New Design
Nik Maack
I've created a new look for my website. If you find any errors or find
the design wonky, please let me know. I've looked at it through
Netscrape and Internet Exploder, and it seems to work in both.
My goal was to create a website with hand drawn icons and hand-drawn
lines, giving it a more rough, organic, and human feel. Have I succeeded?
Let me know.
There's a new "things i found" section as well.
Nik
Nik Maack
cythera wrote:
> In imitating someone else's style?
> Yes.
What are you talking about?
> You look old.
32 -- as of March 27th. How old are you?
Nik Maack
Cythera,
You never answered my question: how old are you? Is there some reason
you don't want to tell me? You told me I look old, and I told you how
old I am -- 32. Why do I have this feeling that never, in a million
years, would you show me a genuine photograph of yourself and tell me
your age?
You're in good company -- can you imagine Dale or Brandon posting
photographs of themselves? They'd be too worried that someone would say
something nasty. I just can't see them having the courage. I can
already hear Dale pounding out a two hundred line lecture
(unparagraphed) on why focussing on appearance is improper and "unsurreal".
There was a time when I worried that I didn't produce enough writing and
painting, and I forced myself to work harder and harder, trying to
create something new every day. I have to keep reminding myself that
most people spend their time criticizing others instead of producing
anything. They watch TV and complain about the low quality of the shows
-- that's their art form.
I guess for most it's difficult to keep creating art when faced with a
sea of angry people, just itching to tell you what you did wrong, what
you should be doing, what they'd do if they had the courage to create anything.
Dale Houstman
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3CA86397...@sympatico.ca...
>
> Cythera,
>
> You're in good company -- can you imagine Dale or Brandon posting
> photographs of themselves?
I have. And I would again, but it isn't a matter of "courage" (only a vain
egotist himself would think it takes bravery to reveal one's face), but of
"why?" Everyone whom I care about and who cares about me already knows what
I look like, sound like, etc.
> There was a time when I worried that I didn't produce enough writing and
> painting, and I forced myself to work harder and harder, trying to
> create something new every day. I have to keep reminding myself that
> most people spend their time criticizing others instead of producing
> anything. They watch TV and complain about the low quality of the shows
> -- that's their art form.
A banal defensive thought, and irrelevant to the current situation, since
you haven't proven that this stereotype applies to anyone who is talking to
you. And - actually - "most" people DON'T sit around watching TV and
complaining about their low quality: "most" people I've come in contact with
have a distinct set of shows they watch repeatedly and enjoy. And they don't
think of it as an art form." You have the most simplistic ideas about human
beings. And your worry about quantity is perhaps indicative of something
important. Thinking and speaking imaginatively about a television show IS
more creative than merely pumping out a large number of fairly repetitive
images simply to assuage one need for "production." If your "art" were a TV
show, your emphasis on churning out the sausages would put you in the ranks
of Aaron Spelling.
>
> I guess for most it's difficult to keep creating art when faced with a
> sea of angry people, just itching to tell you what you did wrong, what
> you should be doing, what they'd do if they had the courage to create
anything.
>
Did you cry when you wrote this piece of "woe is me" sentimental tripe, or -
like everything else you do - is it merely another bit of badly-imagined
bullshit?
dmh
P.S. By the way, I don't find cythera's example compelling as to the
question of whether you imitated someone else's style and - in fact - I
don't care if you did.
Brandon Freels
> You're in good company -- can you imagine Dale or Brandon posting
> photographs of themselves? They'd be too worried that someone would say
> something nasty. I just can't see them having the courage. I can
> already hear Dale pounding out a two hundred line lecture
> (unparagraphed) on why focussing on appearance is improper and
"unsurreal".
I've seen a picture of Dale, why haven't you? And as for a picture of me, I
don't have any around, and besides, I can't figure out how to get this
scanner to pump out small size scans. Everything that I scan comes out the
size of Texas. Its really pissing me off.
Nik Maack
Brandon Freels wrote:
> I've seen a picture of Dale, why haven't you?
Dunno. Is there a URL to this image?
Have you seen any nude pictures of Dale?
> And as for a picture of me, I
> don't have any around, and besides, I can't figure out how to get this
> scanner to pump out small size scans. Everything that I scan comes out the
> size of Texas. Its really pissing me off.
The scanner we got came with all sorts of funky software. Yours didn't,
I take it? Ours has a DPI setting you can change before you scan. Set
that to a number like 75 or so and the picture comes out smaller.
Alternatively, load the LARGE image into some kinda photo editing
package and use the "resize image" command. I think any photo imaging
software worth its salt would come with that feature.
By the way, do you think Cythera and Dale are in love?
Dale Houstman
>
>
> Brandon Freels wrote:
> > I've seen a picture of Dale, why haven't you?
>
> Dunno. Is there a URL to this image?
It makes no difference whether or not you have seen my picture - it
certainly makes no difference to me - but the point here is that you (as
usual) shot off your big mouth about something and (as usual) were
incorrect.
>
> Have you seen any nude pictures of Dale?
I don't think Brandon has (unless he has sources I am unaware of), and -
honestly - I don't believe there are many or any - not counting a baby
picture or two.
>
>
> By the way, do you think Cythera and Dale are in love?
As anyone who can read and remember could tell you, that is quite unlikely.
We have nothing in common but a general bemusement at your all-around lack
of ability. I don't think that is a good enough grounding for a
relationship, and - at any rate - I'm happily "taken" at the moment and have
been for 15 years now. But thanks for caring...
dmh
Nik Maack
Dale Houstman wrote:
> It makes no difference whether or not you have seen my picture - it
> certainly makes no difference to me - but the point here is that you (as
> usual) shot off your big mouth about something and (as usual) were
> incorrect.
Being correct or not isn't the issue, and it never should be. All real
surrealists are firmly on the side of the incorrect and the wrong. That
you would suggest that I am incorrect is a great compliment, of course,
but your tone implies that it's wrong for me to be wrong. Which just
goes to indicate how wrong you are -- but in a bad way.
In any case, I must see your face. Don't be such a priss -- post a URL
linking to a picture of you. I can't decide if you are very fat or
extremely thin. I can't imagine you anywhere inbetween, for some reason.
Do it. Post your photo. Win one for the Gipper.
> > By the way, do you think Cythera and Dale are in love?
>
> As anyone who can read and remember could tell you, that is quite unlikely.
Liar. You love her. She completes you. I can tell by the way your
sphincter clenches every time you read her name in this newsgroup. The
sound of your butthole-flex is loud enough to be heard all across North
America. It's a sonic boom that comes through the telephone lines in
the form of a crackling whisper.
I call a friend and then I hear it -- that asshole static. And I think,
"Yes, it's true -- Dale loves Cythera. Soon he will leave his wife of
15 years and shack up with his one and only. Together they will defend
the animals of the world from cruelty and sexism. They will write
poetry in blood on menstrual pads and then flush them out to sea."
>But thanks for caring...
You're welcome.
john adams
on this newsgroup. But it's true, nothing at times is finer than poop.
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
Nik Maack
john adams wrote:
> I think this is partly what I meant in referring to the quality of discussion
> on this newsgroup. But it's true, nothing at times is finer than poop.
Speak Japanese from now on, alien robot. Break wind with your eyes. I
watch you from a great distance as your sign language lapses into
Esperanto. Whatever words come out of your mouth are canceled by your
hands. You're speaking for two. If your feet weren't in shoes, and had
thumbs, you'd speak for three.
Spilling pepper on the ground, grinding it into the earth with your
heel. Licking salt off the back of your hand. Whatever you have to do,
do it. Do it, do it, do it.
Your Uncle Jed is in the shed painting the dead all black and red, or so
it's said.
For a surrealist, you smell suspiciously like bacon. Cold, uncooked
bacon, in the back of the fridge. Hard to tell if it's gone bad yet.
Going bad would be an improvement.
Flick, flick the cards off the casino table. The croupier is getting
angrier and angrier. His visor flips up so he can see.
"Sir, sir, I'm going to have to call security if you keep doing that, sir."
House rules, boy. The house rules. None of the people rule. It's the
house, the building we're in. It has us all. It rules over us all. No
one ever wins for long. That's how the game is played. You shouldn't
question me flicking cards on to the floor. For fuck's sakes son, you
should be tossing the cards on the floor by the handful.
Get with the program, you broken PC. Shuffle off the hard drive into
space. Click and point, point and click. Reject bad data. Four Oh Four.
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <onion...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:qOrq8.207567$q2.18553@sccrnsc01...
> I think this is partly what I meant in referring to the quality of
discussion
> on this newsgroup. But it's true, nothing at times is finer than poop.
>
which may, all in all - be for the better. This tyranny of enforced
personlism has been at the core of Nik's defensive posture since day one. He
beats at you (rather ineffectively) for not being more "open" with personal
details, and then - if one is foolish or indulgent enough to come forward
with some aspect of what he is demanding - he either uses those new details
as a weapon, declares it to be inadequate, or merely forgets it happened at
all. In between such pathetic tactics he scatters his adolescent prose and
dismal doodles, and seems offended when others declare them to be precisely
what they are: rather uninteresting examples of an uninteresting
imagination. He then attempts to diminish the critic with a banal array of
sub-moronic statements not much more intriguing then "a critic is merely a
discouraged artist," bellyaches in a musty fashion about the awful burdens
of being an artist, and dares others to be more forthcoming with art, as if
the publicity were some value in itself. And if one is goaded into putting
forth some little work or the other, he usually ignores it, inadequately
addresses it in a sarcastic high school way, or (and he did this to me once
or twice) paraphrases it with little concern for the actual matter.
This latest bit of melodrama ("why don't you post a photo of yourself,
cowards!") is as pathetic as any I've seen, but is of a piece with his
productions. It makes no sense of course, but that may be his forte.
The rest of his childish spew doesn't rate a response at this point.
dmh
john adams
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> :
Nik Maack
john adams wrote:
>
> Morpheal, is that you?
Oh look -- it's a witty one-liner. How can you even write such a thing
without feeling like a character on a TV sitcom? Aren't you embarrassed
to be living the fictional life of Gary Colemans?
And Dale says:
>The rest of his childish spew doesn't rate a response at this point.
You fucking idiots. You're both so dry, and stupid, and humourless. I
say one thing and mean a million things, and all you can see are the
words I say and not the meaning. It's like watching chimps read a stop
sign as they zoom by it in their cars. They read the word, "STOP", but
they don't understand the implication -- and then they rage against the
car accident they find themselves in.
Can it be possible? Does Dale really lack the imagination, the empathy,
the UNreason to understand why someone who obsessively paints portraits
might taunt people into posting photographs of themselves?
Surrealists. Pah! You two are realists, through and through. Lumps of
clay, half-baked. You rage against people like Morpheal and you just
don't get it -- he produces! Almost every day! He's chasing his dream.
And you lot -- you devote your energies to chasing his tail.
Why do I even talk to you pieces of sandpaper? You never understand
anything of any importance. Dust in the shapes of men.
I think I'll killfile all of you, without exception.
john adams
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:3CAA8320...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> john adams wrote:
> >
> > Morpheal, is that you?
>
> Oh look -- it's a witty one-liner. How can you even write such a thing
> without feeling like a character on a TV sitcom? Aren't you embarrassed
> to be living the fictional life of Gary Colemans?
> And Dale says:
> >The rest of his childish spew doesn't rate a response at this point.
>
> You fucking idiots. You're both so dry, and stupid, and humourless. I
> say one thing and mean a million things, and all you can see are the
> words I say and not the meaning. It's like watching chimps read a stop
> sign as they zoom by it in their cars. They read the word, "STOP", but
> they don't understand the implication -- and then they rage against the
> car accident they find themselves in.
>
> Can it be possible? Does Dale really lack the imagination, the empathy,
> the UNreason to understand why someone who obsessively paints portraits
> might taunt people into posting photographs of themselves?
>
> Surrealists. Pah! You two are realists, through and through. Lumps of
> clay, half-baked. You rage against people like Morpheal and you just
> don't get it -- he produces! Almost every day! He's chasing his dream.
> And you lot -- you devote your energies to chasing his tail.
That's absolutely true. Where does he hide that thing anyway??
> Why do I even talk to you pieces of sandpaper? You never understand
> anything of any importance. Dust in the shapes of men.
>
> I think I'll killfile all of you, without exception.
So, why even respond if you didn't like my one witty line? I think you
just need to get a grip on yourself, from now on. Maybe nobody
finds the same level of interest as you in these little personality battles
of yours, 4 years running - the same slop. Please, forgive me for having
this opinion. And the rest of your remarks are the usual pornography.
Dale Houstman
>
>
>
>You rage against people like Morpheal and you just
> don't get it -- he produces! Almost every day!
Once again with your worship of production and quantity. Any idiot can churn
out words like frozen sausages, Nik.
As for your wanting our photos for use in your "art" why can't you be
imaginative enough to realize that maybe we don't want you ruining another
perfectly good photograph?
How's the sausage factory?
dmh