mani go away
Dilettante
Dilettante
Dr. Slick
> don't respond to my posts any more.
>
> Dilettante
Just tell him he needs to stop duplicating the efforts
of Salvador Dali, and he might leave you alone.
Dr. Slick
John Ng
Simply done, don't post.
Mani is one of the few who could speak intelligently about the great
deception of Modern Art (which is contrary to its name, an archaic
nonsense). Why do remark if you don't want a reply? Ostrich in the
sand?
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
John Ng
> of Salvador Dali, and he might leave you alone.
Poor Dr Sick, he does imitations of pieces so common that the
painters' names have eluded me. See, his pieces are just one in the
sea of talentless doodlers whose output can only vary in bright
colours and broad gaudy layouts; pieces of painting which have been
copied from the last 100 years (or last 5000 years except that no one
would seriously keep antique trash). Nothing new at all.
As for Mani, he even tells you straight out front that he admires
Dali. For the last 3000 years, art has always progressed from the
works before.
Although Mani and I do not speak or know each other, our motives are
the same. We aren't good painters but we are trying to re-discover
the technique lost in the last 100 years. It is very sad that it is
very difficult and we probably can never be successful.
Mani Deli
>don't respond to my posts any more.
>
>Dilettante
I'll respond to any posts I like. If that bothers don't write here.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Dr. Slick
> > Just tell him he needs to stop duplicating the efforts
> > of Salvador Dali, and he might leave you alone.
>
> Poor Dr Sick, he does imitations of pieces so common that the
> painters' names have eluded me. See, his pieces are just one in the
> sea of talentless doodlers whose output can only vary in bright
> colours and broad gaudy layouts; pieces of painting which have been
> copied from the last 100 years (or last 5000 years except that no one
> would seriously keep antique trash). Nothing new at all.
>
Err, you are calling me a "talentless doodler"?!
After looking at your stuff, i seem like Frazetta!
> As for Mani, he even tells you straight out front that he admires
> Dali. For the last 3000 years, art has always progressed from the
> works before.
>
Progression means making progress, or moving forward and beyond.
I don't see that with Mani, just Dali regurgitated.
> Although Mani and I do not speak or know each other, our motives are
> the same. We aren't good painters but we are trying to re-discover
> the technique lost in the last 100 years. It is very sad that it is
> very difficult and we probably can never be successful.
>
>
> John Ng
> Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
> http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Well, at least you admit that you have a LONG way to go!
Check out John Singer Sargeant for clues. Man, that guy was
good!
Slick
Dilettante
> > of Salvador Dali, and he might leave you alone.
>
> Poor Dr Sick, he does imitations of pieces so common that the
> painters' names have eluded me.
That must mean they are very common then.
See, his pieces are just one in the
> sea of talentless doodlers whose output can only vary in bright
> colours and broad gaudy layouts; pieces of painting which have been
> copied from the last 100 years (or last 5000 years except that no one
> would seriously keep antique trash). Nothing new at all.
>
> As for Mani, he even tells you straight out front that he admires
> Dali.
So do I in some cases. Is that a big deal?
For the last 3000 years, art has always progressed from the
> works before.
>
> Although Mani and I do not speak or know each other,
That's a good start.
our motives are
> the same.
Not a good move.
We aren't good painters but we are trying to re-discover
> the technique lost in the last 100 years.
When you make it to the last 4000 years you will be on my level.
It is very sad that it is
> very difficult and we probably can never be successful.
Conservatives are so touching as they cry into their cognac and moon
over their alma tadema prints.
>
>
> John Ng
> Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
And sensible shoes
Dilettante
Dilettante
>
> Simply done, don't post.
Even more simply done--that he refrain from responding.
Dilettante
Thur
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.04010...@posting.google.com...
This may be nit-picking, but I would rather have seen "moved on" rather
than "progressed" as the word implies something positive, which may not
always have been the case.
> but we are trying to re-discover
> the technique lost in the last 100 years.
Indeed, you are saying that "progress" is not always forwards.
Agreed.
I want to look at art without the prejudice that my own experience
and my own society is the "best" and that nothing can have possibly
been better.
And I think that there is very little of this around.
Thur
Bob C
>
> Although Mani and I do not speak or know each other, our motives are
> the same. We aren't good painters but we are trying to re-discover
> the technique lost in the last 100 years. It is very sad that it is
> very difficult and we probably can never be successful.
>
If anything, I would think that much more technique has been regained in
the past 100 years than has been lost. Perhaps 100 years ago you
would've had a point. Academic teaching had all but replaced the
apprenticeship system and the convenience of manufactured products had
resulted in them almost entirely replacing artist prepared materials
even though the lower quality caused traditional glazing techniques to
go out of favor. Meanwhile, there were far fewer options for viewing
examples of art throughout history, books on technique were harder to
come by, and the capabilities for studying old works of art were much
more greatly limited. The result is that we know far more about
renaissance and baroque techniques today than was known 100 years ago,
and the great diversity of today's art means that many new techniques
have been developed, both for traditional and non-traditional styles.
- Bob C.
Dr. Slick
> On 5 Jan 2004 23:55:22 -0800, hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
>
> >don't respond to my posts any more.
> >
>
>
Where is that grouchiness you are so infamous for, eh Mani?
Slick
Neil Maxwell
Maybe you should start your own NG - rec.arts.fine.dilettante. That
would be appropriate on multiple levels. You could make it moderated,
so only people who agree with you could post.
Otherwise, usenet is open to all, even those you disagree with. You
have two choices - deal with it (with or without whining) or bail out.
You seem to have chosen "deal with it, with whining". Asking others
to modify their behavior to suit you is doomed to failure, which is as
it should be.
Maybe your best option would be to killfile him (this would fall under
"deal with it, without whining"). This is how many people handle such
situations.
HTH!
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Nomenon
> Indeed, you are saying that "progress" is not always forwards.
> Agreed.
"Progress" is always _forward_, this is the essential part of meaning
of this word.
Otherwise it's "regress" (digress, etc).
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Mike Stengl
>
> I want to look at art without the prejudice that my own experience
> and my own society is the "best" and that nothing can have possibly
> been better.
> Thur
if one is not doing this what is one doing? certainly not learning
anything new. perhaps rearranging your opinions'...
Thur
"Mike Stengl" <eatn...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:45dd5dd.04010...@posting.google.com...
My perception of current taste and contemporary art, combined with
some of the commentary on Modern and contemporary art
gives me the idea that many start off with the idea that theirs is the
era which has surpassed all others, and reject old art, and all art of
the past on that assumption.
I do not get the idea anywhere that it might be possible that we could
be in a phase where the quality of our art - that which is championed at
least - is debased, degenerate.
Whether or not this is the case does not seem to be a subject for debate,
except those so-called debates where one side abuses the other.
Thur
Thur
"Nomenon" <arte...@concentric.com> wrote in message
news:3FFDD229...@concentric.com...
Yes, but forward is relative.
Progress does not mean progress to a higher level, necessarily.
From my post you can discern the meaning.
What I am saying is that art may well move on, but the assumption that it
must by definition get "better" in any way at all is not justified.
Each era should be re-assessed with that idea, including current ones.
Thur
Mani Deli
>My perception of current taste and contemporary art, combined with
>some of the commentary on Modern and contemporary art
>gives me the idea that many start off with the idea that theirs is the
>era which has surpassed all others, and reject old art, and all art of
>the past on that assumption.
They also reject current art and believe that the only art of the 20th
C. is the Modern Academic variety allowed in museum and dismiss all
other work as simply kitsch, commercial or illustration. The general
public does not agree.
Dilettante
>
> Maybe you should start your own NG - rec.arts.fine.dilettante.
Maybe you should start your own pay toilet.
> You seem to have chosen "deal with it, with whining".
Wrong again. I have chosen "fuck off, pissbreath."
Asking others
> to modify their behavior to suit you is doomed to failure, which is as
> it should be.
But it is still wholesome and appropriate to advise obsessive
neurotics of therapteutic changes they might make in their behavior
for the benefit of all.
>
> Maybe your best option would be to killfile him
Maybe your best option would be to killfile me (please). That way I
don't have to read your librarian's perspective on social relations.
>
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Because he forbids it.
Dilettante
Dilettante
Asking others
> to modify their behavior to suit you is doomed to failure, which is as
> it should be.
you have contradicted yourself here. If you believed this you would
not have posted to me.
D.
Leo Papandreou
You can't really compare for "better" work created in different contexts.
Every meaningful thing that you can think of is a complex socio-historical
achievement. Art is a kind of memory book. It "advances" because every
generation creates its own art, as it must, by standing on the shoulders of
previous generations. Get over the idea that painting is pictures torn from
context or a narrow set of promulgated skills. It's turtles all the way down,
or a giant cultural brain, if you prefer, every painting a neural connection
(as it were.) (*)
If Rembrandt were alive today and Rothko lived 350 years ago, their pictures
wouldn't resemble what they look like. (*) Do you think Rembrandt would be one
of those Art Renewal buffs? I don't.
(*) Does it make sense to say some neural connections in your head are "better"
than others? If so, go under the neurosurgeon's knife, excise their substrate
and see what happens. :-) I'm not saying art IS your brain; but the analogy is
useful as a means of cognition.
(*) To the extent either could paint well differently than they did, which
might not be the case. A genius is born in the right place at the right time,
or else he is merely talented, at best. Sometimes people become geniuses after
their deaths, when the rest of the world "catches up" to them, or in a parallel
universe (I guess) if the world goes off in a different direction. Genius is
partly social construction is what I'm saying, like everything else human.
Thur
"Leo Papandreou" <koan...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:1146a1e0.04010...@posting.google.com...
In part I agree. The meanings carried in a work of art may be much more
than we realise or even far different than we at first suppose, if that work
was
created in a different era. Therefore we can study it if, as the
Renaissance,
there are writers and commentators who can enlighten us.
Having studied, we can come to a judgement, usually personal, but possibly
shared, as say some of the better known painters of the time.
Therefore for example the Raphaels and Carravaggios etc., continue to
attract
the attention of those who study art and those who adore it.
Your post does not allow for works of art that are lesser and greater than
another. We chose works that we reckon are great, and we reject other that
we
feel we can see are simply of a lesser standard.
I do hope that future generations will not pussyfoot around at assigning my
works
to their proper position. No matter what era I live in, they are no
Raphaels.
There! I have made a value judgement. Expect ground tremors and lightening!
Can you allow for the possibility that our art has degenerated to one where
a skilless, talentless, nonentity who knows a thing or two about
manipulating
a few people, and very knowing about the media, is called an artist of note?
Don't take my words for it of course, but allow that it might be true. We
only live for
a few short years, and it would be tragic if we lived a life, conning
ourselves that
we are looking at art when all later generations will recognise it as shit
and say
"yes that shit just about marks the era it sprang from"?
Why can't we change the world around us as fast as the world is being
changed
by technology?
Why must we lie back and allow strangers to the word art take over the art
world?
How can a rectangle (or two) roughly painted, mean anything more than
a rectangle?
How can no-one see that Duchamp's piss-stone is a slap in the face of art,
and should be thrown in the nearest waste skip?
How can an animal or a fish, preserved in formalin have anything to do with
beauty, passion, or any other emotion used by art?
Ask yourself what it is you think that art in the last 100 years will show
about us,
and about our taste, our self regard, our self confidence, our quest for
perfection,
and then ask what about the Renaissance. They can still be proud.
Thur
p.s. I cannot post again for about a month. :-) ( did I hear "phew!"?)
Neil Maxwell
You misunderstand my intentions. You proposed a solution to a problem
you're having, and it was obvious that your solution would be not only
ineffective, but would encourage more responses from your
arch-nemesis.
I proposed a solution that will be far more effective, and was
developed specifically to deal with the issues you're having.
It's ok, you can thank me later. Like I say, happy to help.
Neil Maxwell
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Maybe you should start your own NG - rec.arts.fine.dilettante.
>
>Maybe you should start your own pay toilet.
>
While this could be briefly amusing (I'm fond of conceptual art), I
fail to see the relevance to the discussion.
>> You seem to have chosen "deal with it, with whining".
>
>Wrong again. I have chosen "fuck off, pissbreath."
I was right after all, but at least it's strong whining (though still
ineffective). You could place me in your killfile as well, if you
want an effective solution. Many (Mani?) here could help you set it
up.
>Asking others
>> to modify their behavior to suit you is doomed to failure, which is as
>> it should be.
>
>But it is still wholesome and appropriate to advise obsessive
>neurotics of therapteutic changes they might make in their behavior
>for the benefit of all.
I'm glad you agree with my approach. It's a rare moment of clarity.
Recognition of your problem is the first step to solving it. You
would do well in adopting a similar approach to dealing with Mani.
>> Maybe your best option would be to killfile him
>
>Maybe your best option would be to killfile me (please). That way I
>don't have to read your librarian's perspective on social relations.
I have no interest in killfiling you; I find these posts amusing.
Again, you're proposing I change my behavior to solve your problems.
The tools are available to you, but you have to choose to use them.
>> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
>
>Because he forbids it.
Another exceptionally witty response to the boilerplate. For cheap
bait, it certainly catches a lot of fish.
Leo Papandreou
> Can you allow for the possibility that our art has degenerated to one where
> a skilless, talentless, nonentity who knows a thing or two about
> manipulating
> a few people, and very knowing about the media, is called an artist of note?
You mean like Dali? I must remind you that some people like him very much and
will quote repeatedly his barely coherent art-speak when disputing minor
technical points with their brethren. Among their number are listed mental
giants distinguished for their tolerance, fairness and human decency, except
when disputing minor technical points with their brethren.
I find these skill discussions least helpful -- skill at what? There is only
one skill I'm interested in and that is the skill to create the art I like. The
problem is that makes Klee more "skilful" than your man Raphael, who probably
couldn't paint like Klee as well as Klee to save his life (and no doubt vice
versa.)
I struggle to conceive of skill as something other than the ability to
translate mental images in a physical medium without burning down the house. An
affinity for certain mental images implicates the talent to create them. You
call that talent "skill." That is fine but it alone does not deserve more
consideration than I am prepared to give to your affinity for nose rings or
golden retrievers. It might be interesting to learn, without asking you to
introspect, because the contemplation of your own thoughts, desires and conduct
is interesting but not "knowledge," why you like nose rings instead of beads
inserted under the skin, golden retrievers instead of Persian kitties, or
Raphael instead of Klee. It might be interesting, but I do not think we can
negotiate it.
Skill is like God. I belive in God, just not your God.
>
> Don't take my words for it of course, but allow that it might be true. We
> only live for
> a few short years, and it would be tragic if we lived a life, conning
> ourselves that
> we are looking at art when all later generations will recognise it as shit
> and say
> "yes that shit just about marks the era it sprang from"?
Tragic?
I am not at all concerned what later generations recognize. I expect they'll
have a neutral anthropological or historical perspective, which is
intellectually appropriate, or they'll write cant, invent eternal "truth" in
art in inverse proportion to the possibility of measuring it, their heads
filling up with platonic absolutes as they wander into philosophical
absurdities. Their verdict arises on the ashes of their ancestors, to be
consumed in its turn by their descendants. The aesthete's sincere desire to
advance knowledge cannot be questioned. They are obviously on fire with their
aim, prepared to sacrifice honor, money, bitches and itches in order to find
the answer to the question "what is Art?"
I have a better question: "Why does the universe bother to exist?" The answer
to that question is the name God. Now we can discuss what IS God, or we can
discuss what we can know, humans, preferring an anthropological understanding
of religious experience as related to things like eating, sex, death, ritual,
clean, dirty, family, money, art.
I'm curious, what is the intellectual basis for this idea that later generations
will judge this one's art unkindly?
>
> Why can't we change the world around us as fast as the world is being
> changed
> by technology?
> Why must we lie back and allow strangers to the word art take over the art
> world?
Strangers? We? Art world? These things are marvelous disregard for the referent.
>
> How can a rectangle (or two) roughly painted, mean anything more than
> a rectangle?
> How can no-one see that Duchamp's piss-stone is a slap in the face of art,
> and should be thrown in the nearest waste skip?
> How can an animal or a fish, preserved in formalin have anything to do with
> beauty, passion, or any other emotion used by art?
You talk of truth in art, beauty, etc. I don't want to risk repeating what I've
written in recent comments (because I don't remember and I'm trying to keep my
story straight) so I'll be brief and just say that our perspectives on these
ineffable abstractions continue to be very different!
I think the relationship between an art object and what it means is essentially
arbitrary. That's how "a rectangle (or two) roughly painted [can] mean anything
more than a rectangle." It can manipulate our senses and perceptions, call
forth emotions such as fear, comfort, love, dignity, awe, and so on, and it can
also achieve a variety of social or political ends.
>
> Ask yourself what it is you think that art in the last 100 years will show
> about us,
> and about our taste, our self regard, our self confidence, our quest for
> perfection,
> and then ask what about the Renaissance. They can still be proud.
The Renaissance? Of course.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Leo Papandreou" <koan...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:1146a1e0.04010...@posting.google.com...
news:<SBCLb.404$pI....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
>
> > Can you allow for the possibility that our art has degenerated to one
where
> > a skilless, talentless, nonentity who knows a thing or two about
> > manipulating
> > a few people, and very knowing about the media, is called an artist of
note?
>
> You mean like Dali? I must remind you that some people like him very much
and
> will quote repeatedly his barely coherent art-speak when disputing minor
> technical points with their brethren. Among their number are listed mental
> giants distinguished for their tolerance, fairness and human decency,
except
> when disputing minor technical points with their brethren.
>
Even people whose main life work seems to be to prove Mani correct don't
actually support him. Look at caracatures like poor alison, for example,
notable for being a supplier to Mani of everything his prejudice requires
who isn't even an open supporter of his.
Mike Stengl
> > > I want to look at art without the prejudice that my own experience
> > > and my own society is the "best" and that nothing can have possibly
> > > been better.
> > > Thur
> >
> > if one is not doing this what is one doing? certainly not learning
> > anything new. perhaps rearranging your opinions'...
>
> Thur
yeah, sure, maybe, i dunno. i just like the idea of looking at
something new with an open mind, and using one's experience to
understand or dismiss whatever the content happens to be. not one's
preconcieved ideas of what it should be.
Thur
"Leo Papandreou" <koan...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:1146a1e0.04010...@posting.google.com...
I find the discussion stimulating, but can't post for at least a month.
Thanks for your indulgence.
Thur
Mani Deli
>I find these skill discussions least helpful
So do all artfartzies who have none. They find skill very threatening.
> skill at what?
I'm sure you are so shallow that you can't figure that out.
Papy, Why do you hate skill?
Mani Deli
>I find these skill discussions least helpful
So do all artzy fartzies who have none. They find skill very
max
wrote:
>yeah, sure, maybe, i dunno. i just like the idea of looking at
>something new with an open mind, and using one's experience to
>understand or dismiss whatever the content happens to be. not one's
>preconcieved ideas of what it should be.
I'm always amused by these never-ending religious wars between the new
guard and the oldtimers. It's not like the presence of new art
prevents the creation of traditional art, or vice-versa. There are
plenty of buyers and venues for both, even if the new-fangled stuff
gets all the big press.
You'd think people would view, buy, and/or create what they liked, and
ignore what they don't. Seems pretty straightforward, and works well
for me. I could give a rat's ass about what critics and dilettantes
think, regardless of which side of the fence they're on. Might as
well let other people tell you how to think.
max
Leo Papandreou
> (Leo Papandreou) wrote:
>
> >I find these skill discussions least helpful
>
> So do all artzy fartzies who have none. They find skill very
> threatening.
>
You talk a lot of skill. That's the problem, it's all talk.
Click here: <http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/Works.htm>
See? I do. The "least helpful" thing you could do is to argue that I don't. Do
you get it now?
Sorry, Mani, I was a sidewalk portraitist. I was born with a mimetic hand. I
drew better for mother's dinner guests at ten than you paint over pictures at
your computer. Your "skill" was easy, boring, tricks I wanted to transcend back
when I gave a damn (and to be perfectly honest, I was too indifferent or
occupied to take them where you want to be. I'm not an artist in the affected
sense, you see. "Art" is just a way I like to behave sometimes, to experience
the miraculous quality of creation, and to get laid.) So I can understand why
you are obsessed with tricks; we always want what we can't have. Ever been to
Amsterdam? Those hookers sure look cute behind the window, do they not, to a
man of your distinguished age?
I want you to say you need me
Stop just trying to please me,
tell me that you love me
a little somethin' somethin'...
Instead of all the using,
and stop with the abusing.
I want what i can't have,
0o0o just too damn bad.
But I don't want to deprive you of hope with idle aphorisms. Sometimes we do
get that little motor scooter in the window. It happens all the time. So, um,
fight the power! (Modern Academic Art)
> > skill at what?
>
> I'm sure you are so shallow that you can't figure that out.
>
> Papy, Why do you hate skill?
Ha-ha, that's a droll tack. I'll try to remember it when I'm trying, and
failing, to paint as well as, oh, I don't know, Matisse? Picasso? Cezanne?
Rothko? You know what I'm saying.
>
> No woof no arf-arf!
>
> Bow wow wow wow ruff? Bark http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Dilettante
>
> I proposed a solution that will be far more effective, and was
> developed specifically to deal with the issues you're having.
what you perceive as my intention and what they really are may not be
the same, but there may be people of little confidence trying to learn
about and practice art reading this forum whose self-confidence will
only be crushed by what amounts to nothing but coffee-house crap from
this bit of small change of the art world showing off a few facts and
one-liners.
Dilettante
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Sorry, Mani, I was a sidewalk portraitist. I was born with a mimetic hand.
I think you are full of crap and if you have anything to show, show
it.
>drew better for mother's dinner guests at ten than you paint over pictures at
>your computer.
I would do all my work on computer were that possible.
At the moment that's far from the case. I advise all art students to
learn the power and possibilities computers. If you can draw your
computer work will show it. The combination of computer and classical
skills is the technique of the present.
The antiquated Papy hasn't gotten over Dada yet.
>Your "skill" was easy, boring, tricks I wanted to transcend back
>when I gave a damn (and to be perfectly honest, I was too indifferent or
>occupied to take them where you want to be. I'm not an artist in the affected
>sense, you see.
Yes, your a phoney.
> "Art" is just a way I like to behave sometimes, to experience
>the miraculous quality of creation, and to get laid.)
and a drunk.
>So I can understand why
>you are obsessed with tricks; we always want what we can't have. Ever been to
>Amsterdam? Those hookers sure look cute behind the window, do they not, to a
>man of your distinguished age?
I'm sure to someone like you those fat ugly women were a big thrill.
I lived in Amsterdam for a while and unlike you never did hookers. The
place was full of turned on women, although I preferred Denmark (the
sanest country I ever visited)
.
Papy, Why do you hate skill?
No skill no art!
Leo Papandreou
soft and my heart hard. You're a bottomless pit of rancor that swallows
everything in its horizon. You win. Have a nice "life."
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:541300lgmsqef680k...@4ax.com...
Neil Maxwell
>what you perceive as my intention and what they really are may not be
>the same, but there may be people of little confidence trying to learn
>about and practice art reading this forum whose self-confidence will
>only be crushed by what amounts to nothing but coffee-house crap from
>this bit of small change of the art world showing off a few facts and
>one-liners.
Saving the world from the opinions of those who disagree with you is
always a noble task (say hello to Don Quixote when you see him),
however, this particular thread started with the following content:
> Subject: mani go away
>
> don't respond to my posts any more.
>
> Dilettante
I'll admit my perception of your intention was somewhat colored by
this short and to-the-point statement. Had you said "Don't crush the
self-confidence of newbies with coffee-house crap", my post would have
been much different, if I had replied at all.
In any case, my advice still stands. I have to assume that your
ongoing refusal to killfile Mani means you actually enjoy trading
barbs with him, as so many in this forum do. He does seem to have the
upper hand on you, though.
As for the newbies, it doesn't take much to see the utility (or lack
thereof) of this forum for the self-doubters, and you might want to
consider sending them to one of the many moderated web fora. Just a
suggestion, though.
Dilettante
>
> Saving the world from the opinions of those who disagree with you is
> always a noble task (say hello to Don Quixote when you see him),
> however, this particular thread started with the following content:
>
> I'll admit my perception of your intention was somewhat colored by
> this short and to-the-point statement. Had you said "Don't crush the
> self-confidence of newbies with coffee-house crap", my post would have
> been much different, if I had replied at all.
You have forced yourself to reply quite a few times on this thread by
now.
>
> In any case, my advice still stands.
You can give almost the same advice to our obsessive crank.
I have to assume that your
> ongoing refusal to killfile Mani means you actually enjoy trading
> barbs with him, as so many in this forum do.
As do you.
He does seem to have the
> upper hand on you, though.
Not a chance. I understand the obsessive crank but have evolved beyond
his perversely egotistical condition masquerading as genius (itself a
perverse imposition of Western ruling classes) to a more constructive
form of relation with the world, however contested even that may
remain.
>
> As for the newbies, it doesn't take much
You are begging the question here. The ng has utility depending on the
quality of the posters here. This crank serves only to destroy with
cheap and really incorrect one-liners (Cezanne only want to imitate
Poussin). Though there is a value in destruction, it must be done
with a constructive vision behind it. Those who only tear up in order
to attract attention to themselves do not qualify.
to see the utility (or lack
> thereof) of this forum for the self-doubters, and you might want to
> consider sending them to one of the many moderated web fora. Just a
> suggestion, though.
Then be assured that this is indeed a lightweight forum. The only
reason a crank is allowed to dominate a forum like this is one is if
there is a paucity of informed self-confident artists and others
sincerely interested in discussing. Try checking around.
All your advice to me can apply equally to your conduct, so if you do
not implicitly practice it, you contradict it.
Dilettante
Neil Maxwell
>
>Then be assured that this is indeed a lightweight forum. The only
>reason a crank is allowed to dominate a forum like this is one is if
>there is a paucity of informed self-confident artists and others
>sincerely interested in discussing. Try checking around.
Sigh. You're not paying attention.
The usenet is an open forum, except for moderated newsgroups. If
there's someone you consider a crank, there's a well-know and proven
2-part technique for minimizing their influence. Killfile them, and
stop replying to them. Simple. Another alternative is a moderated
newsgroup (easily the most effective; compare rec.guns with tx.guns -
one's an extremely high quality resource, the other's an extremist
battlefield).
People reply to Mani because they want to. People argue endlessly
about abstract vs. traditional art because they want to. If they
didn't want to, well, they wouldn't, would they? Instead, they
delight in trading volleys back and forth. This has been going on for
years.
You, sir, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Don't
want to argue with Mani? Don't. Ignore his posts. Instead, you post
challenges to him! There's a pattern here; you may note that he
responds to your posts. If you and others quit responding to him, it
dies there. This applies to the other opinionated posters in this NG
as well.
>All your advice to me can apply equally to your conduct, so if you do
>not implicitly practice it, you contradict it.
I'm not the one complaining about the posters in this newsgroup. I
reply to what I want, ignore what I want, and argue about what I want,
just like you and Mani. Sounds good to me. If you don't respond to
me, I don't respond back. You choose to, I choose to. Comprende?
I can explain this a few more times if you need it.
Dilettante
> On 13 Jan 2004 03:28:19 -0800, hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
> >
> >Then be assured that this is indeed a lightweight forum. The only
> >reason a crank is allowed to dominate a forum like this is one is if
> >there is a paucity of informed self-confident artists and others
> >sincerely interested in discussing. Try checking around.
>
> Sigh. You're not paying attention.
Lip fart. You're paying even less attention. Go back and check the
dates of relevent posts. When did I last respond to the obsessive
crank?
>
> The usenet is an open forum, except for moderated newsgroups. If
> there's someone you consider a crank, there's a well-know and proven
> 2-part technique for minimizing their influence. Killfile them, and
> stop replying to them. Simple.
Not quite so simple. Untoward and irresponsible remarks to my posts
or others from destructive neurotics influence others, so to minimise
that harmful influence, it is often mete to respond in order to let
others know that purely egotistical contentious notions need not be
taken seriously.
Another alternative is a moderated
> newsgroup (easily the most effective; compare rec.guns with tx.guns -
> one's an extremely high quality resource, the other's an extremist
> battlefield).
>
> People reply to Mani because they want to.
People also reply by telling it to go away.
People argue endlessly
> about abstract vs. traditional art because they want to. If they
> didn't want to, well, they wouldn't, would they? Instead, they
> delight in trading volleys back and forth. This has been going on for
> years.
We also set rat traps as long as there are rats. But when the rats go
away we do not follow them so we can continue to engage them.
>
> You, sir, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Don't
> want to argue with Mani? Don't. Ignore his posts. Instead, you post
> challenges to him! There's a pattern here; you may note that he
> responds to your posts. If you and others quit responding to him, it
> dies there. This applies to the other opinionated posters in this NG
> as well.
If you perceive me in that way then you, sir, are encouraged to take
your own advice and killfile me, thereby sparing me from fielding your
prosaic homilies.
>
> >All your advice to me can apply equally to your conduct, so if you do
> >not implicitly practice it, you contradict it.
>
> I'm not the one complaining about the posters in this newsgroup.
You don't seem to understand what you have been doing with me for the
past few rounds.
I
> reply to what I want, ignore what I want, and argue about what I want,
> just like you and Mani. Sounds good to me. If you don't respond to
> me, I don't respond back. You choose to, I choose to. Comprende?
Yes, I comprende that you have put yourself in my power. You are
unable to stop yourself. But this is a game. Perhaps you just want the
last word. Let's try something different. You stop responding first.
Then I will stop because I will have nothing to react to.
Comprendiste?
>
> I can explain this a few more times if you need it.
I also can explain it again but it might be better at this point to
cut and paste from previous posts.
>
>
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
And I can see why.
Dilettante
Neil Maxwell
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<iub80058i5le9ctq8...@4ax.com>...
>> On 13 Jan 2004 03:28:19 -0800, hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
>> >
>> >Then be assured that this is indeed a lightweight forum. The only
>> >reason a crank is allowed to dominate a forum like this is one is if
>> >there is a paucity of informed self-confident artists and others
>> >sincerely interested in discussing. Try checking around.
>>
>> Sigh. You're not paying attention.
>
>Lip fart. You're paying even less attention. Go back and check the
>dates of relevent posts. When did I last respond to the obsessive
>crank?
Why, sure, I'll do your homework for you. It was on the 5th; about 9
days ago. Not only that, you've started 3 threads addressed
specifically to him in that time. Whatever you believe your goal here
is, it's obvious to me, and avoiding intercourse with Mani is not part
of it.
It is amusing that you berate him for negativity while starting
multiple negative threads attacking the individual. Your new
newsgroup could be
rec.arts.fine.moderated.pot.kettle.black.black.black.
>> The usenet is an open forum, except for moderated newsgroups. If
>> there's someone you consider a crank, there's a well-know and proven
>> 2-part technique for minimizing their influence. Killfile them, and
>> stop replying to them. Simple.
>
>Not quite so simple. Untoward and irresponsible remarks to my posts
>or others from destructive neurotics influence others, so to minimise
>that harmful influence, it is often mete to respond in order to let
>others know that purely egotistical contentious notions need not be
>taken seriously.
Your choice. You reap what you sow.
>Another alternative is a moderated
>> newsgroup (easily the most effective; compare rec.guns with tx.guns -
>> one's an extremely high quality resource, the other's an extremist
>> battlefield).
>>
>> People reply to Mani because they want to.
>
>People also reply by telling it to go away.
And how effective is this? Regardless, it's your choice. It
certainly started an interesting thread. You can't deny that this is
all caused by you. Something to think about.
>People argue endlessly
>> about abstract vs. traditional art because they want to. If they
>> didn't want to, well, they wouldn't, would they? Instead, they
>> delight in trading volleys back and forth. This has been going on for
>> years.
>
>We also set rat traps as long as there are rats. But when the rats go
>away we do not follow them so we can continue to engage them.
You are deluding yourself if you believe that addressing negative
posts to Mani (i.e. "mani go away") is somehow going to be effective
at doing anything beyond getting him to respond. In this regard, it
has been 100% successful, of course. You'll need to do your own
homework on this one.
>> You, sir, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Don't
>> want to argue with Mani? Don't. Ignore his posts. Instead, you post
>> challenges to him! There's a pattern here; you may note that he
>> responds to your posts. If you and others quit responding to him, it
>> dies there. This applies to the other opinionated posters in this NG
>> as well.
>
>If you perceive me in that way then you, sir, are encouraged to take
>your own advice and killfile me, thereby sparing me from fielding your
>prosaic homilies.
We've already discussed this. Please pay attention. I don't want to
killfile you; I have a fondness for fish in a barrel (though the
repetition is getting a bit boring). I enjoy reading your posts,
except for the boring quotes from other people's books. I especially
like the new one about art teachers.
If you want to be spared from my advice, killfile me. I'll tell you
again, it's the only effective step you can take.
>> >All your advice to me can apply equally to your conduct, so if you do
>> >not implicitly practice it, you contradict it.
>>
>> I'm not the one complaining about the posters in this newsgroup.
>
>You don't seem to understand what you have been doing with me for the
>past few rounds.
I'm not complaining about you, I'm responding to your complaints with
logic and reason.
"He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our
skill. Our antagonist is our helper." - Edmund Burke
This is true even when it's a lopsided battle. It's kind'a like
fighting bots in UT2K3.
>I
>> reply to what I want, ignore what I want, and argue about what I want,
>> just like you and Mani. Sounds good to me. If you don't respond to
>> me, I don't respond back. You choose to, I choose to. Comprende?
>
>Yes, I comprende that you have put yourself in my power.
Please don't throw me in that briar patch, massa!
>You are
>unable to stop yourself. But this is a game. Perhaps you just want the
>last word. Let's try something different. You stop responding first.
>Then I will stop because I will have nothing to react to.
>Comprendiste?
You are starting to understand! You still have to accept your own
responsibilities here, though. Other people can't solve your problems
for you. Keep thinking, grasshopper, it should become clear
eventually.
>> I can explain this a few more times if you need it.
>
>I also can explain it again but it might be better at this point to
>cut and paste from previous posts.
Please do. Repetition will not make your illogical conclusions any
more consistent, but my replies will be remarkably similar.
>> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
>
>And I can see why.
It's unusual to catch the same fish twice on the one hook, I'll admit.
Dilettante
> Why, sure, I'll do your homework for you.
Embedding your opinion here. It is not my homework but yours you have
to do.
It was on the 5th; about 9
> days ago. Not only that, you've started 3 threads addressed
> specifically to him in that time.
This lowers your grade to a B for a wrong preposition. See if you can
find it.
Whatever you believe your goal here
> is, it's obvious to me, and avoiding intercourse with Mani is not part
> of it.
But perhaps your own goal here is not what you are stating. Re-think
your position. At your age you don't have much more time to grow up.
>
> It is amusing that you berate him for negativity while starting
> multiple negative threads attacking the individual.
Could you apply this to someone else with whom you are familiar? Try.
Your new
> newsgroup could be
> rec.arts.fine.moderated.pot.kettle.black.black.black.
And yours could be rec.arts.notsofine.childmolester.fascist
> Your choice. You reap what you sow.
And your choice not to choose. You have been sowing in my fields for
too long now, while whining about it.
>
>
> >Another alternative is a moderated
> >> newsgroup (easily the most effective; compare rec.guns with tx.guns -
> >> one's an extremely high quality resource, the other's an extremist
> >> battlefield).
> >>
> >> People reply to Mani because they want to.
> >
> >People also reply by telling it to go away.
>
> And how effective is this?
Is effective your criteria in responding to me? Isn't it time you
admitted the answer and moved a step up in life. Knocking kids around
at school is an easy game to play, isn't it?
Regardless, it's your choice. It
> certainly started an interesting thread. You can't deny that this is
> all caused by you. Something to think about.
Because you choose to respond with one smug post after another it is
"my choice"! This must be the technique you use on callow schoolkids.
Time for an upgrade, young man.
>
>
> >People argue endlessly
> >> about abstract vs. traditional art because they want to. If they
> >> didn't want to, well, they wouldn't, would they? Instead, they
> >> delight in trading volleys back and forth. This has been going on for
> >> years.
> >
> >We also set rat traps as long as there are rats. But when the rats go
> >away we do not follow them so we can continue to engage them.
>
> You are deluding yourself if you believe that addressing negative
> posts to Mani (i.e. "mani go away") is somehow going to be effective
> at doing anything beyond getting him to respond.
At this point it does not surprise me that with your mental abilities,
you have misinterpreted my intention, but go ahead and keep making
statements that make this assumption.
In this regard, it
> has been 100% successful, of course. You'll need to do your own
> homework on this one.
Another implicitly degrading line as you try to establish higher
status by assuming it. Unfortunately it is you who have done both too
little homework and too much of the wrong homework. Work smarter, not
harder.
>
> We've already discussed this. Please pay attention. I don't want to
> killfile you; I have a fondness for fish in a barrel (though the
> repetition is getting a bit boring).
It seems boring to you because you don't know or refuse to admit what
you are really doing. This thread is more like toilet flushing.
I enjoy reading your posts,
> except for the boring quotes from other people's books.
Since you are unable to contribute anything positive here, only
character assassination revealing the true results of your career and
life, it is predictable that constructive posts would rile you.
I especially
> like the new one about art teachers.
>
> If you want to be spared from my advice, killfile me. I'll tell you
> again, it's the only effective step you can take.
And if you want to be spared any more boredom, killfile me, or better
yet (in your case) exercise some self-restraint. Very hard for a
practiced predator who still thinks he can win.
>
>
> >> >All your advice to me can apply equally to your conduct, so if you do
> >> >not implicitly practice it, you contradict it.
> >>
> >> I'm not the one complaining about the posters in this newsgroup.
> >
> >You don't seem to understand what you have been doing with me for the
> >past few rounds.
>
> I'm not complaining about you, I'm responding to your complaints with
> logic and reason.
Not really. Every post you make includes snide degrading implications.
Since you are not aware you are doing this, a signal of at least
incipient psychosis, your homework now is to read through your past
posts separate the meat from the garnish.
>
> "He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our
> skill. Our antagonist is our helper." - Edmund Burke
Fine old quote from an antique conservative. Did you say you were
bored with quotations? Or do you think an aphorism will win battles
that you can't win on your own power?
>
> This is true even when it's a lopsided battle. It's kind'a like
> fighting bots in UT2K3.
This comment proves you are not quite telling the truth when you say
you only use logic and reason. Back to school, young fellow.
>
>
> >I
> >> reply to what I want, ignore what I want, and argue about what I want,
> >> just like you and Mani. Sounds good to me. If you don't respond to
> >> me, I don't respond back. You choose to, I choose to. Comprende?
> >
> >Yes, I comprende that you have put yourself in my power.
>
> Please don't throw me in that briar patch, massa!
Nor would I ever descend into the poison ivy patch you call normality.
>
>
> >You are
> >unable to stop yourself. But this is a game. Perhaps you just want the
> >last word. Let's try something different. You stop responding first.
> >Then I will stop because I will have nothing to react to.
> >Comprendiste?
>
> You are starting to understand! You still have to accept your own
> responsibilities here, though. Other people can't solve your problems
> for you. Keep thinking, grasshopper, it should become clear
> eventually.
But sadly you have not begun to understand, although there is a ray of
light. You must also accept your responsibilities. When will I see the
unspoken proof of that acceptance? (get the joke?)
>
>
> >> I can explain this a few more times if you need it.
> >
> >I also can explain it again but it might be better at this point to
> >cut and paste from previous posts.
>
> Please do. Repetition will not make your illogical conclusions any
> more consistent, but my replies will be remarkably similar.
Just as my responses will match those, but neither will be remarkably.
Try to rid yourself of this fetish for phrase-mongering. It may work
at school but, presumably, you want to play with the big boys now,
despite your advancing age.
>
>
> >> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
> >
> >And I can see why.
>
> It's unusual to catch the same fish twice on the one hook, I'll admit.
Nice of you to admit it. But perhaps it is not so unusual to catch
exactly the same fish over and over because he wants to be eaten.
>
>
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Oh, I think you really do.
Dilettante
Neil Maxwell
Well, Dil, you're starting to ramble a bit far afield for me, so
you're getting your wish. This lack of logical focus of yours will
actually pay off. You're not related to EGN, are you? Regardless,
you may have the last word.
A few corrections of your more egregious errors (the minor ones would
require a small novel):
>Your new
>> newsgroup could be
>> rec.arts.fine.moderated.pot.kettle.black.black.black.
>
>And yours could be rec.arts.notsofine.childmolester.fascist
You're the one who has documented your desire to molest children in a
public internet forum. This (along with the rambling) was what made
me think of EGN and his fondness for accusing others of things he was
guilty of himself.
>I enjoy reading your posts,
>> except for the boring quotes from other people's books.
>
>Since you are unable to contribute anything positive here, only
>character assassination revealing the true results of your career and
>life, it is predictable that constructive posts would rile you.
I contributed several constructive messages to a recent thread of
yours, with no snide comments (since you didn't say anything numbingly
stupid in your question). I haven't seen a reply from you, but that
doesn't surprise me; you're very good at ignoring what you don't want
to hear. You may note that I mostly respond to your truly idiotic
posts, but we covered that in a previous thread, didn't we?
Here comes the hook again; try to do better this time.
Mani Deli
>>The (Dilettante) wrote:
> Neil Maxwell wrote:
> You're not related to EGN, are you? Regardless,
>you may have the last word.
He's an angel compared to EGN. He doesn't quote every book he ever
read or sign your name to fake messages. I mean proclaiming a holiday
is really no big deal. He could use a holiday.
>A few corrections of your more egregious errors (the minor ones would
>require a small novel):
>
>>Your new
>>> newsgroup could be
>>> rec.arts.fine.moderated.pot.kettle.black.black.black.
>>
>>And yours could be rec.arts.notsofine.childmolester.fascist
Woops, the guy is starting on the fascism rant! This seems to be a
symptom of advanced Artzyfartzy-itus.
>>Since you are unable to contribute anything positive here, only
>>character assassination revealing the true results of your career and
>>life, it is predictable that constructive posts would rile you.
Well, he is a bit paranoid.
Dilettante
> On 15 Jan 2004 06:09:52 -0800, hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
>
> Well, Dil, you're starting to ramble a bit far afield for me, so
> you're getting your wish.
Which was actually yours too, remember. Too bad your small arsenal of
control tricks do not work on me as they work on your captive
students.
This lack of logical focus of yours will
> actually pay off.
This is a convenient accusation you throw at anyone who disagrees with
you. Actually my logic is quite focussed, at least as much as yours.
You are probably using this little trick with your students, but they
do not know enough to deny you.
You're not related to EGN, are you? Regardless,
> you may have the last word.
>
> A few corrections of your more egregious errors (the minor ones would
> require a small novel):
A small novel is about the size of your contribution to the world.
I thought I was getting the last word. Does this mean we will have to
go on with this another round?
>
> You're the one who has documented your desire to molest children in a
> public internet forum.
Not at all. There is neither the intent nor the documentation to harm
any child. Since you have not examined the definition of molest, you
are spared from remorse for lying about another human being. But since
you use the same techniques of degradation on children and young
adults in the school you teach in, we can infer with great certainty
that you are a true child abuser and molester. People like you like to
disguise their true actions upon children by pretending to protect
them from some sort of sexual conduct which has never been proven--by
design--to be harmful.
Isn't it telling about you, that just as you are conceding defeat for
this dirty little debate, you try to win at the last minute by
dragging out the mud? I have to crane my neck down more every time you
post. You have no shame.
This (along with the rambling) was what made
> me think of EGN and his fondness for accusing others of things he was
> guilty of himself.
Just as you refused time after time in taking the advice you were
giving to me. "the choice is yours" you hipocrit.
>
> I contributed several constructive messages to a recent thread of
> yours, with no snide comments (since you didn't say anything numbingly
> stupid in your question). I haven't seen a reply from you, but that
> doesn't surprise me; you're very good at ignoring what you don't want
> to hear. You may note that I mostly respond to your truly idiotic
> posts, but we covered that in a previous thread, didn't we?
I am aware and appreciative of your post on the wax v. fixative
problem, but you cannot say that maintaining also this thread and
really your lack of morals constrains me, as it would anyone, from
engaging in any civilities with you. And even here you have muddied
your own point by reminding me of what you call my stupidity. If I am
stupid, then you are lobotomised.
Furthermore your lack of contructive posts to this thread and
consistently reactive posture suggests you cannot be of much benefit
to any community you belong to.
>
> Here comes the hook again; try to do better this time.
Here comes the block: I always do and always have with those who are
worth the trouble. You on the other hand, tried your stale nasty
tricks with me in post after post, never trying to improve, until this
last one in which you dragged out the child molester issue, as if
having a consentual, harmless and sometimes beneficial relationship
with another human being were bad simply because the government lies
about it. It is not surprising that a person who swallows false
government morality would also be so devoid of scruples.
But that is another issue. the fact that you tried to use this red
herring shows how degraded as a person you really are.
You are disgusting neil.
>
>
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Unfortunately, you have not the imagination to do anything but speak
for your employer, that is how you got hired.
Dilettante
Mani Deli
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<lbmd00977pvh6pl9i...@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Jan 2004 06:09:52 -0800, hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
>>
> But since
>you use the same techniques of degradation on children and young
>adults in the school you teach in, we can infer with great certainty
>that you are a true child abuser and molester.
That's a new one for this conference. Gee and I thought the Nazi
analogy was far out. Lets hope the Dilettante informs the police right
away.
>
>Isn't it telling about you, that just as you are conceding defeat for
>this dirty little debate, you try to win at the last minute by
>dragging out the mud? I have to crane my neck down more every time you
>post. You have no shame.
Perhaps you can proclaim Thursdays "don't read Neill Maxwell day."
>>
>> I contributed several constructive messages to a recent thread of
>> yours, with no snide comments (since you didn't say anything numbingly
>> stupid in your question). I haven't seen a reply from you, but that
>> doesn't surprise me; you're very good at ignoring what you don't want
>> to hear. You may note that I mostly respond to your truly idiotic
>> posts, but we covered that in a previous thread, didn't we?
>
> If I am stupid, then you are lobotomised.
You are stupid.
> devoid of scruples.-- degraded as a person you really are.---You are disgusting neil.
>> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
>
>Unfortunately, you have not the imagination to do anything but speak
>for your employer, that is how you got hired.
Speaking of imagination, how's your elephant progressing? Are you
going to show the finished product after all the help you got from
those here?
Neil Maxwell
Dude. You make this difficult. Sorry to go back on my word, but I
need to correct this.
>You are probably using this little trick with your students, but they
>do not know enough to deny you.
You're confusing me with someone else. I'm not a teacher per se,
though I do train people (peers, not students) in technology and
firearms.
>until this
>last one in which you dragged out the child molester issue
You're the one that mentioned child molester first in this thread.
Dilettante
> On 16 Jan 2004 07:17:46 -0800, hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
>
> Dude. You make this difficult.
No, dude. You made it difficult from the start.
Sorry to go back on my word, but I
> need to correct this.
No, you're not sorry. Your subjects have devolved from mani, to mine,
and each time you reach deeper into the toilet to try to destroy my
character.
>
> >You are probably using this little trick with your students, but they
> >do not know enough to deny you.
>
> You're confusing me with someone else. I'm not a teacher per se,
> though I do train people (peers, not students) in technology and
> firearms.
Thank god your tricks are not being visitted on children. The label
for you is fascist and manipulator, whatever you do. But they don't
work, so you keep coming back to try and humiliate and degrade your
opponent.
>
> >until this
> >last one in which you dragged out the child molester issue
>
> You're the one that mentioned child molester first in this thread.
So now you are implying that I am responsible for your mention of it.
Another irresponsible and illogical statement. And let's not the
forget why you mentioned it. I refer to it to shed some light of truth
on the issue. But your motive was quite different.
>
>
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Yes, you really do but you don't know it.
Dilettante
Neil Maxwell
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<6d8g00d9b7eafvg56...@4ax.com>...
>> You're the one that mentioned child molester first in this thread.
>
>So now you are implying that I am responsible for your mention of it.
>Another irresponsible and illogical statement. And let's not the
>forget why you mentioned it. I refer to it to shed some light of truth
>on the issue. But your motive was quite different.
No implication required, only facts. You posted the following reply
to one of my messages. If you can find an early mention of the
subject by me, please post it. I responded (perhaps foolishly, given
the source) to your innuendo. Ergo, you are responsible for bringing
up the topic.
>From: hu...@myself.com (Dilettante)
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>Subject: Re: mani go away
>Date: 15 Jan 2004 06:09:52 -0800
><snip>
>And yours could be rec.arts.notsofine.childmolester.fascist
Dilettante
>
> No implication required, only facts. You posted the following reply
> to one of my messages. If you can find an early mention of the
> subject by me, please post it. I responded (perhaps foolishly, given
> the source) to your innuendo. Ergo, you are responsible for bringing
> up the topic.
Not really. You might try a little honesty here. You used the word,
documented. Go find that post in this thread then explain how my
posting caused that. Better yet, give up on this endless blame casting
accusatory discussion you are having, assuming of course the unlikely
possibility that you have a life.
D.
Neil Maxwell
>Not really. You might try a little honesty here. You used the word,
>documented. Go find that post in this thread then explain how my
>posting caused that. Better yet, give up on this endless blame casting
>accusatory discussion you are having, assuming of course the unlikely
>possibility that you have a life.
I did that. You snipped it. Here it is again. Show me an earlier
use. Google is your friend.
Dilettante
Let me know when you learn what the word documented means.
D.
Chris
Actually, Dilettante has made no secret of his rather perverted interests
(at least until this last month. where he seems to be projecting his
interests onto everyone he disagrees with -seen this before, haven't we? ).
Anyway go back to the Sex Offender #19 thread and his rants against Nik.
Those took place in September. Searching for "NAMBLA" in the text should
help you find some of Dil's more telling statements.
Chris
Paul Mesken
>Actually, Dilettante has made no secret of his rather perverted interests
>(at least until this last month. where he seems to be projecting his
>interests onto everyone he disagrees with -seen this before, haven't we? ).
>Anyway go back to the Sex Offender #19 thread and his rants against Nik.
>Those took place in September. Searching for "NAMBLA" in the text should
>help you find some of Dil's more telling statements.
Wow! It's okay to have sex with children before they've reached
puberty as long as they don't mind? That's quite a liberal view :-)
Rhoda Rhunner
says...
>Wow! It's okay to have sex with children before they've reached
>puberty as long as they don't mind? That's quite a liberal view :-)
Quoting Michael Jackson, one presumes?
Paul Mesken
Rhunner) wrote:
Hey, perhaps Dilettante IS Michael Jackson :-)
Dilettante
if you share chris's obsession with the subject of child sex (he even
archives threads from last year on the subject) you can discuss it
without me.
D.
Chris
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.04012...@posting.google.com...
Out of curiosity, is there anyone that regularly posts here that you haven't
accused of being a molester? As well as every teacher? Do you think that
pretending that what you espouse is something everyone does - or equating it
with the something as common as the school system - in some manner makes it
acceptable? Only to a nutter.
Remember, you are the only one advocating such an act - again, people who
want to see for themselves can simply go on Google, and look for the thread
"Sex Offender #19" and follow it up themselves. Dilettante's postings
provide a wonderful insight into the psychopathic mind - from its bizarre
rationalization of perverted acts to denial of the damage it causes.
Chris
Paul Mesken
Owww, I was hoping for your input :-)