"imagist" <ima...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:asoq2k$deu$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
: FISH, now was this a coincidence or did some one understand that the
Pull yourself together man!
But Keith, what's so "great" about the website?
PS Please, do not e-mail me.
You're quick!
I understand your pain, I do.
The winds are far-reaching, as I can almost feel them
touching you now. Be still, and turn your passion into
something of enduring beauty. Your struggle with impatience
and anger will melt away like ice on a bridge to a strange
land.
Retard,
Your link just goes to Zazie's site, and it should be listed under
"Portland Surrealist Group" --- not "Brandon Freels"!
I would actually prefer you have no link at all.
And you are a retard, admit it!
---BJF
WHAT ARE YOU BECOMING NOW
Laughing uproariously.....
Yes and now.
The shape of the universe indicates there are many, not one. It cannot
be accounted for by means of the originary fact of its coming into
existence. There have to be others, exerting their pressure, giving it
its shape. Saddle shaped actually... ride, baby, ride.... on your
mystery ship....
R.
We just put up three collective drawings at the site.
Caroline has now granted your wish. She has given you permanent, severe,
brain damage. Except she went a bit too far. She always gets carried
away. She made you a cretin instead of a retard. Sorry about that.
You'll be a bit more challenged from now on.
Not much, though. Only a little bit. A very tiny little bit.
R.
The snake crawled back to the garden
blameless he traded bottles of essential oil
distilled essence of light
the ghost of a scent
ascended above the head waters
of the delta of venus
a flask of hot lightning
lightened the mood
of those who would be sweet as sugarcane
Your brain has been turned down. It was too loud.
You're in sleep mode now.
Maybe you'll sleep for a million years and when you awaken
find that nothing has changed.
R.
One wonders how they manage to ignore the contadiction: "What you do is
evil, what I do is for the greater good."
Evidently the Portland surrealists fight dictatorships, not because
dictators are evil, but because none of them gets to be a dictator.
Here comes "Now Surreal II", not run by commercial types, but
idealogues. Is either one worse than the other?
The issue with NowSurreal DID NOT revolve about whether or not they had
a message board - as I am sure you must realize. It revolved about their
right to the name "surreal" given that they undermined real surreal
activity (no matter what you think about it) by turning into a Gift
Shop, and by claming to be open when they were - in fact - censoring
huge chunks of material, to the point of removing material ALREADY
posted when they saw fit.
Capitalism - by the way - IS an ideology. So your cryude dichotomy is
dysfunctional insofar as it hopes to be the basis for any critical
analysis of the situation.
dmh
So you're saying that by preventing people from posting material, it's
not censorship -- it's only censorship when you remove something already
posted? That's certainly a convenient stance for you to take.
> Capitalism - by the way - IS an ideology. So your crude dichotomy is
> dysfunctional insofar as it hopes to be the basis for any critical
> analysis of the situation.
Ah, but Dale -- my argument is that the dichotomy is non-existent. Now
Surreal is what you're emulating. Any slight differences are
exaggerated in order to make you feel good about this decision.
"THEIR website misused the word surrealism! OUR website will use the
TRUE definition."
And except for selling posters, you're pretty much doing exactly what
they're doing, right?
"No riff-raff in our message board! Only card-carrying-surrealists
allowed! No trouble-makers!"
And how dull is THAT going to be?
What do you expect to achieve on the website that cannot be achieved in
this newsgroup -- other than you get to CONTROL the website? CONTROL --
that doesn't sound like a particularly "surreal" motive to me.
That's it.... you're crucified. We'll use titanium nails, at least
twelve inches long... It's more modern and sanitary.
Even Caroline didn't know you were that much of a absolute martyr.
R.
Additionally, it is perfectly fine to form one's own forum and invite in only those
it wishes as a matter of the right to privately convene, or conversely through an
open format in a manner attempting to uphold the smoothest functionality with
fairness to all the participants in mind. The problem I do see, admittedly, is in one
party actually trying to prevent another from representing a word or idea, however
impure the representation may seem, for this doesn't seem very revolutionary at all.
Neither surrealists nor surrealism's poseurs, hitch-hikers, geeks, tramps,
homeless agents, or various other artistic hoodlums, brats, villains, apes, cheats,
sales associates, and night time clerks own the word. Let them all be free!
-john
Yeah, but Keith, did you see the drawings?
We don't have a message board on our website.
Yes. However, Barrett wrote a message suggesting he liked the idea and
such a thing is in the works. I quote it belkow. Note his reference to
NowSurreal and how he intends to emulate them. Fences = Control.
I don't mean to exaggerate the importance of this. It all just strikes
me as sort of sad. Usenet's philosophy appeals to me -- an open forum
for all to play in. As the years go by, more and more people are
fleeing to web-based message boards. Partly for the technological
features -- pictures and sounds and the like -- and partly for more
control over who gets to participate.
Barrett said:
>concerning the BlueFeathers forum--
>
>we haven't yet announced the forum to our friends because we're still
>doing testing and initial posts to launch some of the topics and build
>functional but unobtrusive fences (empty forums don't inspire
>participation and NowSurreal proved that fences are unfortunately
>necessary).
>
>our first concern is to provide space for, and launch some specific
>projects that require a focused _surrealist_ collaboration away from
>noisy children.
>
>our second concern is to conduct that collaborative exploration "in
>public" so to speak.
>
>our third concern is to allow a space for anyone who may be interested
>(regardless of "age") to comment on that process without disrupting it.
>
>when we're satisfied that the forum can function as intended, that i am
>familiar enough with the quirks of the software, and have put
>sufficient safeguards in place that i won't have to wipe out the
entire >user base to correct a mistake (as i did last week), we will
announce >it in those venues where our friends currently gather and
invite them >in.
I know it's easy to fall asleep in here and ignore the wash of messages
gushing by. Happens to me all the time.
But is he still mulling it over?
dmh
> Yes. However, Barrett wrote a message suggesting he liked the idea and
> such a thing is in the works. I quote it belkow. Note his reference to
> NowSurreal and how he intends to emulate them. Fences = Control.
i'm not in Portland, Nik. the forum i refer to is a BlueFeathers project.
beyond that, saying that i "intend to emulate" NowSurreal is the kind of
slander that would have us meeting in the woods tomorrow with our swords if
you were within reach of my gloves.
as Ian is so fond of saying, you don't have sufficient knowledge about
NowSurreal to come to such a conclusion (and/or imply that from what i did
say). but there is plenty of evidence of my objections to that site.
the forum we are soon to announce to our friends is intended as an easily
accessible open 24 hours a day space for those who wish to join us in
specific work on specific projects relating to the present and future of
surrealist theory and practice.
we intend that this work be conducted in the open, where anyone interested
can observe, and we have provided space for comment and suggestion, but we
feel no obligation to allow the general population to participate directly.
> I don't mean to exaggerate the importance of this. It all just strikes
> me as sort of sad. Usenet's philosophy appeals to me -- an open forum
> for all to play in.
and to me. but where there is specific work to do, the noise is frequently
too distracting.
> As the years go by, more and more people are
> fleeing to web-based message boards. Partly for the technological
> features -- pictures and sounds and the like -- and partly for more
> control over who gets to participate.
unfortunately, experience tells us that any effort to explore and extend
surrealist theory will quickly deteriorate into endless efforts to explain
even the most basic fundamentals of surrealism (often to those who refuse to
accept that there are any) if we do not treat such basic understanding as a
pre-requisite qualification for participation.
-- barrett
Blue Feathers
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
surrealists in minnesota
http://www.MagneticFields.org/SurrMN
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
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
==============================================
Nik wrote:
> Yes. However, Barrett wrote ...
[snip]
Yes. However, what Barrett wrote has nothing to do with the Portland
Surrealist Group. We don't have a message board on our website.
An evil, evil woman by the name of (I invoke her name!) Andrea Chen came
into this newsgroup a billion years ago, and made Barrett, Dale, and
Brandon dance like hooting, shit-flinging monkeys. It was hilarious.
At that time, she dubbed them Dumb (Barrett), Dumber (Dale), and Dumbest
(Brandon). I have to admit that, even now -- years later -- I still
occasionally think of them in these terms.
I thought this anecdote would amuse you, and incite you to new levels of
madness and frothing.
But don't worry about me. I'm too busy to get all embroiled in a
lengthy alt.surrealism conversation. Where there was once a time I'd
get hung up on the notion of explaining my ideas to these three, I have
long since lost that desire.
As for them, they talk alot, but they never seem to DO anything of note.
And their talk is always just that -- hollow, pointless,
theoretical, inactive, flabby talk. The chatter of plotters whose plot
will never hatch.
Nowadays, I know that explaining myself to others is a waste of time.
Instead, I explain myself to myself. It's far more entertaining, and I
laugh at all of my own jokes. I am capable of knowing when I'm kidding
or not. It's a knack other people never pick up.
I recommend you give up the battle, and instead, dance your dance. Yes,
the conflict can act as a wonderful force to keep you moving, but
really, it just drags you down in the end.
My mistake. I assumed you and Barrett lived in the same town. In fact,
I assumed you slept tucked under his pillow.
No - as with all your comments on Now Surreal - you read badly and
responded too quickly with your usual knee-jerk response to certain
names rather than to actual content, so you simply got it wrong.
dmh
Both their tastes were completely ruined by magnetic fields... I suggest
you not talk to those closet homosexuals. Leave them to their's and
think about Caroline. You don't know what she COULD do for your sex
life, if it pleases her to do it.
R.
You really shouldn't talk to Brandon. He's also one of those who is
unsure about which way to go. You might push him too far, one day, and
he might go all the way. You should keep to the straight and narrow, you
know. None of that AC/DC stuff... Man, straighten out. Before Caroline
finds out and gives you the ultimate push....
R.