The unanswered question remains
RandmAxess
>>>(I asked for)......CONCRETE examples" of
the so called "neo- surrealists" effect on today and the future.
I think it was barrett who said it influenced his life on a daily
basis....sorry if I'm wrong about that barrett (personally I think you and Dale
are the same person)...on behalf of the 50 + individuals in the Fine Arts chat
room of AOL (you people do know what Fine Arts are don't you?) I would like to
address whoever made the statement "surrealist ideas and programs have made a
significant contribution to my life and the lives of others around me"
....maybe it was Dale, that genius of the trailer park haters.
I hate to confuse him/her all the more, but being the inquisitive one in this
thread, I'd now like to pose another question for all to trip over and that is
....Could you please explain...(and I will ask that you do so in "laymans
terms" so as not to invite more useless rhetoric)....CONCRETE examples of the
"significant contributions" that surrealism has made in your life?.....
You were very eager to state the importance of surrealist philosophies in your
life and the lives of those around you so ....once again I am merely asking an
innocent question. Enlighten me if you will as to how these philosophies effect
you "on a daily basis" ....remember...those were your words...so don't start
spouting the familiar rhetoric about expanding understanding blah blah blah or
that I don't understand surrealist theories ... I seek to understand what it is
daily that you do that makes you a self proclaimed surrealist.....do you put
your socks on your ears?...is that what makes you call yourself a
surrealist?.....do you read your mail upside down? ...is that what makes you
call yourself a surrealist? do you answer the telephone with goodbye? ......is
that what makes you call yourself a surrealist? or rather do you just need to
belong to a group of other misguided simpletons who call you their friend and
provide you with some feeling of self importance? ...is that what really makes
you call yourself a surrealist? I dare Dale or barrett to answer this
question..... without rhetoric and without critisizing me for asking !!!! What
is it that you two do on a daily basis that makes you feel that you are
carrying forth the surrealist tradition<<<
and to this I recieved the following replies.......
>>>if "RandmAxess" is merely "seek[ing] to understand", as he claims, why did
he ignore attempts to explain where i believe _all_ his "questions" are
fundamentally flawed (i.e., his utilitarian assumptions about "surrealism")?
just what is it he's trying to "understand"?
what he is obviously _not_ trying to understand is _my_ perspective on
anything. i can only conclude that any "questions" he points in my
direction are a pugilistic posture which neither seeks or deserves answer.
-- barrett<<<
OK by now its obvious to all that barrett is without the intelligence to answer
the question and has thus retreated to hiding his head in the sand as usual
which is fine by me since it clears the path for those not afraid to question
surrealism
the other response was from Dale (if I don't understand your question I'll call
you a "dumbass") Houstman.....he wrote this wonderfully coherent answer to the
question....
>>>LOL. Even madman laugh, and so do hyenas.
You are a willful contrary, and I am sure you serve your purpose;
you seem to be exactly the sort of sub-par presence that delights
those who get their delights cheap.
You are loutish when you are responded to, and similarly loutish
when you are not responded to. You only have one setting,
and it's "irritate". Mosquitos often "hit a nerve" also, but they're
not very bright either.
Getting someone's hackles up is easy and cheap. It doesn't even take a
human to do that; animals, plants and machinery can accomplish much
the same. You are a perfect one-trick pony. Another example of a failing
education system.
Dale<<<
GONG! Sorry Dale! Maybe someday you can try out for Teen-Jeopardy but for now
it seems that the questions at hand are a just a bit out of your range.... but
thanks for trying we have some nice prizes waiting for you off stage....don't
trip on the way out and remember to try again when you get a little bit older.
Attempts at reform, when they fail, strengthen despotism, as he that struggles
tightens those cords he does not succeed in breaking.
- C.C.Colton
barrett john erickson
>[...]
>state the question more simplistic than merely asking for CONCRETE
>examples" of the so called "neo- surrealists" effect on today and the
future.
since this was posted twice, i'll offer a quick correction: my interaction
with "RandmAxess" has had nothing to do with "new surrealism" or
"neo-surrealism". i offer no support for such concepts and my views have
been clearly stated:
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/altsur.html#newsurr
>[...]
this still applies:
>>>>if "RandmAxess" is merely "seek[ing] to understand", as he claims, why
did
>he ignore attempts to explain where i believe _all_ his "questions" are
>fundamentally flawed (i.e., his utilitarian assumptions about
"surrealism")?
>
>just what is it he's trying to "understand"?
>
>what he is obviously _not_ trying to understand is _my_ perspective on
>anything. i can only conclude that any "questions" he points in my
>direction are a pugilistic posture which neither seeks or deserves answer.
>
>
>-- barrett<<<
to which "RandmAxess" responded:
>OK by now its obvious to all that barrett is without the intelligence to
answer
>the question and has thus retreated to hiding his head in the sand as usual
>which is fine by me since it clears the path for those not afraid to
question
>surrealism
what should be obvious is that "RandmAxess" is not in search of
"understanding" but confrontation. unfortunately for him, i do have
sufficient intelligence to recognize and refuse his game.
so i too wait for the flood of responses from his many shy admirers (who
were perhaps too timid or polite to attempt to squeeze into alt.surrealism
through the small door that "RandmAxess" seems to think i was blocking with
my bits -- or maybe you think i byte?).
certainly there must be someone out there among the 23 who have supposedly
expressed solidarity with him who: 1) doesn't suffer from Conceptual
Dyslexia, 2) will allow me the simple courtesy of stating and defending my
positions in their proper context, as they actually exist [and this includes
"surrealism"], as opposed to imposing a context based on the misconceptions
of others, and 3) is capable of a discussion on the topics "RandmAxess"
raised that can escape the tall, razor-wire topped confines of his arrogant
ignorance.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
perceived as contradictions."
...André Breton
Brandon J. Freels
Brandon:
1. There is no such thing as neo-surrealism. Any thing that moves towards
freedom of the mind will be surrealist and surrealist alone (not
neo-surrealist).
2. The "Fine Arts" can eat my shit. I only believe in the "Unfine Arts." Go
fuck yourself pansy boy!!! Take your brushes and stick them up your ass. I
prefer forks, myself (to paint with, not to stick up my ass).
3. Surrealist ideas and programs have made a significant contribution to my
life which can be described in one word: FREEDOM.
4. Concrete examples of how surrealism has made "significant contributions"
to my life are: I had the desire to spit on the sidewalk so I did it. I felt
like shitting five times in an hours so I did it. I read a French novel
knowing little French and just filled in the words I didn't know with what I
thought they could be. I took a bath, but pretended it was a shower. I lived
FREELY without worrying about what people will think of me. I laughed at you
and wrote this post
This will only be a FREE world when it is a SURREALISTS world. There is no
freedom for the enemies of freedom.
What good is a future without Surrealism?
Dale Houstman
discuss any subject with washed up boxers like yourself who are
only looking to push people's faces in and attract flies in place of
replies.
We have answered your lame questions over and over and been
rewarded with more pugilistic posturing. My advice to you is
(in a strictly surrealist sense) is to fuck off. None of your questions are
"innocent" because you prejudge the value of the answer, which
is always inadequate to your need to be a lout. I prefer this
little group of "misguided simpletons" to your lonely campaign
against thought.
I could ask you what your understanding of surrealism is, and why
if you are so entirely hostile to its existence you bother to chime in
with your crippled wit.
If you go about calling people "misguided simpletons" I think any
clear-thinking human (surrealist or not) can see that your questions
are neither innocent nor without rhetoric. also, how does one discuss
a subject without rhetoric? Do you know what rhetoric is or do you
confuse it (like most uneducated people) with baroque blather?
Insults are rhetoric (in other words, your posts are full of thar despised
rhetoric, though of a very primitive sort); any device meant to elicit a
response or to win an argument is rhetorical. It is not a pergorative
term, except to those who are sickened by language itself.
How many times do you need to receive a civil answer before you
dry up and blow away, you hopeless sack of bladder disease?
Do you think my question is innocent enough to be date-raped
by your ignorance?
It is interesting that you find insults from others to be a sign of ignorance
yet find your own insulting posture to be a sign of innocent questioning.
The hyena answer is above your head; it refers to your laughable notion
that your post was humorous simply because it had "LOL" written at its
end. you may be able to fool your brain-damaged friends with such
blithering inadequacies, but it doesn't work on me.
LOL
Laugh along, you dingo
Brandon J. Freels
Sir, if you don't mind me saying so I find your recent post rather
confusing. Would you please state your points (numbered 1-10) in a clear and
distinct manor for further examination by Phd's Brandon, Barrett, and Dale.
To understand the problem put forth we need some sort of clear statement as
to how your mind works. Besides your points, would you also include the
responses to the following questions:
What is Surrealism?
Do you have any relations to Talysman, Nikolas Maaaacke, or Andrea Chen?
Since you are not a Surrealist what was your most spiritual, magical, or
paranormal experience?
What moments have changed your life?
Do you have any children who hate you?
Why did you choose a nickname like "Random Asses"?
Brandon J. Freels
I forgot to ask you Mr. Rotten Asses about vital information.
Do you like cats?
How many toes am I holding up?
How do you spell "contacts"?
Will you tell me about your mother?
SSMATIC?
What is your favorite movie?
How do you feel about Pornography?
Abortion?
Child birth?
Car Crashes?
Carlos Sanchez Padial
j
--
GeT:.------.--.--.------.-----.-----.------.---.:g:T:::::::::
::::\ -,__Y | Y - Y - Y --'| d Y |::e::::::::::
:::__'- \| | | _/ _/ --,:| | '--,:::d:::Ow:
::/_______/\_____/\_| |\_| |_____\\__T |_______\::::R:::N
::::::::::::::::::::|_/:::|_/::::::::::|__/::[Carlos]::::::::
Brandon J. Freels
One last question before I go to bed:
Do you yourself see styles of art mearly as tools for the modern artist's
toolbox, to use and not to use at his/her own will?
---BJF
barrett john erickson
Brandon J. Freels wrote in message ...
>Mr. RandmAsses
>Why did you choose a nickname like "Random Asses"?
internet pseudonyms have long interested me.
i understand how they came to be: e-mail addresses have restrictions which
are based in the programs and systems that support them, perhaps coupled
with a kind of "punk" rejection of names given by parents which became
popular in the 70's and 80's (think: sid viscious and jonny rotten -- sp?).
but there also seems to be some kind of evasion going on with those who use
_only_ their "screen names", even going so far as to enter these "cute"
pseudos into the "name" field of their e-mail software and especially those
who sign their posts with them.
[then there's the special case of the gender pretenders -- but we won't go
into that.]
i assume these are not names used by these people in their every day living
(of course, i could be wrong).
so, why this need for anonymity? why do they feel the need to distance
themselves from their own actions? do they fear retribution? from whom?
do they fear that someday they will regret their current posture like some
people regret their tattoos? is their reality so impoverished that they
need to deny it? or is their reality just a series of masquerades and the
time online their only chance to attend the ball?
but, whatever the case may be, there is clearly a correlation between "cute"
pseudos and the cross-posts from places like alt.non.sequitur or
alt.pouting.sandwich which offer nothing but long chains of reactive
gibberish (the usenet equivalent of getting the "giggles").
i confess i've developed a prejudicial predisposition against those who post
from such hiding places. i imagine them posing as some kind of tough-guy
nihilist online, while fearing their antics will be discovered by
librarians, parents and/or teachers who have the power to terminate their
assumed identities and then punish them with embarrassment, grounding or
extra geometry problems.
elag
> internet pseudonyms have long interested me.
I feel that I'm as entitled to a nome de plume (or alter ego if you
prefer) as any other writer (or artist). It adds a little spice to my
"net-persona", which BTW closely resembles my actual person.
The derivation of said nic, if anyone is interested:
Elagabalus (teen-age Emperor of Rome 218 - 222 c.e.)
plus
Gale (backwards ~ an outburst; gale of laughter)
plus
l'age (d'or)
sincerely,
elag l'age gale
---variety is the spice of life---
Perceptor
llew enod gale
rotpecrep