Wholeflaffer clones invade West Coast
barrett john erickson
hap...@my-dejanews.com, apparently in error, cross-posted a response to
alt.surrealism which was addressed to "Clark". judging by the content of the message,
which attempted no relevance to surrealism, one assumes that this alternative alien
visitor is simply so fresh to our planet that he hasn't yet learned how to control
his mozilla's output.
so this from Netscape's Help:
>>>
Contributing to Ongoing
Discussions
To post a response as part of the
discussion:
1.In the message list, select a message to
reply to and be sure its contents are
displayed.
2.Click Reply and choose "to Newsgroup".
To reply to the group and also send a
separate email to the individual, click
Reply All and choose "to Sender and
Group."***
3.Compose your message, and click Send
to post it.
<<<
***note that when responding, the relevant newsgroup is already indicated and it is
not necessary to add a couple of new (non-relevant) newsgroups when performing step
#2.
hope this helps.
-- 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
hap...@my-dejanews.com
"Clark_Kent" <tr...@justice.com> wrote:
> ***VERIFIED***
> Art Wholeflaffer has been seen in two different cities on
> the West Coast AT THE SAME TIME. He recently admitted in a
> post that he had been cloned and now we see the proof! How
> many Wholeflaffers have been cloned? What is REALLY going on
> here? Are these clones part of the FEMA/NSA/CIA/Illuminati/alien
> Earth takeover? Or are these clones part of The Resistance?
> Stay tuned.
>
> Clark Kent
> The Resistance
> "The truth is our there."
> --
> Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
> Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
Good question, Clark.
IIRC Wholeflafferis a clone of Gary Stollman. Yes Gary, Art Wholeflaffer
is your _real_ father.
HTH.
HapLoid
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark Shippey
:
:
: hap...@my-dejanews.com, apparently in error, cross-posted a response to
: alt.surrealism which was addressed to "Clark". judging by the content of the message,
: which attempted no relevance to surrealism, one assumes that this alternative alien
: visitor is simply so fresh to our planet that he hasn't yet learned how to control
: his mozilla's output.
Huh? Some might feel that an individual using the name "Clark_Kent"
and posting about clones of Art Wholefaffer invading the West Coast,
in a newsgroup concerning alien visitors, that this fits under
surrealism. I don't know, but it might be a reasonable leap of
surrealistic logic. Are there any experts in surrealism who can
make the call?
Stefan Elisa Kapusniak
In alt.alien.visitors, kpri...@dfw.nationwide.net (Mark Shippey) wrote:
> Huh? Some might feel that an individual using the name "Clark_Kent"
>and posting about clones of Art Wholefaffer invading the West Coast,
>in a newsgroup concerning alien visitors, that this fits under
>surrealism. I don't know, but it might be a reasonable leap of
>surrealistic logic. Are there any experts in surrealism who can
>make the call?
...but experts in _which_ Surrealism? And what do we
understand of their MORAL PORPOISE and other sea dwelling
rude mechanicals? One may consider this a question of
UTMOST importance.
Surrealism as propounded by skeptics or debunkers? Greys
or Reptoids? Small Mammals or Apple Computer? Pixar or
Disney? Andre Breton, or Colonel Saunders and his armed
tyre iron auditors from the Vatican bank and the MJ-12
Masonic Lodge?
Does the Surrealist's directed attempt to move their human
mind into the Magorian realms, allow for the decantation
of hollow brains into a moonscape devoid of the broken
animus required to reshape Dickian morality to the domain
of Anti-clerical filing systems propounded by the HOLY BIBLE
as REVEALED to us by GOD (appearing by kind permission of
Paramount Pictures) MAN (a wholly owned subsidiary of
Monsanto) and MARGARET THATCHER...?
INDEED, IS YOUR AYN RAND REALLY NECESSARY?
Therefore upon encountering a post of UNKNOWN PURITY and
CONCENTRATED ORANGE JUICE riding in a White Ford Bronco
all TRUE SURREALIST SCOTSMEN, must herald their allegience
the white blood of the pure albino strain, and assess the
T-4 killer cell potential of any Microsoft Developer Network
Subscription presented to them upon their retirement from
active service units.
Should they find Wu-Tsao lurking upon the iron stairway
we attache case to the the back of every twelve packs
of SCIENTIFIC PANTHEISM (WIN! WIN! WIN! A SMALL SILVER
PIN), they must as their disposition dictates -- at more
than three hundred words of instruction cache per cubic
centilitre -- reject such out of pocket expenses for
the LIBRARY OF OMNISEXUAL CONGRESS they FALSELY AUNT
HILDA.
:: Reading this ::
{fin}
{pAn}
{refactoring browser}
-- Kapusniak, Stefan e
barrett john erickson
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7ag7c4$bh8$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
>barrett john erickson (bar...@skypoint.com) wrote:
>:
>:
>: hap...@my-dejanews.com, apparently in error, cross-posted a response to
>: alt.surrealism which was addressed to "Clark". judging by the content of
the message,
>: which attempted no relevance to surrealism, one assumes that this
alternative alien
>: visitor is simply so fresh to our planet that he hasn't yet learned how
to control
>: his mozilla's output.
>
>and posting about clones of Art Wholefaffer invading the West Coast,
>in a newsgroup concerning alien visitors, that this fits under
>surrealism. I don't know, but it might be a reasonable leap of
>surrealistic logic. Are there any experts in surrealism who can
>make the call?
most of the readers of alt.surrealism are tired of the discussion about the
common misconceptions of "surrealism", so i'll be brief:
among surrealists, "surrealism" is not a synonym for "weird" or "strange" or
"absurd".
"surrealism" can only be achieved and sustained within a dimension of poetic
exploration.
barrett john erickson
Stefan Elisa Kapusniak wrote in message ...
> ...but experts in _which_ Surrealism?
a trick question with only false answers.
there is only one "surrealism" with many faces and no hierarchy of experts.
barrett john erickson
Andrea Chen
>
> "surrealism" can only be achieved and sustained within a dimension of poetic
> exploration.
>
There was a surrealist named Sam
Who said I yam what I yam what I yam
He continued to croak
Until something broke
Cause he's been kicked in the head by a ram
And when he awoke
A strange voice spoke
I yam what I yam what I yam
I'm son of Sam
Chopping you into spam
Sam was naturally upset
And said "this is as bad as it can get!"
But then there was a screech of a parrot
Who said "Watch out here comes Barrett!"
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>
>
>hap...@my-dejanews.com, apparently in error, cross-posted a response to
>alt.surrealism which was addressed to "Clark". judging by the content of the message,
>which attempted no relevance to surrealism,
Doctor Frager, alias Art, is totally surreal.
<snip>
No doubt Jack the Ripper excused himself on the
grounds that it was human nature.
A.A. Milne
elag
I'm a poet,
and I'm not even aware of that fact.
barrett john erickson
<36cc505a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>Doctor Frager, alias Art, is totally surreal.
which, of course, tells me something about "twitchb" but nothing about
"Doctor Frager, alias Art". nor does it offer any indication that either
has any relevance to "surrealism".
Mark Shippey
: twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
: <36cc505a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
:
: >Doctor Frager, alias Art, is totally surreal.
:
: which, of course, tells me something about "twitchb" but nothing about
: "Doctor Frager, alias Art". nor does it offer any indication that either
: has any relevance to "surrealism".
Okay. But, what has "relevance" to surrealism? Which of course
leads me to wonder what is relevant in relation to surrealism and
who is the relevant individual to make the judgement concerning
what is relevant to surrealism? Does someone own surrealism on
the Usenet? If so, could someone post the legal relevant surrealism
contract?
JINN
>
> In alt.alien.visitors, kpri...@dfw.nationwide.net (Mark Shippey) wrote:
>
> >and posting about clones of Art Wholefaffer invading the West Coast,
> >in a newsgroup concerning alien visitors, that this fits under
> >surrealism. I don't know, but it might be a reasonable leap of
> >surrealistic logic. Are there any experts in surrealism who can
> >make the call?
>
Thank You Profesor Irwin Corey!
Here's the idea and plan.
We of the West Coast Decay Via Internet Hype Alert!! (WCDVIHA!!)
need a few thousand "eviscerate em before they're conceived" types
to hype the living hell out of the ultra coolness of the West COAST
as the only significant locale to deposit your funky, dope, bomb-
designer-selves and stylish bodily forms to live, work, play,
procreate, and multiply to the Nth+ Dimensional Power! Huzzah!!
Huzzah!! WHOOSH!!!!
We Need YOU to take your unbelievable digital design skills,
entrepreneurial predatory prowess, and kick butt don't EVEN take
names modus operandi (balanced with your soft feminine side of
course) management style to: sell! Sell!! SELL!!! the Freaking West
Coast as the ONLY place to be if you are even remotely sentient or
of basic human form, Yeah! Let's face it, the urban, exoskeletal
technologization of the West Coast is sadly lagging in bulldozer
speed; therefore, we need all you reincarnated buffalo
sharpshooters to start kicking some Far Out West Coast Wuss Ass!
(FOWCWA! {our sister org.}) As the late Jim Morrison once sang:
"Just get here and we'll do the rest."
All you need to remember are those three little words: development,
Development, DEVELOPMENT!!!
Musings on Hyperspacial Photonics
and 20th Century Covert Technology
by V. Valerian
The work of Antoine Priore has proven to be a tremendous mystery
to many, but an understanding of some of the concepts behind his
work is essential in order to appreciate the mechanics behind
currently existing covert technology, especially in terms of
creation of disease patterns, hyperspacial technology and
spacetime weaponry apparently developed by the Soviet Union over
the last several decades. Somewhere between 1968 and 1973
Antoine Priore, a French scientist, utilized advanced electronic
equipment on terminal cancer patients, achieving total remission
of tumors and several infectious diseases. The research was
funded by the French government, and employed a complicated
mixing of multiple electromagnetic signals in a rotating plasma.
The mixed output was modulated on a strong rippling magnetic
field, and directed toward the subject. The immune system of
the subject, whether human or animal was restored. Another
effect of the treatment, much to the concern of the medical
community dependent on the 19th century vaccine technology, was
that disease-specific antibodies were created by treating a
single drop of blood and reinjecting it into the body of a
second animal with the same disease, resulting in total recovery.
These startling results brought on vigorous suppression of
Priore's work, due especially to the hostility of the cancer
industry, worth billions in useless radiation and chemotherapy
treatments worldwide. The French government was intimidated
into canceling all research funds, and scientists were unable to
achieve an understanding of the mechanism involved in Priore's
work. Bearden has done some hypothesizing relative to the
mechanism involved, and is convinced that Priore found a method
of actually engineering general relativity in the lab, creating
nested structures of local spacetime, resulting in a time-
reversed emanation which returned diseased cells back to their
original healthy state reflecting the original morphogenetic
condition.
Some of the work done by Robert Becker demonstrated that very
weak direct electrical currents combined with pulsed magnetic
fields produced redifferentiation in biological cellular
structures, also producing corresponding reorientation of
genetic patterns. Becker was eventually nominated for a Nobel
prize for his work. Becker also proposed an electromagnetic
mechanism for this effect, but preliminary analysis of his
mechanism reveals that Becker lacked an understanding of
hyperspacial and scalar electromagnetics. The work of
Kazacheyev in Russia, however, reveals more about the nature of
what is happening. The effect demonstrated by Kazacheyev became
known as the cytopathogenic mirror effect, and involved two
quartz containers containing identical cell cultures, separated
by a thin window. One cell culture would be doped with
substances that would sicken or kill the culture. When the
window between the sick culture and the healthy culture was made
of glass, the second culture remained healthy. When the glass
was replaced by quartz, the second culture would sicken and die.
Somehow, the disease patterns were transmitted from one culture
to the second when quartz windows were used. It has been
theorized that the transmission of disease patterns was enhanced
by the ability of quartz to transmit graviton lattice templates
which act as a carrier for the cellular energy patterns. The
work of Dr. Popp, mentioned in LE#78 relative to his discovery
of photonic emission from cellular DNA structures, also provides
a co-factorial mechanism that demonstrates that disease patterns
can be both created and reversed using electromagnetic
hyperspacial technology, and that fundamental cellular control
and communication systems are electromagnetic in nature,
especially in the microwave region of the spectrum. It has also
been demonstrated that biological systems are non-linear in
nature, automatically bringing in the effect and predominance of
scalar phase conjugate photonic phenomena. One of the major
barriers to the challenge to the military and intelligence
agency use of electromagnetics is the failure to adequately
demonstrate the viability of nonlinear electromagnetics and the
relevance to biological systems. Of course, it would never pass
peer review, would it?
In fact, the emergence of the Gulf War Syndrome can possibly be
understood in a more complete way if non-linear electromagnetic
effects present in a very dense wartime EM environment are added
to the known co-factors of experimental anthrax and botulism
vaccine, forced on military members during the conflict, in
addition to the anti-nerve compound pyridostigmine bromide,
neurally toxic insecticides the troops were instructed to use,
and the additional co-factor of tons of aspartame-laden diet
soft drinks provided free by manufacturers in the United States.
Aspartame, according to researcher Alex Constantine in his
monograph Sweet Poison, was once on a Pentagon list of potential
biochemical warfare weapons. The presence of common biochemical
warfare weapons was recently revealed by Pentagon documents, and
a media documentary reiterated in a past issue of The Leading
Edge revealed disease patterns outwardly appearing to be a
transmissible cancer-causing virus. Families of veterans and
their offspring are being sickened, and incidents involving
bizarre blistering of the skin by sperm ejaculations complicate
interpretation even further. There is no doubt that the immune
systems of veterans were deliberately compromised, allowing easy
impregnation of chronic disease patterns, even
electromagnetically, after low-level patterns were established
by the presence of the above co-factors.
As a more esoteric side note, the electrophotonic realignment of
genetics is also a component of presently existing Jahovah group
paradigms hinted at in the Keys of Enoch -- a process which is
currently in progress in the attempt to modify human physiology
into a genetic structure permitting a more perfect state of
compliance to those manipulative paradigms. The Keys represent
an attempt to align resonance to those same patterns through an
intellectual attraction -- the sensually attractive complement
is epitomized by the paradigm inherent in the Raelian movement
originating in France, and the overall control paradigm is
reflectively being implemented through the use of computer
technologies thrust on an unknowing public, along with the
presenting existing electromagnetic mind control networks. The
Keys, however, are valuable in that they reveal many of the
patternings of photonic impact relative to various genetic DNA
matrices, as well as some of the details behind the mindset of
those who insist on controlling embodied beings in this way.
Watch out for the yods.
Interestingly, there is an equivalency going on based on
revelations from the work of Kazacheyev, in that some of the
frequencies involved center on the infrared and ultraviolet
bands relative to photonic interaction between biological
structures. The infrared band alone consists of 17 octaves (as
opposed to 1 octave with visible light) with over 2 million
frequencies. The direct use of frequencies, per se, however, is
not as pertinent relative to explanation of methodology as is
the covert technological use of space-time alteration,
especially with weaponry that has the ability to disengage
biological entities from the time stream itself causing
immediate disembodiment. This is the kind of weaponry
insinuated by Khrushchev's address to the Soviet Presidium in
1960, and it has the potential to affect not only time constraints
of a few biological organisms, whether people or animals, but it
has the potential to effect the mind streams so important to
maintain connection to physicality for all life forms on Earth.
These are the mass weapons of destruction that Khrushchev was
referring to. Alas, western scientists did not have a clue what
he was talking about.
Alteration of temporal components relative to maintenance of
consciousness within a nonlinear biological system also affects
mind, as mind per se exists in time but does not exist in 3-D
space, much to the consternation of 20th century mechanists so
determined to prove the biological origin and basis of
consciousness itself. It has been theorized that mind, to the
physicist anyway, occupies a single dimension of Minkowksi
quadruple space of physical materiality, and that the attachment
of mind with matter (as delineated in the quantum co-mingling of
the body consciousness of the genetic entity with the
consciousness, primarily just outside the body, of the entity
occupying the body) involves a process entailing the flow of
mind itself enfolded in and connected to a time reference lock.
It is this same time reference lock, or the loss of it, that was
discussed relative to the disaster with ship personnel in the
Philadelphia Experiment. There is evidence that the government
has been involved, either solely or in consort with various
components of a negative alien hierarchy, in this type of work,
as we have run across innumerable instances where people have
crossed paths with individuals unlucky enough to have been
involved in such experiments, their physical presence fading in
and out during conversations. Since it is also known that the
NSA possesses equipment involving hyperspacial effect, such as
the so-called "invisibility belts" and other "neat stuff"
squirreled away in shiny briefcases, it is quite evident that
these technologies have been quietly developed over the past
several decades in resonance with some really "dark" alliances.
The integration of electromagnetic mind control and implant
technology, married with the profusion of computer technology,
externally manifested in the kinds of things we talk about in
the Leading Edge, is what is really going on behind the scenes.
Anyway, back to the discussions at hand. It is also well known
that many operations carried out in a manipulative way upon the
population on this Earth are being conducted from a parallel
dimension, if you will, or a parallel Earth, if you must. Sort
of a "they can see us but we can't see them" type of thing well
coordinated with a "they live" similarity over in our playground,
locally orchestrated by coercion upon the NWO power structure.
This type of manipulation involves the aforementioned technology,
and the insidious nature of these proceedings is manifesting
rapidly.
Einstein's theory of General Relativity says essentially that
spacetime "informs" mass how to move, and mass "informs"
spacetime how to curve. But what is mass but entrapped
electromagnetic/photonic energy that influences the nested
curvature within spacetime? An interesting parallel to this
utilizes an analogy to the HAARP project and atmospheric
modulations, since the use of massive fields causes deliberate
pressure gradients in the atmosphere, affecting weather patterns.
Other analogies can be had to the process of earthquake
engineering and tectonic deflection that are currently so much
in vogue with the psycho-political gradients in our rapidly
devolving society.
The symptomology of the Gulf War Syndrome is very unique. How
could the various co-factors responsible for its development
join together to produce a condition like this? When you
consider that all soldiers were given the experimental nerve
agent pyridostigmine bromide, over 150,000 were given
experimental anthrax vaccine, and over 8,000 received
experimental botulism toxin vaccines, it is no mystery that a
certain condition of low-level immune system dysfunction would
have been produced. It is logical to assume that the body would
gradually return to a state of normalcy, even after these
physiological insults. However, this biological substrate
composed of these three toxins did not exist alone. Besides the
free distribution of tons of diet drinks containing aspartame, a
known neurotoxin, and the presence of carcinogenic irritants in
the form of oil smoke, depleted uranium particles from anti-tank
weapons and other chemicals, the one consistent presence was
that of a very dense electromagnetic " smog" which would have an
additional impact on the human immune system of acceleration of
the breakdown of cellular control mechanisms, enhancing to total
composite effect of all the other combined co-factors.
Now, every specific holistic body state also reflects on the
quantum-based template present in the morphic field connected to
the biological structure of the body. First, the field
structure is altered by the administration of everything other
than the electromagnetic component, and then the altered field
pattern becomes overlaid onto the incoming electromagnetic
component, causing recovery from the biochemical components,
which no doubt were laced with animal viruses, metallic and
carcinogenic adjutants, to be forestalled. This would result in
the imprint of a low-level disease pattern onto the morphogenic
field. Because of the damage to normally cellular control
mechanisms, the normal recovery pattern would be altered.
Because of individual variations in the physiological immune
systems of the various military members, some could be expected
to develop rather anomalous infections right after their return
from the Gulf, whereas others would continue to retain the
electromagnetic imprint and manifest symptoms later. This, in
fact, is what has happened.
In addition, the genetic structure of the members was severely
affected. Disease patterns already present were "impressed" by
conjugate electromagnetic fields on the structure of the DNA.
This would predictably result in the genetic transmission of
disease symptoms to offspring. This, again, is precisely what
occurred. The altered genetic structure, by normal processes of
transcription, was passed on, particularly affecting those
physiological components such as sperm, eggs, blood and saliva.
This would result in the casual transmission of the same disease
patterns to family members. This is exactly what happened.
Families and offspring of at least 70,000 Gulf War members are
being severely affected. The transferred patterns, because of
their primary state in a slightly hyperspacial orientation,
would interfere with hyperspacial a priori patterns in the body
of those contacted, making it literally impossible for those to
whom the pattern was passed to defend themselves against the
problem. Conventional allopathic medical models would be
useless relative to any treatment of the problem. It is a
problem that has the potential of taking out the whole country
biologically, but since military members usually have fluid
exchange (kissing, intercourse, etc. ) within their own circle,
the problem is unlikely to spread. This is not to say that a
similar process could not be electromagnetically broadcast over
the cellular telephone towers, which resonate at the same
frequency range as the human skull, or over the military Ground
Wave Emergency Network (GWEN), which has towers every 200 miles
everywhere in the United States. Because the systems of the
human body are non-linear, the systems will function to
demodulate hyperspacial signals directly into the structure of
the cells and the immune system. The only way to resolve Gulf
War syndrome would be to use equipment using the technology of
Priore to cause time-reversal patterns to be implemented on a
cellular level to restore the a priori patterns relative to
health, especially in cellular control systems. The pre-
existing plan and intent to impose disease patterns upon the
population would explain the violent suppression of Priore's
work, since time-reversed emanations are the only way to undo
the damage. People would be getting sicker and sicker for no
apparent reason, generating astronomical windfall profits for
the medical and pharmaceutical complex to treat an ever growing
number of "anomalous syndromes." Combined with known practices
of injecting biochemical and genetically altering substances
into the food, water and environment that have been transpiring
for the past 40 years, the overall mandate of income generation
and population reduction mandates would be met. The only
defense against existing and future biological and
electromagnetic incursion by domestic or foreign parties is a
technology embodying time-reversal technology. The MRX
technology discussed in the Leading Edge is only a beginning.
The Clinton administration, as the documents presented
illustrated in LE #78 show, was offered the technology, but
chose to suppress it.
Mark Shippey
: On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:34:54 -0600 "barrett john erickson"
: <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
: > twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
: > <36cc505a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
: >
: > >Doctor Frager, alias Art, is totally surreal.
: >
: > which, of course, tells me something about "twitchb" but nothing about
: > "Doctor Frager, alias Art". nor does it offer any indication that either
: > has any relevance to "surrealism".
: Which of course tell us something about the unsurreal
: and predictable nature of the surrealistic status quo in the
: modern word as it pertains to Usenet linquistic relevance.
:
: "Scuz me, while I kiss the sky"
: --
Well, this does give one pause to think and consider whether or
not there is a surrealism Usenet standard by which all surrealistic
posts must be judged and deemed acceptable according to status quo
conceptual surrealism linguistic theories.
barrett john erickson
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7ahq7h$f6r$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
> Okay. But, what has "relevance" to surrealism? Which of course
>leads me to wonder what is relevant in relation to surrealism and
>who is the relevant individual to make the judgement concerning
>what is relevant to surrealism? Does someone own surrealism on
>the Usenet? If so, could someone post the legal relevant surrealism
>contract?
and also in message <7ai1vq$fuv$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
> Well, this does give one pause to think and consider whether or
>not there is a surrealism Usenet standard by which all surrealistic
>posts must be judged and deemed acceptable according to status quo
>conceptual surrealism linguistic theories.
your comments are riddled with false assumptions.
any _subject_ can be relevant to "surrealism" when explored from a
surrealist perspective (i.e. from the perspective of the struggle to
liberate and integrate the imagination into our daily living).
there is no "surrealism" beyond the historical and current activity of those
who share this project. whatever becomes the subject of surrealist
investigation is by definition relevant to "surrealism" (positively or
negatively).
no one "owns surrealism", there is no "orthodoxy" and positions taken by
surrealists (living or dead) are never beyond challenge. what is compatible
with "surrealism", however, can only be determined thru such challenge and
debate (among surrealists).
because i saw in this thread no evidence of a surrealist perspective (and
based on prior experience i didn't expect one to emerge from
alt.alien.visitors or alt.syntax.tactical), i challenged the relevance of
cross-posting it to alt.surrealism. if you want to attempt a defense
against my challenge, please do.
if you can't, it doesn't mean such a defense isn't possible.
Witless
> >
> > Andreas Klokkaris wrote:
> > >
> > > have u read alex collier?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Andreas
> >
> > Have you read:
> > Allex Collier
> > http://www.lettersfromandromeda.com/
> > The Omega File
> > http://www.io.com/~jet/conx/omega.htm
> > Dan Winter's
> > Welcome to Crystal Hill MultiMedia and San Graal School for Sacred Geometry
> > http://www.indra.com/danwinter/index.html
> > The SPYder Web - the Real "X-FILES"
> > http://seasurf.com/~radioman/index.html
> > Tony's Vortex Symmetries
> > http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/worm4holes.html
> >
> > -- "...In Surah Al-Araf: 12, Al Hijr : 26-27 and Ar-Rahman : 14-19,
> > it has been expressly stated that man was created out of clay
> > and jinn out of fire." http://msa-usc.org/quran/maududi/mau72.html
---------
> Alteration of temporal components relative to maintenance of
> consciousness within a nonlinear biological system also affects
> mind, as mind per se exists in time but does not exist in 3-D
> space, much to the consternation of 20th century mechanists so
> determined to prove the biological origin and basis of
> consciousness itself. It has been theorized that mind, to the
> physicist anyway, occupies a single dimension of Minkowksi
> quadruple space of physical materiality, and that the attachment
> of mind with matter (as delineated in the quantum co-mingling of
> the body consciousness of the genetic entity with the
> consciousness, primarily just outside the body, of the entity
> occupying the body) involves a process entailing the flow of
> mind itself enfolded in and connected to a time reference lock.
--------
> In addition, the genetic structure of the members was severely
> affected. Disease patterns already present were "impressed" by
> conjugate electromagnetic fields on the structure of the DNA.
> This would predictably result in the genetic transmission of
> disease symptoms to offspring. This, again, is precisely what
> occurred. The altered genetic structure, by normal processes of
> transcription, was passed on, particularly affecting those
> physiological components such as sperm, eggs, blood and saliva.
> This would result in the casual transmission of the same disease
> patterns to family members. This is exactly what happened.
> Families and offspring of at least 70,000 Gulf War members are
> being severely affected. The transferred patterns, because of
> their primary state in a slightly hyperspacial orientation,
> would interfere with hyperspacial a priori patterns in the body
> of those contacted, making it literally impossible for those to
> whom the pattern was passed to defend themselves against the
> problem. Conventional allopathic medical models would be
----------------------
> ....Combined with known practices
> of injecting biochemical and genetically altering substances
> into the food, water and environment that have been transpiring
> for the past 40 years, the overall mandate of income generation
> and population reduction mandates would be met. The only
> defense against existing and future biological and
> electromagnetic incursion by domestic or foreign parties is a
> technology embodying time-reversal technology. The MRX
> technology discussed in the Leading Edge is only a beginning.
> The Clinton administration, as the documents presented
> illustrated in LE #78 show, was offered the technology, but
> chose to suppress it.
Well I don't know about all that... But, me and the misses
saw this here show on the Tee Vee set late last night
(passed our bedtimes) that was all about these Aleeeyins
and such. Well, I just want to say that, you know that part
where that famous author fellow (wrote The Shining, or somethin)
was a interviewing this abductee guy from the great state of
Tennesee? I think them two gentlemen looked just a might
too much alike if you get my drift? I think, and the
misses concurs, that those two gents must me aleeeyin
clones a each other. Scared me witless! Doncha think?
Andrea Chen
> "Defense"? How is this an appropriate term given the nature
> of Usenet linguistic communication?
> You use words like defense and challenge. Are you into
> surrealistic military Usenet strategic posting?
Interesting observation Mark, and right on the mark. I've tried to
explain that on Usenet you can't "win" because no one ever admits they
lose. However the pure surrealists simply didn't get it.
I find your observation to be "meta 'surrealism'" (a (set of)
observation(s) or theory which explains "surrealism" as pontificated by
a few in alt.surrealism.) Definitely on target.
Another interesting meta observation is that while advocating some sort
of holy "surrealist" crusade, Barrett and other miltant "surrealists"
are exceedingly reluctant to expose their brilliant thoughts to other
groups though the way they define this movement it is (in theory)
relevant to almost everything.
My suspicion is that we are dealing with an ideology which convinces
itself that it's changing the world while allowing it's alleged
practitioners to huddle safely.
It reminds me a bit of the Galactic Federation though with less
followers.
Brandon J. Freels
> There was a surrealist named Sam
> Who said I yam what I yam what I yam
Brandon:
No, I believe it was Jacques Prevert in his book Paroles.
Brandon J. Freels
> Interesting observation Mark, and right on the mark. I've tried to
>explain that on Usenet you can't "win" because no one ever admits they
>lose. However the pure surrealists simply didn't get it.
Brandon:
I would like some proof of this assumption.
elag
Ubiquitous Patterns
You are both incorrect. It is 11:25 PM, as the crow flies.
Mark Shippey
: based on prior experience i didn't expect one to emerge from
: alt.alien.visitors or alt.syntax.tactical), i challenged the relevance of
: cross-posting it to alt.surrealism. if you want to attempt a defense
: against my challenge, please do.
Before we get into your (ahem) challenge, we need to determine
the groundwork of your conceptual images of why you feel you need
to make such a challenge in the first place. Did the individual's
crosspost somehow upset astandard in alt.surrealism that caused
you to become upset and crosspost back about corrposting posts
that do not fit your image of surrealism? And.....
What would be the linguistic "evidence" of a "surrealist perspective"?
And on what concepts would you base this judgement?
: if you can't, it doesn't mean such a defense isn't possible.
Heh.
Leo Sgouros
JINN wrote in message <36CC8C...@JINN.net>...
The Raven gets invited to the party.She is well dressed among other girls
there and mixes and drinks with the officers. Maybe she will go home with
one.
Our Raven goes somewhere later and partakes of a substance that
unfortunately she is a slave to.The extras in the substance do their work.
Meanwhile, every name, face, license plate, and snippet of information
uttered within range of our little enhanced human is replayed over and
over-the voice glittery like glass as the secrets are raped from her
unsuspecting mind.
After the days long jag she crashes.
Maybe she dreams of aliens.
Maybe she dreams of \submarines and sonar/.
But she wont remember.
Peace to all.
Mark Shippey
: Another interesting meta observation is that while advocating some sort
: of holy "surrealist" crusade, Barrett and other miltant "surrealists"
: are exceedingly reluctant to expose their brilliant thoughts to other
: groups though the way they define this movement it is (in theory)
: relevant to almost everything.
Which make you wonder doesn't it? This all began with what Mr.
Barret calls a "challenge" to an individual's crosspost to the
newsgroup alt.surrealism, which he feels was not surrealistic
in nature and therefore was inappropriate for the group. This
would of course mean that there is some conceptual image of
surrealism that determines what posts are surreal and which are
not. This of course means that surrealism is then defined according
to these images and anything other than these conceptual images is
not surreal and can be "challenged". So, apparently there is some
mental mechanism that makes the judgement that a linguistic pattern
is or is not acceptable according to alt.surrealism standards.
This would appear to be based on a subjective system of beliefs
which leads me to believe that you are most likely right on the
money you post the following......
: My suspicion is that we are dealing with an ideology which convinces
:
:
Mark Shippey
I wonder if it would be possible for someone to post
the working conceptual definition of surrealism by which
it can be determined that it is valid to objectively "challenge"
the linguistic content of the individual's crosspost to
alt.surrealism concerning clones of UFOlogist Art Wholefaffer?
And....
Is it possible that the "challenge" itself is not surreal
and was inappropriate to be crossposted from alt.surrealism?
barrett john erickson
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7aie64$h2d$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
> Before we get into your (ahem) challenge, we need to determine
>the groundwork of your conceptual images of why you feel you need
>to make such a challenge in the first place.
because the rancid oil which has been oozing from various alien sandwiches
for the past few weeks finally reached a level which required me to clear
some space in which to breath.
>Did the individual's
>crosspost somehow upset astandard in alt.surrealism that caused
>you to become upset and crosspost back about corrposting posts
>that do not fit your image of surrealism? And.....
> What would be the linguistic "evidence" of a "surrealist perspective"?
> And on what concepts would you base this judgement?
the fact that you simply repeat this theme in response to a post in which i
tried to disabuse you of such misconception tells me you have no interest in
actual discussion, but prefer to play games which are dull variations on
"straw man".
i've grown very tired of this particular game and do not choose to play.
so i'll just repeat myself also:
your comments are riddled with false assumptions.
any _subject_ can be relevant to "surrealism" when explored from a
surrealist perspective (i.e. from the perspective of the struggle to
liberate and integrate the imagination into our daily living).
there is no "surrealism" beyond the historical and current activity of those
who share this project. whatever becomes the subject of surrealist
investigation is by definition relevant to "surrealism" (positively or
negatively).
no one "owns surrealism", there is no "orthodoxy" and positions taken by
surrealists (living or dead) are never beyond challenge. what is compatible
with "surrealism", however, can only be determined thru such challenge and
debate (among surrealists).
because i saw in this thread no evidence of a surrealist perspective (and
based on prior experience i didn't expect one to emerge from
alt.alien.visitors or alt.syntax.tactical), i challenged the relevance of
cross-posting it to alt.surrealism. if you want to attempt a defense
against my challenge, please do.
if you can't, it doesn't mean such a defense isn't possible.
-- barrett
barrett john erickson
>Andrea Chen (fallin...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: Another interesting meta observation is [...]
>: of [...]
>: exceedingly reluctant [...]
>: movement [...]
> and [...]
> feels [...]
> inappropriate for the [...]
> "challenged" [...]
> mental mechanism [...]
> which leads me [...]
>: My suspicion [...]
> convinces itself [...]
Zero Ten
<snip>
>
>Here's the idea and plan.
>We of the West Coast Decay Via Internet Hype Alert!! (WCDVIHA!!)
>need a few thousand "eviscerate em before they're conceived" types
>to hype the living hell out of the ultra coolness of the West COAST
>as the only significant locale to deposit your funky, dope, bomb-
>designer-selves and stylish bodily forms to live, work, play,
>procreate, and multiply to the Nth+ Dimensional Power! Huzzah!!
>Huzzah!! WHOOSH!!!!
<snip>
Hey, no problem! Just send me some air tickets, get me a passport and
a work permit and give me a big wad of cash, and I'll go and check the
place out. I'm sure I could come up with some very lovely things to
say under those circumstances...
ZeroTen
"Irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically"
Sol LeWitt, 'Sentences on Conceptual Art'
Zero Ten
Shippey) wrote:
>Lone_Ranger (who_i...@masked.man) wrote:
>: On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:34:54 -0600 "barrett john erickson"
>: <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
>: > twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
>: > <36cc505a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>: >
>: > >Doctor Frager, alias Art, is totally surreal.
>: >
>: > which, of course, tells me something about "twitchb" but nothing about
>: > "Doctor Frager, alias Art". nor does it offer any indication that either
>: > has any relevance to "surrealism".
>:
>: Which of course tell us something about the unsurreal
>: and predictable nature of the surrealistic status quo in the
>: modern word as it pertains to Usenet linquistic relevance.
>:
>: "Scuz me, while I kiss the sky"
>: --
>
> Well, this does give one pause to think and consider whether or
>not there is a surrealism Usenet standard by which all surrealistic
>posts must be judged and deemed acceptable according to status quo
>conceptual surrealism linguistic theories.
It's probably just a variation on the Duchamp thing; if you're an
artist, it's art, if you're not, it's a urinal. If you're a
surrealist, it's surreal; if you're not, it's just odd. Kind of a
closed system that asks questions that it knows fall within the
boundaries of what it can answer.
Mark Shippey
You issued the "challenge" that a crosspost was not appropriate for
alt.surrealism. Now, it appears that your "challenge" was not
surreal and should not have been crossposted from alt.surrealism
claiming that you have some working linguistic definition of surrealism
by which others on the Usenet should post. In other words, the
surrealist experst in alt.surrealism are not really surreal and should
not be crossposting unserreal theories about surrealism. Your "challenge"
was not surreal.
Mark Shippey
: >Andrea Chen (fallin...@earthlink.net) wrote:
(el snippo of excerpts from previous poster's words)
And? This does not address the challenge to your challenge that
your "challenge" may not be in and of itself surreal and should not have
been crossposted from alt.surrealism. This post may not be surreal either
and perhaps should not be crossposted from alt.surrealism. Who is to
say? By what basic conceptual linguistic framework did you offer your
original "challenge". Can you say?
barrett john erickson
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7ajtqv$k43$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
>
> You issued the "challenge" that a crosspost was not appropriate for
>alt.surrealism.
i challenged anyone to defend a specific cross-post's relevance to
alt.surrealism.
which i repeat:
because i saw in this thread no evidence of a surrealist perspective (and
based on prior experience i didn't expect one to emerge from
alt.alien.visitors or alt.syntax.tactical), i challenged the relevance of
cross-posting it to alt.surrealism. if you want to attempt a defense
against my challenge, please do.
if you actually can't see the difference between that and your
characterization of my position, i would suggest that your obsession with
"linguistic definition" should be expanded to include comprehension skills.
>Now, it appears that your "challenge" was not
>surreal and should not have been crossposted from alt.surrealism
>claiming that you have some working linguistic definition of surrealism
>by which others on the Usenet should post. In other words, the
>surrealist experst in alt.surrealism are not really surreal and should
>not be crossposting unserreal theories about surrealism. Your "challenge"
>was not surreal.
surreal (adj., illiterate)
a vulgar colloquialism popularized as a synonym for "weird" or "bizarre,"
this is a word with no meaning whatsoever among surrealists, except as a
certain identifier of the user's carelessness or ignorance. [also: --
surrealistic, (adj.) -- surrealistically, (adv.)]
Mark Shippey
: alt.surrealism.
But you have refused to "defend" your "challenge" and why your
concept of what is surreal is the one that all Usenet should follow.
Perhaps you cannot.
You are the one using military terms to describe crossposting to
alt.surrealism. This is mundane. How does this fit into your
conceptual images of surrealism? Do you view it as a form of
linguistic military training? And have been assigned guard duty
in alt.surrealism to "defend" the linguistic turf against those
who do not fit your definition of surrealism, which you can't
explain? Are you an officer in the surrealism defense forces?
Or, just someone who feels superior enough to attack an indivudal's
post based on some subjective image you have of yourself as being
a great surrealist?
barrett john erickson
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7aju72$k43$2...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
i address your "challenge to [my] challenge" in another post: it's just a
silly display of ignorance or game playing. take your pick.
but i am now afflicted with an idle curiosity: i have no idea what you are
referring to when you ask for a "conceptual linguistic framework" but i
suspect that it is something quite foreign to my life processes.
perhaps if you explain your term some illumination may yet be shed on your
misrepresentations?
[perhaps "Andrea" wants to add a few more uninterested newsgroups to the
cross-post list? this seems to be "her" life's work.]
Mark Shippey
: referring to when you ask for a "conceptual linguistic framework" but i
: suspect that it is something quite foreign to my life processes.
:
: perhaps if you explain your term some illumination may yet be shed on your
: misrepresentations?
You issued the original "challenge" and used military terms
such as "defend" to describe an individual's right to crosspost
to alt.surrealism. I have asked on what basis did you make this
judgement. If you need it in simpler terms...... How did you
reach the conclusion of what is relevant to surrealism? And
who are you to make this detemination on Usenet?
And, if conceptual frameworks are foreign to your life processes
then how did you make this determination? Guesswork? Or do you feel
that surrealism is your relgion and therefore you can make judgement
as to what is sin in that religion?
And, if I have to eplain the term "conceptual linguistic framework"
to you, try this...... What it is basis for your mental image that
you know what is surreal on Usenet?
Brandon J. Freels
>Or do you feel that surrealism is your relgion and therefore you can make
judgement
>as to what is sin in that religion? And, if I have to eplain the term
"conceptual linguistic >framework" to you, try this...... What it is basis
for your mental image that you know >what is surreal on Usenet?
Brandon:
Shut up. I call Surrealism a revolution, you call it a religion. This only
proves your opposition to Surrealism. You are a fuck. How is that for
conceptual linguistic framework, asshole!
Brandon J. Freels
> You issued the "challenge" that a crosspost was not appropriate for
>alt.surrealism.
Brandon:
And you didn't answer the challenge, so shut the fuck up!
>claiming that you have some working linguistic definition of surrealism
>by which others on the Usenet should post.
Brandon:
There has always been some working linguistic definition of Surrealism you
stupid fuck. Haven't you ever read the manifestoes? Breton himself tried to
define Surrealism and the concepts surrounding Surrealism, so fuck off!
barrett john erickson
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7ak1pl$kgg$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
>barrett john erickson (bar...@magneticfields.org) wrote:
>:
>: but i am now afflicted with an idle curiosity: i have no idea what you
are
>: referring to when you ask for a "conceptual linguistic framework" but i
>: suspect that it is something quite foreign to my life processes.
>:
>: perhaps if you explain your term some illumination may yet be shed on
your
>: misrepresentations?
>
> You issued the original "challenge" and used military terms
>such as "defend" to describe an individual's right to crosspost
>to alt.surrealism. I have asked on what basis did you make this
>judgement. If you need it in simpler terms...... How did you
>reach the conclusion of what is relevant to surrealism? And
>who are you to make this detemination on Usenet?
> And, if conceptual frameworks are foreign to your life processes
>that surrealism is your relgion and therefore you can make judgement
>as to what is sin in that religion?
> And, if I have to eplain the term "conceptual linguistic framework"
>to you, try this...... What it is basis for your mental image that
>you know what is surreal on Usenet?
you've helped me to no clearer understanding of your use of "conceptual
linguistic framework", but let me attempt to enlighten you as to my use of
"challenge" and "defend".
"challenge" as i use it is more accurately seen as an exploratory activity
(individual or collective) -- an attempt to identify and breach the
artificial limits and accepted meanings which restrict the potential range
of creative activity for all. to "defend" in this context is simply a
matter of accepting responsibility for your position when it is challenged
by another.
this sort of challenge (among surrealists) is expected to lead to a clearer
understanding of the issues involved (by both the "challenger" and the
"defender" -- often taking the form of a dialectic synthesis) and should
only be viewed as an attack by those who abdicate responsibility for their
conclusions, refuse to challenge themselves and insist on clinging to
positions which constrict rather than enhance creative reality.
if you insist on portraying this as the use of "military terms" go ahead,
but i feel no need to defend it as such.
as to your repetitiously erroneous "straw man" mantra (the claim that i am
somehow defending a static standard of "surrealism", or have made
"judgements" that i never made) -- i won't waste effort creating new ways to
say the same thing just because you refuse to comprehend.
so i'll just repost my first response (again):
>>>
your comments are riddled with false assumptions.
any _subject_ can be relevant to "surrealism" when explored from a
surrealist perspective (i.e. from the perspective of the struggle to
liberate and integrate the imagination into our daily living).
there is no "surrealism" beyond the historical and current activity of those
who share this project. whatever becomes the subject of surrealist
investigation is by definition relevant to "surrealism" (positively or
negatively).
no one "owns surrealism", there is no "orthodoxy" and positions taken by
surrealists (living or dead) are never beyond challenge. what is compatible
with "surrealism", however, can only be determined thru such challenge and
debate (among surrealists).
because i saw in this thread no evidence of a surrealist perspective (and
based on prior experience i didn't expect one to emerge from
alt.alien.visitors or alt.syntax.tactical), i challenged the relevance of
cross-posting it to alt.surrealism. if you want to attempt a defense
against my challenge, please do.
if you can't, it doesn't mean such a defense isn't possible.
<<<
please note: "because _i_ saw ... no evidence of a surrealist perspective
[as clearly described above] ... _i_ challenged..." if someone else sees
evidence of a surrealist perspective [as described -- or if you choose to
dispute my description], speak up and we'll try to resolve our discrepant
views.
otherwise, i let this thread slide into anesthetic coma.
Mark Shippey
: Mark Shippey wrote
: > You issued the "challenge" that a crosspost was not appropriate for
: >alt.surrealism.
:
: Brandon:
: And you didn't answer the challenge, so shut the fuck up!
I challenge the challenge and say that the challenge was not
surreal and should not have been crossposted from alt.surrealism.
If the orgiginal post was not acceptable according to alt.surrealism
standards, then his crosspost was even less so.
: >claiming that you have some working linguistic definition of surrealism
: >by which others on the Usenet should post.
:
: Brandon:
: There has always been some working linguistic definition of Surrealism you
: stupid fuck. Haven't you ever read the manifestoes? Breton himself tried to
: define Surrealism and the concepts surrounding Surrealism, so fuck off!
No shit? You folks have determined what is surreal on the Usenet
and who should be able to crosspost to alt.surrealism.
Please explain. And explain how you reached this determination.
And explain why it is surreal.
Mark Shippey
: judgement
: >as to what is sin in that religion? And, if I have to eplain the term
: "conceptual linguistic >framework" to you, try this...... What it is basis
: for your mental image that you know >what is surreal on Usenet?
: Brandon:
: Shut up. I call Surrealism a revolution, you call it a religion. This only
: proves your opposition to Surrealism. You are a fuck. How is that for
: conceptual linguistic framework, asshole!
A revolution? A revolution that attempts to censor posts on the
Usenet bases on some nebulous subjective definition of surrealism
that you will not explain. And now we see a vulgar surrealist. And
I have no "oppoistion" except to pompous, arrogant Usenet know-it-alls
who attempt to censor and attack individuals based on their fantasies
of superiority.
Mark Shippey
: linguistic framework", but let me attempt to enlighten you as to my use of
: "challenge" and "defend".
based on your nebulous bullshit concepts of surrealism and your
pompous arrogant self-image. Your supposed surrealism is nothing
more or less than a mental game for you to play while believing that
you are somehow superior to others. This is the same level as the
Christian who believes they are "saved" but that others are somehow
in the dark, or the cultist who believes that they have some inside
knowledge that other do not have. Just more mumbo-jumbo from people
attemptint to justify their illusions.
Leo Sgouros
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7akd61$les$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
Please explain why any artists on this group owe you anything at all bucko,
then maybe we will play your flame.
I know you not and owe you squat.
Leo
Leo Sgouros
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7akdp5$lm9$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
A vulgar surrealist?
Isnt that meta and therefore OUTSIDE surrealism then and a misnomer?
Hypocrite, you listening??
Hello?
Leo
Mark Shippey
: A vulgar surrealist?
: Isnt that meta and therefore OUTSIDE surrealism then and a misnomer?
: Hypocrite, you listening??
: Hello?
Hell if I know.
I was asking if his revolution expressed in vulgar terms
included attempting to censor people on Usenet based on some
bizare twist on "politically correct" related to the
surrealism religion.
Leo Sgouros
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7akhu4$mdk$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
You are making two fatal assumptions.
That someone is censoring something.
That someone is a revolutionary.
What is the basis for these feelings of yours?
Leo
Mark Shippey
: (individual or collective) -- an attempt to identify and breach the
: artificial limits and accepted meanings which restrict the potential range
: of creative activity for all. to "defend" in this context is simply a
: matter of accepting responsibility for your position when it is challenged
: by another.
:
: this sort of challenge (among surrealists) is expected to lead to a clearer
: understanding of the issues involved (by both the "challenger" and the
: "defender" -- often taking the form of a dialectic synthesis) and should
: only be viewed as an attack by those who abdicate responsibility for their
: conclusions, refuse to challenge themselves and insist on clinging to
: positions which constrict rather than enhance creative reality.
Sure, okay. Can we say, "mumbo jumbo" children?
Why are you so clearly afraid to have a simple crosspost into
alt.surrealism? This reminds me of the religous nut who is afraid
of the spiritually impure who might pollute their beliefs. So, they
attempt to shield themselves from any real debate, while of course
claiming that their beliefs are superior. It is clear that surrealism
is a religion for you, and that within that religion you have a strange
form of political correctness. Quite the opposite of surrealism as
it is usually known. You act like the surrealistic verision of
fundamentalist religions.
barrett john erickson
yet another dull variation on the game of "straw man" -- displaying no
cognitive ability beyond the level of conditioned reflex, and provoking
nothing beyond this yawn.
barrett john erickson
hap...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>Art Wholeflaffer is the epitome of surreal. In fact, he was
>once known as "Mr. Surreal" on one of those ancient telegraph
>brit boards.
> [...]
>Jimi was more of a surrealist than the hordes of phake surrealists
>in a.s.
>
>Art Wholeflaffer knows that everything we know about alt.surrealism
>is just plain wrong!
>
>SHIPPEY For PRESIDENT!
>
>&
>
>WHOLEFLAFFER For RoboModeratorClone of ALT.surrealism!
and "Andrea" just can't understand why some of us are reluctant to attempt
to communicate with the denizens of alt.alien.visitors or
alt.syntax.tactical.
Sur-King
Mark Shippey wrote:
> barrett john erickson (bar...@magneticfields.org) wrote:
> : Mark Shippey wrote in message <7ake55$lm9$2...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
> :
> : yet another dull variation on the game of "straw man" -- displaying no
> : cognitive ability beyond the level of conditioned reflex, and provoking
> : nothing beyond this yawn.
>
> Yet another phony variation on the game of "I am a fake
> surrealist who is a pompous buffoon" -- displaying a fundamentalist
> surrealism that is little more than a silly religion. You have
> taken surrealism down to the level of the Baptists boycotting
> Disneyland. You are now the "Jerry Falwell of Surrealism".
Mr. Barrett John Erickson:
Show this big smartypants Shippey some your genwine surrealism type ART stuff
itselve. That's the onee way to shaddim up oncet for all. If that!
Sur-regards,
King
john patton
that would be "doest thou
i don know why you bother to respond to such skeptics
don mess with texas you liddle grey fellers
jp
Mark Shippey wrote:
>
> barrett john erickson (bar...@magneticfields.org) wrote:
> :
> : hap...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> :
> : >Art Wholeflaffer is the epitome of surreal. In fact, he was
> : >once known as "Mr. Surreal" on one of those ancient telegraph
> : >brit boards.
> :
> : > [...]
> :
> : >Jimi was more of a surrealist than the hordes of phake surrealists
> : >in a.s.
> : >
> : >Art Wholeflaffer knows that everything we know about alt.surrealism
> : >is just plain wrong!
> : >
> : >SHIPPEY For PRESIDENT!
> : >
> : >&
> : >
> : >WHOLEFLAFFER For RoboModeratorClone of ALT.surrealism!
> :
> :
> : and "Andrea" just can't understand why some of us are reluctant to attempt
> : to communicate with the denizens of alt.alien.visitors or
> : alt.syntax.tactical.
>
> Does this post also offend thy sensibility oh great fudamemtalist
> surrealist preacher? Does thou not see why you are now the Official
> Usenet Fundamentalist Surrealist Minister?
--
*************************************
John Pat Patton
Southwest-USA
http://www.southwest-usa.com
*************************************
Brandon J. Freels
If I was censoring you, you stupid fuck, no-one would have ever read this
last post of yours. I have every right to call you a fucking idiot, just as
you have every right to be one. Mark Shippey, you are a dick up a sailor's
nose!
Please define what you believe censorship to be, asshole.
Brandon J. Freels
>I challenge the challenge [more bullshit...]
Brandon:
I challenge the challenge to the challenge that you submitted to Barrett by
asking you why you keep avoiding the question, fucker!
>No shit? You folks have determined what is surreal on the Usenet
>and who should be able to crosspost to alt.surrealism.
Brandon:
Are you, in a hidden, subliminal way, trying to get me to define Surrealism?
Surrealism is the demand to further reality, to push reality past the reign
of logic, in hopes of reaching the purist of thoughts. Surrealism is freedom
from society's artificial obligations, emancipating the mind and its ability
to unify contradictions. Surrealism is giving in to the imagination, and
accepting perception as existing in both closed and opened eyes. Surrealism
is accepting your fantasies and desires, your impulsive and irrational
actions, and all the things that would have you labeled mad. Surrealism is
the movement of the mind towards a clearer understanding of life. Surrealism
is "the pruning of life" (Boiffard, Eluard, Vitrac).
It is also the pursuit of the Marvelous, and the experience of Convulsive
Beauty.
It appears you have misunderstood what Surrealism is due to watching to much
MTV. Hopefully this will help you out a little, and may I suggest the
Surrealist Manifestoes of Breton, and his books Nadja and Mad Love. Possibly
you should even read Nadeau's History of Surrealism. You apparently are the
type of individual who believes Surrealism equals something "weird." I have
no more patience for fucks like you.
Brandon J. Freels
If he believes Surrealism is a religion that what else, by his definition,
is a religion?
Television stations?
Education institutions?
Marxism?
Republicans?
Democrats?
Fatalism?
Determinism?
Booksellers?
Couch patatos?
Basketball referees?
The police?
Do "rules" and "concepts" equal "religion"?
Brandon J. Freels
> Why are you so clearly afraid to have a simple crosspost into
>alt.surrealism?
Brandon:
The answer is simple: We were not afraid, you just simply bored us. It was
not until Barett asked his now famous question that this thread became
entertaining. I have greatly enjoyed insulting you, asshole.
Brandon J. Freels
>Otherwise you become the surrealist monkey.
Brandon:
Yahoo! I'm a monkey!!!
john patton
can you take this outside
jp
(actually i enjoy watching people solve their differences, makes me feel
resoved myself somehow
Mark Shippey wrote:
>
> Brandon J. Freels (Fre...@ethergate.com) wrote:
> : Brandon:
> I didn't say you were censoring me you surrealist goon.
> You are simply a monkey dancing for some surrealist organ grinder.
> I was referring to the original nonsense phony surrealist "challenge"
> that started all of this. You should really know what you are writing
> about before you write. Otherwise you become the surrealist monkey.
john patton
ever heard of alt.slack ?
they make comments similar to yours, try it, you might like it !
HTH
jp
--
john patton
knuckleheads
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
> Mark Shippey wrote
--
Bill Cleere
>
> Mark Shippey (kpri...@dfw.nationwide.net) wrote:
> : Brandon J. Freels (Fre...@ethergate.com) wrote:
> : : Brandon:
> : : If I was censoring you, you stupid fuck, no-one would have ever read this
> : : last post of yours. I have every right to call you a fucking idiot, just as
> : : you have every right to be one. Mark Shippey, you are a dick up a sailor's
> : : nose!
> : :
> : : Please define what you believe censorship to be, asshole.
> :
> : I didn't say you were censoring me you surrealist goon.
> : You are simply a monkey dancing for some surrealist organ grinder.
> : I was referring to the original nonsense phony surrealist "challenge"
> : that started all of this. You should really know what you are writing
> : about before you write. Otherwise you become the surrealist monkey.
>
> I am home sick with a cold. Fundamentalist Surrealism is a funny
> religion. It is fun watching its believer monkeys dance for the
> organ grinder. heh.
APE SHALL NOT KILL SURREALIST
barrett john erickson
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alc6q$off$2...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
> P.S.--> Thanks to all you phony surrealists for entertaining me while
>I am home sick with a cold. Fundamentalist Surrealism is a funny
>religion. It is fun watching its believer monkeys dance for the
>organ grinder. heh.
Brandon,
is it possible that the shippey spasms are attributable to the grinding
interaction of prozac and contac on the infected linguistic conceptual
framework of his home sick organ?
Bill Cleere
> I BUTT FUCKEN AN ANGEL HAIR PASTA MERMAID
LEO SGOUROS!
YOU MARCH YOURSELF INTO THE BATHROOM THIS MINUTE AND
WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT WITH DOVE SOAP AND NOT ONE MORE
WORD OUT OF YOU ABOUT...ABOUT...ABOUT DOING THAT KIND
OF THING WITH HELPING SPIRIT MESSENGERS, YOUNG MAN!
...I just don't know about that boy sometimes, Marge.
Pass me another wing, please.
hap...@my-dejanews.com
"Lone_Ranger" <who_i...@masked.man> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:34:54 -0600 "barrett john erickson"
> <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
> > twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
> > <36cc505a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> > >Doctor Frager, alias Art, is totally surreal.
Art Wholeflaffer is the epitome of surreal. In fact, he was
once known as "Mr. Surreal" on one of those ancient telegraph
brit boards.
> > which, of course, tells me something about "twitchb" but nothing about
> > "Doctor Frager, alias Art". nor does it offer any indication that either
> > has any relevance to "surrealism".
>
> Which of course tell us something about the unsurreal
> and predictable nature of the surrealistic status quo in the
> modern word as it pertains to Usenet linquistic relevance.
>
> "Scuz me, while I kiss the sky"
Jimi was more of a surrealist than the hordes of phake surrealists
in a.s.
Art Wholeflaffer knows that everything we know about alt.surrealism
is just plain wrong!
SHIPPEY For PRESIDENT!
&
WHOLEFLAFFER For RoboModeratorClone of ALT.surrealism!
HapLoid
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark Shippey
Mark Shippey
: Show this big smartypants Shippey some your genwine surrealism type ART stuff
: itselve. That's the onee way to shaddim up oncet for all. If that!
Yea! Let's see what the Jerry Falwell of Fundamentalist Surrealism
can do with word games. That's maybe the only way he can vent his
fundamentalism and stop trying to censor people on Usenet!
Mark Shippey
:
: >Art Wholeflaffer is the epitome of surreal. In fact, he was
: >once known as "Mr. Surreal" on one of those ancient telegraph
: >brit boards.
: > [...]
:
: >Jimi was more of a surrealist than the hordes of phake surrealists
: >in a.s.
: >
: >Art Wholeflaffer knows that everything we know about alt.surrealism
: >is just plain wrong!
: >
: >SHIPPEY For PRESIDENT!
: >
: >&
: >
: >WHOLEFLAFFER For RoboModeratorClone of ALT.surrealism!
:
Mark Shippey
Mark Shippey
P.S.--> Thanks to all you phony surrealists for entertaining me while
Leo Sgouros
Brandon J. Freels wrote in message ...
>Mark Shippey wrote
>>Otherwise you become the surrealist monkey.
>
>
>Yahoo! I'm a monkey!!!
>
AARGHGG
Mark Shippey
: >Otherwise you become the surrealist monkey.
:
:
: Brandon:
: Yahoo! I'm a monkey!!!
A fundamentalist monkey.
Mark Shippey
:
: If he believes Surrealism is a religion that what else, by his definition,
: is a religion?
Are you comparing your surrealism to "television stations"? Hmm.
I think that would be reaching. Jerry Falwell is more appropriate.
: Television stations?
:
:
Mark Shippey
: > Why are you so clearly afraid to have a simple crosspost into
: >alt.surrealism?
:
: Brandon:
: The answer is simple: We were not afraid, you just simply bored us. It was
: not until Barett asked his now famous question that this thread became
: entertaining. I have greatly enjoyed insulting you, asshole.
When do the insults begin? So far all you have posted is
about on the level of a not too bright below average 10 year old.
Mark Shippey
: APE SHALL NOT KILL SURREALIST
FUNDAMENTALIST SURREALIST SHALL NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY NOR THINK
FOR ITSELF.
Leo Sgouros
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alf2f$ojh$4...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
ALL TRANSEPTICLES TO THE FRONT OF THE LOBOTOMY
PLEASE EXTANGUISH THE THE YOLKING SCREWTENTIAL IN ORDER TO BOLSTER THE
BOINKING COEFFICIENT
Mark Shippey
:
: > P.S.--> Thanks to all you phony surrealists for entertaining me while
: >I am home sick with a cold. Fundamentalist Surrealism is a funny
: >religion. It is fun watching its believer monkeys dance for the
: >organ grinder. heh.
:
: Brandon,
:
: is it possible that the shippey spasms are attributable to the grinding
: interaction of prozac and contac on the infected linguistic conceptual
: framework of his home sick organ?
A canned "prozac flame". Very typical. Thousands of this kind are
used everyday. I would expect better from a Fundamentalist Surrealist
Preacher. You cannot spread the Surrealist Gospel without rising above
the canned preaching that your are stuck in. Everyone except the
Believers sees this.
Well, thank for the laughs.
I have been home sick with a cold and watching the Church
of Usenet Fundamentlist Surrealism (alt.surrealism) in action
has been entertaining. The canned sermons were interesting,
but Usenet is a new form of communication and the Church
will have to adapt its Commandments to this new way if
it is not to lose Believers and go the way of so many
Churches before it. Of course, the Church can remain the
home of elitists who believe in the Old Ways, but verily
I say unto you, unless you adapt, your Church will die off
and end up in the Garbage Can of History. And it will not
be recycled. It will be buried in the Landfill of Time.
Got to go now soon, off on a weekend trip.
Mark Shippey
:
: Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alf2f$ojh$4...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
I LIKE THAT ONE, THAT'S FUNNY. ARE YOU A SURREALIST? FUNDAMENTALIST
SURREALISTS KNOW WHAT IS SURREAL AND WHAT IS NOT. BUT THEY ARE UNSURREAL.
THIS IS REAL. SOME SURREALISTS ARE UNREAL SURREALISTS. WHAT A WORLD
HUH?
Leo Sgouros
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alh4a$op2$2...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
MY PARROT HAD A BROWN NOSE ONCE BUT HE GOT ET BY THE DOG AND WHEN THE
ANACONDA ET THE DOG IS WHEN I MARRIED HER BINKY
>
Leo Sgouros
I WANT YOUR SUUREAL THINGY UNDER MY TOUNGE
YOU DUM PEOPLE ARE DUMB AS POOP CAUSE YOU CANT ANSWER ALL TWO OF MY THOUGHTS
ON WHEN I ASK YOU ABOUT DEFINE WHY YOUCENSOR ME AND YOU CANT EVEN DO THAT
AND IA AM A TELLIN
Leo Sgouros wrote in message ...
Leo Sgouros
Leo Sgouros wrote in message ...
>I HAVE PROBLEMS YOU NO ANSWER WHY YOU NOT WORSHIP ME FINE
>I WANT YOUR SUUREAL THINGY UNDER MY TOUNGE
>YOU DUM PEOPLE ARE DUMB AS POOP CAUSE YOU CANT ANSWER ALL TWO OF MY
THOUGHTS
>ON WHEN I ASK YOU ABOUT DEFINE WHY YOUCENSOR ME AND YOU CANT EVEN DO THAT
>AND IA AM A TELLIN
>Leo Sgouros wrote in message ...
>>
>>Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alh4a$op2$2...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
>>>Leo Sgouros (lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com) wrote:
>>>:
>>>: Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alf2f$ojh$4...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
>>>: >Bill Cleere (acl...@best.com) wrote:
>>>: >: APE SHALL NOT KILL SURREALIST
>>>: >
>>>: > FUNDAMENTALIST SURREALIST SHALL NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY NOR THINK
>>>: >FOR ITSELF.
>>>:
>>>:
>>>: ALL TRANSEPTICLES TO THE FRONT OF THE LOBOTOMY
>>>: PLEASE EXTANGUISH THE THE YOLKING SCREWTENTIAL IN ORDER TO BOLSTER THE
>>>: BOINKING COEFFICIENT
>>>
>>> I LIKE THAT ONE, THAT'S FUNNY. ARE YOU A SURREALIST? FUNDAMENTALIST
>>>SURREALISTS KNOW WHAT IS SURREAL AND WHAT IS NOT. BUT THEY ARE UNSURREAL.
>>>THIS IS REAL. SOME SURREALISTS ARE UNREAL SURREALISTS. WHAT A WORLD
>>>HUH?
>>
>>MY PARROT HAD A BROWN NOSE ONCE BUT HE GOT ET BY THE DOG AND WHEN THE
>>ANACONDA ET THE DOG IS WHEN I MARRIED HER BINKY
>>>
>>
>>
>
Leo Sgouros
Mark Shippey
:
: Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alh4a$op2$2...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
: MY PARROT HAD A BROWN NOSE ONCE BUT HE GOT ET BY THE DOG AND WHEN THE
: ANACONDA ET THE DOG IS WHEN I MARRIED HER BINKY
THAT IS VERY FUNNY. IS THIS LIKE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL INDIGESTION THAT
CAUSES A UNSURREAL FUNDAMENTALIST SURREALIST'S MENTAL USENET FARTS?
Leo Sgouros
Mark Shippey
: I HAVE PROBLEMS YOU NO ANSWER WHY YOU NOT WORSHIP ME FINE
: I WANT YOUR SUUREAL THINGY UNDER MY TOUNGE
: YOU DUM PEOPLE ARE DUMB AS POOP CAUSE YOU CANT ANSWER ALL TWO OF MY THOUGHTS
: ON WHEN I ASK YOU ABOUT DEFINE WHY YOUCENSOR ME AND YOU CANT EVEN DO THAT
: AND IA AM A TELLIN
BUT WHY YOU SAY THIS WHEN I NOT PART OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST
SURREALIST RELIGION.. SO THIS MAKES YOU DUMB AS A ROCK AND YOUR
TWO THOUGHTS AREN'T WORTH THE LOAD IN A TIOLET.... AND WHO YOU
BE A TELLIN ANYWAY
Leo Sgouros
Leo Sgouros
> I didn't say you were censoring me you surrealist goon.
> You are simply a monkey dancing for some surrealist organ grinder.
> I was referring to the original nonsense phony surrealist "challenge"
>that started all of this. You should really know what you are writing
>about before you write. Otherwise you become the surrealist monkey.
>
Leo Sgouros
> Does this post also offend thy sensibility oh great fudamemtalist
>surrealist preacher? Does thou not see why you are now the Official
>Usenet Fundamentalist Surrealist Minister?
HE BE A PREECHIN THE THING
Leo Sgouros
>Nonsense. Total nonsense. You attempted to attack and censor a poster
>based on your nebulous bullshit concepts of surrealism and your
>pompous arrogant self-image. Your supposed surrealism is nothing
>more or less than a mental game for you to play while believing that
>you are somehow superior to others. This is the same level as the
>Christian who believes they are "saved" but that others are somehow
>in the dark, or the cultist who believes that they have some inside
>knowledge that other do not have. Just more mumbo-jumbo from people
>attemptint to justify their illusions.
Leo Sgouros
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7aljg5$p09$2...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
SOME WORDS ON MY MACHINE CAME UP AND ASKED ME WH I WAS A THINKIN BOUT
THINKIN BINKY KLIKE SO I LIKE DONT KNOW WHO ANYBOT IS
Mark Shippey
: GOOOOOOOOOOO MARKY MARK
WHOOOOOA I AM IMPRESSED WITH THIS SURREALISM.... BUT NOW
I REALLY DO HAVE TO GOOOOOOOOOOO. WOULD YOU MIND NOT FLOODING
NEWSGROUPS WITH YOUR STAND-UP COMIC ROUTINE AFTER I GOOOOOOO
SO THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE EXPOSED TO THIS SURREALISM?
: Mark Shippey wrote in message <7ale4t$ojh$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
: >Brandon J. Freels (Fre...@ethergate.com) wrote:
: >: Mark Shippey wrote
: >: >Otherwise you become the surrealist monkey.
: >:
: >:
: >: Brandon:
Leo Sgouros
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alivu$p09$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
>Leo Sgouros (lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com) wrote:
>:
>: Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alh4a$op2$2...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
>: >Leo Sgouros (lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com) wrote:
>: >:
>: >: Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alf2f$ojh$4...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
>: >: >Bill Cleere (acl...@best.com) wrote:
>: >: >: APE SHALL NOT KILL SURREALIST
>: >: >
>: >: > FUNDAMENTALIST SURREALIST SHALL NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY NOR THINK
>: >: >FOR ITSELF.
>: >:
>: >: ALL TRANSEPTICLES TO THE FRONT OF THE LOBOTOMY
>: >: PLEASE EXTANGUISH THE THE YOLKING SCREWTENTIAL IN ORDER TO BOLSTER THE
>: >: BOINKING COEFFICIENT
>: >
>: > I LIKE THAT ONE, THAT'S FUNNY. ARE YOU A SURREALIST? FUNDAMENTALIST
>: >SURREALISTS KNOW WHAT IS SURREAL AND WHAT IS NOT. BUT THEY ARE
UNSURREAL.
>: >THIS IS REAL. SOME SURREALISTS ARE UNREAL SURREALISTS. WHAT A WORLD
>: >HUH?
>:
>: MY PARROT HAD A BROWN NOSE ONCE BUT HE GOT ET BY THE DOG AND WHEN THE
>: ANACONDA ET THE DOG IS WHEN I MARRIED HER BINKY
>
> THAT IS VERY FUNNY. IS THIS LIKE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL INDIGESTION THAT
>CAUSES A UNSURREAL FUNDAMENTALIST SURREALIST'S MENTAL USENET FARTS?
WHAT ABOUT THE FORTS
WHAT FORT SOLDIER
DAMMIT BOY GIVE ME TWENTY
Leo Sgouros
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alkcp$p2p$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
>Leo Sgouros (lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com) wrote:
>: GOOOOOOOOOOO MARKY MARK
>
> WHOOOOOA I AM IMPRESSED WITH THIS SURREALISM.... BUT NOW
>I REALLY DO HAVE TO GOOOOOOOOOOO. WOULD YOU MIND NOT FLOODING
>NEWSGROUPS WITH YOUR STAND-UP COMIC ROUTINE AFTER I GOOOOOOO
>SO THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE EXPOSED TO THIS SURREALISM?
QUIT YOUR CHRISTODIMENSIOAL FUNDAMENTALLY IMBALANCED HORSESHIT
Leo Sgouros
BINKY BAD BINKY
TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT THE FUNDOME MENTALS
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7alkcp$p2p$1...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
>Leo Sgouros (lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com) wrote:
>: GOOOOOOOOOOO MARKY MARK
>
> WHOOOOOA I AM IMPRESSED WITH THIS SURREALISM.... BUT NOW
>I REALLY DO HAVE TO GOOOOOOOOOOO. WOULD YOU MIND NOT FLOODING
>NEWSGROUPS WITH YOUR STAND-UP COMIC ROUTINE AFTER I GOOOOOOO
>SO THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE EXPOSED TO THIS SURREALISM?
>
Perceptor
> Mark Shippey (kpri...@dfw.nationwide.net) wrote:
> : Brandon J. Freels (Fre...@ethergate.com) wrote:
> : : Brandon:
> : : If I was censoring you, you stupid fuck, no-one would have ever read this
> : : last post of yours. I have every right to call you a fucking idiot, just as
> : : you have every right to be one. Mark Shippey, you are a dick up a sailor's
> : : nose!
> : :
> : : Please define what you believe censorship to be, asshole.
> :
> : I didn't say you were censoring me you surrealist goon.
> : You are simply a monkey dancing for some surrealist organ grinder.
> : I was referring to the original nonsense phony surrealist "challenge"
> : that started all of this. You should really know what you are writing
> : about before you write. Otherwise you become the surrealist monkey.
>
> P.S.--> Thanks to all you phony surrealists for entertaining me while
> I am home sick with a cold. Fundamentalist Surrealism is a funny
> religion. It is fun watching its believer monkeys dance for the
> organ grinder. heh.
Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is
in the room.
"Winston Churchill"
Leo Sgouros
DIAMOND PUSH THEN YOU SEE UNCLEAR AN IMAGE
Leo Sgouros
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
Mark Shippey wrote
> A fundamentalist monkey.
Please define what you mean by "fundamentalist" and "monkey." I do not think
you know what you are saying.
Brandon J. Freels
Brandon J. Freels
>is it possible that the shippey spasms are attributable to the grinding
interaction of >prozac and contac on the infected linguistic conceptual
framework of his home sick >organ?
Brandon:
I think the amazing thing about shippey is his ignorance to the fact that he
is not the first person with little knowledge of what Surrealism is to
wonder on to alt.surrealism expecting anything "weird" to constitute as
Surrealism. His motives are rather obvious: absorb attention which I am sure
Leo and myself will give him until he feels, incorrectly, that he has
exhausted this newsgroup. Like all individuals with a misconception of
Surrealism he fails to respond to any questions. I have asked him several
questions, just as you asked him one, and he has answered nothing. So for
shippey's sake I will repeat, rephrasing some of my questions, with hopes
that he will answer:
What is your understanding of Surrealism?
What is your understanding of religion?
What was the relevance of the crosspost in question to Surrealism?
scot...@earthlink.net
<Fre...@ethergate.com> wrote:
Brandon,
I don't consider myself a surrealist. But I consider my thinking
friendly to surrealism. In my personalized view of things I would end
up altering your definition. I would do this because I am in love
with my body, and have no interest in separating it from the mind.
On a very basic level I see thought and action as being the same
thing. Thought is an activity of the body. It is the body
interacting with itself and the things it comes in contact with.
I would make the following alterations to your definition:
I would strike the word -- thoughts -- in the first sentence and
replace it with the word -- actions --.
I would strike the word -- mind -- in the second and fifth sentence
and replace it with -- mind/body --.
The rest I would leave the same.
>Brandon:
>....
>Surrealism is the demand to further reality, to push reality past the reign
>of logic, in hopes of reaching the purist of thoughts. Surrealism is freedom
>from society's artificial obligations, emancipating the mind and its ability
>to unify contradictions. Surrealism is giving in to the imagination, and
>accepting perception as existing in both closed and opened eyes. Surrealism
>is accepting your fantasies and desires, your impulsive and irrational
>actions, and all the things that would have you labeled mad. Surrealism is
>the movement of the mind towards a clearer understanding of life. Surrealism
>is "the pruning of life" (Boiffard, Eluard, Vitrac).
>
>It is also the pursuit of the Marvelous, and the experience of Convulsive
>Beauty.
Lou Minatti
>
> Mark Shippey wrote in message <7aljg5$p09$2...@fnord.nationwide.net>...
> >Leo Sgouros (lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com) wrote:
> >: I HAVE PROBLEMS YOU NO ANSWER WHY YOU NOT WORSHIP ME FINE
> >: I WANT YOUR SUUREAL THINGY UNDER MY TOUNGE
> >: YOU DUM PEOPLE ARE DUMB AS POOP CAUSE YOU CANT ANSWER ALL TWO OF MY
> THOUGHTS
> >: ON WHEN I ASK YOU ABOUT DEFINE WHY YOUCENSOR ME AND YOU CANT EVEN DO THAT
> >: AND IA AM A TELLIN
> >
> > BUT WHY YOU SAY THIS WHEN I NOT PART OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST
> >SURREALIST RELIGION.. SO THIS MAKES YOU DUMB AS A ROCK AND YOUR
> >TWO THOUGHTS AREN'T WORTH THE LOAD IN A TIOLET.... AND WHO YOU
> >BE A TELLIN ANYWAY
>
> SOME WORDS ON MY MACHINE CAME UP AND ASKED ME WH I WAS A THINKIN BOUT
> THINKIN BINKY KLIKE SO I LIKE DONT KNOW WHO ANYBOT IS
WHY YOU NOT KNOW WHO ANYBOT IS WE ARE ALL HERE POASTING ON THIS
NEWSGROPE ARENT WE. WHAT IS THE SUUREAL THINGY UNDER YOUR TONGUE IS IT A
LIFESAVER CANDY OR IS IT AN ALIEN IMPLANT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
IMPLANTED IN ANOTHER ORRIFICE LIKE WHITLEY STREEBER REPORTS SO WELL IN
HIS BEST SELLING BOOKS. YOU DESERVE US AN ANSWER BUDDY SO YOU BETTER NOT
LET US DOWN AGAIN.
--
We're watching you at SpOOk Central.
http://www.watchingyou.com
Includes brand-new Y2K-compliant Strange Foreign Objects!