Night of a Thousand Dale Houstmans
g.v.w. iv
> Andrea Chen wrote:
>
> >
> >
> To paraphrase yourself; those who think they're smart often are the
ones
> who are the dumbest.
Dale speaks, the Dale who dreams of brown uniforms and ''re-education
camps.''
To introduce his commentary, Dale paraphrases Ms. Chen's inversion of
Socratic irony. Apparently, Dale can identify an insight; now if only he
could learn from one.
A less awkward paraphrase might read, ''the stupid often believe
themselves wise.'' Or, in Dale's case, believe themselves Surrealists.
> This little game you believe you are playing with others on Usenet is
> really just being played entirely in your own head. Since you have set
> it up to be a completely self-supporting loop of affirmation, you will
> never know that you stink up everything you touch, just as an anorexic
> sees herself as overweight and thus cannot bring herself to eat. You
> have perverted the pleasure principle to the point that you can only
> follow yourself further and further into your own labyrinth of
cognitive
> entrails, quite cozy in your little boat as they play "It's a Small
> World After All" over and over and over.
So says Dale of Andrea Chen's ''little game.''
But what ''little game'' does Dale play?
Dale obsesses over Ms. Chen, her methods and her motives, revealing his
rage and hatred with every keystroke. But he offers neither evidence nor
analysis. Instead, he confronts his reader with only a string of
clumsily written claims, an adolescent tantrum in electronic text. But
he in his rage loses control. His tropes escape him--they turn on him.
Inadvertently, against his will, he reveals more than he intends, more
about himself and his own motives than about the object of his grudging
hate, Ms. Andrea Chen.
i will demonstrate. i will reconstruct Dale's ''little game'' from what
precedes, a simple forensic exercise, a ''little game'' familiar to
analysts of texts.
Note first the manifest (or explicit) claims of Dale's indictment. In
the preceding paragraph, Dale claims the following.
Statement 1
Ms. Chen believes she plays games with Usenet participants, but the game
exists only in Ms. Chen's head.
Statement 2
(2) follows loosely from (1). Presumably, because Ms. Chen's ''game''
exists only in her head--without benefit of stimulus from a publicly
available, distal world--her ''little game'' assumes an insular,
circular, incestuous character, the character of a feedback loop.
Therefore, Dale claims, Ms. Chen cannot know that she ''stinks up
everything she touches.'' To illustrate his claim, Dale uses the image
of an anorexic.
Statement 3
(3) merely elaborates statements (1) and (2). Dale claims that because
Ms. Chen ''perverts'' the ''pleasure principle'' (whatever that means),
she can only ''follow herself'' ever deeper into insularity and
irrelevance, becoming, in her circular game, ever more absorbed of
herself and remote from the world.
Dale attempts to minimize, to reduce, to trivialize the claims of Ms.
Chen. Dale asks us to dismiss Ms. Chen on grounds of her
self-absorption, her remoteness from reality, her insular,
self-absorbed-of-self, egocentric model of the world, a virtual world
disconnected from the distal world, a world configured like the
alchemical serpent, Ouroborus.
Now note the latent content (or implicit claims) of Dale's indictment.
Note the thick knots of imagery--the dense kludge of metaphor, simile,
and analogy. i catalog most of them below. (i may have missed one or
two; catachresis, thy name is Dale.)
1. the little game
Dale reduces Ms. Chen's activities on Usenet to a ''little game.'' Games
may be simple rituals, like ring-a-ring-a-rosies. Or games may be
sophisticated, goal oriented, rule governed activities. Games may also
involve play, chance, and randomness--games open up possibility by
insulating the players from the social costs of their behaviors. (''Hey!
It was only a game.'') Games allow us to experiment with different forms
of life (''Let's pretend''), to invent roles, to construct new
identities. The game and its players--both as a figure and as a
cultural form--enact a subtle dialectic between play and structure,
chaos and control, form and fluidity, the individual player and a
society of players.
See Wittgenstein's analysis of the term ''game'' in his _Philosophical
Investigations_.
Dale uses this figure to trivialize Ms. Chen's Usenet enterprise. In
this medium, most participate; but Ms. Chen only play games.
2. correction, the *illusory* little game
Not content to characterize Ms. Chen's participation as only a game, a
''little game,'' Dale banishes her game to the world of dream and
illusion. We dwell in a conscious and intelligible world of publicly
available sense contents; but Dale locates Ms. Chen's ''game'' in the
private and inaccessible world of her own head.
The reality/illusion dissociation governs much of Dale's discourse. The
game and the illusion are opposed by the real, the concrete, the social
fact.
3. the feedback loop
The figure of a circle, a cul-de-sac of the soul, a
self-contained-of-itself, like Narcissus. Iterative or recursive systems
use feedback loops to error-check, normalize, or achieve from simpler
states more sophisticated states.
4. the harpy
Dale argues that Ms. Chen ''stinks up everything she touches.'' Dale
conjures an archetypal figure, a figure always gendered female. Examples
include harpies, furies, Gorgons, Kali and her abortions of
darkness--figures of females who pollute all they touch.
For detailed expositions of this figure, see Frazer's _Golden Bough_ or
Huxley's _Way of the Sacred_.
5. the simile of the anorexic
Dale associates Ms. Chen with a specific pathology, a generally female
affliction. Dale avers that the anorexic imagines herself fat even as
she starves herself.
6. the psychological pleasure principle
We tend to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Presumably, Dale believes Ms.
Chen derives pleasure from what he alleges to be a pathological state.
7. the labyrinth and cognitive entrials
Dale associates Ms. Chen with two figures of complexity, figures of
occult interiors, of reticulate structure without organizing form,
figures of passage-ways, narrow defiles, corridors communicating with
corridors, halls of doors, halls of mirrors, doorways leading down
further hallways. Entrails we associate with uncleanness or diviniation
(reading the future in the entrails of a sacrificial victim);
labyrinths, with danger, for in them dwell Minotaurs.
8. the little boat--the Disney Land ride
As an antidote for figure 7, Dale immediately associates Ms. Chen's
labyrinth with a Disney Land ride marked by dwarfish, lip-synching
animatronics depicting children of different ethnicities, all of them
arguing in song for a vague notion of cultural equivalence.
Threads of semantic and thematic continuity weave Dale's string of
images into a consistent and coherent system of tropes. Two archetypal
figures--themselves juxtaposed--govern each figurative instance, the
figures of the shadow and the circle.
(1) The shadow, or the notion of illusion or unreality.
A figure that repeats itself in the notion of the game (games as
imitations of real conditions), illusion (the game exists in Ms. Chen's
head), the simile of the anorexic, and in the theme-park ride, the
little boat in the Disney ride.
The opposite of the shadow is the Real. Dale opposes the shadow. He
often insists that he represents the ''real'' world; everyone else, a
world of shadow and illusion. But Dale's system of tropes undermines his
enterprise; they simplify when they should complexify. Examples abound;
i will cite only a few of them. Example (i): Dale neglects what the
anorexic teaches us about ourselves, our culture, and our regimes of
culture representation, regimes that valorize the visual. In her and
through her, private pain becomes social fact. The anorexic expresses
through her own body a devastating critique of our goals, norms, and
values. Example (ii) Dale attempts to trivialize by associating and
identifying Ms. Chen's project with the figures of the game and the
theme-park ride. But games and other mimetic activities open up
possibility; they allow us to test hypotheses, socially realized, when
the stakes are low. Our games and our imaginings touch the so-called
''real'' world in real ways. Sidney argued that poetry ''enlarges
conceits''; Keats, similarly, called poets the ''unacknowledged
legislators of the world.'' The game and the Disney Land ride teach us
that we can cast our ideas in material form, even our trivial ideas,
making them publicly available for evaluation and critique. The Disney
Land ride may be the shadow of a shadow, but it is also a material
artifact, a socially negotiated artifact. And (iii), the pleasure
principle, the epitome of the psychological doctrine of continuity
between physical and mental states (biology is destiny). The notion is a
simple one: we are conditioned by our desires; civilization itself, the
sum of the human artifice, is an artifact of human desire.
Dale argues that Ms. Chen's ''game'' is all in her head. Yet every
single trope Dale introduces to shore up his claim immediately
undermines it. Each depicts clearly the complex and dialectical
relations between the real and the unreal, our theses and hypotheses,
our irrealis discourse and our indices of brute fact, our imaginations
and the world that it both mirrors and transforms. Dale may wish that
Ms. Chen's project is all in her head, but even in his hypothetical and
figurative discourse, he cannot realize the possibility, he cannot even
imagine it.
(2) The circle, the feedback loop, the notion of a
self-absorbed-of-self.
Ms. Chen's head, the loop, the curvy passages of entrails or
self-contained complexity of a labyrinth, all depict notions of closure,
notions of the circular and contained. Here Dale cites an elemental
archetype, an elementally female archetype. But again, Dale finds
himself usurped by his own figure. Ouroborus, the alchemical serpent
consuming his own tail, represents insularity, but it also represents
the universe. The circle can represent insularity, but it also
represents wholeness, completeness, sufficiency, fertility, the world,
the universe, everything.
The opposite of the circle is the line. Dale argues for the linear and
against the circle; ironically, he finds himself running in circles.
How do we account for the Dale's many contradictions? Dale reduces the
already reduced ''little game'' to the category of the illusory; yet
powerful complexities burst out everywhere. (The anorexic--her ''game''
touches the real world in real ways--her body makes private reality a
social fact.) He tries to depict circles, walls, containments, but
everywhere instead he depicts connections and interdependencies.
In Dale's system of tropes, when Dale reduces anomaly to illusion,
illusion becomes anomalous, uncontrolled and uncontrollable--it runs
riot, and it does so in the real world with real consequences.
So, here we discover an analytical principle to help us resolve Dale's
contradictions. Follow carefully. To make the world tidy and
intelligible, Dale draws on traditional dissociations or inversions
(health/disease; truth/illusion; control/free play). But consider the
truth/illusion dissociation--here i follow Hegel's notion of an
''inverted world.'' You observe a stick in a glass of water. It appears
broken. You reason, based on what you know about sticks, that the
appearance is an illusion; you reason that the stick is still whole. In
other words, you grant your conception of the stick logical priority
over the raw sensory data of the stick. Say you get stuck with a pin
(Nietszche's example). You feel pain. You turn; you see a pin. So, you
reason, pin, then pain. But the actual order of sensation was pain, then
pin. To make the world intelligible, you invert it. Hence, Dale's
confusion, expressed in tropes; he attempts heroically to invert the raw
sense data of the world into a more intelligible order. But his project
fails. The remedy is simply to un-invert Dale, to stand Dale back on his
feet again.
By inverting Dale, by turning him on his head, another text emerges--a
counter-text. From within Dale's string of monlogic claims we recuperate
moments of counterpoint. From these moments of counterpoint we capture
momentary counter-truths. We recover a sense of dialogue. We rescue from
Dale's attempt to reduce another to silence, the sound of other voices,
a fugue of other voices. And we did precisely this when we interrogated
Dale's figures, when we allowed them to speak for themselves, when we
discovered in them meanings and associations Dale never anticipated. We
discovered as we did so an alternative voice, one that depicts a world
of complexities and interdependencies, of worlds of imagination with
sophisticated causal nexes to the real world, and real worlds tested and
critiqued by means of play, ritual, mimesis, and imagination.
> Akhenna (sp?) may or may not be "smarter" than you, but she's
infinitely
> more human in her responses, because (for one thing) she responds at
> all. You don;t have responses merely defensive reflexes disguised (in
> your fever dream of intelligence) as cleverness. It's a pretty little
> pinata.
We will apply our new principle. We will attempt to recover from Dale's
reductive claim a more sophisticated, more inclusive account of the
world.
Regard the following. Dale claims that one is human if one responds
instead of reacts (a simple idea, but Dale never expresses simple ideas
simply). Again, Dale introduces another binary (Dale can only think in
binaries of good and evil, darkness and light, reason and unreason, and
so forth). An organism receives a stimulus; the stimulus elicits from
the organism a behavior, verbal or otherwise. Dale would like to say
that how the organism relates to the stimuli of the world determines its
humanness.
An organism responds when it reflects on its stimulation.
An organism reacts when the behavior elicited assumes the character of a
reflex.
Note the contradiction in Dale's binary opposition: Dale wants to
evaluate surfaces in terms of what lies beneath them. A person issues a
message. But Dale wants to look past the message to the intentions of
the mind that made it (only then can he render a verdict, whether
reaction or response). But he lacks privileged access the hidden intents
of our hearts. Again, note the inversion. Pain-pin becomes pin-pain. In
sum, when Dale asks us to respond to our environments reflectively, he
really asks us to reduce our environments to mere reflection, the
reflections of our minds, in this case Dale's mind.
To recover the counter-truth, you only stand Dale back on his feet. To
do that, you need only introduce a counter-figure; in this case, you
only need to reflect on the complexities of the world. Cloud formations,
star systems, and human societies possess no conscious will, no
intention, yet they relate to larger systems in sophisticated ways, they
possess and are possessed of near infinite complexity, and they often
behave in unpredictable ways.
Most of what we are, most of who we are, a larger world determined
entirely without our consent--we simply reacted, sometimes reflexively,
sometimes in more sophisticated ways.
Consider also that pinatas have good things in them for those willing to
penetrate their surfaces.
If only Dale would attempt to penetrate those surfaces.
> DMH
--
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
Revolutions are always verbose.
Leon Trotsky
Brandon J. Freels
thought it was you who supported the brainwashing policy of modern
re-education camps, especially when it came to textual language camps? Also,
I do believe you have spent most of your life in modern re-education camps,
correct? Don't you have an M.A. or something, you brainwashed piece of puke?
And besides, what do you know about love?
> > To paraphrase yourself; those who think they're smart often are the ones
> > who are the dumbest.
Hey, that sounds like you, college boy. I went to the love-o-meter and found
that Dale and you have an 85% chance of making it. Congradgulations!
[p.s. all apologies to Dale]
Dale Houstman
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
>
> Hey, that sounds like you, college boy. I went to the love-o-meter and found
> that Dale and you have an 85% chance of making it. Congradgulations!
>
> [p.s. all apologies to Dale]
Well the vagaries of love are not to be understood by mere mortals. Yet,
I doubt we shall ever be really a unit, as I prefer my girlfriends not
to have hooves and a snout.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Behold the Power of Cheese!
Robert Maughan
g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu>
[...]
>If only Dale would attempt to penetrate those surfaces.
Love it when you talk dirty.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>I prefer my girlfriends not to have hooves and a snout.
Yeah, well, wishful thinking, but you don't mind your boyfriends having
cute asses, do you? C'mere ya big lug.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
g.v.w. iv
Dale Houstman wrote:
> "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Hey, that sounds like you, college boy. I went to the love-o-meter and found
> > that Dale and you have an 85% chance of making it. Congradgulations!
> >
> > [p.s. all apologies to Dale]
>
> Well the vagaries of love are not to be understood by mere mortals. Yet,
Dale gibbers inarticulately, musing on blind cupid's whim.
> I doubt we shall ever be really a unit, as I prefer my girlfriends not
> to have hooves and a snout.
Learn how to place an adverb, Dale. You have a so-called ''squinting'' modifier in
the preceding line.
i note that talk of love with you always takes a swine-like shape. But i digress.
How do you prefer your boyfriends, bitch?
Brandon J. Freels
> Dale gibbers inarticulately, musing on blind cupid's whim.
modifier in
> the preceding line.
There you go again, gvw the 4th, on your re-education campaign. You really
should do something about this problem of yours. I don't understand how you
could be such a cold-hearted re-educator. I mean, you have such a sweat
mama's boy voice, and you write such awful, dreadfully boring poetry. I just
don't get you. You must be jealous of Dale. Its either jealously or love,
take your pick.
Robert Scott Martin
g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
[words]
>Chen. Dale asks us to dismiss Ms. Chen on grounds of her
>self-absorption, her remoteness from reality, her insular,
>self-absorbed-of-self, egocentric model of the world, a virtual world
>disconnected from the distal world, a world configured like the
>alchemical serpent, Ouroborus.
Is the snake awake or asleep?
[otherwise words]
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
> There you go again, gvw the 4th, on your re-education campaign. You
really
Laughing at your appalling ignorance hardly constitutes a ''re-education
campaign,'' Brandy.
> should do something about this problem of yours. I don't understand how
you
My problem? How is your lack of education *my* problem? On second thought,
i suppose it is my problem. Since i work, i help pay for your public
assistance.
> could be such a cold-hearted re-educator. I mean, you have such a sweat
i practice tough love.
> mama's boy voice, and you write such awful, dreadfully boring poetry. I
just
You should credit the Smiths for the preceding (Frankly Mr. Shankly, from
The Queen is Dead).
> don't get you. You must be jealous of Dale. Its either jealously or
love,
> take your pick.
If forced to choose, then i pick love, because i love the way Dale
contradicts himself with every keystroke. i love the way he wiggles his
lust-ravaged buttocks for Robert's unwholesome attentions. i love the way
he humiliates himself every time he tries to sound profound.
i simply love it. You two should take your show on the road.
g.v.w. iv
barrett john erickson
> devastating critique of our goals, norms, and values.
shit, gilbert, is this what you're learning in school?
anorexia as social critique?
i do hope you'll tell us what kind of grade you get on this pompous piece
of ascription masquerading as analysis.
thanks for sharing.
-- barrett
Robert Maughan
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org>
>> The anorexic expresses through her own body a
>> devastating critique of our goals, norms, and values.
>
>shit, gilbert, is this what you're learning in school?
>
>anorexia as social critique?
>
>i do hope you'll tell us what kind of grade you get on this pompous piece
>of ascription masquerading as analysis.
>
>thanks for sharing.
>
Oops, it's Dumbest. Dale and Dumber and Dumbest. You guys really should
take your show on the road.
RJM.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, barrett john erickson wrote:
> > The anorexic expresses through her own body a
> > devastating critique of our goals, norms, and values.
>
> shit, gilbert, is this what you're learning in school?
>
> anorexia as social critique?
Yes, you ignorant little boy. (Have you ever heard of medical
anthropology?--disease too, can be a socially negotiated, cultural
artifact.) You should read a book sometime. For more about anorexia and
social construction, try this one.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385423977/qid=930589498/sr=1-1/002-6444783-9775832
Next time, check your facts before you humiliate yourself. A simple web
search could have saved you much embarrassment.
>
> i do hope you'll tell us what kind of grade you get on this pompous piece
> of ascription masquerading as analysis.
i finished coursework two years ago; i assign grades, but no longer
receive them. Let me know if you ever get your GED, you non-surrealist
boy.
>
> thanks for sharing.
Anytime, bright boy.i note that you failed to pose even a single
counter-argument or counter-claim. The best you could do is carp about a
single point. Dale must be so disappointed. His little friends are
powerless to aid him.
>
>
> -- barrett
>
>
>
Dale Houstman
Look Out! There's A Monkey Wearing Your Pants...
As for learning how to place an adverb: I put it there on purpose. If
you don't like it, take it out and put it somewhere else. Want a
suggestion? Your notions of linguisitic correctness are outdated and
misplaced, but
I wouldn't expect anything less from a smalltown thinker like you, so
(in effect) you are "coming up to expectations" just fine. Soon you will
be walking out of your diapers and into a straitjacket. I am sure mama
Andrea would be proud if she weren't so busy grooming her pet lemur,
RJM, and attempting to teach him to dance to "It's Raining Men" played
on a comb and tampon. Don't worry, you hollow piece of animal skin, she
will release the lemur soon, and then it's your turn to be made into her
"binkyboo." Of course, the castration will have to come first (don't
want you humping her falcon!), but that's a small price to pay, isn't
it? You've been biting away at your planaria for years at any rate.
You little midgets wouldn't have anything to do unless we were here to
wake you up. You should be thanking US for giving your existences some
direction, even if it seems to always be down.
You little squinting adverb you...
DMH
Dale Houstman
"g.v.w. iv" wrote:
>oink
(but he spelled it "oinc")
but what can we expect from a carnival pig? He's doing okay.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan
spilled his bedpan into his coffee.
Andrea Chen
> Oops, it's Dumbest. Dale and Dumber and Dumbest. You guys really should
> take your show on the road.
You know Robert, this is another thing I find curious. As you have
pointed out Dale is the smartest of the 3. Yet he used to let Bradnon
be his boss and now he's recently joined Barrett's surrealist project (a
40 year venture without even a PO box busily transforming the world
around you,) it's interesting that the most intelligent one likes to be
a follower. He's got more spunk that the other's too.
Andrea Chen
>
> > The anorexic expresses through her own body a
> > devastating critique of our goals, norms, and values.
>
>
> anorexia as social critique?
>
> of ascription masquerading as analysis.
>
For a student of desires and also the distortion caused by normal
cultural values, you are a bit conservative. In other word it's the
*young girl's fault* (bad girl!) that she starves herself because social
standards of beauty have become an extreme dogma within her, a dogma
which allows her to focus all sorts of anger through an act approaching
suicide.
If you had any sense you would use anorexia as a justificationn for the
need of a new social order, rather than regarding it as a "normal" event
that casts no aspersions on the nature of society.
I find this typical of you. You have chosen a word (SURREALISM! )
which is safely symbolic of all kinds of daring, but when it comes to
actual events and states of mind you *always* turn out to be defenders
of the status quo in a vaguely, leftist sort of way which includes a few
(purposefully) impotent gestures of protest while completing ignoring
and denying that the forces which impact our daily lives and "souls" in
many different ways.
The whole point of your "surrealism" is a magic solution somewhere out
there which make everything perfect automatically. Deep down inside you
really believe that if you can get enough people to click their heals
and say "surrealist project" you'll somehow escape the dull Kansas of
your being.
But you can't. You can't even see the power and the horror in the
grotesque skeleton of a young girl vomiting her dinner into a perfumed
toilet bowel, though it's a well known that similar images (though
different in origin) act as a critique of Rome.
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>Robert Maughan
>
>
>
>
>spilled his bedpan into his coffee.
Not bloody likely, cutiepie, I'm too careful. I got it on a drip. And
the coffee.
RJM.
Dale Houstman
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
_______________________
You would be offensive if you weren't first and foremost ignorant.
Thus you elicit pity which can only turn to revulsion through time.
From this revulsion a calm protrudes its stalk and blossoms into
laughter.
The hard surface that was you is ground to dust by this blossom.
The dust that was your hard surface thickens the air for an hour or so.
Children may ask what happened to your surface, but seldom and only in
fun.
The night air is clear without you, until the laughter grows into it.
The children remember that once something pitiable stood here.
They understand that its loss is not to be regretted, but celebrated by
sleep.
In their sleep your dust drifts but only down between the weeds.
Each dust mote is embossed with one letter of your name.
These motes blow about and form phrases (and later poems):
"gilt ribs" "stern urban bevel" "wilting revels."
These poem contain nothing of you.
You are dead.
_______________
DMH
"Glory fleeting, obscurity forever"
-- Napoleon
Andrea Chen
> These motes blow about and form phrases (and later poems):
> "gilt ribs" "stern urban bevel" "wilting revels."
> These poem contain nothing of you.
> You are dead.
Ah! So these "poems" contain only images created by their reader
(which is you Dale "dust molt" Houstman), the reflections of yourself
you project into reality.
It's fascinating that you should take the letters of Gilbert's name to
model yourself, but indeed it is consistent with the diagnois: a
terrible sense of inferiority which causes you to abase yourself before
Brandon and Barrett (though they are your pragmatic inferiors), a desire
to become like (even merge yourself into) Robert, a sexuality still
caught in the anal and many other indications of an extreme masochism
and lack of self (healthily developed ego.)
This is the value of exploring the unconscious. Isn't the "surrealist
project" useful?
-Your Therapist-
g.v.w. iv
> Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Four of us share this name, two of whom still live. Please remember my
numerical designator.
[...]
> These motes blow about and form phrases (and later poems):
> "gilt ribs" "stern urban bevel" "wilting revels."
> These poem contain nothing of you.
Agreed, Airedale. Nor does this one.
>
> You are dead.
Like your poetry?
> _______________
> DMH
>
> "Glory fleeting, obscurity forever"
> -- Napoleon
Napoleon III no doubt, you closet Bonapartist.
--
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
Revolutions are always verbose.
Leon Trotsky
g.v.w. iv
Dale Houstman wrote:
> Look Out! There's A Monkey Wearing Your Pants...
>
> As for learning how to place an adverb: I put it there on purpose. If
Of course you did, Dale. How could you do otherwise?
> you don't like it, take it out and put it somewhere else. Want a
> suggestion? Your notions of linguisitic correctness are outdated and
> misplaced, but
Outdated? i had no idea. Please quote for me one of these many progressive
stylists or grammarians who recommend that we misplace our adverbs.
> [...] incoherent blather omitted.
Brandy? Brandy Free-Feel? i think i broke your Dale ... again.
>
> You little squinting adverb you...
Oh, what cunning. You turn the knife against its wielder. You are too
shrewd, Dale.
Brandon J. Freels
> Four of us share this name, two of whom still live. Please remember my
> numerical designator.
Only more evidence against the accused. Gilbert is obviously still connected
to his family tradition which is intertwined with the brainwashing policy of
the re-education camps current active and known by many as America's school
system. Do you consider yourself an aristocrat Gilbert, or just an asshole?
Brandon J. Freels
> But you can't. You can't even see the power and the horror in the
> grotesque skeleton of a young girl vomiting her dinner into a perfumed
> toilet bowel, though it's a well known that similar images (though
> different in origin) act as a critique of Rome.
On the contrary, Chen, I find the image of a skeleton of a young girl
vomiting her dinner into a perfumed toilet bowl to be a very beautiful
image, thank you very much. There is no horror or grotesque features in this
image. You are obviously a victim of what society has implanted in your
little computer chip of a brain.
Brandon J. Freels
love? I find it hard to believe that they are as cold-hearted and cynical as
they come across. So Gilbert, Andrea, and Robert, tell me about love . . .
g.v.w. iv
Ask your parents, you barely-pubescent puke. Oh, all right. Let me try.
''[Love] runs my life and ruins it.''
Now, bask in the profundity of my borrowed meditation. No, that sucks. Who could
issue so ugly a banality with a straight face? (i know i couldn't: i laughed
myself sick.) So, let me try again. Love is like our own Dale Houstman, who had
his mouth-parts surgically re-configured to resemble an enema nozzle. For love,
he made the ultimate sacrifice: he became a human butt-plug, a living tribute to
all things scatological.
g.v.w. iv
> g.v.w. iv wrote
> > Four of us share this name, two of whom still live. Please remember my
> > numerical designator.
>
> Only more evidence against the accused. Gilbert is obviously still connected
Accused of what, Brandy? Earlier you accused me of a superior education.
i admit to that. i insist on it.
> to his family tradition which is intertwined with the brainwashing policy of
Apparently the fauna of alt.surrealism are in an uproar. All two of them. Or one
of them, he and his sock-puppet, Dale Houstman the Dull.
> the re-education camps current active and known by many as America's school
> system. Do you consider yourself an aristocrat Gilbert, or just an asshole?
The hapless little boy issued a double-bind! i never saw it coming! What a
devastating tactical coup! What brilliant polemics! What shall i do? How shall i
answer? (What clever little boys, these alt.surrealists!--who will save us from
these clearly superior intellects?)
i choose ... FAQ maintainer for alt.surrealism. Or soon to be.
PS: For a hearty belly-laugh, please listen in on Dale and Brandy talking about
love, available only in alt.surrealism.
Robert Scott Martin
g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
[words]
>''[Love] runs my life and ruins it.''
Is the snake awake or asleep, o hermetic loggion?
g.v.w. iv
[...] Strings of incoherent gibberings omitted.
> such surface-surfing semiotic footnotes like you become relevant. Don't
> hold your doggie breath.
To whom do you speak, little Dale, you who can neither write nor think, you
whose own figurative language argues against you? (Shall i show you how
*again*?)
You sound so wounded. How can we comfort you, little one? How can we
compensate you for the stinging indignities and painful slights inflicted on
you by a hostile and insensitive world?
What would calm you, little boy? What would make you whole again?
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
>
>
>_______________________
>
>You would be offensive if you weren't first and foremost ignorant.
>Thus you elicit pity which can only turn to revulsion through time.
>From this revulsion a calm protrudes its stalk and blossoms into
>laughter.
>The hard surface that was you is ground to dust by this blossom.
>The dust that was your hard surface thickens the air for an hour or so.
>Children may ask what happened to your surface, but seldom and only in
>fun.
>The night air is clear without you, until the laughter grows into it.
>The children remember that once something pitiable stood here.
>They understand that its loss is not to be regretted, but celebrated by
>sleep.
>In their sleep your dust drifts but only down between the weeds.
>Each dust mote is embossed with one letter of your name.
>These motes blow about and form phrases (and later poems):
>"gilt ribs" "stern urban bevel" "wilting revels."
>These poem contain nothing of you.
>You are dead.
>_______________
Jesus. What an embarrassing load of utter pap. You're getting fucked
over because you're a pretentiuous dickhead and you post this insipid
fairy tale full of ludicrous fey images that say everything about you
and nothing about your protagonist that is relevant. Amazing that you,
as ignorant as it is possible to be without falling down, are capable
of such self-deception that you think this poor Rimbaud clone prosaic
contrivance will somehow demonstrate the worth of your poor unlearned
status.
Curious how you always revert to this nonsense when you have nothing
left to say. If you did it well you might get away with it, elsewhere.
But you do it badly, and at one remove from the persona, so you're as
exposed as you are when you pontificate. You're a fraud, pal, and not
a very good one. Still, you are a willing victim, and lord knows that
makes you a welcome diversion.
RJM.
Dale Houstman
Pyrrhic Defeats
"Mental density protects the ego. Ethical density destroys it."
-- Stanley
Cowles Thripp, "Strategic Stupidity"
You appear oddly incapable of comprehending text: I never suggested that
you quit following Andrea [it is your assumption that she is going
somewhere] - and in fact state that, as dumb animals, you exhibit little
choice in the matter; you have been too well programmed. Your
aggressively petty, and always inadequate, responses to any post not
bordering on nonsense (which are so predictable that they could be
replied to without reading them at all) preclude your intellectual
growth in the widest sense: you shall always be merely the decorative
lichen clinging for nourishment upon Andrea's desert pebble. You lack
the individuation necessary to motion. You confuse the collective action
of individuals with the composite action of the jellyfish. A fatal
error.
It is obvious (to anyone outside your crippling "Mama and her
Pomeranians" loop) that your knee-jerk responses - always picky as an
old woman at her Caesar salad and full of idiot bluster - are the very
meat of desperation. You have nothing else to exhibit but this
gruel-thin bile, and your tiny bark out near the garbage bins. Then you
eat.
So - I do not ask you to stop following Andrea into her blackwidowhood.
This would be pointless: you are all besotted and rather nastily
headless. Also I am not cruel - without this directionless (and
childishly expressed) obsession with antagonism (your backyard yipping),
you would be emptied of significance and recourse: you cannot exist
outside these simple reflexive paroxysms. I wouldn't dream of separating
the Lost Boys from their Tiger Lily. Where would you go without your
rudest rudder? What would you have left to express if you stood on two
legs instead of four? Not one of you ever posts anything of value to
anyone but yourselves, or attempts to engage the ones you have chosen as
"outsiders" (a ridiculous concept) in any dialogue that might open up a
way to real communication. It is just a pathetic swirl of sadly similar
statements, all agitated by anger. Talk of desperation.
Yet your little bile-excretions (in comparison to Andrea's semiotic
diarrhea) aren't even clever enough to resist the siren call of their
innate loutishness. RJM is stupid as a roach (although he hasn't the
decency to scurry beneath Andrea's skirt when the lights go on),
displaying embarrassing aggression combined with damnable incorrectness
(if you are going to insist on being wrong, at least learn to
whisper!), and almost continually peeing down his own leg when his dear
Andrea calls him a "father figure." To what exactly? His right hand?
Ridiculous. It is too bad that he mistakes the smell of his own urine
for the laurel of victory, but his delusion is merely laughable at last.
But he will become like a pleasantly pimpled chicken breast once he has
finished stripping his own feathers. You - hopelessly at sea with
pyrrhic defeats. When you go down with the fishes, not much will be left
to wonder at.
DMH
B.S. By the way, you reall might take some dribble of time from your
degradation program, and learn what "moralizing" consists of. Since I am
an atheist, I never moralize - I speak (like a human being is supposed
to) for what I believe in. Oddly enough you do much the same, as you
should. The only difference is that you are full of greasy shit. The day
it becomes "moralistic" to merely observe and comment is the day when
Dale Houstman
"g.v.w. iv" wrote:
The usual tripe besmeared with gilberturds and dressed up to resemble
human thought.
Your mother probably died having you. Lucky swine...
DMH
barrett john erickson
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes <g...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96L.99062...@unix4.andrew.cmu.edu...
> > anorexia as social critique?
>
> Yes, you ignorant little boy. (Have you ever heard of medical
> anthropology?--disease too, can be a socially negotiated, cultural
> artifact.) You should read a book sometime. For more about anorexia and
> social construction, try this one.
i don't need a book to recognize a specious piece of petit rhetoric (i
don't even need the warning flag of your initials, you arrogant spittle
toy).
the problem is in what you wrote not what i have or haven't read. try
thinking outside the books.
if one refuses the premise that intent, purpose and/or meaning are somehow
latent in the "text" (or in the "context"), waiting to be revealed by your
7 1/2 watt brilliance, rather than something which is created through human
(inter)action, all that remains is an insignificant academic exercise.
all you offered was an analysis of the dull way you read Dale's text. i
offer no counter-argument because i found your piece totally without
significance, and your assumptions, ascriptions and assertions
uninteresting and irrelevant.
i don't argue with such arrogance, i dismiss it.
-- barrett
barrett john erickson
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37776C...@earthlink.net...
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
> > > The anorexic expresses through her own body a
> > > devastating critique of our goals, norms, and values.
> >
> > shit, gilbert, is this what you're learning in school?
> >
> > anorexia as social critique?
> >
> > i do hope you'll tell us what kind of grade you get on this pompous
piece
> > of ascription masquerading as analysis.
> >
>
>
> For a student of desires and also the distortion caused by normal
> cultural values, you are a bit conservative. In other word it's the
>[... most of "Andrea's" long critique of what "she" thinks i think
removed ... ]
> But you can't. You can't even see the power and the horror in the
> grotesque skeleton of a young girl vomiting her dinner into a perfumed
> toilet bowel, though it's a well known that similar images (though
> different in origin) act as a critique of Rome.
of course "Andrea" has no idea what i meant, since i offered no explanation
beyond what i actually said above (which was plainly not a comment on
anorexia), and "she" has (by all previous experience) never successfully
understood anything i did say.
"she" will certainly misrepresent this too:
the "power and the horror" is not to be found in the "grotesque skeleton of
a young girl" but in the surrender to the falsifications of the existing
order, a surrender evidenced by "vomiting her dinner into a perfumed toilet
bowel".
still, in my opinion it is far worse to do what gilbert has done, claiming
that "the anorexic expresses through her own body a devastating critique of
our goals, norms, and values". this is not only wrong, since the anorexic
is in fact surrendering to those goals, norms, and values no matter how
destructive they are to her health, but complicitous since it
sentimentalizes that surrender as a model of tragic rebellion.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
El Bosco De Los Throckitos
;-)"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
;-)
;-)> Yes, but what does GVW the 4th, Andrea Chen, and Robert Maughan know about
;-)> love? I find it hard to believe that they are as cold-hearted and cynical as
;-)> they come across. So Gilbert, Andrea, and Robert, tell me about love . . .
;-)
;-)Now, bask in the profundity of my borrowed meditation. No, that sucks. Who could
;-)issue so ugly a banality with a straight face? (i know i couldn't: i laughed
;-)myself sick.) So, let me try again. Love is like our own Dale Houstman, who had
;-)his mouth-parts surgically re-configured to resemble an enema nozzle. For love,
;-)he made the ultimate sacrifice: he became a human butt-plug, a living tribute to
;-)all things scatological.
Not just that but a vibrating buttplug, oscillating in harmony with
wedded bliss.
Oh dread! I've been away too long.
-EL
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
[...]
>Not one of you ever posts anything of value to anyone
>but yourselves, or attempts to engage the ones you have
>chosen as "outsiders" (a ridiculous concept)
[...]
Difficult to know what is of value in your posts, except perhaps that
RAP was in one of its periodic doldrums and then there you were, ready
and willing to be an "outsider". You will never get the joke, pal, not
all the while you insist on pleading some higher calling. Surrealism R
Us may work amongst the converted but nobody gives a fuck outside your
cloister. The idea of engaging with you about your fetish is hardly an
attractive prospect for me; I can't speak for the rest. What you don't
seem able to grasp at all, is that you're all here because you haven't
any choice. You keep telling us that you are much too superior to have
anything to do with us horrid guttersnipes (quite right too) but never
in a million years will you comprehend that you're here because you're
trapped. You're here to jump through hoops. I speak of Dale and Dumber
and Dumbest, of course. The Three Stooges.
Your fixation on an imagined Chen/GVWIV/RJM coterie is quite worrying,
I must say. It seems to have escaped your notice that we're here to do
you because we like it. Whereas you are here to defend your ridiculous
position as saviours of the world from itself through a transcendental
vision you heard about one day when the reality of your endlessly dull
existence was knawing at your insides like a starving rat up your arse.
Speaking of knawing, I gotta say the RJM stupid as a roach only coming
out when the lights went on etc was dead funny - killed me. Shame that
you only manage one joke a week while people are falling about at your
pretension every day. People I know, I should say - others may swallow
the bullshit while it's still warm. Who knows? I understand you're dis-
cussing love in alt.surrealism as we speak. Now love is something that
I know plenny about, sure. Love is never having to say you don't where
your next fuck is coming from.
RJM.
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan
Legal Definition Time:
Statutory Rape: RJM using his mind.
Dale Houstman
"g.v.w. iv"
Definition Time:
Busy signal: the sound of Gilbert connecting with his cortex
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>Robert Maughan
>
>
>
>Legal Definition Time:
>
>
>Statutory Rape: RJM using his mind.
Rape? But you're here because you want to be. How can it be rape if I
use my mind on you with your consent? Are you trying to say that you
mean no when you say yes yes oh yes yes yes oh yes fuck me hard? I
don't think so. Now shut up whimpering and lie still, bitch, this
is your lucky day.
RJM.
CHENNO
Chenno ôżô
Painting is silent poetry, and poetry painting that speaks. - Simonides
barrett john erickson
CHENNO <che...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990629100324...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
> This is not surrealism this is grade school material...neener neener
neener?
you don't indicate what you are responding to, but the threading places it
as a reply to my post, so i'll defend its point...
>if one refuses the premise that intent, purpose and/or meaning are somehow
>latent in the "text" (or in the "context"), waiting to be revealed by your
>7 1/2 watt brilliance, rather than something which is created through
human
>(inter)action, all that remains is an insignificant academic exercise.
this highlights a very important difference between "surrealism" and the
kind of "analysis" made so popular by cultural studies in recent decades:
i argue that for a surrealist, meaning is not to be found in texts,
contexts, images, objects or other artifacts of human activity, but in the
human experience as it happens. that is, meaning is a _process_ (of
interaction on personal and social levels of complexity, which cannot be
isolated, but should not be confused either), not a latent characteristic
waiting to be revealed.
[the tone was simply a mild reflection of gilbert's.]
Andrea Chen
> still, in my opinion it is far worse to do what gilbert has done, claiming
> that "the anorexic expresses through her own body a devastating critique of
> our goals, norms, and values". this is not only wrong, since the anorexic
> is in fact surrendering to those goals, norms, and values no matter how
> destructive they are to her health, but complicitous since it
> sentimentalizes that surrender as a model of tragic rebellion.
>
OK we have now established your priorities.
1) In your opinion Gilbert has misused the English language and this is
far worse than the tragedy of someone destroying being locked in a self
destructive psychological pattern.
2) I would have to ask Gilbert specifically what he means, but I think
you are once again indicating your desire to nit pick words rather than
confront reality. For example, "the poverty of Indian reservations is a
devastianging critique of the socalled humanity of our society." This
is a perfectly understandabl;e statement even if it does violate the
traditional meaning of "critique."
3) The anorexic is perhaps "surrendering" to the values of society, but
she is also possessed, she is insane in that way you want us to
romanticize. Her behavior does become an unconscious critique and cruel
parody. Your use of words is designed to steer us away from this
tragedy, she has a human is worth no sympathy because she has
"surrendered" and any identification or sympathy with her is
"complicity." This is consistent with Dale's original contempt and
dismissal of such humans.
4) I notice that you have no comment on Brandon's claim that the
skeletal anorexic, kneeling in front of the toilet is a form of erotic
beauty and that only an acceptance of repressive values keeps people
like me from recognizing this. You evidently don't find this attitude
disturbing. Yet Gilbert's statement is. I believe this gives us a
clear idea of the "liberation" you represent.
barrett john erickson
> >
> > still, in my opinion it is far worse to do what gilbert has done,
claiming
> > that "the anorexic expresses through her own body a devastating
critique of
> > our goals, norms, and values". this is not only wrong, since the
anorexic
> > is in fact surrendering to those goals, norms, and values no matter how
> > destructive they are to her health, but complicitous since it
> > sentimentalizes that surrender as a model of tragic rebellion.
> >
>
>
> OK we have now established your priorities.
>
"Andrea" never disappoints when it comes to expectations of
misrepresentation.
Brandon J. Freels
> the problem is in what you wrote not what i have or haven't read. try
> thinking outside the books.
Exactly what I've been trying to tell him.
Brandon J. Freels
Brandon J. Freels
> 4) I notice that you have no comment on Brandon's claim that the
> skeletal anorexic, kneeling in front of the toilet is a form of erotic
> beauty and that only an acceptance of repressive values keeps people
> like me from recognizing this. You evidently don't find this attitude
> disturbing. Yet Gilbert's statement is. I believe this gives us a
> clear idea of the "liberation" you represent.
What is beautiful is purely subjective. Your sad attempt at repressing my
enjoyment of such an image is only a reminder of your totalitarian values.
barrett john erickson
news:377890...@earthlink.net...
> 4) I notice that you have no comment on Brandon's claim that the
> skeletal anorexic, kneeling in front of the toilet is a form of erotic
> beauty and that only an acceptance of repressive values keeps people
> like me from recognizing this. You evidently don't find this attitude
> disturbing. Yet Gilbert's statement is. I believe this gives us a
> clear idea of the "liberation" you represent.
first, i have no problems with any expression of authentic desire (as
opposed to falsified or "Spectacularized" desire). nor do i think it is
impossible for one human being to love and desire an "anorexic" human
being.
but Brandon didn't claim your image was a "form of erotic beauty", he said
he found the image you provided, "the image of a skeleton of a young girl
vomiting her dinner into a perfumed toilet bowl to be a very beautiful
image" with "no horror or grotesque features". at least part of the point
being that "horror" and "grotesque" are not qualities of the image, but the
harmonic layers of a specific reaction to the image.
but now i'm almost interested, so please "Andrea", do tell us why you find
it more acceptable to think of an "anorexic" (that is, the human being, not
the "disorder") as "grotesque", "possessed", or "insane" rather than
beautiful or even desirable?
surely no human being should be so stigmatized for having succumb to the
societal forces most of us abhor?
Brandon J. Freels
An image is just an image. The image itself holds no meaning in it. It is
the viewer who supplies the image with the meaning.
So, when you see an image of a girl puking into a toilet and see it as being
grotesque, this says more about you than it does about the actual image. My
only conclusion, since your response is no different than 99 percent of
America, is that you have been either brainwashed into your response, or you
are a follower.
I hold my position of the image for I have a certain sort of enjoyment of
the visual stimuli of both skeletons, and people puking. If you object to my
enjoyment of these images due to "your" subjective response to them, well,
then I would say you are no better than Tipper Gore.
Don't push your subjective response onto me, or the image, for when one does
such there is no hope for freedom.
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan wrote:
>
> Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>
> >Robert Maughan
> >
> >
> >
> >Legal Definition Time:
> >
> >
> >Statutory Rape: RJM using his mind.
>
> Rape? But you're here because you want to be. How can it be rape if I
> use my mind on you with your consent?
You can't read, can you gramps? They take your eyeglasses away because
you were looking into the bedpan for your siblings?
Explanation for Little Bobby: when YOU "use" YOUR mind (like a grownup
uses a little girl) it is statutory rape because YOUR mind is underage.
By the way you little textual nazi ("mangoes"); statuatory rape has
nothing to do with consent; someone who is underage CANNOT consent. Look
it up, or ask one of your daynurses to take her finger off your
melon-sized prostate and look it up.
Just when you think Little bobby can't get any dumber, he surprises you.
Another laugh on you. Thanks, moron...
Dale
g.v.w. iv
> Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes <g...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96L.99062...@unix4.andrew.cmu.edu...
>
> > > anorexia as social critique?
> >
> > Yes, you ignorant little boy. (Have you ever heard of medical
> > anthropology?--disease too, can be a socially negotiated, cultural
> > artifact.) You should read a book sometime. For more about anorexia and
> > social construction, try this one.
>
> i don't need a book to recognize a specious piece of petit rhetoric (i
> don't even need the warning flag of your initials, you arrogant spittle
> toy).
A transparent dodge, dullard. You questioned the foundation of my claim; i
responded, demonstrating that it enjoys purchase among researchers. Specious,
boy? You have yet to prove it. So far, all you have done is shout rude names.
Anyone can do that.
> the problem is in what you wrote not what i have or haven't read. try
> thinking outside the books.
When you and your fellow circle-jerkers pointed out my error regarding the
origins of the collage, i simply admitted it and carried on.
But when i prove my claim with a citation, you generously leave my claim
intact, while instead, in a gesture of the most ridiculous grandiosity, deny
the validity of *any* claim ever printed in *any* book, striking at my claim
only by implication. You call me ''arrogant?'' i would never dismiss six
thousand years of recorded human literature with only a handwave.
> if one refuses the premise that intent, purpose and/or meaning are somehow
> latent in the "text" (or in the "context"), waiting to be revealed by your
You stammer and sputter over a minor point--no, you lose bladder control over
no point at all, but only the choice of a term. If you disagree with my use of
the term ''latent,'' then i can easily strike it. Consider it done: i retract
it. i merely meant implicit as opposed to explicit; expressed in figure as
opposed to declarative. Everything else i wrote still stands, whole and intact.
> 7 1/2 watt brilliance, rather than something which is created through human
> (inter)action, all that remains is an insignificant academic exercise.
i offered a reading, a rhetorical reading, a counter-reading, a standard
exigetical method. i identified contradictions, and pursued them. But nothing i
wrote expressed, suggested, or implied that i disagree with the notion of
knowledge as a socially negotiated artifact. Quite the opposite. i defended
precisely that notion of meaning several times in my critique.
When i read Dale and attempted to resolve his contradictions analytically, i
''created through human (inter)action'' a ''meaning,'' an alternative meaning,
a counter-meaning. How could i have done otherwise?
> all you offered was an analysis of the dull way you read Dale's text. i
Analysis? Correction, you leaky little boy: ''description masquerading as
analysis.'' If you want to insult a person gratuitously, at least be
consistent. Yes, i offered a reading. Why do you and Dale delight in loudly
proclaiming the obvious, barking, strutting, and prancing about, puffing your
empty little scrotums with glee, as if you made some profound discovery or
revealed some deep truth?
> offer no counter-argument because i found your piece totally without
> significance, and your assumptions, ascriptions and assertions
> uninteresting and irrelevant.
Another poor dodge. You can offer no counter-argument because you have no
argument to offer.
> i don't argue with such arrogance, i dismiss it.
Yet here you are, losing control of your bladder in a blind rage. i remain,
undismissed.
You can be arrogant and still be right, little boy. When the arrogant call
water wet, the universe does not up-end just to spite them. Apparently, no one
can critique my critique of Dale on analytical grounds. How sad for Dale. And
how sad for me, because i had hoped for an interesting discussion.
Instead, i got Barrett, an ill-educated rube.
> -- barrett
g.v.w. iv
barrett john erickson wrote:
> Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:37776C...@earthlink.net...
> > barrett john erickson wrote:
> > >
> > > > The anorexic expresses through her own body a
> > > > devastating critique of our goals, norms, and values.
> > >
> > > shit, gilbert, is this what you're learning in school?
> > >
> > > anorexia as social critique?
> > >
> > > i do hope you'll tell us what kind of grade you get on this pompous
> piece
> > > of ascription masquerading as analysis.
> > >
> >
> >
> > For a student of desires and also the distortion caused by normal
> > cultural values, you are a bit conservative. In other word it's the
>
> >[... most of "Andrea's" long critique of what "she" thinks i think
> removed ... ]
>
> > But you can't. You can't even see the power and the horror in the
> > grotesque skeleton of a young girl vomiting her dinner into a perfumed
> > toilet bowel, though it's a well known that similar images (though
> > different in origin) act as a critique of Rome.
>
> of course "Andrea" has no idea what i meant, since i offered no explanation
> beyond what i actually said above (which was plainly not a comment on
> anorexia), and "she" has (by all previous experience) never successfully
> understood anything i did say.
>
> "she" will certainly misrepresent this too:
>
> the "power and the horror" is not to be found in the "grotesque skeleton of
> a young girl" but in the surrender to the falsifications of the existing
> order, a surrender evidenced by "vomiting her dinner into a perfumed toilet
> bowel".
>
> still, in my opinion it is far worse to do what gilbert has done, claiming
> that "the anorexic expresses through her own body a devastating critique of
> our goals, norms, and values". this is not only wrong, since the anorexic
So you say, but you never demonstrate.
>
> is in fact surrendering to those goals, norms, and values no matter how
You need to read more about anorexia in particular and eating disorders in
general. To live with anorexia is a constant struggle; to surrender to it is
death.
> destructive they are to her health, but complicitous since it
> sentimentalizes that surrender as a model of tragic rebellion.
Examine the context of the discussion before you embarrass yourself any
further.
Read carefully, you boy without testicles. The point Dale initially made was a
simple one; my response, even simpler. Airedale attempted to depict Ms. Chen as
insular; he compared Ms. Chen to an anorexic, a person with a self-image
influenced by a pathological condition.
i pointed out that Dale's image illustrated precisely the opposite; not
insularity, but interdependence. As with all disease, complex relations obtain
between the disease, the sufferer, and his or her society, especially with
*this* disease.
i sentimentalized nothing. Nor does the notion of a ''critique'' connote
anything approaching ''tragic rebellion.''
Try to stay closer to what i wrote. Arguing against claims i never made is
tantamount to arguing with yourself.
>
> -- barrett
>
> bar...@MagneticFields.org
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/
>
> ==============================================
>
> "Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
> certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
> the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
> incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
> contradictions."
>
> ...André Breton
Try to think outside of books, dullard.
>
>
> ==============================================
g.v.w. iv
> Robert Maughan wrote:
> >
> > Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
> >
> > >Robert Maughan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Legal Definition Time:
> > >
> > >
> > >Statutory Rape: RJM using his mind.
> >
> > Rape? But you're here because you want to be. How can it be rape if I
> > use my mind on you with your consent?
>
> You can't read, can you gramps? They take your eyeglasses away because
> you were looking into the bedpan for your siblings?
Pathetic.
Dale Houstman, prances and dances, wiggling his little penis, puffing his
empty little scrotum with unjustified pride. He believes he scored a point.
He believes he made a joke. But he knows that no one ever gets his jokes but
him. So he explains it to us, ad nauseam.
Poor befuddled Dale. His thinking is too narrow; his conceptions, too
literal; his experience of the world, too limited; his account of art or
human creativity, too naive; his bladder, too leaky; and his hideously
abused colon, too prolapsed.
He troubles me, this eunuch. His appalling ignorance cries out for remedy.
i blame society for the Dale Houstmans of this world.
>
> Explanation for Little Bobby: when YOU "use" YOUR mind (like a grownup
> uses a little girl) it is statutory rape because YOUR mind is underage.
Don't you hate it when you have to explain a joke, Dale?
Clue for the clueless: we understood it, Airedale. And we would have
laughed. Honest. If only it were funny.
>
> By the way you little textual nazi ("mangoes"); statuatory rape has
> nothing to do with consent; someone who is underage CANNOT consent. Look
> it up, or ask one of your daynurses to take her finger off your
> melon-sized prostate and look it up.
Dale's entire burst of flatulence turns on a single word, consent. Those all
caps are so effective, little Dale. REALLY THEY ARE. Go with them. You
couldn't possibly sound any lamer.
> Just when you think Little bobby can't get any dumber, he surprises you.
>
> Another laugh on you. Thanks, moron...
If only you could make us laugh. i mean, other than at you.
>
> Dale
g.v.w. iv
The gray matter that covers the surface of my cerebral
hemisphere?
Wait, please, do not explain the joke in that tedious way of
yours. Spare us that. i get it, Dale; it simply lacked
something, something called humor.
i will explain. Question: when a squat old blue-hair trips over
her walking frame and spills out onto the sidewalk, do you
laugh, or do you feel uncomfortable? Answer: you feel
uncomfortable. This how you make *me* feel, Dale: you make me
feel uncomfortable. Even when you grope vaguely in the direction
of humor, you inspire pity instead of pleasure.
Again, Dale, you fall short. Your own figures, Dale, depict you
clearly and distinctly: short-sighted, maladapted, absurdly
shaped, irony challenged, socially inept. Your frantic
communiques to alt.surrealism, the dung-heap of Usenet, portray
you as a character in rapid decline: un-learned, un-skilled,
un-hinged, insecure, disturbed, dis-jointed, dis-composed,
dis-articulate, rapidly dis-integrating.
Your own *words* argue against you, Dale. i proved that much too
you.
Andrea Chen
>
> Robert Maughan wrote:
> >
> >
> Stautory rape means rape as defined by law, despite the presence or
> absence of consent, and specifically refers to sexual relations between
> an adult and a a person underage (as defined by law). No matter how you
> go on and on, Bobby, you simply didn't know what the hell you were
> talking about. Maybe no one "cares" sbout legal definitions Boobie,
Dale:
Robert gave you the legal definition and background. "Statutory rape"
is called statutory rape because it's definition was established by
legislation rather than being originally based on common law. He
indicated that he knew a lot more about legal definitions than you do.
> Statutory rape means
> precisely what I have said that it is.
Actually it can include other things besides. For example it once was
legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife, now this is defined
by statute. It is technically statutory rape, though not common usage.
You would have been better off saying "sex with a minor" and especially
better off dropping the subject when Robert showed he had a basic
knowledge of law. He already stated that he got your "joke" and
pretended not to understand so that he could watch you work up in a
froth of explanation and misunderstanding.
This is exactly what you have done. The things Robert talks about
could be established from a dictionary. Simple common sense would tell
you that the definition of rape (in many states) as been extended not
only to include sex with minors, but non penetration and several other
things (including the rape within marriage that I mentioned.) Your
definition is archaic and inaccurate while you indicate that you "care"
about legal definitions.
You walked right into Robert's game again. He sets you up Dale. He
gave you all the information you needed to know, yet you took the next
step which I suspect he knew you would.
> You are simply unable to admit you made a mistake you rotten collop.
Now it's your turn Dale. You made a mistake on a basic aspect of your
legal system replacing high school civics with the apparent knowledge
implied in street slang. Will you admit it?
But
> (though you cannot) you still did manage to (once again) do exactly
> that. There is nothing wrong about making mistakes (except the one your
> mother made when she decided to keep you), but there is something wrong
> when a person gets so angry at the same time he is pissing on himself
> over and over and over.
>
Dale, breath deeply. Robert isn't angry. He's a thug and a bully, he
does this kind of stuff for fun. Just like you did with Nik, but unlike
you with Nik he doesn't get righteous or claim idealism. He simply
likes to lead you all obver the place while you shout names at him and
make blunders.
Think about it. The tactic of "not understanding" a joke and making
the person explain it is a well known way of making someone look
ridiculous. He has done this to you a number of times and he explains
what he does, yet you still fall for it.
> Dale
>
> P.S. What a maroon. By the way Little Bobby, I didn't read your inane
> posting in which you presumably told me of your "preference" for moron
> over maroon. First of all who gives a shit what an antagonistic twinkie
> like you "prefers"? Second; you don't provide me with insults just the
> easy fat slow arthritic target. I haven't discovered one word in any of
> your messages that I would repeat to anyone over four.
Yet you reply at length and continue to reply at length. You even had
to put a postscript on this post to vent your spleen. You *do* take it
very seriously (are you over 4?) and like Robert says you are addicted.
If he or anyone else wants to play with you, they can always get you
going. I've warned you about this and you always deny your
vulnerability, but...
Incidently I found it curious that on Sunday when you were going off to
visit your friends you seemed to have spent several hour preparing
"proofs" that I wasn't programming you. It's a joke Dale, a literary
ploy, don't take it so seriously. It is rather effective though isn't
it? The fact that you have to spend so much time pretending that it
isn't true. Just imagine it with full effects, with conspiracies (I
noticed you borrowd my old organization the Illuminati) running about
everywhere and people sincerely warning you that I'd take control of
your mind in your dreams and others saying that I was secretly Doctress
Glass.
g.v.w. iv
> Robert Maughan wrote:
> >
> > Fucking hell, this cunt has absolutely no sense of ... well, anything.
> >
> Stautory rape means rape as defined by law, despite the presence or ...
> [blather]
> ... as usual. Rodeo clown for the new millennium? Bag boy in a dog brothel?
>
> Pick your job description now.
You amuse me, you burst of porcine flatulence.Your mewling grows more shrill;
your strained reasonings, more desperate and absurd. You grasp at a fig leaf
to hide your shame; in this case, you grasp at the meaning of a single term.
You issued a joke; Robert turned it on you. An easy enough feat. i myself
turned all of your figurative language on you a few rejoinders ago. So,
instead of laughing it off, you lose control of your bodily functions.
>
> You are simply unable to admit you made a mistake you rotten collop. But
No mistake, eunuch. Humor takes license sometimes. Live with it. Learn and
grow.
> (though you cannot) you still did manage to (once again) do exactly
> that. There is nothing wrong about making mistakes (except the one your
> mother made when she decided to keep you), but there is something wrong
> when a person gets so angry at the same time he is pissing on himself
> over and over and over.
What brilliant irony. i will hold you to this, error-boy.
>
> When they tossed the placenta, are you sure it wasn't your cedrebellum,
> Bubba?
Wait. This is a joke, right? No, please, don't explain it to me.
> Dale
>
>
> PS: [blather] ...
> ... "gaping cunts" begin losing their patina of shock and start looking
> like
> so much prom-night wit.
What would you know of prom-night wit, you hapless shut-in? You spent your
prom-night with the morbidly obese meals-on-wheels guy, drinking champagne
out of his athletic supporter as he fondled you on his mighty thighs.
> Still diving for bedpan gold, Little Bobber
Still sending maudlin billet deux to the meals-on-wheels guy, little Dale.
>
> DMH
g.v.w. iv
> My response was not intended to anyone person.It was a genral observasion at
> the wording to posters responses who do not agree...not an attack by no
> means...I should of been more clear..excuse the vague nature..of my post..
> Chenno ôżô
i accept your explanation. Now, let us work together to reform alt.surrealism.
Will you help me compose a Frequently Asked Questions document for this troubled
newsgroup?
> Painting is silent poetry, and poetry painting that speaks. - Simonides
--
Brandon J. Freels
benefit yourself, not to mention that it would have to be retitled
alt.re-education in your honor.
By the way, how many FAQ's have you written in your lifetime? Is this your
way of staking claims on all the newsgroups that are free from your God,
like Columbus staking his claim on the America's? The similarities between
Columbus and yourself are striking. He was after gold and slaves, just like
you and your dire need for material wealth!
Robert Maughan
Fucking hell, this cunt has absolutely no sense of ... well, anything.
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>
>> >Robert Maughan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Legal Definition Time:
>> >
>> >
>> >Statutory Rape: RJM using his mind.
>>
>> Rape? But you're here because you want to be. How can it be rape if I
>> use my mind on you with your consent?
>
>
>You can't read, can you gramps? They take your eyeglasses away because
>you were looking into the bedpan for your siblings?
>
Listen, you pathetic fat wanker, you are so out of your depth here you
drowned two months ago.
>Explanation for Little Bobby: when YOU "use" YOUR mind (like a grownup
>uses a little girl) it is statutory rape because YOUR mind is underage.
Mate, you are completely unaware of what is happening to you here. You
read these posts as though they were TV guides. This is not information
we are giving you, it's a fucking over. Of course, YOU meant my mind is
underage, you pathetic wanker, it's the kind of pimply limdick insult
you come up with. I took it and turned it on you - I fucked you over.
It's easy to fuck you over because you're a willing victim. You're
the stationary target here, pussy.
>By the way you little textual nazi ("mangoes"); statuatory rape has
>nothing to do with consent; someone who is underage CANNOT consent. Look
>it up, or ask one of your daynurses to take her finger off your
>melon-sized prostate and look it up.
Jesus. Who the fuck cares about legal definitions, you terrifyingly
stupid pillock? Statutory Law is an express and formal laying down of a
rule or rules of conduct to be observed in the future by the persons to
whom the statute is expressly or by implication made applicable.
A statute openly creates new law, whereas a judge would disclaim any
attempt to do so. Judges are bound by precedent and merely select ex-
isting rules which they apply to new cases. A statute lays down general
rules for the guidance of future conduct; a judgement merely applies an
existing rule to a particulat set of circumstances. A judgement gives
reasons, and may be argumentative; a statute gives no reasons and is
imperative.
Rape in law is the crime of having sexual intercourse with a person
(usually female) who has not freely given consent. Which age are you
discussing that your 'victim' is under? You have no fucking idea what
you're talking about on any subject because you're a peasant with no
education, and you utter legal definitions in a flame war on Usenet.
What an idiot. Perhaps you'd care to engage with me in discussion of
law and its affect on the daily intercourse in rec.arts.prose? What
made you think of Statutory Rape?
>Just when you think Little bobby can't get any dumber, he surprises you.
Pal, I don't think you're aware of how pathetic you are, repeating all
the insults I provide for you.
>
>Another laugh on you. Thanks, moron...
>
Observe - a post ago I pointed out why your preferred expression, 'What
a maroon', was a failure and told you that I preferred the everyday word
moron. And here you are, like clockwork, using the word as it is under-
stood by the populace at large, just like me. Mate, for you to call any-
one stupid in this place is the best joke of all.
RJM.
CHENNO
the wording to posters responses who do not agree...not an attack by no
means...I should of been more clear..excuse the vague nature..of my post..
Chenno ôżô
Painting is silent poetry, and poetry painting that speaks. - Simonides
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan wrote:
>
> Fucking hell, this cunt has absolutely no sense of ... well, anything.
>
Stautory rape means rape as defined by law, despite the presence or
absence of consent, and specifically refers to sexual relations between
an adult and a a person underage (as defined by law). No matter how you
go on and on, Bobby, you simply didn't know what the hell you were
talking about. Maybe no one "cares" sbout legal definitions Boobie,
anymore than they care about how to spell "mangos" you diddling dodo;
yet, it is still true that, despite our interest or lack of same in the
fact of law, we might (as a pretend writer in your case) pretend to know
a simple definition. After all, Bubonic, one does not have to "care"
about "mangoes" to know how to spell it, does one? Statutory rape means
precisely what I have said that it is. Your byzantine and irrelevant
squirmings to avoid admitting your (new but not final) error are amusing
as usual. Rodeo clown for the new millennium? Bag boy in a dog brothel?
Pick your job description now.
You are simply unable to admit you made a mistake you rotten collop. But
(though you cannot) you still did manage to (once again) do exactly
that. There is nothing wrong about making mistakes (except the one your
mother made when she decided to keep you), but there is something wrong
when a person gets so angry at the same time he is pissing on himself
over and over and over.
When they tossed the placenta, are you sure it wasn't your cedrebellum,
Bubba?
Dale
P.S. What a maroon. By the way Little Bobby, I didn't read your inane
posting in which you presumably told me of your "preference" for moron
over maroon. First of all who gives a shit what an antagonistic twinkie
like you "prefers"? Second; you don't provide me with insults just the
easy fat slow arthritic target. I haven't discovered one word in any of
your messages that I would repeat to anyone over four. I think that's
about the age your dreary little parade of "throbbing members" and
"gaping cunts" begin losing their patina of shock and start looking like
so much prom-night wit.
Still diving for bedpan gold, Little Bobber
DMH
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>Stautory rape means rape as defined by law, despite the presence or
>absence of consent, and specifically refers to sexual relations between
>an adult and a a person underage (as defined by law).
That is certainly a definition somewhere in the world, you unbelievable
stupid, humourless, witless parochial pedant. That is why I specifically
avoided your phrase 'STATUTORY RAPE' and used the word 'RAPE'. Knowing I
was addressing a legally defined adult.
Here is the paragraph -
>Rape? But you're here because you want to be. How can it be rape if I
>use my mind on you with your consent? Are you trying to say that you
>mean no when you say yes yes oh yes yes yes oh yes fuck me hard? I
>don't think so. Now shut up whimpering and lie still, bitch, this
>is your lucky day.
"Rape?" This was a clue. See? I gave you the opportunity to swallow the
bait I mean clue and you dutifully did so. Dale, sweetheart, I'm sure a
man of your painfully obvious inadequacies suffered deeply when a child
but now that you're older (nearly as old as I am may I point out) it is
not dignified to make a complete arsehole of yourself in public. Not on
a daily basis. Once or twice a week like you used to is fine. We expect
a semiliterate dipshit to fuck up occasionally, but this place is a big
bad world nearly like the real one where you fuck up as a lifestyle and
horrids like me just don't care what we do to sad failures like you. It
makes us laugh. And Dale - I'm not angry with you, poopypants, trust me.
I'm fucking you over ... and over and over.
RJM.
Brandon J. Freels
solid definitions but always in flux. You can never nail anything down, not
even the word "rape" or the words "statutory rape." If you feel you have
locked a certain word onto a certain definition you are only taking away the
freedom of that word and the freedom of that definition by restricting them
to be connected.
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan
If you weren't so stupid and old you'd be dangerous...
This desperate pretense to manly control from the captain's tower of
your aluminum walker is hysteria. Any unbiased observor will easily note
that you are (slowly and ineptly) pursuing your own tail around the May-
(or, considering...) the December-pole of your "throbbing member."
And yet, for a self-professed programmer of others, your predictable
responses and phrasing are a disaster, unless you are truly intent on
experimenting with tedium as your chosen medium; "You cunt," "you fuck,"
"you dick" tumble from you in numbing frequency -- such Wilde wit, when
combined with your aggressive/obsessive error-making, somehow (and who
know how?) satiates and exhausts any need in you to become fully human.
What happened to you? Is daddy dead drunk and brutal? Did Catholicism
screw you to the killing board? Do you have any excuse?
Whatever you think of Brandon, he does express varying mental states,
and poses questions to which he invites answers, and which address
issues that surrealism continues to attempt clarification of, despite
your pollution of this ng with your bastard notions of confrontation.
"elag" posts beautiful and satiric images. Barrett fronts serious core
elements of surrealism as a living experiment in reply to your flaccid
and increasingly ignorant "miserabalisms." You? You are in entirety an
angry reactor: and the reaction continues to sound the same dreary and
hysterical notes. Though I believe this sad pattern you are trapped in
can only continue, as you appear (so far) incapable of anything either
more playful and imaginative (and less reactionary), or more relevant to
any issue other than your bitter need to be "winner," I remain mildly
hopeful that you might yet present some minute evidence of something
more - what? - whole, calm, interesting, vulnerable...
But we cannot possibly push your buttons it seems: you appear to be
merely a buttonhole.
DMH
g.v.w. iv
Relay this news to your inarticulate sock-puppet, one Dale Houstman, the boy
without testicles who even now stalks the pissoirs and ''porta-potties'' of
alt.surrealism, barking, grunting, urinating and defecating involuntarily,
howling with animal despair, pawing the dust inconsolably, whispering over and
over through his clenched teeth the name ''Robert,'' ''Robert,'' ''Robert'' ...
Your sock-puppet alter-ego stakes his dignity to a too-restrictive definition,
Brandy. Go now, save him, save him from himself. You owe it to him. Who else in
your life ever had their mouth-parts surgically re-configured to resemble an
enama nozzle, just so he could plug-in to you more deeply?
Who?
g.v.w. iv
> How typical of you, g.v.w. iv. A reformation of alt.surrealism would only
Too true. i am a reformist by nature.
> benefit yourself, not to mention that it would have to be retitled
> alt.re-education in your honor.
We can retain the name alt.surrealism. i find it ironic, especially since no
one here can even define the term.
> By the way, how many FAQ's have you written in your lifetime? Is this your
Only one for a newsgroup. Others were for more technical audiences (i write
instructional materials for software developers).
> way of staking claims on all the newsgroups that are free from your God,
> like Columbus staking his claim on the America's? The similarities between
> Columbus and yourself are striking. He was after gold and slaves, just like
> you and your dire need for material wealth!
Calm yourself, you naked savage. i will delay plundering you. Meanwhile, tell
me: what ''wealth'' exists in alt.surrealism?
Will you help me write an alt.surrealism FAQ? i would like the document to be
as inclusive as possible.
g.v.w. iv
> Robert Maughan
[...] moralizing blather omitted.
>
>
> any issue other than your bitter need to be "winner," I remain mildly
> hopeful that you might yet present some minute evidence of something
> more - what? - whole, calm, interesting, vulnerable...
i remain mildly hopeful that someone might potty-train you, Dale.
> DMH
Robert Maughan
This is grotesque. The bloke is completely up his arsehole and out of
his own mouth, inverted into the stinking talking head that he always
wanted to be. It's a vision I cherish.
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>
>Robert Maughan
>
>
>
>If you weren't so stupid and old you'd be dangerous...
Well, I'm dangerous to you, cutes. You're standing in deep shit and I'm
here stirring it. Now - back on your head, coffee break's over.
>
>This desperate pretense to manly control from the captain's tower of
>your aluminum walker is hysteria. Any unbiased observor will easily note
>that you are (slowly and ineptly) pursuing your own tail around the May-
>(or, considering...) the December-pole of your "throbbing member."
Control? Wouldn't dream of it, ducky. You're spinning round and round
like a tin top pumping away at your little handle to keep spinning round
and round. Unbiased observers will have noted your definition of rape so
they will be aware that you're getting fucked over because, well, you do
rather ask for it.
>And yet, for a self-professed programmer of others,
I don't recall professing any such thing.
>your predictable
>responses and phrasing are a disaster, unless you are truly intent on
>experimenting with tedium as your chosen medium; "You cunt," "you fuck,"
>"you dick" tumble from you in numbing frequency
Really? Profanity occurs in my posts as it occurs in my voice, tempered
by circumstance. You're a prude by default, mate. You have a peasant's
concern for surface propriety. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a fuck.
>-- such Wilde wit, when
>combined with your aggressive/obsessive error-making, somehow (and who
>know how?) satiates and exhausts any need in you to become fully human.
>What happened to you? Is daddy dead drunk and brutal? Did Catholicism
>screw you to the killing board? Do you have any excuse?
What on earth are you waffling on about? Daddy's dead, and I haven't
been a Catholic since I was twelve. I don't need an excuse, Dale, I
like doing you. WE like doing you. You're our game boy. This is RAP.
This is prose. See how that works?
>
>Whatever you think of Brandon, he does express varying mental states,
>and poses questions to which he invites answers, and which address
>issues that surrealism continues to attempt clarification of, despite
>your pollution of this ng with your bastard notions of confrontation.
Mate, I don't want to hurt your feelings, nearly, but I don't give a
toss about Brandon's varying mental states (whaaat?), about surrealism,
and certainly not about your ng. Let me help you out here. I am not sub-
scribed to alt.surrealism. This crossposted exchange is nothing more
than an opportunity to do prose, and fuck you over. YOU are here and
we welcome you with open razors. We're doing you for kicks. It's what
we enjoy here. We're guttersnipes. Entertainment R Us.
>"elag" posts beautiful and satiric images. Barrett fronts serious core
>elements of surrealism as a living experiment in reply to your flaccid
>and increasingly ignorant "miserabalisms." You? You are in entirety an
>angry reactor: and the reaction continues to sound the same dreary and
>hysterical notes. Though I believe this sad pattern you are trapped in
>can only continue, as you appear (so far) incapable of anything either
>more playful and imaginative (and less reactionary), or more relevant to
>any issue other than your bitter need to be "winner," I remain mildly
>hopeful that you might yet present some minute evidence of something
>more - what? - whole, calm, interesting, vulnerable...
>
Jesus. You are one sad tosser. Aren't you? One of those fat pimplies
nobody picked in the playground, so you have become the fat pimply in
your chosen new environment, the electric world of alt.surrealism and
you've made another in the endless succession of social mistakes that
you describe in your 'interview' by joining us in our den of iniquity.
And you blame us, anyone, for your abject failure, again. Who cares if
Gulag posts elegies every hour? Barret can front his core all he wants
all day long. I have no interest in his living experiment. I have no
real interest in his living at all. The fellow's a steadfast dope and
you're made for each other. Why blame these people for your ludicrous
performances here in RAP?
>But we cannot possibly push your buttons it seems: you appear to be
>merely a buttonhole.
These dreadful mots just don't work, mate. Face it, you're a clutz at
surrealism and you need to find another hobby. Why not try existential
pot making? I can see you at the wheel. In no time you'll be able to
claim expertise as you throw a wobbly 'real' vase thewhile fashioning
small 'live' animals out of earthen flesh. You're a natural.
RJM.
barrett john erickson
well, i for one encourage iv to write his FAQ for alt.surrealism.
his mutation of concepts he clearly doesn't understand, the void from which
he writes, and the invalidation inherent in his "reformist" nature, will
combine to produce something which is both a fitting and accurate picture
of the recent poverty of alt.surrealism while simultaneously providing a
foil for a high-contrast discussion of surrealist perspectives on any
topics he covers.
not to mention the laughs such a spectacle of incompetence will provide.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
barrett john erickson
one thing we can say in defense of having iv and rmaug around is that they
always meet expectations, providing a kind of .
not that there's anything good about that.
g.v.w. iv
[blather]
> Whatever you think of Brandon, he does express varying mental states,
Brandon expresses what? What does this mean?
> and poses questions to which he invites answers, and which address
> issues that surrealism continues to attempt clarification of, despite
> your pollution of this ng with your bastard notions of confrontation.
> "elag" posts beautiful and satiric images. Barrett fronts serious core
> elements of surrealism as a living experiment in reply to your flaccid
> and increasingly ignorant "miserabalisms." -- [blather omitted]
What has this elegy-for-the-undead to do with us, Dink Houstman? You came to
us, not us to you. We play a game; we made that plain. Stir us, and we are
bestirred: we enjoy eristics, polemics, invective, all for its own sake.
Give us opportunity; we will seize it. It is what we do. We never deceived
you. We never told you our intentions were other than what they are, to
enjoy ourselves immensely at your expense.
If you do not like us, why are you still with us?
In high pitched whines, you pretend to defend some vague and vulgarized
notion of ''Surrealism,'' a domesticated Surrealism, a Surrealism disarmed,
dis-mantled, denatured, and de-fanged. But, tellingly, Surrealism never
comes up in our ''discussions.'' You blather about Robert on personal
grounds; in turn, Robert uses you as a tent-peg, pounding you effortlessly
into the dirt. Then, when you feel your back against the wall, you begin to
moralize, to portray yourself as an oppressed minority, to weep bitter tears
of self-pity, to strike a martyr's pose, displaying the stigmata of your
social-stigma like the badges on the sash of a boy scout.
g.v.w. iv
own intestinal parasite, attempts an observation, however lame, only a
masturbatory spasm catches him mid-keystroke, causing him to strike his enter
key, launching the following, incomplete thought into the naked voids of
data-space, a timeless testiment to a moment in time, ''providing a kind of''
insight into the life of a mind with no life-of-the-mind.
Observe.
> one thing we can say in defense of having iv and rmaug around is that they
> always meet expectations, providing a kind of .
>
> not that there's anything good about that.
>
> -- barrett
>
> bar...@MagneticFields.org
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/
--
barrett john erickson
news:Wuqe3.47$tc.5914@nntp1...
>
> one thing we can say in defense of having iv and rmaug around is that
they
> always meet expectations, providing a kind of .
i did intend to finish this sentence. but having sent the message in a
moment of careless inattention, i now find it somehow appropriate.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
g.v.w. iv
> well, i for one encourage iv to write his FAQ for alt.surrealism.
You throw your massive political weight behind the inevitable? What inspiring
moral courage. You may as well encourage water to be wet.
> his mutation of concepts he clearly doesn't understand, the void from which
What concepts would these be? You make claims, but you never provide evidence.
> he writes, and the invalidation inherent in his "reformist" nature, will
Unpack this drivel for me. Are you are using Dale's method of
freely-associating words stolen from books you cannot read? Either way, unpack
it.
> combine to produce something which is both a fitting and accurate picture
> of the recent poverty of alt.surrealism while simultaneously providing a
> foil for a high-contrast discussion of surrealist perspectives on any
> topics he covers.
''Poverty of alt.surrealism,'' yes. i concur. But what discussions? What
surrealist perspectives? Here? i would have to import them wholesale for any to
exist. i could do that. But i also want to conserve the local fauna. A genuine
Surrealist might scare you all away. (On the other hand, how would you
recognize him or her?)
> not to mention the laughs such a spectacle of incompetence will provide.
But the irony impaired--e.g. Dale, Brandon, and their court eunuch, Barrett the
Barren--must satisfy themselves with gruntings, barkings, and random pukings,
the joyless noise that passes for laughter in thier narrow world.
>
> -- barrett
>
> bar...@MagneticFields.org
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/
>
> ==============================================
>
> "Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
> certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
> the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
> incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
> contradictions."
>
> ...André Breton
>
> ==============================================
--
Andrea Chen
> solid definitions but always in flux. You can never nail anything down, not
> even the word "rape" or the words "statutory rape." If you feel you have
> locked a certain word onto a certain definition you are only taking away the
> freedom of that word and the freedom of that definition by restricting them
> to be connected.
Brandon:
This is terrifying. In this case we are talking about definitions of
law and what constitutes a crime. A great deal of struggle is involved
in making the rules and definitions consistent so people can't be
punished on the whim of the authorities. It still happens, but in your
"surrealistic" legal system were crimes can be defined and evidence
presented and judgements made according to rules of the authorities
chosing we have a situation that most of humanity hasn't escaped. Why
don't you get yourself charged with some crime in the 3rd world? Make
sure you don't have any money. Feel the consequences of your logic
rather than continuing to pontificate from the sagety of your parent's
bedroom.
barrett john erickson
news:377A4ED0...@andrew.cmu.edu...
> You came to us, not us to you.
on the contrary, you and rmaug were dragged into alt.surrealism still
wriggling on one of "Andrea's" hooks.
> If you do not like us, why are you still with us?
this is usenet and no one person or group of people can prevent the
cross-posting of threads. the responsibility for their perpetuation lies
with each person who replies without considering the relevance of what they
are saying to each of the groups their composition window indicates the
message will be posted to. because we recognize that you and rmaug are
incompatible with "surrealism" and not likely to see any post made only to
alt.surrealism, we know that we must not remove R.A.P. from the newsgroup
list whenever we respond to one of your inane proses.
as rmaug would say, "see how that works?"
but personally, i get a certain sadistic enjoyment out of watching you and
rmaug react so predictably, vacuously and repetitiously to Dale's far more
inventive posts, while claiming it is he who is being "fucked over".
barrett john erickson
> barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> > well, i for one encourage iv to write his FAQ for alt.surrealism.
>
> You throw your massive political weight behind the inevitable? What
inspiring
> moral courage.
not surprisingly, you've mistaken the longing for a good laugh at your
expense for "moral courage".
> [...]
> A genuine Surrealist might scare you all away. (On the other hand,
> how would you recognize him or her?)
i assure you a "genuine Surrealist" is easy enough to recognize over the
course of a discussion (if one knows anything about the concerns of the
surrealist movement as it exists today). this would certainly not scare us
away. if you think you actually know a "genuine Surrealist", iv, please do
invite him/her in. we'll have a grand old time discussing your arrogant
ignorance and irrelevant presence in alt.surrealism.
but there's no point in trying to discuss such things with you, FAQ boy.
g.v.w. iv
> g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
> news:377A4ED0...@andrew.cmu.edu...
>
> > You came to us, not us to you.
>
> on the contrary, you and rmaug were dragged into alt.surrealism still
> wriggling on one of "Andrea's" hooks.
My nightclub career ended months ago; since then, i never go out in drag.
As for Ms. Chen, she manages our human resources department; she recruited the
three-headed naked mole-rat of alt.surrealism, known alternately as Dale,
Brandon, or Barrett, the troika of dunces on whom we idle away our downtime. We
neglected to stress to Ms. Chen the importance of the term ''human'' in ''human
resources.''
Otherwise, she does a fine job.
> > If you do not like us, why are you still with us?
[...]
> list whenever we respond to one of your inane proses.
Cease your lecturing, joy-boy. We're enjoying this. It was Dale who began to
whine. i only wanted to know why, since he both initiated and sustains our
proceedings.
>
> as rmaug would say, "see how that works?"
i only wish you could read.
>
> but personally, i get a certain sadistic enjoyment out of watching you and
> rmaug react so predictably, vacuously and repetitiously to Dale's far more
> inventive posts, while claiming it is he who is being "fucked over".
Then continue whacking that malformed penis of yours (in ''sadistic
enjoyment'') as you muse on the contrapuntal music of Usenet. The shrieks and
whines of Dale Houstman keep the time.
> -- barrett
>
> bar...@MagneticFields.org
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/
>
> ==============================================
>
> "Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
> certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
> the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
> incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
> contradictions."
>
> ...André Breton
>
> ==============================================
--
g.v.w. iv
[...]
> ... sure you don't have any money. Feel the consequences of your logic
> rather than continuing to pontificate from the sagety of your parent's
> bedroom ...
... where Brandon lies supine, his two-sizes-too-small acid-washed jeans pulled
down around his knees, ''feeling the consequences of [his] logic,'' careful not to
soil the comforters piled on his parent's mahogany sleigh-bed. Brandon's
button-eye'd sock-puppet, Dale Houstman, lies unattended in a heap of stale
laundry, flattened, silent, forgotten, puberty's first victim, forced to endure
the sound of his former best friend's pants, grunts, and sighs. Later, sweaty,
exhausted, ashamed, totally spent yet still unsatisfied, Brandon will drag himself
to the family's computer. ''Barrett--God damn you, Barrett,'' he will mutter,
keying lazily.
Andrea Chen
> i assure you a "genuine Surrealist" is easy enough to recognize over the
> course of a discussion (if one knows anything about the concerns of the
> surrealist movement as it exists today). this would certainly not scare us
> away. if you think you actually know a "genuine Surrealist", iv, please do
> invite him/her in. we'll have a grand old time discussing your arrogant
> ignorance and irrelevant presence in alt.surrealism.
This is typical. Rather than explain, illustrate and educate; Barrett
states "if there were real surrealists here we could discuss
surrealism." However Barrett is too superior to explain to the unwashed
masses. His unending ploy is to indicate he is to superior to discuss
the subject with those who challenge him.
What he fails to realize is that while he does pompousness well and it
almost sounds credible the first few times, this failure to engage in
discussion makes him look absurd.
Speaking of which is "The Theatre Of THe Absurd" surrealist or
consistent with surrealism?
Certainly a mob of self declared guttersnipes putting the "official
surrealists" on trial for betraying surrealism and turning it into an
instrument of "oppression" (eg. boredom) would be in line with the plays
of Genet and others.
Is the forties too modern and radical for surrealism? Or is there some
other reason why this challenging of self declared authority is anti
surrealistic?
Please explain your answer Barrett. Use examples.
Or pontificate once again how no explanation is possible because it's a
surrealist secret and no surrealists are present and you wouldn't sully
yourself by talking to the lower classes because (in the free form
dictionary of Brandon) that would be "fascism."
Incidently we need lawyers, judges and juries for the upcoming trial
along with those willing to write FAQS.
barrett john erickson
few more of his stunning insights.
[he seems to be a bit frantic today and i'm working on a new theory: while
it is true that we cannot expect him to offer anything but reaction, i
suspect the more opportunities we provide iv to react, the greater the
chance that he'll at least say something entertaining. no, really.]
Robert Maughan
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org>
>but personally, i get a certain sadistic enjoyment out of watching you and
>rmaug react so predictably, vacuously and repetitiously to Dale's far more
>inventive posts, while claiming it is he who is being "fucked over".
You're sweet, Barrett. I'd like you as a pet. Do you perform your core
surrealism in the newsgroup? Or are you a professional? It must be very
interesting. I wonder if you're as 'inventive' as your semiliterate pal.
I suspect you are. Have you decided to join us here? Or are you passing
through? Whatever you do, let me assure you of my co-operation. Nothing
too much to ask, pal. Would you like a fanciful description of your wee
member? Your tiny, blush pink dick, with it's downy scrotum as wrinkled
as a fairy's reticule? Or would you like me to tell you how I'd like to
ram my own throbbing chopper down your throat. I'd really like to spank
your little botty first but I think that would be going too far, mmmmm?
Unless you're here because you like that sort of thing, eh, cutes? What
fun we could have. Your boyfriend will absolutely EXPLODE! with jealous
rage. Serves him right, he's such a tease. Listen, I gotta go now, I er
... something's come up. Later, my little core boy, missing you alr .
RJM.
barrett john erickson
you have a lower entertainment potential than iv. but i'm sure you'll keep
trying.
g.v.w. iv
> i'm just posting this so iv can have something to respond to and offer up a
> few more of his stunning insights.
Another content-free post from the non-surrealists. Why am i not surprised?
> [he seems to be a bit frantic today and i'm working on a new theory: while
> it is true that we cannot expect him to offer anything but reaction, i
> suspect the more opportunities we provide iv to react, the greater the
> chance that he'll at least say something entertaining. no, really.]
>
> -- barrett
>
> bar...@MagneticFields.org
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/
>
> ==============================================
>
> "Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
> certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
> the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
> incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
> contradictions."
>
> ...André Breton
>
> ==============================================
--
g.v.w. iv
> g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
> news:377A562A...@andrew.cmu.edu...
> > barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
> > > well, i for one encourage iv to write his FAQ for alt.surrealism.
> >
> > You throw your massive political weight behind the inevitable? What
> inspiring
> > moral courage
> not surprisingly, you've mistaken the longing for a good laugh at your
> expense for "moral courage".
It was irony, boy wonder.
No one would ever accuse you of moral courage without laughing hysterically at
you.
>
> > [...]
> > A genuine Surrealist might scare you all away. (On the other hand,
> > how would you recognize him or her?)
>
> i assure you a "genuine Surrealist" is easy enough to recognize over the
> course of a discussion (if one knows anything about the concerns of the
> surrealist movement as it exists today).
By your own testimony you *don't* know about the concerns of the surrealist
movement as it exists today. By your own testimony it *doesn't* exist today.
Remember long ago when i polled your newsgroup, asking for evidence of a
surrealist movement, anywhere, doing anything? The best anyone could come up
with were documents dating back to the twenties, a roaring time, or so i'm
told, but hardly relevant *now*.
My favorite art-rag, _Juxtapose_, features such artists as Santos, Arno,
Suzanne Williams, Robert Williams, Giant, Coop, Crumb et al. (i like tasteless
art.) You could describe the works of any of these artists as ''surreal,'' in
some vague, descriptive sense, or as continuing, perhaps, a surrealist
tradition; but they do not describe themselves as ''surrealists.'' Nor does any
one i know of on the contemporary art or literary scene.
Do you know of any?
Or when you use the term ''surreal,'' are you describing a ''movement''
unconscious of itself as a movement (e.g. so-called 'Generation X'ers or
something equally insipid). Or are you describing a state of mind? Or are you
using the term ''surreal'' in some vague, descriptive sense?
> this would certainly not scare us
> away. if you think you actually know a "genuine Surrealist", iv, please do
> invite him/her in. we'll have a grand old time discussing your arrogant
> ignorance and irrelevant presence in alt.surrealism.
i never said i knew a genuine Surrealist. i don't. Neither do you. And i hang
out with artists. The school i attend gave us Andy Warhol, among others.
Perhaps a surrealist exists, somewhere, but not in this newsgroup.
> but there's no point in trying to discuss such things with you, FAQ boy.
Then i will put the question to the newsgroup. Does anyone know of a genuine
surrealist, anywhere in the world, doing anything at all?
barrett john erickson
g.v.w. iv
> perhaps you'd like another chance to comment iv?
i'll wait until you have something to say. (i know--i know. When
hell freezes over and all that.)
--
g.v.w. iv
Robert Maughan wrote:
> barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org>
>
> >sorry rmaug, you're every bit as perdictably vacuous and repetitious, but
> >you have a lower entertainment potential than iv. but i'm sure you'll keep
> >trying.
>
> Of course you're sorry, you're the sorriest little turd I've come across
> in a month of Sundays. I recommend you keep posting your whistling in the
> dark and I'll look out for you with my X ray eyes.
>
> I'm fascinated by the way you and Dale seem unable to prevent yourselves
> from absorbing the posts of your betters, and almost immediately emitting
> watered down versions of them. Much like the way you have sucked the core
> out of surrealism and turned it into your totem; which may be why your ng
> gets such bad press from visitors. I admit I'm relying on possibly biased
> reportage and hearsay since I'm not subscribed. Whatever the case - there
> does appear to be consensus indicating that alt.surrealism is polluted by
> the platitudinous reactionary garbage that you and Dale seem to regard as
> your mission statement.
Andrea and i will change all that, Robert.
We will create a new alt.surrealism, an alt.surrealism safe for surrealists.
(Provided we can find any.)
> I think Brandon is beginning to have doubts.
i sensed that too. Brandon interacts with the world; he enters into dialogue
with his interlocutors, even when he disagrees with them. Dale and Barrett can
only bark, spit, bristle, and cringe.
> I'll
> be hearing from you soon, sure, though it's a waste of your time since we
> already know what you'll say ...
Barrett responds: ''You're so predictable, Maughan, so vacant, yet so blah,
blah, blah. At least the hung-like-a-horse, Adonis-like Dale Houstman can blah,
blah, blah.''
Our non-Surrealist friends bled themselves white of material weeks ago.
> RJM.
g.v.w. iv
> >
> > i assure you a "genuine Surrealist" is easy enough to recognize over the
> > course of a discussion (if one knows anything about the concerns of the
> > surrealist movement as it exists today). this would certainly not scare us
> > away. if you think you actually know a "genuine Surrealist", iv, please do
> > invite him/her in. we'll have a grand old time discussing your arrogant
> > ignorance and irrelevant presence in alt.surrealism.
>
> This is typical. Rather than explain, illustrate and educate; Barrett
> states "if there were real surrealists here we could discuss
> surrealism." However Barrett is too superior to explain to the unwashed
> masses. His unending ploy is to indicate he is to superior to discuss
> the subject with those who challenge him.
Barrett is Barrett, unlearned, unlettered, undisciplined, un-toilet trained. i
learned weeks ago that i could make Barrett lose bladder control by simply calling
him on every claim he makes, because all he ever makes are claims. He never offers
argument or evidence; he only ever issues strings of claims, incoherent,
inconsistent, clumsily written, generally in defense of Dale Houstman, a boy who
requires continual defending. Thus i frightened the leaky little boy-Barrett away
from a discussion of my reading of Dale, entitled, _Night of a Thousand Dale
Houstmans_.
He ran away shrieking, flailing his little stick-arms, desperately attempting to
change the subject.
>
> What he fails to realize is that while he does pompousness well and it
> almost sounds credible the first few times, this failure to engage in
> discussion makes him look absurd.
His ignorance and illiteracy make him look absurd. His failure to engage in
discussion just makes him like his mentor, Dale Houstman.
Brandon J. Freels
today. You can also contact the Chicago Surrealist Group headed by the
Rosemont's, which has been active since the sixties [p.o. box 6424,
Evanston, IL 60204]. They have published many pamphlets over the years
ranging from local issues to the Los Angeles riots of 1992. They also
publish two magazine, Arsenal which is available through www.amazon.com and
What are You Going to do About It, plus many books by Surrealist authors.
They seem to be the focal point for the Surrealist Movement in the United
States.
The word "surreal" is only a descriptive word. It can mean anything. Like
the word "realism" it can be used outside of the movement. But the words
Surreal and Realism are descriptive of an actual existing characteristic
that is not determined by the subjective opinion of the viewer, but the
affiliations of the generator.
Modern Surrealists? I suppose you want the more "famous" names? Jan
Svankmajer. Franklin and Penelope Rosemont. Nancy Joyce Peters. Paul Garon.
Philip Lamantia. Ducornet.
All a Surrealist needs to do to be a Surrealist is pursue freedom.
Brandon J. Freels
standing in the United States, I recommend you read "The Forecast is Hot!
Tracts and Other Collective Declarations of the Surrealist Movement in the
United States, 1966-1979." A new collection is to be released soon with
tracts from 1979-1999.
This book, which many of those regular here at alt.surrealism are aware,
expresses the views of the Chicago Surrealist Group. At this point, due to a
lack of my own investigation on these views I cannot say that I support all
of them. Here are the views in which they pursue:
Revolution against Capital and State
Poetry as revolutionary praxis
psychoanalysis as a subversive activity
love and sexual insurrection
the struggle against miserabilism
exaltation of play
necessity of laziness
creation of free territories of the imagination
defense of the Marvelous against religion
abolition of whiteness
undermining patriarchy
importance of recaleitrant undercurrents in popular culture
special glory of Black music
dialectic of dialectic
alchemy by any means necessary
emancipation of wilderness
humor, the pivot of surrealism's revolutionary project today
Brandon J. Freels
> Brandon are you a real person or some bot.
> Nobody can be this dense.
He asked for information. I gave it to him.
barrett john erickson
perfectly capable of spouting off some reactive gibberish with little to no
provocation.
so i'll try to keep you busy.
barrett john erickson
Robert Maughan
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org>
>sorry rmaug, you're every bit as perdictably vacuous and repetitious, but
>you have a lower entertainment potential than iv. but i'm sure you'll keep
>trying.
Of course you're sorry, you're the sorriest little turd I've come across
in a month of Sundays. I recommend you keep posting your whistling in the
dark and I'll look out for you with my X ray eyes.
I'm fascinated by the way you and Dale seem unable to prevent yourselves
from absorbing the posts of your betters, and almost immediately emitting
watered down versions of them. Much like the way you have sucked the core
out of surrealism and turned it into your totem; which may be why your ng
gets such bad press from visitors. I admit I'm relying on possibly biased
reportage and hearsay since I'm not subscribed. Whatever the case - there
does appear to be consensus indicating that alt.surrealism is polluted by
the platitudinous reactionary garbage that you and Dale seem to regard as
your mission statement. I think Brandon is beginning to have doubts. I'll
be hearing from you soon, sure, though it's a waste of your time since we
already know what you'll say ...
RJM.
Leo Sgouros
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:BYAe3.9001$od3.4...@news1.teleport.com...
now use computers and sophisticated bullography to perptuate myth.
Shameless namedropping is familiar as well.
Brandon are you a real person or some bot.
Nobody can be this dense.
Leo Sgouros
> Leo Sgouros wrote .
> > Brandon are you a real person or some bot.
> > Nobody can be this dense.
>
>
>
>
Thanks!
_L_
König Prüße, GmbH
>
> >
> > i assure you a "genuine Surrealist" is easy enough to recognize over the
> > course of a discussion (if one knows anything about the concerns of the
> > surrealist movement as it exists today). this would certainly not scare us
> > away. if you think you actually know a "genuine Surrealist", iv, please do
> > invite him/her in. we'll have a grand old time discussing your arrogant
> > ignorance and irrelevant presence in alt.surrealism.
>
> This is typical. Rather than explain, illustrate and educate; Barrett
> states "if there were real surrealists here we could discuss
> surrealism." However Barrett is too superior to explain to the unwashed
> masses. His unending ploy is to indicate he is to superior to discuss
> the subject with those who challenge him.
>
> almost sounds credible the first few times, this failure to engage in
> discussion makes him look absurd.
>
> consistent with surrealism?
>
"Speaking of which (comma)"
Not a flame, just being helpful.
DaDaDance
Robert Maughan
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org>
>OK, rmaug, i may have misjudged your entertainment potential. you seem
>perfectly capable of spouting off some reactive gibberish with little to no
>provocation.
Ducky, you have no idea ... you ARE entertainment potential. You're the
bobbing turd in the toilet bowl. You're the guy in the pub, and the gull
on the wing. You're just the most puffed up little wanker and you have a
lovely arse. Bend over again, there's a good chap, and no screaming.
>so i'll try to keep you busy.
My clients keep me busy. You keep me a moment in a coffee break. What I
like best about you is your determined pomposity. Like one of those show
dogs all aquiver with fear under the skin as its walker parades it round
the ring. You're cute.
RJM.