various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
barrett john erickson
it occurred to me that the lack of response may be due to the fact that i
didn't cross-post to this group, and since g.v.w. obviously has no interest
in "surrealism", i should make an extra effort to do him the courtesy of
seeing my comments...
posted 4/7/99 1:15pm
g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:006901be80f9$24b05320$81740280@gvw...
> Most ironic. Brian and Dale, the doctrinaire dullards who call themselves
> ''Surrealists,'' affect a tone like that of the directions that came with
my
> VCR.
the analogy, i assume, is that you didn't understand that either.
i realize that these posts are probably just part of your PhD research, or
maybe some twisted job-search in the growing field of "argumentation
theory". it should be obvious that a guy so proud (as his web site
indicates) of the awards and documentation of acceptance bestowed upon him
by the gatekeepers of the existing order, a guy who appears (as evidenced by
his posts) to think "rhetoric" -- or, more accurately in your case, juvenile
insult -- has some value in itself, is a guy who has no significant
affinity with "surrealism".
half a dozen others have bellowed the same empty rant in the last couple
months and yours is nothing but cold porridge.
nevertheless, we are a patient lot, always willing to reexamine our
thinking. so please feel free to specifically challenge any comment that
you've read which leads you to believe a "doctrinaire" version of
"surrealism" is being advocated by anyone here. i'm sure several of us will
attempt to enlighten you as to the error of your interpretation.
of course, our patience and the potential for such enlightenment depends
upon you understanding that a dialog is something other than a contest.
from my perspective, it is you who refuses to examine your doctrinaire
misinterpretations.
posted 4/7/99 9:37pm
g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:004a01be8159$825a9700$a8740280@gvw...
> Do ersatz Surrealists oppose women in the workforce? Use the terms
''repair
> person'' or ''service person,'' you insensitive prick.
i guess g.v.w. is just here to show off his rhetorical skills. shit, i wish
i could argue so persuasively.
posted 4/7/99 10:13pm
sorry to keep on about this, but i seem to have become mesmerized by modern
education...
g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:004501be8159$089afcc0$a8740280@gvw...
Dale wrote...
> > Well, it's stupid isn't it? I cannot understand this pre-adolescent
> >(and vaguely 1950s) notion that accusing someone of masturbation is in
any
to which gvw replied...
> Masturbation dates back only to the 1950s? Doubtless it was an Eisenhower
> era innovation implemented to close the orgasm gap with the Warsaw Pact.
is this an example of the quality of education one receives with an M.A.
from Carnegie Mellon?
can you only follow simple declarative sentences -- or are you trained to
attempt diversion whenever possible?
> i can say this of you, Dale, or Brandon, depending on whether i choose to
> address the sock-puppeteer or his sock: you are innocent of any charge of
> Surrealism, or of producing anything remotely Surreal, or of even knowing
> what the term means.
and you, g.v.w., have yet to offer anything that might convince us that you
have anything to say that is worth listening to. your opinions about what
is or isn't "remotely Surreal" are about as credible as (but less
interesting than) my opinions about the intimate bathing habits of Vatican
staff during papal visits to the holy investment banker.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
perceived as contradictions."
...André Breton
g.v.w. iv
From: barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.prose
Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 10:34 PM
Subject: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>
>it occurred to me that the lack of response may be due to the fact that i
>didn't cross-post to this group, and since g.v.w. obviously has no interest
>in "surrealism", i should make an extra effort to do him the courtesy of
>seeing my comments...
Thank you for your courtesies, however dubious.
But you are wrong. i am interested.
>
>
>
>posted 4/7/99 1:15pm
>
>g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
>news:006901be80f9$24b05320$81740280@gvw...
>
>> Most ironic. Brian and Dale, the doctrinaire dullards who call themselves
>> ''Surrealists,'' affect a tone like that of the directions that came with
>my
>> VCR.
>
>the analogy, i assume, is that you didn't understand that either.
You assume incorrectly. But why even assume? Note that i used the word
''tone.'' But your writing problems surpass your reading problems. See
below.
>
>
>i realize that these posts are probably just part of your PhD research, or
>maybe some twisted job-search in the growing field of "argumentation
>theory". it should be obvious that a guy so proud (as his web site
Oh, precisely. Research. That's it.
>indicates) of the awards and documentation of acceptance bestowed upon him
>by the gatekeepers of the existing order, a guy who appears (as evidenced
by
i adore those gatekeepers. Truly i do. i hate to open my own gates.
>his posts) to think "rhetoric" -- or, more accurately in your case,
juvenile
You have point-of-view issues, bright boy. You refer to me alternately in
the third person (e.g. ''a guy'' and ''his posts,'' ''his website'' &c.) and
in the second person (''or, more accurately in your case''). In the future,
decide who you wish to address and address them. If you want to address me
directly, do so. If you want to talk over my head to a broader audience, do
so. But when you do both you sound incoherent, i.e. you sound like an idiot.
Is illiteracy a Surrealist affectation? i know i asked this before when i
noticed that the Brandon/Dale brain trust had issues with the English
language. But no one answered.
i see a pattern emerging.
Can any of you write? i'm only curious.
>insult -- has some value in itself, is a guy who has no significant
>affinity with "surrealism".
That hurt. Of course i have an affinity with Surrealism. We all do. Your
Breton quote proves as much.
>
>half a dozen others have bellowed the same empty rant in the last couple
>months and yours is nothing but cold porridge.
Did you respond as incoherently? Or as bitterly? Can any of you actually
build a case? Or do you merely shriek and run like the Brandon/Dale entity?
>
>nevertheless, we are a patient lot, always willing to reexamine our
>thinking. so please feel free to specifically challenge any comment that
>you've read which leads you to believe a "doctrinaire" version of
>"surrealism" is being advocated by anyone here. i'm sure several of us
will
>attempt to enlighten you as to the error of your interpretation.
i dismantled your Breton quote. We could start there. Go on, ''enlighten me
as to the error of my interpretation,'' dimwit.
>
>of course, our patience and the potential for such enlightenment depends
>upon you understanding that a dialog is something other than a contest.
It also depends on your ability to articulate a coherent position. i want to
see if you can.
>
>
>from my perspective, it is you who refuses to examine your doctrinaire
>misinterpretations.
IKYABWMI? How lame. But i forgive you. Let us begin our dialog.
Explain Surrealism.
>
>
>
>posted 4/7/99 9:37pm
>
>
>g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
>news:004a01be8159$825a9700$a8740280@gvw...
>
>> Do ersatz Surrealists oppose women in the workforce? Use the terms
>''repair
>> person'' or ''service person,'' you insensitive prick.
>
>i guess g.v.w. is just here to show off his rhetorical skills. shit, i
wish
>i could argue so persuasively.
>
>
>
>posted 4/7/99 10:13pm
>
>
>sorry to keep on about this, but i seem to have become mesmerized by modern
>education...
>
>g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
>news:004501be8159$089afcc0$a8740280@gvw...
>
>Dale wrote...
>> > Well, it's stupid isn't it? I cannot understand this pre-adolescent
>> >(and vaguely 1950s) notion that accusing someone of masturbation is in
>any
>
>
>to which gvw replied...
>> Masturbation dates back only to the 1950s? Doubtless it was an Eisenhower
>> era innovation implemented to close the orgasm gap with the Warsaw Pact.
>
>is this an example of the quality of education one receives with an M.A.
>from Carnegie Mellon?
At least i can manage something so simple as the point-of-view in a
paragraph.
>
>can you only follow simple declarative sentences -- or are you trained to
>attempt diversion whenever possible?
It's called a joke, bright boy. Can you even write a simple declarative
sentence?
Please learn to use dashes correctly.
>
>
>> i can say this of you, Dale, or Brandon, depending on whether i choose to
>> address the sock-puppeteer or his sock: you are innocent of any charge of
>> Surrealism, or of producing anything remotely Surreal, or of even knowing
>> what the term means.
>
>and you, g.v.w., have yet to offer anything that might convince us that you
>have anything to say that is worth listening to. your opinions about what
>is or isn't "remotely Surreal" are about as credible as (but less
>interesting than) my opinions about the intimate bathing habits of Vatican
>staff during papal visits to the holy investment banker.
Prove me wrong then. Prove me wrong on any grounds you wish. Merely claiming
that my opinions lack credability hardly qualifies as a refutation. For the
record, i believe your opinions are completely worthless, so we're even; but
i will withhold judgment until you make your case.
What, to you, is Surrealism?
Robert Maughan
Robert Maughan
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> writes
[...]
>of course, our patience and the potential for such enlightenment depends
>upon you understanding that a dialog is something other than a contest.
Listen cunt, nobody cares about your patience, our only interest is in
your prose, and so far your own is dull; also it has distinct potential
for prolixity, which we hate. You can be sure this is NOT the place for
enlightenment, god knows we like it in the gutter where we belong. Now,
I suggest you fuck off and sharpen up your dialogue, there are members
here paid good money to see a contest and they don't want some wanker
settling down in the corner making noise - and don't cut the headers,
you repellent lilylivered skanky pillock.
RJM.
Dale Houstman
(Some dumbass shit)
What is the word for a parasite that lives on a troll and cleans
its poo-hole with its face? Maughanphage? Maughanmange?
DMH
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
Troll? Which troll is that, pray?
Cleans it's poo-hole with it's face? Where do you get these ideas? No
need to answer that ... listen cutes, I can clean my poo-hole with my
tongue, from here. Know what I'm saying? Close your eyes.
RJM.
barrett john erickson
> >nevertheless, we are a patient lot, always willing to reexamine our
> >thinking. so please feel free to specifically challenge any comment that
> >you've read which leads you to believe a "doctrinaire" version of
> >"surrealism" is being advocated by anyone here. i'm sure several of us
> will
> >attempt to enlighten you as to the error of your interpretation.
>
>
> i dismantled your Breton quote. We could start there. Go on, ''enlighten
me
> as to the error of my interpretation,'' dimwit.
such discussion can only follow your agreement to drop this combative
posture.
are we to explore ideas, or simply joust? i have no interest in such
superficial sport, and i suspect that is all that interests you.
if we are to explore ideas, we need to begin where i have suggested.
you made an assertion that some here have expressed "doctrinaire" attitudes
toward "surrealism". this assertion indicates to me that you have
misunderstood something fundamental in our perspective. your defense of
that assertion will allow us to explore and perhaps resolve my suspicion,
which will then allow us to proceed to the Breton quote. in the absence of
this resolution, further discussion is futile.
> >of course, our patience and the potential for such enlightenment depends
> >upon you understanding that a dialog is something other than a contest.
>
>
> It also depends on your ability to articulate a coherent position. i want
to
> see if you can.
i also have no interest in playing this game.
for us to have a discussion, you'll have to agree to drop the arrogant pose
and the juvenile name calling.
because i think you are incapable of separating from your games, i suspect
i'll be addressing all future comments on your spillage to the participants
of alt.surrealism.
g.v.w. iv
Oh, i'm going to boink him, Robert. Er, so to speak. But i'm going to boink
him in public.
And i'm going to boink him slow, real slow.
>
> RJM.
>
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
Revolutions are always verbose.
Leon Trotsky
barrett john erickson
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rPpnLZAu...@etymon.demon.co.uk...
> >upon you understanding that a dialog is something other than a contest.
>
i hope you and gvw are not representative examples of the caliber of people
participating in rec.arts.prose. surely everyone there doesn't resort to
such dreary banalities?
> [...]
> our only interest is in your prose,
which is why nothing you say is of any interest to me.
i realize rec.arts.prose is about prose. alt.surrealism is about
"surrealism". over here, we're more interested in creative exploration and
communication.
[...]
> Now, I suggest you fuck off and sharpen up your dialogue
i don't write dialogue. and i certainly don't find you interesting enough
to pursue one with you.
however, i do suspect (against all evidence) that there is intelligent life
in rec.arts.prose.
so i _will_ remove rec.arts.prose from all future comments on anything you
sling into alt.surrealism.
APhi77ips
<bar...@magneticfields.org> writes:
>
>> Listen cunt,
>
>i hope you and gvw are not representative examples of the caliber of people
>participating in rec.arts.prose. surely everyone there doesn't resort to
>such dreary banalities?
Shurely, cunt.
"Cunt" is not banal; it is sublime. It is the banner of our
dispostition, out of curly hair woven. (It's also ancient; Chaucer spelt
it "coiente.")
>
>> [...]
>
>> our only interest is in your prose,
>
>which is why nothing you say is of any interest to me.
>
>i realize rec.arts.prose is about prose. alt.surrealism is about
>"surrealism". over here, we're more interested in creative exploration and
>communication.
Looks like you're more interested in po-faced whinging to me.
>
>
>[...]
>
>> Now, I suggest you fuck off and sharpen up your dialogue
>
>i don't write dialogue. and i certainly don't find you interesting enough
>to pursue one with you.
>
>however, i do suspect (against all evidence) that there is intelligent life
>in rec.arts.prose.
Now I know you're an idiot. You haven't two thoughts to rub together, so
you pepper your writing with persuasive-sounding words, like "however,"
"suspect," "evidence" to give it an authoritative ring. But the trouble is,
you still write sentences like, "and i certainly don't find you interesting
enough to pursue one with you." (naah, naah!) What you mean is you
don't have wit enough to "pursue" a dialogue with a cat, let alone la
Roberta.
>
>so i _will_ remove rec.arts.prose from all future comments on anything you
>sling into alt.surrealism.
>
Pussy.
>
>
Andy
"Should I put on the breaks to get out of her clutches?"
--Elivs "He's the king!" Costello
Robert Maughan
>participating in rec.arts.prose. surely everyone there doesn't resort to
>such dreary banalities?
>
to engage in earnest and meaningful disussion with like-minded dullards
and adopt postures appropriate to your milieu. You want to congratulate
yourselves on a daily basis, sucking your own dicks or licking your own
wounds (fooled you!), as appropriate.
>> [...]
>
>> our only interest is in your prose,
>
>which is why nothing you say is of any interest to me.
>
Apparent you have no interest in prose, but how cruel of you to dismiss
my contributions so. Would you like a paragraph on surrealism? Perhaps a
short piece on Surrealism? It's just up my street, I read mod. eur. hist
and I still have my notes. Waddya say? But why are you here? Why did you
introduce yourself with such fanfare? You have issues: don't you? You're
here to unburden yourself. Well, pull up a soapbox, let's hear you. Only
don't fucking complain, it really is annoying.
>i realize rec.arts.prose is about prose. alt.surrealism is about
>"surrealism". over here, we're more interested in creative exploration and
>communication.
>
Listen, you precious little turd, rec.arts.prose is about recreational
head banging and if anyone tried creative exploration here we'd be sure
to communicate the fucker into next week. The very idea.
>
>[...]
>
>> Now, I suggest you fuck off and sharpen up your dialogue
>
>i don't write dialogue. and i certainly don't find you interesting enough
>to pursue one with you.
>
You're doing it now, dipshit. You mean you don't write it very well. We
don't mind, so long as you don't fucking preach. Geddit? I find you very
interesting, my fellow human being - very interesting indeed! I like the
natural victim, myself, such fun to provoke. I shall expect you to bring
more life to this exchange or I'll start calling you horrid names again.
Understood? Why should Gilbert have all the fun?
>however, i do suspect (against all evidence) that there is intelligent life
>in rec.arts.prose.
>
>so i _will_ remove rec.arts.prose from all future comments on anything you
>sling into alt.surrealism.
>
What kind of logic is that? Invitation by default. The workings of your
subconscious exposed. After all, you are simply ordinary. What a bore. I
wondered why a contributer to alt.surrealism would use as his sig. file
a quote from Breton, well known surrealist and manifesto writer. Now I
know - you have no original ideas.
To be an alt.surrealist ... means barring from your mind remembrance of
what you have read somewhere, and being always on the lookout for oppor-
tunity to quote it. I paraphrase.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Alan Hope
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in article
<7eiggh$fs5$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
> Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rPpnLZAu...@etymon.demon.co.uk...
> > barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> writes
> > >of course, our patience and the potential for such enlightenment
depends
> > >upon you understanding that a dialog is something other than a
contest.
> > Listen cunt,
> i hope you and gvw are not representative examples of the caliber
of people
> participating in rec.arts.prose.
If only they were.
> surely everyone there doesn't resort to
> such dreary banalities?
Only when we can think of them.
> > our only interest is in your prose,
> which is why nothing you say is of any interest to me.
Who asked?
> i realize rec.arts.prose is about prose. alt.surrealism is about
> "surrealism". over here, we're more interested in creative
exploration and
> communication.
> > Now, I suggest you fuck off and sharpen up your dialogue
> i don't write dialogue.
Visibly.
> and i certainly don't find you interesting enough
> to pursue one with you.
But you're doing it.
> however, i do suspect (against all evidence) that there is
intelligent life
> in rec.arts.prose.
Forget that, pal. Ask for a show of hands, see what you get.
> so i _will_ remove rec.arts.prose from all future comments on
anything you
> sling into alt.surrealism.
That won't save ya.
AH
g.v.w. iv
Date: Thursday, April 08, 1999 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>
>g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
>news:002a01be8176$13bb0420$87740280@gvw...
>
>> >nevertheless, we are a patient lot, always willing to reexamine our
>> >thinking. so please feel free to specifically challenge any comment
that
>> >you've read which leads you to believe a "doctrinaire" version of
>> >"surrealism" is being advocated by anyone here. i'm sure several of us
>> will
>> >attempt to enlighten you as to the error of your interpretation.
>>
>>
>> i dismantled your Breton quote. We could start there. Go on, ''enlighten
>me
>> as to the error of my interpretation,'' dimwit.
>
>such discussion can only follow your agreement to drop this combative
>posture.
i have a demand of my own, you gibbering idiot. ''Such discussion can only
follow your agreement'' to write a proper sentence, you subliterate rube.
Avoid abstract subjects that disguise agency.
Suggested revision: i will discuss this with you if you agree to stop
harassing me.
Answer: No, rube. You're in no position to make demands. You convinced me
early on that you're just another know-nothing Dale Houstman poseur. You
know nothing of Surrealism.
Until you convince me otherwise i will concede nothing.
>
>are we to explore ideas, or simply joust? i have no interest in such
Either way. You choose.
>superficial sport, and i suspect that is all that interests you.
Not all, no. But these absurd preliminaries bore me. When will you begin
descanting on Surrealism?
>
>if we are to explore ideas, we need to begin where i have suggested.
Why? Why not simply define or explain Surrealism? Why must i agree to your
absurd rules? What are you afraid of?
>
>you made an assertion that some here have expressed "doctrinaire" attitudes
>toward "surrealism". this assertion indicates to me that you have
>misunderstood something fundamental in our perspective. your defense of
No. This means that you and your friends failed to articulate your position
in any clear or coherent way. Yet despite your refusal to articulate a
position, you and your friends prance and pirhouette and proudly wiggle your
absurdly small genitalia as if you enjoy access to privileged knowledge the
rest of the world lacks (e.g. Dale); hence, my use of the term
''doctrinaire,'' an ironic usage, surely, because no alt.surrealist could
articulate a doctrine, though everyone seemed hell-bent on defending it.
(The Dale/Brandon position: i know what Surrealism is. But you don't. No, i
can't tell you what it is. Why? Oh, i don't know. i just can't.)
Do not blame your audience if you lack the skills to communicate
effectively.
>that assertion will allow us to explore and perhaps resolve my suspicion,
Style note: use transitive verbs, bright boy. Suggested revision: You made
an assertion. Now defend it. When you do then we can explore and perhaps
resolve my utterly misguided and ill-informed suspicion. Otherwise, gilbert,
no deals.
>which will then allow us to proceed to the Breton quote. in the absence of
>this resolution, further discussion is futile.
Dear God what an ugly sentence. Why must you hide yourself behind these
awkward and agentless passive constructions?
No. If you disagree with my assertion, present contrary evidence and i'll
show you where you're wrong.
As for me, i want to begin with the Breton quote.
>
>
>> >of course, our patience and the potential for such enlightenment depends
>> >upon you understanding that a dialog is something other than a contest.
>>
>>
>> It also depends on your ability to articulate a coherent position. i want
>to
>> see if you can.
>
>i also have no interest in playing this game.
Did i ask you what interested you? i don't remember asking you what
interested you. So let assure you now, i am not at all interested in what
interests you.
i want to know about Surrealism. Apparently you want to play absurd little
games.
>
>for us to have a discussion, you'll have to agree to drop the arrogant pose
>and the juvenile name calling.
i will promise nothing up front. When you prove to me you're worth my time,
perhaps i'll make concessions. But not until then.
Give me something to work with.
>
>because i think you are incapable of separating from your games, i suspect
>i'll be addressing all future comments on your spillage to the participants
>of alt.surrealism.
Translation: gilbert made me lose bladder control. He scares me. Unless he
agrees to lick my boots, i will run and hide and only address him where i'm
sure he'll never see me.
Clue: i will gladly follow you to alt.surrealism, commenting copiously on
your own ''spillage'' until i grow bored with all of you. So i suggest you
withhold your meaningless threats and simply begin the grim work of exposing
what i suspect to be your appalling ignorance.
In sum, define for all of us the notion of Surrealism.
Do it now or step aside.
>
>
>
>-- barrett
>
> bar...@MagneticFields.org
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/
>
>"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
>the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
>future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
>perceived as contradictions."
>
> ...André Breton
>
>
>
>
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
g.v.w. iv
From: moira d <moi...@iname.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.prose,alt.surrealism
Date: Thursday, April 08, 1999 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:04:50 -0500, barrett john erickson was all...
>>Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote in [his signature style]
>>> Listen cunt,
>>
>>i hope you and gvw are not representative examples of the caliber of
people
>>participating in rec.arts.prose. surely everyone there doesn't resort to
>>such dreary banalities?
>
>
>Oh, sweetcakes (I *may* call you sweetcakes, yes?), Robert and
>gvw *are* rec.arts.prose. In its entirety! Any other posts you
>may see here are purely illusory!
>
>
>Enjoy them, darling (MAY I call you darling?). They're the best
>you're likely to get 'round these parts. They'll lovingly fuck
>your mind -- tenderly -- and crow "victory" no matter what you
>say or do. In other words, they're quite typical.
i don't recall ever crowing ''victory,'' snugglebunny (may i call you
snugglebunny?).
Usually we get our butts kicked.
>
>
>hugs!
>
>--
>moira
>(1 Tim 4:1-5)
>
>I intend to live forever - so far, so good -- Steven Wright
Dale Houstman
Parasitic ass polyp.
With an attitude big as all outhouse.
And a heart where his brain once slept.
DMH
Throckey
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:12:26 +0100, Robert Maughan was all...>Try it again, only add a "cr" sound to the start.
>
Damn straight we're crowing victory!
See BeePee around here? He don't like us anymore.
CAW!
CAW!
CAW!
-B
Of course it's probably only temporary.
Throckey
Robert Maughan wrote in message ...
>>participating in rec.arts.prose. surely everyone there doesn't resort to
>>such dreary banalities?
>>
>to engage in earnest and meaningful disussion with like-minded dullards
>and adopt postures appropriate to your milieu. You want to congratulate
>yourselves on a daily basis, sucking your own dicks or licking your own
>wounds (fooled you!), as appropriate.
>
Tut. Tut.
Subtlety, Rob, subtlety. Poopypants probably doesn't even realize that
prose, like proper anal hygiene, does not arise out of pure thought and
intention. Only frequent wiping can eliminate the leakage of undigested
thought and small bits of fecal affectation that cling to the crevices of
our erudition.
Let's goad poopypants into discovering the source of that pig farm aroma.
I love to see them stumble about in their own buttstink, pants around
their ankles, straining their necks to see if it's all clean.
-B
Throckey
>
>Oh, i'm going to boink him, Robert. Er, so to speak. But i'm going to boink
>him in public.
>
>And i'm going to boink him slow, real slow.
>
Boink?
Gil, What we have here is a failure to elucidate.
Keep this up, boy, and you're gonna spend a night in the box.
And while I'm feeling so cool handed, let me just point out
that my man Dale is a natural boy world-shaker-up. He's
playing you for a sucker, Gilbert Van Wiggly Boy. Don't
come crying for the yard boss when your rhetoric turns out
to be in the surrealist's hole.
-B
Brandon J. Freels
>The Dale/Brandon position
I believe you meant the "Dale/Brian" position.
Brandon J. Freels
>Why do you hope that, poopypants?
> You're doing it now, dipshit.
Obsessive, aren't you.
> What kind of logic is that?
You think we give a shit (I'm talking in your terms) about logic?
Brandon J. Freels
http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~romosan/surrealism.html
Brandon J. Freels
With regard to a false interpretation to our enterprise, stupidly circulated
among the public; We declare as follows to the entire braying literary,
dramatic, philosophical, exegetical and even theological body of
contemporary criticism:
1. We have nothing to do with literature; But we are quite capable, when
necessary, of making use of it like anyone else.
2. Surrealism is not a new means of expression, or an easier one, nor even a
metaphysic of poetry. It is a means of total liberation of the mind and all
that resembles it.
3. We are determined to make a Revolution.
4. We have joined the word surrealism to the word revolution solely to show
the disinterested, detached, and even entirely desperate character of this
revolution.
5. We make no claim to change the mores of mankind, but we intend to show
the fragility of thought, and on what shifting foundations, what caverns we
have built our trembling houses.
6. We hurl this formal warning to Society; Beware of your deviations and
faux-pas, we shall not miss a single one.
7. At each turn of its thought, Society will find us waiting.
8. We are specialists in Revolt. There is no means of action which we are
not capable, when necessary, of employing.
9. We say in particular to the Western world: surrealism exists. And what is
this new ism that is fastened to us? Surrealism is not a poetic form. It is
a cry of the mind turning back on itself, and it is determined to break
apart its fetters, even if it must be by material hammers!
Bureaus de Recherches Surréalistes, 15 Rue de Grenelle
Signed: Louis Aragon, Antonin Artaud, Jacques Baron, Joë Bousquet, J.-A.
Boiffard, André Breton, Jean Carrive, René Crevel, Robert Desnos, Paul
Elaurd, Max Ernst, T. Frankel, Francis Gerard, Michel Leiris, Georges
Limbour, Mathias Lubeck, Georges Malkine, Andre Masson, Max Morise, Pierre
Naville, Marcel Noll, Bejamin Peret, Raymond Queneau, Philippe Soupault,
Dede Sunbeam, and Roland Tual.
(taken from Nadeau's History of Surrealism)
Robert Maughan
moira d <moi...@iname.com> writes
>> Oh?
>
>
>Try it again, only add a "cr" sound to the start.
>
>
No. I'm interested to know how you conclude that I (fuck Gilbert) make
proclamations of victory in exchanges. Not that interested, but enough
to suggest that you're allowing your preconceptions to interfere with
reality.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> writes
>Robert Maughan wrote, exposing the workings of his unconscious:
Now, that's funny.
>>Why do you hope that, poopypants?
>> Listen, you precious little turd
>> You're doing it now, dipshit.
>
>Obsessive, aren't you.
>
I wallow in scatological reference, yes. I also relish opportunities to
refer to sexual parts of both sexes but particularly the male organ when
engorged and deployed as a weapon of discourse. What is it you're trying
so hard to say? Perhaps you're desperately trying to imply that there is
a lack of vocabulary at work here, that I am incapable of expressing the
contempt I feel for semiliterates like you and must resort to insult. It
does seem as though you'd have a point. Doesn't it? Now, spread'em - and
no screaming, it just gets me roused ... Brian.
>> What kind of logic is that?
>
>You think we give a shit (I'm talking in your terms) about logic?
>
You couldn't talk in my terms if you had prose injections and underwent
a daily regime of composition exercises. Just wouldn't work, pal. You're
too fucking entrenched to benefit from the stimulation.
I've been reading alt.surrealism for two days and all you DO is justify
you're hobby with Wittgensteinian persistence - "Logic is prior to every
experience-that something is so." Not you, personally, I admit. But what
can be more anti-surreal than a newsgroup devoted to surrealism? There's
a kind of longing to be surreal that made me want to pet you all. You're
a sweet bunch of poseurs, but mostly (n.b.) very, very sad.
Shall I copy here Mr. Erickson's latest logical monograph? No, no, fuck
no, I'm not so cruel. Look here, at his opening remarks -
>the fundamental point you're missing is that "surrealism" isn't about
>"creat[ing] something 'surreal'", it is about achieving "(sur)reality" -
>- a quest for a reality (of daily living) which is continuously enhanced
>by a liberated and integrated imagination.
A QUEST already. No, instead we'll study Ms Dale's logical conclusions.
I think she feels slighted but doesn't quite have the balls (!) to put
herself in the frame outside of her cosy nest. Not that I'm suggesting
this is a bad thing, no. It's poopy. I love 'rutting polyps', I have to
say, utterly CHARGED with menace. I can see why she would want to keep
her risible logicalities where they belong.
>It is only now that I understand the miserable state of prose
>in the modern world, if these rutting polyps are some sort
>of signifying monkeys.
>Rhetoric with no point, and a head with many. Their rather
>fierce pride in emptiness and antagonism reveals them to be
>the type that (in a pre-Usenet world) would be forced to
>rob school chums of quarters to buy Mcdonalds game pieces
>in the vain hope that they might someday be able to afford
>the luxury of having their heads frozen, to be revived when
>all the "smart boys" have gone, and they can pretend they
>are scholars and wisemen. In the meantime, they prowl
>the halls of their subgrade junior high, using others people's
>cleverness as mulch for their aborted grout grubs, who shall
>(undoubtedly) grow up with Daddy's brain and space
>left over for storing dung statuary and piss crystals.
Gosh! That told us. GILBERT! We've had our asses kicked again - we gotta
find a more amenable newsgroup that'll let us ride roughshod over them. I
can't take any more punishment, nearly
RJM.
bob jones
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
>
barrett - now there's a name that should know.
> Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rPpnLZAu...@etymon.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> writes
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >of course, our patience and the potential for such enlightenment depends
> > >upon you understanding that a dialog is something other than a contest.
> >
> > Listen cunt,
>
> i hope you and gvw are not representative examples of the caliber of people
> participating in rec.arts.prose. surely everyone there doesn't resort to
> such dreary banalities?
>
Let me reassure you there, those are representative of themselves.
As are the other inhabitants. You say you don't want a contest.
Why, then, are you competing?
> > [...]
>
> > our only interest is in your prose,
>
> which is why nothing you say is of any interest to me.
Despite your attempts to appear aloof, you are coming
across as extremely close-minded.
> i realize rec.arts.prose is about prose. alt.surrealism is about
> "surrealism". over here, we're more interested in creative exploration and
> communication.
Sounds like we're all in the same ...
Do you really think "surrealism" is about creative exploration
and communication?
>
> [...]
>
> > Now, I suggest you fuck off and sharpen up your dialogue
>
> i don't write dialogue. and i certainly don't find you interesting enough
> to pursue one with you.
No? But I could have sworn I just read some
you'd written. Bloody country drives you insane.
>
> however, i do suspect (against all evidence) that there is intelligent life
> in rec.arts.prose.
And you are being fucked by it.
>
> so i _will_ remove rec.arts.prose from all future comments on anything you
> sling into alt.surrealism.
And thus achieve what? Protection of your
sheltered viewpoints from the big bad world.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
bob jones
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> copied:
> The Declaration of January 27, 1925
>
>
>
Maybe you should have left it there.
I looked up your link and ploughed my way though to this :-
SURREALISM, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which it is intended to express,
verbally, in writing, or by other means, the real process of thought.
Thought's dictation, in the absence of all control exercised by the reason
and outside all aesthetic or moral preoccupations.
I used to enjoy the idea.
bob jones
> moira d wrote in message <7ej8ro$m7...@nntp.cig.mot.com>...
> >On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:12:26 +0100, Robert Maughan was all...
> >> moira d <moi...@iname.com>
> >>>crow "victory"
> >Try it again, only add a "cr" sound to the start.
> >
>
>
> See BeePee around here? He don't like us anymore.
>
> CAW!
> CAW!
> CAW!
>
BP's gone along The Crow Road it seems.
I wouldn't have said that if the
computers were working.
bob jones
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
> Alan Hope,
anagram of Phaelona, nice place.
>
> Parasitic ass polyp.
> With an attitude big as all outhouse.
> And a heart where his brain once slept.
pap.
waabaao.
aahwhbos.
IYKWIMAITYD.
bob jones
bob jones
Dale Houstman
It's in the Koma Sucra no doubt...
Do Brian and I share a common position? Since we have both been
accused of being obscurists and befuddlers (as well as being befuddled
ourselves), how can the critical reader discern this position we
supposedly
hvae in common? Is even my own position the same from day to day?
What do I have in common with myself? If it is good would I share
it? If it is bad would I insist on promulgating it via Usenet? What
positions might I share with this "g v w" if he would only deign to
drop his "cool" aggression long enough to engage people in discussions
rather than rhetorical fits? Does he need love or a spanking? how
much discipline is good and how much is mere pleasure? If I met
Brian on the street would I recognize him by the way in which he
held his gatling gun, cradled like a baby? Is Brian anything like
Brandon? What postions do they share in common? Do they sleep
together, nestled in each other's arms, dreaming of "g v w"
crushed beneath the weight of his own insignificance? Is 'g v w"
tired of sharing his position with every other worthless piece of
detritus blown across from "rec.art.prose" by the ass winds of
never say never? Is asking questions questionable? What common
position does "g v w" hold with a eviscerated stink beetle? And who
among that commonality (the stink beetlke or "g v w") actually
originated their unoriginality? Does the stink beetle count? Does
"g v w"?
DMH
Alan Hope
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote in article
<7ejlsq$iuj$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
> Alan Hope,
> Parasitic ass polyp.
> With an attitude big as all outhouse.
> And a heart where his brain once slept.
I'll take that as a compliment. Nice.
AH
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> writes
> Do Brian and I share a common position? Since we have both been
>accused of being obscurists and befuddlers (as well as being befuddled
>ourselves), how can the critical reader discern this position we
>supposedly
>hvae in common? Is even my own position the same from day to day?
>What do I have in common with myself? If it is good would I share
>it? If it is bad would I insist on promulgating it via Usenet? What
>positions might I share with this "g v w" if he would only deign to
>drop his "cool" aggression long enough to engage people in discussions
>rather than rhetorical fits? Does he need love or a spanking? how
>much discipline is good and how much is mere pleasure? If I met
>Brian on the street would I recognize him by the way in which he
>held his gatling gun, cradled like a baby? Is Brian anything like
>Brandon? What postions do they share in common? Do they sleep
>together, nestled in each other's arms, dreaming of "g v w"
>crushed beneath the weight of his own insignificance? Is 'g v w"
>tired of sharing his position with every other worthless piece of
>detritus blown across from "rec.art.prose" by the ass winds of
>never say never? Is asking questions questionable? What common
>position does "g v w" hold with a eviscerated stink beetle? And who
>among that commonality (the stink beetlke or "g v w") actually
>originated their unoriginality? Does the stink beetle count? Does
>"g v w"?
I have an awful feeling this is offered as surrealistic drollery - when
it is the artless meandering of a myopic innocent, one who calls farts
ass winds, bless her heart. One who asks about her position -
>If it is bad would I insist on promulgating it via Usenet?
The answer, ducky, is yes, because you don't know just how bad it is.
Yours is the missionary position, with ass winds, but definitely none
of those surreal whooshy cunt winds that give all of us such a laugh
from time to time. Well, not quite all of us.
RJM.
g.v.w. iv
From: Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism,rec.arts.prose
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
>> g.v.w. iv wrote
>> >The Dale/Brandon position
>>
>> I believe you meant the "Dale/Brian" position.
>
> It's in the Koma Sucra no doubt...
>
> Do Brian and I share a common position? Since we have both been
The missionary position, yes.
>accused of being obscurists and befuddlers (as well as being befuddled
i accused no one. i merely made observations based on your own
contributions.
>ourselves), how can the critical reader discern this position we
>supposedly
A good question. As i said over and over, you articulated no position.
[...] string of Dale-emitted gibberish.
Damn. i drove little Dale quite insane. i apologize.
>
>DMH
g.v.w. iv
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism,rec.arts.prose
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>g.v.w. iv wrote
>>The Dale/Brandon position
>
>I believe you meant the "Dale/Brian" position.
It was actually funny the first time.
g.v.w. iv
From: Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism,rec.arts.prose
Subject: The Declaration of January 27, 1925 [was Re: various comments on
g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism]
[...]
>2. Surrealism is not a new means of expression, or an easier one, nor even
a
>metaphysic of poetry. It is a means of total liberation of the mind and all
>that resembles it.
Well then. What can i say? You certainly are liberated from your minds. But
i believe your minds are a bit overly liberated. Liberated in the same sense
that a brain-dead body on a slab, ventilated by a respirator, is liberated
from the tyranny of its mind and all that resembles it (what resembles
mind?).
When pressed for details, you free-thinking Surrealists quote scripture like
Fundamentalists.
How drearily ironic.
>(taken from Nadeau's History of Surrealism)
Thank you.
g.v.w. iv
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.prose,alt.surrealism
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 12:32 AM
Subject: Robert Maughan's "Obsession for Shit" [was Re: various comments on
g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism]
>Robert Maughan wrote, exposing the workings of his unconscious:
>>Why do you hope that, poopypants?
>> Listen, you precious little turd
>> You're doing it now, dipshit.
>
>
>Obsessive, aren't you.
>
>> What kind of logic is that?
>
>You think we give a shit (I'm talking in your terms) about logic?
Apparently not. Apparently you don't ''give a shit'' about intelligibility
either.
stribs
particularly noteworthy).
Moira d wrote
[her signature style]
Oh, sweetcakes
Sweetcakes, yes?
Robert = rec.arts.prose.
purely illusory!
Enjoy them, darling
MAY I call you darling?
They'll lovingly fuck
and crow "victory!"
(1 Tim 4:1-5)
hugs!
moira
Brandon J. Freels
> The answer, ducky, is yes, because you don't know just how bad it is.
>Yours is the missionary position, with ass winds, but definitely none
>of those surreal whooshy cunt winds that give all of us such a laugh
>from time to time. Well, not quite all of us.
What the hell are you talking about? :"Whooshy cunts"? "Time to time"?
"Ducky"? "Ass winds"? I demand definitions to these terms, otherwise I will
have to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about!
Brandon J. Freels
>It was actually funny the first time.
What was funny? What are you talking about?
Brandon J. Freels
>Apparently not. Apparently you don't ''give a shit'' about intelligibility
either.
Brandon:
Who says what's "intelligible" anyway? I suppose you decide what's
"intelligible" by what your "professor" tells you? Or your God? Or the
Government?
Well, FUCK YOU. Take your repressive states and shove them up your ass, Mr.
Academic shit drinker.
stribs
out-gunned. I suggest you return home immediately.
If you'd prefer to take a breather before trundling back to alt.surrealism,
you might want to give my revamped Breton quotation a once over (well,
actually, it's a Stribley quote now, he pointed out modestly).
stribs
"Everything tends to make me believe that there exists a certain
inevitability that
everthing the mind constructs--whether it be life or death, the real or the
imagined, the past or the future, the communicable or the incommunicable,
the high or the low--all these are little more than understandable attempts
by said organ to amuse itself for the course of its seventy-some odd years
of consciousness within a inevitably relaxing universe. In fact, consider
this: we *are* the universe considering itself as it rapidly (relatively
speaking) implodes upon itself. And, sadly, each time the universe
discovers what it has to discover, it dies and has to start all over again.
Dammit!"
Robert Stribley
Dale Houstman
the smell of truth follows you like moths and old cloth.
DMH
Dale Houstman
There's a perfumed lusciousness about your innate correctness.
DMH
Dale Houstman
one never doubts you and your fortified waves of truth.
DMH
Dale Houstman
you also are right when being right is called for and right also
when it is uncalled for.
DMH
Dale Houstman
you are innocent of being wrong and strive boldly on a narrow path
of pure correctness. It is not what we say that interests you (you
are too pure and driven), but that we respond at all. Our very
existence is an affront to your need to be correct. So - you are
correct, as always.
DMH
Dale Houstman
you're right in all the right ways.
DMH
Dale Houstman
you're never wrong when it's easier to be right.
DMH
Dale Houstman
no one can poison or dilute your gilded and streaming dream of
verifiable truth.
DMH
Dale Houstman
no one here denies your apollonian discreteness in the face of adverse
protrusions from the "peanut gallery" of those who would separate you
from your inherent correctness.
DMH
Robert Maughan
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> writes
>Robert Maughan wrote
>> The answer, ducky, is yes, because you don't know just how bad it is.
>>Yours is the missionary position, with ass winds, but definitely none
>>of those surreal whooshy cunt winds that give all of us such a laugh
>>from time to time. Well, not quite all of us.
>
>
>What the hell are you talking about? :"Whooshy cunts"?
That's 'whooshy cunt winds' dickhead; whooshy cunts are something else.
Whooshy cunt winds are explosions of air when fucking like crazy and in
a moment of inadvertent expulsion there follows a whoosh of air, like a
fart but emanating from the cunt. See?
> "Time to time"?
The phenomenon may happen only in moments of excess, which moments, in
my experience, happen only occasionally, or to use the form established
in usage, from time to time. Times further apart these days, alas, as I
dwindle into my dotage, despite Herself thriving on The Treatment
>"Ducky"?
A British expression - sometimes 'duck' or 'my duck' or 'ducks'. You're
really a parochial little alt.surrealist: aren't you? With no intuitive
skills at all. A semiliterate wanker making noise in the corner.
> "Ass winds"? I demand definitions to these terms, otherwise I will
>have to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about!
>
'Ass winds' are Ms Houstman's delicate euphemism for farts. As if you
didn't know.
Now, apart from 'ducky', you didn't need me: did you, poopypants? Nice
try, though.
RJM.
Brandon J. Freels
> Now, apart from 'ducky', you didn't need me: did you, poopypants? Nice
try, though.
Define "poopypants." I demand an answer!
Brandon J. Freels
g.v.w. iv
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>Robert Maughan wrote
>> The answer, ducky, is yes, because you don't know just how bad it is.
>>Yours is the missionary position, with ass winds, but definitely none
>>of those surreal whooshy cunt winds that give all of us such a laugh
>>from time to time. Well, not quite all of us.
>
>
>What the hell are you talking about? :"Whooshy cunts"? "Time to time"?
>"Ducky"? "Ass winds"? I demand definitions to these terms, otherwise I will
>have to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about!
The Brandon/Dale entity attempts to teach us a moral object lesson with its
lame humor. In a sense it has a point. Poll any number of people on the
definition of any more abstract term, e.g. democracy, gender, identity &c.
You will receive as many different accounts of the term as people that you
poll. Yet most people can still *use* the terms meaningfully in their
statements about the world. The meanings of terms emerge from their use;
formal definitions merely codify that use. So to demand a concrete
definition (e.g. the Socratic method) may sound on its face somewhat unfair.
But the Brandon/Dale entity's argument still fails. It fails because the
Brandon/Dale entity fails to make an important distinction. This is not
alt.whooshy.cunts. Nor do any of us call ourselves whooshy cuntists. Nor do
any of us quote from the manifestos of whooshy cuntists or strike whooshy
cuntist poses.
Do you now see the distinction?
Why not ask us to define *prose*, you slack-jawed limp-wit?
(Clue: we do so in our FAQ. Or at least we try.)
g.v.w. iv
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>
>
>
>no one here denies your apollonian discreteness in the face of adverse
>protrusions from the "peanut gallery" of those who would separate you
>from your inherent correctness.
Apollonian? Have you even read Nietzsche's _Birth of Tragedy_, you
ill-educated rube? Why do you insist on using terms you know nothing about?
>
>DMH
g.v.w. iv
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Declaration of January 27, 1925 [was Re: various comments
on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism]
> ... So - you are
>correct, as always.
Indeed.
Throckey
>
>But the Brandon/Dale entity's argument still fails. It fails because the
>Brandon/Dale entity fails to make an important distinction. This is not
>alt.whooshy.cunts. Nor do any of us call ourselves whooshy cuntists. Nor do
>any of us quote from the manifestos of whooshy cuntists or strike whooshy
>cuntist poses.
>
movement right here in RAP?
I'm dying to pose as a pussy fart.
-B
It's a Maughan's fault again.
Brandon J. Freels
in their statements about the world."
Brandon/Dale monster: "I do not think you understand what you are saying."
g.v.w. iv cried out: "This is not alt.whooshy.cunts."
Brandon/Dale monster: "I was wondering where all the neat-o pictures went."
_________________
Please define the following terms: "cuntists," "poses" (some kind of a
flower?), "distinction" (as apposed to "those who stink" or g.v.w. IVism?),
"slack-jawed limp-wit" and "prose."
Asbestos Dust
You forgot to credit your quote. Allow me:
(c) 1968, "Surrealist Fortune Cookie Factory", By Lee Sing, The Ah-So
Wise Sayings Bumper Sticker Mfg. Co., Shanghi, China.
You're welcome.
AD
Asbestos Dust
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Hey, Andrea Chen (as Asbestos Dust) YOU GOT SOMETHING AGAINST COOKIES!!!
Andrea's dead. Using carefully selected drugs washed down with Jim
Beam, I have suppressed her completely. On the other hand, perhaps
not as efficiently as I'd thought as I frequently catch a flash of her
behind me when I glance in a mirror or pass a store-front window. Of
late she seems to be fondling a knife as she studies me. Very sexy.
Perhaps she'll re-emerge and I'll be forced to pretend we're seperate
personas again. Presuming I survive at all, of course.
AD
Just Another Skeptic
<r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
(...)
Kee-rist, RJM. What the fuck are you doing over here? I finally got
curious enough to come over from RAP to check out this NG. Grabbed a
sample 200 posts expecting to get a dose of sophomoric bumper-sticker
surrealism, hoping to perhaps find some silly turd to abuse in my
spare time, and what do I find? Three posts copied from/to RAP, this
one from you, one spam hit for a porn site and ONE HUNDRED NINETY FIVE
entries averaging one word each in a fucking cascade. What a bunch of
brain-damaged morons. The scope of their banality is absolutely
breathtaking. You can do better. Come home.
AD
==================================================
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
--H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
==================================================
Dale Houstman
Who would have thought that the vision of imminent death could be
so dull? Andrea's been dead for months, and you were stillborn
(a tiny collop of slinkveal washed down with weak, piss-yellow
blood). Ho hum...
DMH
Asbestos Dust
Dale, you're back!
Thank God! I thought the ongoing fucking you were undergoing from
GVWIV and RJM had fried your circuits completely. Since everything
you've posted lately seems to have come from a '60's Confucius/Kung-Fu
movie, I just assumed that even YOUR highly evolved brain (heh, heh,
heh) had been jarred loose by the constant pounding. Yet, here you
are, pointless and boring as ever. This is so exciting. I'm getting a
chubby just thinking about it.
OK, let's begin. Grease up and bend over, surrealist-boy. (Oh, by
the way, can you scream like a girl? I like it like that. Thanks.)
Robert Maughan
Just Another Skeptic <sp...@no.thanks> writes
>Kee-rist, RJM. What the fuck are you doing over here?
Bugger. I had hoped to enjoy a moment's quiet contemplation free from
morally bankrupt, howlingly sadistic sociopaths, but I guess I should
have known better. Coming Andy?
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Throckey <XXXe...@jetcity.com> writes
>Um, Gil? Could we form a new whooshy cuntist intellectual
>movement right here in RAP?
>
>I'm dying to pose as a pussy fart.
Manifesto of The New Whooshy Cuntist Movement.
______________________________________________
The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of cunt
struggles.
Cuntists have always stood in constant opposition to the bourgeois opp-
ressor. Our modern society that has sprung from the ruins of feudalism
has not done away with cuntish antagonisms. Rather it has established
new forms of anti-cuntism that have spread to the so called electric
world of progress. Society as a whole is more or less split into two
hostile camps - Cuntists and Pussies.
Pussies have completely removed cunt from day to day intercourse; they
look out through a veil of sentimental propriety, peep through cuntless
fingers at a world of chocolate and bunnies. Their sexual encounters are
polite affairs (!) and they NEVER fart, although they may pass ass wind
from the strain of faking it, if female, and they ABSOLUTELY never get
so animal fucked that whooshy winds escape from the hot pink slippery
folds of their throbbing cunts. No, Pussies actually prefer to have sex
in their own space, away from the prying eyes of naked people and excite-
ment. In their own space nobody can hear them cream, and that's how they
like it.
The New Whooshy Cuntist Movement is dedicated to spreading cunt wherever
members may find themselves, and to openly declare that their ends can be
met by mutual consent, and the virtual intermingling of bodily fluids. A
true Cuntist must renounce the urge to pose as a pussy fart and stand up
for the right to call himself a cunt.
Whooshy Cuntists of all countries unite!
RJM.
Dale Houstman
>
> Please define the following terms: "cuntists," "poses" (some kind of a
> flower?), "distinction" (as apposed to "those who stink" or g.v.w. IVism?),
> "slack-jawed limp-wit" and "prose."
I can't predict what he shall say about most of that, but I am certain
he shall define "prose" as "a filthy stick I use to pry lobsters out of my
scarified ass in the morning, so I can get my head in there." He shall
find this definition both graceful and apt and be (as always) very
satisified that he has managed to say nothing with due attitude.
The Prettier Half of the Brandon/Dale Monster
(why do you get first billing?)
DMH
stribs
still *use* the terms meaningfully in their statements about the world.'"
Perhaps you're thinking of "whinnied"?
(BTW, this "please define" bit has lost it's comic edge. Oh, wait, it never
had an edge.)
Furthermore, I'm curious. Is this a junior high surrealism club? Your
vocabulary seems a bit limited.
Cheers.
stribs
Brandon J. Freels wrote in message
Alan Hope
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<b8EP2.37441$A6.18...@news1.teleport.com>...
Define this. Define that. Again with the definitions.
Truly a liberated imagination at work.
AH
Alan Hope
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<fqu6yUBz...@etymon.demon.co.uk>...
> Manifesto of The New Whooshy Cuntist Movement.
> ______________________________________________
Where do I sign?
AH
g.v.w. iv
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism,rec.arts.prose
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>g.v.w. iv whinned: "Yet most people can still *use* the terms meaningfully
>in their statements about the world."
Whined, did i? i don't recall whining. Did i spell the term correctly at
least?
>
>Brandon/Dale monster: "I do not think you understand what you are saying."
Oh, but i do. And unlike you, i can prove it.
>
>g.v.w. iv cried out: "This is not alt.whooshy.cunts."
Well, others disagree. So i suppose we are alt.whooshy cunts.
>
>Brandon/Dale monster: "I was wondering where all the neat-o pictures went."
Ah. So that's what Surrealism is all about. Why didn't you say so in the
first place?
>
>_________________
>
>Please define the following terms: "cuntists," "poses" (some kind of a
>flower?), "distinction" (as apposed to "those who stink" or g.v.w. IVism?),
>"slack-jawed limp-wit" and "prose."
Define ''Surrealism'' and you have a deal, you non-Surrealist little guy,
you.
g.v.w. iv
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 16:57:09 -0500, g.v.w. iv was all...
>>From: moira d <moi...@iname.com>
>>>
>>>Enjoy them, darling (MAY I call you darling?). They're the best
>>>you're likely to get 'round these parts. They'll lovingly fuck
>>>your mind -- tenderly -- and crow "victory" no matter what you
>>>say or do. In other words, they're quite typical.
>>
>>
>>i don't recall ever crowing ''victory,'' snugglebunny (may i call you
>>snugglebunny?).
>>
>>Usually we get our butts kicked.
>
>You're far too modest, bouncy-buns. (yes, you may.)
>
>In your "Mingaloid" wars, you and Robert are both wont to
>claim you've won.
Mingoloid, actually. And we did ''win,'' insofar as anyone ever ''wins'' in
this wretched medium.
So, i concede your point.
>
>
>
>--
>moira
>(1 Tim 4:1-5)
>
>Disclaimer: My mind is so fragmented by random excursions into a
> wilderness of abstractions and incipient ideas that the practical
> purposes of the moment are often submerged in my consciousness and I
> don't know what I'm doing. [my employers certainly have no idea]
g.v.w. iv
From: Throckey <XXXe...@jetcity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism,rec.arts.prose
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>g.v.w. iv wrote in message <003701be830a$3fd221c0$84740280@gvw>...
>>
>>But the Brandon/Dale entity's argument still fails. It fails because the
>>Brandon/Dale entity fails to make an important distinction. This is not
>>alt.whooshy.cunts. Nor do any of us call ourselves whooshy cuntists. Nor
do
>>any of us quote from the manifestos of whooshy cuntists or strike whooshy
>>cuntist poses.
>>
>Um, Gil? Could we form a new whooshy cuntist intellectual
>movement right here in RAP?
>
>I'm dying to pose as a pussy fart.
i've resisted the whooshy cuntist political groundswell for far too long.
Like Saul of Tarsus, i see the light.
From now on, we're all whooshy cuntists.
>
>-B
>
>
>It's a Maughan's fault again.
>
>
>
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
g.v.w. iv
Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
>>
>> Please define the following terms: "cuntists," "poses" (some kind of a
>> flower?), "distinction" (as apposed to "those who stink" or g.v.w.
IVism?),
>> "slack-jawed limp-wit" and "prose."
>
> I can't predict what he shall say about most of that, but I am certain
>he shall define "prose" as "a filthy stick I use to pry lobsters out of my
>scarified ass in the morning, so I can get my head in there." He shall
>find this definition both graceful and apt and be (as always) very
>satisified that he has managed to say nothing with due attitude.
ym: ''without due attitude,'' loser. Our definitions of prose are publicly
available.
>
>The Prettier Half of the Brandon/Dale Monster
Monster? You flatter yourselves. i referred to you as a sock and
sock-puppeteer. Where do you get monster from that?
>(why do you get first billing?)
He's a tiny bit more articulate than you are, i.e. he's a tiny bit more
articulate than kelp.
>DMH
Dale Houstman
When you are right you are very right, and you are always right.
Having shown us the depth and the breadth of your invaluable
astuteness, we now only wish you to reveal to us the thickness
of your spiritual colloid. Otherwise (now that we have seen your
illuminating wingspan) we cannot go on striving in the darkness
that preceded your advent.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Your correctness shows itself like a pink slip peeking from under
a woman's working clothes, and we are all atwitter with your
passing fancy.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Your victory astounds us all, and we grovel in the dirt you leave behind,
magister ludi.
DMH
Dale Houstman
You are the Big Bug of Intellectual Fortitude. How we survived
in our little formicarium before your huge beetleness is beyond me. Please
stay, and allow us to (at the very least) swarm beneath your chitinous
resplendence, hoping to capture the few lotus leaves which fall from
your truth-telling labial clamps.
DMH
g.v.w. iv
From: Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism,rec.arts.prose
Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>
Brandon? i think i broke your Dale. Please forgive me.
Brandon J. Freels
g.v.w. iv wrote
>Oh, but i do. And unlike you, i can prove it.
I never claimed to understand anything. But I would like to see you try and
prove that you can.
>>Please define the following terms: "cuntists," "poses" (some kind of a
>>flower?), "distinction" (as apposed to "those who stink" or g.v.w.
IVism?),
>>"slack-jawed limp-wit" and "prose."
>
>Define ''Surrealism'' and you have a deal, you non-Surrealist little guy,
>you.
Surrealism is the emancipation of the mind.
Your turn.
Brandon J. Freels
Alan Hope wrote in message <01be838b$42c5baa0$LocalHost@default>...
Dale Houstman
> I do not think you know what you are talking about.
>
I think it is more that he doesn't think it is important to have
anything to talk about; that the entire notion of discourse and
language as an instrument (rather than a weapon) is old-hat.
Newness is always hollow now. It's validity is tested by the
resonance of its internal echo. Everything is to be manipulated
rather than indluged in or pursued; certain styles of psyche
deem it "uncool" to admit that anything means anything. This
is cynicism yes, but to them it rings as "avant." It is worthless
to attempt any denial of their stance, since its very emptiness
is its triumph: if a statement is beyond meaning, it cannot be
assailed or agreed with. The sender is free to feel they have
"won" some imaginary contest. Anything you say or do may
be held against you. Your very concern or attempt at knowledge
or desire betrays you as a vestigial component of their much
larger non-involvement, which is always defensive while
pretending to be "on spot."
To rail against it only makes them feel worthwhile, even as they
continue to denigrate worth of any sort. Their valuelessness is
a form of preemptive liberty. They are dead.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Brandon,
At this point I think it would be most useful no longer to talk to
this gilbert, or his minion of monkeys, but instead to discuss
what the psychology or perversion is that lies behind a person
who needs to claim victory in a contest he invented, when it is
obvious to everyone that there is
(A) No body interested
(B) Nothing to be won
I suspect some heinous malformation of the anal region, in which
a psuedo-face (resembling perhaps his mother just as she was
preparing to lick his balls that fateful Christmas so many years
ago) seems to be breaking into laughter. But I am perhaps too
hasty? The statements of this gilbert (etal) are so devoid of
human content, and so lacking in desirable features, that I
could also be persuaded that it is simply a primitive response
loop, possible broken certainly dull.
How little does a brain have to be before you cannot fit any
more nothing in it?
Now that "he" has won, who is going to tell us we have "lost"
and why don't I feel involved by his claims at all, beyond posting
a few equally mindless statements in the vain hope he might
recognize his own worthlessness in their inanity?
Does he have children? Can they be tracked and threatened?
etc.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
What did we lose? Our pants?
These are highly objective questions?
What is going on?
Brandon J. Freels
>I think you guys are very poor at trolling.
You got something against the economically repressed?
Dale Houstman
Your cunt is the cuntiest cunt of all, and it is only the fact that you
cannot stop sniffing it during breakfast that stops you from becoming
a canonized cunt, a saintly quim, and a beatified portal. You are
Queen Vagina, master of all you nose about. And we can only stand
by, awed by the hollowness of your fish cavity. Oh lordie! Grant
us a post-breakfast snort of your deified odeur, fragrant contra-worm!
DMH
stribs
stribs
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:7ep0p5$elh$1...@news-1.news.gte.net...
B. Callaghan
[ historical note ]
The New Whooshy Cuntist Movement did not exist in a vacuum however. Those of
the Wanker Wing were quick to point out the inherent differences between themselves
and Pussies, most notably that they preferred an audience for their autoeroticism.
Wankers took themselves ever so seriously, oblivious to the the derision of the rest of
the world pointing and laughing at them, undersized dicks in hand. Their motto was
"I get off -- you watch me -- therefore I am."
Far more dreaded were the Pricks, organized groups of bullies who roamed the
countryside looking for blood and vengeance. They saw the Cuntists as glorified New
Order bourgeois and sought to mow them down, guerilla style. Their methods were
underhanded, often enlisting the aid of unwitting Wankers and Pussies to achieve their
goal, which was to "Fuck everyone."
It should be mentioned that technological improvements in the latter part of the
century saw the unpredicted emergence of wildcards in the power struggle, the most
notable of which were the FPI's. Failed Penile Implants were Prick wannabes who lacked
equipment to succeed. They became extremely embittered, seeking the downfall of the
Cuntists, as well as the very group they had once sought to emulate. FPI's allied
themselves with the Pussies, often being indistinguishable from them at a glance.
Indeed, a medical examination was necessary in these instances to classify them.
- bettina
Asbestos Dust
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Surrealism is the emancipation of the mind.
>
>Your turn.
Emancipation? Ah, fine word, fine word. Really. Full of hope,
ideals, and pride. At yet here we are, faced with another case in
which the shackles are struck from the slave, yet he continues to pick
dat cotton an' tote dat bale. Give it up, Boy, you'll die in your
shack having only glimpsed the real freedom of your betters through
the windows up at the Big House. Continue to amuse us, and we will
continue to provide you scraps from the banquet table you'll never
see. Be warned, however, that you're becoming tiresome, and we always
have a short attention span when dealing with inferiors. Work harder,
or you'll find yourself posting from alt.neworleans.auctionblock.
Massa AD
Asbestos Dust
<dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>Brandon,
>
>At this point I think it would be most useful no longer to talk to
>this gilbert, or his minion of monkeys, but...
(...)
>Does he have children? Can they be tracked and threatened?
Finally, one of these twinks has a useful idea.
AD - Monkey Minion
==================================================
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
--H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
==================================================
B. Callaghan
moira d <moi...@iname.com> wrote in article <7el57d$fi...@nntp.cig.mot.com>...
> Whatever did you do with him? I was rather looking forward,
> after my hiatus, to seeing his novel. Don't tell me
> he's posted it already? Did DETRITUS ALLEY get posted?
>
> Oh, dear. Now I have to spend time on DejaNews ...
>
>
> --
> moira
Moira, I believe he's also preparing for his next "Wall of Flame" weekend. The memory
of the last one has become a distant blur and he is once again ready for more abuse. The
last time Gilbert felled him with the headers alone. I cringed at the gore. And then
Biil feebly rose to his feet muttering "blah blah blah blah ... sewer entities ... blah
blah blah blah blah ... cut and paste ... blah blah blah blah blah ...wormy wilkes" Yes,
it was icky.
- bettina
- bettina
>
> Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change. -- bumpersticker
>
B. Callaghan
stribs <str...@mindspring.com> wrote in article <7enqe9$15a$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
> Please define "whinned." As in "g.v.w. iv whinned: 'Yet most people can
> still *use* the terms meaningfully in their statements about the world.'"
> Perhaps you're thinking of "whinnied"?
>
> (BTW, this "please define" bit has lost it's comic edge. Oh, wait, it never
> had an edge.)
>
> Furthermore, I'm curious. Is this a junior high surrealism club? Your
> vocabulary seems a bit limited.
>
> Cheers.
>
> stribs
I'm curious to see the result of Kibologists mating with Alt.Surrealists. No doubt
their children will have surreal acronyms.
- bettina
B. Callaghan
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<FFVP2.38174$A6.19...@news1.teleport.com>...
> What did he win? A refrigerator?
All your signed Dali lithographs.
> What did we lose? Our pants?
heavens no! Please keep your clothes to yourself. We're not that cruel.
> These are highly objective questions?
If you say so. Everything's relative I guess.
> What is going on?
Dunno about you, but I was in rec.arts.prose but then realized I was actually
in alt.surrealism AT THE SAME TIME! Blew my mind, man.
- bettina
Brandon J. Freels
>we always have a short attention span when dealing with inferiors
Define "inferiors"
Brandon J. Freels
>Finally, one of these twinks has a useful idea.
Define "twinks"
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> writes
>I think it is more that he doesn't think it is important to have
>anything to talk about
In fact the opposite is not true. Gilbert does think it is unimportant
not to have anything to talk about. Sometimes he talks about importance,
his own, and that of his minions, many of whom are monkeys. I am myself
a great ape. You can tell from behind. You can tell from the front. The
main thing is to understand the importance of talking about it. As soon
as you open yourself up to the possibilities of actual communication it
will become clear at once that you have nothing to say. Which is a good
thing. It will mean that you have beaten us. It will mean that you have
won. You will be our subconscious. Your triumph will be our baptism. It
can mean only one thing. You are the alternative surrealist and you are
perfectly adapted to your environment, the closed mind. We can only bow
in deference to your importance. You have no creative powers at all yet
you have overcome the dominance of reason, truly an alternative surreal
truth. I do hope you will continue to give us the benefits of your real
prose, so we may give you the benefits of a good old fashioned gangbang.
Waddya say?
RJM.
Dale Houstman
I never read your posts because (since you are always correct)
they must be empty of interest for someone who is trying to
get around the cold core of perfection. If winning means being
able to talk on while others walk away laughing at your silliness
then you have won, again and again.
But: right again!
DMH
Dale Houstman
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> What did he win? A refrigerator?
> What did we lose? Our pants?
>
> These are highly objective questions?
>
> What is going on?
Nothing. Nothing is the point. He said nothing and we made
the mistake of assuming (since he was talking) that he was attempting
to say something. This was our one mistake. We should have
assumed he was attempting to say nothing and said nothing in
return. This is how antimacassars speak to one another once the
heads go away.
DMH
g.v.w. iv
From: Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism,rec.arts.prose
Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: various comments on g.v.w.'s posts to alt.surrealism
>
>g.v.w. iv wrote
>>Oh, but i do. And unlike you, i can prove it.
>
>
>I never claimed to understand anything. But I would like to see you try and
>prove that you can.
i have and i did.
>
>>>Please define the following terms: "cuntists," "poses" (some kind of a
>>>flower?), "distinction" (as apposed to "those who stink" or g.v.w.
>IVism?),
>>>"slack-jawed limp-wit" and "prose."
>>
>>Define ''Surrealism'' and you have a deal, you non-Surrealist little guy,
>>you.
>
>
>Surrealism is the emancipation of the mind.
Is that all it is? How disappointing. So many others say precisely the same
thing. How do you account for all the secondary literature on Surrealism
that argues otherwise? Incidently, why is your mind, Brandon, so completely
unemancipated that you must quote from documents dating back to 1925?
(Episcopalians recite from prayerbooks dating back to 1928; you and your
Dale make the Episcopal church seem progressive, avant garde, almost forward
looking, one could almost say ''emancipated.'') Why do you associate
emancipation with a regime of aesthetic production that became passe over
fifty years ago?
Consider an example. The DADAists gave us the collage, at the time a
revolutionary, emancipating gesture undermining the traditional notions of
authorship, classical (or continuous) composition, and a gesture that
introduced the notions of juxtaposition and contiguity (as opposed to
continuity) as meaning-making (or meaning undermining) gestures. But now the
keepers of children warehoused in corporate daycare centers force their
charges to glue collages together out of construction paper and magazine
clippings. And every music video our beloved corporate music industry
produces hammers its viewers with the mandatory jump-cuts and montages, the
video manifestation of the DADAist collage.
In other words, little one, you who knows so little and understands much
less, these formerly revolutionary, emancipatory acts were willingly
''recuperated'' (to use the Situationist term) or ''sublated'' (to use the
Hegelian term) into the dominant culture, whole and intact, though
reinterpreted, rendered harmless--no, worse, rendered trite, mannered,
stylized, forms fit only for advertising copy targeting suburbanites. Songs
once banned now play on oldies stations. Images once scandalous now hang in
museums.
It fascinates me who you believe Surrealism could emancipate any person or
any thing. It passed. It made its contribution and departed. i saw Dali's
image in a car commercial the other day, along with Warhol and a few others.
The mechanics also interest me. How, precisely, does Surrealism emancipate
you?
>
>Your turn.
Cunts are vaginas. But not for Robert. Robert defines ''cuntist'' for us;
earlier he defined ''whooshy cuntists.'' A pose is something a Dale or a
Brandon strikes in lieu of genuine knowledge, understanding, or discernment,
a hand-waving gesture signalling a Dale or a Brandon's approval of an idea
they know nothing about. A distinction is what i fail to make when dealing
with a Brandon or a Dale, because they provide no grounds for
differentiation. Hence, i assume one to be a sock-puppeteer and the other
to be a sock. i assume Dale to be the sock because Brandon issues Dale
orders, and Dale obeys. Barrett achieved a small degree of distinctness
apart from Dale and Brandon, but only because his preachiness and illiteracy
became an issue. No gvw IVism exists. A slack-jawed limp-wit is someone like
Brandon or Dale, someone who claims to grasp ideas but cannot articulate
them. i defined prose in our FAQ.
There.