Word of the Week
Rev. Ivan Stang
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
<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
"I seem to be a verb"
-Rev Carter
nenslo
"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
All I have to mix it with is pain. That okay??
Zapanaz
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
"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
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
"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
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
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.
just john
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
"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
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
"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
> 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
"Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote:
(Snip)
> The people who compile the Oxford Dictionary are alluminati?
>
> Wow.
If you control language, you control REALITY.
Odysseus
>
> "Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
> news:ehmvs1pu478370aov...@4ax.com...
> >
>
> >>> 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
"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
"Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote in message
news:VyrAf.124814$pW2....@fe04.news.easynews.com...
If you make me start paraphrasing Heidegger again, there's gonna be BIG
trouble, young man.
20th Century German philosophy makes the Baby JokeOsby cry.
Archangel
young? why thank you young man... :-)
A
Zapanaz
wrote:
tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
You are to swallow to see the brilliance
Archangel
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:29:10 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pantless SODDI" <nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote in message
>>news:zh9Af.2994$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
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
> 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$C%3.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>> The people who compile the Oxford Dictionary are alluminati?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you control language, you control REALITY.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ahh. Not so. If you control language you control the way reality is
>>>>described.
>>>
>>> tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe
>>
>>the bits I cant see.
>>
>>A
>>
>
> You just described them. With language.
nope. I just noted that there may be bits of reality which I cannot see. To
acknowledge their probable existence is not the same as describing them.
A
Apache
Archangel wrote:
*Apache wanders over to study Archies Jigsaw. Looks under the table
for missing piece. Look on the table for missing piece. Aha! Apache
proudly hands Archie the table - which was the missing piece* :-)
HellPope Huey
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:29:10 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
> wrote:
> >>"Pantless SODDI" <nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote in message
>>news:zh9Af.2994$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
Plosion (n.) The final stage or sudden release of breath. This could
probably come from either end, considering the tone of this thread.
Zapanaz
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$C%3.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The people who compile the Oxford Dictionary are alluminati?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you control language, you control REALITY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>ahh. Not so. If you control language you control the way reality is
>>>>>described.
>>>>
>>>> tell me something about the part of reality that you don't describe
>>>
>>>the bits I cant see.
>>>
>>>A
>>>
>>
>> You just described them. With language.
>
>
>nope. I just noted that there may be bits of reality which I cannot see.
That describes those bits of reality. It defines them. Without
defining them, language can't refer to them, not even if you call
referring to them "noting" them. Not even if you say it really really
fast.
>To
>acknowledge their probable existence is not the same as describing them.
What is "their"? To acknowledge the probable existence of what?
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"America ... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen
with all the money we need to buy guns
and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world
who tries to make us uncomfortable."
- Hunter S. Thompson
Zapanaz
wrote:
[jumps up and down whistling and points at apache. Pees pants]
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
wbarwell
> Zapanaz wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:29:10 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>"Pantless SODDI" <nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote in message
>>>news:zh9Af.2994$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
(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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
>>>>>>> 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
>
> "Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
> news:8sh7t1lipgcun1426...@4ax.com...
>>
>> 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
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
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
See the previous post. Noting the absence of a description (by virtue of the
fact I cannot see them to describe them) is not of itself a description. If
the point is so simple it is puzzling why you keep misunderstanding it.
A
Apache
Boys.... this is getting silly.
You might as well go -
>>Did!
>Didn't!
>>Did!
>Didn't!
It would mean the same thing.
Apache. :-)
Tom
>
>
> See the previous post. Noting the absence of a description (by virtue of
> the
> fact I cannot see them to describe them) is not of itself a description.
One of the qualities of these things that you are describing is that they
cannot be seen by you.
> If the point is so simple it is puzzling why you keep misunderstanding it.
The point you are trying to make *is* simple. It's also wrong, and that's
the part *you* keep misunderstanding. It's not that people don't understand
what you're trying to say; it's that they know you're wrong and you don't.
Or is this another case in which you'll try to escape an admission that
you're wrong by claiming you're actually just trolling?
Rev Carter
IS a description of their characteristics RELATIVE TO YOU. Which is a
perfectly valid way to describe things, so long as the people involved
are aware of the inherent subjectivity.
Joe is not misunderstanding, he's understanding in a way that you just
dont understand.
-Rev Carter LeBlanc
Apache
You're wrong Tom. Archi and Zappy baby are totally correct in their
own unique ways but you are definately off base by a mile. You have
taken a small nitpick they have with semantics and have blown it up to
a size that fits your big headed view of the world. You treat every
topic on this ng like your own pink inflatable blow up doll and attempt
to screw the thing into obscenity like it was a bitch on heat.
Apache.
Zapanaz
wrote:
>Archi and Zappy baby are totally correct in their
>own unique ways but you are definately off base by a mile.
I'm afraid that's not really true.
It's not just a nitpick with semantics. In fact, it's a fairly
important philosophical point that it is not possible to separate
reality from our description of reality. A lot of people's
assumptions about what's real and what isn't and what is possible and
what isn't have their basis in an inability to separate their
description of reality from reality itself; and doing so is extremely
difficult because we are strongly strongly trained to treat our
description of reality as corresponding to reality.
This is why many philosophies, especially Zen, play what seem to be
such strange anti-games with language. They are attempts to break
that brainwashed one-to-one correspondence of language with reality.
After Archangel's last post, I just give up on it. Tom, in fact,
summed it up perfectly, IMO. Archangel is making a description of a
thing and saying it isn't a description of the thing. It's simply
wrong, wrong in a clear and obvious way. It's frustrating on Usenet
that if two people keep arguing, then generally people assume they are
both right. Really, I suppose it's why I tend to argue ad infinitum
with somebody who says "the sun is purple" or something just patently
wrong. I can't stand to see somebody carry a point succesfully simply
by persistence. "The sun is purple". "No, it isn't". "BOYS, you're
BOTH RIGHT, have a HUG".
I'm not trying to be a jerk or make fun of you, but rather the trend
on usenet in general.
For the most part anyway, I have given up trying to carry on serious
conversations on usenet. I do, at times, when something spontaneous
like this comes up which I find interesting. But I used to try to
actually carry on serious discussions primarily, and they would always
turn out like this. Sometimes I wish there were judges like the
ancient Greek Sophists who you could call on who would simply look at
a thread logically and make a ruling. As it is though, it seems to me
that in general the people who are most likely to be wrong are also
the most persistent.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
People in Cyperland. The Freemasons and Thelemites in the United States
Federal Govfernment have been altering my posts. Once they changed a
prayer I put online to the Almighty Father YEHOVAH and changed it to a
prayer to the violent demonic hindu goddess Kali. Once they tried to
cover up the evidence i posted from a Masonic site that revealed that
these Freemasons are Satanists by modifying the contents of the post i
posted but later when i protested that the contents had been changed in
my post and told them i had a printout of the original contents and
also posted to www.freemasonrywatch.org the real contents they changed
my post back to what it was previously. Dick Cheney the vice president
of the USA is a Freemason. Just now they changed a post about my son
and took out the statement where i said; "My Male Offspring is
YEHOVAH's Battle-Axe!". Since these Freemasons and Thelemites and other
occultic orders can alter the contents of things on the internet then
they have destroyed their opertunity to prosecute anybody of wrongdoing
on the internet. I am very astute and I am not so stupid that i
couldn't remember that I clearly put the statement in my post saying;
"My male offspring is YEHOVAH's Battle-Axe!"
Pantless SODDI
I told you all at the beginning of the thread this would happen! But did you
listen?
--
"The universe is my home. The world is my clothes. What are you
illustrious men doing in my underpants?"
Zapanaz
<nyarl...@starrywisdom.org> wrote:
>SEE!
>
>I told you all at the beginning of the thread this would happen! But did you
>listen?
actually it's pretty funny that the fact that the argument is going on
is more or less precisely proving the point that the argument is about
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Coroners are not known for their bedside manner.
Apache
*Apache looks sadly at Zapanaz and passes him a Cadbury's cream egg*
You see - it's nice golden sugar cream inside and chocolate outside,
but that's not what you ask the lady for at the store. If you've ever
had a Cadbury's cream egg, you'll know what I mean. If you haven't
then it's just a description to you, of a piece of reality you haven't
came across yet:-)
I understand your point about descriptors of reality, and it's a very
important point. You absolutely and definitively cannot go properly
mad, seeing God, and raving about how 'nothing realy matters', without
knowing this intimately. And let's face it - going a little mad is
much better than Cadburys cream eggs, and better than sex even.
However - explorers without maps are just lost people wandering around.
Worse - they are impossible to teach!
Apache.
Apache
Zapanaz wrote:
But - we are Borg. You shall be assimilated....
Tom
"Apache" <apa...@littleredindian.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1138119583.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> You're wrong Tom. Archi and Zappy baby are totally correct in their
> own unique ways but you are definately off base by a mile.
Gee, can you explain exactly what you think I am wrong about and why? Can
you do it without ad hominems? (Admittedly, that will be harder.)
> You treat every
> topic on this ng like your own pink inflatable blow up doll and attempt
> to screw the thing into obscenity like it was a bitch on heat.
But every topic in this newsgroup really is an inflatable doll, though not
always pink. (Isn't "inflatable blow up" an unnecessary redundancy?) They
are all playthings. Anyone may amuse themselves with them in any way they
wish.
I always find it hilarious when a person accuses me of "obscenity" while
spewing out a raunchy sex fantasy of her own.
Have you any idea how ridiculous that makes you look?
Archangel
"Rev Carter" <rex_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138117500.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
It seems to me to be the height of stupidity to suggest that because I note
I cannot describe something because I cannot see it, is actually describing
it.
But hey. It drew Tom into making yet another stupid comment so perhaps it
wasnt completely useless.
A
Archangel
> On 24 Jan 2006 08:19:43 -0800, "Apache" <apa...@littleredindian.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Archi and Zappy baby are totally correct in their
>>own unique ways but you are definately off base by a mile.
>
> I'm afraid that's not really true.
>
> It's not just a nitpick with semantics. In fact, it's a fairly
> important philosophical point that it is not possible to separate
> reality from our description of reality.
If this were really the point and it was simply badly made then I accept the
clarification and agree. With the einsertion of the word 'our' immediately
before the first occurrence of the word 'reality'. Since our own reality is
often a unique subset of the possible interpretations of the reality we
perceive this is justified.
> A lot of people's
> assumptions about what's real and what isn't and what is possible and
> what isn't have their basis in an inability to separate their
> description of reality from reality itself; and doing so is extremely
> difficult because we are strongly strongly trained to treat our
> description of reality as corresponding to reality.
Agreed
> This is why many philosophies, especially Zen, play what seem to be
> such strange anti-games with language. They are attempts to break
> that brainwashed one-to-one correspondence of language with reality.
Agreed, except for the brainwashing bit. What often appears to be
conditioning is simply that one has not yet learned to think objectively and
independently. Brainwashing implies malice, agenda and purpose.
>
> After Archangel's last post, I just give up on it. Tom, in fact,
> summed it up perfectly, IMO. Archangel is making a description of a
> thing and saying it isn't a description of the thing. It's simply
> wrong, wrong in a clear and obvious way. It's frustrating on Usenet
> that if two people keep arguing, then generally people assume they are
> both right. Really, I suppose it's why I tend to argue ad infinitum
> with somebody who says "the sun is purple" or something just patently
> wrong. I can't stand to see somebody carry a point succesfully simply
> by persistence. "The sun is purple". "No, it isn't". "BOYS, you're
> BOTH RIGHT, have a HUG".
And now you go back into stupid mode.
> I'm not trying to be a jerk or make fun of you, but rather the trend
> on usenet in general.
>
> For the most part anyway, I have given up trying to carry on serious
> conversations on usenet. I do, at times, when something spontaneous
> like this comes up which I find interesting. But I used to try to
> actually carry on serious discussions primarily, and they would always
> turn out like this. Sometimes I wish there were judges like the
> ancient Greek Sophists who you could call on who would simply look at
> a thread logically and make a ruling. As it is though, it seems to me
> that in general the people who are most likely to be wrong are also
> the most persistent.
Serious threads are possible but they get degraded by the illiterati. Check
my killfile list for a list of the idiot brigade in here.
> Zapanaz
> International Satanic Conspiracy
> Customer Support Specialist
> http://joecosby.com/
> People in Cyperland. The Freemasons and Thelemites in the United States
> Federal Govfernment have been altering my posts. Once they changed a
> prayer I put online to the Almighty Father YEHOVAH and changed it to a
> prayer to the violent demonic hindu goddess Kali. Once they tried to
> cover up the evidence i posted from a Masonic site that revealed that
> these Freemasons are Satanists by modifying the contents of the post i
> posted but later when i protested that the contents had been changed in
> my post and told them i had a printout of the original contents and
> also posted to www.freemasonrywatch.org the real contents they changed
> my post back to what it was previously. Dick Cheney the vice president
> of the USA is a Freemason. Just now they changed a post about my son
> and took out the statement where i said; "My Male Offspring is
> YEHOVAH's Battle-Axe!". Since these Freemasons and Thelemites and other
> occultic orders can alter the contents of things on the internet then
> they have destroyed their opertunity to prosecute anybody of wrongdoing
> on the internet. I am very astute and I am not so stupid that i
> couldn't remember that I clearly put the statement in my post saying;
> "My male offspring is YEHOVAH's Battle-Axe!"
>
Do you really believe this? If it is your post and you believe it then I
will leave you to your delusions.
A
Archangel
"Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zK-dnYvbxPF...@comcast.com...
>
> "Apache" <apa...@littleredindian.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1138119583.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> You're wrong Tom. Archi and Zappy baby are totally correct in their
>> own unique ways but you are definately off base by a mile.
>
> Gee, can you explain exactly what you think I am wrong about and why? Can
> you do it without ad hominems? (Admittedly, that will be harder.)
Good God. This from Mr Adhominem himself... still, the Mr Reasonable act
either shows he is hurting and feeling all insecure about something or the
current I sent him (the 'randon events' of which he was compalining about
earlier) has been refreshed. Now lets see... which is it?
>> You treat every
>> topic on this ng like your own pink inflatable blow up doll and attempt
>> to screw the thing into obscenity like it was a bitch on heat.
>
> But every topic in this newsgroup really is an inflatable doll, though not
> always pink. (Isn't "inflatable blow up" an unnecessary redundancy?)
> They are all playthings. Anyone may amuse themselves with them in any way
> they wish.
What is your favourite plaything Tom? Careful now, you only have one, if you
make blisters on it you wont be able to play with it for a while.
> I always find it hilarious when a person accuses me of "obscenity" while
> spewing out a raunchy sex fantasy of her own.
>
> Have you any idea how ridiculous that makes you look?
Ah. Could you perhaps ask yourself the same question? I feel another current
coming on...
The thing about kicking Toms ass is he makes it so easy...
A
Archangel
you arent the Borg, we are the Borg. Imposter!
A
Tom
>
> It seems to me to be the height of stupidity to suggest that because I
> note
> I cannot describe something because I cannot see it, is actually
> describing
> it.
That's because you are incapable of understanding it. Lots of people think
that things they can't understand are "stupid".
> But hey. It drew Tom into making yet another stupid comment so perhaps it
> wasnt completely useless.
Lots of people who don't like the fact that someone has shown them up
repeatedly as being, foolish, dishonest, ignorant, and petty describe that
person as "stupid".
Tom
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:zK-dnYvbxPF...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Apache" <apa...@littleredindian.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1138119583.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> You're wrong Tom. Archi and Zappy baby are totally correct in their
>>> own unique ways but you are definately off base by a mile.
>>
>> Gee, can you explain exactly what you think I am wrong about and why?
>> Can you do it without ad hominems? (Admittedly, that will be harder.)
>
> Good God. This from Mr Adhominem himself...
Too hard for Archie. How about you, Patchy?
Archangel
Saying it doesnt make it so Tom, no matter how much you whistle in the dark.
A
Archangel
lad you dont do adhominems Tom. No wait, that isnt right.
LOL
A
Zapanaz
wrote:
>> This is why many philosophies, especially Zen, play what seem to be
>> such strange anti-games with language. They are attempts to break
>> that brainwashed one-to-one correspondence of language with reality.
>
>Agreed, except for the brainwashing bit. What often appears to be
>conditioning is simply that one has not yet learned to think objectively and
>independently. Brainwashing implies malice, agenda and purpose.
I don't think 'brainwashing' implies those things, I didn't mean it
that way anyway.
For that matter, we couldn't survive without that 'brainwashing' or
cultural conditioning or whatever we call it. Maybe when I was 14 or
so I resented cultural conditioning, but while I still see it as a
thing to be transcended, I don't think there is any 'conspiracy' to
it, it's essential to being anything at all.
If you want to see a really good explanation of this, get "Branford
Marsalis: The Music Tells You", a Maysles brothers documentary about
Branford Marsalis, and really pay attention to what he says about
freedom and structure in jazz music. IMO it extends to life in
general, it gave me a mini-epiphany when I saw it the first time.
>>
>> After Archangel's last post, I just give up on it. Tom, in fact,
>> summed it up perfectly, IMO. Archangel is making a description of a
>> thing and saying it isn't a description of the thing. It's simply
>> wrong, wrong in a clear and obvious way. It's frustrating on Usenet
>> that if two people keep arguing, then generally people assume they are
>> both right. Really, I suppose it's why I tend to argue ad infinitum
>> with somebody who says "the sun is purple" or something just patently
>> wrong. I can't stand to see somebody carry a point succesfully simply
>> by persistence. "The sun is purple". "No, it isn't". "BOYS, you're
>> BOTH RIGHT, have a HUG".
>
>And now you go back into stupid mode.
>
Rude and inconsiderate maybe, but that's not the same as stupid.
>
>
>> I'm not trying to be a jerk or make fun of you, but rather the trend
>> on usenet in general.
>>
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
You have grown sophisticated enough to realize that the Devil is a projection of
your own psyche, but you have not grown wise enough to learn how to use your
creativity constructively
Tom
>
> lad you dont do adhominems Tom. No wait, that isnt right.
>
> LOL
>
> A
>
Poor old guy. Multi-infarct dementia, possibly? Given that he's morbnidly
obese, the danger of stroke is quite high for him.
Apache
Don't catch your cathiter on those nails Tom...unless you like people
messing with your plumbing.
Apache.
Zapanaz
wrote:
plonk
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
The Church of the Subgenius a RELIGION?
I thought we were an unruly gang
who was too poor to afford motorcycles
- HellPope Huey
HellPope Huey
>>And now you go back into stupid mode.
> Rude and inconsiderate maybe, but that's not the same as stupid.
This is a core tenet of what's kept the Church of the SubGenius
rolling for over twenny-fibe year.
--
HellPope Huey
Love me, love my 2nd head
"...it's a mistake to imagine that the only way
to handle serious issues is with deadly seriousness,
or that making fun of something always automatically
shows a lack of respect for the principles
that something stands for.
The crippling humorlessness that characterizes
PC campus culture today is a sign not of
its intellectual seriousness or even of its moral integrity,
but of its shallow preference for conformity over debate
and its callow reliance on emotional
and intellectual blackmail to achieve its ends.
It deserves to be laughed at and it deserves
to be challenged to learn to laugh.
~Erin O'Connor
"He has more issues than Rolling Stone."
~ "Smallville"
http://www.beat-factory.net/hellpope/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/hellpopehuey24/
Zapanaz
<http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:
>If you want to see a really good explanation of this, get "Branford
>Marsalis: The Music Tells You", a Maysles brothers documentary about
>Branford Marsalis, and really pay attention to what he says about
>freedom and structure in jazz music. IMO it extends to life in
>general, it gave me a mini-epiphany when I saw it the first time.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0104945/
Looks to be out of print, Amazon just shows a canada version of the
VHS version. All the truly great magickal works always seem to be out
of print.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
June: "Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on The Beaver
last night?"
Tom
>
> Tom wrote:
>> "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZWMBf.121032$mP4....@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>> >
>> > lad you dont do adhominems Tom. No wait, that isnt right.
>> >
>> > LOL
>> >
>> > A
>> >
>>
>> Poor old guy. Multi-infarct dementia, possibly? Given that he's
>> morbnidly
>> obese, the danger of stroke is quite high for him.
>
> Don't catch your cathiter on those nails Tom...
My what? Cat-hitter? Cat-hater? You don't quite make sense, but don't
fret. You're making progress. As devotedly as you use Archie as your role
model, you'll soon be talking complete gibberish, too.
> unless you like people
> messing with your plumbing.
I see you couldn't figure out how to explain what you think I got wrong and
why without ad hominems. In fact, you couldn't even attempt an explanation
at all. No surprises there.
nenslo
"Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote:
Morbnidly. Heh. You made a mistake.
Archangel
Ah, that will mean you have run out of sensible things to say then and have
reverted back into your pretend RV mode.
No wlait. Didnt you say that RV was all a sham? Oh...
Does that mean you are a sham for trying RV, or a liar for pretending to?
Clarificaation would assist greatly
A
Archangel
Toms problem is that I am messing with more than his plumbing. Thoise
'random events' he attributes to my action must really be giving him a
problem.
A
Archangel
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:37:44 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> This is why many philosophies, especially Zen, play what seem to be
>>> such strange anti-games with language. They are attempts to break
>>> that brainwashed one-to-one correspondence of language with reality.
>>
>>Agreed, except for the brainwashing bit. What often appears to be
>>conditioning is simply that one has not yet learned to think objectively
>>and
>>independently. Brainwashing implies malice, agenda and purpose.
>
> I don't think 'brainwashing' implies those things, I didn't mean it
> that way anyway.
>
> For that matter, we couldn't survive without that 'brainwashing' or
> cultural conditioning or whatever we call it. Maybe when I was 14 or
> so I resented cultural conditioning, but while I still see it as a
> thing to be transcended, I don't think there is any 'conspiracy' to
> it, it's essential to being anything at all.
The connotation of brainwashing implies what I wrote above. The conotation
of social conditioning is quite different. Although of course since we are
dealing with connotation, the refuge of definition is no longer available to
you.
>
> If you want to see a really good explanation of this, get "Branford
> Marsalis: The Music Tells You", a Maysles brothers documentary about
> Branford Marsalis, and really pay attention to what he says about
> freedom and structure in jazz music. IMO it extends to life in
> general, it gave me a mini-epiphany when I saw it the first time.
Wow. A jazz-lover?
>>And now you go back into stupid mode.
>>
>
> Rude and inconsiderate maybe, but that's not the same as stupid.
Indeed so.
A
Tom
>
> Toms problem is that I am messing with more than his plumbing.
Your problem is your obsessive interest in my plumbing.
Tom
"nenslo" <nen...@xahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nenslo-5CC3CE....@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Wow. That's never happened before. It must be Archie's oogie-boogie magic
current.
Rev. Ivan Stang
HellPope Huey
> "Apache" <apa...@littleredindian.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1138225787....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >>Tom wrote:
>>>>>"Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ZWMBf.121032$mP4....@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>>>lad you dont do adhominems Tom. No wait, that isnt right.
>>>
>>>>LOL
>>>>
>>>>A Poor old guy. Multi-infarct dementia, possibly? Given that he's
>>>morbnidly obese, the danger of stroke is quite high for him.
>>>>Don't catch your cathiter on those nails Tom...unless you like people
>>messing with your plumbing.
> Toms problem is that I am messing with more than his plumbing.
That sounds like a vaguely homoerotic reference to "Brokeback
Mountain." Its getting to a point where people are beginning to titter
if you even SAY 'fist.' Sheesh.
--
HellPope Huey
Monkey see, Monkey do,
monkey fund The O'Reilly Factor
"I was going to say he's a piece of work,
but that might not translate too well.
Is that all right, if I call you a 'piece of work'?"
~ George W. Bush to Jean-Claude Juncker,
prime minister of Luxembourg,
Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005
"Give apes the vote. You won't regret it."
~ "The Simpsons"
http://www.beat-factory.net/hellpope/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/hellpopehuey24/
HellPope Huey
Morbnidly sounds like a guest character from "Squidbillies," a Cartoon
Network reference Nenslo will not get and is as happy to hear as Nenslo
usually GETS about things.
Or perhaps its simply a degenerative condition requiring an ointment
your insurance won't cover: "Son, you have morbnidly and the cure costs
more than your insurance will cover, so in place of the real deal
frunobulaxin, you'll have to use the generic, squeedgim and yer thang'll
fall off in 6 months." HMO HO HO.
Zapanaz
wrote:
>The connotation of brainwashing implies what I wrote above. The conotation
>of social conditioning is quite different. Although of course since we are
>dealing with connotation, the refuge of definition is no longer available to
>you.
I don't know, I don't care. You see what I was saying now. If your
point is, "I used the word wrong", yeah, I used the word wrong.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
HONK IF YOU LOVE CHEESES
Apache
Zapanaz wrote:
> HONK IF YOU LOVE CHEESES
Ok. As long as the list doesn't include Edam...
Apache. :-)
Tom
>
> Ah, that will mean you have run out of sensible things to say then and
> have reverted back into your pretend RV mode.
June 24, 2005, you wrote: "Tom feels different to anyone who knows how to
psychometrise at a distance."
When it comes to "pretend RV", you're the go-to guy.
Zapanaz
wrote:
The important thing is to honk. It could be for ANY cheese.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"Madness exacts a heavy toll, please have exact change."
Archangel
"HellPope Huey" <HellPo...@BOOM.net> wrote in message
news:1P7Cf.2339$1n4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Archangel wrote:
>> "Apache" <apa...@littleredindian.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1138225787....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >>Tom wrote:
>>>>>>"Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:ZWMBf.121032$mP4....@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>>>>
>>>>>lad you dont do adhominems Tom. No wait, that isnt right.
>>>>
>>>>>LOL
>>>>>
>>>>>A Poor old guy. Multi-infarct dementia, possibly? Given that he's
>>>>morbnidly obese, the danger of stroke is quite high for him.
>>>>>Don't catch your cathiter on those nails Tom...unless you like people
>>>messing with your plumbing.
>
>> Toms problem is that I am messing with more than his plumbing.
>
> That sounds like a vaguely homoerotic reference to "Brokeback Mountain."
> Its getting to a point where people are beginning to titter if you even
> SAY 'fist.' Sheesh.
>
Probably. Yet it wasnt homoertic. It was merely an observation. But yes, you
are right, the sillies in here fall over each other to make fools of
themselves, thinking that they are making a fool of me in the process.
*shrug* Yet they dont know about Magic and I do and them's the facts
really... One shouldnt take them too seriously.
A
Archangel
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:01:34 GMT, "Archangel" <Arch...@nulldev.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The connotation of brainwashing implies what I wrote above. The conotation
>>of social conditioning is quite different. Although of course since we are
>>dealing with connotation, the refuge of definition is no longer available
>>to
>>you.
>
> I don't know, I don't care. You see what I was saying now. If your
> point is, "I used the word wrong", yeah, I used the word wrong.
>
> --
Wasnt making a point. Was only being clear.
A
eddieVroom
> Probably. Yet it wasnt homoertic. It was merely an observation.
HONK IF YOU'RE NOT HOMOEROTIC
--
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
The streets are safe in Philadelphia, it's only the people who make
them unsafe.
-- Mayor Frank Rizzo
HellPope Huey
> Archangel wrote:
>
>> Probably. Yet it wasnt homoertic. It was merely an observation.
> >
> HONK IF YOU'RE NOT HOMOEROTIC
HONK IF YOU HOPE YOUR SON IS NOT A GAY COWBOY
HONK IF YOU HOPE YOUR SON DOESN'T MEAN COWPUNCHING *THAT* WAY
HONK IF YOU WANNA PUNCH *MY* "COW"
HONK IF YOU WANNA ROPE A "TWINKIE"
--
HellPope Huey
I was strolling through the park one day
and my circuits seemed to lightly play
I was taken by surprise
by a pair of awful thighs
and stayed inside the whole next day
... it's a sort of bloom on a woman.
If you have it,
you don't need to have anything else;
and if you don't have it,
it doesn't much matter what else you have.
~ James Matthew Barrie
When I go to the beauty parlor,
I always use the emergency entrance.
Sometimes I just go for the estimate.
~ Phyllis Diller
http://www.beat-factory.net/hellpope/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/hellpopehuey24/
Archangel
"eddieVroom" <glass...@nospam.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SLBCf.4767$Ou1...@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Archangel wrote:
>
>> Probably. Yet it wasnt homoertic. It was merely an observation.
>
> HONK IF YOU'RE NOT HOMOEROTIC
honk!
Dagon Productions
Heh, that's another lie of archASSs.. considering that he
likes to bring up other posters asses and sexual practices
and in one post even wrote about dancing with other men.
-Douglas
Apache
Dagon Productions wrote:
Here's a new role model for you, Douglas. You should have something to
aspire to:-)
http://www.stupidevilbastard.com/
Apache.
Archangel
Dancing with men? I dont think so. But hey, who knows what lurks in dodgy
Douggies mind? Aspirations-wise, it would be a tremendous move forward for
Douggie if he were only to become mediocre. As for evil, he isnt evil, he is
just a very silly boy.
A
nu-monet v8.0
>
> HONK IF YOU'RE NOT HOMOEROTIC
DON'T HONK IF YOU'RE NOT ANTI-HOMOEROTIC
--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"Pleasure me, you lesbian wench!"
--James Mason, from the movie
'Mandingo Confused'
Tom
>
> Dancing with men? I dont think so.
Kinda scary, eh, Archie?
Heresiarch SODDI
"nu-monet v8.0" <not...@succeeds.com> wrote in message
news:43DB89...@succeeds.com...
> eddieVroom wrote:
>>
>> HONK IF YOU'RE NOT HOMOEROTIC
>
>
> DON'T HONK IF YOU'RE NOT ANTI-HOMOEROTIC
>
HONK IF YOU'RE HOBOEROTIC
Apache
Heresiarch SODDI wrote:
HONK IF YOU'RE AS HOMOMORPHIC AS YOU
Asiya
lol! Such desperation.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
http://asiya.livejournal.com/