Artwork and Poetry
Matthew Montchalin
|[..I realize that some cannot get to these sites,
| (although many can) I will fix that problem shortly.]
But it would be so fantastic to *buy* posters and calendars with art,
don't you think?
Dale Houstman
If that's your thing, of course it would be.
But I don't see what the problem here is. You can save the images and
print your own "object."
If that isn't acceptable (image quality-wise) - as I said - I would be
glad to send you a higher-resolution image.
As long as you don't re-sell the images (although - obviously - I can't
or won't stop you) I have no problem with any non-commercial use.
dmh
Tom Bishop
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:3DA4E9EE...@citilink.com...
>
>
> Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Tom Bishop wrote:
> > |[..I realize that some cannot get to these sites,
> > | (although many can) I will fix that problem shortly.]
> >
> > But it would be so fantastic to *buy* posters and calendars with art,
> > don't you think?
> >
> If that's your thing, of course it would be.
Actually Rose and my girlfriend said the same thing after
seeing it.
Perhaps I could find some place online that could
do it easily.
>
> But I don't see what the problem here is. You can save the images and
> print your own "object."
>
> If that isn't acceptable (image quality-wise) - as I said - I would be
> glad to send you a higher-resolution image.
Right. The ones on the website are intentionally reduced,
since full resolution images are prohibitive, and not necessary
for web viewing.. But for a poster blowup, essential.
>
> As long as you don't re-sell the images (although - obviously - I can't
> or won't stop you) I have no problem with any non-commercial use.
>
> dmh
Thanks again Dale.. There are some in the random
selections that are my favs, be great to get fuller size of them
Morfydd 2, Virgin with Unicorn off the top of my ear.
Great stuff!!!
Tom Bishop
Matthew Montchalin
|> > But it would be so fantastic to *buy* posters and calendars with art,
|> > don't you think?
|> >
|> If that's your thing, of course it would be.
|
|Actually Rose and my girlfriend said the same thing after
|seeing it.
|
|Perhaps I could find some place online that could
|do it easily.
I meant, someplace that's not online. Like in a department store,
or record shop.
Tom Bishop
"Matthew Montchalin" <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.02100...@lab.oregonvos.net...
It is good enough, but to get into such places is
marketing.
;-)
--
[..email response best, Tnx]
Tom Bishop ,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
http://Poetry.Here.Nu - Poetry web hosting, with audio.
(email me for a custom sub-domain, like MyPoetry.Here.Nu)
Dale Houstman
You're beginning to make me feel as if I am depriving the world of some
great benefit!
Maybe I could start a Target line, like Jaclyn Smith?
"Dale's Odd Clothes For Unwanted Children."
dmh
Matthew Montchalin
|"Matthew Montchalin" <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.02100...@lab.oregonvos.net...
|> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Tom Bishop wrote:
|> |> > But it would be so fantastic to *buy* posters and calendars with art,
|> |> > don't you think?
|> |> >
|> |> If that's your thing, of course it would be.
|> |
|> |Actually Rose and my girlfriend said the same thing after
|> |seeing it.
|> |
|> |Perhaps I could find some place online that could
|> |do it easily.
|>
|> I meant, someplace that's not online. Like in a department store,
|> or record shop.
|
|It is good enough, but to get into such places is
|marketing.
What's wrong with free enterprise?
Tom Bishop
"Matthew Montchalin" <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.021010...@lab.oregonvos.net...
Errr.. "Marketing" is "free enterprise".
Dale Houstman
It isn't free.
dmh
>
Horatio
"Matthew Montchalin" <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
The Klingons were all for it, but the Federation is a Socialist construct.
Regards
-Horatio
>
Matthew Montchalin
|> |> |Perhaps I could find some place online that could
|> |> |do it easily.
|> |>
|> |> I meant, someplace that's not online. Like in a department store,
|> |> or record shop.
|> |
|> |It is good enough, but to get into such places is
|> |marketing.
|>
|> What's wrong with free enterprise?
|
|Errr.. "Marketing" is "free enterprise".
Exactly! In the real world!
Tom Bishop
"Matthew Montchalin" <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.021010...@lab.oregonvos.net...
Matthew, Dale has already said he wouldn't really do
anything if you stole them and sold them yourself.
I feel the same about mine.. though I would like it
to be easier to reproduce /any/ art I want, easily.
Printers are working (as we speak) to make this easier
also.. and there are fullfillment houses that can
do this now.
http://CafePress.com does some of this, but they cost
money even to setup a store, and have high prices.
Your interest is encouraging, but your connectedness
doesn't allow for real discussion.
You are way below the waterline, guy (nutt'n pursonal)
but you gotta get web enabled.
It's fun really!
Matthew Montchalin
|> |> |> |Perhaps I could find some place online that could
|> |> |> |do it easily.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> I meant, someplace that's not online. Like in a department store,
|> |> |> or record shop.
|> |> |
|> |> |It is good enough, but to get into such places is
|> |> |marketing.
|> |>
|> |> What's wrong with free enterprise?
|> |
|> |Errr.. "Marketing" is "free enterprise".
|>
|> Exactly! In the real world!
|
|Matthew, Dale has already said he wouldn't really do
|anything if you stole them and sold them yourself.
Am I the only one around here that believes in private property?
|I feel the same about mine.. though I would like it
|to be easier to reproduce /any/ art I want, easily.
|Printers are working (as we speak) to make this easier
|also.. and there are fullfillment houses that can
|do this now.
|
|http://CafePress.com does some of this, but they cost
|money even to setup a store, and have high prices.
|
|Your interest is encouraging, but your connectedness
|doesn't allow for real discussion.
I will not take graphics without paying for it.
|You are way below the waterline, guy (nutt'n pursonal)
|but you gotta get web enabled.
|
|It's fun really!
It just isn't worth the effort to boot up a GUI. I'd have to learn
complex hand-to-eye manoeuvres.
Dale Houstman
Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Tom Bishop wrote:
> |> |> |> |Perhaps I could find some place online that could
> |> |> |> |do it easily.
> |> |> |>
> |> |> |> I meant, someplace that's not online. Like in a department store,
> |> |> |> or record shop.
> |> |> |
> |> |> |It is good enough, but to get into such places is
> |> |> |marketing.
> |> |>
> |> |> What's wrong with free enterprise?
> |> |
> |> |Errr.. "Marketing" is "free enterprise".
> |>
> |> Exactly! In the real world!
> |
> |Matthew, Dale has already said he wouldn't really do
> |anything if you stole them and sold them yourself.
>
> Am I the only one around here that believes in private property?
I seriously doubt that, don't you? It isn't - however - so much that I
don't think of the images as "associated" with me, it is more that I
don't make a commodity statement about that association. Short of
chasing people around the legal world with a machete, there is nothing I
can do about any "grab" - even if I wanted to. This is my neurosis, so
to speak, and it is obvious not many share it. That doesn't bother me
much. If you're asking whether or not I would be upset in some way if I
saw my images being sold under someone else's name, being printed on
novelty toilet paper, and being painted on nuclear missiles, well -
probably. But I don't confuse my emotional response with my ethical
posture, and do not want to make art a commodity. Others most likely do
want to do that, and more power to them. But the greatest benefit - for
myself - that I can derive from the images has already been enjoyed: the
imaginative process which created them. It isn't work-for-hire. Would I
DO work-for-hire: in other words, would I create an image from scratch
FOR scratch to specifications? Probably. But that's a different process
of sorts than making a product out of a pre-existing creation done out
of desire. I have - for instance - worked as an paid illustrator. This
is basically hack work, and I think it pays to keep the two as separate
as is possible.
>
> |I feel the same about mine.. though I would like it
> |to be easier to reproduce /any/ art I want, easily.
> |Printers are working (as we speak) to make this easier
> |also.. and there are fullfillment houses that can
> |do this now.
> |
> |http://CafePress.com does some of this, but they cost
> |money even to setup a store, and have high prices.
> |
> |Your interest is encouraging, but your connectedness
> |doesn't allow for real discussion.
>
> I will not take graphics without paying for it.
>
Why, if the fellow who produced them is encouraging you, or at least not
discouraging you? Money is not the only measure of value. What if it
gives someone pleasure to have their work distributed. Then there is
payment of a very real sort in that exchange.
dmh
Tom Bishop
All makes ultimate sense.
> >
> > |I feel the same about mine.. though I would like it
> > |to be easier to reproduce /any/ art I want, easily.
> > |Printers are working (as we speak) to make this easier
> > |also.. and there are fullfillment houses that can
> > |do this now.
> > |
> > |http://CafePress.com does some of this, but they cost
> > |money even to setup a store, and have high prices.
> > |
> > |Your interest is encouraging, but your connectedness
> > |doesn't allow for real discussion.
> >
> > I will not take graphics without paying for it.
> >
> Why, if the fellow who produced them is encouraging you, or at least not
> discouraging you? Money is not the only measure of value. What if it
> gives someone pleasure to have their work distributed. Then there is
> payment of a very real sort in that exchange.
Sure.. but if I happen to want to wear a tee-shirt with
"Virgin with Unicorn" rather than <whatever else> I have
to do what? I don't even know. A lot of hassle doing things
I don't like to do. I make more money doing /what I like to do/,
and I would FAR prefer to pay a little more to just order
a tee-shirt (hell, that is hard enough), rather than futz
with:
- getting a high-res copy from you.
- finding a printer
- getting the artwork to them
- instructing them what to do
- paying for it
- picking it up
Do you, as an artist, demand that your enjoyers
pay such a price?
If so, do you prefer drab tee-shirts?
..I mean do you think that "Virgin with Unicorn" would
deface a tee-shirt, or be a wrong thing to see on a tee-shirt,
or .. ??
FWIW: my point of view is simply that "I like art"
and want to see it in my visual field as much as
possible. Period.
Right now I am drinking from a black coffee cup.
Some prefer black, but I would prefer one with
an art piece, or haiku on it.
What is wrong with that?
Aren't you (Dale) flattered (a little) that I would
want to hang your art on my coffee cup, (that I give
far more eye-play than any museum wall).
In my mind it has nothing to do with money for art,
Dale already made the art free (thank you!)..
I'm talking about "taking delivery" in forms that
can mean something to me.
But perhaps I'm the only one.. though Matthew,
and Rose and my girlfriend all indicated specifically,
without me saying anything, that they would like
hard copy. Maybe they are all fibbing?
>
> dmh
Tom Bishop
Dale Houstman
Tom Bishop wrote:
>
>
> Sure.. but if I happen to want to wear a tee-shirt with
> "Virgin with Unicorn" rather than <whatever else> I have
> to do what? I don't even know. A lot of hassle doing things
> I don't like to do. I make more money doing /what I like to do/,
> and I would FAR prefer to pay a little more to just order
> a tee-shirt (hell, that is hard enough), rather than futz
> with:
> - getting a high-res copy from you.
> - finding a printer
> - getting the artwork to them
> - instructing them what to do
> - paying for it
> - picking it up
>
> Do you, as an artist, demand that your enjoyers
> pay such a price?
Well, my "enjoyers" get to "enjoy" free, anmd since that is essentially
the only thing I am "selling" I've given them a bargain as far as
pleasure is a commodity. It's no different than a person who sells you a
car: he won't drive it for you, or pay the repair bills, or clean out
the ashtrays. The price of owning something (besides the paying for it
initally) is always the cost of maintaining and operating. I provide the
images, and what happens to them when they leave the lot isn't my
concern. At least so far. See below.
>
> If so, do you prefer drab tee-shirts?
Personally? I try to wear clothing with as little decoration (especially
corporate ads) as possible. I don't really like pictures on my duds.
>
> ..I mean do you think that "Virgin with Unicorn" would
> deface a tee-shirt, or be a wrong thing to see on a tee-shirt,
> or .. ??
I don't have any thoughts about it AT ALL. Do I think the t-shirt would
deface the image would be another question: I don't have any thoughts on
that either. I must say however, that this process has stimulated my
fellow surrealists and I to indulge in an investigation of what
precisely is the degree to which one may take money for a creation
without stepping over some corrupted commodity line. For example, what
is the difference bwtween a book as an object and a book as its content,
and how do these differ vis a vis ownership, and (as that is a
relatively easy construct) how does that apply here? My friends think it
is perfectly all right for me to sell the images, and so we are engaed
in an investigation. If you are interested, I will - once we have
completed the process - let you in on it. My position is purely
defensive and - possibly - only vaguely considered.
>
> FWIW: my point of view is simply that "I like art"
> and want to see it in my visual field as much as
> possible. Period.
Of course.
>
> Right now I am drinking from a black coffee cup.
> Some prefer black, but I would prefer one with
> an art piece, or haiku on it.
>
> What is wrong with that?
I see nothing "wrong" with it, anymore than I see anything "wrong" with
my displaying Corot's "Orpheus Leading Eurydice Out Of Hades" on my Desk
Top. Ornamentation is fine. But I don't know what Corot's attitude about
it would be, and I suspect I'll never find out.
>
> Aren't you (Dale) flattered (a little) that I would
> want to hang your art on my coffee cup, (that I give
> far more eye-play than any museum wall).
I try to avoid being "flattered" as much as possible.
>
> In my mind it has nothing to do with money for art,
> Dale already made the art free (thank you!)..
> I'm talking about "taking delivery" in forms that
> can mean something to me.
Well - as I said - I am in the process of hashing this over with my
friends. I must admit the dilemma is a new one for me: I would have been
as happy just to let the work pile up in my room. It's never been a
problem for me before. It's a learning curve.
>
> But perhaps I'm the only one.. though Matthew,
> and Rose and my girlfriend all indicated specifically,
> without me saying anything, that they would like
> hard copy. Maybe they are all fibbing?
No, I believe them.
dmh
Matthew Montchalin
|In my mind it has nothing to do with money for art,
|Dale already made the art free (thank you!)..
|I'm talking about "taking delivery" in forms that
|can mean something to me.
|
|But perhaps I'm the only one.. though Matthew,
|and Rose and my girlfriend all indicated specifically,
|without me saying anything, that they would like
|hard copy. Maybe they are all fibbing?
I'd like a hardcover "art book" that has "perfect binding" - not spiral
binding, all printed on pH neutral paper, so it can last for a very long
time, over 100 years without cracking, assuming gentle handling.
Computers don't last forever, not even CDs. But a book printed on pH
neutral paper probably stands a good chance of lasting for a very long
time. Now, that said, I'd like to buy some "posters" with artwork
so I can put them on my wall, or give them away to friends that don't
have computers. A lot of people don't have computers, and a lot of
people live so far out in the country that they can't even access an
Internet Provider without having to pay long distance phone bills.
Again, this supports the argument that the artist choose a distributor
who will do all the hard work for him, production-wise and marketing-
wise. And if the artist doesn't trust the distributor, then a sunset
provision can be included in the licensing contract preventing sales
after a particular date has passed.
Dale Houstman
Tell you what: you do some of the work for me (I made the damn
things!)and find a publisher who will publish my work, and I'll give you
a free copy.
Other than that, I don't forsee any of this happening.
And - all in all - that's fine by me.
dmh
>
Tom Bishop
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:3DA991F...@citilink.com...
>
>
> Tom Bishop wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Sure.. but if I happen to want to wear a tee-shirt with
> > "Virgin with Unicorn" rather than <whatever else> I have
> > to do what? I don't even know. A lot of hassle doing things
> > I don't like to do. I make more money doing /what I like to do/,
> > and I would FAR prefer to pay a little more to just order
> > a tee-shirt (hell, that is hard enough), rather than futz
> > with:
> > - getting a high-res copy from you.
> > - finding a printer
> > - getting the artwork to them
> > - instructing them what to do
> > - paying for it
> > - picking it up
> >
> > Do you, as an artist, demand that your enjoyers
> > pay such a price?
>
> Well, my "enjoyers" get to "enjoy" free, anmd since that is essentially
> the only thing I am "selling" I've given them a bargain as far as
> pleasure is a commodity.
No fault to you, I am just making your life more complex
by placing unreasonable demands on you.
> It's no different than a person who sells you a
> car: he won't drive it for you, or pay the repair bills, or clean out
> the ashtrays.
They come fully assembled though. You are saying
that I must assemble, which is slightly different.
> The price of owning something (besides the paying for it
> initally) is always the cost of maintaining and operating. I provide the
> images, and what happens to them when they leave the lot isn't my
> concern. At least so far. See below.
>
> >
> > If so, do you prefer drab tee-shirts?
>
> Personally? I try to wear clothing with as little decoration (especially
> corporate ads) as possible. I don't really like pictures on my duds.
I am picky, but mostly cured of it when the software companies
I worked for give me tee-shirts every few months. All ugly.
>
> >
> > ..I mean do you think that "Virgin with Unicorn" would
> > deface a tee-shirt, or be a wrong thing to see on a tee-shirt,
> > or .. ??
>
> I don't have any thoughts about it AT ALL. Do I think the t-shirt would
> deface the image would be another question: I don't have any thoughts on
> that either.
From pregnant voids
plum-apples gently
jam our ears with jewel.
> I must say however, that this process has stimulated my
> fellow surrealists and I to indulge in an investigation of what
> precisely is the degree to which one may take money for a creation
> without stepping over some corrupted commodity line.
Oh, so now you want to make money?
..I was hoping for a radical give-away,
but yeah, money is /a/ way we say thank you (for art).
The GOOD thing about this discussion (IMO) is that it seeks to vector
any money, as directly from the enjoyer of the art, to the creator
of the art.
The FACT is there is no way I am ever going to hang a color
print of anything of yours on my wall, without paying some
printing house /some/ money. If you charge a little more, I
actually feel worse about the money I pay to the printing house
than I do about what would go to you (assuming you didn't
appear too greedy to me) ..if you donated even a part of
your profit to some cause I liked, I might buy double.
> For example, what
> is the difference bwtween a book as an object and a book as its content,
> and how do these differ vis a vis ownership, and (as that is a
> relatively easy construct) how does that apply here?
The book is worth various sums in various minds.
At the point of sale, the book establishes a value,
and changes ownership.
> My friends think it
> is perfectly all right for me to sell the images,
I would help you for free for a good while.
But we would agree (in a contract) if your gallery
were consuming huge bandwidth, or you became
an overnight multi-hundredaire and, and forgot me
the little people. <tear>
My efforts are worth money if there is any money in it,
but as long as there isn't, your art is a joy to me.
Plenty payment.
> and so we are engaed
> in an investigation. If you are interested, I will - once we have
> completed the process - let you in on it.
Clearly I am interested... ;-)
> My position is purely
> defensive and - possibly - only vaguely considered.
You will work it out, and I can live with anything in this
regard. Your current deal is just fine with me, and I consider
it more than generous. And will never abuse it, as I
understand it.
I will keep on asking about actually materializing
hard copy of various sorts, but I will shut up if /you/
indicate so.
>
> >
> > FWIW: my point of view is simply that "I like art"
> > and want to see it in my visual field as much as
> > possible. Period.
>
> Of course.
>
> >
> > Right now I am drinking from a black coffee cup.
> > Some prefer black, but I would prefer one with
> > an art piece, or haiku on it.
> >
> > What is wrong with that?
>
> I see nothing "wrong" with it, anymore than I see anything "wrong" with
> my displaying Corot's "Orpheus Leading Eurydice Out Of Hades" on my Desk
> Top. Ornamentation is fine. But I don't know what Corot's attitude about
> it would be, and I suspect I'll never find out.
You have a certain limited control over your own art. That's all.
Less if you decide that it is worth proliferating, which
I and others are encouraging you that it is. We want it
proliferated to us.
Marketing is a hassle, and not an activity that either of
us is suited to (though for some other ventures, I must
succeed at least marginally at it).
>
> >
> > Aren't you (Dale) flattered (a little) that I would
> > want to hang your art on my coffee cup, (that I give
> > far more eye-play than any museum wall).
>
> I try to avoid being "flattered" as much as possible.
You have a soft chewy center, but I'll never tell.
>
> >
> > In my mind it has nothing to do with money for art,
> > Dale already made the art free (thank you!)..
> > I'm talking about "taking delivery" in forms that
> > can mean something to me.
>
> Well - as I said - I am in the process of hashing this over with my
> friends. I must admit the dilemma is a new one for me: I would have been
> as happy just to let the work pile up in my room. It's never been a
> problem for me before. It's a learning curve.
Yes, I will attempt to harass you like this as long as you
don't killfile me. (and you don't... ;-)
Color copies (standard page size, light paper) cost $.75
where B&W cost $.05. Prices go higher pretty fast I think.
One thought that I had was to find an "on demand" printing
fulfillment house, and put a link to it on art pages whose
author's wanted them (you and me right now). That way it is
easy for someone to have the fulfillment house do this,
and it is just between them and the printer, and you remain
a starving artist.
Another thought is to setup what is called an "affiliate store"
with a fulfillment house. You can determine how much markup
over the (inflated) fulfillment house prices, and what you do with
the markup (if any).. you can adjust down to zero (0) profit if you
want.. but you must pay them (CafePress.Com) $5 per month just
to keep such a store open.
If you are ridden with angst over taking any profit, and don't
want to just say $0 markup, you can donate /your/
profits to the "Save the Gay Poet Whale" Society,
or something more suited to your lingerie.
The only fulfillment house I know is: http://CafePress.Com
and I am not that happy with their structure and pricing, but
they could work, to test the waters.
http://Kinkos.Com is also online, and clearly wants to do this,
and has a way, but it looks complex. I will look into it.
One more beg: send a high res, full size of "Morphyd 2", and "Virgin.."
and I will make myself one each (for my own personal masturbation and
religious services) and I'll report the results with Kinkos. (cool name)
You might possibly think/discuss if someone (possibly me) might
setup an easier process whereby one might simply decide
- art piece
- and poster size,
- or object (coffee cup, tee-shirt etc.)
..can that possibly be considered ethical?
FWIW, back in my kisstian period, Marcus Uzilevsky
(a painter of widely marketed elevator type art, though
he displayed on the Cosby Show set for a long time,
fairly noteworthy /style/.. ) ..at his house for something,
and he was talking about what it took to be successful,
and his take was establishment of style, speed of production,
and marketing. Plus he had legal issues with people plagiarizing
his /style/ (which is copyrightable).
Clearly indicate to your /surreal/ friends if they would like to display
their art in a website similar to yours, my deal would be essentially
the same to anyone you recommend (and/or I like anyway).
I think it would be cool as hell to be able to have a varied collection
of /very contemporary/ artists, and the ability to enjoy their work
almost as they create it.
As long as the bandwidth remains low I have no charges
for such hosting.
>
> >
> > But perhaps I'm the only one.. though Matthew,
> > and Rose and my girlfriend all indicated specifically,
> > without me saying anything, that they would like
> > hard copy. Maybe they are all fibbing?
>
> No, I believe them.
Me too.
>
> dmh
Tom Bishop
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:3DAA5BF8...@citilink.com...
Like I say, I think the internet offers a trade-off, and that
"On Demand" publishing is happening to some degree,
and will more.
Dale Houstman
The images - as images - are "fully assembled." If you want to - for
instance - turn that new Toyota into a funny car, you have to either do
it yourself or pay someone else to do it.
No - I didn't say I want to make money - I said my friends and I are in
the process of discussing the parameters of what we consider ethical on
that score, in regards to surrealism. And only because they demurred on
the point once I explained it to them. An ongoing process of
investigation, you see?
Nah: keep bugging me. I don't mind. Anyway, you and i know that I'm
about the only friend you've got on aapc (and i know Mike Billard isn't
buying you a Christmas present!). And - like I said - the issue is one
the entire surrealist group has shown some interest in.
And I have no absolute argument with profit, only with the potential for
abuse. I am quite aware of what sort of world we all live in, and though
I would like to see it radically altered, I plan to live in this one for
as long as I have to.
More later.
>>dmh
>
>
>
Tom Bishop
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:3DAC7479...@citilink.com...
I know..
> I said my friends and I are in
> the process of discussing the parameters of what we consider ethical on
> that score, in regards to surrealism. And only because they demurred on
> the point once I explained it to them. An ongoing process of
> investigation, you see?
Sure, figure it out!
I never had time for ethics,
I just try to practice the golden rule,
and hope I never meet anyone like me.
I think there is something that might make everybody
pretty happy. I'm happy now. (or at least other problems
make this all /happy/, yeah.. happy.)
<>
> > I will keep on asking about actually materializing
> > hard copy of various sorts, but I will shut up if /you/
> > indicate so.
>
> Nah: keep bugging me. I don't mind. Anyway, you and i know that I'm
> about the only friend you've got on aapc
But you are getting to know that I am a sincere lover
of art and poetry, who in spite of incredible assholeyness
is mostly an asshole. But honest as a banana is long.
I don't bereave in phlegms,
only kinky sex with people
who have a high tolerance for orgasm.
..oh, and pygmy football teams in
fields of stinging nettles can also be fun.
> (and i know Mike Billard isn't
> buying you a Christmas present!).
Bill Mikard can weave his own
coconut husk mukluks.
> And - like I said - the issue is one
> the entire surrealist group has shown some interest in.
Cool.. the more the merrier.
I have about 69 gig of free space on that server,
and another almost empty 80 gig drive.
(..but the bandwidth is a problem.. the 9Meg Mp3 you
sent choked my ISP mailbox, and caused havoc on some
mailing lists.. and is too large to be used,
will email you about it.. ;-)
..images have to be compressed for bandwidth
issues. (and actually, it makes GREAT sense for you
as an artist, to hold the high res images /close/, since
they have less abuse potential.
>
> And I have no absolute argument with profit, only with the potential for
> abuse. I am quite aware of what sort of world we all live in, and though
> I would like to see it radically altered, I plan to live in this one for
> as long as I have to.
Chore.
>
> More later
>
>
>
> >>dmh
> >
Tom Bishop