Yo Mama's Last Supper
Uncle Judas
OldguyTeck
"Uncle Judas" <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote in message
news:96hpgt$lq6$0...@dosa.alt.net...
Goodness to the VILE is VILE
Filths' savor but themselfs
[W.S.]
Ed..................(OGT)
Karl E. Taylor
did.
Then again, what else would we expect from a shit faced troll.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@yahoo.com
A.A #1143 ULC Minister
Home School Educator for Computer Science
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
OldguyTeck
"Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A8C8EB3...@yahoo.com...
> OldguyTeck wrote:
> >
> > "Uncle Judas" <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote in message
> > news:96hpgt$lq6$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > >
> > > http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20010215_2388.html
> > >
> > > <snicker>
> > >
> > > Uncle Judas
> > >
> >
> > Goodness to the VILE is VILE
> > Filths' savor but themselfs
> >
> > [W.S.]
> >
> > Ed..................(OGT)
> >
> You know, for a fucking old dead fart, you really don't post like he
> did.
>
> Then again, what else would we expect from a shit faced troll.
Gooddness LOL.. fancy seeing your nastyness here yet again...... CUSSARD! I
have been here attending the school of hard knocks..... heheh and I must say
you continue to keep me VERY busy........ A - L O T ! Ha Hahah
Now kindly clean up your act.........
Ed....................(OGTeck)
Karl E. Taylor
OldguyTeck wrote:
>
> "Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A8C8EB3...@yahoo.com...
> > OldguyTeck wrote:
> > >
> > > "Uncle Judas" <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote in message
> > > news:96hpgt$lq6$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > > >
> > > > http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20010215_2388.html
> > > >
> > > > <snicker>
> > > >
> > > > Uncle Judas
> > > >
> > >
> > > Goodness to the VILE is VILE
> > > Filths' savor but themselfs
> > >
> > > [W.S.]
> > >
> > > Ed..................(OGT)
> > >
> > You know, for a fucking old dead fart, you really don't post like he
> > did.
> >
> > Then again, what else would we expect from a shit faced troll.
>
> Gooddness LOL.. fancy seeing your nastyness here yet again...... CUSSARD! I
> have been here attending the school of hard knocks..... heheh and I must say
> you continue to keep me VERY busy........ A - L O T ! Ha Hahah
>
> Now kindly clean up your act.........
>
> Ed....................(OGTeck)
>
Nice try shit for brains. But you fool no one.
So, troll, want to tell us who the fuck you really are?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
then they that seek answers on their knees,
Jim Fay
"Karl E. Taylor" wrote:
>
> OldguyTeck wrote:
> >
> > "Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A8C8EB3...@yahoo.com...
> > > OldguyTeck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Uncle Judas" <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:96hpgt$lq6$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20010215_2388.html
> > > > >
> > > > > <snicker>
> > > > >
> > > > > Uncle Judas
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Goodness to the VILE is VILE
> > > > Filths' savor but themselfs
> > > >
> > > > [W.S.]
> > > >
> > > > Ed..................(OGT)
> > > >
> > > You know, for a fucking old dead fart, you really don't post like he
> > > did.
> > >
> > > Then again, what else would we expect from a shit faced troll.
> >
> > Gooddness LOL.. fancy seeing your nastyness here yet again...... CUSSARD! I
> > have been here attending the school of hard knocks..... heheh and I must say
> > you continue to keep me VERY busy........ A - L O T ! Ha Hahah
> >
> > Now kindly clean up your act.........
> >
> > Ed....................(OGTeck)
> >
> Nice try shit for brains. But you fool no one.
>
> So, troll, want to tell us who the fuck you really are?
I've got a fiver on Pastor Frank!
Uncle Judas
says...
plonked, nobody ever responds to him, but he keeps on
replying to damn near every post in afjc. It's truly
pathetic, he even answers himself. Obsession can be a
terrible thing...
Uncle Judas
OldguyTeck
"Jim Fay" <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:3A8D47A3...@prism.gatech.edu...
You just lost a fiver........LOL
Now if you put your money on Oldguyteck, then you would certainly be a
WINNER........LOL
Ed.....................(OGTeck)
I can still yodel..... wanna hear........?heheh
Karl E. Taylor
>
> > > > > > Ed..................(OGT)
> > > > > >
> > > > > You know, for a fucking old dead fart, you really don't post like he
> > > > > did.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then again, what else would we expect from a shit faced troll.
> > > >
> > > > Gooddness LOL.. fancy seeing your nastyness here yet again......
> CUSSARD! I
> > > > have been here attending the school of hard knocks..... heheh and I
> must say
> > > > you continue to keep me VERY busy........ A - L O T ! Ha Hahah
> > > >
> > > > Now kindly clean up your act.........
> > > >
> > > > Ed....................(OGTeck)
> > > >
> > > Nice try shit for brains. But you fool no one.
> > >
> > > So, troll, want to tell us who the fuck you really are?
> >
> > I've got a fiver on Pastor Frank!
> >
>
> You just lost a fiver........LOL
>
> Now if you put your money on Oldguyteck, then you would certainly be a
> WINNER........LOL
>
> Ed.....................(OGTeck)
> I can still yodel..... wanna hear........?heheh
>
post nothing like the real OldFart did. In fact, you could not shit out
an OldFart post if you had to.
So why don't you go whack it in a corner somewhere and stop bothering
the grown-ups.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
ath...@home.com
<uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>
>http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20010215_2388.html
><snicker>
OK.
So I'm very curious here.
Why is this funny?
Is it one of those Saturday Night Live things that the more people who
are unnecessarily offended by rude, sophomoric bs the funnier it is?
Am I so blinded by ignorance that I'm missing some profound statement
about religion that I just don't get?
Oh yeah...and did my tax money pay for it via the NEA?
I just gotta know.
atheist@home#1554
>
>Uncle Judas
Volcania
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a908e12.163135214@news-server...
You'd rather look at some skinny jewish guy hanging dead on a cross than at
a naked woman?
You must be catholic.
-V
Uncle Judas
I find the title to be amusing, as well as the concept of
the photograph. I don't know how ignorant you are (although
your post gives a good idea) but I'd say you are definitely
blinded by prejudice. You refer to the display as "rude,
sophomoric bs" without even having seen it.
The TEXT article I refered to describes the photo as: "depicts
Christ as a nude woman standing with her arms outstretched and
12 black men disciples sitting or standing on either side of her."
Now you tell me, what basis do you have for calling the above
"rude, sophomoric bs"? Pull that stick out of your ass and
loosen up a bit, man.
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
bp...@students.uiuc.edu says...
> jesus, when are people going to get it? there's nothing wrong with
> nakedness, there's nothing wrong with the feminist view, and there's
> nothing wrong with expressing one's culture or belief and expecting it to
> be at least attempted to be understood!
>
> what really bothered me, more than the potential for censorship, was the
> comment in the article about the "enjoyment" of art. art, regaurdless of
> media (visual, aural, language, whatever) is not here for our enjoyment.
> if you enjoy it, then it's just a commodity- a waste of time. it is
> output of the system, not art. art is input to the system which
> inevitably jolts it rather than comforting it. art is a protagonist to
> society, attempting to bring change.
> if it makes you feel good, it's
> probably crap produced by the corporations to make you buy something.
I pity you, if you actually think this way.
Why did you take out the originating ng?
Uncle Judas
stillsunny
<uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>In article <3a908e12.163135214@news-server>, ath...@home.com says...
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:49:12 -0600, Uncle Judas
>> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20010215_2388.html
>>
>> ><snicker>
>>
>> OK.
>> So I'm very curious here.
>> Why is this funny?
>> Is it one of those Saturday Night Live things that the more people who
>> are unnecessarily offended by rude, sophomoric bs the funnier it is?
>> Am I so blinded by ignorance that I'm missing some profound statement
>> about religion that I just don't get?
>> Oh yeah...and did my tax money pay for it via the NEA?
>> I just gotta know.
>
>I find the title to be amusing, as well as the concept of
>the photograph. I don't know how ignorant you are (although
>your post gives a good idea) but I'd say you are definitely
>blinded by prejudice.
Then you need to reread the question.
>You refer to the display as "rude,
>sophomoric bs"
No, he *asked* if that's what it was. Based on the title of the art,
without the site actually showing the art, I'd say it was a reasonable
question.
>without even having seen it.
>
>The TEXT article I refered to describes the photo as: "depicts
>Christ as a nude woman standing with her arms outstretched and
>12 black men disciples sitting or standing on either side of her."
>
>Now you tell me, what basis do you have for calling the above
>"rude, sophomoric bs"?
He *asked*. It wasn't unreasonable.
Uncle Judas
sun...@sccoast.net says...
Well, little miss literal, I guess I should have
said "No, it's not from Sat. Night Live".
Jebus bloody hanging christ, when did a.a. get so
full of anal retentives?
Uncle Judas
ath...@home.com
wrote:
American society has gone to hell.
I hardly watch tv anymore.
The only comedian my wife and I have felt safe going to see in the
past several years is Sinbad.
Interestingly I read a news article a few months ago that told of
agents explaning to their comedians that if they wanted more bookings
they needed to start showing a little respect for their audiences.
Many of them agreed, were advertised as being clean and family safe
and found themselves being overworked.
I started watching a movie I rented called Gunshy the other day.
There were several graphic scenes of men urinating, <one in his pants>
one in which the lead actor is getting an enema, a couple in which the
lead actor is passing gas, one of the lead actress coming out of a
johnny on the job and a couple of references to bowel movements.
Sandra Bullock played the female lead and I was surprised at how low
she's sunk.
Anything for a buck eh?
<snip>
>
>>Pull that stick out of your ass and
>>loosen up a bit, man.
No thanks.
I think America has loosened up enough as it is.
<Maybe it's an age thing>
atheist@home#1554
>>Uncle Judas
>
walksalone
<uncle...@christianzone.org> Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:38:36 -0600
> > >> So I'm very curious here.
> > >> Why is this funny?
> > >> Is it one of those Saturday Night Live things that the more people who
> > >> are unnecessarily offended by rude, sophomoric bs the funnier it is?
> > >> Am I so blinded by ignorance that I'm missing some profound statement
> > >> about religion that I just don't get?
> > >> Oh yeah...and did my tax money pay for it via the NEA?
> > >> I just gotta know.
> > >I find the title to be amusing, as well as the concept of
> > >the photograph. I don't know how ignorant you are (although
> > >your post gives a good idea) but I'd say you are definitely
> > >blinded by prejudice.
> > Then you need to reread the question.
> > >You refer to the display as "rude,
> > >sophomoric bs"
> > No, he *asked* if that's what it was. Based on the title of the art,
> > without the site actually showing the art, I'd say it was a reasonable
> > question.
> said "No, it's not from Sat. Night Live".
address Atheist@home's question. Let me guess, you are an afjc regular?
> Jebus bloody hanging christ, when did a.a. get so
> full of anal retentives?
> Uncle Judas
Your civiality indicates that any reply by you would be a waste of bandwidth so to the commode with ypou. Poor Thanatos, up
to 106 non filling meals now.
walksalone who doesn't mind that he failed mindreading 101 in this case.
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of heaven,
you can justify it in the end.
From One Tin Soldier
walksalone
Uv
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a9165e2.218391912@news-server...
atheist@home#1554
>>Uncle Judas
>
Not a lover of PooPoo jokes, eh?
Uncle Judas
But why do you write off the work without even seeing it?
Is it because the gallery it's at has shown what you consider
to be "rude, sophomoric bs"? It has been my experience that
atheists are sensitive to things hypocritical, I point out the
hypocracy of judging a work based on the gallery it hangs in.
> >>Pull that stick out of your ass and
> >>loosen up a bit, man.
>
> No thanks.
> I think America has loosened up enough as it is.
>
> <Maybe it's an age thing>
Well, I'm 40, does that make me too old or too young?
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
walks...@earthlink.net says...
Yes, she was. Overly, imho.
> Ah, I see, one of the know it alls.
Thanks, but really you don't need to bow like that.
> In reality, your snicker was the best part of your post & failed to
> address Atheist@home's question.
In reality, my snicker was part of the originating post
of this thread, and therefore could not have possibly
answered any question about itself. Try again?
> Let me guess, you are an afjc regular?
Been on a.a.s. a LOT longer. Sycophants make me wanna puke,
no matter what group I'm in.
> > Jebus bloody hanging christ, when did a.a. get so
> > full of anal retentives?
>
> About 3 nonoseconds before you posted??
>
>
> Your civiality indicates that any reply by you would be a waste of
> bandwidth so to the commode with ypou. Poor Thanatos, up
> to 106 non filling meals now.
Aw, I'm heartbroken.
> walksalone who doesn't mind that he failed mindreading 101 in this case.
It would just scare you.
> Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
> go ahead and cheat a friend
> Do it in the name of heaven,
> you can justify it in the end.
> From One Tin Soldier
"Another pretty thing,
dead on the end of the shaft
of the Zen Archer"
Todd Rundgren, "Zen Archer", A Wizard a True Star
Uncle Judas
Volcania
> I hardly watch tv anymore.
> The only comedian my wife and I have felt safe going to see in the
> past several years is Sinbad.
"Safe"? Why? Has your life been threatened at The Comedy Store?
What a stupid word to apply to a simple act of going to a comedy
performance.
> I started watching a movie I rented called Gunshy the other day.
> There were several graphic scenes of men urinating, <one in his pants>
> one in which the lead actor is getting an enema, a couple in which the
> lead actor is passing gas, one of the lead actress coming out of a
> johnny on the job and a couple of references to bowel movements.
> Sandra Bullock played the female lead and I was surprised at how low
> she's sunk.
Were you incapable of turning the VCR off, returning the tape, and asking
for your money back?
Why don't you people who keep complaining about "America's going to hell"
start exercising your right to stay home and actually have a conversation or
play board games or something. No, you expect the entire entertainment
industry to cater to YOUR preferences and YOUR neuroses. Grow up and make
better choices, whiner.
Volcania
UJ, look at the addy: "students.uiuc.."
Another callow kid pontificating about "art". I bet he refers to the movies
as "cinema" and only drinks "latte".
And he probably believes that an artist has to "suffer".
Oh, the angst, the angst! How terrible to be the lone voice of True Art
among the Philistines!
Volcania
walksalone <walks...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:01tp...@walksalone1.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
> go ahead and cheat a friend
> Do it in the name of heaven,
> you can justify it in the end.
> From One Tin Soldier
>
> walksalone
ROFL!!!
I simply canNOT believe anyone would quote that lame "Billy Jack" crap.
ath...@home.com
<uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
It was deliberately designed to offend.
I simply don't get the point.
Btw...did you hear the one about the polacks and niggers fighting in
WWII?
The polacks were throwing dynamite and the niggers were lighting it
and throwing it back.
Know how to get twenty Jews in a Volkswagon?
Put 'em in the ashtray.
ROTFLMAO!
Funny stuff ain't it?
That's how we do though it isn't it?
Denigrate a group...doesn't matter who they are.
Make it *cool* to denigrate them, dehumanize them, laugh at them and
then hang the bastards.
>> >>Pull that stick out of your ass and
>> >>loosen up a bit, man.
>>
>> No thanks.
>> I think America has loosened up enough as it is.
>>
>> <Maybe it's an age thing>
>
>Well, I'm 40, does that make me too old or too young?
Lol!
That makes you caught between a rock and a hard place.
(Too young to know better and old enough to take the fall for it :-)
atheist@home#1554
<Just a bit hypersensitive at the moment>
>Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
It was? You have talked to the artist? Looks more like
a feminist agenda to me. Hell, man, you can't draw breath
without offending somebody these days. So what?
> I simply don't get the point.
So therefore you label it "rude sophomoric bs". How very
open-minded of you. It amazes me when a professed atheist
shows himself to be just as bigoted as a raving fundamentalist.
> Funny stuff ain't it?
> That's how we do though it isn't it?
> Denigrate a group...doesn't matter who they are.
> Make it *cool* to denigrate them, dehumanize them, laugh at them and
> then hang the bastards.
Yep, that's exactly what you're doing. Denigrating a work
you have never seen.
> >> >>Pull that stick out of your ass and
> >> >>loosen up a bit, man.
> >>
> >> No thanks.
> >> I think America has loosened up enough as it is.
> >>
> >> <Maybe it's an age thing>
> >
> >Well, I'm 40, does that make me too old or too young?
>
> Lol!
> That makes you caught between a rock and a hard place.
> (Too young to know better and old enough to take the fall for it :-)
You make no sense.
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
> UJ, look at the addy: "students.uiuc.."
> Another callow kid pontificating about "art". I bet he refers to the movies
> as "cinema" and only drinks "latte".
> And he probably believes that an artist has to "suffer".
> Oh, the angst, the angst! How terrible to be the lone voice of True Art
> among the Philistines!
Lol, I missed the addy, you're right. Now that
he's defined 'art' for us, I wonder if he'll
define 'love' next.
UJ
yowie
> American society has gone to hell.
> I hardly watch tv anymore.
Oh no!
You yanks have - as usual - a flippant yet apt standard response to
such sentiments.
Get a life.
[whine]
--
"I am not sure I am talented enough
to write childrens(sic) stories."
-John Vogel
Jim Fay
Ok, hold up a second, I gotta go off on a rant of my own here. What's
with all this calling college students kids? And assuming we're a bunch
of pseudo-french neophytes? It may just be that I go to Georgia Tech (or
as many of us on the inside call it "The Land Women Forgot") but I am
just as cynical as most adults. What am I saying, I'm just as cynical as
most sociopaths. I don't know about students at UIUC (another good
engineering school, btw), but not all college students have yet to grow
up.
Uncle Judas
bp...@students.uiuc.edu says...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Uncle Judas wrote:
>
> > I pity you, if you actually think this way.
>
Oooo, such a big word! Next time try spelling it correctly,
it'll be much more impressive.
> you are the reason
> america has full economic control over the world.
Bahahahaha. No, really, HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> you are the reason why
> 8% of america has 90+% of the wealth and the rest will keep getting
> poorer.
I'm a strong Capitalist, yes indeedy. If the weak and stupid want
more than they've got, they can damn well earn it. Just like I did.
You fucking socialists are a cancer on the face of this planet.
> you are the reason the best things in life have lost their flavor.
If your life is flavorless, the cause is internal not external.
I predict you become xian within 6 months.
> you are the reason why what used to be human beings have been reduced to
> consumers- brainwashed and manipulated by what the corperations tell them.
> you are a slave; a zombie. you are a statistic. a rating point. another
> dollar in a CEO's pocket. you are meaningless.
Aw, look at the fucking little weenie project his existential angst.
Pitiful, just pitiful. You know, this is exactly how the church
wants you to feel...
> please, do yourself a
> favor and put a gun in your mouth.
The sad thing is that you actually think that would improve your life.
Get a grip, moron; you're letting other people run your life. It's
people like you that have kept us in the dark ages for so long.
> > Why did you take out the originating ng?
>
> i took out the originating ng because i'm working from telnet,
Wow, you're using <gasp> TELNET?! I tremble at your technical mastery.
> which
> doesn't recognize it.
you're a fucking idiot. Telnet is a protocol, it doesn't recognize
newsgroups.
> i also do not post there, and am not interested in
> what that ng has to offer me.
In other words, you didn't want me to see your response to my post.
You're an idiot AND a charlatan.
> i am not interested in crossposting all
> over the place, or in starting flame wars.
I guess that's why you flamed me, because you're not interested
in starting a flame war? You're a fucking liar to boot, as well
as an idiot and a charlatan. Yep, you're just primed for your
conversion to xianity. Be sure to let us know when you start
sucking on Jeebus' dick, won't you?
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
says...
UJ
ath...@home.com
<uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> >>
>> >> American society has gone to hell.
>> >
>> >But why do you write off the work without even seeing it?
>> >Is it because the gallery it's at has shown what you consider
>> >to be "rude, sophomoric bs"? It has been my experience that
>> >atheists are sensitive to things hypocritical, I point out the
>> >hypocracy of judging a work based on the gallery it hangs in.
>>
>> It was deliberately designed to offend.
>
>It was? You have talked to the artist? Looks more like
>a feminist agenda to me. Hell, man, you can't draw breath
>without offending somebody these days. So what?
I don't need to talk to the artist.
It was deliberately designed to offend.
That seems to be the goal of many of those in the "art" entertainment
industry and has been since the sixties.
It's adolescent as hell.
>> I simply don't get the point.
>
>So therefore you label it "rude sophomoric bs". How very
>open-minded of you. It amazes me when a professed atheist
>shows himself to be just as bigoted as a raving fundamentalist.
>
>> Funny stuff ain't it?
>> That's how we do though it isn't it?
>> Denigrate a group...doesn't matter who they are.
>> Make it *cool* to denigrate them, dehumanize them, laugh at them and
>> then hang the bastards.
>
>Yep, that's exactly what you're doing. Denigrating a work
>you have never seen.
Commenting on the fact that it's easy enough to criticize and entire
group for the faults of a few of their number.
Did you think "Piss Christ" was a work of art?
Wasn't it obviously designed to offend an entire group of people for
the sheer, perverse pleasure of it?
Would you need to talk to the "artist" to determine his motives?
>You make no sense.
You may be right.
atheist@home#1554
>
>Uncle Judas
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>
><ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a9165e2.218391912@news-server...
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:26:43 -0500, stillsunny <sun...@sccoast.net>
>> American society has gone to hell.
>> I hardly watch tv anymore.
>> The only comedian my wife and I have felt safe going to see in the
>> past several years is Sinbad.
>
>"Safe"? Why? Has your life been threatened at The Comedy Store?
>What a stupid word to apply to a simple act of going to a comedy
>performance.
I have a feeling you are too narrow minded and shallow to understand
it.
>> I started watching a movie I rented called Gunshy the other day.
>> There were several graphic scenes of men urinating, <one in his pants>
>> one in which the lead actor is getting an enema, a couple in which the
>> lead actor is passing gas, one of the lead actress coming out of a
>> johnny on the job and a couple of references to bowel movements.
>> Sandra Bullock played the female lead and I was surprised at how low
>> she's sunk.
>
>Were you incapable of turning the VCR off, returning the tape, and asking
>for your money back?
I did turn it off but why would I ask for my money back?
>Why don't you people who keep complaining about "America's going to hell"
>start exercising your right to stay home and actually have a conversation or
>play board games or something.
Actually we do stay home most of the time.
We even read books and have conversations.
>No, you expect the entire entertainment
>industry to cater to YOUR preferences and YOUR neuroses. Grow up and make
>better choices, whiner.
Most of my choices are good.
And no, I don't expect anybody to cater to my preferences in most
things but I do demand that they act in a polite, respectful manner
around my wife and that they don't say certain things that are
degrading to human dignity.
You do understand the term "human dignity" right?
Nah....
atheist@home#1554
>
>
>
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>In alt.flame.jesus.christ, ath...@home.com wrote...
>
>> American society has gone to hell.
>> I hardly watch tv anymore.
>
>Oh no!
>
>You yanks have - as usual - a flippant yet apt standard response to
>such sentiments.
>
>Get a life.
>
>[whine]
Yawn...
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
<uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>In article <01tp...@walksalone1.earthlink.net>,
>walks...@earthlink.net says...
>>
>> <uncle...@christianzone.org> Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:38:36 -0600
>> > In article <v4b29t8d0uifrt31h...@4ax.com>,
>> > sun...@sccoast.net says...
<snip>
>
>
>> Let me guess, you are an afjc regular?
>
>Been on a.a.s. a LOT longer. Sycophants make me wanna puke,
>no matter what group I'm in.
Lol!
How very special you are.
>> > Jebus bloody hanging christ, when did a.a. get so
>> > full of anal retentives?
Anal retentives?
Lol!
Haven't heard that since the sixties.
atheist@home#1554
Brian Westley
...
>Did you think "Piss Christ" was a work of art?
>Wasn't it obviously designed to offend an entire group of people for
>the sheer, perverse pleasure of it?
Of course not.
>Would you need to talk to the "artist" to determine his motives?
Anyone familiar with Serrano's work would know that he's
Catholic, and "Piss Christ" was part of a series of
crucifixion images & various human body fluids.
You can't even tell it's in urine if the name
didn't tell you; it's a photograph:
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/finearts/karmel/modern/m_67.html
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html
You're obviously speaking out of ignorance once again.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
ath...@home.com
wrote:
Well gosh....like whats wrong with it Muffy <Or is it Biff?>?
I mean like did you like watch the movie and all?
Was it like just soooooo gross and stuff?
Lol!
atheist@home#1554
>
Cardinal Feng
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:16:26 -0500, "Volcania" <h...@goddess.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a9165e2.218391912@news-server...
> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:26:43 -0500, stillsunny <sun...@sccoast.net>
> >> American society has gone to hell.
> >> I hardly watch tv anymore.
> >> The only comedian my wife and I have felt safe going to see in the
> >> past several years is Sinbad.
> >
> >"Safe"? Why? Has your life been threatened at The Comedy Store?
> >What a stupid word to apply to a simple act of going to a comedy
> >performance.
>
> I have a feeling you are too narrow minded and shallow to understand
> it.
>
Let me guess: You're the audience member that the comedians always pick
on, right?
BikePainter
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a929cf8.298042325@news-server...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:29 -0600, Uncle Judas
> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>
>
> I don't need to talk to the artist.
> It was deliberately designed to offend.
> That seems to be the goal of many of those in the "art" entertainment
> industry and has been since the sixties.
> It's adolescent as hell.
>
to be offensive...............so what? It's still art whether you or anybody
else agrees with the subject matter or content. It seems that it's always
the non-creative types that end up bitching about it the most. I haven't
seen "Piss Christ", but even if an artist were to depict somebody shitting
down Jeezus' throat, more power to 'em. It's called 'freedom of expression',
and the last I heard, it was still legal and acceptable in this country and
on Usenet. Live with it.
http://www.fashionablytall.com/Watering_Jesus.jpg
http://www.fashionablytall.com
Uncle Judas
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:29 -0600, Uncle Judas
> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> American society has gone to hell.
> >> >
> >> >But why do you write off the work without even seeing it?
> >> >Is it because the gallery it's at has shown what you consider
> >> >to be "rude, sophomoric bs"? It has been my experience that
> >> >atheists are sensitive to things hypocritical, I point out the
> >> >hypocracy of judging a work based on the gallery it hangs in.
> >>
> >> It was deliberately designed to offend.
> >
> >It was? You have talked to the artist? Looks more like
> >a feminist agenda to me. Hell, man, you can't draw breath
> >without offending somebody these days. So what?
>
> I don't need to talk to the artist.
> It was deliberately designed to offend.
And you arrived at this conclusion without examining
the work. I believe that's refered to as 'blind, stupid
ignorance'. Err, I mean, fundamentalism.
> That seems to be the goal of many of those in the "art" entertainment
> industry and has been since the sixties.
> It's adolescent as hell.
There's a lot of good in shock value. For one thing,
it gets assholes like you to show just how intolerant
they really are.
> >> I simply don't get the point.
> >
> >So therefore you label it "rude sophomoric bs". How very
> >open-minded of you. It amazes me when a professed atheist
> >shows himself to be just as bigoted as a raving fundamentalist.
> >
> >> Funny stuff ain't it?
> >> That's how we do though it isn't it?
> >> Denigrate a group...doesn't matter who they are.
> >> Make it *cool* to denigrate them, dehumanize them, laugh at them and
> >> then hang the bastards.
> >
> >Yep, that's exactly what you're doing. Denigrating a work
> >you have never seen.
>
> Commenting on the fact that it's easy enough to criticize and entire
> group for the faults of a few of their number.
> Did you think "Piss Christ" was a work of art?
I've never seen it, so I don't have an opinion about it.
The title is not enough info for me to condemn it wholesale,
unlike you.
> Wasn't it obviously designed to offend an entire group of people for
> the sheer, perverse pleasure of it?
I dunno, maybe it was, so what? What does this have to do with the
work in question? Strawman?
> Would you need to talk to the "artist" to determine his motives?
Of course. I might divine his meaning by the work, but I doubt
anyone could divine his motive from it. Except possibly those that
are very close to the artist personally.
So, what you are saying is that since "Piss Christ" offended some
people, then "Yo Mama's Last Supper" is totally devoid of redeeming
value? Are they even by the same artist?
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a9165e2.218391912@news-server...
> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:26:43 -0500, stillsunny <sun...@sccoast.net>
> >> American society has gone to hell.
> >> I hardly watch tv anymore.
> >> The only comedian my wife and I have felt safe going to see in the
> >> past several years is Sinbad.
> >
> >"Safe"? Why? Has your life been threatened at The Comedy Store?
> >What a stupid word to apply to a simple act of going to a comedy
> >performance.
>
> I have a feeling you are too narrow minded and shallow to understand
> it.
Pot, kettle, black? She's 'narrow minded and shallow'
because she doesn't share your dismal world view?
Man! Tell me you're really a xian in disguise!
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:31:33 -0600, Uncle Judas
> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <01tp...@walksalone1.earthlink.net>,
> >walks...@earthlink.net says...
> >>
> >> <uncle...@christianzone.org> Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:38:36 -0600
> >> > In article <v4b29t8d0uifrt31h...@4ax.com>,
> >> > sun...@sccoast.net says...
>
> <snip>
> >
>
> >
> >> Let me guess, you are an afjc regular?
> >
> >Been on a.a.s. a LOT longer. Sycophants make me wanna puke,
> >no matter what group I'm in.
>
> Lol!
> How very special you are.
Not really. I think most people are disgusted by sycophants.
I suppose you enjoy having/being a lickspittle?
> >> > Jebus bloody hanging christ, when did a.a. get so
> >> > full of anal retentives?
>
> Anal retentives?
> Lol!
> Haven't heard that since the sixties.
You should get out more. Oh, I forgot, you're
scared of comedy clubs, and probably your own shadow.
Uncle Judas
Packman
Maybe he's suffering from a bad case of constipation? That can really
make you grumpy sometimes.
Cardinal Feng
says...
> > Haven't heard that since the sixties.
>
> You should get out more. Oh, I forgot, you're
> scared of comedy clubs, and probably your own shadow.
>
You'd be afraid of your own shadow, too, if it was always giving you the
finger.
Tim Schulz
Of course their rights to do such should be protected to the bitter end,
and Rudy "Il Duce" Giuliani should be punted back to 1930's Italy.
On the other hand, 99.9999% of all art deliberately intended to 'shock' or
'offend' is tiresome shit (as opposed to the usual 99% of all other art).
I'm withholding judgment on this one until I can see a pic (sounds like it
may have some small merit), but the last artwork to get Rudy's knickers in
a bunch -- the elephant-dung Mary, which was inaccurately described by
bozo "moral guardians" who had never seen it as being "splattered" with
dung -- was the only halfway decent work amid a cesspool of talentless
wank.
Supporting shitty art is one of the prices we have to pay as a
(theoretically) tolerant society, but that doesn't mean that folks like
myself and atheist@home can't point out that whizzing the words "FUCK YUO
JESUS" onto a canvas is tiresome, overdone, and not advancing culture at
all. Art galleries should simply exercise better judgment about what they
show; the more works they show by these untalented art-school jackoffs,
the more they encourage the production of such _moving_ and
_thought-provoking_ works as "Bible With Pile of Poo On Top #232a" and
"Heap of Rotting Meat (plus Wimple) In the Shape of That Bitch Nun Who
Taught Me Third-Grade Geography and Made Me Cry In Front of the Whole Class
Once". *Deeeeeep*, man!
Just tell the gallery directors that the emperor has no clothes, hope for
the best, and hope they wise up. Education is better than censorship 100%
of the time.
> http://www.fashionablytall.com/Watering_Jesus.jpg
> http://www.fashionablytall.com
>
>
>
Uncle Judas
says...
Lol! That's some great imagery. I want a shadow that
gives me the finger! It's wasted on atheist@home!
UJ
Uncle Judas
rmd...@prodigy.net says...
For all you atheists out there, check out this guy's site.
He's done some excellent graphics for us over on afjc,
and is an extraordinary talent to find hanging around on
usenet. He's even parodied some of our favorite trolls,
including Pastor Frank. Well worth a look.
Uncle Judas
Jim Fay
Hell, forget just paintings. If something meant to be offensive to a
group is not art, then "J'accuse" and a hundred other books like it are
not art.
ath...@home.com
<rmd...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
><ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a929cf8.298042325@news-server...
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:29 -0600, Uncle Judas
>> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't need to talk to the artist.
>> It was deliberately designed to offend.
>> That seems to be the goal of many of those in the "art" entertainment
>> industry and has been since the sixties.
>> It's adolescent as hell.
>>
>Who gives a flying fuck if it was intended to offend?.
Uh...the people who were offended?
>A lot of art is meant
>to be offensive...............
Easy thing to do.
To offend I mean.
It doesn't take talent or courage in America.
It's an easy thing to do.
Got it?
>so what? It's still art whether you or anybody
>else agrees with the subject matter or content. It seems that it's always
>the non-creative types that end up bitching about it the most. I haven't
>seen "Piss Christ", but even if an artist were to depict somebody shitting
>down Jeezus' throat, more power to 'em. It's called 'freedom of expression',
>and the last I heard, it was still legal and acceptable in this country and
>on Usenet. Live with it.
Know what's really funny here nitwit?
My opinion offended you and you are all over my ass for having
expressed it.
See the contridiction little man?
atheist@home#1554
>http://www.fashionablytall.com/Watering_Jesus.jpg
>http://www.fashionablytall.com
>
>
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>ath...@home.com babbles:
<snip>
>You're obviously speaking out of ignorance once again.
Never did that did you?
What exactly keeps your feet on the ground?
Thanks for the links btw.
Wonderful stuff.
<Really>
atheist@home#1554
>---
>Merlyn LeRoy
ath...@home.com
<uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
So you're a low class twit.
Hell of an accomplishment in life.
And you're 40?
Little boy in a grown man's body.
Lol!
Missing those grammer school days on the playground messing with the
geeks are we?
atheist@home#1554
>Uncle Judas
yowie
> Commenting on the fact that it's easy enough to criticize and entire
> group for the faults of a few of their number.
> Did you think "Piss Christ" was a work of art?
> Wasn't it obviously designed to offend an entire group of people for
> the sheer, perverse pleasure of it?
Which is the the more perverse; to dunk a crucifix in a jar of amber
liquid and photograph it - or to react as though the photographer had
just shot the pope?
> Would you need to talk to the "artist" to determine his motives?
Who cares what his motives were? I thought the picture was rather
pleasing, despite the perversity of the subject matter (and I don't
mean the 'piss').
--
"There are thousands of gods"
-Pastor Frank
yowie
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:14:45 +1030, yowie <yowie@dont_bother.nut>
> wrote:
>
> >In alt.flame.jesus.christ, ath...@home.com wrote...
> >
> >> American society has gone to hell.
> >> I hardly watch tv anymore.
> >
> >Oh no!
> >
> >You yanks have - as usual - a flippant yet apt standard response to
> >such sentiments.
> >
> >Get a life.
> >
> >[whine]
>
> Yawn...
Brian Westley
>>ath...@home.com babbles:
><snip>
>>You're obviously speaking out of ignorance once again.
>Never did that did you?
That's right, never admit you're wrong; just attack.
You can't even admit that the artist of "Piss Christ" didn't
do it to be offensive.
>What exactly keeps your feet on the ground?
>Thanks for the links btw.
>Wonderful stuff.
><Really>
I thought you said it was "obviously" offensive.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
ath...@home.com
<uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>In article <3a929cf8.298042325@news-server>, ath...@home.com says...
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:29 -0600, Uncle Judas
>> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> American society has gone to hell.
>> >> >
>> >> >But why do you write off the work without even seeing it?
>> >> >Is it because the gallery it's at has shown what you consider
>> >> >to be "rude, sophomoric bs"? It has been my experience that
>> >> >atheists are sensitive to things hypocritical, I point out the
>> >> >hypocracy of judging a work based on the gallery it hangs in.
>> >>
>> >> It was deliberately designed to offend.
>> >
>> >It was? You have talked to the artist? Looks more like
>> >a feminist agenda to me. Hell, man, you can't draw breath
>> >without offending somebody these days. So what?
>>
>> I don't need to talk to the artist.
>> It was deliberately designed to offend.
>
>And you arrived at this conclusion without examining
>the work. I believe that's refered to as 'blind, stupid
>ignorance'. Err, I mean, fundamentalism.
Lol!
You're killing me here.
I am definitely intimidated by your razor sharp wit.
>> That seems to be the goal of many of those in the "art" entertainment
>> industry and has been since the sixties.
>> It's adolescent as hell.
>
>There's a lot of good in shock value. For one thing,
>it gets assholes like you to show just how intolerant
>they really are.
Assholes?
Say...are you another one of those keyboard warriors who has all kinds
of badass courage talking tough to people in usenet?
I mean are you really as bad as you sound?
<snip>
>I've never seen it, so I don't have an opinion about it.
>The title is not enough info for me to condemn it wholesale,
>unlike you.
How very open minded you are.
As long as everyone is in agreement with you right?
Tell me something Einstein...
If you went grocery shopping would you really buy a package of hotdogs
labeled " laced with the highest quality arsenic" and eat it just
because you are open minded enough to think it means something other
than what it says?
>> Wasn't it obviously designed to offend an entire group of people for
>> the sheer, perverse pleasure of it?
>
>I dunno, maybe it was, so what? What does this have to do with the
>work in question? Strawman?
Lol!
Strawman?
A very misunderstood and overused term.
>> Would you need to talk to the "artist" to determine his motives?
>
>Of course. I might divine his meaning by the work, but I doubt
>anyone could divine his motive from it. Except possibly those that
>are very close to the artist personally.
>
>So, what you are saying is that since "Piss Christ" offended some
>people, then "Yo Mama's Last Supper" is totally devoid of redeeming
>value? Are they even by the same artist?
Everybody has a *right* to offend and everybody has a right to be
offended.
The question is, why offend if it doesn't serve a purpose?
I've offended you and you are barking and snapping at me like a rabid
dog.
I stated my conviction that I think this cheap piece of "art" <which
represents an opinion> sucks and you are wailing me because you think
my opinion sucks.
Wanna explain the difference here?
atheist@home#1554
>Uncle Judas
Volcania
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a92a018.298842495@news-server...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:16:26 -0500, "Volcania" <h...@goddess.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><ath...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3a9165e2.218391912@news-server...
> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:26:43 -0500, stillsunny <sun...@sccoast.net>
> >> American society has gone to hell.
> >> I hardly watch tv anymore.
> >> The only comedian my wife and I have felt safe going to see in the
> >> past several years is Sinbad.
> >
> >"Safe"? Why? Has your life been threatened at The Comedy Store?
> >What a stupid word to apply to a simple act of going to a comedy
> >performance.
>
> I have a feeling you are too narrow minded and shallow to understand
> it.
In other words, you couldn't think of a justification for your stupid
position.
>
> >> I started watching a movie I rented called Gunshy the other day.
> >> There were several graphic scenes of men urinating, <one in his pants>
> >> one in which the lead actor is getting an enema, a couple in which the
> >> lead actor is passing gas, one of the lead actress coming out of a
> >> johnny on the job and a couple of references to bowel movements.
> >> Sandra Bullock played the female lead and I was surprised at how low
> >> she's sunk.
> >
> >Were you incapable of turning the VCR off, returning the tape, and asking
> >for your money back?
>
> I did turn it off but why would I ask for my money back?
Since you're so high-minded, you want to make your point, don't you?
>
> >Why don't you people who keep complaining about "America's going to hell"
> >start exercising your right to stay home and actually have a conversation
or
> >play board games or something.
>
> Actually we do stay home most of the time.
> We even read books and have conversations.
Let's hope they're better than the conversations you start in here.
>
> >No, you expect the entire entertainment
> >industry to cater to YOUR preferences and YOUR neuroses. Grow up and make
> >better choices, whiner.
>
> Most of my choices are good.
Apparently not, since you're the one whining about society's degeneration.
> And no, I don't expect anybody to cater to my preferences in most
> things but I do demand that they act in a polite, respectful manner
> around my wife and that they don't say certain things that are
> degrading to human dignity.
> You do understand the term "human dignity" right?
>
Not when it's applied to sanctimonious pricks like you.
And, what's with the "respectful manner around my wife" bullshit? What are
you, a Promise Keeper? The little woman is so fragile and dependent that she
can't speak for herself? She's so sheltered that she has to depend on hubby
to protect her from the big bad world out there? Ex-nun, is she? Gee, the
old phrase "male chauvinist pig" comes to mind...
-V
Rob~
high-pitched tones which roughly translate into human English as:
>In article <v4b29t8d0uifrt31h...@4ax.com>,
>sun...@sccoast.net says...
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:00:41 -0600, Uncle Judas
>> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3a908e12.163135214@news-server>, ath...@home.com
>> >says...
>> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:49:12 -0600, Uncle Judas
>> >> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20010215_2388.htm
>> >> >l
>> >>
>> >> ><snicker>
>> >>
>> >> OK.
>> >> So I'm very curious here.
>> >> Why is this funny?
>> >> Is it one of those Saturday Night Live things that the more
>> >> people who are unnecessarily offended by rude, sophomoric bs the
>> >> funnier it is? Am I so blinded by ignorance that I'm missing some
>> >> profound statement about religion that I just don't get?
>> >> Oh yeah...and did my tax money pay for it via the NEA?
>> >> I just gotta know.
>> >
>> >I find the title to be amusing, as well as the concept of
>> >the photograph. I don't know how ignorant you are (although
>> >your post gives a good idea) but I'd say you are definitely
>> >blinded by prejudice.
>>
>> Then you need to reread the question.
>>
>> >You refer to the display as "rude,
>> >sophomoric bs"
>>
>> No, he *asked* if that's what it was. Based on the title of the
>> art, without the site actually showing the art, I'd say it was a
>> reasonable question.
>
>Well, little miss literal, I guess I should have
>said "No, it's not from Sat. Night Live".
Actually, if you want to be literal, what he asked was whether the rude,
sophomoric bullshit (spell it out, you pussy) was funnier if it offended
more people. The bit about him considering it rude, sophomoric bullshit
was never in question.
>Jebus bloody hanging christ, when did a.a. get so
>full of anal retentives?
Always was. The question is when did a.a.s. get so friggin' pathetic.
--
Rob~
np: The Knack - (She's So) Selfish (Ooh, hope Mr. ath...@home.com
doesn't have to hear the lyrics to this, he might get offended)
Maybe you'll get a replacement
There's plenty like me to be found
Mongrels who ain't got a penny
Sniffing for tidbits like you on the ground
-- Elton John, "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road"
Rob~
translate into human English as:
>American society has gone to hell.
I don't believe in hell.
>I hardly watch tv anymore.
I don't give a rat's ass what you watch.
>The only comedian my wife and I have felt safe going to see in the
>past several years is Sinbad.
You must be a troll.
>Interestingly I read a news article a few months ago that told of
>agents explaning to their comedians that if they wanted more bookings
>they needed to start showing a little respect for their audiences.
>Many of them agreed, were advertised as being clean and family safe
>and found themselves being overworked.
References?
>I started watching a movie I rented called Gunshy the other day.
>There were several graphic scenes of men urinating, <one in his pants>
>one in which the lead actor is getting an enema, a couple in which the
>lead actor is passing gas, one of the lead actress coming out of a
>johnny on the job and a couple of references to bowel movements.
Oh my god, no! How could they show people performing basic bodily
functions?!?!?! Personally, I don't think any movies complete without at
least one good cumshot.
>Sandra Bullock played the female lead and I was surprised at how low
>she's sunk.
I'd like to see her go further down.
>Anything for a buck eh?
Hell, I'd give her a twenty.
><snip>
>>
>>>Pull that stick out of your ass and
>>>loosen up a bit, man.
>
>No thanks.
>I think America has loosened up enough as it is.
Maybe it has. Unfortunately, you haven't.
--
Rob~
np: Collective Soul - She Said
Rob~
translate into human English as:
The difference would be he's seen your opinions posted here, while you
haven't seen the work of art you've condemned as being "rude, sophomoric
bs".
--
Rob~
np: Pearl Jam - Black
Rob~
translate into human English as:
>On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:27:30 -0500, "Volcania" <h...@goddess.com>
I've figured it out! ath...@home.com is Ed Croteaux in disguise with a
slightly better spell-checker!
--
Rob~
np: Joe Jackson - Breakin' Us In Two
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>ath...@home.com writes:
>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:34:17 GMT, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
>>wrote:
>
>>>ath...@home.com babbles:
>><snip>
>>>You're obviously speaking out of ignorance once again.
>
>>Never did that did you?
>
>That's right, never admit you're wrong; just attack.
If I'm wrong I won't have a problem admitting it.
I don't expect to be right all the time.
>You can't even admit that the artist of "Piss Christ" didn't
>do it to be offensive.
Why did he do it?
Why urine?
>>What exactly keeps your feet on the ground?
>>Thanks for the links btw.
>>Wonderful stuff.
>><Really>
>
>I thought you said it was "obviously" offensive.
The title is offensive to large group of people and I can't personally
think of any other reason for the piece.
At any rate it doesn't really matter does it?
atheist@home#1554
>---
>Merlyn LeRoy
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>Not when it's applied to sanctimonious pricks like you.
>And, what's with the "respectful manner around my wife" bullshit? What are
>you, a Promise Keeper? The little woman is so fragile and dependent that she
>can't speak for herself? She's so sheltered that she has to depend on hubby
>to protect her from the big bad world out there? Ex-nun, is she? Gee, the
>old phrase "male chauvinist pig" comes to mind...
Lol!
You've cut me to the bone.
atheist@home#1554
>-V
>
>
>
ath...@home.com
>ath...@home.com rendered several high-pitched tones which roughly
>translate into human English as:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:32:31 -0600, Uncle Judas
>><uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>>>So, what you are saying is that since "Piss Christ" offended some
>>>people, then "Yo Mama's Last Supper" is totally devoid of redeeming
>>>value? Are they even by the same artist?
>>
>>Everybody has a *right* to offend and everybody has a right to be
>>offended.
>>The question is, why offend if it doesn't serve a purpose?
>>I've offended you and you are barking and snapping at me like a rabid
>>dog.
>>I stated my conviction that I think this cheap piece of "art" <which
>>represents an opinion> sucks and you are wailing me because you think
>>my opinion sucks.
>>Wanna explain the difference here?
>
>The difference would be he's seen your opinions posted here, while you
>haven't seen the work of art you've condemned as being "rude, sophomoric
>bs".
I've seen it.
Mixed emotions.
Why urine?
atheist@home#1554
BikePainter
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a931d0c.330834942@news-server...
> Know what's really funny here nitwit?
> My opinion offended you and you are all over my ass for having
> expressed it.
> See the contridiction little man?
>
> atheist@home#1554
Yawn
BikePainter
news:Pine.A41.4.32.0102201444040.60968-
Art galleries should simply exercise better judgment about what they
> show; the more works they show by these untalented art-school jackoffs,
> the more they encourage the production of such _moving_ and
> _thought-provoking_ works as "Bible With Pile of Poo On Top #232a"
<snip>
I have to agree................"Bible With Pile of Poo On Top #232a" sucked.
No way could it hold a candle to the rest of the Bible Poo series #'s 1
through #231. Orders for the framed version of #231 are still pouring in and
they're selling like hotcakes.
http://www.fashionablytall.com/BiblePile_231.jpg
Brian Westley
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:43:58 GMT, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
>wrote:
>>ath...@home.com writes:
>>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:34:17 GMT, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>ath...@home.com babbles:
>>><snip>
>>>>You're obviously speaking out of ignorance once again.
>>
>>>Never did that did you?
>>
>>That's right, never admit you're wrong; just attack.
>If I'm wrong I won't have a problem admitting it.
You are, and you haven't admitted it.
"Piss Christ" was not created by Serrano to annoy people.
You claimed it was, without even being familiar with the work
or the artist.
>I don't expect to be right all the time.
>>You can't even admit that the artist of "Piss Christ" didn't
>>do it to be offensive.
>Why did he do it?
>Why urine?
I already told you. Since it didn't agree with your prejudices,
you clipped it in your reply.
>>>What exactly keeps your feet on the ground?
>>>Thanks for the links btw.
>>>Wonderful stuff.
>>><Really>
>>
>>I thought you said it was "obviously" offensive.
>The title is offensive to large group of people and I can't personally
>think of any other reason for the piece.
>At any rate it doesn't really matter does it?
Your ignorant opinion? No.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Uncle Judas
bp...@students.uiuc.edu says...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Uncle Judas wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.101021...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> > bp...@students.uiuc.edu says...
> > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Uncle Judas wrote:
> > >
> > > > I pity you, if you actually think this way.
> > >
> > > you are the reason why the world is being homoginized.
> >
> > Oooo, such a big word! Next time try spelling it correctly,
> > it'll be much more impressive.
>
> english is rediculous with spelling and you know it. i am more concerned
> with learning and improving my other four languages, and increasing my
> volcabulary in this one rather than "correct" spelling of a fluid system.
Why be good at one when you can suck at several.
> > > you are the reason
> > > america has full economic control over the world.
> >
> > Bahahahaha. No, really, HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> every shred of clothing you buy was made by exploited sweatshop workers in
> "third world" countries.
Oh, really. Well I guess I should go naked so those
'exploited' workers can starve to death, huh?
> everytime you buy gas you support war in the
> middle east that we instigated to keep the price down.
You're an imbecile. I buy gas to get my ass to and from work.
I guess I should quit my job so those middle eastern countries
can starve to death as well.
> we've fucked up
> more countries than you know. wan't me to continue the list?
No need, you've proven that you know nothing about economics.
Here's a clue jackass; without consumers there IS NO economy.
Without an economy, we are reduced to squatting in caves and
throwing rocks at each other. Is this the utopia you want? The
great socialist answer: We all starve to death together.
> > > you are the reason why
> > > 8% of america has 90+% of the wealth and the rest will keep getting
> > > poorer.
> >
> > I'm a strong Capitalist, yes indeedy. If the weak and stupid want
> > more than they've got, they can damn well earn it. Just like I did.
> > You fucking socialists are a cancer on the face of this planet.
>
> let me guess, you've never been poor have you?
I was homeless and lived on the street for 3 months about 20
years ago. Poor enough for ya?
> never worked a laborous
> job?
I've been a laborer in a steel foundry... I've labored for masons,
roofers, and builders of all kinds.
> never worked cleaning up other people's shit,
I worked in a sewage treatment plant for two years.
> or sewing shoes
> together in a dangerous and unhealthy workplace?
Ah, you got me. I've never sewed shoes. A steel foundry
is about as dangerous and unhealthy as it gets.
> i'm willing to bet you
> don't know what 'earn it' means.
I've earned everything I've got. Nobody ever gave me anything.
Have you earned ANYthing you've got, college boy?
> billions of people work their asses off
> and could never afford HALF the shit you have. millions wish they could
> live as good as american homeless,
What a rediculous statement. Your emotional appeal don't cut it,
let's see some facts. You're making shit up now.
> and they bust their asses until the day
> they die. what have our politicians done to "earn" their millions? what
> have the ceo's done to "earn" their billions? fuck other people over,
> that's what.
You're all over the fucking road here. Are you just trying to
see how much whining you can do in one thread?
> > > you are the reason the best things in life have lost their flavor.
> >
> > If your life is flavorless, the cause is internal not external.
> > I predict you become xian within 6 months.
>
> oh, come on! do you honestly call sitcoms, mcdonald's, and these rubbery,
> genetically altered tomatoes flavorfull?
I don't consider McDonalds, sitcoms, and tomatoes as "the best
things in life". Small wonder you life has lost it's flavor,
if these are the important things in it.
> > > please, do yourself a
> > > favor and put a gun in your mouth.
> >
> > The sad thing is that you actually think that would improve your life.
> > Get a grip, moron; you're letting other people run your life. It's
> > people like you that have kept us in the dark ages for so long.
>
> no, it wouldn't improve my life. it would, however, improve the lives of
> people who bust their asses everyday just to get poorer. who's running my
> life, eh? i'm not the one bombarded with commercials telling me to buy,
> buy, buy without consideration of the price we (as a society) have to pay.
Physically, are you as big a weakling as you are mentally?
> > In other words, you didn't want me to see your response to my post.
> > You're an idiot AND a charlatan.
>
> i use telnet because that is what the school's computers have. i don't
> have one. some of us have to spend the 2 G's on health insurance rather
> than a new toy. i CAN'T post to the flame.jesus.christ, so i can only
> hope that you get this.
Get a job, asswipe, and buy the toys you want. BTW, I built the computer
I'm on for $350 US. I pay $10/month for inet access. I spent $3600 US
on health insurance and care last year. You sure squeal loudly for
someone who doesn't shoulder half the load I do.
> ps- PLEASE read noam chomski, or michael moore, or anything more socially
> and globally consious than your republican controlled newspaper. you
> might learn something for yourself that doesn't just re-affirm your
> consumer lifestyle.
Oh, how cute. I don't vote, or read newspapers.
What you miss is that your " globally consious" socialism
is as big a lie as xianity. And just as dangerous.
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
> ath...@home.com writes:
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:43:58 GMT, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
> >wrote:
> >>ath...@home.com writes:
> >>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:34:17 GMT, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
> >>>wrote:
> >>
> >>>>ath...@home.com babbles:
> >>><snip>
> >>>>You're obviously speaking out of ignorance once again.
> >>
> >>>Never did that did you?
> >>
> >>That's right, never admit you're wrong; just attack.
>
> >If I'm wrong I won't have a problem admitting it.
>
> You are, and you haven't admitted it.
> "Piss Christ" was not created by Serrano to annoy people.
Yep, he's a bigot, that won't admit to being wrong.
What a sorry excuse for a human being.
UJ
Uncle Judas
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:19:07 -0600, Uncle Judas
> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <96ugat$4pbm$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
> >rmd...@prodigy.net says...
> >>
> >> http://www.fashionablytall.com
> >
> >For all you atheists out there, check out this guy's site.
> >He's done some excellent graphics for us over on afjc,
> >and is an extraordinary talent to find hanging around on
> >usenet. He's even parodied some of our favorite trolls,
> >including Pastor Frank. Well worth a look.
>
> So you're a low class twit.
> Hell of an accomplishment in life.
> And you're 40?
> Little boy in a grown man's body.
> Lol!
> Missing those grammer school days on the playground messing with the
> geeks are we?
Got no response, eh? What a loser.
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
> On 21 Feb 2001 06:11:06 GMT, ber...@infidels.org (Rob~) wrote:
>
> >ath...@home.com rendered several high-pitched tones which roughly
> >translate into human English as:
> >
> >>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:32:31 -0600, Uncle Judas
> >><uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
> >>>So, what you are saying is that since "Piss Christ" offended some
> >>>people, then "Yo Mama's Last Supper" is totally devoid of redeeming
> >>>value? Are they even by the same artist?
> >>
> >>Everybody has a *right* to offend and everybody has a right to be
> >>offended.
> >>The question is, why offend if it doesn't serve a purpose?
> >>I've offended you and you are barking and snapping at me like a rabid
> >>dog.
> >>I stated my conviction that I think this cheap piece of "art" <which
> >>represents an opinion> sucks and you are wailing me because you think
> >>my opinion sucks.
> >>Wanna explain the difference here?
> >
> >The difference would be he's seen your opinions posted here, while you
> >haven't seen the work of art you've condemned as being "rude, sophomoric
> >bs".
>
> I've seen it.
> Mixed emotions.
> Why urine?
Shit, you can't even keep track of what the discussion is about.
You refered to "Yo Mama's Last Supper" as rude, etc., moron.
Please try to keep up.
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
> >There's a lot of good in shock value. For one thing,
> >it gets assholes like you to show just how intolerant
> >they really are.
>
> Assholes?
> Say...are you another one of those keyboard warriors who has all kinds
> of badass courage talking tough to people in usenet?
> I mean are you really as bad as you sound?
<snort> Courage, to call you an asshole? That's simple observation,
no courage needed.
> <snip>
>
> >I've never seen it, so I don't have an opinion about it.
> >The title is not enough info for me to condemn it wholesale,
> >unlike you.
>
> How very open minded you are.
> As long as everyone is in agreement with you right?
I haven't expressed an opinion, how could anybody agree with me?
You've lost the argument, so here come the ad homenim and strawmen...
> Tell me something Einstein...
> If you went grocery shopping would you really buy a package of hotdogs
> labeled " laced with the highest quality arsenic" and eat it just
> because you are open minded enough to think it means something other
> than what it says?
What the fuck are you talking about?
> >> Wasn't it obviously designed to offend an entire group of people for
> >> the sheer, perverse pleasure of it?
> >
> >I dunno, maybe it was, so what? What does this have to do with the
> >work in question? Strawman?
>
> Lol!
> Strawman?
> A very misunderstood and overused term.
I see you have no answer.
> I've offended you and you are barking and snapping at me like a rabid
> dog.
No, I just think you are a fool. You'd have to go a long way
to offend me, if you are even capable of it.
> I stated my conviction that I think this cheap piece of "art" <which
> represents an opinion> sucks and you are wailing me because you think
> my opinion sucks.
> Wanna explain the difference here?
Because I've seen your opinion, but you haven't seen the work.
You've judged the work based on what some other artist did.
That makes you prejudiced, and prejudice is something that most
atheists try to fight. You're a disgrace to the label "atheist".
You're what is refered to as a 'fashionable' atheist. You've
got no idea what it means to be an atheist, but it sure makes
you feel important to call yourself that. Next year you'll
probably be a buddhist or a xian.
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
says...
> ath...@home.com rendered several high-pitched tones which roughly
> translate into human English as:
>
> >On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:27:30 -0500, "Volcania" <h...@goddess.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>walksalone <walks...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:01tp...@walksalone1.earthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
> >>> go ahead and cheat a friend
> >>> Do it in the name of heaven,
> >>> you can justify it in the end.
> >>> From One Tin Soldier
> >>>
> >>> walksalone
> >>
> >>
> >>ROFL!!!
> >>I simply canNOT believe anyone would quote that lame "Billy Jack" crap.
> >
> >Well gosh....like whats wrong with it Muffy <Or is it Biff?>?
> >I mean like did you like watch the movie and all?
> >Was it like just soooooo gross and stuff?
> >Lol!
>
> I've figured it out! ath...@home.com is Ed Croteaux in disguise with a
> slightly better spell-checker!
>
posing as an atheist.
Uncle Judas
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:29 -0600, Uncle Judas
> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> American society has gone to hell.
> >> >
> >> >Is it because the gallery it's at has shown what you consider
> >> >to be "rude, sophomoric bs"? It has been my experience that
> >> >atheists are sensitive to things hypocritical, I point out the
> >> >hypocracy of judging a work based on the gallery it hangs in.
> >>
> >> It was deliberately designed to offend.
> >
> >It was? You have talked to the artist? Looks more like
> >a feminist agenda to me. Hell, man, you can't draw breath
> >without offending somebody these days. So what?
>
> I don't need to talk to the artist.
> It was deliberately designed to offend.
Ever seen Picasso's Guernica? Ever seen the Diego Rivera murals which
grace the Mexican National Palace? How about the photograph of the
young naked Vietnamese girl running from a napalm strike?
If art is meant to force change, then the most successful art is that
which offends the most people. Otherwise, it's just pretty pictures.
> That seems to be the goal of many of those in the "art" entertainment
> industry and has been since the sixties.
The decade of liberation, social, racial, and otherwise. The sixties
should be celebrated, not demonized. Listen to Lenny Bruce's most "scandalous"
routines, then ask yourself what was so shocking. Who's the pervert, Mr. Bruce,
or his critics?
> It's adolescent as hell.
It touched you deeply. Good.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:19:07 -0600, Uncle Judas
> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <96ugat$4pbm$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
> >rmd...@prodigy.net says...
> >>
> >> <ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a929cf8.298042325@news-server..
In the same time it took you to write that, Mr. Bikepainter produced that
stunning masterpiece from scratch. Plainly, the guy understands art. No
question.
You're not in the same league. Not by a long shot.
Uncle Judas
cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com says...
> Listen to Lenny Bruce's most "scandalous"
> routines, then ask yourself what was so shocking.
> Who's the pervert, Mr. Bruce, or his critics?
An excellent point, well stated.
UJ
brandon pool
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.101022...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> bp...@students.uiuc.edu says...
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Uncle Judas wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.101021...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> > > bp...@students.uiuc.edu says...
> > > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Uncle Judas wrote:
> > english is rediculous with spelling and you know it. i am more concerned
> > with learning and improving my other four languages, and increasing my
> > volcabulary in this one rather than "correct" spelling of a fluid system.
>
> Why be good at one when you can suck at several.
excuse me. i must have fallen into the fallicy that learning from people
outside of america was a good thing.
> > every shred of clothing you buy was made by exploited sweatshop workers in
> > "third world" countries.
>
> Oh, really. Well I guess I should go naked so those
> 'exploited' workers can starve to death, huh?
no, but we should be careful about what we buy and where it comes from. i
don't want to contribute to fuckin' up Java.
> Here's a clue jackass; without consumers there IS NO economy.
> Without an economy, we are reduced to squatting in caves and
> throwing rocks at each other. Is this the utopia you want? The
> great socialist answer: We all starve to death together.
there is another potential ecnomic system where we're not exploiting other
countries, not ruining their economy, and not putting americans out of
work.
> Ah, you got me. I've never sewed shoes. A steel foundry
> is about as dangerous and unhealthy as it gets.
fair enough. i got the impression from what you write that you were some
rich, xenophobe, homophobe, mysogonist (sp?), gun toting republican.
> I've earned everything I've got. Nobody ever gave me anything.
> Have you earned ANYthing you've got, college boy?
what is all this 'college boy' and 'kid' crap. i'm balding, for christ's
sake! and yes, i've earned everything i have. scholarships and teaching
positions pay for my school, my jobs pay for my living expenses.
> Are you just trying to see how much whining you can do in one thread?
no, my goal (which, it appears i'm failing miserably at) is to convince
you of a simple thing:
most people on this ng are convinced that the "churches" (religious
organizations in general) are corrupt, decietful, greedy, power hungry,
and hell bent on keeping the wool pulled over the eyes of it's
constituants while fucking everyone else over in the process. the US
government and all the large corperations are the same thing, but they
have vastly more power, and fuck alot more people on a regular basis. it
is more important to fix this system so people can live better lives than
it is to worry about a few dilusional cooks who think they talk to jesus.
you've mentioned what a hard life you've had. doesn't it bother you how
much money bill gates makes without effort? that ross perot makes 4.4
million a day on intrest alone? that the president gets a huge amount of
kickback for fucking people (from mexicans to gays to low income
americans)? these people don't know what work is compared to you, and yet
they want to make your life harder as well as the lives of millions of
others. why do they need all that money? i doubt they could even spend it
in their lifetime.
> Get a job, asswipe, and buy the toys you want.
the few toys we have is one thing. the toys of the rich are another
world. see above.
> Oh, how cute. I don't vote, or read newspapers.
oh, nice. so you don't try to take control of your society OR know
anything about what's going on in the world? that's great. unless you've
found a better way to do both, in which case i hope you share so that i
may tap these resources as well.
> What you miss is that your " globally consious" socialism
> is as big a lie as xianity. And just as dangerous.
ho ho! please, then. share your wisdom of how your utopian society would
work.
b
stillsunny
<uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
Why are you having trouble understanding this sentence?
The title of the piece is "Yo Mama's Last Supper."
Without actually seeing it, the title *would* indicate a less than
highbrow approach to art.
>> >> Wasn't it obviously designed to offend an entire group of people for
>> >> the sheer, perverse pleasure of it?
>> >
>> >I dunno, maybe it was, so what? What does this have to do with the
>> >work in question? Strawman?
>>
>> Lol!
>> Strawman?
>> A very misunderstood and overused term.
>
>I see you have no answer.
>
>> I've offended you and you are barking and snapping at me like a rabid
>> dog.
>
>No, I just think you are a fool. You'd have to go a long way
>to offend me, if you are even capable of it.
>
>> I stated my conviction that I think this cheap piece of "art" <which
>> represents an opinion> sucks and you are wailing me because you think
>> my opinion sucks.
>> Wanna explain the difference here?
>
>Because I've seen your opinion, but you haven't seen the work.
>You've judged the work based on what some other artist did.
Pardon me.
Your first comment regarding the piece was -- and I quote:
> <snicker>
> Uncle Judas
To which atheist@home replied:
>OK.
>So I'm very curious here.
>Why is this funny?
>Is it one of those Saturday Night Live things that the more people who
>are unnecessarily offended by rude, sophomoric bs the funnier it is?
Now you're calling *him* prejudiced?
And suggest he can't appreciate the artistic impulse?
Your <snicker> suggested *you* found humor in it, in a sophomoric sort
of way.
For a discussion of the merits of a particular piece of art, it might
be a good idea to actually post a link to the *art*. The title and
the snicker suggest that *wasn't* your intent.
>That makes you prejudiced, and prejudice is something that most
>atheists try to fight. You're a disgrace to the label "atheist".
Ruhroh. Taking the high ground? After a snicker?
stillsunny
<cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>ath...@home.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:29 -0600, Uncle Judas
>> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> American society has gone to hell.
>> >> >
>> >> >But why do you write off the work without even seeing it?
>> >> >Is it because the gallery it's at has shown what you consider
>> >> >to be "rude, sophomoric bs"? It has been my experience that
>> >> >atheists are sensitive to things hypocritical, I point out the
>> >> >hypocracy of judging a work based on the gallery it hangs in.
>> >>
>> >> It was deliberately designed to offend.
>> >
>> >It was? You have talked to the artist? Looks more like
>> >a feminist agenda to me. Hell, man, you can't draw breath
>> >without offending somebody these days. So what?
>>
>> I don't need to talk to the artist.
>> It was deliberately designed to offend.
>
>Ever seen Picasso's Guernica? Ever seen the Diego Rivera murals which
>grace the Mexican National Palace? How about the photograph of the
>young naked Vietnamese girl running from a napalm strike?
>
>If art is meant to force change, then the most successful art is that
>which offends the most people. Otherwise, it's just pretty pictures.
Not necessarily, though your point is well taken.
Good art is surprising or shocking often. However, the content
generally carries a theme which is resonant, and which carries the
message beyond the initial shock.
Artists using plain shock value -- scatalogical words, violent images,
those sorts of things -- to generate interest in their work is not
new. It's hundreds of years old. However, just *because* it's
shocking doesn't make it art any more than it *not* being immediately
shocking doesn't make it *not* art.
I sure do wish someone would post a link to the actual picture.
Sunny
ath...@home.com
<cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>ath...@home.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:29 -0600, Uncle Judas
>> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> American society has gone to hell.
>> >> >
>> >> >But why do you write off the work without even seeing it?
>> >> >Is it because the gallery it's at has shown what you consider
>> >> >to be "rude, sophomoric bs"? It has been my experience that
>> >> >atheists are sensitive to things hypocritical, I point out the
>> >> >hypocracy of judging a work based on the gallery it hangs in.
>> >>
>> >> It was deliberately designed to offend.
>> >
>> >It was? You have talked to the artist? Looks more like
>> >a feminist agenda to me. Hell, man, you can't draw breath
>> >without offending somebody these days. So what?
>>
>> I don't need to talk to the artist.
>> It was deliberately designed to offend.
>
>Ever seen Picasso's Guernica?
Yes.
>Ever seen the Diego Rivera murals which
>grace the Mexican National Palace?
No.
>How about the photograph of the
>young naked Vietnamese girl running from a napalm strike?
Yes.
Actually saw the girl on tv not too long ago.
I knew the photo had a profound impact but didn't realize how much
until I heard her speak.
>If art is meant to force change, then the most successful art is that
>which offends the most people. Otherwise, it's just pretty pictures.
I used to know that.
I have several books of collections of photographs by various artists.
>> That seems to be the goal of many of those in the "art" entertainment
>> industry and has been since the sixties.
>
>The decade of liberation, social, racial, and otherwise. The sixties
>should be celebrated, not demonized. Listen to Lenny Bruce's most "scandalous"
>routines, then ask yourself what was so shocking. Who's the pervert, Mr. Bruce,
>or his critics?
>
>> It's adolescent as hell.
>
>It touched you deeply. Good.
I get your point.
Funny thing is a few months ago I would have seen Piss Christ in a
different light.
I still wouldn't have liked the idea but I would have understood that
maybe the artist was trying to convey an opinion he felt compelled to
express.
I once knew a thirteen year old girl who carved crosses on her legs
and arms.
Some of the crosses she later converted to swastikas
Her father was a fundamentalist Christian of the wost kind and she
believed she was going to hell no matter what she did.
She would have made a hell of a subject for a photograph and no doubt
some would have been offended.
<The reason for the conversion of the crosses to swastikas was pretty
obvious>
A while back I would have considered the possibility that a crucifix
in urine was intended to express emotions similar to the ones the
young girl was expressing.
My concern is that America has become an uncivil society and that
incivility and insult are celebrated while finer expressions of
courtesy and consideration toward others is often ridiculed.
I also reserve the right to express the opinion that I think something
is trash and people barking at me like dogs because of that opinion
doesn't impress me in person much less in usenet.
I am however forced to re-evaluate my position on the subject of
artists intent.
Not because personal attacks based on my view of the "art" in question
but because I realize that for some reason I judge such things
differently than I once did.
atheist@home#1554
Yang
>On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:15:02 -0600, Uncle Judas
><uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>>But why do you write off the work without even seeing it?
>>Is it because the gallery it's at has shown what you consider
>>to be "rude, sophomoric bs"? It has been my experience that
>>atheists are sensitive to things hypocritical, I point out the
>>hypocracy of judging a work based on the gallery it hangs in.
>
>It was deliberately designed to offend.
>I simply don't get the point.
Seeing as how the artist is a Catholic, I would posit that she is
speaking out against a particular travesty in her church that if
addressed, can make her organization better.
I supposed you can see it as a artistic analog (as inarticulate as it
is) of the 95 Theses that was hammered down by Martin Luther.
ath...@home.com
wrote:
<snip>
>I sure do wish someone would post a link to the actual picture.
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/finearts/karmel/modern/m_67.html
atheist@home#1554
>Sunny
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
They find the urine more shocking than the horrific torture icon. Weird.
Volcania
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a92a3c9.299787405@news-server...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:27:30 -0500, "Volcania" <h...@goddess.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >walksalone <walks...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:01tp...@walksalone1.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
> >> go ahead and cheat a friend
> >> Do it in the name of heaven,
> >> you can justify it in the end.
> >> From One Tin Soldier
> >>
> >> walksalone
> >
> >
> >ROFL!!!
> >I simply canNOT believe anyone would quote that lame "Billy Jack" crap.
>
> Well gosh....like whats wrong with it Muffy <Or is it Biff?>?
> I mean like did you like watch the movie and all?
> Was it like just soooooo gross and stuff?
> Lol!
>
>
I'll bet you form your personal philosophy from watching movies and
listening to the lyrics of bad music, don't you?
Volcania
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a929cf8.298042325@news-server...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:29 -0600, Uncle Judas
> Did you think "Piss Christ" was a work of art?
Yes.
Volcania
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a931ea7.331246326@news-server...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:34:17 GMT, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley)
> wrote:
>
> >ath...@home.com babbles:
> <snip>
> >You're obviously speaking out of ignorance once again.
>
> Never did that did you?
> Thanks for the links btw.
> Wonderful stuff.
> <Really>
>
Obviously, Brian, he has no rational answer for you and has to fall back on
the usual nonsense.
Volcania
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a931d0c.330834942@news-server...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:29:01 -0800, "BikePainter"
> <rmd...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> ><ath...@home.com> wrote in message
> >> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:29 -0600, Uncle Judas
> >> industry and has been since the sixties.
> >>
>
>
> >A lot of art is meant
> >to be offensive...............
>
> To offend I mean.
> It doesn't take talent or courage in America.
> It's an easy thing to do.
> Got it?
Well, it's certainly easy for you to do, obviously.
Volcania
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a942b55.400038290@news-server...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:08:47 -0800, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A."
> I used to know that.
> I have several books of collections of photographs by various artists.
>
And all of them collected under a cover with the words "Penthouse" at the
top.
Volcania
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a931fe9.331568491@news-server...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:19:07 -0600, Uncle Judas
> <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <96ugat$4pbm$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
> >rmd...@prodigy.net says...
> >>
news:3a929cf8.298042325@news-server...
> >> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:23:29 -0600, Uncle Judas
> >> > <uncle...@christianzone.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I don't need to talk to the artist.
> >> > It was deliberately designed to offend.
> >> > That seems to be the goal of many of those in the "art" entertainment
> >> > industry and has been since the sixties.
> >> > It's adolescent as hell.
> >> >
meant
>
Marvelously literate reply. Up to your usual standards.
Cardinal Feng
Nah, he's probably into senior citizen porn.
stillsunny
Apologies.
I meant the "Yo Mama" picture that started this whole thing.
Sunny
Miranda Writes
I'll take "Theme songs sung by Kenny Loggins in 80's movies" for $500, Alex....
M/M
** Perhaps atheist@home will treat us to his unique song stylings of
" Fly, Little Lesbian Seagull" from B&B Do America **
Uncle Judas
bp...@students.uiuc.edu says...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Uncle Judas wrote:
> you've mentioned what a hard life you've had.
Never said I'd had a 'hard life'. You asked me if I'd
been poor or had done manual labor for a living. There
are things much harder to do than these.
> doesn't it bother you how
> much money bill gates makes
Of course not.
> without effort?
I have no idea what it takes to be the CEO of an international
multi-billion dollar corporation, and neither do you. It is
juvenile to assume it is done "without effort". The man has
to contend with the fact that his decisions affect millions of
people's livelihoods. That kind of burden would be WAY too heavy
for me. No, he can keep his money and power, I want neither.
(not that I give a flying fuck about Bill Gates or his problems.
He made his decisions and will live with the consequenses of
them)
> that ross perot makes 4.4
> million a day on intrest alone?
He should be punished because he's a better businessman than me?
Or do you think his abilities should be limited, strictly because
he is such a good businessman? Both concepts are rediculous.
The strong should not be crippled just to make the weak feel
better about themselves.
> that the president gets a huge amount of
> kickback for fucking people (from mexicans to gays to low income
> americans)?
Your point is that political systems are corrupt? I'll agree,
and state that no political system can be immune from it for long.
> these people don't know what work is compared to you, and yet
> they want to make your life harder as well as the lives of millions of
> others.
Another emotional appeal. How is BG or RP making my life harder?
Without BG, I wouldn't have a job (and no I don't work for MS).
> why do they need all that money?
They earned it. You seem to say that the money belongs to those
that didn't earn it.
> i doubt they could even spend it
> in their lifetime.
So their children should not benefit from their talents?
Besides, those men spend the money building businesses
that provide jobs that keep people from starving to death.
You owe your life to such men.
> > What you miss is that your " globally consious" socialism
> > is as big a lie as xianity. And just as dangerous.
>
> ho ho! please, then. share your wisdom of how your utopian society would
> work.
I don't have a utopian vision of the perfect world, because
there is no such thing as a perfect world. I am mature enough
to have accepted this fact. We will never feed all the hungry,
or shelter all the homeless, or educate all the ignorant. It
is impossible, due to the random nature of the universe.
Sacrificing the able to the unable will not change this.
That only leaves us all hungry, cold, and stupid. Without
having the shoulders of great men to stand on, we would
still be squatting in caves.
Uncle Judas
brandon pool
> We will never feed all the hungry,
> or shelter all the homeless, or educate all the ignorant. It
> is impossible, due to the random nature of the universe.
i give up. if you honestly believe that we cannot bring change, then just
go be a xian and pray about it. the fact is that we have the means to
help everyone, but that doesn't turn a profit. it is precisely because of
the powers that be in america, and foolish followers like you, easily led
by th'nose, that social change will not happen in my lifetime.
ath...@home.com
wrote:
I don't expect it's on the net anywhere.
I did read where the "artist" said she isn't anti-Catholic along with
some drivel about "creating her own kingdom" her "own universe."
At any rate here are a couple urls to "artwork" that I now realize I
was naive and intolerant to have found offensive.
The intent may not be what I originally thought.
I'm really trying to be more tolerant btw, or at least not to post any
opinion that the "tolerant" ones may find offense.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm
http://resist.com/cartoons/racistcartoons.htm
atheist@home#1554
>Sunny
Uncle Judas
bp...@students.uiuc.edu says...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Uncle Judas wrote:
>
> > We will never feed all the hungry,
> > or shelter all the homeless, or educate all the ignorant. It
> > is impossible, due to the random nature of the universe.
>
> i give up. if you honestly believe that we cannot bring change, then just
> go be a xian and pray about it.
Fuck you, you arrogant twit. Change happens every single day.
But there is no magic formula that's gonna save the world.
You are the one hoping for a miracle, I know they don't happen.
> the fact is that we have the means to
> help everyone,
Bullshit. Got some facts to back that up?
> but that doesn't turn a profit. it is precisely because of
> the powers that be in america, and foolish followers like you, easily led
> by th'nose, that social change will not happen in my lifetime.
I will fight with my last dying breath the kind of change
that you propose. Your social utopia is stagnation, and death.
Uncle Judas
Uncle Judas
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:14:13 -0500, stillsunny <sun...@sccoast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:29:32 -0800, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A."
> ><cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >>ath...@home.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:27:52 -0500, stillsunny <sun...@sccoast.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> >I sure do wish someone would post a link to the actual picture.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.nyu.edu/classes/finearts/karmel/modern/m_67.html
> >>>
> >>> atheist@home#1554
> >>>
> >>> >Sunny
> >>
> >>They find the urine more shocking than the horrific torture icon. Weird.
> >
> >Apologies.
> >
> >I meant the "Yo Mama" picture that started this whole thing.
>
> I don't expect it's on the net anywhere.
Not that I know of. Maybe after the exhibition.
> I did read where the "artist" said she isn't anti-Catholic along with
> some drivel about "creating her own kingdom" her "own universe."
> At any rate here are a couple urls to "artwork" that I now realize I
> was naive and intolerant to have found offensive.
> The intent may not be what I originally thought.
> I'm really trying to be more tolerant btw, or at least not to post any
> opinion that the "tolerant" ones may find offense.
You are so fucked in the head, it blows my mind. You
intentionally misconstrue the thrust of my posts. It
is your right to find anything you want to be offensive.
Aesthetic taste is wildly varied from one person to
another, and I am certainly not trying to impose my
tastes on you or anybody else.
What I have been haranguing you about is the fact that
you judged the work without examining it. If you had
declared the work to be "rude, sophomoric bs" AFTER
you had seen it, I would have no argument with you.
Get it?
Uncle Judas
stillsunny
Your willingness to move beyond the parameters of your own bias is
inspiring. I applaud you, sir.
Sunny
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Uncle Judas wrote:
>
> > We will never feed all the hungry,
> > or shelter all the homeless, or educate all the ignorant. It
> > is impossible, due to the random nature of the universe.
>
> i give up. if you honestly believe that we cannot bring change, then just
> go be a xian and pray about it. the fact is that we have the means to
> help everyone, but that doesn't turn a profit.
Wanna help them? Stop them from breeding.
> it is precisely because of
> the powers that be in america, and foolish followers like you, easily led
> by th'nose, that social change will not happen in my lifetime.
I'm not telling them to fuck like unprotected minks. Go tell it to
pope jp II.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
So? Why not let the assholes show their true colors?
ath...@home.com
<cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
I agree.
It's far better to know who the enemy is and where they are than to
stifle their opinions.
Censorship is the worst thing any society can do to itself.
If we drive the uncomfortable opinions, attitudes and intentions
underground we will find ourselves fighting shadows.
The day we submit to any politically powerful group that decides
someone has nicked it's sacred cow and should be banned from
expressing an uncomfortable opinion either through legislation or
personal attack is the day we surrender our right to disagree, and the
right to disagree is the greatest of all the rights we possess.
atheist@home#1554
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
... as long as it's not a photo of a crucifix immersed in urine.