Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Word of the Week

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Rev. Ivan Stang

unread,
Jan 17, 2006, 5:04:05 PM1/17/06
to
Immanent

adj 1: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition
is an immanent act of mind" [syn: subjective] [ant: transeunt] 2: of
qualities that are spread throughout something; "ambition is immanent
in human nature"; "we think of God as immanent in nature"

Just so we have that straight.

--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB

Zapanaz

unread,
Jan 17, 2006, 5:20:03 PM1/17/06
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:04:05 -0500, "Rev. Ivan Stang"
<st...@subgeniusNOSPUM.com> wrote:

>Immanent
>
>adj 1: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition
>is an immanent act of mind" [syn: subjective] [ant: transeunt] 2: of
>qualities that are spread throughout something; "ambition is immanent
>in human nature"; "we think of God as immanent in nature"
>
>Just so we have that straight.

the history of religion in two sentences.

People used to believe in 'the soul' as they believed in grammar and
the grammatical subject: people said that 'I' was a condition and
'think' was a predicate and conditioned — thinking is an activity and
a subject must be thought of as its cause. Now, with admirable
tenacity and cunning, people are wondering whether they can get out of
this net — wondering whether the reverse might be true: that 'think'
is the condition and 'I' is conditioned, in which case 'I' would be a
synthesis that only gets produced through thought itself.

- nietzsche

I know everybody hates Nietzsche too. But his mustache could eat this
whole newsgroup.


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
An unborn fetus cannot be charged with the same crime twice.
Not in America.

Rev Carter

unread,
Jan 17, 2006, 5:28:35 PM1/17/06
to
Like Buckminster Fuller said:

"I seem to be a verb"

-Rev Carter

nenslo

unread,
Jan 17, 2006, 3:03:22 PM1/17/06
to
In article <170120061704057216%st...@subgeniusNOSPUM.com>,

"Rev. Ivan Stang" <st...@subgeniusNOSPUM.com> wrote:

> Immanent
>
> adj 1: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition
> is an immanent act of mind" [syn: subjective] [ant: transeunt] 2: of
> qualities that are spread throughout something; "ambition is immanent
> in human nature"; "we think of God as immanent in nature"
>
> Just so we have that straight.

We?

Ad Absurdum

unread,
Jan 17, 2006, 6:20:00 PM1/17/06
to
You don't take your immanence straight??

All I have to mix it with is pain. That okay??

Zapanaz

unread,
Jan 17, 2006, 6:59:33 PM1/17/06
to
On 17 Jan 2006 14:28:35 -0800, "Rev Carter" <rex_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Like Buckminster Fuller said:
>
>"I seem to be a verb"
>
>-Rev Carter

"Help, I'm a rock!"

- Frank Zappa


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/

"Bob" means never having to say "Huh?"

nenslo

unread,
Jan 17, 2006, 5:03:16 PM1/17/06
to
In article <1137540000....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Ad Absurdum" <haec...@canada.com> wrote:

> You don't take your immanence straight??
>
> All I have to mix it with is pain. That okay??

Careful you don't pull a muscle, REACHING like that.

wbarwell

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 1:59:57 AM1/18/06
to
Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:

> Immanent
>
> adj 1: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition
> is an immanent act of mind" [syn: subjective] [ant: transeunt] 2: of
> qualities that are spread throughout something; "ambition is immanent
> in human nature"; "we think of God as immanent in nature"
>
> Just so we have that straight.
>


When morons babble about god, they rarely know if they
mean an immanent god or a transcedent god. It can be fun
to press them on the point just to watch them stutter and
fumble.

Ignorance is immanent in armchair theology.


--
"A power so great, it can only be used for Good or Evil!" -
Firesign Theatre, "The Giant Rat of Summatra"

Cheerful Charlie

Michael Alcandor

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 2:20:18 AM1/18/06
to
When moron hairy old "pagans" prattle on about Christians who are
superior to imbecile old hippy satanists in every way, they (the
"pagans", that is) usually try to pawn off their idiotic "paganism" as
a substitute for intelligence. Thankfully, most of the world has woken
up to the fact that they are just neo-satanist old hippy degenerate
dupes and dirtbags, trying to weasel in their sick religion of human
sacrifice and cannibalism under the guise of "wicca", "paganism" or
other freemasonic frauds. in fact, they have no intelligence or
creativity whatsoever.

Word for next week "Transcendent"

Main Entry: tran·scen·dent
Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin transcendent-, transcendens, present participle of
transcendere
1 a : exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING b : extending or lying beyond
the limits of ordinary experience c in Kantian philosophy : being
beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
3 : transcending the universe or material existence
- tran·scen·dent·ly adverb

just so we have that straight....

eddieVroom

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 2:34:10 AM1/18/06
to
wbarwell wrote:
> Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
>
>
>>Immanent
>>
>>adj 1: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition
>>is an immanent act of mind" [syn: subjective] [ant: transeunt] 2: of
>>qualities that are spread throughout something; "ambition is immanent
>>in human nature"; "we think of God as immanent in nature"
>>
>>Just so we have that straight.
>>
>
>
>
> When morons babble about god, they rarely know if they
> mean an immanent god or a transcedent god.

I suppose it could be argued that, given a "mirroring" of the microcosm
and macrocosm, it's all the same. My work with Improvisational
Sympathetic Magick seems to bear this out. Two years ago, I mitigated
the Planet X disaster completely with a toaster, a cast-iron frying pan,
a pair of salt'n'pepper shakers and some leftover brisket.

And what's with people talking about "their soul" in the third person?
You *are* your soul/spirit, dammit...

--

Q: A?
A: Eh?

the Tortured Spark - a Light in the Dark
the Mystical RevvedErrand Doktor eddieVroom
Ascended Master Mechanic of the SoCal Motor Lodge
Knights of the Visible Wankel


BACON! 23

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

nikolai kingsley

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 6:21:28 AM1/18/06
to

> Immanent
>
> adj 1: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition
> is an immanent act of mind" [syn: subjective] [ant: transeunt] 2: of
> qualities that are spread throughout something; "ambition is immanent
> in human nature"; "we think of God as immanent in nature"
>
> Just so we have that straight.

and it's going to happen ANY SECOND NOW!

HellPope Huey

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 9:20:10 AM1/18/06
to

As a result of reading this thread, I'm afraid a big ol' yawn is imminent.

--

HellPope Huey
There are many ways to put it,
but cash or a baseball bat
have a universal language

You wish people to believe good of you?
Don't speak.
~ Blaise Pascal,
French mathematician,
physicist and moralist

"I hate to talk about her behind her back,
but its safer."
~ Judy Tenuta

wbarwell

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 10:17:11 AM1/18/06
to
eddieVroom wrote:

> wbarwell wrote:
>> Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Immanent
>>>
>>>adj 1: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a
>>>cognition is an immanent act of mind" [syn: subjective] [ant:
>>>transeunt] 2: of qualities that are spread throughout something;
>>>"ambition is immanent in human nature"; "we think of God as immanent
>>>in nature"
>>>
>>>Just so we have that straight.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> When morons babble about god, they rarely know if they
>> mean an immanent god or a transcedent god.
>
> I suppose it could be argued that, given a "mirroring" of the microcosm
> and macrocosm, it's all the same. My work with Improvisational
> Sympathetic Magick seems to bear this out. Two years ago, I mitigated
> the Planet X disaster completely with a toaster, a cast-iron frying
> pan, a pair of salt'n'pepper shakers and some leftover brisket.
>
> And what's with people talking about "their soul" in the third person?
> You *are* your soul/spirit, dammit...
>

The ancient Egyptians envisioned three souls, or even seven.

I like asking armchair theologians to prove they were nor correct.

Archangel

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 10:36:49 AM1/18/06
to

"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ssn11...@corp.supernews.com...

> eddieVroom wrote:
>
>> wbarwell wrote:
>>> Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Immanent
>>>>
>>>>adj 1: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a
>>>>cognition is an immanent act of mind" [syn: subjective] [ant:
>>>>transeunt] 2: of qualities that are spread throughout something;
>>>>"ambition is immanent in human nature"; "we think of God as immanent
>>>>in nature"
>>>>
>>>>Just so we have that straight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When morons babble about god, they rarely know if they
>>> mean an immanent god or a transcedent god.
>>
>> I suppose it could be argued that, given a "mirroring" of the microcosm
>> and macrocosm, it's all the same. My work with Improvisational
>> Sympathetic Magick seems to bear this out. Two years ago, I mitigated
>> the Planet X disaster completely with a toaster, a cast-iron frying
>> pan, a pair of salt'n'pepper shakers and some leftover brisket.
>>
>> And what's with people talking about "their soul" in the third person?
>> You *are* your soul/spirit, dammit...
>>
>
> The ancient Egyptians envisioned three souls, or even seven.
>
> I like asking armchair theologians to prove they were nor correct.


Ask Tom Charlie, he is as armchair as they come. In fact the term was
probably invented just to describe him.
__________________________

A

This is my killfile list. if you are on it, it is because I think you are
an idiot. Because I think you are an idiot you have nothing to say that I
want to hear so save yourself the effort of replying to my posts, because I
wont even see them unless I lift the killfile list.

Which makes you an irrelevant idiot, but fortunately one whose visibility I
control.

dialectical...@gmail.com (I forget who this is. Some sad shit)
rapiddom...@yahoo.com (Yronwode the strange purveyor of many wierd
things)
askper...@comcast.net (Tom the psychotic troll)
vinc...@tpg.com.au (Rosifer - Ocker meets occult)
asiya_...@KAPHCHETHsbcglobal.net (Asiya - the teenage witch)
use...@mpreston.demon.co.uk (a real wally)
mik...@gmail.com (just plain ordinary trailer trash)
missam...@cox.net (Douggie the resident junkie)

teslacoils2006

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 12:09:14 PM1/18/06
to
eddieVroom
Jan 18, 12:34 am show options

Newsgroups: alt.slack, alt.magick
From: eddieVroom <glassgn...@nospam.sbcglobal.net> - Find messages by
this author
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:34:10 GMT
Local: Wed, Jan 18 2006 12:34 am
Subject: Re: Word of the Week
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

wbarwell wrote:
> Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:

>>Immanent


>>adj 1: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition
>>is an immanent act of mind" [syn: subjective] [ant: transeunt] 2: of
>>qualities that are spread throughout something; "ambition is immanent
>>in human nature"; "we think of God as immanent in nature"


>>Just so we have that straight.


> When morons babble about god, they rarely know if they
> mean an immanent god or a transcedent god.

I suppose it could be argued that, given a "mirroring" of the microcosm

and macrocosm, it's all the same. My work with Improvisational
Sympathetic Magick seems to bear this out. Two years ago, I mitigated
the Planet X disaster completely with a toaster, a cast-iron frying
pan,
a pair of salt'n'pepper shakers and some leftover brisket.

And what's with people talking about "their soul" in the third person?
You *are* your soul/spirit, dammit...


--


Q: A?
A: Eh?


the Tortured Spark - a Light in the Dark
the Mystical RevvedErrand Doktor eddieVroom
Ascended Master Mechanic of the SoCal Motor Lodge
Knights of the Visible Wankel


smart I see intelligence here.....next step is to wonder why all the
planet x mysteries lead you here. An alluminati stronghold ????

Rev. ErRoR

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 1:08:10 PM1/18/06
to
In article <1137568818.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Alcandor <ronny...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When moron hairy old "pagans" prattle on about Christians who are
> superior to imbecile old hippy satanists in every way, they (the
> "pagans", that is) usually try to pawn off their idiotic "paganism" as
> a substitute for intelligence. Thankfully, most of the world has woken
> up to the fact that they are just neo-satanist old hippy degenerate
> dupes and dirtbags, trying to weasel in their sick religion of human
> sacrifice and cannibalism under the guise of "wicca", "paganism" or

*snip*

Mmmmm Long Pig.

--
http://www.loversandkillers.co.uk

just john

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 1:20:04 PM1/18/06
to
Michael Alcandor wrote:
> When moron hairy old "pagans" prattle on about Christians who are
> superior to imbecile old hippy satanists in every way, they (the
> "pagans", that is) usually try to pawn off their idiotic "paganism" as
> a substitute for intelligence. Thankfully, most of the world has woken
> up to the fact that they are just neo-satanist old hippy degenerate
> dupes and dirtbags, trying to weasel in their sick religion of human
> sacrifice and cannibalism under the guise of "wicca", "paganism" or
> other freemasonic frauds. in fact, they have no intelligence or
> creativity whatsoever.
>

As opposed to Christians who run on the notion of sacrificing ONE human
and eating HIM, over and over.

The Subgenius version of that would be to punch a hole in a $50 gold
piece, tie a string to it, hand it to Stang and then yank it back out of
his hands, and repeat that process.


--
* Radio Free Entropy: http://just-john.com/cn/rfe.shtml *

nikolai kingsley

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 5:12:49 PM1/18/06
to

> The ancient Egyptians envisioned three souls, or even seven.


"The Pharaoh got fourteen, what he gets for being Pharaoh." - Burroughs


> I like asking armchair theologians to prove they were nor correct.

they were. they did. we don't.

HellPope Huey

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 9:20:38 PM1/18/06
to
just john wrote:

> The Subgenius version of that would be to punch a hole in a $50 gold
> piece, tie a string to it, hand it to Stang and then yank it back out of
> his hands, and repeat that process.

Yup, that's pretty well the way he's described it over the years. Its
just ONE TIT, but by GOD, what a great one!

--

HellPope Huey
There are many ways to put it,

but cash and baseball bats
share a universal language

eddieVroom

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 9:55:19 PM1/18/06
to
teslacoils2006 wrote:

> smart I see intelligence here.....next step is to wonder why all the
> planet x mysteries lead you here. An alluminati stronghold ????

No mystery there, Bub -- It's a small black hole, which I dropped into a
"parking orbit" between the third and fourth spheres of the inner earth.
I did so without affecting the orbit of the Moon, and restored the spin
of the Earth's core at the same time -- which had been altered by an
early HAARP experiment which is what knocked Planet X into a
hypereliptical route *outside* the planet in the first place.

If you want an excercise to get you in the proper frame of mind on this,
visualize the Earth as a Binary System, keeping in mind the concept of
"stars" as gravity wells. Contemplate the rythmic flux of Solar and
Lunar tides as an Extemely Low Frequency carrier wave. The sense of
Gravity is, IMO, the "sixth sense". You should reach a point where you
sense two pyramidical constructs of sensory apparatus -- the
ears/eyes/pineal construct and the nose/mouth/throat chakra.

I'm quite Sirius.

And by the way, that's the Aluminium-anatti. Perhaps I could interest
you in some aluminum siding -- or a nice screen house?...

--

Q: A?
A: Eh?

the Tortured Spark - a Light in the Dark
the Mystical RevvedErrand Doktor eddieVroom
Ascended Master Mechanic of the SoCal Motor Lodge
Knights of the Visible Wankel


BACON! 23

I didn't like the play, but I saw it under adverse conditions. The
curtain was up.

Archangel

unread,
Jan 19, 2006, 6:11:11 AM1/19/06
to

"teslacoils2006" <dean...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:1137604154....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Oh no! Not the brisket spell!


> And what's with people talking about "their soul" in the third person?
> You *are* your soul/spirit, dammit...

Quite right.


> smart I see intelligence here.....next step is to wonder why all the
> planet x mysteries lead you here. An alluminati stronghold ????


Should that be 'illuminati'? Have you been reading RA Wilson? Do you read
any other dunces?

Zapanaz

unread,
Jan 19, 2006, 1:28:34 PM1/19/06
to
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:11:11 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
wrote:

>> smart I see intelligence here.....next step is to wonder why all the
>> planet x mysteries lead you here. An alluminati stronghold ????
>
>
>Should that be 'illuminati'? Have you been reading RA Wilson? Do you read
>any other dunces?

an alluminati is somebody who spells 23 words in a row with the same
first letter

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/

They'll take my nudity when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers.

Rev. Ivan Stang

Tom

unread,
Jan 19, 2006, 3:17:01 PM1/19/06
to

"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
news:ehmvs1pu478370aov...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:11:11 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> smart I see intelligence here.....next step is to wonder why all the
>>> planet x mysteries lead you here. An alluminati stronghold ????
>>
>>
>>Should that be 'illuminati'? Have you been reading RA Wilson? Do you read
>>any other dunces?
>
> an alluminati is somebody who spells 23 words in a row with the same
> first letter

I thought that was the Alliterati.


Archangel

unread,
Jan 20, 2006, 6:28:29 AM1/20/06
to

"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
news:ehmvs1pu478370aov...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:11:11 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> smart I see intelligence here.....next step is to wonder why all the
>>> planet x mysteries lead you here. An alluminati stronghold ????
>>
>>
>>Should that be 'illuminati'? Have you been reading RA Wilson? Do you read
>>any other dunces?
>
> an alluminati is somebody who spells 23 words in a row with the same
> first letter

The people who compile the Oxford Dictionary are alluminati?

Wow.

A

Pantless SODDI

unread,
Jan 20, 2006, 12:44:41 PM1/20/06
to

"Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote:

(Snip)

> The people who compile the Oxford Dictionary are alluminati?
>
> Wow.

If you control language, you control REALITY.


Odysseus

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 3:06:35 AM1/21/06
to
Tom wrote:
>
> "Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
> news:ehmvs1pu478370aov...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>teslacoils2006 wrote:
>
> >>> smart I see intelligence here.....next step is to wonder why all the
> >>> planet x mysteries lead you here. An alluminati stronghold ????

<snip>

> > an alluminati is somebody who spells 23 words in a row with the same
> > first letter
>
> I thought that was the Alliterati.

Then there are the Aluminati, who wear tinfoil hats as protection
from orbital mind-control lasers.

--
Odysseus

Archangel

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 9:29:10 AM1/21/06
to

"Pantless SODDI" <nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote in message
news:zh9Af.2994$C%3.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...


ahh. Not so. If you control language you control the way reality is
described.

A


Pantless SODDI

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 9:40:01 AM1/21/06
to

"Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote in message
news:VyrAf.124814$pW2....@fe04.news.easynews.com...

If you make me start paraphrasing Heidegger again, there's gonna be BIG
trouble, young man.

20th Century German philosophy makes the Baby JokeOsby cry.


Archangel

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 9:47:57 AM1/21/06
to

"Pantless SODDI" <nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote in message
news:wGrAf.4618$C%3.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

young? why thank you young man... :-)

A


Zapanaz

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 10:36:01 PM1/21/06
to
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:29:10 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
wrote:

tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/

You are to swallow to see the brilliance

Archangel

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 11:00:19 PM1/21/06
to

"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
news:8cv5t118v83t3c2ac...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:29:10 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pantless SODDI" <nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote in message
>>news:zh9Af.2994$C%3.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> (Snip)
>>>
>>>> The people who compile the Oxford Dictionary are alluminati?
>>>>
>>>> Wow.
>>>
>>> If you control language, you control REALITY.
>>>
>>
>>
>>ahh. Not so. If you control language you control the way reality is
>>described.
>
> tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe

the bits I cant see.

A


Zapanaz

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 12:26:50 AM1/22/06
to
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:00:19 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
wrote:

You just described them. With language.


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/

I plead alignment
to the flakes
of an untitled snakes of a merry cow
and to the Republicans
for which they scam
one nacho
underpants
invisible
with licorice and jugs of wine for owls.

--Matt Groening, "Life in Hell"

Archangel

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 1:14:29 AM1/22/06
to

"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
news:5s56t1lhfudn2obqh...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:00:19 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
>>news:8cv5t118v83t3c2ac...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:29:10 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Pantless SODDI" <nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:zh9Af.2994$C%3.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>> The people who compile the Oxford Dictionary are alluminati?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you control language, you control REALITY.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ahh. Not so. If you control language you control the way reality is
>>>>described.
>>>
>>> tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe
>>
>>the bits I cant see.
>>
>>A
>>
>
> You just described them. With language.


nope. I just noted that there may be bits of reality which I cannot see. To
acknowledge their probable existence is not the same as describing them.

A


Apache

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 4:02:33 AM1/22/06
to

Archangel wrote:

*Apache wanders over to study Archies Jigsaw. Looks under the table
for missing piece. Look on the table for missing piece. Aha! Apache
proudly hands Archie the table - which was the missing piece* :-)

HellPope Huey

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 12:28:24 PM1/22/06
to
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:29:10 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
> wrote:
> >>"Pantless SODDI" <nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote in message
>>news:zh9Af.2994$C%3.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>"Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>(Snip)
>>>
>>>>>>The people who compile the Oxford Dictionary are alluminati?
>>>>
>>>>Wow.
>>>
>>>If you control language, you control REALITY.
>>>
>>>>ahh. Not so. If you control language you control the way reality is
>>described.
> >
> tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe

If you wet the rims, you can run your fingers around it and play in
different pitches. Things by Rossini are impossible to perform, but
microtonal versions of heavy metal ballads are easily generated.

--

HellPope Huey
AmblyTriopia: Lazy Third Eye Syndrome.
You COULD be more enlightened,
but won't get off the meta-couch to look around

"The most offensive thing about the album to me
was the warning label.
If you're going to be a redneck,
don't be a pussy about it."
~ Bobcat Goldthwait

"I'm meeting you halfway, you stupid hippies!"
~ "Futurama"

2 new thangs up @:
http://www.beat-factory.net/hellpope/

HellPope Huey

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 12:30:10 PM1/22/06
to

Plosion (n.) The final stage or sudden release of breath. This could
probably come from either end, considering the tone of this thread.

Zapanaz

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 12:57:40 PM1/22/06
to
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:14:29 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
wrote:

>
>"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
>news:5s56t1lhfudn2obqh...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:00:19 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
>>>news:8cv5t118v83t3c2ac...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:29:10 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Pantless SODDI" <nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:zh9Af.2994$C%3.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The people who compile the Oxford Dictionary are alluminati?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you control language, you control REALITY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>ahh. Not so. If you control language you control the way reality is
>>>>>described.
>>>>
>>>> tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe
>>>
>>>the bits I cant see.
>>>
>>>A
>>>
>>
>> You just described them. With language.
>
>
>nope. I just noted that there may be bits of reality which I cannot see.

That describes those bits of reality. It defines them. Without
defining them, language can't refer to them, not even if you call
referring to them "noting" them. Not even if you say it really really
fast.

>To
>acknowledge their probable existence is not the same as describing them.

What is "their"? To acknowledge the probable existence of what?

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/

"America ... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen
with all the money we need to buy guns
and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world
who tries to make us uncomfortable."
- Hunter S. Thompson

Zapanaz

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 12:58:59 PM1/22/06
to
On 22 Jan 2006 01:02:33 -0800, "Apache" <apa...@littleredindian.co.uk>
wrote:

[jumps up and down whistling and points at apache. Pees pants]

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/

wbarwell

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 6:29:22 PM1/22/06
to
HellPope Huey wrote:

> Zapanaz wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:29:10 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>"Pantless SODDI" <nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote in message
>>>news:zh9Af.2994$C%3.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>"Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>(Snip)
>>>>
>>>>>>>The people who compile the Oxford Dictionary are alluminati?
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow.
>>>>
>>>>If you control language, you control REALITY.
>>>>
>>>>>ahh. Not so. If you control language you control the way reality is
>>>described.
>> >
>> tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe
>
> If you wet the rims, you can run your fingers around it and play in
> different pitches. Things by Rossini are impossible to perform, but
> microtonal versions of heavy metal ballads are easily generated.


Benjamin Franklin invented an instrument based on that
principle. A series of glass bowls on a rotating spindle
turned by a foot peddle. Called it a Rim Job Organ if
I remember correctly.


--

It's all coming down! It's all coming down!
IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II


Cheerful Charlie

Pantless SODDI

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 7:31:55 PM1/22/06
to
"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:

(snip)

>>> tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe
>>
>> If you wet the rims, you can run your fingers around it and play in
>> different pitches. Things by Rossini are impossible to perform, but
>> microtonal versions of heavy metal ballads are easily generated.
>
>
> Benjamin Franklin invented an instrument based on that
> principle. A series of glass bowls on a rotating spindle
> turned by a foot peddle. Called it a Rim Job Organ if
> I remember correctly.

Glass harmonica.

http://mmd.foxtail.com/Pictures/glasharm.jpg

IIRC, players tended to come down with strange neurological disorders caused
by those thin glass rims rotating against their fingertips.

Akin to reverse acupuncture.


HellPope Huey

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 8:19:22 PM1/22/06
to
Zapanaz wrote:

> That describes those bits of reality. It defines them.

Day-To-Day Life, now with new Reality Bits®!!!!

You can't help but bite down on one once in a while, but they still
come across like a "cheese" & bologna sandwich that's been in the
carousel for 3 weeks.

HellPope Huey

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 8:24:14 PM1/22/06
to
wbarwell wrote:
> HellPope Huey wrote:

>> If you wet the rims, you can run your fingers around it and play in
>>different pitches. Things by Rossini are impossible to perform, but
>>microtonal versions of heavy metal ballads are easily generated.

> Benjamin Franklin invented an instrument based on that
> principle. A series of glass bowls on a rotating spindle
> turned by a foot peddle. Called it a Rim Job Organ if
> I remember correctly.

He also once bathed in a giant glass shoe in a Parisian whorehouse. He
really got around and is my favorite founding father. Any current
politician who had the BALLS would get my vote for Emperor, as long as
he didn't go all Jong on us. PRAISE BEN.

eddieVroom

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 9:16:04 PM1/22/06
to
Pantless SODDI wrote:

> IIRC, players tended to come down with strange neurological disorders caused
> by those thin glass rims rotating against their fingertips.
>
> Akin to reverse acupuncture.

Playing bass six feet in front of my 1000 watt rig three nights a week
induced some very interesting sensations every now and again. I've
little doubt that resonant vibes through the fingertips and skullbone
(with a side of absinthe) gave rise to some of those "did a deal with
the devil" musician legends. Here's a classic interpretation:

http://www.texarcana.com/texa075.html

--

Q: A?
A: Eh?

the Tortured Spark - a Light in the Dark
the Mystical RevvedErrand Doktor eddieVroom
Ascended Master Mechanic of the SoCal Motor Lodge
Knights of the Visible Wankel


BACON! 23

What is a magician but a practising theorist?
-- Obi-Wan Kenobi

Rev. Richard Skull

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 9:28:47 PM1/22/06
to
<<Playing bass six feet in front of my 1000 watt rig three nights a
week
induced some very interesting sensations every now and again. I've
little doubt that resonant vibes through the fingertips and skullbone
(with a side of absinthe) gave rise to some of those "did a deal with
the devil" musician legends. Here's a classic interpretation: >>

You could market that as a cure for Kidney Stones.

Archangel

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 6:54:29 AM1/23/06
to

"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
news:8sh7t1lipgcun1426...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:14:29 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
> wrote:


>>>>>>> If you control language, you control REALITY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ahh. Not so. If you control language you control the way reality is
>>>>>>described.
>>>>>
>>>>> tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe
>>>>
>>>>the bits I cant see.
>>>>
>>>>A
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just described them. With language.
>>
>>
>>nope. I just noted that there may be bits of reality which I cannot see.
>
> That describes those bits of reality. It defines them. Without
> defining them, language can't refer to them, not even if you call
> referring to them "noting" them. Not even if you say it really really
> fast.

Quite right. Which states clearly that defining and describing are different
exercises in this context. Ipso fact I wasnt describing. QED


>
>>To
>>acknowledge their probable existence is not the same as describing them.
>
> What is "their"? To acknowledge the probable existence of what?

The things I cannot see.

A


Tom

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 10:27:56 AM1/23/06
to

"Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote in message
news:Vt3Bf.87290$Xg2....@fe01.news.easynews.com...

>
> "Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
> news:8sh7t1lipgcun1426...@4ax.com...
>>
>> That describes those bits of reality. It defines them. Without
>> defining them, language can't refer to them, not even if you call
>> referring to them "noting" them. Not even if you say it really really
>> fast.
>
> Quite right. Which states clearly that defining and describing are
> different exercises in this context. Ipso fact I wasnt describing. QED

A definition is a description, although a description may not be a
definition. The set of conditions called "definition" is a subset of the
set called "description". So, while you can have a description without
having a definition, it doesn't work the other way around.

>>>To
>>>acknowledge their probable existence is not the same as describing them.
>>
>> What is "their"? To acknowledge the probable existence of what?
>
> The things I cannot see.

Things which you describe as that which you cannot see. That's a
description, but not enough of one to make it a definition of those things.


HellPope Huey

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 12:42:18 PM1/23/06
to
Rev. Richard Skull wrote:

Also a cure for kidneys. Probably wouldn't be all that popular, except
with people who would be drummers anyway.

--

HellPope Huey
REAL Night of the Living Dead:
You wake up at 4 a.m. and watch
infomercials on the SciFi Channel

"Billy's fallin' in love with a girl...
... and she's human!
You owe me five bucks!"
~ "The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy "

Last week, I stated this woman
was the ugliest woman I had ever seen.
I have since been visited by her sister...
...and now wish to withdraw that statement.
~Mark Twain

http://www.beat-factory.net/hellpope/


Zapanaz

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 1:01:59 PM1/23/06
to
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:54:29 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
wrote:

>
>"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
>news:8sh7t1lipgcun1426...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:14:29 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>> If you control language, you control REALITY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ahh. Not so. If you control language you control the way reality is
>>>>>>>described.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe
>>>>>
>>>>>the bits I cant see.
>>>>>
>>>>>A
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You just described them. With language.
>>>
>>>
>>>nope. I just noted that there may be bits of reality which I cannot see.
>>
>> That describes those bits of reality. It defines them. Without
>> defining them, language can't refer to them, not even if you call
>> referring to them "noting" them. Not even if you say it really really
>> fast.
>
>Quite right. Which states clearly that defining and describing are different
>exercises in this context.

No, it doesn't. I am not sure what you are trying to say, it's not
clear what "which" refers to, using incomplete sentences when we are
trying to talk about language is a bad idea.

I think you are trying to say that what I have said clearly states
that defining and describing are different in 'this context'.

But that is definitely not what I have stated. To say "That describes
those bits of reality. It defines them." is to say that describing
and defining are the same thing. I am using "that" and "it" at the
beginning of the two sentences without otherwise assigning a meaning
to them, which implies that they are referring to the same thing. I
think it should be clear that "it defines them" without any further
expansion in that context is implying that "describes those bits" and
"defines them" was intended to be two ways of phrasing the same thing.

It should be a moot point though, because what you are saying is that
what I said was different from what I meant. It should be fairly
obvious that was not what I meant, because your point is bringing it
up was to attempt to point out that it contradicted my overall
meaning.

Arguing what the other person you're talking with -really- means by
what they say is not a good idea.

***

In any event, I think you are really missing how simple the point is
here.

What this boils down to is that you are saying that you can refer to
things without referring to them. Think about it, that is inherent in
what I originally said, so if you have any point, it is necessarily
equivalent to that.

The irony is, you are playing a convoluted language game to try to
both refer to a thing then, using language, define that reference as
something other than a reference.

>Ipso fact I wasnt describing. QED
>
>
>>
>>>To
>>>acknowledge their probable existence is not the same as describing them.
>>
>> What is "their"? To acknowledge the probable existence of what?
>
>The things I cannot see.

That is a description. You are describing 'The things' as 'things you
can't see'

>
>A
>

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/

four
four hundred
or four thousand dreams may decay into indigo dust
that covers aquarius
and still the voice will say
love

- The Zodiac Cosmic Sounds, 1967

Archangel

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 6:30:40 AM1/24/06
to

"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
news:io5at11k5qjrvfuug...@4ax.com...