spooky Doctor von Hagens is back
Trayce
technique for the dead bodies that caused a huge uproar.
Well, he's back - doing public autopsies!
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/21/1037697788050.html
Eww... lots of gory descriptions :D
Trayce (and I just had my lunch, too)
--
faith in chaos
trace @ connect.net.au
http://www.memorygongs.com
Unknown
> Remember this guy? He's the one who invented that plastination
> technique for the dead bodies that caused a huge uproar.
> Well, he's back - doing public autopsies!
That's not art, is it.
How fucking sick is this world getting?
----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals
Trayce
>Trayce wrote:
>> Remember this guy? He's the one who invented that plastination
>> technique for the dead bodies that caused a huge uproar.
>> Well, he's back - doing public autopsies!
>
>That's not art, is it.
>How fucking sick is this world getting?
Oh H, you're trying to get ahead of me in the cynic stakes again, you
grumpy old bugger ;)
I think its art - after all, what is the cycle of life and death, if
not art? I've always been fascinated by the human body and how it
works, I used to read books that explained all about how our bodies
worked when I was a kid, I loved knowing about blood types and
vitamins and bodily organs and morbid diseases. I'd cut my finger open
to see my blood and see what colour it was. I'd hold my breath to see
if I'd pass out.
I still love neurology and diseases of the brain and mind - Oliver
Sacks is a great writer. I toyed with being a shrink when I left
school.
I'm a little squickish, but I'd love to see an autopsy I reckon. Its
about as visceral and in touch with our own fragility as you can get.
Trayce (whats that bit do!)
~L
>
> I'm a little squickish, but I'd love to see an autopsy I reckon. Its
> about as visceral and in touch with our own fragility as you can get.
My husband has done that. Trust me - its overrated.
~L
Thorfinn
Trayce <tra...@somethingorother.com> wrote:
> I'm a little squickish, but I'd love to see an autopsy I reckon. Its
> about as visceral and in touch with our own fragility as you can get.
Gets boring, fast, believe me. Or at least, poking at pre-dissected and
preserved human parts gets boring fast. It's interesting for a little
while, but not that long. :)
There should be an "Anatomy museum" in the biomedical wings of most
universities, if you're interested... They're worth a look, and usually
accessible-to-public.
Ook,
Thorf
--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thor...@tertius.net.au</a>
Alas, he wouldn't let me towel him off afterwards, preferring to do that
if it would run on forever?
-- MegaHal, trained on the scary.devil.monastery
Thorfinn
(GreylockatWork) <> wrote:
> Trayce wrote:
> > Remember this guy? He's the one who invented that plastination
> > technique for the dead bodies that caused a huge uproar.
> > Well, he's back - doing public autopsies!
> That's not art, is it.
Define Art, please? In some fashion other than, "I knows it when I sees
it"?
> How fucking sick is this world getting?
What's wrong with an interest in autopsy, exactly?
I think that's what frequently annoys me about your posts, actually, you
come off as a judgemental SOB. I don't know if you mean to be, but you
sure *sound* like one.
allezbleu
<tra...@somethingorother.com> seemed to blather :
>Remember this guy? He's the one who invented that plastination
>technique for the dead bodies that caused a huge uproar.
>
>Well, he's back - doing public autopsies!
>
>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/21/1037697788050.html
It was on tv last night but i missed it :/
Cam
>Trayce wrote:
>> Remember this guy? He's the one who invented that plastination
>> technique for the dead bodies that caused a huge uproar.
>> Well, he's back - doing public autopsies!
>
>That's not art, is it.
>How fucking sick is this world getting?
I still don't see the big deal. It seems perfectly understandable to
want to know your body works. Why should such a thing be okay for
medical students, but forbidden to the layman? Are we really so
pathetically frail that we need that degree of protection from the
utterly commonplace?
Cam
____________________________________________________________
Website: www.cameron-rogers.com
I am not a gun.
Cam
wrote:
>> I'm a little squickish, but I'd love to see an autopsy I reckon. Its
>> about as visceral and in touch with our own fragility as you can get.
>
>
>My husband has done that. Trust me - its overrated.
The perfect attitude, seriously.
Cam
(Greylock) wrote:
>Art. Requires effort. The end product is worth looking at.
I'd pay that.
>>> How fucking sick is this world getting?
>>What's wrong with an interest in autopsy, exactly?
>
>120 years ago we stopped public autopsies because they were barbaric, just
>as we stopped public executions.
We stopped allowing the public to attend autopsies whose primary
purpose was the edification of medical personnel, because their
attendance was considered to be barbaric?
That's a double standard if I ever heard one.
>We stopped for a reason.
>Why do we insist on regressing?
I think it's a progression, the dispensation of baseless taboo. This
whole body-fear-ick thing is right up there with wanking-equals-Hell.
If someone has decreed that they want their remains to be used for
science, then shouldn't we be grateful rather than repulsed? And,
unlike Lyle's bum, this really is something you don't have to witness
if you don't want to.
allezbleu
to blather :
>In aus.culture.gothic, on Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:27:32 +1100
>Trayce <tra...@somethingorother.com> wrote:
>> I'm a little squickish, but I'd love to see an autopsy I reckon. Its
>> about as visceral and in touch with our own fragility as you can get.
>
>Gets boring, fast, believe me. Or at least, poking at pre-dissected and
>preserved human parts gets boring fast. It's interesting for a little
>while, but not that long. :)
>
>There should be an "Anatomy museum" in the biomedical wings of most
>universities, if you're interested... They're worth a look, and usually
>accessible-to-public.
>
They have some bits and pieces in the melbourne museum too, iirc.
a
>Ook,
>
> Thorf
mr julian
> I think it's a progression, the dispensation of baseless taboo. This
> whole body-fear-ick thing is right up there with wanking-equals-Hell.
I agree totally.
Then again I'm also wondering when this taboo gets dealt with, our noble
artist will have to attack another taboo, like necrophilia, perhaps?...
> If someone has decreed that they want their remains to be used for
> science, then shouldn't we be grateful rather than repulsed? And,
> unlike Lyle's bum, this really is something you don't have to witness
> if you don't want to.
>
but you *know* we all want to. At least Lyle seems to know it....
:-P
julian
--
"The girls were angry about something and we were not, so they went off
and broke into News At Ten. Us, being boys, went off and made Daleks in
true Blue Peter style. As these Daleks were so far removed from the
original designs they did not infringe any copyright laws."
- klf, the manual
little miss malice
"Cam" <cwro...@DIESPAMDIEtig.com.au> did type:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:22:17 GMT, Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID
> (Greylock) wrote:
> >Art. Requires effort. The end product is worth looking at.
>
> I'd pay that.
>
> >>> How fucking sick is this world getting?
> >>What's wrong with an interest in autopsy, exactly?
> >
> >120 years ago we stopped public autopsies because they were barbaric,
just
> >as we stopped public executions.
>
> We stopped allowing the public to attend autopsies whose primary
> purpose was the edification of medical personnel, because their
> attendance was considered to be barbaric?
>
> That's a double standard if I ever heard one.
>
> >We stopped for a reason.
> >Why do we insist on regressing?
>
> I think it's a progression, the dispensation of baseless taboo. This
> whole body-fear-ick thing is right up there with wanking-equals-Hell.
> If someone has decreed that they want their remains to be used for
> science, then shouldn't we be grateful rather than repulsed? And,
> unlike Lyle's bum, this really is something you don't have to witness
> if you don't want to.
That was the point I was going to make.
The German Guy wanted to do it.
The dead guy wanted it done.
The people who watched, watched of their own free will.
I dont think its a big deal.
I dont know about calling it 'art'.
But i dont see what the fuss is about.
-little miss malice
Trayce
wrote:
>On 21 Nov 2002 15:22:52 +1100, (GreylockatWork) wrote:
>
>>Trayce wrote:
>>> Remember this guy? He's the one who invented that plastination
>>> technique for the dead bodies that caused a huge uproar.
>>> Well, he's back - doing public autopsies!
>>
>>That's not art, is it.
>>How fucking sick is this world getting?
>
>I still don't see the big deal. It seems perfectly understandable to
>want to know your body works. Why should such a thing be okay for
>medical students, but forbidden to the layman? Are we really so
>pathetically frail that we need that degree of protection from the
>utterly commonplace?
Exactly my point. To revile such things as sick and wrong leads down a
path where we start saying any bodily function is evil. Sex, shitting,
eating, puking - wheres it sposed to end then hmm?
I thought humans were a tad more enlightened in this day and age! ;)
Trayce (and its not like anyones being forced to watch)
Cam
<jujuli...@hotmail.common> wrote:
>Cam wrote:
>
>> I think it's a progression, the dispensation of baseless taboo. This
>> whole body-fear-ick thing is right up there with wanking-equals-Hell.
>
>I agree totally.
>
>Then again I'm also wondering when this taboo gets dealt with, our noble
>artist will have to attack another taboo, like necrophilia, perhaps?...
If you're referring to my fine self, I don't really think I attacked
any kinds of taboo with that novel I wrote. One of the lead
characters was a surgeon, sure, but I wasn't on a soapbox about it.
As for necrophilia, I can't say I've ever really thought about it.
But as I understand it the main issue stems from a perceived lack of
consent on the part of the deceased. However if, for example, a dying
person decrees they'd like to be preserved and used for the purpose of
their partner's gratification in future, well... there's your consent.
If that's where the line is drawn as far as legality is concerned,
then what occurs after that consent is given is really none of our
business - as much as it may give the social collective a case of the
screaming heebies.
If, however, Fucking The Dead(tm) is technically illegal - regardless
of consent - then it's an issue for the machinery of law... and again,
really none of *our* business, per se. It becomes an issue of love,
morality and the will of the deceased versus the collective morality
and whatever legal precedents have been established in the dim and
distant past. At least as I understand it.
And, on the third hand, if some dude is running around
indiscriminately porking dead folk, by all means take to him with a
nine iron and my blessing.
>> If someone has decreed that they want their remains to be used for
>> science, then shouldn't we be grateful rather than repulsed? And,
>> unlike Lyle's bum, this really is something you don't have to witness
>> if you don't want to.
>>
>but you *know* we all want to. At least Lyle seems to know it....
Much the same way as retirement village inmates think Bert Newton is
talking specifically to *them*, maybe...
Thorfinn
Greylock <Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID> wrote:
> Last episode Thorfinn <thor...@tertius.net.au> said:
> >In aus.culture.gothic, on 21 Nov 2002 15:22:52 +1100
> >(GreylockatWork) <> wrote:
> >> Trayce wrote:
> >> That's not art, is it.
> >Define Art, please? In some fashion other than, "I knows it when I sees
> >it"?
Looked interesting to *me*. I find dissections quite intriguing, human
ones no less so (so long as I'm not doing them for 3 hours every week,
anyway).
And if you think dissections don't require effort, you've never done
one. And I happen to think that dissections frequently produce end
products worth looking at.
So, what's wrong with a public dissection? Seems to satisfy the
criteria you're listing.
> >> How fucking sick is this world getting?
> >What's wrong with an interest in autopsy, exactly?
> 120 years ago we stopped public autopsies because they were barbaric, just
> as we stopped public executions.
Define "barbaric"?
> We stopped for a reason.
Yeah, out of prudishness.
> Why do we insist on regressing?
How about progressing?
> >I think that's what frequently annoys me about your posts, actually, you
> >come off as a judgemental SOB. I don't know if you mean to be, but you
> >sure *sound* like one.
> No, I mean to sound like one.
Ah right. In that case, I shall cease to pay attention to thy
prattling, lest it begin to annoy me overmuch.
> Pls drve thru. k. thx.
Okay.
Later,
Thorf
--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thor...@tertius.net.au</a>
"Does anyone know my root password?" -- Hobbes$vurt.net
Trayce
>> >I think that's what frequently annoys me about your posts, actually, you
>> >come off as a judgemental SOB. I don't know if you mean to be, but you
>> >sure *sound* like one.
>> No, I mean to sound like one.
>
>Ah right. In that case, I shall cease to pay attention to thy
>prattling, lest it begin to annoy me overmuch.
>
>> Pls drve thru. k. thx.
>
>Okay.
Awww! But I was hopin' you two would degenerate into a flamefest! :D
Certainly give me some entertainment for a friday afternoon. C'mon
lads, get the werbal feestycuffs out!
Trayce (or else I'll start somethin'!)
petrolgoth
> Greylock wrote:
> > Art. Requires effort. The end product is worth looking at.
>
> Looked interesting to *me*. I find dissections quite intriguing, human
> ones no less so (so long as I'm not doing them for 3 hours every week,
> anyway).
Been there done that got the blood splattered T-shirt to prove it huh?
Much like the "what is art?" debate is it?
Although, I suppose you get less screaming and a lot less axes in the
dissection.
Still art has a definition so broad that it has lost it's meaning.
This happened years ago when some bugger but some graffiti on the wall of
the local cave in a vague attempt at the first "The antelope was 'ere and we
et em"
> And if you think dissections don't require effort, you've never done
> one. And I happen to think that dissections frequently produce end
> products worth looking at.
Well no, I haven't done one. I don't often get the time in my hectic daily
schedule to take a human body apart.
Well at least not a dead one anyway.
> Define "barbaric"?
bär-'bar-ik : possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex
than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization
2 a : marked by a lack of restraint : WILD b : having a bizarre, primitive,
or unsophisticated quality
Define "smart arse" with talking about Lyle
--
n4cat
"The flowers in my garden grow down
Their colour is pain. Their fragrance sorrow."
Spike Milligan
Thorfinn
petrolgoth <n4...@SPAMTRAPyahoo.com> wrote:
> "Thorfinn" wrote
> > Looked interesting to *me*. I find dissections quite intriguing, human
> > ones no less so (so long as I'm not doing them for 3 hours every week,
> > anyway).
> Been there done that got the blood splattered T-shirt to prove it huh?
Well, I didn't get to do human dissection (just studied pre-dissected
human bits), but I've done a number of animal dissections over the
years.
> Much like the "what is art?" debate is it?
That was my whole point. :) "Art" isn't defineable in any fashion other
than "I knows it when I sees it".
> Although, I suppose you get less screaming and a lot less axes in the
> dissection.
Usually, anyway. Let's hear it for our New Reality TV Show!
Battlefield Dissection! Brought To You By The Makers of Survivor XLVII
(Deep Dark Hole With No Food)!
> Still art has a definition so broad that it has lost it's meaning.
> This happened years ago when some bugger but some graffiti on the wall of
> the local cave in a vague attempt at the first "The antelope was 'ere and we
> et em"
Yeps. :)
> > And if you think dissections don't require effort, you've never done
> > one. And I happen to think that dissections frequently produce end
> > products worth looking at.
> Well no, I haven't done one. I don't often get the time in my hectic daily
> schedule to take a human body apart.
> Well at least not a dead one anyway.
Mmm, I specifically didn't say human dissection, since I know that's a
pretty rare experience to come by. :) Animal (usually rat) dissection
tends to happen in about year 10 science class curriculae, so it's a
little more common.
The most interesting dissection I did (first year biology at uni) was of
a common garden snail. They have enough internal organs to cover an A4
sized dissecting tray, quite thoroughly. Very intriguing. :)
Ook,
Thorf
--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thor...@tertius.net.au</a>
~/ For those who've come across the seas, ~/ We've boundless plains to share, ~/
~/ With courage let us all combine, ~/ To Advance Australia Fair. ~/
-- Part of the Australian National Anthem.
Morgan Jaffit
> Last episode Thorfinn <thor...@tertius.net.au> said:
>>(GreylockatWork) <> wrote:
>>> Trayce wrote:
>>> That's not art, is it.
>>Define Art, please? In some fashion other than, "I knows it when I sees
>>it"?
>
How much effort? What about the non-visual arts (okay, I'm being a
semantics pedant there)? What about perfomances - they don't have a
"product" - they happen then they're gone.
What about this doesn't require effort and isn't "worth" looking at?
See, in order for this to usefully apply to this situatio, you'd have to
define worth as well. That's a highly individual value.
entrippy (art for arts sake)
Morgan Jaffit
> That was the point I was going to make.
> The German Guy wanted to do it.
> The dead guy wanted it done.
> The people who watched, watched of their own free will.
>
> I dont think its a big deal.
> I dont know about calling it 'art'.
> But i dont see what the fuss is about.
You know, I don't think people would care so much about the whole
definition of art if it wasn't for the fact that capital-A Art brings with
it connotations of capital-$ Money.
Who cares about the what is art debate? Art is anything the artist finds to
be art, anything the viewer finds to be art. It's only the fact that Art
gets huge amounts of cash that makes people start getting pissy abou tit
all.
So stop paying anything beyond time+materials for art, and it's all sorted.
Also means all art will be created for love, rather than commercial
reasons.
Never happen, but in my fantasy world it seems good.
entrippy (stuff)
Blasphemy
news:slrnatrj1i....@juanita.tertius.net.au...
> In aus.culture.gothic, on Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:03:23 +0800
> petrolgoth <n4...@SPAMTRAPyahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Thorfinn" wrote
> > > Looked interesting to *me*. I find dissections quite intriguing,
human
> > > ones no less so (so long as I'm not doing them for 3 hours every week,
> > > anyway).
> > Been there done that got the blood splattered T-shirt to prove it huh?
>
> Well, I didn't get to do human dissection (just studied pre-dissected
> human bits), but I've done a number of animal dissections over the
> years.
>
> > Much like the "what is art?" debate is it?
>
> That was my whole point. :) "Art" isn't defineable in any fashion other
> than "I knows it when I sees it".
Not wanting to prolong this probably fruitless seach for the definition of
art, or seem pretentious, but I've just completed my philosophy of
aesthetics exam (yay!). Technically, art can't be defined as anything that
is attractive to a person. Its too relative. Apparently we're supposed to
judge it by the effectiveness of communicating some sort of feeling. ... I
wonder if nausea counts?
--Blasphemy
--
"To obtain knowledge is nothing. To control knowledge is power."
- Freidrich Nietzche
Dark Star
Blasphemy wrote:
>
> Apparently we're supposed to
> judge it by the effectiveness of communicating some sort of feeling. ... I
> wonder if nausea counts?
>
I would think so. I don't think we'd want to limit art to the works
that conveyed touchy-feely feel-good emotions. That would rather
narrow the field quite dramatically :)
--
Dark Star
It's difficult to be a Sxxy Deth Chyk, what with the constant tension
between "I am Woman, hear me roar" and "I am Goth, hear me whine" ...
jay
>Not wanting to prolong this probably fruitless seach for the definition of
>art, or seem pretentious, but I've just completed my philosophy of
>aesthetics exam (yay!). Technically, art can't be defined as anything that
>is attractive to a person. Its too relative. Apparently we're supposed to
>judge it by the effectiveness of communicating some sort of feeling. ... I
>wonder if nausea counts?
>
Does that mean when the right-wing christian lobby groups protested against
that Pisschrist thingy about five or so years ago that their reaction justified
the work as 'art'? Just wondering...
But surely, art must be a bit more well-defined that just 'the effectiveness of
communicating some sort of feeling', mustn't it? Whenever I'm unfortunate
enough to catch a glimpse of Mike Munro on the teev it never fails to
communicate a feeling [I want to throw things at the telly], but I'd never
consider 'A Current Affair' to be art.
I recently saw a small exhibition at the NGA by a guy called Sol LeWitt. I
spent the best part of an hour wandering around this room wondering how it
could be possibly classified as art [it was closer to geometric mathematics
than art], but then again, plenty of people have said that about Blue Poles,
which I quite like [but don't know why], so I'm really at the deep end as to
what constitutes art.
jay
____________
'underscore' [this.space.for.rent]
Blasphemy
news:20021123180219...@mb-fm.aol.com...
> >From: "Blasphemy" blasp...@spam.yahoo.com.au
>
> >Not wanting to prolong this probably fruitless seach for the definition
of
> >art, or seem pretentious, but I've just completed my philosophy of
> >aesthetics exam (yay!). Technically, art can't be defined as anything
that
> >is attractive to a person. Its too relative. Apparently we're supposed to
> >judge it by the effectiveness of communicating some sort of feeling. ...
I
> >wonder if nausea counts?
> >
>
> Does that mean when the right-wing christian lobby groups protested
against
> that Pisschrist thingy about five or so years ago that their reaction
justified
> the work as 'art'? Just wondering...
>
> But surely, art must be a bit more well-defined that just 'the
effectiveness of
> communicating some sort of feeling', mustn't it? Whenever I'm unfortunate
> enough to catch a glimpse of Mike Munro on the teev it never fails to
> communicate a feeling [I want to throw things at the telly], but I'd never
> consider 'A Current Affair' to be art.
I don't think art actually has a definition that is accepted universally.
Tolstoy proposes that art should be infectious, Kandinsky that art should
stem from an inner spiritual need, Plato that it should exhibit truth. But I
think if we were to ever agree on a single definitive statement about what
art is, we would destroy the concept of art as a creative enterprise. Art is
relative to each individual. And to that extent, what defines art, what is
good, or bad art, could be construed as an existential debate (imho). I
suppose von Hagen's work *could* be art, in this sense. And the Pisschrist
work as well, not to mention its' conformity with Kandinsky's theory.
Kat
>> Art. Requires effort. The end product is worth looking at.
>
>How much effort? What about the non-visual arts (okay, I'm being a
>semantics pedant there)? What about perfomances - they don't have a
>"product" - they happen then they're gone.
I'm guessing that the definition could be stretched over the
non-visual arts, ie music worth listening to, writing worth reading,
etc. But then you're right, what is the definition of 'worth?' It's
all an individual thing.
For instance, there is a particular composer my horn teacher can't
stand (Paul Hindemith), because he says that his music, while possibly
enjoyable to play, is *not* enjoyable to listen to. I know very few
musicians who agree with him (I'll admit that non-musicians would find
Hindemith a little hard to take - it's just not 'acceptably tuneful'),
but that's not to say that my teacher has no musical taste. It's just
a matter of opinion.
Kat
Cam
(Greylock) wrote:
>Call me crazy, but (and I don't think it was the Pisschrist incident)
>didn't something similar happen recently, and the vandal used much the same
>argument - justifying the throwing of paint as "artistic expression"?
>
>Can't remember for the life of me what it was, but I remember thinking that
>he had a good point.
You were talking about the von Hagen exhibit in London. Plastination.
Corpses. That stuff.
Still, when The Rite of Spring was first performed, the audience
trashed the theatre. I've often heard that the point of art is to
provoke feeling, good or bad. Some artists see any extreme reaction
as justification for what they've created. I do, but with one
refining qualification: that the extreme reaction you've created is
the reaction you INTENDED to create. Otherwise you're just
misunderstood. For some in-your-face shock artists I suppose any
reaction equals success, but not for me.
So I guess it is all personal. (shrug) I dunno.
Kat
>Still, when The Rite of Spring was first performed, the audience
>trashed the theatre. I've often heard that the point of art is to
>provoke feeling, good or bad.
Heh. I've always loved that story, especially since The Rite is now
one of the most respected musical works of the 20th Century, and
definitely Stravinsky's most well known.
Kat
(mmm, Stravinsky...)
Lionel
Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID (Greylock) said:
>And, to this day, I stand by that.
>This is wrong at at a level at which no one could convince me otherwise.
>Perhaps I'm wrong and people like Thorfin are right.
>But, the sad thing, I think people like Thorf are wrong - and most of
>people attending are in it for the shock value, not for the dubious
>educational "merit".
I still don't understand why you consider that to be a bad thing. I know
plenty of people who'd go to see it just for the entertainment value, &
I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Cam
(Greylock) wrote:
>But, I guess, I hold that real death is not something to be taken lightly,
>or flippantly. It's a core belief of mine. Has been for years.
'Flippant' is not a word I think applies to the general view of either
the plastination exhibit, or an autopsy. At least AFAIC it's more
akin to awe, poignancy and respect.
>I once walked out of my home to reinforce that belief.
>
>And, to this day, I stand by that.
>This is wrong at at a level at which no one could convince me otherwise.
>Perhaps I'm wrong and people like Thorfin are right.
>But, the sad thing, I think people like Thorf are wrong - and most of
>people attending are in it for the shock value, not for the dubious
>educational "merit".
Undoubtedly some people are there for kicks. But there will always be
people that are going somewhere or doing something for kicks, no
matter how weird or twisted. Some go to primary schools to teach,
others to perve, but I don't believe we should shut down schools.
I do understand your POV on this. It's one that my POV is in very
close proximity to, despite my being for the exhibits. I will also
say that von Hagens is beginning to *appear* to me as a man that's
looking to get famous on this - what with the profile-raising and the
everpresent trademark fedora - but aside from that, I do think what
he's making available is a valuable opportunity to embrace something
intrinsic and vital and common to all of us, something that has been
forbidden for no good reason.
Take the subject of the recent autopsy: a man that smoked like an
incessant chimney, and downed two bottles of whiskey a day. His
offering himself for that autopsy strikes me as no more ghoulish than
Yul Brynner's "Whatever you do, don't smoke" campaign that aired after
he'd died. Putting myself in that dead man's shoes, I can understand
the powerful need he may well have felt to contribute something to
those that survive or come after him, a need to communicate this one
lesson that turned out to be the focal point of his whole life. The
autopsy gave him the chance to glean some worth from his suffering and
his death, to give it meaning - and I'm sure all the people in that
theatre gained something as well. I'd like to know, for starters, how
many people quit smoking as a result of it.
The 'educational merit' of such a thing is not something you'd be able
to test afterwards. They're not going to leave the theatre being able
to name all the major arteries and organs. But they will have been
put in touch with an essential element of being alive on this planet,
they would no longer believe they're holograms, or skin-to-the-bone,
or bulletproof, or immortal. They'd look at everyone in that theatre,
for starters, and at the body on that table, and realise that everyone
really is each other's sibling. Race, colour, creed... all illusion.
That alone is valuable, and only part of what the people at that
exhibit would have felt. It's a profound and poignant thing, IMO.
It's invaluable. But I can also see this'll be an agree-to-disagree
thing, which is fine.
>I feel I should disagree with you on one point - that artist and intended
>reaction are linked but I lack the will or the lexicon or the training to
>do so.
>
>Something something English Lit something intention of the authour
>something evolution of the work.
Like I said, it's all subjective. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, if
the reader doesn't get what I'm on about, or comes away with the wrong
interpretation, I've screwed up. On the other hand, those people
doing 'shit art' that was discussed here a while back, would probably
be thrilled with any reaction other than apathy. (shrug)
petrolgoth
>
> Not wanting to prolong this probably fruitless seach for the definition of
> art, or seem pretentious, but I've just completed my philosophy of
> aesthetics exam (yay!).
This is a Goth news group.
Prolonging fruitless arguments and being pretentious is what it's all about
isn't it?
> Technically, art can't be defined as anything that
> is attractive to a person. Its too relative. Apparently we're supposed to
> judge it by the effectiveness of communicating some sort of feeling.
Yes supposedly the artist must communicate something to his intended
audience and the very basic idea one can communicate is emotion.
However this definition shits me. Usually because this is so subjective.
Try and nail down an artist before he displays his work and get him to admit
what it is supposed to communicate with his art and he'll bullshit and
stonewall you (if he's intelligent enough) because he knows that as soon as
it communicates something other than what was intended the art can be said
to have failed.
(this line of reasoning is brought to you by the "you only have to disprove
a theory once" group of companies)
It relies too much on interpretation to define 'art'
so that what is art to one society either isn't valid in another society or
ceases to be art in another society.
One of the reasons the DADA movement came about was because of the loose
definition of art at the time and the exploitation of it by some artist who
would do anything to make money.
Trayce
(Greylock) wrote:
>Of course it is.
>But, I guess, I hold that real death is not something to be taken lightly,
>or flippantly. It's a core belief of mine. Has been for years.
Yes but it has never been suggested a public autopsy is being flippant
or making light of death. The person was dead anyway, autopsy or no.
And as Cam pointed out he contributed his rather fscked up body to the
art of science so that we may learn. perhaps, from his mistakes (well,
one could ponder such).
Is science, learning, an art of a sort?
>And, to this day, I stand by that.
>This is wrong at at a level at which no one could convince me otherwise.
>Perhaps I'm wrong and people like Thorfin are right.
>But, the sad thing, I think people like Thorf are wrong - and most of
>people attending are in it for the shock value, not for the dubious
>educational "merit".
I think you're being somewhat patronising assuming most people would
go to something like an autopsy for "shock value". If most of us would
go for curiosity/education/experience, whos to say thats not the
majority opinion?
We're all human, why get all weird about death? Its just part of the
cycle. Its like being weird about sex or birth or breastfeeding or
whatever. I get very sad when people make taboos out of the most
natual amazing things.
Bleh.
Trayce (argh mondays)
>
>I feel I should disagree with you on one point - that artist and intended
>reaction are linked but I lack the will or the lexicon or the training to
>do so.
>
>Something something English Lit something intention of the authour
>something evolution of the work.
>
>---
>"I can't swallow the idea that the core focus of a supposedly artistic, creative, culturally
>subversive subculture revolves around the act of shaking booty on a dancefloor. Fuck that for a joke."
>- stranger
petrolgoth
> petrolgoth wrote:
> > Been there done that got the blood splattered T-shirt to prove it huh?
>
> Well, I didn't get to do human dissection (just studied pre-dissected
> human bits), but I've done a number of animal dissections over the
> years.
You know I wouldn't mind learning the art of taxidermy.
Oh and being a medical artist.
one of those people that recreates what someone looked like by building up
layers of clay on the persons skull to represent layers of muscle and fat.
That would be tres kewl.
>
> > Much like the "what is art?" debate is it?
>
> That was my whole point. :) "Art" isn't defineable in any fashion other
> than "I knows it when I sees it".
but IMO it should be.
but then again I work with a lot of engineers and it's rubbing off :(
> > Well no, I haven't done one. I don't often get the time in my hectic
daily
> > schedule to take a human body apart.
> > Well at least not a dead one anyway.
>
> Mmm, I specifically didn't say human dissection, since I know that's a
> pretty rare experience to come by. :) Animal (usually rat) dissection
> tends to happen in about year 10 science class curriculae, so it's a
> little more common.
I didn't get the opportunity to do that unfortunately as I never took
biology
only chem. and physics
I dropped chem. for art
there were more girls in art class :)
and we could wander off on the pretext of finding a still life to draw
nip round the back of the sheds have a smoke and then present the drawing we
did last week.
> The most interesting dissection I did (first year biology at uni) was of
> a common garden snail. They have enough internal organs to cover an A4
> sized dissecting tray, quite thoroughly. Very intriguing. :)
watch that S car go.
Trayce
<blasp...@spam.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Not wanting to prolong this probably fruitless seach for the definition of
>art, or seem pretentious, but I've just completed my philosophy of
>aesthetics exam (yay!). Technically, art can't be defined as anything that
>is attractive to a person. Its too relative. Apparently we're supposed to
>judge it by the effectiveness of communicating some sort of feeling. ... I
>wonder if nausea counts?
Think about op-art. All it was really was little black and white lines
and squares. You look at it and go all cross eyed and dizzy as it
appears to move around. I bet it induces ill feelings in some.
And thats art, innit? :)
I think anything that provokes reaction, and therefore thought and
discussion, is very important and part of what art is all about. Its
not to say all acts provoking a reaction are art - but all art should
provoke a reaction, otherwise its just beautiful nothings.
Trayce (or something)
Mother Superior
"petrolgoth" <n4...@SPAMTRAPyahoo.com> wrote
> "Thorfinn" wrote
> > petrolgoth wrote:
> > > Been there done that got the blood splattered T-shirt to prove it huh?
> >
> > Well, I didn't get to do human dissection (just studied pre-dissected
> > human bits), but I've done a number of animal dissections over the
> > years.
>
> You know I wouldn't mind learning the art of taxidermy.
> Oh and being a medical artist.
> one of those people that recreates what someone looked like by building up
> layers of clay on the persons skull to represent layers of muscle and fat.
> That would be tres kewl.
I got a book on Taxidermy for $10 at a gun show the other day. It's pretty
interesting, very precise and time consuming process, the longest part seems
to be making the frame to stretch the skin over, all in enough time to get
everything preserved before it goes rotten. I got another book on knives,
skinning hides and preserving leather which seems to have some pretty good
techniques as well.
_
_
/_/\/\++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/\/\_\
\_\ / M o t h e r \ /_/
/_/ \ S u p e r i o r / \_\
\_\/\ \ http://www.cadaverine.net / /\/_/
\_\/++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\/_/
Blasphemy
>
> >Not wanting to prolong this probably fruitless seach for the definition
of
> >art, or seem pretentious, but I've just completed my philosophy of
> >aesthetics exam (yay!). Technically, art can't be defined as anything
that
> >is attractive to a person. Its too relative. Apparently we're supposed to
> >judge it by the effectiveness of communicating some sort of feeling. ...
I
> >wonder if nausea counts?
> >
>
> Does that mean when the right-wing christian lobby groups protested
against
> that Pisschrist thingy about five or so years ago that their reaction
justified
> the work as 'art'? Just wondering...
>
> But surely, art must be a bit more well-defined that just 'the
effectiveness of
> communicating some sort of feeling', mustn't it? Whenever I'm unfortunate
> enough to catch a glimpse of Mike Munro on the teev it never fails to
> communicate a feeling [I want to throw things at the telly], but I'd never
> consider 'A Current Affair' to be art.
I don't think art actually has a definition that is accepted universally.
Tolstoy proposes that art should be infectious, Kandinsky that art should
stem from an inner spiritual need, Plato that it should exhibit truth. But I
think if we were to ever agree on a single definitive statement about what
art is, we would destroy the concept of art as a creative enterprise. Art is
relative to each individual. And to that extent, what defines art, what is
good, or bad art, could be construed as an existential debate (imho). I
suppose von Hagen's work *could* be art, in this sense. And the Pisschrist
work as well, not to mention its' conformity with Kandinsky's theory.
--Blasphemy
Blasphemy
news:3de1a9b7$0$15...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Blasphemy" wrote
> >
> > Not wanting to prolong this probably fruitless seach for the definition
of
> > art, or seem pretentious, but I've just completed my philosophy of
> > aesthetics exam (yay!).
>
> This is a Goth news group.
> Prolonging fruitless arguments and being pretentious is what it's all
about
> isn't it?
First rule of de-lurking: don't piss off the regulars. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but I'd rather be cautious than flamed -- for now, at least (I'm just
waiting for the welcoming committee...).
> > Technically, art can't be defined as anything that
> > is attractive to a person. Its too relative. Apparently we're supposed
to
> > judge it by the effectiveness of communicating some sort of feeling.
>
> Yes supposedly the artist must communicate something to his intended
> audience and the very basic idea one can communicate is emotion.
> However this definition shits me. Usually because this is so subjective.
> Try and nail down an artist before he displays his work and get him to
admit
> what it is supposed to communicate with his art and he'll bullshit and
> stonewall you (if he's intelligent enough) because he knows that as soon
as
> it communicates something other than what was intended the art can be said
> to have failed.
*nods*
> (this line of reasoning is brought to you by the "you only have to
disprove
> a theory once" group of companies)
> It relies too much on interpretation to define 'art'
> so that what is art to one society either isn't valid in another society
or
> ceases to be art in another society.
>
> One of the reasons the DADA movement came about was because of the loose
> definition of art at the time and the exploitation of it by some artist
who
> would do anything to make money.
>
*nods again*
Well, isn't this what happens with every creative experiment? Branching out
into Surrealism, Pop art, Cubism, Abstract art, Impressionism etc. would
come of an experimentation of the bounds of the definition of art, and also
from, no doubt, an intense desire for making money. We don't think any less
of Picasso for his work. Why should we of those related to the DADA
movement?
-- Blasphemy
stranger..
"Lionel" <n...@alt.net> wrote
:
: I still don't understand why you consider that to be a bad thing.
: I know plenty of people who'd go to see it just for the entertainment
: value, & I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
i'd imagine the argument is that once that becomes blithely acceptable, how
long until dissections of live animals for entertainment is okay, then live
executions of people etc, until we're back at the gladiator arena? A lack
of respect for the dead leading to loss of respect for life (and the
living).
Whether it would actually happen that way (like the idea of increased sexual
promiscuity leading to acceptance of kiddie fiddling etc) would be
debatable.
--
stranger..
(who really knows?)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.goth.net/~stranger
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The moon stands in the shadow
of a world gone entirely mad ." (No)
Sandro
<snippage>
>I got a book on Taxidermy for $10 at a gun show the other day. It's pretty
>interesting, very precise and time consuming process, the longest part seems
>to be making the frame to stretch the skin over, all in enough time to get
>everything preserved before it goes rotten. I got another book on knives,
>skinning hides and preserving leather which seems to have some pretty good
>techniques as well.
Remind me not to piss you off, Ed Gein. I don't want to end up stuffed and
mounted.
Sandro - Imagine. A glass-eyed Sandro after a trip to the taxidermist. Sitting
on your mantelpiece. In between an owl and a squirrel. Holding its paws out
plaintively, a cigarette in one and a bottle in the other. Unmoving for
all eternity. Collecting dust and scaring children. Sounds like a deserving
fate. I would be able to scare people for hundreds of years after my death,
and a greater legacy I doubt I'll leave.
--
Carthage Must Be Destroyed - Cato the Elder
Trayce
(Greylock) wrote:
>As could be applied to so many of my posts, and work-based pronouncements:
>Just because something can be said (or done), doesn't mean it should be
>said (or done).
>
>I'm against this autopsy, and I'd be quite happy for the police to nick the
>toerag.
Hey!? Since when were autopsies illegal? He's a qualified doctor, and
he would have had to get legal permission to do what he did - for
christs sakes it was shown on TV in the UK.
Get the stick out of yer arse, H :)
Trayce
Sandro
"Blasphemy" <blasp...@spam.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>"petrolgoth" <n4...@SPAMTRAPyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3de1a9b7$0$15...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
>>"Blasphemy" wrote
>>>Not wanting to prolong this probably fruitless seach for the
>>>definition of art, or seem pretentious, but I've just
>>>completed my philosophy of aesthetics exam (yay!).
>>This is a Goth news group. Prolonging fruitless arguments and
>>being pretentious is what it's all about isn't it?
Remove that element and the newsgroup would be nothing but
Goodies references
>First rule of de-lurking: don't piss off the regulars.
Rubbish. How else is one going to make a tremendous impression?
If you can ream a regular in your first argument then you go
down in the anals of history (sic).
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd rather be cautious than
>flamed -- for now, at least
Pish posh. Fools and delurkers should rush in where angels booze
and fornicate.
>(I'm just waiting for the welcoming committee...)
*sound of zip being undone*
"Okay baby, Let's Rock and Roll!"
Oh wait, you were thinking of that other welcoming committee. I
was skipping ahead to the initiation ceremony. As the Americans
would say, my bad.
<snip rest of argument>
Sandro - I'll show you fuckers what art is *throws up on large
white canvas after sculling multiple coloured drinks* Take that,
Pro Hart *chunders again*, take that, Jackson Pollock! Ergh, now
that's an artistic process I can appreciate.
Trayce
>Rubbish. How else is one going to make a tremendous impression?
>If you can ream a regular in your first argument then you go
>down in the anals of history (sic).
Geez, feel free to go down on anals all you like Sandro my dear, but
you can count me out - it sounds positively ick =)
>Sandro - I'll show you fuckers what art is *throws up on large
>white canvas after sculling multiple coloured drinks* Take that,
>Pro Hart *chunders again*, take that, Jackson Pollock! Ergh, now
>that's an artistic process I can appreciate.
There's a fine art to drinking in a manner befitting such a chunder to
start with, let me tell you.
Trayce (not that I'd know, no siree)
Unknown
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:05:49 GMT, Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID
> (Greylock) wrote:
> >I'm against this autopsy, and I'd be quite happy for the police to > >nick the toerag.
> Hey!? Since when were autopsies illegal?
You'd have to ask the lawyers, but the UK's
Inspector of Anatomy said that, and I quote:
"a procedure that would constitute a criminal
offense under the Anatomy Act".
That would seem to imply that the act was illegal.
> He's a qualified doctor, and
von Hagens may be a qualified doctor,
but he lacks the required licences for this kind of event.
> he would have had to get legal permission to do what he did - for
> christs sakes it was shown on TV in the UK.
Yes, and they passed around the removed organs in trays.
I can't think of anything worse.
And, before anyone else mentions it, I happen to be
mortified at those people who watch Good Medicine,
too.
> Get the stick out of yer arse, H :)
No.
I must be more H*ydn than Trayce.
----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals
petrolgoth
> "Mother Superior" wrote
>
> <snippage>
>
> >I got a book on Taxidermy for $10 at a gun show the other day. It's
pretty
> >interesting, very precise and time consuming process, the longest part
seems
> >to be making the frame to stretch the skin over, all in enough time to
get
> >everything preserved before it goes rotten. I got another book on knives,
> >skinning hides and preserving leather which seems to have some pretty
good
> >techniques as well.
>
> Remind me not to piss you off, Ed Gein. I don't want to end up stuffed and
> mounted.
You mean you're not already?
> Sandro - Imagine. A glass-eyed Sandro after a trip to the taxidermist.
Sitting
> on your mantelpiece. In between an owl and a squirrel. Holding its paws
out
> plaintively, a cigarette in one and a bottle in the other. Unmoving for
> all eternity. Collecting dust and scaring children. Sounds like a
deserving
> fate.
Deserving fate?
Sounds like you on a Saturday night at about 11:30.
petrolgoth
> Last episode "Mother Superior" said:
> >"petrolgoth" wrote
> >> You know I wouldn't mind learning the art of taxidermy.
> >> Oh and being a medical artist.
>
> called "Start your own taxidermy business".
Now all I have to do is start collecting road kill.
Cleatus put that back! It ain't fer dinner.
yer pa is becomin a taxi dermist
What's pa want to go drive cars fer ma?
Blasphemy
news:3de2...@nexus.comcen.com.au...
>
> "Blasphemy" <blasp...@spam.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >"petrolgoth" <n4...@SPAMTRAPyahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3de1a9b7$0$15...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>"Blasphemy" wrote
[snippet]
> >First rule of de-lurking: don't piss off the regulars.
>
> Rubbish. How else is one going to make a tremendous impression?
> If you can ream a regular in your first argument then you go
> down in the anals of history (sic).
>
It's always the extroverted ones, isn't it?
<insert comment about boys and their Freudian anal fixations here>
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd rather be cautious than
> >flamed -- for now, at least
>
> Pish posh. Fools and delurkers should rush in where angels booze
> and fornicate.
>
In that case, *fastens her strap-on and leaps into the apparent drunken
orgy*
> >(I'm just waiting for the welcoming committee...)
>
> *sound of zip being undone*
> "Okay baby, Let's Rock and Roll!"
Hey, that looks like a punchline, only smaller!
> Oh wait, you were thinking of that other welcoming committee. I
> was skipping ahead to the initiation ceremony.
Aw, Sandro honey, don't be bashful. You've got to be confident when you talk
to girls.
petrolgoth
> Last episode "Blasphemy" said:
> >First rule of de-lurking: don't piss off the regulars.
>
Now look at what you've started ;)
> It's more akin to "don't say anything bloody stupid, don't be a mansonite,
> and don't pretend to be a vampire".
Well that goes without saying really.
But we've all broken at least one of those rules.
Now find me a virgin to feast upon and increase my army of the undead.
> Pissing off the regulars with skill and wit and insight is what each new
> generation should do, if the old generation falls stagnant.
are you stagnating now H*ydn?
ACG a Goth trial by fire?
Is this why the number of posts has dropped?
along with the level of wit?
I can't take all the blame you know.
Blasphemy
"Greylock" <Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:3de328f0...@news.wn.com.au...
> Last episode "Blasphemy" <blasp...@spam.yahoo.com.au> said:
> >First rule of de-lurking: don't piss off the regulars.
>
> and don't pretend to be a vampire".
>
> generation should do, if the old generation falls stagnant.
Uh-huh. Aren't you the one who's always complaining about youngsters today?
With all your preaching about insight, shouldn't your arguments be a little
less contradictory? Do you propose that we are supposed to challenge the
elders, or to conform with them?
(Besides, for someone who's not really all that old, one would think you
would complain more about the elder generation, than the younger)
petrolgoth
> "Sandro" wrote
> >
> > Rubbish. How else is one going to make a tremendous impression?
> > If you can ream a regular in your first argument then you go
> > down in the anals of history (sic).
> >
>
> It's always the extroverted ones, isn't it?
is it?
> <insert comment about boys and their Freudian anal fixations here>
ok
What is it about goth boys and their anal fixations?
It's not a fixation dear it's a Freudian slip!
What's a Freudian slip?
It's what you wear under a Freudian skirt of course.
> > Pish posh. Fools and delurkers should rush in where angels booze
> > and fornicate.
I only come here when I'm fucking pissed maayyytttteeee
> > >(I'm just waiting for the welcoming committee...)
> >
> > *sound of zip being undone*
> > "Okay baby, Let's Rock and Roll!"
>
> Hey, that looks like a punchline, only smaller!
Oh Ho!
You'll fit right in.
stranger..
"Trayce" <tra...@somethingorother.com> wrote
: Get the stick out of yer arse, H :)
And so, despite a valiant effort on the part of the contender, still the
master remains undefeated.
--
stranger..
(aint nowt more H than H)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.goth.net/~stranger
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The moon stands in the shadow
of a world gone entirely mad ." (No)
petrolgoth
> "petrolgoth" wrote
> >
> > This is a Goth news group.
> > Prolonging fruitless arguments and being pretentious is what it's all
> about
> > isn't it?
>
> First rule of de-lurking: don't piss off the regulars. Correct me if I'm
> wrong, but I'd rather be cautious than flamed -- for now, at least (I'm
just
> waiting for the welcoming committee...).
first rule of arrogance
never admit you're wrong
> > One of the reasons the DADA movement came about was because of the loose
> > definition of art at the time and the exploitation of it by some artist
> who
> > would do anything to make money.
> >
>
> *nods again*
> Well, isn't this what happens with every creative experiment? Branching
out
> into Surrealism, Pop art, Cubism, Abstract art, Impressionism etc. would
> come of an experimentation of the bounds of the definition of art, and
also
> from, no doubt, an intense desire for making money. We don't think any
less
> of Picasso for his work. Why should we of those related to the DADA
> movement?
Ah but DaDa was in reaction to those would slap the label 'art' on any piece
of shit.
The Dadaists felt that it undermined their hard work and effort.
So they produced art that was ridiculous, in the true sense of the word, in
order to ridicule those artist and the art buyers.
The aims of this movement IMO could be said to have failed because people
now pay large sums of money for DaDa "art".
@sloth.vurt.net Neef
>
>And, before anyone else mentions it, I happen to be
>mortified at those people who watch Good Medicine,
>too.
*giggle*
He said Mortified.
*gets H*dyn a battered old typewriter, a chair, a nice wooly blanket
for cold days*
There you are dear, now you can write complaints to the local paper
*all the time*!
*Especially* about the 'youth of today'
:)
Neef (No respect..)
---
Change for the machines.
neef at sloth.vurt.net
J Citizen
> pretty rare experience to come by. :) Animal (usually rat) dissection
> tends to happen in about year 10 science class curriculae, so it's a
> little more common.
>
> a common garden snail. They have enough internal organs to cover an A4
> sized dissecting tray, quite thoroughly. Very intriguing. :)
>
>
> Thorf
Oh, like wow, you are so "dark" and "spooky" and "alternative" cutting
up animals. Really tough and manly too. Really great display of human
intelligence.
Any dunce can cut up a dead animal.
Again: Any dunce can cut up a dead animal.
Self-righteous brag-mode: I went through university achieving High
Distinctions in Biology without doing a single dissection.
They are a bloody stupid waste of time and resources, not to mention
unnecessary cruelty, as well as (if your aim is to study the human
body) totally misleading. I somewhat fondly recall my classmates "oh,
but we have to cut up the animal, diddun you hear the big professor
say we wouldn't learn and that we'd fail if we don't do the
dissection!" And so they did the dissections, some of them did fail,
others barely got credits. I gave the dissections a miss and got HDs.
Human dissections i agree with - 'cos then you'll learn about the
human body. The only real purpose animal dissections serve is to
perpetuate the myth that animal experiments are useful for advancing
human medicine. (suggested links below) Further, to desensitise the
student to suffering and exploitation of sentient creatures
(especially humans: partly why many doctors are callous, insensitive
and prescribe unnecessary treatments (which injure and kill hundreds
of thousands of people each year). I could post entire books on this.
I studied this (the myths of modern medicine) for 4 years at
university.
In the meantime I recommend seeing:
Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research at
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/
and GUARDIANS: A Group Exposing Vivisection
http://home.mira.net/~antiviv/
The only people who can be justified in seeing the real-world insides
of an animal are those studying to become a doctor or a veterinarian
for that particular species. In such cases, you can gain adequate and
compassionate experience (vital to becoming a good practitioner) by
being apprenticed to surgeons and vets during real-world surgery
and/or practice on the plentiful supply of naturally-deceased
cadavers.
j.
Trayce
wrote:
>> The most interesting dissection I did (first year biology at uni) was of
>> a common garden snail. They have enough internal organs to cover an A4
>> sized dissecting tray, quite thoroughly. Very intriguing. :)
>>
>> Ook,
>>
>> Thorf
>
>Oh, like wow, you are so "dark" and "spooky" and "alternative" cutting
>up animals. Really tough and manly too. Really great display of human
>intelligence.
[WARNING NASTY RANT AHEAD TAKE COVER]
What kind of a wanky attitude is this? Was Thorf trying to imply
somehow he was cool for having done dissections? Hardly. hell, Im sure
most of us have done one or two in high school, so fucking what?
So you're hard and cool for refusing to do yours and still getting
HDs, bully for you.
Thorf said he did his in biology, not medicine. Yes, I agree it's
wrong to study animals in the pursuit of knowledge of human illnesses
and function - but whats wrong with the pursuit of knowledge of any
living matter, plant or animal?
Whats wrong with needing to learn how all living things work - not
just humans?
Or would you rather we go back to doing shamanistic spells at the moon
because we think its a goddess?
FFS.
Trayce (yes, still grumpy. With the stupidity of some people in this
thread who are being too fucking precious about stuff)
Sandro
"Blasphemy" <blasp...@spam.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>"Sandro" <cein...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:3de2...@nexus.comcen.com.au...
>>"Blasphemy" <blasp...@spam.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>"petrolgoth" <n4...@SPAMTRAPyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3de1a9b7$0$15...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>"Blasphemy" wrote
>[snippet]
>>>First rule of de-lurking: don't piss off the regulars.
>>Rubbish. How else is one going to make a tremendous impression?
>>If you can ream a regular in your first argument then you go
>>down in the anals of history (sic).
>It's always the extroverted ones, isn't it?
Moi? I've never been called extroverted my entire life. I don't
know how to respond.
><insert comment about boys and their Freudian anal fixations >here>
Hurr hurr, she said 'insert'.
Why I resent that. I think that if you had properly boned up
on the topic in hand, you wouldn't have gone off half cocked
and dicked around the topic and dived in without so much as
a conversational lubricant. I was reared in a manner unbefitting
such a spankworthy discussion, and before I hit bottom I assure
you there's no fudge tunnel joke too course or rose petal
reference too crass that I'm prepared to make.
>>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd rather be cautious than
>>>flamed -- for now, at least
>>Pish posh. Fools and delurkers should rush in where angels
>>booze and fornicate.
>In that case, *fastens her strap-on and leaps into the
>apparent drunken orgy*
Whoah there! Mine's exit only, tiger. Be gentle.
>>(I'm just waiting for the welcoming committee...)
>>*sound of zip being undone*
>>"Okay baby, Let's Rock and Roll!"
>Hey, that looks like a punchline, only smaller!
Oh wow, you've deflated my ego. Luckily what was
being unzipped was a bag full of toys. They don't
suffer from the same vagaries of fate and slings and
arrows as the rest of us do. You'll earn your keep
all the same, neophyte!
>>Oh wait, you were thinking of that other welcoming committee.
>>I was skipping ahead to the initiation ceremony.
Well, either that or Easter, I can't remember which is which.
>Aw, Sandro honey, don't be bashful. You've got to be confident
>when you talk to girls.
Girls??? There's Girls here?!?! Ummm, hee, uh gee, huh, um
*pulls side of collar outwards*, heh, hee, um, gah... *sidles
away and hides in corner*
Sandro - No-one told me there'd be GIRLS here! I wanted boy
action, instead I feel like I just got girl germs on my hands.
Unclean Unclean!
Blasphemy
> "Thorfinn" wrote
> > petrolgoth wrote:
> > > Been there done that got the blood splattered T-shirt to prove it huh?
> >
> > Well, I didn't get to do human dissection (just studied pre-dissected
> > human bits), but I've done a number of animal dissections over the
> > years.
>
> You know I wouldn't mind learning the art of taxidermy.
> Oh and being a medical artist.
> one of those people that recreates what someone looked like by building up
> layers of clay on the persons skull to represent layers of muscle and fat.
> That would be tres kewl.
>
> >
> > > Much like the "what is art?" debate is it?
> >
> > That was my whole point. :) "Art" isn't defineable in any fashion other
> > than "I knows it when I sees it".
>
> but IMO it should be.
Mmm, it probably _should_ be, but we, being lucky enough to have been born
into one of the few species with substantial metal capacities (with more
than enough to spare, even -- apparently we only use a small percentange of
our brains anyway), have been cursed with the inclination to think *too*
much i.e. to philosophise. Of course any such argument (what is
art/goth/right/wrong) will never be finally settled, but thats our own
fault.
As if debating any myriad of issues isn't one of our favourite past-times,
anyway. ; )
> but then again I work with a lot of engineers and it's rubbing off :(
>
> > > Well no, I haven't done one. I don't often get the time in my hectic
> daily
> > > schedule to take a human body apart.
> > > Well at least not a dead one anyway.
> >
> > Mmm, I specifically didn't say human dissection, since I know that's a
> > pretty rare experience to come by. :) Animal (usually rat) dissection
> > tends to happen in about year 10 science class curriculae, so it's a
> > little more common.
>
> I didn't get the opportunity to do that unfortunately as I never took
> biology
> only chem. and physics
Didn't you ever have the chance to do dissections during your early
high-school years? We did a frog in year 8. Stuck some wires into it (I
wasn't really paying attention) and all of a sudden its legs starting
jerking, and its heart started beating. We did fish and rats, too. Those
weren't nearly as fun though. I couldn't for the life of me get those to
resurrect.
> I dropped chem. for art
> there were more girls in art class :)
And people wonder why I opted for computer science instead of arts. The
shortage of girls in computer degrees is almost as dire as those in
engineering. The number of eager and
willing-to-throw-themselves-at-your-feet males in the CS faculty is amazing.
In fact, thats how I met my current.
> and we could wander off on the pretext of finding a still life to draw
> nip round the back of the sheds have a smoke and then present the drawing
we
> did last week.
>
I remember those days! Those were pretty much the highlights of a private
school education. That, and the marijuana plantation behind the science
building. Our highly qualified and head science professor decided the best
way to get rid of the crop was the burn it. Hah! That ended up being a very
a hazy day. : )
[snip rest]
Blasphemy
> "Blasphemy" wrote
> > "Sandro" wrote
> > >
> > > Rubbish. How else is one going to make a tremendous impression?
> > > If you can ream a regular in your first argument then you go
> > > down in the anals of history (sic).
> > >
> >
> > It's always the extroverted ones, isn't it?
>
> is it?
>
*nods* Sure it is. Think of the list; Elton John, James Cook, Sandro ....
> > <insert comment about boys and their Freudian anal fixations here>
>
> ok
>
> What is it about goth boys and their anal fixations?
> It's not a fixation dear it's a Freudian slip!
> What's a Freudian slip?
> It's what you wear under a Freudian skirt of course.
>
Of course : )
> > > Pish posh. Fools and delurkers should rush in where angels booze
> > > and fornicate.
>
> I only come here when I'm fucking pissed maayyytttteeee
>
Charming, as always.
> > > >(I'm just waiting for the welcoming committee...)
> > >
> > > *sound of zip being undone*
> > > "Okay baby, Let's Rock and Roll!"
> >
> > Hey, that looks like a punchline, only smaller!
>
> Oh Ho!
> You'll fit right in.
As if there were any doubt about that.
Sandro
"petrolgoth" <n4...@SPAMTRAPyahoo.com> wrote:
>"Sandro" wrote
>>"Mother Superior" wrote
>><snippage>
>>Remind me not to piss you off, Ed Gein. I don't want to end up
>>stuffed and mounted.
>You mean you're not already?
Well, stuffed maybe but haven't been mounted yet.
>>Sandro - Imagine. A glass-eyed Sandro after a trip to the
>>taxidermist. Sitting on your mantelpiece. In between an owl
>>and a squirrel. Holding its paws out plaintively, a cigarette
>>in one and a bottle in the other. Unmoving for all eternity.
>>Collecting dust and scaring children. Sounds like a
>>deserving fate.
>Deserving fate?
>Sounds like you on a Saturday night at about 11:30.
You are projecting, old man. You may pass out drunk at 11:30
on a Saturday night in front of the telly, but that's not for
me, bucko, not for me. The international jetset lifestyle
doesn't allow for that. In fact a UN resolution was passed
stating that I'm not allowed to be at home during those times.
Which is why you'll find me dancing in the Hyde Park fountain
after my third line, fifteenth drink and fourth sex act requiring
an admirable degree of flexibility at 11:30 on any given
Saturday night.
Sandro - anything less would be a waste of my life.
--
Carthage Must Be Delusional - Cato the Elder
Blasphemy
>
> "Blasphemy" <blasp...@spam.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >[snippet]
>
> >>>First rule of de-lurking: don't piss off the regulars.
>
> >>Rubbish. How else is one going to make a tremendous impression?
> >>If you can ream a regular in your first argument then you go
> >>down in the anals of history (sic).
>
> >It's always the extroverted ones, isn't it?
>
> Moi? I've never been called extroverted my entire life. I don't
> know how to respond.
What, for once Sandro the verbose *doesn't* have anything to say??! We can
only dream of the day.
> ><insert comment about boys and their Freudian anal fixations >here>
>
> Hurr hurr, she said 'insert'.
>
> Why I resent that. I think that if you had properly boned up
> on the topic in hand, you wouldn't have gone off half cocked
> and dicked around the topic and dived in without so much as
> a conversational lubricant. I was reared in a manner unbefitting
> such a spankworthy discussion, and before I hit bottom I assure
> you there's no fudge tunnel joke too course or rose petal
> reference too crass that I'm prepared to make.
Oh my, what a come-back.
> >>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd rather be cautious than
> >>>flamed -- for now, at least
>
> >>Pish posh. Fools and delurkers should rush in where angels
> >>booze and fornicate.
>
> >In that case, *fastens her strap-on and leaps into the
> >apparent drunken orgy*
>
> Whoah there! Mine's exit only, tiger. Be gentle.
Don't worry. I'm a professional.
> >>(I'm just waiting for the welcoming committee...)
>
> >>*sound of zip being undone*
> >>"Okay baby, Let's Rock and Roll!"
>
> >Hey, that looks like a punchline, only smaller!
>
> Oh wow, you've deflated my ego. Luckily what was
> being unzipped was a bag full of toys. They don't
> suffer from the same vagaries of fate and slings and
> arrows as the rest of us do.
Speak for yourself, dear. You go play with your toys, and one day, when
you've grown up, we can continue this discussion.
>You'll earn your keep all the same, neophyte!
>
> >>Oh wait, you were thinking of that other welcoming committee.
> >>I was skipping ahead to the initiation ceremony.
>
> Well, either that or Easter, I can't remember which is which.
>
Maybe if you rant less, you'll remember more. Just a bit of advice.
[snip rest]
-- Blasphemy (tired, longing for post-exam drinkfest)
Sandro
"Blasphemy" <blasp...@spam.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>"Sandro" <cein...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:3de3101e$1...@nexus.comcen.com.au...
>>"Blasphemy" <blasp...@spam.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>What, for once Sandro the verbose *doesn't* have anything to
>say??! We can only dream of the day.
We? Who are you speaking for? Multiple personalities don't count.
I am not now nor will ever be an extrovert. I was simply
marvelling at your assessment.
>>Hurr hurr, she said 'insert'.
>>Why I resent that. I think that if you had properly boned up
>>on the topic in hand, you wouldn't have gone off half cocked
>>and dicked around the topic and dived in without so much as
>>a conversational lubricant. I was reared in a manner
>>unbefitting such a spankworthy discussion, and before I hit
>>bottom I assure you there's no fudge tunnel joke too course or
>>rose petal reference too crass that I'm prepared to make.
>Oh my, what a come-back.
It wasn't a comeback. I think you have a mistaken impression
regarding this thread.
>>Whoah there! Mine's exit only, tiger. Be gentle.
>Don't worry. I'm a professional.
And strangely enough instead of putting me at ease that simply
increases my anxiety.
>>Oh wow, you've deflated my ego. Luckily what was
>>being unzipped was a bag full of toys. They don't
>>suffer from the same vagaries of fate and slings and
>>arrows as the rest of us do.
>Speak for yourself, dear. You go play with your toys, and one
>day, when you've grown up, we can continue this discussion.
But they were toys purchased from an Adult Marital Aids store!
They only sell them to adults, ipso facto the last thing I need
to do is grow up or out. And deary, I was staggering about this
planet in a slightly worrying fashion as an adult when I
suspect you were still learning how much fun it was to ride
the coin-operated horsey in front of the supermarket because
it gave you a special feeling in your bloomers.
>Maybe if you rant less, you'll remember more. Just a bit of
>advice.
I have a suggestion regarding what exactly you can do with your
advice, but I'll restrain myself for the moment until I can
clarify something.
Who is ranting, exactly? What part of anything in this thread
is a rant? I haven't had a rant in ages. Come back to the
thread, I think you got somewhat lost along the way. If you have
perceived that somehow this thread's raison d'etre is
adverserial then I suggest you re-read it. If on the other hand
you've decided the old timer you'd like to take on in order to
make an impression on the group is my sweet self, then I suggest
you think again. I have not been here long enough nor am I in
any way shape or form well-respected enough to warrant such
competition. And I post infrequently as well. And I'm lazy.
go after stranger. He'll put up more of a fight :P
Sandro - huh?
Trayce
(Greylock) wrote:
>Last episode Trayce <tra...@somethingorother.com> said:
>>Or would you rather we go back to doing shamanistic spells at the moon
>>because we think its a goddess?
>
>*looks around*
>I think there are a few folks here who do that, anyway.
Oh no, lets not start the W**dy R**e flamewar again, pleeease!
Trayce (Killing moon my arse)
stranger..
"Greylock" <Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID> wrote
: The youth of today suck.
Do they swallow?
--
stranger..
(groan)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.goth.net/~stranger
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The moon stands in the shadow
of a world gone entirely mad ." (No)
Nigel Williams
> Oh no, lets not start the W**dy R**e flamewar again, pleeease!
Wendy Rage?
Is this what happens when Peter Pan gets hit by a car or something?
Nigel (confused)
stranger..
"J Citizen" <jciti...@yahoo.com> wrote
: Oh, like wow, you are so "dark" and "spooky" and "alternative"
: cutting up animals. Really tough and manly too. Really great
: display of human intelligence.
Oh boy is you gonna geddit. Oh well, maybe a righteous flamewar reminiscent
of the vegitarianism and Wendy Rule threads of yore will liven the place up
a bit. (At least it's not about music).
: Self-righteous brag-mode: I went through university achieving
: High Distinctions in Biology without doing a single dissection.
i wonder how many people do animal dissections at high school because
they're told they "have to" or fail. Even though i wasn't a bleeding heart
hippy then, i still didn't like it one bit. But i did it anyway because i
was told there was no choice (and wasn't ideologically opposed enough to
want to put it to the test and see what happened if i refused). i don't
remember anyone else refusing, or even calling in sick. i still think it's
fucking obscene that 15 year olds can be told they have to do something like
that without the choice to opt out.
--
stranger..
(it's easy to play the 'if i had it over' game when you're older)
Trayce
(Greylock) wrote:
>Christina Agulerlialaiaiaia? Well she's made the transition from "nice pop
>princess" to Dirrty (sic) slut, so she'd swallow to prove how hard arse she
>was.
What - because her arse is so hard she has to use her mou..&%%^#$# [NO
CARRIER]
Trayce (heh)
petrolgoth
news:aa4a4707.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > Mmm, I specifically didn't say human dissection, since I know that's a
> > pretty rare experience to come by. :) Animal (usually rat) dissection
> > tends to happen in about year 10 science class curriculae, so it's a
> > little more common.
> >
> > The most interesting dissection I did (first year biology at uni) was of
> > a common garden snail. They have enough internal organs to cover an A4
> > sized dissecting tray, quite thoroughly. Very intriguing. :)
> >
> > Ook,
> >
> > Thorf
>
> Oh, like wow, you are so "dark" and "spooky" and "alternative" cutting
> up animals. Really tough and manly too. Really great display of human
> intelligence.
>
> Any dunce can cut up a dead animal.
> Again: Any dunce can cut up a dead animal.
>
> Self-righteous brag-mode: I went through university achieving High
> Distinctions in Biology without doing a single dissection.
Still tilting at windmills I see.
Jolly good carry on.
Say hello to Pancho for me.
petrolgoth
>
> If on the other hand
> you've decided the old timer you'd like to take on in order to
> make an impression on the group is my sweet self, then I suggest
> you think again. I have not been here long enough nor am I in
> any way shape or form well-respected enough to warrant such
> competition. And I post infrequently as well. And I'm lazy.
Damn right!
Sandro only turned up yesterday after someone discovered the bad smell
wasn't dog shit on our size 10 boots, and no one respects Sandro least of
all me.
> go after stranger. He'll put up more of a fight :P
but he's good at fighting back.
You need to pick an infrequent lazy new poster who no-one respects.
Like neef.
petrolgoth
> "petrolgoth" wrote
> > "Blasphemy" wrote
> > >
> > > It's always the extroverted ones, isn't it?
> >
> > is it?
> >
>
> *nods* Sure it is. Think of the list; Elton John, James Cook, Sandro ....
So you're saying that when James Cook was speared by the natives they mean
he was "speared nudge nudge wink wink" by the natives?
> > What's a Freudian slip?
> > It's what you wear under a Freudian skirt of course.
> >
>
> Of course : )
In that case show us yer Freudian tits.
> Charming, as always.
Of course. Charm is me middle name don'tyaknow
> > Oh Ho!
> > You'll fit right in.
>
> As if there were any doubt about that.
Well I'm willing to argue the point.
petrolgoth
>
> "petrolgoth" wrote:
> >"Sandro" wrote
> >>Remind me not to piss you off, Ed Gein. I don't want to end up
> >>stuffed and mounted.
>
> >You mean you're not already?
>
> Well, stuffed maybe but haven't been mounted yet.
buy the squirrel a strap on.
> >Deserving fate?
> >Sounds like you on a Saturday night at about 11:30.
>
> You are projecting, old man.
well that explains the popcorn and sticky seats
> You may pass out drunk at 11:30
> on a Saturday night in front of the telly, but that's not for
> me, bucko, not for me.
I have never passed out drunk in my life.
I just fall asleep.
>The international jetset lifestyle
> doesn't allow for that. In fact a UN resolution was passed
> stating that I'm not allowed to be at home during those times.
UN?
Unctuous Nerds?
Unkindly Neophytes?
Ultimate Nestorians?
What ever it is I bet it involves silly handshakes and secret words.
Can I join?
> Which is why you'll find me dancing in the Hyde Park fountain
> after my third line, fifteenth drink and fourth sex act requiring
> an admirable degree of flexibility at 11:30 on any given
> Saturday night.
On second thoughts I don' want to join.
> Sandro - anything less would be a waste of my life.
as opposed to....?
petrolgoth
> Last episode "stranger.." <stra...@goth.net.spicedham> said:
> >"Greylock" <Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID> wrote
> >: The youth of today suck.
> >Do they swallow?
>
>
> Let's look at their role models.
>
> Britney's a good catholic girl, so it would be her duty to Jesus not to
> waste a single drop. She'd swallow.
She's a BLOODY PRODESTANT
So she's GOING TO HELL
Where she will be SODOMISED by RABID DEMONS
and it will server her bloody right for having the temerity and gall to be
baptised a proddie in the first place.
I don't care what age she was she could have said NO
so yeah she'd swallow because she's SATAN'S BILIOUS POX RIDDEN WHORE.
ya ken?
>
> Christina Agulerlialaiaiaia? Well she's made the transition from "nice pop
> princess" to Dirrty (sic) slut, so she'd swallow to prove how hard arse
she
> was.
she's just a stupid slut.
petrolgoth
> Last episode "petrolgoth" said:
> >"Greylock" wrote
> >>
>
> >ACG a Goth trial by fire?
>
and lots of scary septics
> You'd have to ask there if it worked or not.
OK but what would the answer be?
> But since it ceased, that newsgroup has begun its slow decline.
that sentence didn't scan for me.
petrolgoth
>
> I am an acg Great Old One, as such things are measured.
> I am allowed.
HA!
> >With all your preaching about insight, shouldn't your arguments be a
little
> >less contradictory?
>
> Perhaps. Pehaps not.
contradictory is what H*ydns do best
or should that be contrary?
> What elder generation?
Me!
I'm the elder generation!
or should that be the Rec Dr D.?
wico
> (Greylock) wrote:
>>Christina Agulerlialaiaiaia? Well she's made the transition from "nice pop
>>princess" to Dirrty (sic) slut, so she'd swallow to prove how hard arse she
>>was.
> What - because her arse is so hard she has to use her mou..&%%^#$# [NO
> CARRIER]
"mouse"?
w. (click)
--
Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak, you're just STUPID!
[Dib]
Thorfinn
J Citizen <jciti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thorfinn wrote:
> > Mmm, I specifically didn't say human dissection, since I know that's a
> > pretty rare experience to come by. :) Animal (usually rat) dissection
> > tends to happen in about year 10 science class curriculae, so it's a
> > little more common.
> > The most interesting dissection I did (first year biology at uni) was of
> > a common garden snail. They have enough internal organs to cover an A4
> > sized dissecting tray, quite thoroughly. Very intriguing. :)
> up animals. Really tough and manly too. Really great display of human
> intelligence.
*snort*
> Any dunce can cut up a dead animal.
> Again: Any dunce can cut up a dead animal.
So? I like eating them, too. They're really tasty.
> Self-righteous brag-mode: I went through university achieving High
> Distinctions in Biology without doing a single dissection.
Good for you. :) Guess what? I don't give two hoots one way or the
other. I happen to enjoy dissections, 'cos I find it quite interesting
finding out what's inside a creature, and actually observing it for
myself.
> They are a bloody stupid waste of time and resources, not to mention
> unnecessary cruelty,
*shrug* Life feeds on life. Unless you're a plant, maybe, and even then
it's a dubious question, since a lot of plants have some level of
bacterial symbiosis. As for "cruelty" - the animals in question are
usually bred specifically for the purpose, and generally fed well, then
killed in a humane fashion. Probably more humanely than animals bred
for food, even.
> as well as (if your aim is to study the human body) totally
> misleading.
The aim of animal dissection is to examine the insides of an animal.
Nobody seems to think that it's to examine the insides of a human,
except maybe you.
> I somewhat fondly recall my classmates "oh, but we have to cut up the
> animal, diddun you hear the big professor say we wouldn't learn and
> that we'd fail if we don't do the dissection!" And so they did the
> dissections, some of them did fail, others barely got credits. I gave
> the dissections a miss and got HDs.
Congratulations. This proves nothing except that most people are crap
at getting good marks at university, however.
> Human dissections i agree with - 'cos then you'll learn about the
> human body. The only real purpose animal dissections serve is to
> perpetuate the myth that animal experiments are useful for advancing
> human medicine.
No. They serve the purpose of learning about animal biology. That
happens to be quite interesting and potentially useful in and of itself.
> (suggested links below) Further, to desensitise the
> student to suffering and exploitation of sentient creatures
> (especially humans: partly why many doctors are callous, insensitive
> and prescribe unnecessary treatments (which injure and kill hundreds
> of thousands of people each year). I could post entire books on this.
> I studied this (the myths of modern medicine) for 4 years at
> university.
Nice soapbox you have there.
> In the meantime I recommend seeing:
> Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research at
> http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/
> and GUARDIANS: A Group Exposing Vivisection
> http://home.mira.net/~antiviv/
> The only people who can be justified in seeing the real-world insides
> of an animal are those studying to become a doctor or a veterinarian
> for that particular species.
*snort* I suppose I'd better not pick any flowers, either. Damn this
cruelty business. I'd better kill myself now, in case I slaughter
millions of innocent bacteria. Oops. I think I just killed several
million bacteria. Genocidal, I am.
> In such cases, you can gain adequate and compassionate experience
> (vital to becoming a good practitioner) by being apprenticed to
> surgeons and vets during real-world surgery and/or practice on the
> plentiful supply of naturally-deceased cadavers.
Naturally deceased cadavers (animal ones) ain't so easy to get ahold of,
y'know. Especially in the quantities required for classes, even if you
restrict them to vet ones.
Ook,
Thorf
--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thor...@tertius.net.au</a>
"You know what I like about black suits? You can look like a yuppie, or
you can go back to looking like a hit man like I normally do."
-- sharkey!zoic.org
mr julian
> She's a BLOODY PRODESTANT
> So she's GOING TO HELL
> Where she will be SODOMISED by RABID DEMONS
How do you know so much about the next britney spears video clip??
do you have inside information?
> she's just a stupid slut.
>
So you're saying she'd try to swallow, but fuck up and cough it into her
sinuses instead?
julian
--
"The girls were angry about something and we were not, so they went off
and broke into News At Ten. Us, being boys, went off and made Daleks in
true Blue Peter style. As these Daleks were so far removed from the
original designs they did not infringe any copyright laws."
- klf, the manual
J Citizen
> [WARNING NASTY RANT AHEAD TAKE COVER]
comprehensive reply forthcoming on friday - tune in kids, for all the
fun and excitement, same channel, slightly different time.
j. citizen
Trayce
wrote:
>Trayce <tra...@somethingorother.com> wrote in message news:<4p26uu8g4th7jma14...@4ax.com>...
Righto, time to go on holidays then.
Trayce (stirring shit since 1971)
petrolgoth
> Trayce wrote
>
> > [WARNING NASTY RANT AHEAD TAKE COVER]
>
> comprehensive reply forthcoming on friday - tune in kids, for all the
> fun and excitement, same channel, slightly different time.
Don't bother.
J Citizen
> "J Citizen" wrote
> > Trayce wrote
> >
> > > [WARNING NASTY RANT AHEAD TAKE COVER]
> >
> > comprehensive reply forthcoming on friday - tune in kids, for all the
> > fun and excitement, same channel, slightly different time.
>
>
> Don't bother.
oh, alright then.
j.
Blasphemy
[snip]
> >>Oh wow, you've deflated my ego. Luckily what was
> >>being unzipped was a bag full of toys. They don't
> >>suffer from the same vagaries of fate and slings and
> >>arrows as the rest of us do.
>
> >Speak for yourself, dear. You go play with your toys, and one
> >day, when you've grown up, we can continue this discussion.
>
> But they were toys purchased from an Adult Marital Aids store!
> They only sell them to adults, ipso facto the last thing I need
> to do is grow up or out. And deary, I was staggering about this
> planet in a slightly worrying fashion as an adult when I
> suspect you were still learning how much fun it was to ride
> the coin-operated horsey in front of the supermarket because
> it gave you a special feeling in your bloomers.
I think you may have underestimated my age, my dear. I was busy with far
more interesting prey than vibrating horsies back then.
But I'm exhausted after a sleepless week of exams. I'm going to hibernate
now, we can continue this after the weekend if you must.
[snip rest]
--Blasphemy
--
...and this week's moral is: learn to make fun of yourself and recognise the
weaknesses of a stereotype,
or staple your hand to your forehead and die bitch die.
- moof