Tibetan Monkeys got to make noise!
TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit
for Jesus to come and rescue you... YOU MAKE NOISE!)
On Apr 30, 5:19 am, Obbzorbian <Veggy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> monkeys blow tibetin horns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVdBe5b7k-w
Anything that makes noise is good for the monkeys. This is a strategy
developed for COOPERATION & SURVIVAL.
Christians do like the THREE WISE MONKEYS, that aren't wise after
all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbXaVdH9UUs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS
"Make noise or be lunch"
Don Klipstein
TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote:
>(This is something applicable to every area of life. You don't wait
>for Jesus to come and rescue you... YOU MAKE NOISE!)
>
>On Apr 30, 5:19 am, Obbzorbian <Veggy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> monkeys blow tibetin horns
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVdBe5b7k-w
>
>Anything that makes noise is good for the monkeys. This is a strategy
>developed for COOPERATION & SURVIVAL.
<I snip past point more on making noise to edit for space>
How about what I can do while riding a bike? Every bike that I ride
has a horn and a siren! Even 1 second after getting out the door with no
add-ons from where the bike came from - if I am riding it, it has a horn
and a siren!
How? The pilot likes to exercise his voice, as in male falsetto usage
as well as sounding like some of the louder rockers from northern 60% of
England, such as Ozzy Osbourne, Ian Anderson, John Lennon, and Holly
Johnson (last of which sounds to me like a rocker but appears to me better
known for disco-ish stuff).
I wear brighter and more vivid clothing, I can make myself heard, and I
am not afraid to be thought to be looking gay or sounding gay. (Maybe in
a few more years, straight male cyclists will look and sound as gay as the
gay ones do as homophobia continues its decline, and then the gay ones
will have only "gaydar" to know who to flirt with. That means to mean to
me that the future has as much need for "gaydar" as the homophobic past
did!)
(And nowadays and recently, it appears to me that cyclists who have less
liking to interact mildly-flirtaceously with gay male cyclists are more
cautious than I am with use of voice.
And that means necessity of more cautious cycling style [in areas with
pedestrians and fellow vehicle drivers], unless the cautious cyclist who
does not want to be suspected to be gay resorts to mechanical as opposed
to vocal noisemaking.)
I am not afraid to say "on your left" as loud and clear as is sung in
the song "Set it Off" by Strafe, or even 6-10 dB louder, with a
"bright-and-clear" "northern England" accent as Strafe used in that song,
even with the mildly-Irish aspect of Liverpool that has some chance (as I
see it) of narrowing down to either John Lennon or Holly Johnson.
Maybe in just a few more years all cyclists in USA of all genders and
sexual orientations will not be afraid to "look as loud" as "road racing
cycling gendre" does, in ways other than "is done in the road-racing club".
For that matter, how about sounding loud? Resort to mechanical or
electic/electronic horns? What about cyclists who would rather exercise
their voices so as to reduce need to spend money on
mechanical/pneumatic/electronic horns?
I look forward to the time when cyclists of all genders and sexual
orientations get more alike in horn-like noisemaking technology,
preferably in usage of both voice and technology. What I suspect from
that is gay-male cyclists practice at that point branching into how they
sense each-other's gayness from distant-past (using mainly "gaydar"),
dressing fashion styles (now to recent past), and appearing-likely-to-me
soon-to-come need of "gaydar" in the future as much as in the past due to
downfall of homophobia likely-allowing straight men to dress as sexy or
colorful as gay men.
Maybe for a few more years, gay male cyclists (even ones with "steady
boyfriends") get to mildly-flirt with each other with how they use their
voices and how they dress...
How soon does the future become like the past, when gay gentlemen have
only/mainly "gaydar" for knowing who to flirt with?
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises
> In <ce114431-c441-429a-8137-b3c0e2e96...@n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
You raise some interesting points:
First we have a lot in common with the gay community: WE NEED TO COME
OUT OF THE CLOSET, MAKE NOISE AND BE COLORFUL.
I do not wear lycra, but I wear the orange safety vest, and my regular
bell. The color itself warns them this is not something they can
ignore. As for noise, I meant that unless we go and make all kinds of
parades, protests and simply throw shit at the system the denies us
space, we won't get what we want. The money will be wasted in some
absurd bike path (like here) with no attention to the needs of the
cyclists.
Hey, you may wear one of those t-shirts that say "HUNGRY?" "YOU CAN
EAT MY BANANA!" Sometimes I wear one of those, which I hope is read
the right way... ;)
(I'll knock down my commission for you)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises
wrote:
> http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000503.shtml
>
> Darwin's idea has cost lives
>
> The naturalist is a secular saint yet he has left a legacy of mass
> sterilisation and murder, argues Dennis Sewell
>
> We have heard a great deal during this year's bicentennial
> celebrations about Charles Darwin's magnificent achievements, but very
> little about the great naturalist's catastrophic errors. This is a
> shame, because anyone who gives their name to an -ism or becomes the
> centre of a personality cult should always have their intellectual
> legacy scrutinised in its entirety.
>
> Although his work has inspired subsequent generations of scientists to
> make great strides in advancing our knowledge of the natural world,
> Darwin's ideas have also fathered some of the most grotesque instances
> of man's inhumanity to man.
>
> Darwin's decision to represent as a scientific fact that the several
> races of mankind had travelled different distances down the
> evolutionary path - that white Europeans were, in short, more highly
> evolved than Africans or Australian Aborigines - has had appalling
> consequences. Today, Darwin's supporters frequently make light of his
> racial views, claiming that he was no more racist than the average
> upper-middle-class gentlemen of his day, and warning that we should
> not try to impose the politically correct attitudes of our own times
> on to the past. But Darwin's racism was very different from that of
> his contemporaries.
>
> Though any Victorian Englishman might have regarded himself as
> socially superior to the lawless, savage tribes he encountered
> throughout the Empire, only Darwin - as the man who discovered
> evolution by natural selection - could provide an underpinning for
> racial superiority in biology and evolutionary science. Only Darwin
> could establish the notion of a hierarchy of races as a scientific
> orthodoxy that would prevail through much of the following century.
>
> In the autumn of 1906 a group of the most eminent figures in American
> science decided to give the New York public an object lesson in human
> evolution. They put a 23-year-old African from the Congo on display in
> the monkey-house of the Bronx Zoo alongside an orang-utan and a
> gorilla, presenting the unfortunate young pygmy as the missing link
> between ape and human. I have found that many people are not in the
> least surprised to hear of this appalling violation of a person's
> dignity, perhaps believing such outrages were common in the United
> States before the Civil Rights Movement of the Sixties. Yet black
> people had been entitled to vote in New York State for more than a
> century by the time this Congolese pygmy was put on such humiliating
> display.
>
> The scientists responsible defended their actions in Darwinian terms.
> As a member of one of the "lower races" in the evolutionary scale, the
> pygmy was closer to a dog or a pig than to a white New Englander,
> therefore his life should be accorded a different value. Certainly the
> organisers of the exhibit felt no more compelled to ask for the
> pygmy's consent than to obtain the permission of the orang-utan or the
> gorilla to their incarceration and display.
>
> In any case, Darwin had shown that human life was not qualitatively
> different from animal life, and Darwin's theories, it was stressed,
> were "no more contestable than the multiplication tables".
>
> Truths that America's founding fathers had held to be self-evident -
> that all men were created equal and endowed with certain inalienable
> rights - were now scorned as gross sentimentalities that had been
> overtaken by Darwinian science. Within a decade the self-styled
> "scientific racialists" had begun to classify other groups as
> genetically inferior. Immigrants from Spain and Italy were held to be
> a threat to the quality of the American gene pool and spurious
> scientific evidence was adduced to "prove" that Jewish immigrants were
> near-imbeciles whose admission in large numbers might lead to a
> lowering of the average level of intelligence of the American people.
> In fact, this cohort of Jewish immigrants would go on to supply more
> Nobel Prize winners than any other immigrant group. But in the early
> Twenties it was the voice of the genetic-alarmists in the science
> establishment that prevailed and the US Congress imposed strict quotas
> on the admission of Jewish and south European immigrants. One
> unforeseen consequence of the quotas was that many Jews seeking to
> escape Nazi persecution in the Thirties found the doors to the United
> States barred to them.
Nowhere Darwinism is more evident than in our SUVs and the lack of
space for bikes. BIG FISH EATS LITTLE FISH.
Well, this may not have been inspired by him, but it's still ruled by
the "laws of nature."
--------------------------------------------------------
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE