wha?
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
Nikolaus Maack
> I have no knowledge of acronyms. wha?
Don't you mean "IHNKOA"?
By the way, you have 33 hours left to make a bid on my painting. Don't
blame me if next week you realize that there's a painful hole in your life
shaped EXACTLY like a collage portrait of L. Ron Hubbard.
I.S.Rennie
>
> Great Minds Think Alike!
unfortunately, this is usually followed with the addendum 'fools seldom
differ'
:)
I.S.Rennie
>
> Don't you mean "IHNKOA"?
>
> By the way, you have 33 hours left to make a bid on my painting. Don't
> blame me if next week you realize that there's a painful hole in your life
> shaped EXACTLY like a collage portrait of L. Ron Hubbard.
>
I'd rather have a painful hole in my life shaped exactly like a portrait
of LRG than a painful hole in my bank accound shaped exactly like 400
dollars
barb
Oh, well, there's that too, but you didn't hafta broadcast it! <g>
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
Nikolaus Maack
> I'd rather have a painful hole in my life shaped exactly like a portrait
> of LRG than a painful hole in my bank accound shaped exactly like 400
> dollars
A hole shaped like four hundred and FIVE dollars. That's the minimum bid
right now.
And you now have less than 24 hours to purchase L. Ron. Clambakers -- I'm
talking to you! Time is a ticking!