FAQ?
Richard Marchand
------ http://www.loonie.net/~rmarchand/ ------
brandon...@my-deja.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Richard Marchand
brandon...@my-deja.com
I guess I should first ask you "what is it that you want to know?"
I think maybe it is about time that we put together a FAQ, but I can't
for the life of me figure out what questions are asked so often? And
what points should be made clear to the "newcomers"?
Any suggestions?
Should we suppliment it with a Nik Maack FAQ?
Richard Marchand wrote:
> ?Erf?
Nikolaus Maack
> I think maybe it is about time that we put together a FAQ, but I can't
> for the life of me figure out what questions are asked so often? And
> what points should be made clear to the "newcomers"?
> Any suggestions?
Are you volunteering for the job of mother-FAQer? I'm more than willing
to help carve the sucker out. Or worse -- take the job off your hands.
The big question we get every few months is, "What is surrealism?"
Unfortunately or not, the answers we all give seem to be vague, watery,
contradictory, hyper-political, apolitical, etc. This might not be a bad
thing -- in fact, I think it's a necessary thing. It might be nice to see
a FAQ where many different definitions of surrealism exist side by side.
It would reflect the state of this newsgroup, in any case. A list of
definitions sorted alphabetically by the name of the writer of the
definition, perhaps?
Other questions that could use answering...
Who started surrealism? What are its origins? Its history?
Bio blurb on Breton and some of the other "big names". Something on Dali
-- given that in North America his name is practically synonymous with
surrealism. All the bios should be positive and negative. Dali was an
insane, money minded genius -- AVIDA DOLLARS. Breton was a power mad
prude, but also an organizational and poetic genius who inspired many.
Picasso, a semi-official surrealist, liked to fuck almost more than he
liked to paint. Something like that.
And then there's the inevitable "I thought surrealism was about painting
-- what the hell kind of newsgroup is this?" Some sort of explanation of
literary surrealism and the other facets of surrealist exploration.
Maybe some kind of generic answer to the question: Is X surreal? (Is
Kafka surreal? Is Frank Zappa surreal? Is the Pilsbury Doughboy
surreal?) It's always struck me as a rather silly line of questioning,
given that in the end it's always a matter of personal opinion. If
surrealism is about uncontrolled exploration, everything is potentially
grist for the mill.
> Should we suppliment it with a Nik Maack FAQ?
To be fair, it might make more sense to have short bios of all the people
who post here fairly regularly.
However, if I am so complex that I require an entire FAQ to myself, I'm
more than willing to write it myself. I'll even include some of the nasty
stuff you people have written -- like I'm a manipulative, money-hungry,
self-promoting, know-nothing, existentialist, joyful nihilist, bourgeois
stooge with delusions of grandeur who constantly mocks everyone.
Nik
--
NOW AVAILABLE! Art by Nik in mass produced formats!
'L. Ron' t-shirts, coffee mugs, and mouse pads.
Just click: http://www.cafepress.com/nikart
brandon...@my-deja.com
> I'll even include some of the nasty stuff you people have written --
> existentialist, joyful nihilist, bourgeois stooge with delusions of
> grandeur who constantly mocks everyone.
Yeah, that about covers it.
Andrew Nellis
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>> I'll even include some of the nasty stuff you people have written --
>> like I'm a manipulative, money hungry, self-promoting, know-nothing,
>> existentialist, joyful nihilist, bourgeois stooge with delusions of
>> grandeur who constantly mocks everyone.
>
> Yeah, that about covers it.
Have any of you noticed that Nik is much smarter than you? I know all
about the sordid and petty politics in this newsgroup because I have to
put up with hearing it all from Nik when he's not busy putting up with
hearing about all the sordid and petty politics from the anti-spam
newsgroups from me. Curiosity piqued, I drop in from time to time to
see how accurately Nik has described this place.
The one thing he mentions constantly, and which I have now begun myself
to notice, is the note of smug self-congratulations in the people here
when they make an obvious one-line retort to something witty and ironic
Nik has said.
Why did you post this, Brandon? Nik was being dry and amusing. The
irony should be obvious to anyone with literary comprehension past the
level Readers Digest. The only way you could be more plodding would be
to post "mEEE tOOOO," and I'm not sure I'd put it past you.
Surely you can think of a better way to flame Nik. I mean, the man is
a writer of giantess porn stories and thinks a quark is a type of danish
cheese. If you absolutely must rail against the heretic, at least do it
in a way that amuses the rest of us.
A.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Why did you post this, Brandon?
Why did you respond to it? The irony is that Nik was proposing his
collaboration in an alt.surrealism FAQ which would strictly be anti-Nik
(that is against those misinformations he "pretends" to support).
We don't need someone such as yourself, shaking your finger (which
you've pulled freshly out of Nik's ass) in our faces. If you chose, as
Nik has chosen, to continue to oppose us simply become we (I am
speaking of myself, Dale, Barrett, cythera, John, Parry, and few
others) have come to some sort of collective agreement on certain ideas
surrounding Surrealism then I can really no longer take you seriously
(just as I stopped taking Nik seriously about a year ago).
Why do you feel you need to defend Nik? He built his own outhouse. Its
not our fault he is covered with shit and piss. I actually find your
post rather humorous. My response to Nik was simply a playful response
to his "serious" input. In other words, I have simply turned the tables
on him (he is usually the one attempting to be "playful"). Since when
did being "playful" become a usenet crime? Since when did
being "playful" become "flaming"?
Parry
>
> Okay, okay, okay.
>
> I guess I should first ask you "what is it that you want to know?"
I would like to know: when and by whom was this group was started?
> I think maybe it is about time that we put together a FAQ, but I can't
> for the life of me figure out what questions are asked so often?
The most asked question has probably been: what is the definition of
surrealism? The second most: what is the difference between surrealism
and dadaism? Oddly, no one asks: what is the difference between
surrealism and the situationists?
Although it’s not usually asked directly, many have wondered: what is
alt.surrealism? Is it a surrealist group? Can you squeeze literary
criticism out of its users?
Some other matters keep coming around: the question of aesthetics,
surrealism’s political orientation, its attitude towards mysticism, its
relation to psychological theory, Dali. Other topics I recall: dreams,
oulipo, automatism, film, rock music.
> And
> what points should be made clear to the "newcomers"?
That they should read the bloody faq before they post.
> Any suggestions?
I think it’s a worthwhile project and would be interested in watching it
unfold. So I’ll make this motion:
I nominate Brandon to do all the hard work. That is, he can chair the
project, have editorial control, and serve as principle author. I
nominate Barrett to serve as consultant and arbiter of disputes.
So, Brandon, if you’re willing to take on the responsibility, we can
start making all sorts of ambitious and unworkable proposals. Like, why
not illutrations, or a mission statement?
> Should we suppliment it with a Nik Maack FAQ?
I could imagine such a faq, but it’s the least of my concerns.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Nikolaus Maack
> We don't need someone such as yourself, shaking your finger (which
> you've pulled freshly out of Nik's ass) in our faces. If you chose, as
> Nik has chosen, to continue to oppose us simply become we (I am
> speaking of myself, Dale, Barrett, cythera, John, Parry, and few
> others) have come to some sort of collective agreement on certain ideas
> surrounding Surrealism then I can really no longer take you seriously
> (just as I stopped taking Nik seriously about a year ago).
Andrew Nellis mocked you for your lack of wit and reading abilities. You
respond by immediately reinserting your name in the dog pack you consider
to be the dominant force in this newsgroup. According to you, Andrew
isn't just mocking you -- he's mocking your TEAM. He's mocking you and
all the other Good People of alt.surrealism.
"WE don't need someone such as yourself..."
This is bizarre and pathetic behavior on your part, given that your team
recently designated you the official "bench warmer". Already you're
trying to ingratiate yourself back into their hearts. How utterly
insecure of you, Brandon.
Don't you remember Dale calling you names? Don't you remember Cythera
putting you in "group number two"? Already you've chosen to forgive and
forget -- and have started to suck up like crazy -- because you need the
safety of their numbers. Here's hoping they aren't as forgetful as you,
and that they do you the kindest of favours by not letting you back into
the dog pack.
Stand up for yourself, Brandon, without relying on the support of your
friends. Learn to express an opinion without leaning on them. You're an
untouchable, now. The Brahmin kicked you out. Get used to your new role.
Embrace it.
> I actually find your
> post rather humorous. My response to Nik was simply a playful response
> to his "serious" input. In other words, I have simply turned the tables
> on him (he is usually the one attempting to be "playful"). Since when
> did being "playful" become a usenet crime? Since when did
> being "playful" become "flaming"?
Andrew's point was that your attempt at playful wit was (as usual) a
miserable failure. In today's example, I posted some self-deprecating
remarks in an ironic tone. In other words, I was kidding. Your "playful"
response was the equivalent of a one word response -- "Yep."
Or as Andrew described it, "mEEEE tOOOO!!!"
In other words, your joke was pathetic and self-congratulatory.
By the way, I suspect you are far too insecure to write a FAQ that will
have to stand up to public scrutiny, so I now, officially, take the task
upon myself. Perhaps by declaring my intentions like this I will spur you
to commence your own labours. But I doubt it. Feel free to tell everyone
that you're way too busy to work on a FAQ. It's a good excuse, and
there's no way to disprove it.
Michael Voytinsky
>Andrew Nellis wrote:
>> Why did you post this, Brandon?
>We don't need someone such as yourself, shaking your finger (which
>you've pulled freshly out of Nik's ass) in our faces.
What is this obsession with Nik's ass in this NG? I remember when I used
to post here semi-regularly, the issue of Nik's ass came up with amazing
regularity.
Cheers,
Michael Voytinsky
cythera
bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Nellis) wrote:
> (brandon...@my-deja.com) writes:
> > Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> >> I'll even include some of the nasty stuff you people have written
> >> -- like I'm a manipulative, money hungry, self-promoting, know-
> >> delusions of grandeur who constantly mocks everyone.
> >
> > Yeah, that about covers it.
>
> Have any of you noticed that Nik is much smarter than you? I know
> all about the sordid and petty politics in this newsgroup because I
> have to put up with hearing it all from Nik when he's not busy
> putting up with hearing about all the sordid and petty politics
> from the anti-spam newsgroups from me.
Well Andrew, your words are interesting enough to comment on. And I
don't mean this unkindly, but it's not smart to alienate the very
same people that you want to keep around you.
> The one thing he mentions constantly, and which I have now begun
> myself to notice, is the note of smug self-congratulations in the
> people here when they make an obvious one-line retort to something
> witty and ironic Nik has said.
This is kind of sad. You two don't need to read the unfriendly or
unkind stuff, (or the shallow-friendly stuff either); especially when
you already know you won't feel good afterwards.
Try to let it all go...
cythera.
john adams
as some sort of comfort or plea for acceptance. What he was getting at was:
there are certain - past and present - areas we've all come to agree on
concerning surrealism.
Most of these are the most basic and evident yet you historically
have opposed even those, often times instead embracing this idea of Dali and
his second
wing of surrealism.
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <8u917u$mau$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> (brandon...@my-deja.com) writes:
>> We don't need someone such as yourself, shaking your finger (which
>> you've pulled freshly out of Nik's ass) in our faces. If you chose, as
>> Nik has chosen, to continue to oppose us simply become we (I am
>> speaking of myself, Dale, Barrett, cythera, John, Parry, and few
>> others) have come to some sort of collective agreement on certain ideas
>> surrounding Surrealism then I can really no longer take you seriously
>> (just as I stopped taking Nik seriously about a year ago).
>
>Andrew Nellis mocked you for your lack of wit and reading abilities. You
>respond by immediately reinserting your name in the dog pack you consider
>to be the dominant force in this newsgroup. According to you, Andrew
>isn't just mocking you -- he's mocking your TEAM. He's mocking you and
>all the other Good People of alt.surrealism.
>
>"WE don't need someone such as yourself..."
>
>This is bizarre and pathetic behavior on your part, given that your team
>recently designated you the official "bench warmer". Already you're
>trying to ingratiate yourself back into their hearts. How utterly
>insecure of you, Brandon.
What team, and whose hearts? Andrew Nellis is obviously a mocking genius.
john
brandon...@my-deja.com
> So, Brandon, if you’re willing to take on the responsibility, we can
> start making all sorts of ambitious and unworkable proposals.
Okay, I guess I have to take the job. It will help me sort out my
understandings of surrealism. Besides, I have the time. I'll try to get
the basics (definition of Surrealism, what is alt.surrealism, etc) down
this week. If anyone wants to offer help, opinions, ideas about what
should be on the first version of the FAQ or if they would like to
critique it before it is "released" e-mail me at:
brandon...@my-deja.com
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> Don't you remember Dale calling you names? Don't you remember Cythera
> putting you in "group number two"?
It really doesn't matter if Dale and I disagree (if you could even call
it that) on off topics. It also doesn't matter to me how Cythera
precieves me (although I still do have a few bones to pick with her
about her authoritarian attitude towards this newsgroup). It also
doesn't matter if John (or was it Parry?) and I disagree about
Surrealism's connection to Dada. The facts still stand that we all have
an understanding about the basics of Surrealism (those elements you
refuse to agree with simply because you dislike us) and it is that
understanding that holds us together as a group. Why do you have a
problem with this?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Well, I invited your private correspondence. That was weeks ago.
I'm not interested in private conversations. I'm not that nice a guy.
> And if here, you are referring to my reports on someone for cruelty:
> if animals -- and children -- could advocate for THEIR OWN legal
> rights and protection, it would be a different matter entirely,
> wouldn't it.
The problem here is that you don't seem to understand that by
advocating legal action you are working "with" the police and those in
power. Maybe I read Barrett wrong, but POWER is the enemy and working
with or via the enemy is a lost cause no matter what the case is. It is
an act that can in no way be compatable with freedom. Instead of
calling the cops you should be fighting the cops. Calling them only
give them more power, and you less freedom.
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8uahtd$mvk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> cythera wrote:
> > Well, I invited your private correspondence. That was weeks ago.
>
> I'm not interested in private conversations. I'm not that nice a guy.
>
> > And if here, you are referring to my reports on someone for cruelty:
> > if animals -- and children -- could advocate for THEIR OWN legal
> > rights and protection, it would be a different matter entirely,
> > wouldn't it.
>
> The problem here is that you don't seem to understand that by
> advocating legal action you are working "with" the police and those in
> power.
Yes, just as by advocating for gays in the military you were working with
the military and those in power. It's a slippery world.
But even in a "perfected" world society will create systems to protect
itself from the worst abuses. That our police are far from perfected (or
particularly interested in protection as opposed to supression and graft) is
obvious, but I assume that there are instances in which even you would call
on them, and smooth over your guilty feathers later. If - for instance - one
saw a woman/man/child being laid upon by several men and you could not
elicit any protective fervor in those others about you (if indeed there were
any others), you might be tempted to call on that dubious aid, irrespective
of any greater concerns that the very nature of the modern police force
helps to create the situation you are now viewing. The Surrealists
themselves saw no great drawback to protecting themselves from corruption by
exclusion and scandal. Or maybe you are as gullible as Yoko Ono, who thought
she could have stopped Hitler from his actions by sleeping with him!
I make no judgement here about cythera's particular event, only the
deliciously ideal yet condescendingly dogmatic notion that calling on the
police (in lieu of better defense) would never be justified - or at least
preferable to bloody mayhem.
Hard choices no doubt, one hopes you never have to make.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Nik can't take a joke. Here he goes ...
I can take a joke -- it's that you can't make a joke. You possess all the
wit and comedy of a diseased dog's colon strewn across a crowd of
schoolchildren who are on fire. You're like a clown swinging an axe, who
assumes that the shrieks, screams, and spurts of blood are a positive
reaction to his "comedy". It would be a step up the foodchain if you
started making jokes about diarrhea.
And (in your typical way) you're missing the entire point behind my
previous post. When someone says, "You, Brandon, are stupid and have a
lousy sense of humour," why on earth would you defend yourself by saying,
"No, *WE* all believe in certain aspects of surrealism!" -- we refering to
you and eighteen thousand of your closest friends? Andrew Nellis said
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about surrealism, and yet you chose to perceive his
attack on your lack of wit as an attack on The Dog Pack's perspective on
surrealism. What gives?
I'll tell you what gives -- you're too cowardly to stand on your own.
That's why you ran like a kicked puppy when Cythera demoted you out of
"group one" and Dale stopped supporting your point of view. Suddenly you
found yourself without allies, and you pissed your pants in terror and
fled for the hills.
I have nothing against your little union of thought. The problem I have
is that, when someone points out you're as thick as concrete pudding, as
dull as drying laundry, as swift as a severed head, you immediately insert
yourself into the collective for defensive purposes. It seems that no one
can ever just attack little old you -- they can only attack your dog pack.
Does that not strike you as suspicious and strange and sad?
> The facts still stand that we all have
> an understanding about the basics of Surrealism (those elements you
> refuse to agree with simply because you dislike us) and it is that
> understanding that holds us together as a group.
What does any of this have to do with the fact that you're a moron?
If someone says you have the wit of a bloodless banana, it doesn't matter
how many friends you can name. That's not an answer to the charges --
it's defensive posturing designed to quickly bring your comrades into the
fray so you don't have to fight all by your lonesome.
barrett john erickson
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:3a092f7d$0$428$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
> > > Well, I invited your private correspondence. That was weeks ago.
> >
> > I'm not interested in private conversations. I'm not that nice a guy.
> >
> > > And if here, you are referring to my reports on someone for cruelty:
> > > if animals -- and children -- could advocate for THEIR OWN legal
> > > rights and protection, it would be a different matter entirely,
> > > wouldn't it.
> >
> > The problem here is that you don't seem to understand that by
> > advocating legal action you are working "with" the police and those in
> > power.
>
yes, this is certainly true enough. but i think there's an important aspect
of this example that can clearly set it apart from the more common calls for
legal or police action to preserve "law and order" or defend some community
standard:
here, the inherently oppressive role of the police is actually forced to
serve as a tool of liberation rather than a means of enforcement (assuming
they actually respond to our call, of course). we hope that as soon as this
specific liberation is effected the rescued "victim" would immediately join
us in contrasting _this_ action with the far more common role of cops as the
bullies hired to protect POWER against the dangers of liberation.
this example might even be viewed/revealed as a detournement -- somewhat
similar perhaps, to the way one might enhance the effect and visibility of a
protest, by exposing and critiquing the volatile authoritarian reactivity of
police as they close down intersections, disrupt traffic and assume the
roles of multiple petty dictators in their zeal to contain the protesters.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@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
==============================================
Nikolaus Maack
> here, the inherently oppressive role of the police is actually forced to
> serve as a tool of liberation rather than a means of enforcement (assuming
> they actually respond to our call, of course).
My recent investigations into police forces across the world has turned up
an interesting and previously unnoticed fact. It turns out that cops are
human beings. This shocking piece of information was revealed to me in,
of all places, a re-run of a "Hill Street Blues" episode.
Like all other human beings, police officers enjoy having power. If a
criminal is coming at a cop with an uzi and a nuclear bomb, the cop feels
it is reasonable to ask that every officer be issued two nuclear bombs and
a laser pistol like Han Solo had in Star Wars. If a "scumbag" kicks a cop
in the genital area, the cop would like the authority to tear off one of
the scumbag's ears and surgically staple it to the cretin's forehead.
These are not unreasonable requests. If someone hits you, it's a natural
reaction to want to hit them back twice as hard, and then urinate on them.
Unfortunately for police officers, we have to send them out to fight "bad
guys" armed only with a pointed stick and a pair of bullet-proof
underpants. That way we can be sure that cops don't overstep their
authority and start firing laser pistol shots into the foreheads of
passing storm troopers, jawas, and skateboarders.
Cops, being human, want to be treated well, want to do a good job, want
more power than they need or deserve, occasionally screw up bigtime,
occasionally follow orders that are insane because they want to keep their
jobs, and do all the other stupid things that human beings do both
collectively and as individuals.
People who say, "All cops are shit," would be better off saying, "All
human beings are shit," and leaving it at that. It's my opinion that if
you're going to be prejudiced against a group of people, you may as well
be fair about it, and be prejudiced against all people.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Yes, just as by advocating for gays in the military you were working
> with the military and those in power. It's a slippery world.
I totally agree. This is what I was getting at.
> But even in a "perfected" world society will create systems to protect
> itself from the worst abuses.
And this will not be done with "police" but with a cultural
metomorphosis, something surrealism proposes. When culture, that which
we learn, is transformed into a non-repressive world the individual's
respect for freedom and for the freedom of other will "police" their
actions.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> here, the inherently oppressive role of the police is actually forced
> to serve as a tool of liberation rather than a means of enforcement
> (assuming they actually respond to our call, of course).
I have my doubts about that. Any use of the police only enforces the
belief that the police are needed. Besides, Cythera had a grudge
against Fas, so she manipulated his words and tried to get the
authorities involved. She threatened to do this to Nik not to long ago,
regarding his "inappropriate" posts. She isn't worried about liberation
(she's a fucking teacher!), and her only purpose with her use of the
authorities is to gain the upperhand (grasp some power) over the said
individuals. Its all rather sad.
> this example might even be viewed/revealed as a detournement --
Oh please ...
brandon...@my-deja.com
> I can take a joke -- it's that you can't make a joke. You possess
> all the wit and comedy of a diseased dog's colon strewn across a
> crowd of schoolchildren who are on fire. You're like a clown
> swinging an axe, who assumes that the shrieks, screams, and spurts of
> blood are a positive reaction to his "comedy". It would be a step up
> the foodchain if you started making jokes about diarrhea.
Thanks for all the compliments.
> When someone says, "You, Brandon, are stupid and have a lousy sense
> of humour," why on earth would you defend yourself by saying, "No,
> *WE* all believe in certain aspects of surrealism!" -- we refering to
> you and eighteen thousand of your closest friends?
Go back and read Andy's post: "Have any of you..." See Nik, he's
talking to US. I tried to explain to him the situation. Why do you have
a problem with this?
> I'll tell you what gives -- you're too cowardly to stand on your own.
What are you talking about? For the past few months I've been arguing
with Dale and Cythera.
> That's why you ran like a kicked puppy when Cythera demoted you out of
> "group one" and Dale stopped supporting your point of view. Suddenly
> you found yourself without allies, and you pissed your pants in
> terror and fled for the hills.
Not really. Dale had nothing to do with why I left, but I was really
turned off by Cythera's paranoia. Her attack on Sven was uncalled for,
and really wasn't helping the group. Next think I know she's attacking
everyone for invisible reasons, so I decide to get the fuck out. When
she left I decided to come back.
Michael Voytinsky
>My recent investigations into police forces across the world has turned up
>an interesting and previously unnoticed fact. It turns out that cops are
>human beings.
On my last trip to Toronto I spent some time wandering the streets, reciting
a monologue about hitting some guy upside the head with baby Jesus. But
that is besides the point.
I was wandering the streets, talking loudly to myself and otherwise acting
inconspicous, when I saw a poster on a streetpole. On the poster was a
picture of a dude with an enormous moustache. There was also some text,
explaining what surrealism is. Most of the text was not particularly
cogent, but according to it in order to be a surrealist, you have to spit on
policemen and priests. Presumably, you do not have to spit on ministers.
Does this also mean that you have to spit on Cohens but not on rabbis? I
am not sure.
Which reminds me of a conversation I had with this guy who wanted to be a
cop. He was going to all these police forces and undergoing psychological
testing and interviews. One of the questions he was asked was what would
he do if, while on the job, in uniform, he was walking through a crowded
area when some guy spat on him.
He told the interviewer that he would tell the guy that next time he does
this he would be arrested, and leave it at that. This is not, he was told,
a right answer, because the public should know that they can not get away
with spitting at a cop even once. He was not told what the right answer
is.
I suspect that the right answer involves forcing the culpit to participate
in recreation of the scene from "Shogun" where this guy pees on
what's-his-face - in what's-his-face's role, of course.
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3a098a0f$0$443$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...
>
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> news:3a092f7d$0$428$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
> >
> > <brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8uahtd$mvk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > Well, I invited your private correspondence. That was weeks ago.
> > >
> > > I'm not interested in private conversations. I'm not that nice a guy.
> > >
> > > > And if here, you are referring to my reports on someone for cruelty:
> > > > if animals -- and children -- could advocate for THEIR OWN legal
> > > > rights and protection, it would be a different matter entirely,
> > > > wouldn't it.
> > >
> > > The problem here is that you don't seem to understand that by
> > > advocating legal action you are working "with" the police and those in
> > > power.
> >
with
> > the military and those in power. It's a slippery world.
> >
> serve as a tool of liberation rather than a means of enforcement (assuming
this
> specific liberation is effected the rescued "victim" would immediately
join
> us in contrasting _this_ action with the far more common role of cops as
the
> bullies hired to protect POWER against the dangers of liberation.
>
> this example might even be viewed/revealed as a detournement -- somewhat
> similar perhaps, to the way one might enhance the effect and visibility of
a
> protest, by exposing and critiquing the volatile authoritarian reactivity
of
> police as they close down intersections, disrupt traffic and assume the
> roles of multiple petty dictators in their zeal to contain the protesters.
>
dmh
barrett john erickson
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ucena$937$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> > here, the inherently oppressive role of the police is actually forced
> > to serve as a tool of liberation rather than a means of enforcement
> > (assuming they actually respond to our call, of course).
>
> belief that the police are needed. Besides, Cythera had a grudge
> against Fas, so she manipulated his words and tried to get the
> authorities involved. She threatened to do this to Nik not to long ago,
> regarding his "inappropriate" posts. She isn't worried about liberation
> (she's a fucking teacher!), and her only purpose with her use of the
> authorities is to gain the upperhand (grasp some power) over the said
> individuals. Its all rather sad.
i was only commenting on Dale's example of a situation in which any of us
might decide it necessary (not desirable) to enlist the aid of the police.
and i did preface my comments:
"i think there's an important aspect of this example that can clearly
set it apart from the more common calls for legal or police action
to preserve "law and order" or defend some community standard:"
the opperative words being "aspect" and "can". the potential lies in how
the intervention is critically framed. certainly i, too, doubt that police
interventions are ever being anything but disasterous, but i do see this
_possibility_ for turning such an intervention into something that aids the
cause of liberty on a larger scale over time.
> > this example might even be viewed/revealed as a detournement --
>
> Oh please ...
you don't see how such a situation might be spontaneously reframed to
illuminate and critique (by contrast) the common role of cops as POWER's
bodyguards (as opposed to treating them as heroes for occasionally
protecting the powerless from each other)?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> the opperative words being "aspect" and "can". the potential lies in
> how the intervention is critically framed. certainly i, too, doubt
> that police interventions are ever being anything but disasterous,
> but i do see this _possibility_ for turning such an intervention into
> something that aids the cause of liberty on a larger scale over time.
It might be possible, but this is not what Cythera is doing. Her call
to the authorities will only, if anything, cause one of the following
two:
a) the power over the animals to be shifted to a new individual---a new
master.
b) the destruction of the animals at the hands of the state---they will
most likely be put to death if a new master can't be found.
Her actions will never "liberate" the animals. They will never run free
due to anything she's done. She can only create a shift in the power
from one boss to another.
> you don't see how such a situation might be spontaneously reframed to
> illuminate and critique (by contrast) the common role of cops as
> POWER's bodyguards (as opposed to treating them as heroes for
> occasionally protecting the powerless from each other)?
No, not with this situation. Maybe you could elaborate?
cythera
brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> cythera wrote:
> > Well, I invited your private correspondence. That was weeks ago.
>
> I'm not interested in private conversations. I'm not that nice a
> guy.
>
> > And if here, you are referring to my reports on someone for
> > cruelty: if animals -- and children -- could advocate for THEIR
> > OWN legal rights and protection, it would be a different matter
> > entirely, wouldn't it.
>
> The problem here is that you don't seem to understand that by
> advocating legal action you are working "with" the police and those
> in power. Maybe I read Barrett wrong, but POWER is the enemy and
> working with or via the enemy is a lost cause no matter what the
> case is.
> It is an act that can in no way be compatable with freedom.
A question: did you vote yesterday?
[...]
> Calling them [police] only give them more power,
How, in this particular case, is that accurate?
cythera.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> A question: did you vote yesterday?
No.
> > Calling them [police] only give them more power,
> How, in this particular case, is that accurate?
By supporting the idea that they actually have some value, not to
mention the fact that you are giving the state an excuse to use their
power against Fas, and you have also given them an excuse to use their
power against his sister, and the animals themselves.
Stupidity amongst those who think they're "protecting" animals is
common. For example, animal "collectors" are often accused of being
abusive to the animals they "own" [and for the most part they are kept
in unhealth situations] but what people rarely realize or take into
consideration is that it is more dangerous to turn the collector in for
the animals go directly to the state. Once the animals are in the hands
of the state more than half of the animals will be put to death.
Some hero that makes you.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> And the laws need to be changed or tightened up to protect all those
> without a voice.
No, the "law" should stay out of it. There needs to be a social, moral,
and culture change. What disturbs me the most is that the abuser
doesn't comprehend that animals are more than self-dependent property
or lifeless robots. No "law" is going to change the abuser's view, only
a reinvention of culture.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> 1. How would you educate the abusers, and keep an eye on them.
Voice your opinion to them. The problem with animal abuse is that most
people don't speak up. The more people examine the situation and the
more people speaking up the more their opinion will become part of our
culture and hopefully something that will be passed on to future
generations. From what I've read of the Chicago Group, the primary
purpose of the Surrealist Movement is to transform the world through a
cultural revolution, to produce a non-repressive culture. Culture is
what we learn, what is passed on from generation to generation. It is
through the transformation of culture into a non-repressive culture
that the abusers will be "educated."
And I don't feel I need to "keep an eye on them". Most people who abuse
animals only do so via ignorance. Once that ignorance is broken down
the chance that it will resurface is small. Several of my friends had
been somewhat disrespectful (not abusive) towards their pets until I
spoke up. Some of them changed or decided to give their pet to a better
home. Of course their are those few individuals who abuse animals,
people, and everything, but this is due to their disregard for life
itself. This issue is much deeper then what we are talking about here,
and much more psychological (Bundy, Dahmer, etc).
> 2. How do you protect the abused animal or person and its/her/his
> rights _until_ this "social, moral, and culture change" is in place?
Certainly not by bowing down to the powers that be. Just look at what
the state (in this case the UK) does to animals:
http://www.freezone.co.uk/liberationmag/
Shit, be a radical! Once my sister and mother took the neighbor's cats
because he used to throw rocks at them. He just stood in our living
room and said that he thought they "ran away." The idiot. One of them
was sleeping in the chair right behind him. He didn't even recognize
it. The point is that there are ways to help abused animals without
calling the cops. Another point I'm trying to make is that the state
and big business are the biggest abuser of animals, just as they are
the biggest abusers of humans. The cops aren't going to help you when
you report that the state has been abusing animals in scientific tests,
or some company has been killing cows for meat. Looks like you're gonna
have to take things into your own hands ...
> Or are you advocating that you do _not_ protect them?
I'm advocating a complete transformation of how people view
animal/human relationships. I can't support the idea of giving
animals "rights" because those rights would simply intergrate them into
the system I'm already in (and how much are my "rights" really worth?).
Instead I think it would be much better to "liberate" them just as I
myself would like to be "liberated" from this capitalist hell.
OPEN THE ZOOS! DISBAND THE ARMY!
> Do you have an outline for this reinvention, and a timeline?
Its already taking place. Culture is always reinventing itself. The
point is to reinvent culture as a non-repressive culture. For
Surrealists this is essential. Breton started this when he stopped
precieving dream/reality, life/death, etc, as opposites. A large part
of the Surrealist project is to examine and critique modern culture and
point out what's wrong with it, where it should be transformed ... not
to call the cops! Let's keep the authorities out of this, please!
"Transform the world," Marx said; "Change life," Rimbaud said. These
two watchwords are one for us.
---Breton
cythera
time. And that each person who reads this -- and most especially those
of you who are writing to argue with me, such as D42 -- will each go
out and adopt a pet or donate money to your local shelter this weekend.
Please put your time and money where your mouths are.
Spay and neuter your pets.
In article <8udnp4$aoh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
brandon...@my-deja.com wrote to cythera:
> Shit, be a radical! Once my sister and mother took the neighbor's
> cats because he used to throw rocks at them. He just stood in our
> living room and said that he thought they "ran away." The idiot.
> One of them was sleeping in the chair right behind him. He didn't
> even recognize it. The point is that there are ways to help abused
> animals without calling the cops.
The poster in question isn't my neighbor; he lives on the other side of
the country. Nor do I have a place where I could keep his dogs.
> Another point I'm trying to make is that the state and big business
> are the biggest abuser of animals, just as they are the biggest
> abusers of humans.
Domestic animals need protection nonetheless.
And since you probably know about slaughterhouses, animal testing and
the needless suffering they produce, I hope that if you are not already
a vegan, you will seriously consider adopting the practice.
The same to elag, Mikal 606, Disturbed 42, etc.: each of you that
voices a disagreement with me. Please, now put compassion where your
mouths are.
> The cops aren't going to help you when you report that the state has
> been abusing animals in scientific tests, or some company has been
> killing cows for meat.
Well, I didn't call the cops and the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals to get them to help _me_. And if/when legislation
is in place to protect animals, then the government (and the police,
which are an arm of it, and whose salaries we pay), don't get a choice
about who they help in that they are legally accountable if they
refuse to help. In my city and county the police _have_ to respond
to every call. And it is possible to agitate them into action. I
know this because I have reported child abuse, made follow-up calls to
check on the status of the cases, agreed to testify when asked, and
(for my own protection, and that of my friends and my home) reported
the death threats from a neighbor I turned in (and by the way he
was/is a dealer and I have no doubt he carried a weapon.)
Perhaps, Brandon, rather than focusing your attentions on changing
Nik and me, it is getting time to turn those attentions to a _cause_
such as the animal movement or prison reform. Believe me, you can do
a greater good there. The majority of people who write on
alt.surrealism are out for themselves -- they want a fun newsgroup. I
think it's mostly a game for _them_.
Best wishes.
cythera.
jsday
>
> Spay and neuter your pets.
Speaking of cruelty to animals. I just killed one the other day;
as quickly as I could, but its dying moment, looking helplessly
into my eyes as I broke its neck, seemed eternal. It left a
sadness that is still with me.
Then again, if you count mosquitoes, I've killed thousands without
giving a thought to it.
Pay and speuter your nets.
> Perhaps [...] it is getting time to turn those attentions to a _cause_
> such as the animal movement or prison reform. Believe me, you can do
> a greater good there. The majority of people who write on
> alt.surrealism are out for themselves -- they want a fun newsgroup. I
> think it's mostly a game for _them_.
Not that I'm any kind of authority on alt.surrealism, but devotion to
prison reform, while it does sound fun, and it may do greater good
to the majority of people who are out for themselves, isn't a game
likely to appeal to _them_.
_
cythera
Hi js; thanks for the laughs (intentional, I think -- refreshing!)
Except for your post today, and barrett's, I see I'm starting to lose
my patience with a.s. again, so on your funny post, I bid you all
adieu.
Abientot :)
cythera.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Please put your time and money where your mouths are.
I already have.