I wonder
Sock Puppet
Is this the inevitable fate of the whole of usenet? One themed newsgroup
after another falling into the hands of nutters.
Maybe Jonathan has a scientific theory about it... something about the
attractors of the complex usenet system entropising into babble, or
something useful and practical like that.
It happened in the mensa group, alt.revisionism, most of the uk.local
groups.
What's the deal? The self-regulation thing doesn't seem to work. The
Bishops of this world will seek out places where their need to feel like a
victim can be satisfied, and nothing can stop them. Their personal
grievances are more important than the group, I suppose. Their need for
attention is capable of subsuming the forces which might, in the real world,
make them stop. Forces such as telling people to shut the fuck up, ignoring
them, that sort of thing. Those are the ways the real world stops the
nutters from taking over, but this isn't the real world.
Whose fault is it? It's your fault. You allow the Chucks and Bishops to
drag you down to their level where they can beat you. They drag you down
until you're playing their games, and they win because they're better at
whining and being victims than you are, and they have more time to make a
noise, and less compunction about dodging killfiles than you have.
I'll tell you a place where they had things sussed: alt.flame.jesus.christ.
They had scores of visiting gonzos, who were twice as damaged as anything
you have in aapc. But if any of these fruitloops proved too much of a
nuisance, the whole group plonked the cunt. And after that point, if you
said a word to the nut in question, you would get ignored too. Perfect.
Should try it here, but you most likely won't because you're all artists and
hopelessly fucking disorganised and you'd probably view any group rule as
authoritarian.
Well, whatever. Just remember that every point you think you're scoring by
way of a witty retort, a clever poem or a great flame, is actually a point
scored against you. There are witty, clever people here arguing with the
nutters. But obviously you're not clever enough to notice that the best of
what you say whistles clean over their heads.
That's the trouble with you poets... you need to get in touch with the real
world a bit.
$ + $
>
> I wonder if all newsgroups will eventually become like this one?
Many are far worse, even now.
>
> Is this the inevitable fate of the whole of usenet? One themed newsgroup
> after another falling into the hands of nutters.
If so, the regulars bring it on themselves.
I think they should get a charter together.
>
> Maybe Jonathan has a scientific theory about it... something about the
> attractors of the complex usenet system entropising into babble, or
> something useful and practical like that.
>
> It happened in the mensa group, alt.revisionism, most of the uk.local
> groups.
Binary usenet requires special readers.
>
> What's the deal? The self-regulation thing doesn't seem to work. The
> Bishops of this world will seek out places where their need to feel like a
> victim can be satisfied, and nothing can stop them.
Why should anything stop me.
I'm not doing anything except be rude.
I'm happy to be rude.
> Their personal
> grievances are more important than the group, I suppose. Their need for
> attention is capable of subsuming the forces which might, in the real world,
> make them stop. Forces such as telling people to shut the fuck up, ignoring
> them, that sort of thing. Those are the ways the real world stops the
> nutters from taking over, but this isn't the real world.
>
> Whose fault is it? It's your fault. You allow the Chucks and Bishops to
> drag you down to their level where they can beat you.
Screw you for putting me in /any/ category.
I am at least my own.
> They drag you down
> until you're playing their games, and they win because they're better at
> whining and being victims than you are, and they have more time to make a
> noise, and less compunction about dodging killfiles than you have.
Is there something other than rude about it?
Poetry (should be) rude. IMO!
>
> I'll tell you a place where they had things sussed: alt.flame.jesus.christ.
> They had scores of visiting gonzos, who were twice as damaged as anything
> you have in aapc. But if any of these fruitloops proved too much of a
> nuisance, the whole group plonked the cunt. And after that point, if you
> said a word to the nut in question, you would get ignored too. Perfect.
> Should try it here, but you most likely won't because you're all artists and
> hopelessly fucking disorganised and you'd probably view any group rule as
> authoritarian.
Not only that, there is no agreement.
I get alone with plenty of people, and even if they don't like me
(down deep) they live in a glass house. (to some degree)
>
> Well, whatever. Just remember that every point you think you're scoring by
> way of a witty retort, a clever poem or a great flame, is actually a point
> scored against you. There are witty, clever people here arguing with the
> nutters. But obviously you're not clever enough to notice that the best of
> what you say whistles clean over their heads.
Yeah, right. Like you are confusing.
>
> That's the trouble with you poets... you need to get in touch with the real
> world a bit.
Probably.
--
Good Tom, Nice Tom.... woof!
Visit my ribjoint: http:// ....
Institute for International Poetry and Finance
Sock Puppet wrote:
> I wonder if all newsgroups will eventually become like this one?
>
> Is this the inevitable fate of the whole of usenet? One themed newsgroup
> after another falling into the hands of nutters.
The whole world eventually turns into a Jerry Springer show. Get on the
right site of the fence and embrace Allah.
This group is bonkers. I don't really care, because I don't feel
attached to groups, but it has gotten to the point where merely opening
it is a waste of time.
Then again there are still some nice people here like Aidan and George
and Dale. And webforums are censorship ponies: I'd rather have a hundred
nutters than a bureaucrat who thinks he can control what I can or cannot
say.
t....<>....m
>
> And webforums are censorship ponies: I'd rather have a hundred
> nutters than a bureaucrat who thinks he can control what I can or cannot
> say.
Amen.
michael
"Institute for International Poetry and Finance" <postm...@kannibaal.nl>
wrote in message news:3F428A38...@kannibaal.nl...
>
>
> Sock Puppet wrote:
> > I wonder if all newsgroups will eventually become like this one?
> >
> > Is this the inevitable fate of the whole of usenet? One themed
newsgroup
> > after another falling into the hands of nutters.
>
> The whole world eventually turns into a Jerry Springer show. Get on the
> right site of the fence and embrace Allah.
>
> This group is bonkers. I don't really care, because I don't feel
> attached to groups, but it has gotten to the point where merely opening
> it is a waste of time.
>
> Then again there are still some nice people here like Aidan and George
> and Dale.
and yourself, don't forget yourself Benders, you shamelessly modest man.
You're ever so popular and as nice as .....Pie
MARTIJN BENDERS- THEY CALL HIM MR.PIE
Dale Houstman
Sock Puppet wrote:
> I wonder if all newsgroups will eventually become like this one?
>
> Is this the inevitable fate of the whole of usenet? One themed newsgroup
> after another falling into the hands of nutters.
>
I frequent several newsgroups, and ALL of them have decayed badly of
late. As more and more people have access to newsgroups, I suspect the
situation can only get worse. The simplest solution is more moderated
groups I suppose, or going back to "real life" which is scary enough for
some people.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Institute for International Poetry and Finance wrote:
>
>
>
> Then again there are still some nice people here like Aidan and George
> and Dale.
You called me a "nice person"?! This is the one advantage of all these
wolverines and monkies coming to build their fetid nests here: I look
better by comparison.
dmh
Institute for International Poetry and Finance
Dale Houstman wrote:
>> Then again there are still some nice people here like Aidan and George
>> and Dale.
>
> You called me a "nice person"?! This is the one advantage of all these
> wolverines and monkies coming to build their fetid nests here: I look
> better by comparison.
I always thought you were a nice person; you're just a tad bit slow
sometimes. It took you at least 3 posts before you realized the
hierarchy I presented was a silly gag. I also think you're the kind of
person for whom it's almost impossible to see beyond his own taste - I
remember you completely spoiling one of my poems with the idea that you
were doing me a favor. And I still think that you're essentially an
absurdist who for some strange reason believes he's a surrealist.
Paul Heslop
But you're doing it. just by posting this message you are guilty of
exactly the same thing you are chastising others for.
--
Paul. (scatter like ice from the spoon that was your womb)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not what it seems...
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
T%%.0.%%M
EVERYBODY has their own list.
That's all.
--
I'm one team, working alone.
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from
Institute for International Poetry and Finance:
>
>
>Sock Puppet wrote:
>> I wonder if all newsgroups will eventually become like this one?
>>
>> Is this the inevitable fate of the whole of usenet? One themed newsgroup
>> after another falling into the hands of nutters.
>
>The whole world eventually turns into a Jerry Springer show. Get on the
>right site of the fence and embrace Allah.
>
>This group is bonkers. I don't really care, because I don't feel
>attached to groups, but it has gotten to the point where merely opening
>it is a waste of time.
>
>Then again there are still some nice people here like Aidan and George
>and Dale.
And Gwyneth and Bindi and Bill Trenholm.
And occasionally we see Julie and Cythera and Jim Sheard.
>And webforums are censorship ponies:
Yes. One of the reasons I stopped posting to PFFA and Erato and the
Gazebo was that the odds were stacked in my favour by the moderators,
as long as I posted the right kind of poems.
>I'd rather have a hundred
>nutters than a bureaucrat who thinks he can control what I can or cannot
>say.
And Tommy will be gone within a month or two.
After that we'll have to solve the Hillbilly problem.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from
I'm not interested in labelling Dale's poems. I'm happy just to read
them.
As a critic, he's probably a classicist - and a much more convincing
one than a certain kook whose initials are JPH.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
t$<o>$m
>
> And Tom is having fun.
Of course.
@{#}@
>
> I'm not interested in labelling Dale's poems. I'm happy just to read
> them.
Liar.
You labelled them in email to me.
>
> As a critic, he's probably a classicist - and a much more convincing
> one than a certain kook whose initials are JPH.
When you demonstrate you are a human,
perhaps people will believe you as a poet.
Until then, forget it. You just wannabe.
Denise
>
> > Peter J Ross said:
> >
>
> > I'm not interested in labelling Dale's poems. I'm happy just to read
> > them.
>
> Liar.
>
> You labelled them in email to me.
>
He is a scum that would say anything.
You showed me the email where he talked about pandora.
Pretty funny how two-faced this wanker is.
Heh..
--
Denise
-Girls just want to have pun
T---{.}---M
>
> > Peter J Ross said:
> >
>
> > I'm not interested in labelling Dale's poems. I'm happy just to read
> > them.
>
> Liar.
>
> You labelled them in email to me.
>
Peter is a scum that would say anything.
Tom showed me the email where Peter talked about pandora
and Dale. Pretty funny how two-faced this wanker is.
If his /friends/ knew what he really thought...
Heh.
Zinc
news:vcp5kvosuid7miiba...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:36:08 +0200, a team of surgeons from
> alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from
> Institute for International Poetry and Finance:
>
> >
> >
> >Sock Puppet wrote:
> >> I wonder if all newsgroups will eventually become like this one?
> >>
> >> Is this the inevitable fate of the whole of usenet? One themed
newsgroup
> >> after another falling into the hands of nutters.
> >
> >The whole world eventually turns into a Jerry Springer show. Get on the
> >right site of the fence and embrace Allah.
> >
> >This group is bonkers. I don't really care, because I don't feel
> >attached to groups, but it has gotten to the point where merely opening
> >it is a waste of time.
> >
> >Then again there are still some nice people here like Aidan and George
> >and Dale.
>
> And Gwyneth and Bindi and Bill Trenholm.
>
> And occasionally we see Julie and Cythera and Jim Sheard.
And Andrew and Ted and Sophie. And Horatio may be the only one who can get
the posters focused on poetry for a few hours at a time.
Z
--
The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you have it
made.
Dale Houstman
Institute for International Poetry and Finance wrote:
>
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>> Then again there are still some nice people here like Aidan and
>>> George and Dale.
>>
>>
>> You called me a "nice person"?! This is the one advantage of all these
>> wolverines and monkies coming to build their fetid nests here: I look
>> better by comparison.
>
>
>
> I always thought you were a nice person; you're just a tad bit slow
> sometimes. It took you at least 3 posts before you realized the
> hierarchy I presented was a silly gag.
How amusing of you: I knew your hierarchy was a joke from the get-go -
what else could it have been, since you created it, and you're nothing
but a bad joke? The point is that you're a lousy humorist. You were just
too slow to realize I got the joke, that's all.
> I also think you're the kind of
> person for whom it's almost impossible to see beyond his own taste - I
> remember you completely spoiling one of my poems with the idea that you
> were doing me a favor. And I still think that you're essentially an
> absurdist who for some strange reason believes he's a surrealist.
And I think you know so little of what I really am (since - like all
dull contrarians - you have no interest in listening to others) that you
might as well be describing all the millions of other people you've
never gotten to be friends with.
However: The "strange reason" I believe I'm a surrealist is that I am.
Get used to it. My previous conversations with you upon this subject
revealed that you know only what the most common book-jockey knows about
surrealism. So your opinion on the matter - compared to the many active
surrealists I converse with around the world - could scarcely mean much.
The problem is that you - like so many ignorants - think surrealism is a
style of writing, a genre, but the fact is many different sorts of
writers (including absurdists) found themselves involved in surrealist
activity with the original Parisian group. And - furthermore - the one
writer most honored by other surrealists wrote such fare as this...
"How a turquoise titmouse beats it wings in the cream
and the shoots of the vine will fly off like false beards
chased away by cobblestones wandering around lost in some glasses
that aren't mine anymore than an arm's whiteness blackens the hair"
etc.
For all superficial aspects strictly absurdist. Yet he was considered
the purest surrealist poet. Because surrealism - except for lunkheads -
isn't a writing style.
But - of course - you're merely a contrarian, and switch "friends and
substances" with the wind, making you the real-politiks of aapc: another
useless slug like Kissinger, who's only aim is to "win."
So go ahead - "win." Who cares? Unlike Josh I refuse to be the Judy to
your lumpen Punch: I'm going back to ignoring you as the slightly
amusing retarded puppy you seem to be. Go back to that chew toy you
style your "poetry."
dmh
Sock Puppet
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3F42C808...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> But you're doing it. just by posting this message you are guilty of
> exactly the same thing you are chastising others for.
Well... up to a point.
But I'm really chastising other people for a) dumping large numbers of posts
on aapc as a result of their own personal problems, thereby annoying other
posters and limiting their right to enjoy aapc, and b) reacting to said
post-dumpers, thereby filling the newsgroup with flames and off-topic shite.
Martijn seems to imply that I want to censor or moderate the group. I
don't. I hope by describing how alt.flame.jesus-christ deals (or dealt)
with the problem that I'm showing there is another way, in which the
freewheeling style can be preserved but the gonzos don't dictate the terms.
With regard to the latter point, it's very simple: A standard is set ad
hoc; the majority of the group eventually decides a particular nut is asking
for too much, a group plonk is called (and possibly even debated), and the
nut in question goes to Coventry. There's no censorship or moderation--the
nut's free to keep posting, but eventually decides that nobody's interested
in him and he fucks off.
It's simply a question of reaching consensus on a standard. I don't mean
formally: somebody simply has to say "this fuckhead's too much of a
nuisance" and the others simply have to agree or disagree according to what
they think.
That's why I said it was the group's fault. Because collectively and
individually you're unable to take responsibility for and ensure the health
of a good which partially belongs to you.
If you're still here at this point, congratulations, but don't pat yourself
on the back too enthusiastically because you're partly responsible for the
fact that good poets and critics have given up posting because of the nuts
and the inability of the group to handle same.
Paul Heslop
And? We're ALL partly responsible. I still choose who I wish to talk to.
I have another theory. It isn't that responding itself causes all this
shit it is the kind of responses which cause it.
Sock Puppet
>
> And? We're ALL partly responsible.
So we agree, then.
>I still choose who I wish to talk to.
> I have another theory. It isn't that responding itself causes all this
> shit it is the kind of responses which cause it.
Well that's probably true. In that case, the whole group should iggy
Chandra and Sherman and Michael Cook for encouraging these fucking dolts.
I know, I know, this is contrary to any liberal or libertarian view of the
world. Sorry if I seem like some kind of fascist. I'd point out though
that I'm not advocating netcopping or moderation, which would really be the
antithesis of liberal whatnot.
Institute for International Poetry and Finance
Dale Houstman wrote:
> > I always thought you were a nice person; you're just a tad bit slow
> > sometimes. It took you at least 3 posts before you realized the
> > hierarchy I presented was a silly gag.
>
> How amusing of you: I knew your hierarchy was a joke from the get-go -
> what else could it have been, since you created it, and you're nothing
> but a bad joke?
Dale, that's exactly what I mean with 'a tad bit slow' - you're as
predictable as a dying elephant. Everybody knew this would be the way
you'd react to the notion that you were a bit slow to notice something
was a gag. And you were. You can drag that big surrealist ego around for
days for all I care: the proces is essentially primitive.
> The point is that you're a lousy humorist. You were just
> too slow to realize I got the joke, that's all.
As opposed to you who is widely known for being a surrealist slush puppy
with a bad hairday.
> > I also think you're the kind of
> > person for whom it's almost impossible to see beyond his own taste - I
> > remember you completely spoiling one of my poems with the idea that you
> > were doing me a favor. And I still think that you're essentially an
> > absurdist who for some strange reason believes he's a surrealist.
>
> And I think you know so little of what I really am (since - like all
> dull contrarians - you have no interest in listening to others) that you
> might as well be describing all the millions of other people you've
> never gotten to be friends with.
Dale, I am not the person who married someone who has no sort of
interest in my work whatsoever.
That says more about your personality than you'd want.
So you found a cute little peg to fit me in - 'contrarian' - for someone
who hasn't changed his views ever since the vietnam war that must be a
flexible enough peg to fit anything in it that opposes his old dog
routines.
> However: The "strange reason" I believe I'm a surrealist is that I am.
> Get used to it. My previous conversations with you upon this subject
> revealed that you know only what the most common book-jockey knows about
> surrealism. So your opinion on the matter - compared to the many active
> surrealists I converse with around the world - could scarcely mean much.
Ah yes - you're a surrealist 'because you are' and 'because you converse
with many surrealists all around the world'.
Silly me for thinking there was actually some reason behind it all.
> The problem is that you - like so many ignorants - think surrealism is a
> style of writing, a genre, but the fact is many different sorts of
> writers (including absurdists) found themselves involved in surrealist
> activity with the original Parisian group. And - furthermore - the one
> writer most honored by other surrealists wrote such fare as this...
>
> "How a turquoise titmouse beats it wings in the cream
> and the shoots of the vine will fly off like false beards
> chased away by cobblestones wandering around lost in some glasses
> that aren't mine anymore than an arm's whiteness blackens the hair"
> etc.
>
>
> For all superficial aspects strictly absurdist. Yet he was considered
> the purest surrealist poet. Because surrealism - except for lunkheads -
> isn't a writing style.
Oh god, we got to the 'lifestyle department' part of the argument now.
Punk is not a music style, it's a lifestyle! Beatnic is not a dressing
style, it's a lifestyle! So, when Dale wakes up in the morning, puts on
his surrealist slippers and makes a surrealist cup of coffee in his
surrealist coffee machine....
You think the above piece is _absurdism_ ? That only shows you have no
understanding whatsoever about the basic aspects that make a thing an
absurdist piece. It's strictly surrealist in fact, because it's
basically subconscious nonsense with any sort of grand conflict
contained in it whereby an absurdist work can be recognised.
> So go ahead - "win." Who cares? Unlike Josh I refuse to be the Judy to
> your lumpen Punch: I'm going back to ignoring you as the slightly
> amusing retarded puppy you seem to be. Go back to that chew toy you
> style your "poetry."
Leave it to the old dog to think of poetry as his favorite chew toy. In
fact that's exactly my impression of both surrealism and your writing
style, which makes me think now that you might be a surrealist after all.
George Tolis
"Sock Puppet" <sdjfg...@dfjkghsdjfgh.com> wrote in message
news:bhvamp$bro$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
A standard is set ad
> hoc; the majority of the group eventually decides a particular nut is
asking
> for too much, a group plonk is called (and possibly even debated), and the
> nut in question goes to Coventry.
Bollocks. There's nothing wrong with Coventry. We get sunshine here too
sometimes!
GT
<snip>
#
>
> > And Gwyneth and Bindi and Bill Trenholm.
> >
> > And occasionally we see Julie and Cythera and Jim Sheard.
Bindi is the only one worth reading, although I haven't
read enough cythera, s/he is obviously fairly prudish,
and unlikely anything interesting.
Gwyneth has interesting crits, but can't write.
>
> And Andrew and Ted and Sophie. And Horatio may be the only one who can get
> the posters focused on poetry for a few hours at a time.
Yes but other than Horatio, none of them can write poetry worth shit,
and Horatio is an asshole.
Big fucking deal.
O
>
>
>
> found themselves involved in surrealist
I find it interesting that you would defend a category.
Who cares really.
Seems like the question is more creating art
that is interesting.
Seems that casting off every category would be your /thing/?
Why not let talentless academicians label it later.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Ah, so po widdle Petie was upset by my widdle post. Now, po widdle
Petie says he's going to have his older brother bring the big boys
around to beat me up. As soon as he's taken care of Tom, of course. --
Oh, and Chuck.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:56:10 +0200, a team of surgeons from
Is po widdle Petie upset? He's calling people _bad names_ and
everything.
Josh
Dale Houstman
O wrote:
>>Dale Houstman said:
>>
>>
>>
>>found themselves involved in surrealist
>
>
> I find it interesting that you would defend a category.
>
> Who cares really.
That really makes no sense. All human knowledge is defined by a series
of categories. And - at any rate - I am NOT defending a category, I am
defending my right to be what I what to be. It's called "liberty,"
another category and label.
>
> Seems like the question is more creating art
> that is interesting.
Like this category: bad English leading towards incomprehension.
>
> Seems that casting off every category would be your /thing/?
Silliness really. You're categorizing my supposed ideal of
de-categorization.
>
> Why not let talentless academicians label it later.
One CANNOT speak nor think without "names." Why are you creating the
label "talentless academicians"?
If you really have nothing to add to the mix except this sentimental
(and self-negating) "let's float around in nameless bliss" gig, it is
best you find another line of labor than simple discussion, because -
without categories and labels - you will be unable to continue.
dmh
>
(@)
>
>
It seems you may not have heard of it,
but there is this thing called "Common Law" that
predates the Constitution, which is based on *it*.
As a body of laws, "Common Law" trys to avoid the vigilante bullshit
that you suggest.
"As if" some concensus around poetry is a /good thing/.
You are unaware of the nature of poetry, which is at
its best, rude.
Rude to language,
rude to sensibilities,
shocking!
Non-consensus, non-cliche.
There are plenty of moderated places that people are
relatively safe from /different/ points of view.
This is Usenet, dammit.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>> Dale Houstman said:
>>
>>
>>
>> found themselves involved in surrealist
>
>I find it interesting that you would defend a category.
>
>Who cares really.
>
>Seems like the question is more creating art
>that is interesting.
>
>Seems that casting off every category would be your /thing/?
>
>Why not let talentless academicians label it later.
But it was Martijn who raised the issue of categories:
"And I still think that you're essentially an absurdist who for some
strange reason believes he's a surrealist."
Which, of course, fits his cigar-box syndic's need to categorize art
into categories more bourgeois than Hegelian: "Drapers' Guild,"
"Absurdists' Guild"; "Faux Avant-Garde Spikey-Haired Pretentious
Anti-Semitic Homophobic Nationalistic Infantile Hypocritical Whining
Self-Promoting Tea-Cozy Radical Web Page Designers With Pretensions of
Being Poets' Guild."
Josh
t....< >....m
>
> > If you're still here at this point, congratulations, but don't pat yourself
> > on the back too enthusiastically because you're partly responsible for the
> > fact that good poets and critics have given up posting because of the nuts
> > and the inability of the group to handle same.
>
> And? We're ALL partly responsible. I still choose who I wish to talk to.
> I have another theory. It isn't that responding itself causes all this
> shit it is the kind of responses which cause it.
He's just pissed he can't killfile me.
:-)
@@@@@{#}@@@@@
>
>
> "Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3F4333DA...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> >
> > And? We're ALL partly responsible.
>
> So we agree, then.
>
> >I still choose who I wish to talk to.
> > I have another theory. It isn't that responding itself causes all this
> > shit it is the kind of responses which cause it.
>
> Well that's probably true. In that case, the whole group should iggy
> Chandra and Sherman and Michael Cook for encouraging these fucking dolts.
Pretty astute.
>
> I know, I know, this is contrary to any liberal or libertarian view of the
> world. Sorry if I seem like some kind of fascist. I'd point out though
> that I'm not advocating netcopping or moderation, which would really be the
> antithesis of liberal whatnot.
That was the gist of your post.
Zinc
news:5kJ0b.3243$8M6...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > Zinc said:
> >
>
> > > And Gwyneth and Bindi and Bill Trenholm.
> > >
> > > And occasionally we see Julie and Cythera and Jim Sheard.
>
> Bindi is the only one worth reading, although I haven't
> read enough cythera, s/he is obviously fairly prudish,
> and unlikely anything interesting.
>
> Gwyneth has interesting crits, but can't write.
Tom, do you take time for potty breaks? Or did you just cut a whole in the
wheelchair?
>
> >
> > And Andrew and Ted and Sophie. And Horatio may be the only one who can
get
> > the posters focused on poetry for a few hours at a time.
>
> Yes but other than Horatio, none of them can write poetry worth shit,
> and Horatio is an asshole.
Sounds like a fecal fixation.
------0------
>
> As soon as he's taken care of Tom, of course. --
rocket has a new sockette
and they're humping in my pocket.
.<>.
>
> > it is
> > best you find another line of labor than simple discussion, because -
> > without categories and labels - you will be unable to continue.
Art is interesting (sometimes).
Discussion of art, to me, is mostly boring, as it is to many.
Most people couldn't tolerate it here, and don't.
Butt-holes like you (or me) drive them off.
As far as continuing...
I can continue to appreciate art here, and express my
disdain for art discussion as long as I wish, I guess.
Psst.. they were correct about how emotional you get
upon any criticism, eh? heh.
Paul Heslop
Hey no, I get accused of the same thing in other groups. I can't stand
the racist xposts which get plastered everywhere, or the religious flame
wars which develop in photography group, or woodwork groups etc... but I
still get dragged into the damn things when I see something that really
pisses me off.
Paul Heslop
>
> > Paul Heslop said:
> >
>
> > > If you're still here at this point, congratulations, but don't pat yourself
> > > on the back too enthusiastically because you're partly responsible for the
> > > fact that good poets and critics have given up posting because of the nuts
> > > and the inability of the group to handle same.
> >
> > And? We're ALL partly responsible. I still choose who I wish to talk to.
> > I have another theory. It isn't that responding itself causes all this
> > shit it is the kind of responses which cause it.
>
> He's just pissed he can't killfile me.
>
> :-)
>
file to something like 20 in one day!)
Paul Heslop
> Bollocks. There's nothing wrong with Coventry. We get sunshine here too
> sometimes!
You lie!
:O)
@@@ + @@@
>
>
> But it was Martijn who raised the issue of categories:
Categories are endless, and clearly needed for discussion,
but Art discussion is so fucking prosey.
In outre words
---------------------
please Got, give I pray
a purple bottomed boat to guide way
in the name of our Lort.
------O------
>
> wheelchair
??
Where did I say that I used a wheelchair?
Lucy B Lulontaopds
>
> wheelchair?
You don't know much.
--
Loose Luce - stew my goosey
Visit Tom's ribjoint: http:// ....
Zinc
news:tZL0b.650$Vm4...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > Zinc said:
> >
>
> > wheelchair?
>
>
> You don't know much.
>
>...a whole in the wheelchair?
Hole.
Then tell me more, tom-tom. Do you have to wear diapers?
@@@@{.}@@@@
>
Glad you asked.
I've won many awards in texas against a loser
named Texas Mix King, but humility prevents me...
In addition, I posted a total piece of shit on
Poetry.Com, and they loved it... :-)
Most notably, here on Usenet poetry:
I have the Dennis M. Hammes "crackerjack job, dude"
seal of approval,
AND
I have collaborated on a poem with Dale Houstman
that he did not disfavorably review. (best you get with Dale,
or at least I was happy enough.)
In Usenet poetry, /that/ is 2 gems of the symbolic "Triple Crown".
..of which Usenet poetry only has 2, if that.
(of course dickery doc, pandora/texmex etc.. might think they
are another crown, but nah...)
In addition, a lesser player, "rocket J. Ross" gave me
very reasonable grades on a poetry assignment. (the one
assignment of a multi-part course that he promised,
and then wimped out on. Google tells.)
I've done poem tag with Angel, who has uttered "Wow"
on more than one occassion. (not that she is a critic,
but you seem impressed by "time served", and it seems
Angel has been on RAP for a while.)
Nora on aapc, whom rocket says is a good poet and critic,
is googleable as having said I am "one of the best on usenet"
(until pandora stepped in and made an ass of herself)
In otherwords, I am Usenet Poet of the Year.
There may be others that have written better poetry, but
over a gamut, I, at only a year and some, am as prolific in
poetry as I was in programming.
Joshua P. Hill
<Dtou...@Smusulbut.com> wrote:
>> Joshua P. Hill said:
>>
>>
>> But it was Martijn who raised the issue of categories:
>
>
>Categories are endless, and clearly needed for discussion,
>but Art discussion is so fucking prosey.
That doesn't bother me, as long as people don't confuse the art
discussion with the creation of the art itself. I was about to add
"appreciation," and to some sense that's true, but since discussion
and analysis can provide useful background material and some insight
into analytical methodology, I suppose it has a certain utility. Also,
I've found that that sort of analysis sometimes provides an excuse to
read a work closely.
Josh
@@@@@{.}@@@@@
AFAIC Right on all counts!
That's why I force myself to read some of them.
I certainly don't think there is anything /wrong/ with art discussion,
or categorization. It is just IMO, people's categorization systems
themselves are cliched and/or limited, and impose more limits.
It is not what I am here for (primarily), but rather for the art.
Zinc
@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com:
>> Zinc said:
>>
>
>
>
> Glad you asked.
<...>
I think you addressed the question: you mess yourself so you don't miss any
posts.
(Btw, it's still easy to keep you plonked - thought you'd like to know -
but various puters and readers leave pin-holes here and there, which still
keeps your spam at a minimum)
Dale Houstman
Zinc wrote:
>
> Then tell me more, tom-tom. Do you have to wear diapers?
>
>
No, a facebag, since it all comes out that direction.
____{%}____
>
>
Yes...
I've won many awards in texas against a loser
named Texas Mix King, but humility prevents me...
etc..
=====(_)=====
>
> No, a facebag, since it all comes out that direction.
Bow wow.
Lucy B Bsmltop
>
> > Dale Houstman said:
> >
>
> > No, a facebag, since it all comes out that direction.
>
> Bow wow.
Don't bite him Tom.
Down boy.
Aidan Tynan
# wrote in message <5kJ0b.3243$8M6...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
>> Zinc said:
>>
>
>> > And Gwyneth and Bindi and Bill Trenholm.
>> >
>> > And occasionally we see Julie and Cythera and Jim Sheard.
>
>Bindi is the only one worth reading, although I haven't
>read enough cythera, s/he is obviously fairly prudish,
>and unlikely anything interesting.
>
>Gwyneth has interesting crits, but can't write.
She can write better than cythera, and others. I like Gwyneth's poems. Don't
forget shambhu.
-Aidan
>
>
>>
>> And Andrew and Ted and Sophie. And Horatio may be the only one who can
get
>> the posters focused on poetry for a few hours at a time.
>
>Yes but other than Horatio, none of them can write poetry worth shit,
>and Horatio is an asshole.
>
>Big fucking deal.
Aidan Tynan
Zinc wrote in message ...
>" # " <Srlar...@Subrsso.com> wrote in message
>news:5kJ0b.3243$8M6...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>> > Zinc said:
>> >
>>
>> > > And Gwyneth and Bindi and Bill Trenholm.
>> > >
>> > > And occasionally we see Julie and Cythera and Jim Sheard.
>>
>> Bindi is the only one worth reading, although I haven't
>> read enough cythera, s/he is obviously fairly prudish,
>> and unlikely anything interesting.
>>
>> Gwyneth has interesting crits, but can't write.
>
>Tom, do you take time for potty breaks? Or did you just cut a whole in the
>wheelchair?
hey zinc, that's really funny.
-Aidan
T$$$$(0)$$$$M
>
> >Gwyneth has interesting crits, but can't write.
>
> She can write better than cythera, and others. I like Gwyneth's poems. Don't
> forget shambhu.
True, but it is usually topically boring to me, and I am being
hyperbolically rude.
Anyone might surprise me at any next moment
at which point I will love them more than Replay TV.
Who knows what's next?
"I wonder"
Aidan Tynan
Zinc wrote in message ...
Aidan tries to do Joyce:
So the boys rode out of Belfast on that cloaca, with Clive at the helm
smelling of the bitter ciders and gins and tobaccos they’d gone through. And
it was Molly Corcoran they’d found, then Molly Devlin, or fatty Devlin,
whose father kept loganberries and smoked cheroots and who whipped her
occasionally with the strop. She joined the crew there and then, set sail on
that river. And when it came down to it, what choice did she really have?
Her father would never have taken her back after she had run away. Clive’s
parents had enough to take care of them, she wouldn’t even have to work if
she didn’t want. Could she marry an imbecile and still be happy? And Clive’s
father, Daniel, what had he to do with it? Nothing, really. He could no
longer stand the sight or smell of his son. His wife sethed uncomfortably in
her sibilant eggtimer, as if scorning Danny’s disdain, the termagent tongue
lisping his unirish name.
Wellwishers increasingly broached the question: what is wrong with him?
Lightening, said Molly. A bolt of lightening to the head. Severe brain
damage. Very unfortunate. Clive continued babbling.
Thus fatty Devlin, like something of a travesty herself, rolled Clive,
howling, into the backseat of her Gremlin, and was spared a premature
widowhood while the boys moved off to find their fortunes, a job well done.
And fatty Devlin became fatty Corcoran, who was married a virgin, yet who,
through an immaculate conception of her own, mothered a full grown man. She’
d gondola that river, plumb its depths, come out on the other side clean
maybe, bleached white. She went to see her father one day, on a complete
whim, on one of those waves of guilt which rises up without warning. As it
happened, the old man had gone completely mad. All he wanted now, all he
needed, was to be left alone with his loganberries. And his bees. He stood
now among his beehives, listening to the rattling of the inmates, the great
contained fire of the swarm. He ate loganberries from his blotched palm, as
the bees flowed through the arcane mechanisms of the hive the way, he
imagined, water would flow through a weir or smoke a chimney, giving them
shape. The swarm was nothing without the hive, that was certain, the two
were consubstantial, father and son and ghost in one. The verdigris plains
swept out before him, swept by linen shadows, butomus wheat betula or tulip,
geodesic reindeer-moss, noble rot, the pale hand of a nurse in a darkened
ward like a copse of cottonwood trees, field hospital. ... The hives stood
in their cages. The music of the bees.
Tree of nonsense, vulgate, sebum, doomsday book, myrmidon, a host of bees,
palabra of the unthinkable. Infinity, palsies the brain, pareses of the
mouth and voice musles, mustard gas of the mind. Except for the mad, they at
least understand how infinity is, that’s why they’re mad in the first place.
Invent metaphors which come nowhere close: sky, desert, ocean, all of which
are really incommensurate with infinity, the way a point is to an area. The
way the bee is to the swarm. A point, is a point a very small area? doesn’t
a single coordinate have some sort of area of space to cover? No, a swarm is
made of individual bees, not smaller swarms spiralling infinitely inward. Do
two bees constitute a swarm, or three? Where is the line drawn, the event
horizon, where a cluster of bees becomes a swarm, where a group of
coordinates becomes an area? How many notes does it take for noise to become
music. The transient white hiss, drone, imagine, named after what it sounds
like, named after what it can do. So what to call humans? Shits, deads,
eats, loves, speaks. Ordinal numbers, transfinite. Bit of a mathematician,
are you, Mr. ... ? Aleph-nought, hebrew, means infinity, the set of all
natural numbers. Aleph is also God, strange that. It’s possible for infinity
to be infinitely divided into finite parts. Infinite amount of positive
numbers, yes, but also an infinite amount of negative. Two infinities, one
the descending the other ascending.
Celestial psychosis of cause and effect, move me, from which I suffer, sea
sickness unto death. They let me look after my bees, which is nice. Didn’t
have to. Didn’t have to do. Mad House, they keep me. The collective hissing
of the insane will drive them to drape the protective veil over the face,
the white mud, and smoke us to sleep, fumigated until we lie passive in
their hands. Which is why everyone in psychiatric hospitals smokes. (The ash
of boredom, splintering at the fag end, constellation on lap of trousers,
read tea leafs, get results, monadology, wiping a single fleck of white ash
with the tip of the finger is the smallest action a human can perform, a
quantum event, see?) Get them all together in one place and give them a
blast of the stuff. Easier then. Let them become a product of their quantum
events. Hell is merely a place which sinners regard as an abode, not a place
unlivable, which is the real definition of hell, ipso facto, hell is not a
place where one can exist, therefore death without afterlife.
-Aidan
>
>
>
~~~~~.0.~~~~~
>
>
> Zinc wrote in message ...
> >" # " <Srlar...@Subrsso.com> wrote in message
> >news:5kJ0b.3243$8M6...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > Zinc said:
> >> >
> >>
> >> > > And Gwyneth and Bindi and Bill Trenholm.
> >> > >
> >> > > And occasionally we see Julie and Cythera and Jim Sheard.
> >>
> >> Bindi is the only one worth reading, although I haven't
> >> read enough cythera, s/he is obviously fairly prudish,
> >> and unlikely anything interesting.
> >>
> >> Gwyneth has interesting crits, but can't write.
> >
> >Tom, do you take time for potty breaks? Or did you just cut a whole in the
> >wheelchair?
>
> hey zinc, that's really funny.
I have never even joked about a wheelchair.
Perhaps I will be there one day.
Wheelchairs are not completely new to me,
having needed one 30 years ago.
I have a 27yo artificial hip that is (still) structurally sound,
but the leg has lost muscle control. I use a cane (which
doubles as a 9mm lilac pistil)
Aidan Tynan
Institute for International Poetry and Finance wrote in message
<3F433CB8...@kannibaal.nl>...
>
>Oh god, we got to the 'lifestyle department' part of the argument now.
>Punk is not a music style, it's a lifestyle! Beatnic is not a dressing
>style, it's a lifestyle! So, when Dale wakes up in the morning, puts on
>his surrealist slippers and makes a surrealist cup of coffee in his
>surrealist coffee machine....
A Surrealist Manifesto: The Declaration of January 27, 1925
With regard to a false interpretation of 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 or expression, or an easier one, nor even a
metaphysic of poetry. It is a means of total liberation of the mind and of
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
Élaurd, Max Ernst, et al.
Source: Maurice Nadeau, The History of Surrealism, Cambridge: Belknap Press,
1989, pp.240-41.
-Aidan
>
>You think the above piece is _absurdism_ ? That only shows you have no
>understanding whatsoever about the basic aspects that make a thing an
>absurdist piece. It's strictly surrealist in fact, because it's
>basically subconscious nonsense with any sort of grand conflict
>contained in it whereby an absurdist work can be recognised.
>
>
>> So go ahead - "win." Who cares? Unlike Josh I refuse to be the Judy to
>> your lumpen Punch: I'm going back to ignoring you as the slightly
>> amusing retarded puppy you seem to be. Go back to that chew toy you
>> style your "poetry."
>
>Leave it to the old dog to think of poetry as his favorite chew toy. In
>fact that's exactly my impression of both surrealism and your writing
>style, which makes me think now that you might be a surrealist after all.
>
Aidan Tynan
.<>. wrote in message ...
>> Dale Houstman said:
>>
>> > it is
>> > best you find another line of labor than simple discussion, because -
>> > without categories and labels - you will be unable to continue.
>
>Art is interesting (sometimes).
>
>Discussion of art, to me, is mostly boring, as it is to many.
But you're discussing art now; are you bored?
>
>Most people couldn't tolerate it here, and don't.
>
>Butt-holes like you (or me) drive them off.
>
>As far as continuing...
>
>I can continue to appreciate art here, and express my
>disdain for art discussion as long as I wish, I guess.
"Expressing disdain for art discussion" is art discussion, you see. The act
of "appreciating art" is the act of having an "art discussion" with oneself.
-Aidan
.(.).
>
>
> >>
> >
> >>...a whole in the wheelchair?
<>
> ipso facto, hell is not a
> place where one can exist, therefore death without afterlife.
>
>
> -Aidan
Now there's a snappy comeback.
Aidan Tynan
Joshua P. Hill wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:07:28 GMT, "O" <Uummu...@Osdlausrt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> Dale Houstman said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> found themselves involved in surrealist
>>
>>I find it interesting that you would defend a category.
>>
>>Who cares really.
>>
>>Seems like the question is more creating art
>>that is interesting.
>>
>>Seems that casting off every category would be your /thing/?
>>
>>Why not let talentless academicians label it later.
>
>But it was Martijn who raised the issue of categories:
>
>strange reason believes he's a surrealist."
>
>Which, of course, fits his cigar-box syndic's need to categorize art
>into categories more bourgeois than Hegelian:
But it was Kant, the uber-bourgeois philosophe, who was into categories.
Hegel wasn't very much interested in categorisation.
"Drapers' Guild,"
>"Absurdists' Guild";
Now you're talking "guilders".
"Faux Avant-Garde Spikey-Haired Pretentious
>Anti-Semitic Homophobic Nationalistic Infantile Hypocritical Whining
>Self-Promoting Tea-Cozy Radical Web Page Designers With Pretensions of
>Being Poets' Guild."
You forget the "I have a girlfriend club".
-Aidan
>
>Josh
Institute for International Poetry and Finance
Aidan Tynan wrote:
> Institute for International Poetry and Finance wrote in message
> <3F433CB8...@kannibaal.nl>...
>
>
>>Oh god, we got to the 'lifestyle department' part of the argument now.
>>Punk is not a music style, it's a lifestyle! Beatnic is not a dressing
>>style, it's a lifestyle! So, when Dale wakes up in the morning, puts on
>>his surrealist slippers and makes a surrealist cup of coffee in his
>>surrealist coffee machine....
>
>
> A Surrealist Manifesto: The Declaration of January 27, 1925
>
(..)
> 2. Surrealism is not a new means or expression, or an easier one, nor even a
> metaphysic of poetry. It is a means of total liberation of the mind and of
> all that resembles it.
Yeah, like I never read that one. Replace 'Surrealist' with 'Punk' and
you'd been hip in the seventies. Replace it with 'techno' and you'd been
hip in the nineties. And you know why that is? Because it's hollow
phrasology that only appeals to teenagers.
M.H.Benders
(@)
>
>
> .<>. wrote in message ...
> >> Dale Houstman said:
> >>
> >> > it is
> >> > best you find another line of labor than simple discussion, because -
> >> > without categories and labels - you will be unable to continue.
> >
> >Art is interesting (sometimes).
> >
> >Discussion of art, to me, is mostly boring, as it is to many.
>
> But you're discussing art now; are you bored?
Kinda... showing signs.
>
> >
> >Most people couldn't tolerate it here, and don't.
> >
> >Butt-holes like you (or me) drive them off.
> >
> >As far as continuing...
> >
> >I can continue to appreciate art here, and express my
> >disdain for art discussion as long as I wish, I guess.
>
> "Expressing disdain for art discussion" is art discussion, you see. The act
> of "appreciating art" is the act of having an "art discussion" with oneself.
Then I've been on-topic all along.
I'll stop worrying, and braid my soc pipets.
Jonathan
"Sock Puppet" <sdjfg...@dfjkghsdjfgh.com> wrote in message
news:bhtvdf$gfl$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I wonder if all newsgroups will eventually become like this one?
>
> Is this the inevitable fate of the whole of usenet? One themed newsgroup
> after another falling into the hands of nutters.
>
> Maybe Jonathan has a scientific theory about it... something about the
> attractors of the complex usenet system entropising into babble, or
> something useful and practical like that.
Well....now that you mentioned it~
To me predictability and certainty is death.
Diversity and change is life. Such storms may
mess up the yard, but the effects are
almost always positive for the
community.
How people react to the change and extremes
can be educational and even inspirational.
As a habit I strive to be 'off-topic' as much
as possible.
Jonathan
s
>
> It happened in the mensa group, alt.revisionism, most of the uk.local
> groups.
>
> What's the deal? The self-regulation thing doesn't seem to work. The
> Bishops of this world will seek out places where their need to feel like a
> victim can be satisfied, and nothing can stop them. Their personal
> grievances are more important than the group, I suppose. Their need for
> attention is capable of subsuming the forces which might, in the real world,
> make them stop. Forces such as telling people to shut the fuck up, ignoring
> them, that sort of thing. Those are the ways the real world stops the
> nutters from taking over, but this isn't the real world.
>
> Whose fault is it? It's your fault. You allow the Chucks and Bishops to
> drag you down to their level where they can beat you. They drag you down
> until you're playing their games, and they win because they're better at
> whining and being victims than you are, and they have more time to make a
> noise, and less compunction about dodging killfiles than you have.
>
> I'll tell you a place where they had things sussed: alt.flame.jesus.christ.
> They had scores of visiting gonzos, who were twice as damaged as anything
> you have in aapc. But if any of these fruitloops proved too much of a
> nuisance, the whole group plonked the cunt. And after that point, if you
> said a word to the nut in question, you would get ignored too. Perfect.
> Should try it here, but you most likely won't because you're all artists and
> hopelessly fucking disorganised and you'd probably view any group rule as
> authoritarian.
>
> Well, whatever. Just remember that every point you think you're scoring by
> way of a witty retort, a clever poem or a great flame, is actually a point
> scored against you. There are witty, clever people here arguing with the
> nutters. But obviously you're not clever enough to notice that the best of
> what you say whistles clean over their heads.
>
> That's the trouble with you poets... you need to get in touch with the real
> world a bit.
>
>
Zinc
news:Q82dna_jd9r...@giganews.com...
>
> "Sock Puppet" <sdjfg...@dfjkghsdjfgh.com> wrote in message
> news:bhtvdf$gfl$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I wonder if all newsgroups will eventually become like this one?
> >
> > Is this the inevitable fate of the whole of usenet? One themed
newsgroup
> > after another falling into the hands of nutters.
> >
> > Maybe Jonathan has a scientific theory about it... something about the
> > attractors of the complex usenet system entropising into babble, or
> > something useful and practical like that.
>
>
> Well....now that you mentioned it~
>
> To me predictability and certainty is death.
Yeah, I saw Bucket of Blood, too "Repetition is death!"
It was hilarious. (You /are/ joking?)
> Diversity and change is life. Such storms may
> mess up the yard, but the effects are
> almost always positive for the
> community.
And a positive for the gardener. (You /aren't/ joking)
> How people react to the change and extremes
> can be educational and even inspirational.
And down right evolutional. Or sometimes apocalyptical.
> As a habit I strive to be 'off-topic' as much
> as possible.
Noooo.
> Jonathan
>
Jonathan
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:3F42C340...@citilink.com...
>
>
> Institute for International Poetry and Finance wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >
> > Then again there are still some nice people here like Aidan and George
> > and Dale.
>
>
> You called me a "nice person"?!
Huh! Was the first thing that crossed my mind too!
>This is the one advantage of all these
> wolverines and monkies coming to build their fetid nests here: I look
> better by comparison.
Well that begs a simple question doesn't it? If these newbies
are truly such simple low-lifes then the 'enlightened' regs
should have little difficulty training them eh? Plonking
and flaming contradicts the premise.
I wish it were easier to make wagers in here.
Jonathan
s
>
> dmh
>
Zinc
news:m5P0b.28345$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
>
> Aidan tries to do Joyce:
>
<snip great stuff for bandwidth>
You should write the book. I'm not familiar with Joyce beyond knowing that
he wrote Finnegan's Wake, so there are probably many references missed. But
it's a very good read.
Aidan Tynan
Zinc wrote in message ...
>news:m5P0b.28345$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
>>
>
>> Aidan tries to do Joyce:
>>
><snip great stuff for bandwidth>
>
>You should write the book.
Grrr, yes, I have been trying in my spare time to do that.
I'm not familiar with Joyce beyond knowing that
>he wrote Finnegan's Wake, so there are probably many references missed. But
>it's a very good read.
Hey thanks.
-Aidan
>
>
>
t%{^}%m
Did it answer your questions about the hole in the wheelchair?
Dale Houstman
Aidan Tynan wrote:
> Institute for International Poetry and Finance wrote in message
> <3F433CB8...@kannibaal.nl>...
>
>
>>Oh god, we got to the 'lifestyle department' part of the argument now.
>>Punk is not a music style, it's a lifestyle! Beatnic is not a dressing
>>style, it's a lifestyle! So, when Dale wakes up in the morning, puts on
>>his surrealist slippers and makes a surrealist cup of coffee in his
>>surrealist coffee machine....
>
Thanks for posting the pertinent document, Aidan. Yet, the real horror
here is that - even though surrealism is one of the most documented
movements of the last century - none of the idiots who misunderstand it
as a "literary movement" either bothered to research or was capable of
researching it before they posted their ignorance for us all to see. The
fact is one could be considered a surrealist despite being a non-artist
or a non-writer. One of those whom the surrealists considered to be the
"purest" of surrealist still alive (at the time) was - in fact - a pugilist.
dmh
Sock Puppet
> news:bhtvdf$gfl$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I wonder if all newsgroups will eventually become like this one?
> >
> > Is this the inevitable fate of the whole of usenet? One themed
newsgroup
> > after another falling into the hands of nutters.
> >
> > Maybe Jonathan has a scientific theory about it... something about the
> > attractors of the complex usenet system entropising into babble, or
> > something useful and practical like that.
>
>
> Well....now that you mentioned it~
>
> To me predictability and certainty is death.
> Diversity and change is life. Such storms may
> mess up the yard, but the effects are
> almost always positive for the
> community.
Would you care to enumerate the positive effects of a poetry newsgroup's
transformation into a dumping-ground for the expression of jealousy, bad
feeling and a cataaloge of pathologies?
>
> How people react to the change and extremes
> can be educational and even inspirational.
The educational and inspirational value to be gained from the disappearance
of one's laboratory subjects is questionable.
t......{_}......m
>
>
> Would you care to enumerate the positive effects of a poetry newsgroup's
> transformation into a dumping-ground for the expression of jealousy, bad
> feeling and a cataaloge of pathologies?
You mean like all of your last messages?
Perhaps if you took your head out of your ass and looked around
you would notice that there were just numerous poems posted.
Both original and from archives.
Dale Houstman
cythera wrote:
> Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:<3F444940...@citilink.com>...
>
>>Aidan Tynan wrote:
>> > Institute for International Poetry and Finance wrote in message
>> > <3F433CB8...@kannibaal.nl>...
>> >
>> >
>> >>Oh god, we got to the 'lifestyle department' part of the argument now.
>> >>Punk is not a music style, it's a lifestyle! Beatnic is not a dressing
>> >>style, it's a lifestyle! So, when Dale wakes up in the morning, puts on
>> >>his surrealist slippers and makes a surrealist cup of coffee in his
>> >>surrealist coffee machine....
>> >
>>
>>
>>Thanks for posting the pertinent document, Aidan. Yet, the real horror
>>here is that - even though surrealism is one of the most documented
>>movements of the last century - none of the idiots who misunderstand it
>>as a "literary movement" either bothered to research or was capable of
>>researching it before they posted their ignorance for us all to see. The
>>fact is one could be considered a surrealist despite being a non-artist
>>or a non-writer. One of those whom the surrealists considered to be the
>>"purest" of surrealist still alive (at the time) was - in fact - a pugilist.
>
>
> True, and I am not disagreeing with anything you say, but he is and was
> considered a poet, too.
Certainly, but not really in the sense which society-at-large
understands what "poet" means: Cravan's little puddle of written words
isn't what compelled the surrealists' in his direction, but his actions
and his disdain for the sensibilities of the prevailing culture. And
he's hardly the only person that is considered a "poet" or a surrealist
in this sense: that being a mere "writer of words" or a "dauber" hardly
qualifies one for inclusion is plain from the history and the texts. For
all surrealists, it was NOT the "product" but the "process" and its
potential for expanding reality (for the creator and the viewer) that
mattered the most. Almost everyone writes something or another, yet it
is obvious even from the lists the group made of proto-surrealists, that
such literary/artistic concerns were not the most central aspect of a
person's "attunement" to the ideals of surrealism.
dmh
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:<3F444940...@citilink.com>...
> > > Institute for International Poetry and Finance wrote in message
> > > <3F433CB8...@kannibaal.nl>...
> > >
> > >
> > >>Oh god, we got to the 'lifestyle department' part of the argument now.
> > >>Punk is not a music style, it's a lifestyle! Beatnic is not a dressing
> > >>style, it's a lifestyle! So, when Dale wakes up in the morning, puts on
> > >>his surrealist slippers and makes a surrealist cup of coffee in his
> > >>surrealist coffee machine....
> > >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for posting the pertinent document, Aidan. Yet, the real horror
> > here is that - even though surrealism is one of the most documented
> > movements of the last century - none of the idiots who misunderstand it
> > as a "literary movement" either bothered to research or was capable of
> > researching it before they posted their ignorance for us all to see. The
> > fact is one could be considered a surrealist despite being a non-artist
> > or a non-writer. One of those whom the surrealists considered to be the
> > "purest" of surrealist still alive (at the time) was - in fact - a pugilist.
>
> considered a poet, too.
The "Gotta fall in the round I call" kind of poetry or the "I'm
gonna eat your children" kind of poetry?
The latter is probably more "surreal," yes.
And the tattoo is definitely "lifestyle."
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
We must never forget the concept of an educated man as one who is
competent to refound his own civilisation. -- Edwin de Lattre
http://scrawlmark.org
t(_)m
> And the tattoo is definitely "lifestyle."
I'm thinking of getting a tat called "Mother Dennis",
which will have a phosphorous squiggley halo,
over the head of a shotgun packing mountain woman
with hairy armpits.
Dale Houstman
It's a neat and fabulous thing that - when you do manage to throw off
your distraction of slash marks and encrustations of puns - you have
little or nothing to say. The emperor's new suit doesn't have an emperor.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Institute for International Poetry and Finance wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >
> > Then again there are still some nice people here like Aidan and George
> > and Dale.
>
> wolverines and monkies coming to build their fetid nests here: I look
> better by comparison.
>
saru noberu saru mo komino o hoshige nari.
t<0>m
>
> It's a neat and fabulous thing that - when you do manage to throw off
> your distraction of slash marks and encrustations of puns - you have
> little or nothing to say. The emperor's new suit doesn't have an emperor.
I kinda like the empty, tinny hollow sounding Holy Noises.
Of course I am feeling very pious today. Mikey always gives me that
dirty bleeding jezus feeling.
Dale Houstman
t<0>m wrote:
>>Dale Houstman said:
>>
>
>
>>It's a neat and fabulous thing that - when you do manage to throw off
>>your distraction of slash marks and encrustations of puns - you have
>>little or nothing to say. The emperor's new suit doesn't have an emperor.
>
>
>
> I kinda like the empty, tinny hollow sounding Holy Noises.
>
> Of course I am feeling very pious today. Mikey always gives me that
> dirty bleeding jezus feeling.
>
>
I have to admit that I have - with a little meditation on "seeing what
is there" - come to prefer Dennis' rather pompous style over the
pointless Bad Boy Pecker posturings of others who seem to have lost any
sense of imagination or graciousness, and actually seem proud they've
managed to avoid reading anything much of value, or ever having had a
clear cognition about anything but their own resplendent odiousness. I
rather think the world IS being overtaken by what the cartoonist Clowes
called "a rampage of louts," who - in turn - lay the manure to grow more
lumpen proles and limp pricks, so that the future seems bereft of much
besides yawpers, yahoos, and yankee brutishness mistaken for honesty,
BUT I don't have to think it's an improvement.
dmh
Dennis M. Hammes
>
...
>
> Whose fault is it? It's your fault. You allow the Chucks and Bishops to
> drag you down to their level where they can beat you. They drag you down
> until you're playing their games, and they win because they're better at
> whining and being victims than you are, and they have more time to make a
> noise, and less compunction about dodging killfiles than you have.
The old "stooping to their level" saw, of course.
/saru noberu saru mo komino o hoshige nari/.
All it means is that the monkey wins for throwing one turd
/anywhere/.
Hey. That's /his/ version.
/You/ lose...
>
...
>
> Well, whatever. Just remember that every point you think you're scoring by
> way of a witty retort, a clever poem or a great flame, is actually a point
> scored against you. There are witty, clever people here arguing with the
> nutters. But obviously you're not clever enough to notice that the best of
> what you say whistles clean over their heads.
What makes you think we were saying it /to them/?
We understand that this is a bbs.
On which, like any other latrine wall, poultry (and crit of
method) is posted /at large/.
It makes /no/ difference if the latrine is in Harvard or Ft.
Leonard Wood.
And only the kiddies think it some sort of Miracle that Henry Holt
publishes found toilet paper.
>
> That's the trouble with you poets... you need to get in touch with the real
> world a bit.
And what would you have us tell it -- or talk about -- when we get
there?
Dealing with thrown pablum, babyshit, or beer bottles at poultry
readings (or writings) takes practice.
For the reader, too.
"Anyone who undertakes to carry a cat home by the tail is getting
sixty or seventy times the information as somebody who never tried
it.
"Chances are, he will never carry the cat that way again.
"But if he /wants/ to carry the cat that way, I say /let/ him.
"It isn't always /easy/ to be eccentric, you know."
-- S.L. Clemens
Dennis M. Hammes
>
...
>
> Would you care to enumerate the positive effects of a poetry newsgroup's
> transformation into a dumping-ground for the expression of jealousy, bad
> feeling and a cataaloge of pathologies?
Called "confessional poetry," it's been /de rigeur/ since the
mid-'30s.
(Usually the poet's mid-'30s.)
Dale Houstman
Jonathan wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> news:3F42C340...@citilink.com...
>
>>
>>Institute for International Poetry and Finance wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Then again there are still some nice people here like Aidan and George
>>>and Dale.
>>
>>
>>You called me a "nice person"?!
>
>
>
>
> Huh! Was the first thing that crossed my mind too!
>
>
>
Too bad - as usual - your slowness just makes your comment look like a
cheap ripoff of a thought. Better luck next time, Veronica.
dmh
t(*)m
>
> The old "stooping to their level" saw, of course.
Yours is the level to which no one has yet managed to stoop.
Isn't it?
I mean, you would probably know.
Dale Houstman
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> Sock Puppet wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>Would you care to enumerate the positive effects of a poetry newsgroup's
>>transformation into a dumping-ground for the expression of jealousy, bad
>>feeling and a cataaloge of pathologies?
>
>
> Called "confessional poetry," it's been /de rigeur/ since the
> mid-'30s.
> (Usually the poet's mid-'30s.)
............................................
Man And Wife Robert Lowell
Tamed by Miltown, we lie on Mother’s bed;
the rising sun in war paint dyes us red;
in broad daylight her gilded bed-posts shine,
abandoned, almost Dionysian.
At last the trees are green on Marlborough Street,
blossoms on our magnolia ignite
the morning with their murderous five days’ white.
All night I’ve held your hand,
as if you had
a fourth time faced the kingdom of the mad –
its hackneyed speech, its homicidal eye –
and dragged me home alive…. Oh my Petite,
clearest of all god’s creatures, still all air and nerve:
you were in your twenties, and I,
once hand on glass
and heart in mouth,
outdrank the Rahvs in the heat
of Greenwich Village, fainting at your feet –
too boiled and shy
and poker-faced to make a pass,
while the shrill verve
of your invective scorched the traditional South.
Now, twelve years later, you turn your back.
Sleepless, you hold
your pillow to your hollows like a child,
your old-fashioned tirade –
loving, rapid, merciless –
breaks like the Atlantic Ocean on my head.
Zinc
news:13X0b.198$ka2.11...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com:
>> Zinc said:
>>
>> "Aidan Tynan" <atynan@don't.need.spam.eircom.net> wrote in message
>> news:m5P0b.28345$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
>> >
>>
>> > Aidan tries to do Joyce:
>> >
>> <snip great stuff for bandwidth>
>>
>> You should write the book. I'm not familiar with Joyce beyond knowing
>> that he wrote Finnegan's Wake, so there are probably many references
>> missed. But it's a very good read.
>
>
> Did it answer your questions about the hole in the wheelchair?
There was only /one/ question about the wheelchair and you answered it
already. His post was after I asked you if you wear diapers.
You didn't respond to that one, but it's logical to assume that you don't
take potty breaks (there's simply no time left) so you've rigged up a
Tupperware porta-potty for under the wheelchair. (Oh sure, you use a James
Bond "cane" now, uh huh.)
Joshua P. Hill
<atynan@don't.need.spam.eircom.net> wrote:
>
>Joshua P. Hill wrote in message ...
>>Which, of course, fits his cigar-box syndic's need to categorize art
>>into categories more bourgeois than Hegelian:
>
>But it was Kant, the uber-bourgeois philosophe, who was into categories.
>Hegel wasn't very much interested in categorisation.
Hegel did try to revise or supplant Kant's categories, but what sets
them apart for me is that he understood that the process of category
formation is dynamic or dialectical.
>"Drapers' Guild,"
>>"Absurdists' Guild";
>
>Now you're talking "guilders".
"My daughter! My guilders!"
Nah, doesn't quite work, does it? Which is why Shakespeare can't be
translated into Dutch: "My geldings! My guilders!" is a bit rough.
>"Faux Avant-Garde Spikey-Haired Pretentious
>>Anti-Semitic Homophobic Nationalistic Infantile Hypocritical Whining
>>Self-Promoting Tea-Cozy Radical Web Page Designers With Pretensions of
>>Being Poets' Guild."
>
>You forget the "I have a girlfriend club".
Some are just so -- blessed.
Josh
T......{%}......M
>
> I use a James Bond "brain" now, uh huh.
uh huh.
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from
Joshua P. Hill:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:43:41 +0100, "Aidan Tynan"
><atynan@don't.need.spam.eircom.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Joshua P. Hill wrote in message ...
>
>>>Which, of course, fits his cigar-box syndic's need to categorize art
>>>into categories more bourgeois than Hegelian:
>>
>>But it was Kant, the uber-bourgeois philosophe, who was into categories.
>>Hegel wasn't very much interested in categorisation.
>
>Hegel did try to revise or supplant Kant's categories, but what sets
>them apart for me is that he understood that the process of category
>formation is dynamic or dialectical.
What I see as a similarity in them is that both of them held a large
number of absurd opinions. I can understand why a talentless
light-verse scribbler like JPH is clinging to them for justification,
but I don't understand why a real writer like Aidan is still
interested in such fustian-gobblers.
Why don't you all read Gibbon and Nietzsche and A J Ayer? Unlike Kant
and Hegel, they had *brains* in their heads and wrote stylish prose
too. The reason they don't appear in most University philosophy
courses is that their opinions, if generally accepted, would make most
academic philosophers unemployed.
(I suppose you might have to read Popper first to understand my
point.)
>>"Drapers' Guild,"
>>>"Absurdists' Guild";
>>
>>Now you're talking "guilders".
>
>"My daughter! My guilders!"
>
>Nah, doesn't quite work, does it? Which is why Shakespeare can't be
>translated into Dutch: "My geldings! My guilders!" is a bit rough.
Translation: "I've read the Merchant of Venice, so I'm part of The
Canon like Dante and Bach, but I still have no sense of humour".
What a fuckwit you are, Joshboi.
>>"Faux Avant-Garde Spikey-Haired Pretentious
>>>Anti-Semitic Homophobic Nationalistic Infantile Hypocritical Whining
>>>Self-Promoting Tea-Cozy Radical Web Page Designers With Pretensions of
>>>Being Poets' Guild."
>>
>>You forget the "I have a girlfriend club".
>
>Some are just so -- blessed.
*You* obviously aren't, Hillbilly.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from Dale
Houstman:
Dale, please don't call him Veronica. The best woman I've ever met is
called Veronica, and I don't want her name to be associated with this
carrot-sucking wannabe troll.
Why not call him Betty-Sue instead?
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from
>Sock Puppet wrote:
>>
>...
>>
>> Would you care to enumerate the positive effects of a poetry newsgroup's
>> transformation into a dumping-ground for the expression of jealousy, bad
>> feeling and a cataaloge of pathologies?
>
>Called "confessional poetry," it's been /de rigeur/ since the
>mid-'30s.
> (Usually the poet's mid-'30s.)
WTF is this "confessional poetry" thing?
And why is the term applied to John Berryman and Sylvia Plath?
Where does it say in JB's poems that he was an alcoholic - probably
the only good poet of the 20th century who wrote poems while drunk?
And where in SP's poems does it say that she was a wannabe housewife
with an uncertain sense of rhythm who made her poor unpoetical
husband's life a misery with her stupid attention-grabbing stunts?
Well?
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from Dale
Houstman:
>
>
>Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>> Sock Puppet wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>Would you care to enumerate the positive effects of a poetry newsgroup's
>>>transformation into a dumping-ground for the expression of jealousy, bad
>>>feeling and a cataaloge of pathologies?
>>
>>
>> Called "confessional poetry," it's been /de rigeur/ since the
>> mid-'30s.
>> (Usually the poet's mid-'30s.)
>
>............................................
>
>Man And Wife Robert Lowell
Yes, it's a poem.
Who cares if it's got anything to do with RL and his wife?
It's no more "confessional" than Milton's "On his blindness". Why was
"confessional poetry" as a genre suddenly marketed to the public in
the late 20th century?
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
But Nietzsche was frequently and laughably wrong, and not a little
mad, nor was he nearly as successful as he thought in his critiques of
Kant et al. And while no one has accused Kant or Hegel of writing good
prose -- it's been said that Kant set German style back 100 years, and
Nietzsche set it forward again -- one does not read the philosophy of
any era with the expectation that it will be fully developed,
certainly not the philosophy or 100 or 200 years ago. One reads it
because it still contains much truth, and much /dialectical/ truth;
because it introduces one to the currents of western thought; because
despite your laughably simpleminded (or faux dumb, since I have reason
to believe you're a good deal more educated than Martijn) criticism of
Kant and Hegel's intellects, within the often turgid prose are great
beauties of mind; because much of what was said /is/ true,
particularly in the more sophisticated sense of dialectical truth, of
the formulation of finite truths within an underdetermined system.
I can't for the life of me imagine why you would say that Nietzsche
isn't represented in university philosophy courses; if anything,
Nietzsche is too heavily taught. The typical student is unprepared to
approach his work critically, and instead wears it on his wrist
without understanding its defects or its beauties. And then we hear
endlessly how morality is old hat, from the same intellectual
Veneerings who spout moral principles left and right. It gets a bit
depressing.
But, really, this is just too dumb: one ought not have to waste time
defending Kant and Hegel (!) at this stage of the game. However
milquetoastian I find your trolls and poetry, and however
psychodynamically bizarre your Martijn fetish, I've never thought of
you as either ignorant or unintelligent. I must assume that you're
slumming in an effort to side with your child friend.
>>>"Drapers' Guild,"
>>>>"Absurdists' Guild";
>>>
>>>Now you're talking "guilders".
>>
>>"My daughter! My guilders!"
>>
>>Nah, doesn't quite work, does it? Which is why Shakespeare can't be
>>translated into Dutch: "My geldings! My guilders!" is a bit rough.
>
>Translation: "I've read the Merchant of Venice, so I'm part of The
>Canon like Dante and Bach, but I still have no sense of humour".
>
>What a fuckwit you are, Joshboi.
This is supposed to be a flame? I've seen better from my dog.
>>>"Faux Avant-Garde Spikey-Haired Pretentious
>>>>Anti-Semitic Homophobic Nationalistic Infantile Hypocritical Whining
>>>>Self-Promoting Tea-Cozy Radical Web Page Designers With Pretensions of
>>>>Being Poets' Guild."
>>>
>>>You forget the "I have a girlfriend club".
>>
>>Some are just so -- blessed.
>
>*You* obviously aren't, Hillbilly.
Heh
Much better from my dog.
Josh
t$0$m
>
>
> What a fuckwit you are, Joshboi.
Josh ain't a fuckwit, Josh is one
of the few names here with any elevation.
Tim Boshop
| |
|\ /|
| \____/ |
"Don't piss | |
Meow Off!" .'___ ___`.
/ \|/ \|/ \
_.--------------( ____ __ _____)
.-' -. \ ----\/---- /
.' \ `. -'`- .'
/ \ `------'\
/ `-------. `-----. -----. `---.
( ) ) ) )
`._________.'_____,,,/\_______,,,,/_,,,,/
.-"-. .-"-. .-"-. .-"-. .-"-. .-"-.
"-.-" "-.-" "-.-" "-.-" "-.-" "-.-"
copyleft : His Lordship of Shittybum, ancient meow UPA'er
t-<|>-m
>
>
> Why not call him Betty-Sue instead?
Why not call him "rocket stew"
T__.O.__M
>
Peter has been stealing Reader's Digest
from his therapist's office.
t....=#=....m
>
>
> Yes, it's a poem.
Hyperbrilliance in action.
I thought it was an asphodel.
Peter J Ross
So? Where did he say he was infallible? It's his *method* that
interests me, rather than his silly opinions about Englishmen and
women.
And if you think
O Mensch
Gib acht!
Was spricht der tiefe Mitternacht?
isn't poetry then you really are a loony.
>and not a little
>mad,
When is this canard going to be squelched? Nietzsche's madness is
detectable in the proofs of Der Antichrist (his last book). Even his
handwriting changed. Before that, he was sane, and you seem to find
his sane opinions threatening.
None of his books were written when he was insane. You merely fail to
understand them, as a result of being a plodding yankee hick.
>nor was he nearly as successful as he thought in his critiques of
>Kant et al.
He convinced me that Kant and the rest of the philosophers were crap.
That's good enough for me.
The night before my Oxford Prelims I was reading Nietzche instead of
revising. It must be painful for plodders like you to know that when I
spent the following day quoting Nietzsche I only narrowly missed
gaining a "distinction" instead of a mere "pass".
>And while no one has accused Kant or Hegel of writing good
>prose -- it's been said that Kant set German style back 100 years, and
>Nietzsche set it forward again --
Twenty years ago I read a lot of German literature - and since I
wasn't *officially* reading German, such behaviour might be one of the
reasons that I don't have a degree (like Gibbon and Shelley and
Betjeman, y'know, so aristocratic) - and the only writers who seemed
to me to be *lucid* were Nietzsche, Goethe, Luther and Eichendorff.
>one does not read the philosophy of
>any era with the expectation that it will be fully developed,
>certainly not the philosophy or 100 or 200 years ago. One reads it
>because it still contains much truth, and much /dialectical/ truth;
>because it introduces one to the currents of western thought; because
>despite your laughably simpleminded (or faux dumb, since I have reason
>to believe you're a good deal more educated than Martijn) criticism of
>Kant and Hegel's intellects, within the often turgid prose are great
>beauties of mind;
What the fuck is a "beauty of mind"?
How can the sublime (I'm thinking of Burke's idea of the sublime
rather than one of your clueless philosophers') be reduced to mere
*ideas*?
>because much of what was said /is/ true,
Nothing "is" true. Reread Nietszche, and this time try to understand
him.
>particularly in the more sophisticated sense of dialectical truth, of
>the formulation of finite truths within an underdetermined system.
Once you start using words like "dialectical" and "system" I realise
that a mere writer of better poetry than yours will never hope to
understand you.
Write plain English, please. Cythera and Martijn and Dale can do it.
You and Aidan are the only people who infest AAPC with jargon, and
Aidan has the very good excuse of being young.
>I can't for the life of me imagine why you would say that Nietzsche
>isn't represented in university philosophy courses; if anything,
>Nietzsche is too heavily taught. The typical student is unprepared to
>approach his work critically,
Then Nietzsche isn't really taught, is he? Indoctrination isn't
teaching.
>and instead wears it on his wrist
>without understanding its defects or its beauties. And then we hear
>endlessly how morality is old hat, from the same intellectual
>Veneerings who spout moral principles left and right. It gets a bit
>depressing.
What does that have to do with Nietzsche?
>But, really, this is just too dumb: one ought not have to waste time
>defending Kant and Hegel (!) at this stage of the game.
They're far more obsolete than Aristotle and Plato, after all (in my
opinion).
>However
>milquetoastian I find your trolls and poetry,
Your opinion of my posts doesn't affect my opinion of your posts. You
don't reply to my posts often enough to affect me.
>and however
>psychodynamically bizarre your Martijn fetish,
He writes good poems, and his prose posts give me ideas. He also
enjoys teasing you, and it's fun to watch.
>I've never thought of
>you as either ignorant or unintelligent. I must assume that you're
>slumming in an effort to side with your child friend.
In July 2002 I was so tired of AAPC that I even plonked Dale, and then
I left for a month.
I'm less fragile now.
>>>>"Drapers' Guild,"
>>>>>"Absurdists' Guild";
>>>>
>>>>Now you're talking "guilders".
>>>
>>>"My daughter! My guilders!"
>>>
>>>Nah, doesn't quite work, does it? Which is why Shakespeare can't be
>>>translated into Dutch: "My geldings! My guilders!" is a bit rough.
>>
>>Translation: "I've read the Merchant of Venice, so I'm part of The
>>Canon like Dante and Bach, but I still have no sense of humour".
>>
>>What a fuckwit you are, Joshboi.
>
>This is supposed to be a flame? I've seen better from my dog.
I'm crap at flaming, as I constantly admit in alt.flame. But you're
also crap at resisting the temptation to reply to my crappy flames.
>>>>"Faux Avant-Garde Spikey-Haired Pretentious
>>>>>Anti-Semitic Homophobic Nationalistic Infantile Hypocritical Whining
>>>>>Self-Promoting Tea-Cozy Radical Web Page Designers With Pretensions of
>>>>>Being Poets' Guild."
>>>>
>>>>You forget the "I have a girlfriend club".
>>>
>>>Some are just so -- blessed.
>>
>>*You* obviously aren't, Hillbilly.
>
>Heh
>
>Much better from my dog.
>
>Josh
Aww, FOAD, spanktard, unless you'd rather continue the flame-free
parts of the above discussion.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from
>> Peter J Ross said:
>>
>>
>> What a fuckwit you are, Joshboi.
>
>
>Josh ain't a fuckwit, Josh is one
^^^^ ^^^^
>of the few names here with any elevation.
You misspelled "Jim Sheard".
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
T(.)M
>
>
> Aww, FOAD, spanktard, unless you'd rather continue the flame-free
> parts of the above discussion.
I suggest flame-retardant potty-paper.
T{%}M
>
> You miss-felt my "Jam Shirt".
And now I have dingleberry juice
all over my hands.