Portrait of the Artist as an Old Man (tase crime alert)
Richard Harter
Jean Paul is an artist. I know that he is for he has told me so
himself. Frequently. It is best not to argue with Jean Paul on
the subject - he is prepared for disbelief and at the slightest
sign of doubt he will launch into an impassioned diatribe. Jean
Paul's diatribes are something quite remarkable. If the diatribe
is an art form then Jean Paul is a veritable Michelangelo of
rants.
Jean Paul is a writer. Not only that, he is a genius, one of the
great creative geniuses of our time. I know that this is so for
he has told me so himself. Frequently. In truth he does have
two or three half completed manuscripts laying about that he is
working on. This is no sometime thing; in the thirty years that
I have known him he has always had two or three half completed
manuscripts that he is working on. The odd thing is that none of
these manuscripts ever get completed and published.
He is eclectic. Over the years he has begun a dozen or more
novels, several volumes of political advocacy, a philosophic
tome, and a chapbook or two of poetry. The pattern is the same:
They are begun bravely enough - Jean Paul is a rapid and prolix
writer - until about a quarter of the projected work is
completed. During the creative flush he will read extensively
from the current work to anybody who will listen. And then,
mysteriously, the work disappears from his conversation and,
apparently, from his consciousness. No one knows what happens to
these lost works; perhaps they are swallowed by one of those
black holes that cosmologists are always talking about.
I first met Jean Paul some thirty odd years ago. We were both
undergraduates. He was a year ahead of me in the university, and
I was half a dozen years older than he - I had spent a
wanderjahre that had turned into six. We met in a philosophy
class, Professor Stillman's lectures on existentialism. We had
in common that each of us knew more and understood more about
existentialism than did Professor Stillman. Stillman wasn't all
that old in years but he had an antique heart and a musty
mind. None of the professors in the philosophy department cared
about existentialism, however they had to offer a course in it
because it was fashionable. Campus rumor had it that they drew
straws to see who would teach the course and that Stillman had
gotten the short straw.
College is a dangerous place for a young man. He arrives, filled
with hormones and wild, uncertain emotions. Within the
ivy-stricken halls hucksters await him, their intellectual vendor
trays filled with causes, beliefs, and philosophies, tickets to
anywhere. Concealed with the squalor of student residences lie
intoxications and enchantments. Too often young men are swept
off their feet, overcome by possibility.
So it was with Jean Paul. At that time the flower power
revolution was still in full swing. Sex, drugs, and rock and
roll offered the good life of expanded consciousness, as well as
death by infected needles, and the diseases peculiar to
unsanitary living conditions. The movement (civil rights,
environmentalism, socialist revolution, peace, whatever) offered
action, the joys of baiting the stodgy, and moral certainties.
Some, indeed most, sampled the delights of flower power, and
having sampled, went on to lapse into the soft, sleazy comforts
of the air-conditioned nightmare.
Many did not. Some ended up in sanitaria or on the streets,
their minds blown out on drugs. Others ended up in jail -
Amerika was willing to condone revolution but not bank robbery.
And some ended up working in mind-numbing dead end jobs, earning
the wherewithal to support their chosen mind-numbing drugs and
hobbies, selling their lives to purchase that with which they
erase their lives. So it was with Jean Paul.
He worshipped at the altar of a tri-partite bitch goddess. One
face of the goddess giggled and whispered expressions of
mind-blown awe, a pipe in its left hand and a needle in its
right. One face was contorted with screams of anger. Its left
hand held a placard and its right held a rock. The third face
had a bemused, blank expression. Its hands were poised over a
keyboard from which endless reams of text flowed.
Drugs are universal; anybody, anywhere, can get stoned. The
movement is choosier; one seldom sees CPAs and stockbrokers
marching on the street, singing songs of solidarity. The
university is a natural breeding ground for the movement; there
is a near endless supply of young persons unhampered by the
practicalities of earning a living, eager to project onto the
world their unresolved emotional problems. And it is in the
university that the third face of the bitch goddess finds her
most ardent worshippers, for it is there that creative genius is
idealized and idolized.
Jean Paul put his time in on the movement. He marched in
protests. He issued manifestos. He got tear-gassed, received a
few lumps on his head from a nightstick, and spent a few nights
in jail. He also got laid a lot which may have meant more to him
at the time. The adventures of life are all the better for
having an erotic tinge.
For many people, perhaps most, there is a short period of time in
their youth when they really live. Who does not know someone who
was a star in a highschool sport and whose life thereafter was
spent working in a gas station? For a few short years they truly
lived; the rest of their life consists of passing time as they
reminisce about their glory days. For many people their time of
living is those days and nights of protest.
The movement gave Jean Paul emotional vitamins. It also provided
him with a vocabulary of rhetoric. Movements of all kinds, be
they political or religious, need a goodly supply of canned
rhetoric. All movements have enemies; the rhetoric stock
provides labels and characterizations for the enemies. There are
values to be proclaimed and actions to be endorsed. There are
manifestos to be written.
All of this requires words. None of it requires thought.
Indeed, thought is not wanted. Thought creates doubt and wastes
time. The good activist does not need to think; it is action
that is wanted. Often it happens as it did with Jean Paul; the
rhetoric remained long after the movement has been abandoned,
rather like scars left over from long forgotten bar fights.
The bitch-goddess smiled upon him with her third face. Jean Paul
had notebooks filled with story ideas, imitative poetry, and
fragments of fiction. He hung out in coffee shops with other
would-be writers in dark rooms thick with smoke and affectation.
In these forays into literatopia he carried with a packet of
smudged manuscripts that he handed over for reading to fellow
would-be writers who handed him their manuscripts in return.
The Movement fell apart with the ending of the draft. Most of
the peace warriors went on to become happy little fat consumers.
Jean Paul couldn't; he had too much anger within him. I never
quite understood where the anger came from originally. Perhaps
it was rooted in some unresolved freudian conflict with his
parents. Then again, it may have been some genetic abnormality,
some chemical imbalance in the blood. Scientists are good at
explaining these things even if their explanations do change with
each century. I like to think that it was fashion. Angry young
men are always in fashion. As much as anything the anger of
youth is a mask that is donned. The terrible danger with wearing
masks is that sometimes they don't come off.
In the end, though, it was the drugs that won him. He dropped
out of school. He deserted the literary scene. His friends, if
you can call them that, were fellow heads. The psychedelic art
and the heavy metal faded away; the grunge and the drugs
remained.
His heavy drug phase lasted a decade and then it went away. The
odd thing about addiction is that it can release its hold on you.
It doesn't happen often and it takes its time but it can happen.
I have known alcoholics who have stopped being alcoholics. Going
on the wagon doesn't mean that you aren't an alcoholic; it just
means that you aren't drinking. Not being an alcoholic means
that you can have a drink and it is no big deal.
That is about how it was with Jean Paul. One day he came out of
the haze and looked around at the world outside his pad again.
He was still a head. He'll always be a head but he has stopped
turning himself into a vegetable.
I lost track of him during his head years. I had gone my way,
milking the capitalist system for some of its goodies. I ran
into him some years later quite by chance. I was doing an
article on the labor problems at a local factory; he happened to
be on the line as I was being given the grand tour by the factory
manager.
We hooked up and filled each other in on what we had been doing.
He had been employed in a long list of scut-work jobs. The
factory job was one of his better jobs. He had been a bartender,
a pool boy, a pizza delivery man, and a night janitor. This was
good for his literary ambitions. To be a literary success you
must write grunge fiction. Grunge fiction is the pornography of
the literary establishment. To do it well you have to have
wallowed in the grunge yourself; you cannot write trailer park
fiction from a Commonwealth Avenue brownstone. Jean Paul had
been at a disadvantage. What, after all, does a good Jewish boy
from the suburbs know about grunge?
Here in Amerika we are making a big mistake in bringing in Asians
and Mexicans to do our scut work. Those jobs should be reserved
for our druggies and ex-druggies, our would-be writers and our
would-be actors. We are compromising our artistic future by
going abroad for cheap labor.
I thought my life was less interesting. I was a paid flack,
selling words to fill holes in trade magazines. I may not have
been a yuppie but I did have a widening streak of yuppie
consumption down my back. He was fascinated when he learned that
I had contacts in the publishing world. It turned out that he
was still writing. He rather shyly showed me one of his
manuscripts. It was wildly undisciplined but I really can't say
whether it was good or not; I am not the man to judge these
things. I promised to put him in touch with a publisher and I
did; nothing came of it though.
I also introduced him to the internet. This was in the old days
before the internet became one seamless whole. There was the
arpanet, usenet, lots of individual bulletin boards, and various
services. There was no world wide web and the technology was
crude, crude, crude. It wasn't all that easy to get hooked up
and it could be expensive. What you needed in those days was
access to a geek who could get you into the nets. I introduced
Jean Paul to my favorite geek. Before long he had his own suite
of geeks and he took off from there.
I didn't realize that he would become an internet legend. I
should have foreseen it. He had all of the attributes needed to
be a voice in the electronic Hyde Park. He had the ability to
effortly produce long winded rants. He had the arrogance that
comes with the certainty of his own genius. He lacked common
consideration for others, being the center and only resident of
his egocentric universe. The internet is a natural venue for the
crank and the crackpot; it has been kind to Jean Paul.
I see him now and then on the internet. He has web pages filled
with half-finished fiction. Some of it may be good; I couldn't
say, myself; I am not the man to judge such things. His true
metier, though, is the flame, the discussion group rant. It is a
form that he has mastered.
I've never been there but I'm told that he has a hole to live in,
a one room apartment under an overpass. He drifts from one scut
work job to another. Within his hole he has his supply of pot
and his second hand computer. He has made of his life an art
form, and he is his own and only finest work. In his own way he
is an artist.
Copyright (c) 2002 by Richard Harter
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Inside of every thin person is a fat person waiting
to emerge.
John P David
"Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:3cb08ef8...@news.SullyButtes.net...
. . . writes a lot of cowardly, vituperative, envy-ridden, bourgeois yuppie
snot.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. --Friedrich
Nietzsche
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of
tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The whole spice of life is to be judged inferior by the inferior judgment
of one's inferiors. In the end, happily, it all adds up to
truth!." --JPDavid
Heather Henderson
wrote:
>
>"Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
>news:3cb08ef8...@news.SullyButtes.net...
>
>. . . writes a lot of cowardly, vituperative, envy-ridden, bourgeois yuppie
>snot.
You're projecting.
Richard Harter
> "Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
> news:3cb08ef8...@news.SullyButtes.net...
>
> . . . writes a lot of cowardly, vituperative, envy-ridden, bourgeois yuppie
> snot.
I appreciate your keen, insightful criticism.
Snicker.
John P David
Comes . . .
"Heather Henderson" <hea...@scc.net> wrote in message
news:3cb106fb...@news.scc.net...
Running in circles around in the woods with her head in a sack to say . . .
>
> You're projecting.
Yeah, well, I suppose I'm just as bourgeois as the next person, what with
only three payments left on the house, two cars, and all the usual
lobotomizing creature comforts of a totally bourgeois existence what with
the vegetable garden and enough abysmally middle class cash on hand to take
a Paris vacation if we wanted it, but . . . "projecting"? I don't think so.
As is well known, such a psycho-neurotic syndrome as that can only occur on
an unconscious basis. In other words only a bourgeois who was consciously
unaware of the shamefulness of his status as a bourgeois would manifest the
compulsive behavior of projecting the conceit of it upon another.
So, no. What we see in my rather ill-considered and humorless response to
Harter, to wit---
> >"Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
> >news:3cb08ef8...@news.SullyButtes.net...
> >
> >. . . writes a lot of cowardly, vituperative, envy-ridden, bourgeois
yuppie
> >snot.
---accurate as it may be, is anything but "projection", indeed had Accordion
Girl's response been mine, were I to have said, "You're projecting," that
indeed, in his case would have been rather more to the point--but in what
way?
Well, to charge another person with "envy" always seems an awfully low blow,
doesn't it, because it can seldom be done in a way that doesn't look
terribly self-serving since it presents the appearance in one who makes the
charge, of a person trying to think a lot of himself such that he should
suppose the hostility of another to be founded in the sort of jaded
admiration that envy amounts to.
Yet, look at the text of his story, but more than that the tone of it, as
"Jean Paul" is described: the narrator is at least grudgingly honest enough
in his bourgeois conceit to admit that the protagonist's life-style among
the working class is certainly affording a great source of grist for his
literary mill. Yet all the while that world that Jean Paul is moving in is,
in the snotty terms of the narrator referred to as a "world of grunge". How
can anything be more supercilious, bourgeois, more a direct manifestation of
class conceit, bigotry and prejudice than that? Again he grudgingly admits
that stories from that world are all the rage.
Of course they are--and why? Look at the kind of utter pabulum oozing from
the pens of bourgeois writers in this or any day. The other day I was
trying to find some interest in *The Portrait of a Lady* by Henry James
which starts out with all this so very frivolous, upper crust, effete
frippery surrounding the custom of the English Tea--and I absolutely could
not stomach it. Much as I wanted to take a crack at something by James that
I might like, by way of a style study, the further I penetrated it, the more
I became certain that my reading time was better spent in something else--so
I went back to Kierkegaard and something of Philip Roth--*Sabbath's
Theatre*.
Let us speak of Upper Crust & Bourgeois Art: Check out the video shelves.
There is nothing happening worth writing a movie about in the lives of those
snot-nose people Listen: if there is so much as the vaguest appearance on
that DVD or video case of a woman in a bridal veil with some rosy-faced,
short-haired, milk-fed, pampered looking thirty-something hick from the
suburbs pictured on that thing,--okay, I'm already starting get SICK TO MY
STOMACH just to so much as look at schlock in a box like that.
So, what indeed is Richard Harter projecting? Nothing except his bourgeois
conceit and class prejudice, so how can it be the classic case of
"projection" where his own guilt or narcissism is being projected on "Jean
Paul"? Is that in any way what we see? No, to be honest, it is no more a
manifestation of projection in his case than it can be in mine. I would
have to be feeling guilt about my bourgeois existence to project it upon
another person, and one could only feel guilt about it if one were not being
honest with himself about it. But first, one would have to be conceited in
his bourgeois status in order to feel the guilt of that conceit--for that is
the only thing which is of issue here--something unconscious which
absolutely *must* compulsively be gotten rid of by projection. This is at
the heart and soul of Freudian theory, how guilt (over anything) will drive
a person mad if he cannot in catharsis, cathect, or i.e. purge the charge
of it before it attacks the ego. Projection is just one neurotic mechanism
by which this can be done--it works by wreaking the damage on others. Its
social psychological counterpart is scapegoating behavior.
Thus now we see that the tables have turned once again, for we certainly see
the conceit in Richard Harter's characterization of Jean Paul. We see how
it is that Harter's conceit is--to evoke the Freudian term directly
describing it-- a *reaction-formation* of the guilt he harbors; his conceit
is the reactive mechanism which forms as the result of his terrible,
shameful act of selling out to the bourgeoisie--this is how he represses
that guilt and saves face in his own sight. That guilt-filled conceit is
the dirt he projects into the face and upon the figure of "Jean Paul" to
dirty him sufficiently that he should not become an existential threat, or
all the more unspeakably, an object of Richard Harter's conscious envy--but
that is rarely the character of envy that it should be *conscious*. No,
there are too many mechanisms working to repress any appearance of envy, and
it is usually the last thing, e.g. a narcissist will ever admit to himself.
No, it must be repressed and kept unconscious because it is too demeaning
to admit of it. Thus we see these imprecations about how Jean Paul's
activist consciousness has nothing whatever to do with "thought", but is
rather just a storehouse of old revolutionary rhetoric, just all vocabulary
continually being recycled for use in new causes and situations.
But is that true? In some cases it may very well be, but more often with
activists of the 70's than the 60's. The people that came to it in the 70's
were joiners not rebels. The "needle drugs" of which he speaks were part of
the latter day decadence of the era not of it's "Flower-Power" explosive
beginnings when there was some of that around, but just enough to be
largely, and vastly frowned upon. So, I'm afraid that Mr. Harter paints
with too broad a brush if he thinks it applies to every former so-called
"Flower Power" person of the 60's or there has never come into the world
such a thing as Apple Computer from those two acid head exceptions to 70's
decadence, Jobs and the Woz. It cannot apply to the creative flood of
material that continued to flow from the Grateful Dead all those years up to
the death of Jerry Garcia when he died not from a heroin overdose, but
because he'd been put behind lock and key into the padded cell of the
Non-Smoking section for about 12 hours longer than any hip human being can
possibly exist without dropping dead from such an insult to his personal
liberty and spiritual ambiance. Had his friends never railroaded him into
that place where he drowned in Up-Scale Yuppie Snot, he might well be yet
with us today.
You would have to deny the fabulous creative forces at work in Camille
Paglia, Hunter S. Thompson, P.J. O'Rourke, Christopher Hitchens, Norman
Mailer, Kinky Friedmann, Bob Dylan and the list just goes on too long for
anyone to finish.
So, when *projection* is seen to be coupled with the *reaction formation*
syndrome there can be no question but that a simple, curt, if not smug
response from me stated in the terms that this Lovely Little Lemon Sister
here used on me--why that would have been far more a propos.
Just no question about it.
Harter is decidedly "projecting" right along with Accordion Dreams Girl
here, who I'm sure is too busy playing the Polka to know what she is or is
not "projecting", except something along the order of musical lutefisk,
which would be just the thing at a Norwegian Wedding.
And-ah now ah-Ladies and ah-Gentlemen . . .
A little Champagne ah-Music with our favorite ah-Lovely Little Songbird to
sing that old Freudian Favorite ---
>You're Projecting
--- set to the tune of that classic all time hit, "You! You're Driving Me
Crazy, So What Did I Do To You?"
"Yes, you! You're . . .
>
> Heather
> hea...@scc.net
> http://www.scc.net/~heather
And I? I am . . .
Snorky The Inept
to spew out a bunch of crap that could not possibly be more off-topic.
John, you're still not interesting enough to merit a life outside my
killfile.
Welcome back to rec.music.gdead, and back to the land of *PLONK*.
--
-Snorky the Inept
DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?
John P David
"Snorky The Inept" <hazel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8roc6$nmn$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "John P David" fired up the million-monkey machine just long enough for it
> to spew out a bunch of crap that could not possibly be more off-topic.
>
> John, you're still not interesting enough to merit a life outside my
> killfile.
>
> Welcome back to rec.music.gdead, and back to the land of *PLONK*.
Excellent! Glad we could get that Smorklepuss Ostrich-Beak down in the hole
right off the bat, so the quality of dialog can stay at least halfway
above-ground.
Here's the part about Jerry he didn't know was there . . .
But is that true? In some cases it may very well be, but more often with
activists of the 70's than the 60's. The people that came to it in the 70's
were joiners not rebels. The "needle drugs" of which he speaks were part of
the latter day decadence of the era not of it's "Flower-Power" explosive
beginnings when there was some of that around, but just enough to be
largely, and vastly frowned upon. So, I'm afraid that Mr. Harter paints
with too broad a brush if he thinks it applies to every former so-called
"Flower Power" person of the 60's or there has never come into the world
such a thing as Apple Computer from those two acid head exceptions to 70's
decadence, Jobs and the Woz. It cannot apply to the creative flood of
material that continued to flow from the Grateful Dead all those years up to
the death of Jerry Garcia when he died not from a heroin overdose, but
because he'd been put behind lock and key into the padded cell of the
Non-Smoking section for about 12 hours longer than any hip human being can
possibly exist without dropping dead from such an insult to his personal
liberty and spiritual ambiance. Had his friends never railroaded him into
that place where he drowned in Up-Scale Yuppie Snot, he might well be yet
with us today.
--
Who has a MP3 address where the "Crusader Rabbit Stealth Band" gig reported
in the latest Almanac can be downloaded?
jimC
> drugs" of which he speaks were part of
> the latter day decadence of the era not of it's "Flow
Just shut up. That's your cheapest way out.
--
jimC
The Official Crystal Cove Lunchtime Hikers Website
http://www.jimcolli92625.com is in abeyance with the same
old placeholder pictures.
John P David
Washington ---
"jimC" <jimc...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3CB184FB...@pacbell.net...
--- somehow manages to arrogate to himself the cross-eyed and clueless
conceit to make a "demand" upon . . .
> John P David, who wrote:
>
> > drugs" of which he speaks were part of
> > the latter day decadence of the era not of it's "Flow
>
>
> Just shut up. That's your cheapest way out.
Ain't he just the veritable butt-feathers, Old Ostrich-Face, here?
So this bird has pulled his head up from his hole---again?
"jimC" <jimc...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3C9CFE30...@pacbell.net...
> I added John [...] to my rarely used
> killfile filter and suddenly his new posts were out.
<snip>
> Since I won't
> see your response . . .
--
Other than problems in his killfile--what will be his excuse be this time?
What's Bush's excuse? Sharon is telling him to stick his "demands" where
the Lone Star of Texas don't shine--and damned rightly.
Where do people like this get off?
Huh?
Good thing I'm not in Sharon's boots. I'd have an answer for Bush Jr.'s
"demands". Yes, I'd tell him to take that 50 billion in foreign AIDS
disease of his, put a condom on it and stick it in his General Colon Powell.
As then, I would patiently remind him that he is not the King of the World,
and the very fact that he actually manages to imagine for himself such an
arrogance only means that he grew up shy of about a hundred good spankings.
That's what.
Long Live Sharon and may he continue to put it right in the arrogant,
spoiled, Rich Goy's eye by telling him, "On the day you pull out of
Afghanistan, schmuck, and your so-called "War on Terror" is over you
hypocritical schlemiel, come back and offer your suggestions to my Sovereign
Nation once again, just so long as you remember to say "Please".
jimC
> Good thing I'm not in Sharon's boots.
Well it would look odd, especially if he had them on.
Perhaps he could lend you another article of clothing. Are you a
panty sniffer? You aren't one of thoese people who make people
on the road keep a close eye on their stuff in motel washing
machines, are you? My neighbor told me of an incident where
he and his wife were travelling. Some brazen guy pretended to
have found what he thought was my neighbor's wife's bikini bottom
mixed up in his own laundry, and was visibly grossed out
when my neighbor told him it was *his* swimsuit.
John P David
--- was clowning around outside of his Ostrich hole crawl space again to no
apparent purpose or importance other than to shake a smelly tail-feather.
Sock Puppets, Inc.
> "jimC" <jimc...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3CB2383D...@pacbell.net...
>
> --- was clowning around outside of his Ostrich hole crawl space again to no
> apparent purpose or importance other than to shake a smelly tail-feather.
Experience apparently has its advantages.
John P David
"Sock Puppets, Inc." <glkid6w...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:5f683553.02040...@posting.google.com...
had nothing to add.
So, to take things from the smelly, personal plane to a more general level
of sophistication . . .
As to the use of killfiles . . .
There has finally arrived a day when posing like an ostrich with its head in
the sand is the strictly fashionable new look around Usenet--even if it is a
far cry from Jesse Ventura confronting the world head on, in his feathered
boa.
No, this is another thing altogether and it's quite the rage, I see, these
days, to be totally oblivious of what is going on about oneself, and it's
the latest thing in "consciousness raising" to hide one's head from all
facts, information, opinions, attitudes and personality types which are not
entirely in comportment with one's own views, ideas, life-style and taste.
In other words, if something or someone should appear to be in the least way
dissident, if the views of some other person come in radical dissent to your
own, if a person's attitude and lifestyle should be in the least way
dissonant to what sounds harmonious to you, then immediately plug your ears
and scream, peck a hole in the ground with your beak and bury your head.
Oh, that is essential, because all tastes, styles, attitudes and ideas that
are out of the mainstream are dangerous to your social status are they not?
Oh yes, and so you should not even so much as begin to entertain any of it,
lest you should in any way be in danger of changing to become, in the view
of the rank and file, a "troll" or a "kook", something the police force
refers to with great suspicion as an "individual."
Happily, as a "child of the 60's" I come from an entire generation of Trolls
and Kooks who thought being "kookie" was the coolest thing going. We had
great Troll Leaders like Abby Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Paul Krassner who
created a nationwide anarchic anti-organization of "trolls" which were then
called "Yippies" whose entire interest was throwing a monkey wrench into the
works of every square's head.
I haven't changed. So, yes, I confess: I am both a dyed in the wool,
totally dedicated Troll and Kook--and mighty proud, I say, I'm mighty proud
to say it. An unrepentant Yippie Sixties Freak from the Git to the Gate.
You got trouble, my friends.
Right here in Cyber-City.
INDIVIDUALISM AS CRIMETHINK
Was it damn near criminal of me to use the word "scumbag" on a woman who had
insulted me with the "troll" label? So many of you would think, so used as
you are to smearing people with the "troll" stigma that you must therefore
inure yourselves to a consideration of the harm that is intended by that
label--which is always attended by the horrors of killfile ostracization.
What can be more chilling to a person's capacity to communicate on Usenet
than to be stuck with the "Troll" label? Nothing except the "kook" nuke
weapon. But again in order to do it, you must trivialize it in order to
defend it.
But lest any should think the "harm" and the "horrors" are in reality, as
subjectively experienced, anything near as harmful or horrible as what is by
killing force intended by such denunciation and ostracizing, then let us be
clear: no. It is nothing. The harm and horror is all objective in what it
does to the ethos and mythos of the cyber-culture, how it all affects the
minds of the gullible how place so much stock in such damned fool slogans,
labels and practices.
Again it is the objective *intent* that is horrible, not the subjective
effect which is only pathetic and laughable.
As to INTENT: This is a culture of fascism that did not even so much as
exist when I was in high school and college--the McCarthy Era was about over
by that time. But again the seriousness in the intent of the stigma label
and the trivializing of it go hand in hand or it cannot work, as it must in
order for Jew-Starring to lead to Holocaust.
Now look: I accord no more, nor any less politeness to women than I do to
men. So it must be in a culture that accords equality between the genders.
I am not stigmatized by the label "Woman-Hater" if I say that a certain man
is a "scumbag"--I mean how trivial does it get? Who would notice? But if I
say that a woman is a "scumbag", suddenly the cyberworld is filled with a
loud plonking sound.
And what is the sound of one ostrich beak biting the ground?
Many beaks all at once?
Why that sudden sound all around? Because I just committed a blasphemy!
Why is it a blasphemy? What indeed has gone so cuckoo in some heads that
some of you should find this to be tantamount to virtual rape, such a brutal
abuse of a woman's virtue, to call her "scumbag"? Did you forget that with
the feminist revolution that women have every right to be a scumbag as a man
does?
Had some, or even many of you ever before realized what a bunch of
hypocritical robots you had become to the dictatorial rule of a few neurotic
feminist fanatics on a big ego trip? Did you forget that these feminists
let farts just like the rest of us? Huh? Did you want to ignore that fact?
Did you? Well they do, I am here to tell you that there is not a feminist
alive on the planet that does not fart. Can you deal with that? Did you
forget that feminists get awfully smelly when they don't use deodorant, and
very hairy when they don't shave? Did you think they were all
manifestations of the Princess Goddess, Diana?
This has been one more visit of the Time Traveler to the Eloi.
jimC
> all affects the minds of the gullible how place so much stock
Diagnosis: sleep-deprived 1960s hippie, rousted from from his slot
at an all-night cyber cafe.
cms
wrote:
>
>"Sock Puppets, Inc." <glkid6w...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>news:5f683553.02040...@posting.google.com...
>Happily, as a "child of the 60's" I come from an entire generation of Trolls
>and Kooks who thought being "kookie" was the coolest thing going. We had
>great Troll Leaders like Abby Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Paul Krassner who
>created a nationwide anarchic anti-organization of "trolls" which were then
>called "Yippies" whose entire interest was throwing a monkey wrench into the
>works of every square's head.
>
>I haven't changed. So, yes, I confess: I am both a dyed in the wool,
>totally dedicated Troll and Kook--and mighty proud, I say, I'm mighty proud
>to say it. An unrepentant Yippie Sixties Freak from the Git to the Gate.
So, while your whole purpose is t throw a monkey wrech into the head
works of the squares, you feel insulted and demeaned when they are
annoyed and choose to ignore you. Poor you.
How would you know you were being a dissident if you weren't beng
ostracized? One cannot rebel against the conventions of a society and at
the same time hope to be embraced by its members ---- for if you are
then your rebellion is empty and without threat to that society's
foundation, like a fourteen year old girl who streaks her hair purple
with Manic Panic.
cms at the baitshop
Heather Henderson
>So, while your whole purpose is t throw a monkey wrech into the head
>works of the squares, you feel insulted and demeaned when they are
>annoyed and choose to ignore you. Poor you.
>
>How would you know you were being a dissident if you weren't beng
>ostracized? One cannot rebel against the conventions of a society and at
>the same time hope to be embraced by its members ---- for if you are
>then your rebellion is empty and without threat to that society's
>foundation, like a fourteen year old girl who streaks her hair purple
>with Manic Panic.
And then whines and flounces around in frustration because nobody
comments on it. That's basically what we've got here: the childish
demand for attention, any at all, even if it's negative. The only
difference is that our friend Jean Paul fortifies his whine with
bullying tough-guy lingo, trying to make up for his lack of balls.
John P David
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:01:02 GMT, adaor...@hotmail.com (cms) wrote:
>
> >So, while your whole purpose is t throw a monkey wrech into the head
See any number of previous such monkey wrenches as wielded by Socrates,
Christ, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Tom Paine, Napoleon, and Camille
Paglia---like prostitution, this sort of mechanic work is one of the World's
Oldest Professions, My Dear Girls, so just do try to get used to it.
>> you feel insulted and demeaned when they are
> >annoyed and choose to ignore you. Poor you.
Not overly, no. Indeed not in the least if I can keep myself up to the job,
because actually, when the Square Folk do ignore me, that's just fine--I
mean? Who needs such an utterly counterproductive pain in the ass. Still,
I learn to better recognize the challenge, or which is better, the
opportunity. When they get "annoyed" and nasty it is nothing but the fact of
being introduced to their own squareness which is such an awful annoyance to
them, to you, as it must be, just as your squareness has always been such a
horrible annoyance to me.
But the Square Frame of Mind is so gullible, such a prey to the stigmatizing
power of its own absurd icons in these two stereotypes of "Troll" and
"Kook", and your minds are so numbed by the force of their effect that when
I take them upon myself to show you what chimeras of nothingness they are,
what empty ghosts of prejudice and stereotype they are--what happens? Why,
all the more are you now blinded by them, as now any credibility I may have
had before (fat chance) is completely and utterly gone in your sight--as all
your most treasured stereotypical presumptions are confirmed right from the
horse's mouth. You were right all along! Huzzah! Get out the accordion
and play a polka, for now you may celebrate all the more the fact that now,
most especially now, you do not see the man, but only the costume of the
"Troll" or the "Kook".
Thus you remain asleep, all the more blind and numb in your arrogant
presumption that the status quo of your squareness should not be messed
with!
If I should take upon myself the mantles of "Troll" and "Kook" it is not to
a purpose of confirming your square stereotypes, nor is it to trivialize the
foulness of your intent in making use of such weapons--rather, it is to
demonstrate that aside from the evil you would do by your arrogant
intolerance of dissent, which is what's behind the objective, social intent
of your stigmatizing and stereotyping behavior with these "troll" and "kook"
Jew Stars, then I, like that mythical King of Denmark, take it upon myself
to wear it too, just to show you how the subjective effect on me is
laughable, absurd and painless, as I am, as I say, quite proud to wear
it--which as we now see is all the more an annoyance to you.-- if I don it
myself, your work is done.
So "poor me"? Not.
So funny.
> >
> >How would you know you were being a dissident if you weren't beng
> >ostracized?
Are you kidding? You've really got the cart before the horse there, Girlie.
All I need do to know my dissent, is turn on CNN, read some airhead post
coming in here from any one among a host of squares.
By this you have revealed how blind your perception of a cat like me really
is, as you really do think that my dissent can't be real, that it is all
just a game of mischief. You think that dissent is founded only by reaction
against a status quo? Get a clue. There is thought going on here, thought
which your own prejudices will not allow you to think. There are
convinctions and a moral order at work here that have been formed
independantly from the status quo, there are sentiments here, notions about
goodness, kindness and justice which are illuninating the spaces within my
head and heart which are insulted by clicking on a post from you, or by
turning on CNN.
When you smear the Troll Stigma on a person, or stitch the Kook Jew Star on
her breast, that person is dehumanized only in your sight--you have done
nothing yet to gas and burn the person who is really there. Didn't you even
know so much as that? Are your ears really that deafened by the taunts and
jeers of the herd around you that has your mind?
> > One cannot rebel against the conventions of a society and at
> >the same time hope to be embraced by its members ----
ROFLMAO!!
Listen to that. Can a full essence of squareness be expressed with more
lucidity than that?
See how rigid you are there in your square little box of societal
conventions, that you dare not even so much as consider the possibility of
being liberated from it, of changing your mind--of getting hip? See how
disastrously you have believed the truth of your own Icons of Stigma? And
now seeing that, you should (but won't) see the very character of the
blindness and numbness in people just like you that led to the holocaust.
You have made a god of the Conventions of Society, and a battalion of
knights of its goose-stepping "members". Piss on those members, piss on
each and every one until they should wake up and smell the piss to arise
from that bed of piss called "society" to become individuals, each a good
old fasioned Rebel King or Queen in his or her own right.
>> for if you are
> >then your rebellion is empty and without threat to that society's
> >foundation, like a fourteen year old girl who streaks her hair purple
> >with Manic Panic.
She is doing the best she can.
>
> And then whines and flounces around in frustration because nobody
> comments on it. That's basically what we've got here: the childish
> demand for attention, any at all, even if it's negative. The only
> difference is that our friend Jean Paul fortifies his whine with
> bullying tough-guy lingo, trying to make up for his lack of balls.
Should I be surprised to hear that sort of shop Gestapo talk coming from the
Accordion Dreams Girl--who is still running around in the shadow of Babe the
Blue Ox, among the trees with that bag over her head?
I am Super Jew, the Super Troll and Super Kook, who is ready and happy and
more than willing to put you all through the Woodchipper of Truth.
Selah
>
> Heather
> hea...@scc.net
> http://www.scc.net/~heather
--
JPBenDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John P David
misused and has now been replaced with the word in [...] below . . .
> > One cannot rebel against the conventions of a society and at
> >the same time hope to be embraced by its members ----
ROFLMAO!!
Listen to that. Can a full essence of squareness be expressed with more
lucidity?
See how rigid you are there in your square little cat-box of societal
conventions, that you dare not even so much as consider the possibility of
being liberated from it, of changing your mind--of getting hip? See how
disastrously you have believed the [lies] in your own Icons of Stigma? And
now seeing that, you should (but won't) see the very character of the
blindness and numbness in people just like you that leads to the holocaust.
You would do to me, what the Jew Star did to the Jew. You won't face that
extreme of evil in yourself. You trivialize it or you justify it to say
that I brought it on myself--but only because we disagree. See how
dangerous you are?
The intent behind words like "kook" and "troll" is to dehumanize by robbing
a person of all credibility, to make a mask of that face, to put a hook nose
and beady little eyes on it, to say of such a person that she is utterly
without value. That's what the "troll" Jew Star accomplishes. The "kook"
Jew Star puts the person on the train to chemical death in Auschwitz. The
intent of the hate behind a "kook" label has killing force and that is why
you use it. That is what you hope it will accomplish. You use it because you
know all about the Snake Pit and you know that people get destroyed in it.
You know that all it takes is a consensus of public opinion to get anyone
committed, so you know the police power behind a Gestapo word like "kook"
when that word is being used against folks who simply don't agree with you.
That is evil and there are no two ways about it. Why do you think a
kill-file is called a "kill-file"? The hatred of the intent is transparent.
The Killfile is your own personal little gas chamber. And the word "plonk"
means . . .
Sieg Heil!
Absurdly however, there's nothing more ridiculous than the sight of a bunch
of Big Birds trying to march the goose-step.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
cms
wrote:
>
>"Heather Henderson" <hea...@scc.net> wrote in message
>news:3cb315e7...@news.scc.net...
>> On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:01:02 GMT, adaor...@hotmail.com (cms) wrote:
>>
>> >So, while your whole purpose is t throw a monkey wrech into the head
>> >works of the squares . . .
>
>See any number of previous such monkey wrenches as wielded by Socrates,
>Christ, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Tom Paine, Napoleon, and Camille
>Paglia---like prostitution, this sort of mechanic work is one of the World's
>Oldest Professions, My Dear Girls, so just do try to get used to it.
Go for it, man, I don't care, you dig? Have an opinion. Have it be
diffrent from mine. It's no skin off my nose and I ain't gonna fuck with
you.
>Thus you remain asleep, all the more blind and numb in your arrogant
>presumption that the status quo of your squareness should not be messed
>with!
That wasn't my point. Go a head and mess with my squareness, if you want
My point was that if people find you annoying, they aren't going to
listen to you. Since you claim your whole goal is to be annoying, you
can't very well complain when people choose to ignore you. You can
merely suggest it will be at thier peril. You are welcome to challange
my ideas or my presumptions, but the manner in which you do it may
determine whether you make me a convert or drive me further into
dogmatism. People don't react to insults by pondering how to improve
themselves.
>If I should take upon myself the mantles of "Troll" and "Kook" it is not to
>a purpose of confirming your square stereotypes, nor is it to trivialize the
>foulness of your intent in making use of such weapons--rather, it is to
>demonstrate that aside from the evil you would do by your arrogant
>intolerance of dissent,
Ay, there's the rub. Intolerance of dissent, huh? Nobody's trying to
prevent you from expressing your opion. They are choosing to ignore you.
That's very diffrent. I'm all for letting the KKK march down main street
if they want, but you can't force me to go watch the parade. You have
the right to free speech, not a guarenteed audience.
>> >How would you know you were being a dissident if you weren't beng
>> >ostracized?
>
>Are you kidding? You've really got the cart before the horse there, Girlie.
>All I need do to know my dissent, is turn on CNN, read some airhead post
>coming in here from any one among a host of squares.
Oh, really? Dissidence carries a price. To dissent is to reject and
rebel against the fundamental values of a given society --- Usenet,
American, r.a.b., Flat Earth. If you reject the finadmental values of a
society, you will be excluded from it. Ostracized.
>By this you have revealed how blind your perception of a cat like me really
>is, as you really do think that my dissent can't be real, that it is all
>just a game of mischief.
No, I think you're dead serious.
>You think that dissent is founded only by reaction
>against a status quo? Get a clue. There is thought going on here, thought
>which your own prejudices will not allow you to think. There are
>convinctions and a moral order at work here that have been formed
>independantly from the status quo, there are sentiments here, notions about
>goodness, kindness and justice which are illuninating the spaces within my
>head and heart which are insulted by clicking on a post from you, or by
>turning on CNN.
How nice for you. You have opinion, even maybe a philosophy, which is
different from mine. Woo hoo. Rock on, brother. So why should I listen
to you? Why should I change my mind? And if you don't care whether I
change my mind or not, why should I stand here and be insulted? Because
I'm supposed to find it broadening?
>When you smear the Troll Stigma on a person, or stitch the Kook Jew Star on
>her breast, that person is dehumanized only in your sight--you have done
>nothing yet to gas and burn the person who is really there. Didn't you even
>know so much as that? Are your ears really that deafened by the taunts and
>jeers of the herd around you that has your mind?
Oh, dear. Now I see your point. Your comparison of your travails to
those suffered by the Jews during the Holocaust has convinced me of the
depth of your suffering.
>> > One cannot rebel against the conventions of a society and at
>> >the same time hope to be embraced by its members ----
>
>ROFLMAO!!
>
>Listen to that. Can a full essence of squareness be expressed with more
>lucidity than that?
>
>See how rigid you are there in your square little box of societal
>conventions, that you dare not even so much as consider the possibility of
>being liberated from it, of changing your mind--of getting hip? See how
>disastrously you have believed the truth of your own Icons of Stigma? And
>now seeing that, you should (but won't) see the very character of the
>blindness and numbness in people just like you that led to the holocaust.
Sigh. My point was not that embracing the conventions of a society is
always desirable. My point was that rejecting those values and at the
same time trying to get people who accept them to treat you with respect
is pretty much a mutaly exclusive proposition. Ostracism is the price of
dissent. Or better say ostracism is the price of dangerous dissent, the
price of having and living according to truly revolutionary ideals.
Dissent without cost is hollow.
cms
tejas
And he's boring, too.
--
Ted Samsel
tbsa...@infi.net
http://home.infi.net/~tbsamsel
j...@radidelmex.net
> See any number of previous such monkey wrenches as wielded by Socrates,
> Christ, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Tom Paine, Napoleon, and Camille
> Paglia
... Ted Kaczynski ...
Heather Henderson
wrote:
>I am Super Jew, the Super Troll and Super Kook, who is ready and happy and
>more than willing to put you all through the Woodchipper of Truth.
Yeah, and you know what happened to Peter Stormare's character in
"Fargo". But frankly, you remind me more of Steve Buscemi.
Heather Gunderson
hea...@scc.net
http://www.scc.net/~heather
Don Tuite
There's a reason there's no canonical list of famous crackpots . . . .
Don
ObSciFiClassic: Cyril Kornbluth again: "Silly Season"
Alan Brooks
John P David wrote:
<word salad snipped>
> The intent behind words like "kook" and "troll" is to dehumanize by robbing
> a person of all credibility
<more word salad snipped>
Sometimes. Other times it's just pointing out that you don't have any,
Jerv, as demonstrated by your repeated and desperate cross-posting for
attention.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A schmuck with an Underwood
-- Holy 1998, Batman, he's back and he still lack credibility.
Dawn Taylor
John P David wrote:
> "Heather Henderson" <hea...@scc.net> wrote in message
> news:3cb315e7...@news.scc.net...
> > On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:01:02 GMT, adaor...@hotmail.com (cms) wrote:
> >
> > >So, while your whole purpose is t throw a monkey wrech into the head
> > >works of the squares . . .
>
> See any number of previous such monkey wrenches as wielded by Socrates,
> Christ, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Tom Paine, Napoleon, and Camille
> Paglia---
They posted to Usenet, too?
Who knew.
Dawn
William Penrose
wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:18:53 -0500, "John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I am Super Jew, the Super Troll and Super Kook, who is ready and happy and
>>more than willing to put you all through the Woodchipper of Truth.
>
>Yeah, and you know what happened to Peter Stormare's character in
>"Fargo".
Stan, I'm serving notice that I'm going to steal the expression 'The
Woodchipper of Truth.'
It's too good not to steal.
Super Jew is hard to read because he can't control his temper, and I
read very little of him, but hidden in his stuff are occasional blips
of pure genius.
Bill Penrose (but then, Wagner was a genius, too)
Jeff Inman
> John P David wrote:
> > The intent behind words like "kook" and "troll" is to dehumanize by robbing
> > a person of all credibility
>
> Jerv, as demonstrated by your repeated and desperate cross-posting for
> attention.
>
> Alan Brooks
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> A schmuck with an Underwood
>
Ha! It's amazing how much credibility he doesn't have.
John P David
"Jeff Inman" <jeff...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3CB3B562...@earthlink.net...
> > -- Holy 1998, Batman, he's back and he still lack[s] credibility.
>
> Ha! It's amazing how much credibility he doesn't have.
Note the form of this. What is it?
You will know it, for one thing, by the tone of smugness. It is very smug.
Indeed, how very, very smug it is, and why?
Well! What is the very essence of smugness other than two men gossiping
about another man? You simply can't do that without being smug.
And when you are smug, you sound smug, and as you sound so smug, it is
simply impossible to sound credible.
So, it appears that the club of those who are found lacking in credibility
is not in the least way real fancy and exclusive, is it? I'd venture to say
that it's about as hard to get into as the YMCA. As to the Club of Those
Who are Smug, it's much easier--all you need to get in is a complete lack of
taste and a birth certificate.
But would a Library Card do?
Not at all. That would be counterproductive.
Stephen Hayes
John P David wrote in a message to All:
JPD> Happily, as a "child of the 60's" I come from an entire generation
JPD> of Trolls and Kooks who thought being "kookie" was the coolest
JPD> thing going. We had great Troll Leaders like Abby Hoffman, Jerry
JPD> Rubin and Paul Krassner who created a nationwide anarchic
JPD> anti-organization of "trolls" which were then called "Yippies"
JPD> whose entire interest was throwing a monkey wrench into the works
JPD> of every square's head.
JPD> I haven't changed. So, yes, I confess: I am both a dyed in the
JPD> wool, totally dedicated Troll and Kook--and mighty proud, I say,
JPD> I'm mighty proud to say it. An unrepentant Yippie Sixties Freak
JPD> from the Git to the Gate.
Well that makes two of us, but there hasn't been a meeting of the minds yet.
I nearly missed this, and only found it because someone else posted it and it
caught my eye. I skipped the original message because I din't feel like wading
through all the waffle to see if there was anything interesting.
I could find a discussion on those things interesting, but wading through the
waffle to find it is too much effort.
Keep well
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.fmlynet.org
John P David
"Stephen Hayes" <Stephen.Hayesp...@fmlynet.org> wrote in message
news:0055...@fmlynet.org...
> FamilyNet Newsgate
>
> John P David wrote in a message to All:
>
> JPD> Happily, as a "child of the 60's" I come from an entire generation
> JPD> of Trolls and Kooks who thought being "kookie" was the coolest
> JPD> thing going. We had great Troll Leaders like Abby Hoffman, Jerry
> JPD> Rubin and Paul Krassner who created a nationwide anarchic
> JPD> anti-organization of "trolls" which were then called "Yippies"
> JPD> whose entire interest was throwing a monkey wrench into the works
> JPD> of every square's head.
>
> JPD> I haven't changed. So, yes, I confess: I am both a dyed in the
> JPD> wool, totally dedicated Troll and Kook--and mighty proud, I say,
> JPD> I'm mighty proud to say it. An unrepentant Yippie Sixties Freak
> JPD> from the Git to the Gate.
>
> Well that makes two of us, but there hasn't been a meeting of the minds
yet.
>
> I nearly missed this, and only found it because someone else posted it and
it
> caught my eye. I skipped the original message because I din't feel like
wading
> through all the waffle to see if there was anything interesting.
What "waffle"?
>
> I could find a discussion on those things interesting, but wading through
the
> waffle to find it is too much effort.
Again with the "waffles". That's all I hear from you. Where's "Pancake
House"? For the Christ's sake! Damn. I mean, you're a regular fountain of
conversation, you know? I might as well be driving along here with a
pitcher of blueberry syrup riding shotgun. What about the waffles? Where's
Pancake House? Here we are with the towers of Minneapolis rising ahead, I
mean the IDS building? There it is, the tallest of them all or--whatever,
and the Foshay Tower, the Radisson Hotel, and all you can talk about is the
waffles--"Where's Pancake House?" You already had your pancakes, so shut up
about the waffles. Jesus.
> Keep well.
Fine. I'm fine, just so long as you shut up about Pancake House, and the
waffles of which there are none. They are all in your mind or your stomach,
whichever is which. There is more to life than "Pancake House".
Believe me.
John P David
"Don Tuite" <don_...@REMOVETHIShotlink.com> wrote in message
news:kjm6buo3le6ujhql7...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Apr 2002 21:05:34 GMT, j...@radiDELMEx.net wrote:
>
> >In rec.arts.books John P David <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> See any number of previous such monkey wrenches as wielded by Socrates,
> >> Christ, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Tom Paine, Napoleon, and Camille
> >> Paglia
> >
> >... Ted Kaczynski ...
>
> There's a reason there's no canonical list of famous crackpots . . . .
Poor Ted. Such a sad case. There he was, headed for a brilliant career in
math, and then all of a sudden he is like Clark Kent who steps into a phone
booth, only to come back out in a silly suit with a big U on his chest, all
transformed into a sort of Super Environmentalist Yasser Arafat. God only
knows what could have happened to the poor boy's mind. One day he's walking
around with nothing but Fermat's Lost Theorem in his head, and the
next---Shazaam! He's up out of bed blithering "Save the trees! Save the
trees!" And before you know he's right up in the trees with the birds and
the bees building bombs specifically designed and sent forth to just save
the piss out of those dog-gone trees.
Well, it's a pity the way so many fine geniuses end up that way, up in the
trees whistling away with the birds and the bees buzzing about in their
bonnets. It's just a fact that contemporary society is not a very genius
friendly environment. Some of these guys are very sensitive chaps who just
don't hold up well under the force of a lot of jock-strap snapping and the
like from the majority of brain-dead blockheads in this great locker room of
life. To a genius all that sort of thing just seems so abysmally stupid and
unnecessary that they just never learn to cope with it in a humorous and
sporting way.
Take a fine genius like Billy the Kid, for example. Granted, he was, for a
genius, a pretty funny looking guy, kind of skinny and little, just the sort
of fellow who ends up being the target for a lot of that jock-strap snapping
from the fat, overgrown, block-headed bullies who are always looking for a
chance to show how tough they are by taking advantage of the weight they
hold over the little guy. Makes 'em look real tough to another blockhead to
act like that, and since the great majority are blockheads like that, then
none of them know any different, which tends to make life pretty rough on
the little guys like Billy the Kid to have to walk among such a
butt-backward society of men in which the rankest cowardice is looked upon
as courage?
No damn wonder they always got their caps on backward these days. Sheesh.
It just goes to show you.
Well, one day after Billy was just totally fed up to the teeth at last with
the constant need of having to kick those big, fat, overgrown butts from one
end of the bar to the other all the time, day in, day out, him being the
little guy for whom this necessity arose ten times more often than for
anybody else, well sir--then finally all of a sudden, he just thought to
himself, "Why don't I just shoot those useless, brainless blockheads dead,
and in that way save myself a lot of very boring and repetitive trouble?"
Yes, and so that's what Billy the Kid did, he just started blowing those
fat-butt, blowhard, block-head, bullying bastards away, for nothing more
serious than just looking at him kind of funny. Billy gained quite a
reputation for himself in this way, not only around Lincoln County and New
Mexico, but throughout the entire United States before he was done in by Pat
Garrett in that terrible sneaking way, in the dark and the dead of night,
right in the house of Billy's Mexican girl-friend. But up to that fateful
night, there wasn't a man alive who didn't know better than to keep his
conversation downright cordial and polite when he should find himself in the
august and infamous company of Billy the Kid, as all those fat-butt,
overgrown, bullying blockhead bastards finally got the message that Billy
had done what was necessary to even up the odds so far as that sad little
hand which Nature had dealt him--and so, they by God damned well better try
to be nice, friendly, and real gentle with that little tyke known as "Billy
the Kid."
It was a work of genius, the whole image he'd created for himself, what with
one six-gun at his side, one in his belt and a rifle in hand, and he should
have won a Nobel Prize just for that one picture he let them take of him,
standing there in his top-hat and boots, bearing that formidable arsenal out
in front of the Barber Shop. Hell, had there been one of those "Peace"
prizes at the time, it would have gone to Billy for sure on account of all
the peace he'd caused to come into being anywhere within a couple hundred
yards of him, wherever he walked, whether it was in Tombstone, Silver City
or riding the Alto Plano of Southern New Mexico.
But there just wasn't one of those prizes available just yet, so, history
simply has to be content with the Legend of Billy the Kid as it occupies
just about the Numero Uno spot in the annals of U.S. Western Folklore. And
that's good enough--better maybe. Probably everything ever written about
him up to and including this is just a big pack of damned lies, but how
often is that the case for the Nobel Prize? Look at Arafat.
* * * * *
Poor Ted. Well, all I can say is that he was no Billy the Kid, who at least
had the gumption to confront his enemies face to face. So, I don't know how
smart it is to be lumping the name of Ted K. in with Socrates, Christ,
Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Tom Paine, Napoleon, and Camille Paglia. And then be
turning around to talk about a "canonical list of famous crackpots"?
Nope. Doesn't seem right. In fact, I'd venture to say there's no damn
similarity at all since all those names I listed up there are right down to
the last one, people like Billy the Kid with the gumption to face their
detractors head on and fire back with both barrels blazing--a thing I rather
enjoy doing (virtually speaking) my own damnself, more and more these days.
Kind of helps to keep a person from going crazy when you finally start to
get the hang of it.
I'd venture to say however that if either of those two respondents up there,
either "jfw" or "don tuite" was to repeat that, make that comparison between
Ted K. and all those folks up there, and do it right to Camille's face, you
can bet your last lucky silver dollar, that while they'd be sure to get
clean away with it in the face of Christ or Socrates--but let them try it
with Camille? Huh? She lost a teaching position at a fancy ivy league
girl's school over a thing like that--and you might as well know it wasn't
Camille that went away with the black eye--it was that person who talked to
her so disrespectfully like that.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
Stephen Hayes
John P David wrote in a message to All:
JPD> From: "John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com>
JPD> Correcting a most unfortunate error where the word "truth" is
JPD> terribly misused and has now been replaced with the word in [...]
JPD> below . . .
> > One cannot rebel against the conventions of a society and at
> >the same time hope to be embraced by its members ----
JPD> ROFLMAO!!
JPD> Listen to that. Can a full essence of squareness be expressed
JPD> with more lucidity?
My China, you are not only the square on the hypotenuse, but also the sum of
the squares on the other two sides.
It is very square to write turgid and turbid crap.
Hip writers were not always appreciated, but they didn't whine about it
incessantly. It's OK to be a wannabe (I'm one myself), but don't mistake it for
the real thing, and get all pissed off because others don't make that mistake.
There may be a reason that others don't recognise your genius. The reason may
be that you haven't got it. And whinging about it makes it all the more obvious
that you haven't got it.
Stephen Hayes
tejas wrote in a message to tejas:
t> "Heather Henderson" <hea...@scc.net> wrote in message
> And then whines and flounces around in frustration because nobody
> comments on it. That's basically what we've got here: the childish
> demand for attention, any at all, even if it's negative. The only
> difference is that our friend Jean Paul fortifies his whine with
> bullying tough-guy lingo, trying to make up for his lack of balls.
t> And he's boring, too.
That's the main problem.
The whining and flouncing is just a minor additional annoyance.
j...@radidelmex.net
> She lost a teaching position at a fancy ivy league
> girl's school over a thing like that--and you might as well know it wasn't
> Camille that went away with the black eye--it was that person who talked to
> her so disrespectfully like that.
Camille is a fitfully entertaining Republican apologist. Not the sort your
average University wants on its payroll, ivy or otherwise.
Billy the Kid was a dimestore thug.
John P David
<j...@radiDELMEx.net> wrote in message news:a94nb9$6sb$3...@news1.Radix.Net...
> In rec.arts.books John P David <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > She lost a teaching position at a fancy ivy league
> > girl's school over a thing like that--and you might as well know it
wasn't
> > Camille that went away with the black eye--it was that person who talked
to
> > her so disrespectfully like that.
>
> Camille is a fitfully entertaining Republican apologist.
What myopic rot! How dare you? Say! I do dare you to say that to her
face. You'll go away looking like Rocky Raccoon.
> Not the sort your
> average University wants on its payroll, ivy or otherwise.
And what are you saying by that? Did you hear yourself? You would justify
such a Stalinist regime of educational repression? For the life of me I
can't imagine how a person reasonably educated to the meaning of liberty and
academic freedom could even begin to speak after such a fashion.
I am astounded.
What on earth has gone wrong in these people's heads?
Not the "sort"? The schtupping *sort*??? I'll tell *you* what "sort" *The
Paglia* is, she is the sort of person whose insight into culture is subtle,
far and away beyond the norm, vast and wide-ranging as her knowledge of
popular philosophy, art, world literature, the Classics and Freud is second
to none *in* the Hunanities.
That's the sort she is, and on the day I should see a woman coming around
these newsgroups with even a tenth of the moxy in that modern day Lady
Godiva, I will take every steak in my freezer out and burn it on the
backyard B.B.Q. as an offering in gratitude to Zeus for having permitted one
more incarnation of Athena to leap from his brow fully formed into the
world.
>
> Billy the Kid was a dimestore thug.
Well. What does that say? Let's see if I can do that . . .
George Bush is a dimestore thug.
Harold Bloom is a dimestore thug.
Andrea Dworkin is a dimestore thug.
But who shall write their legends?
j...@radidelmex.net
> What myopic rot! How dare you? Say! I do dare you to say that to her
> face. You'll go away looking like Rocky Raccoon.
We are agreed that Camille has a thuggish charm!
>> Not the sort your average University wants on its payroll, ivy or otherwise.
> And what are you saying by that?
Camille is a blowhard. If I were running a big U., I wouldn't hire her. A
small U., maybe to attract attention.
> Well. What does that say? Let's see if I can do that . . .
> George Bush is a dimestore thug.
> Harold Bloom is a dimestore thug.
> Andrea Dworkin is a dimestore thug.
It does have a nice ring to it!
tejas
<j...@radiDELMEx.net> wrote in message news:a94tjj$aj8$1...@news1.Radix.Net...
> In rec.arts.books John P David <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What myopic rot! How dare you? Say! I do dare you to say that to her
> > face. You'll go away looking like Rocky Raccoon.
>
> We are agreed that Camille has a thuggish charm!
>
> >> Not the sort your average University wants on its payroll, ivy or
otherwise.
>
> > And what are you saying by that?
>
> Camille is a blowhard. If I were running a big U., I wouldn't hire her. A
> small U., maybe to attract attention.
All she is is a cute li'l dyke. With an education. The NASCARines would chew
her up and turn her into a lampstand.
ObBand: Alabama Thunder Pussy not to be confused with Nashville Thunder
Pussy.
Nor the Drive-By Truckers.
smw
j...@radiDELMEx.net wrote:
>
> In rec.arts.books John P David <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > She lost a teaching position at a fancy ivy league
> > girl's school
which one would that be?
over a thing like that--and you might as well know it wasn't
> > Camille that went away with the black eye--it was that person who talked to
> > her so disrespectfully like that.
>
> Camille is a fitfully entertaining Republican apologist.
Nonsense. She has roughly Jeff del Col's intellectual agenda, and is
about equally well-informed about her subject. Anybody remember when she
rhapsodized about the Nike of S's flowing hair?
Not the sort your
> average University wants on its payroll, ivy or otherwise.
I taught at the University of the Arts, and it's more or less your
average university, a bit worse in some regards, a bit better in others,
and surprisingly expensive. Having Camille as a colleague was
disappointing; she just sat there acting like an academic.
She did some fine corrective commentary on excesses of US middle class
middle brow feminism.
s
Stephen Hayes
John P David wrote in a message to All:
JPD> "Stephen Hayes" <Stephen.Hayesp...@fmlynet.org> wrote
> I nearly missed this, and only found it because someone else posted it and
JPD> it
> caught my eye. I skipped the original message because I din't feel like
JPD> wading
> through all the waffle to see if there was anything interesting.
JPD> What "waffle"?
See below:
> I could find a discussion on those things interesting, but wading through
JPD> the
> waffle to find it is too much effort.
JPD> Again with the "waffles". That's all I hear from you. Where's
JPD> "Pancake House"? For the Christ's sake! Damn. I mean, you're a
JPD> regular fountain of conversation, you know? I might as well be
JPD> driving along here with a pitcher of blueberry syrup riding
JPD> shotgun. What about the waffles? Where's Pancake House? Here we
JPD> are with the towers of Minneapolis rising ahead, I mean the IDS
JPD> building? There it is, the tallest of them all or--whatever, and
JPD> the Foshay Tower, the Radisson Hotel, and all you can talk about
JPD> is the waffles--"Where's Pancake House?" You already had your
JPD> pancakes, so shut up about the waffles. Jesus.
> Keep well.
JPD> Fine. I'm fine, just so long as you shut up about Pancake House,
JPD> and the waffles of which there are none. They are all in your
JPD> mind or your stomach, whichever is which. There is more to life
JPD> than "Pancake House".
And see above for the waffle.
JPD> Believe me.
How can I?
Your credibility is shot to tatters.
John P David
>
>
> j...@radiDELMEx.net wrote:
> >
> > In rec.arts.books John P David <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > She lost a teaching position at a fancy ivy league
> > > girl's school
>
> which one would that be?
It wasn't Smith or Vassar and not Wellesley either---name some more
rootsy-tootsy Eastern finishing schools, one with a name that perhaps starts
with 'S' and if I hear the right name, I'll remember it.
>
> over a thing like that--and you might as well know it wasn't
> > > Camille that went away with the black eye--it was that person who
talked to
> > > her so disrespectfully like that.
> >
> > Camille is a fitfully entertaining Republican apologist.
>
> Nonsense. She has roughly Jeff del Col's intellectual agenda . . .
Omigod. What "intellectual agenda" hath a seething narcissist like
that--this faux Oscar Wilde with an ego so completely cathected into his
Oedipal libido that you can roll him down the walk like a hoop? Honestly,
my dear professor, you must admit what a far cry it is from a person like
that to La Paglia who comes completely out of herself as a veritable moving
art form, to live and make of her existence an authentic and passionate
expression of what she thinks, appreciates, adores and all the more
marvelously despises? You would compare her to this del col phony, a fellow
who comes flouncing into the salon, one day in this robe of thought, the
next in that, bending this way or the other depending upon what the wind
will do or what might confer upon him the most prestige, in his own so jaded
and limited sight.
> and is
> about equally well-informed about her subject.
Now, my dear professor, you know you are just being catty. What you say can
be said of anyone, at all, especially when it comes to scholars in such a
broad field of study as the Humanities. The question is whether she has
gained an overview of culture sufficient to the presentation of a unique
perspective--and of that there can be no question. She is as much a Hegelian
sociologist (of the old Spenserian-Splenglerian school) as she is a critic
of the arts, and there just simply is no-one out there anything like her.
You can try to type her like this, but you know, you really do know that
there isn't a box in the world to fit her in.
>Anybody remember when she
> rhapsodized about the Nike of S's flowing hair?
Nike of Samothrace--is this some sort of joke? Pardon my all too forward
familiarity, Professor Dear, but are you quite sure someone isn't pulling
your leg? Many in the art world have remarked with awe upon the magnificent
appearance of flow shown in those garments of stone--a touch of the artist's
hand that must have been altogether as notable also in the hair, were it yet
there to be noted, that is.
Might she have found some ancient document offering a description of the
complete statue?
In any case, I wouldn't put it past Camille's sense of humor to send some of
her public up on a thing like that either. ;-)
>
> Not the sort your
> > average University wants on its payroll, ivy or otherwise.
>
> I taught at the University of the Arts, and it's more or less your
> average university, a bit worse in some regards, a bit better in others,
> and surprisingly expensive. Having Camille as a colleague was
> disappointing; she just sat there acting like an academic.
Omigod. Omigod. Omigod. Am I touching the cyberhand that touched the
hand?
>
> She did some fine corrective commentary on excesses of US middle class
> middle brow feminism.
That indeed she did and does yet.
> Having Camille as a colleague was
> disappointing; she just sat there acting like an academic.
But really, in an academic setting what *would* you have her do? So far as
I recall from the account I read some years ago, after the incident at that
fancy girl's school--I don't remember whether it was a woman or a man that
she punched out--she had a terrible time finding another post. So, if now,
she has a position in which she eventually expects to find tenure, then as
she waits upon that, if she should study expedience as a virtue, then more
power to her. What would you have from her--she should get up on her desk
and demonstrate for her students the ancient, aesthetic forms of a long lost
Carthaginian belly-dance?
Honestly!
neel
Not the sort an Ivy league girl's school would want on its payroll
even if there was such a thing.
-neel
John P David
"neel" <the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6886dc62.02041...@posting.google.com...
Enter the obligatory dogmatic attempt at Orwellian newspeak speech
correction.
Girl's school. Girl's school. Girl's school.
Finishing school. Finishing school. Finishing school.
When will these wee feminist neophytes ever learn that some of my generation
retain the usage of these terms advisedly, not only by right, but moreover
by dint of seniority and ahem, 'tenure' as it were?
It's like this: since we were all, men and women alike, saying "Girl's
School" in reference to Smith and Vassar back in the 60's, and since that is
the usage I am used to, then I see no reason to change it to suit the
sensibilities of some born-yesterday person who has the conceit to think
that her way of speaking has some sort of political superiority over mine.
I reject that notion completely. I say that "Girl's School" is ever so much
nicer to the ear than "Women's College". I say that the objection to
"Girl's School" which is to suggest that it is demeaning to women is an
absurd suggestion that has no foundation in truth. On the day when
Hollywood stops shooting scenes on the Western Range where we see "Cowboys"
both historical and modern being referred to as "Cowmen", in that day will I
begin to switch my terminology from "Girl's School" to "Women's College"?
No! Because I will never go to a movie in which the phrase "cowboy' has
been changed to "cowmen". In that day I'll just pray for the world to come
to and end. ;-) I'll get out and dance on the lawn like a Wild Indian
doing a rain dance for that Hard Rain at the End of the World.
jimC
> It wasn't Smith or Vassar and not Wellesley either---name some more
> rootsy-tootsy Eastern finishing schools, one with a name that perhaps starts
> with 'S' and if I hear the right name, I'll remember it.
SUNY Buffalo
--
jimC
The Official Crystal Cove Lunchtime Hikers Website
http://www.jimcolli92625.com is in abeyance with the same
old placeholder pictures.
j...@radidelmex.net
> I taught at the University of the Arts, and it's more or less your
> average university, a bit worse in some regards, a bit better in others,
> and surprisingly expensive. Having Camille as a colleague was
> disappointing; she just sat there acting like an academic.
I bow to your experience. I just know Camille from her books (which I remember
reading and liking) and her Salon articles, which have grown more repetitive
over the months, like she senses she's losing her audience, and has to keep
yelling louder.
j...@radidelmex.net
> I see no reason to change it to suit the sensibilities of some
> born-yesterday person who has the conceit to think that her way of speaking
> has some sort of political superiority over mine.
Can't teach an old dogs new tricks, eh?
smw
John P David wrote:
>"smw" <s...@umich.edu> wrote in message news:3CB60132...@umich.edu...
>
>>
>>j...@radiDELMEx.net wrote:
>>
>>>In rec.arts.books John P David <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>She lost a teaching position at a fancy ivy league
>>>>girl's school
>>>>
>>which one would that be?
>>
>
>It wasn't Smith or Vassar and not Wellesley either---name some more
>rootsy-tootsy Eastern finishing schools, one with a name that perhaps starts
>with 'S' and if I hear the right name, I'll remember it.
>
Bryn Mawr, Swarthmore? You're probably thinking Seven Sisters rather
than Ivy League.
>> over a thing like that--and you might as well know it wasn't
>>
>>>>Camille that went away with the black eye--it was that person who
>>>>
>talked to
>
>>>>her so disrespectfully like that.
>>>>
>>>Camille is a fitfully entertaining Republican apologist.
>>>
>>Nonsense. She has roughly Jeff del Col's intellectual agenda . . .
>>
>
>Omigod. What "intellectual agenda" hath a seething narcissist like
>that--this faux Oscar Wilde with an ego so completely cathected into his
>Oedipal libido that you can roll him down the walk like a hoop? Honestly,
>my dear professor, you must admit what a far cry it is from a person like
>that to La Paglia who comes completely out of herself as a veritable moving
>art form, to live and make of her existence an authentic and passionate
>expression of what she thinks, appreciates, adores and all the more
>marvelously despises? You would compare her to this del col phony, a fellow
>who comes flouncing into the salon, one day in this robe of thought, the
>next in that, bending this way or the other depending upon what the wind
>will do or what might confer upon him the most prestige, in his own so jaded
>and limited sight.
>
She's a fine performer. Her intellectual agenda is old-style liberalism
with a big of drag to dress it up. Goes by neo-con now, even though
their style differs.
>>and is
>>about equally well-informed about her subject.
>>
>
>Now, my dear professor, you know you are just being catty.
>
No, here I'm just being well-read in the authors she discusses.
...
>>Anybody remember when she
>>rhapsodized about the Nike of S's flowing hair?
>>
>
>Nike of Samothrace--is this some sort of joke? Pardon my all too forward
>familiarity, Professor Dear, but are you quite sure someone isn't pulling
>your leg? Many in the art world have remarked with awe upon the magnificent
>appearance of flow shown in those garments of stone--a touch of the artist's
>hand that must have been altogether as notable also in the hair, were it yet
>there to be noted, that is.
>
Well, no. In an article in the New Republic, she mentioned the head.
Much to the amusement of subsequent letter-to-the-editor writers. Having
spent hours at the feet of Nike, I'm happy to assume that the head was
as magnificent as what's left, but really...
...
>>Having Camille as a colleague was
>>disappointing; she just sat there acting like an academic.
>>
>
>But really, in an academic setting what *would* you have her do?
>
Dunno. Bring a few rottweilers along, perhaps.
>So far as
>I recall from the account I read some years ago, after the incident at that
>fancy girl's school--I don't remember whether it was a woman or a man that
>she punched out--she had a terrible time finding another post. So, if now,
>she has a position in which she eventually expects to find tenure
>
Huh? Of course, she had tenure at the U of the Arts. I don't know
whether she's still there. Perhaps that's where she punched. Go do some
research and let us know, why don't you?
s
neel
> "neel" <the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6886dc62.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > j...@radiDELMEx.net wrote in message news:<a94nb9$6sb$3...@news1.Radix.Net>...
> > > In rec.arts.books John P David <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Not the sort an Ivy league girl's school would want on its payroll
> > even if there was such a thing.
>
> Enter the obligatory dogmatic attempt at Orwellian newspeak speech
> correction.
>
> Girl's school. Girl's school. Girl's school.
>
> Finishing school. Finishing school. Finishing school.
You see, they don't play football in these finishing schools for girls.
> On the day when
> Hollywood stops shooting scenes on the Western Range where we see "Cowboys"
> both historical and modern being referred to as "Cowmen", in that day will I
> begin to switch my terminology from "Girl's School" to "Women's College"?
> No! Because I will never go to a movie in which the phrase "cowboy' has
> been changed to "cowmen".
Cowpoke then. That's what they do and thats what I call them.
-neel
John P David
> Cowpoke then. That's what they do and thats what I call them.
>
> -neel
That was a poem.
How dare you?
You are required to apply to me for that permission.
Louis Katorz
>It wasn't Smith or Vassar and not
>Wellesley either---name some more
>rootsy-tootsy Eastern finishing schools,
>one with a name that perhaps starts with
>'S' and if I hear the right name, I'll
>remember it.
Perhaps it was Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, N.Y.? A rather posh
private school.
tejas
<j...@radiDELMEx.net> wrote in message news:a94nb9$6sb$3...@news1.Radix.Net...
More particularly, an adenoidal moron from NYC who became a hired killer for
one
group of big ranchers ("bidness") fighting another group of big ranchers
(another "bidness").
ObConflict: The Lincoln (NM) County War
ObGovernor/Author: General Lew "Ben Hur" Wallace (a damyankee, btw)
tejas
"neel" <the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6886dc62.02041...@posting.google.com...
> "John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<a9615a$f3s$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org>...
> > Hollywood stops shooting scenes on the Western Range where we see
"Cowboys"
> > both historical and modern being referred to as "Cowmen", in that day
will I
> > begin to switch my terminology from "Girl's School" to "Women's
College"?
> > No! Because I will never go to a movie in which the phrase "cowboy' has
> > been changed to "cowmen".
> Cowpoke then. That's what they do and thats what I call them.
>
> -neel
Cowpunchers, waddies, etc.
ObBook: WE POINTED THEM NORTH by Teddy Blue Abbott.
j...@radidelmex.net
tejas <tbsa...@infi.net> wrote:
> More particularly, an adenoidal moron from NYC who became a hired killer for
> one group of big ranchers ("bidness") fighting another group of big ranchers
> (another "bidness").
I want someone to make a movie about the Florida cowboys who used to drive
cattle by walking beside them and cracking bullwhips. Maybe when I become
an eccentric billionaire, like Howard Hughes.
Richard Harter
It is to Pat Garrett that we owe the final critical test for determining
whether a man was bad clean through or whether he still had some redeeming
good left in him. If his woman would stick to him through everything then
he was bad clean through; if she would betray him there was still some good
left in him.
tejas
<j...@radiDELMEx.net> wrote in message news:a9c2jj$lqi$2...@news1.Radix.Net...
ObEtymology: "Cracker"
ObWriter: Peter Mattheissen
j...@radidelmex.net
> ObEtymology: "Cracker"
> ObWriter: Peter Mattheissen
To make mine a multi-media experience, I checked "Hud" out of the local
video library and noticed it was written by Larry McMurtry. I'm liking
the movie (reminds me of small-town Texas the last time I passed through),
and was curious about Patricia Neal (I wanted to see Roald Dahl's wife in
action). Paul Newman seems a little too California for a cowboy, but
Melvyn Douglas is pretty good as the grizzled paterfamilias.
Marko Amnell
news:a9elqt$70c$2...@news1.Radix.Net...
> Paul Newman seems a little too California for a cowboy
But he was wonderful as a gun-slinging outlaw in
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, alongside
Robert Redford.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
j...@radidelmex.net
>> Paul Newman seems a little too California for a cowboy
> But he was wonderful as a gun-slinging outlaw in
> Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, alongside
> Robert Redford.
Maybe he needed to weather a bit?
tejas
<j...@radiDELMEx.net> wrote in message news:a9f2of$ev6$1...@news1.Radix.Net...
I grew up in small town Texas in the '50s. There were some slick sumbitches,
not quite as slick as Newman ,who were around. And sometimes, when caught
cattin' around by their wife, she'd pump several rounds of double-ought buck
from a 12 gauge into to his shower and settle him plumb down.
Read the book, why don't you?
ObNotherMcMurtry: LEAVING CHEYENNE (serious rodeo trash)
ObCharacterActor: Harry Dean Stanton
Marko Amnell
> > >> Paul Newman seems a little too California for a cowboy
> >
> > > But he was wonderful as a gun-slinging outlaw in
> > > Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, alongside
> > > Robert Redford.
> I grew up in small town Texas in the '50s. There were some slick sumbitches,
> not quite as slick as Newman ,who were around. And sometimes, when caught
> cattin' around by their wife, she'd pump several rounds of double-ought buck
> from a 12 gauge into to his shower and settle him plumb down.
ObLinefromButchCassidyandTheSundanceKid.
"Who *are* those guys?!"
j...@radidelmex.net
> I grew up in small town Texas in the '50s. There were some slick sumbitches,
> not quite as slick as Newman ,who were around. And sometimes, when caught
> cattin' around by their wife, she'd pump several rounds of double-ought buck
> from a 12 gauge into to his shower and settle him plumb down.
Newman certainly did some tomcattin', even took to escorting the wives
around town!
Question: How did the cowboys keep their hats on when zooming around in
Cadillacs? Every time I ride in a convertible, my baseball cap goes
flying down the road, never to be seem again. (One of those "Oops, I did
it again" moments).
> Read the book, why don't you?
Well, maybe I will!
Louis Katorz
>To make mine a multi-media experience, I
>checked "Hud" out of the local video
>library and noticed it was written by Larry
>McMurtry. I'm liking the movie (reminds
>me of small-town Texas the last time I
>passed through), and was curious about
>Patricia Neal (I wanted to see Roald
>Dahl's wife in action). Paul Newman
>seems a little too California for a cowboy,
>but Melvyn Douglas is pretty good as the
>grizzled paterfamilias.
If you want to see Patricia Neal at her most alluring best, check out
"The Fountainhead". She is stunningly beautiful. One can understand (but
not condone) why the married Cooper strayed.
j...@radidelmex.net
> If you want to see Patricia Neal at her most alluring best, check out
> "The Fountainhead". She is stunningly beautiful. One can understand (but
> not condone) why the married Cooper strayed.
Thanks for the tip! I saw "The Fountainhead" a long time ago, and don't
remember much except that a building blew up at the end. (Probably the most
memorable part for a kid!)
tejas
Just got through with McMurtry's essays on the American West,
_SACAGAWEA'S NICKNAME_.
Good stuff. As is his _WALTER BENJAMIN AT THE DAIRY QUEEN_.
John P David
> Re: McMurtry.
>
> Just got through with McMurtry's essays on the American West,
> _SACAGAWEA'S NICKNAME_.
>
> Good stuff. As is his _WALTER BENJAMIN AT THE DAIRY QUEEN_.
J.P.S. Brown's *Pocket Money* (was that the name of the novel?) as presented
to the screen with Paul Newman and Lee Marvin. Tex-Mex border follies,
foibles and folly written up right good and proper by a man from Nogales.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. --Friedrich
Nietzsche
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of
tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson
"I like Vincent because, like me, he has the habit of alienating almost
everyone he meets. --Toulouse Lautrec
tejas
ObSArizAuthor: Charles Bowden. He knows whereof he speaks.
Louis Katorz
>Thanks for the tip! I saw "The
>Fountainhead" a long time ago, and don't
>remember much except that a building
>blew up at the end. (Probably the most
>memorable part for a kid!)
Lol. I saw it a month or so ago on our local PBS station which also
repeated it. Perhaps it will be on your PBS station.
Btw our PBS station tends to repeat films, two or three times within a
week. The longest repeat is "Charade" which has appeared, from time to
time, for over a year.
PBS also sees to be out of synch with TV Guide at times. Every time they
show "Anna Karenina" , TV Guide lists the star as Garbo, but the film
shown is the one starring Vivien Leigh.