Who's better, Brandon or Bill?
APhi77ips
I mean this sincerely: Bill Palmer's writing is better than Brandon's. It is
possible to relate to Bill's prose on *some* level. Brandon's is sheer noise.
Bill's writing might be the newsgroup equivalent of an info-mercial, but at
least it's tuned to a station. Brandon's has no aerial, no channels, and
apparently, no off button.
Andy
g.v.w. iv
Brandon's female alter ego, Dale Houstman the angry sock-puppet, performs
just as miserably.
>
>
>
>
>
>Andy
>
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
Revolutions are always verbose.
Leon Trotsky
>
>
APhi77ips
<gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>
>Brandon's female alter ego, Dale Houstman the angry sock-puppet, performs
>just as miserably.
>
I disagree. Although Dale has had several unfortunate accidents on our
carpet, she demonstrates more craft than Brandon does. Her "unwelcome
visitors" peice, at the very least, included an amusing pun and a kind of
parable. It contained ideas, meaning. Brandon writes senseless, graceless
noise. "Shut up" is the only response I can muster.
Andy
Brandon J. Freels
sutable.
g.v.w. iv wrote
>>I mean this sincerely: Bill Palmer's writing is better than Brandon's.
It
>is
>>possible to relate to Bill's prose on *some* level. Brandon's is sheer
>noise.
>>Bill's writing might be the newsgroup equivalent of an info-mercial, but
at
>>least it's tuned to a station. Brandon's has no aerial, no channels, and
>>apparently, no off button.
>
>
>Brandon's female alter ego, Dale Houstman the angry sock-puppet, performs
>just as miserably.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
g.v.w. iv
From: Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Newsgroups:
rec.arts.prose,alt.surrealism,alt.tasteless,alt.stupidity,alt.stupidass,alt.
idiots,alt.bored
Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Who's better, Brandon or Bill?
>I'm crossposting this to some newsgroups where "gvwivism" might be more
>sutable.
Translation: Brandon corssposted this to some newsgroups where he feels more
comfortable. Or newsgroups more amenable to his absurd notions of
''Surrealism.''
Pinhead the Cenobite
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>I'm crossposting this to some newsgroups where "gvwivism" might be more
>sutable.
No one in here cares, nor thinks it's suitable. The very idea that any
post regarding Bill Palmer is suitable in *any* newsgroup is, at best,
laughable.
Alan Hope
APhi77ips <aphi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990417061525...@ngol01.aol.com>...
> I mean this sincerely: Bill Palmer's writing is better than
Brandon's. It is
> possible to relate to Bill's prose on *some* level. Brandon's is
sheer noise.
> Bill's writing might be the newsgroup equivalent of an
info-mercial, but at
> least it's tuned to a station. Brandon's has no aerial, no
channels, and
> apparently, no off button.
Sound enough evaluation. God, we're turning into a little coven of
Bill-worshippers, aren't we? High time he came back, put a stop to
it.
AH
Andrea Chen
However as has been noted by many there is a sameness to what Brandon
and Dale write. There is no individuality. It's the product of our
schools, the B+ essay writer.
Bill creates an effect. It's not quite boring or monotony, it's
something related to these which certain people find addictive. It is
successful as a drawer of attention and intense emotions. As such it is
of interest for how one who wishes to use writing as a mind altering
substance.
Content wise they are on similar levels. Brandon/Dale is more likely
to weasel and depend on various forms of sophistry, but their level of
knowledge is similar. One interesting feature is that with Bill actual
information and intelligence comes as a surprise, while with
Brandon/Dale it takes a bit of examination before one realizes that
their knowledge is superficial, their ideas trite etc. This is
disguised by the style.
I would have to say Bill is superior because he has found a bit of a
"voice." He's much harder to imitate than one migt think while
Brandon/Dale are indistinguishable from tens of thousands of others.
Brandon J. Freels
to say that people only see in other people what they really see in
themselves. You should think about Andrea. Why do you do what you do?
Andrea Chen wrote in message <3718BD...@earthlink.net>...
Throckey
>Andrea Chen wrote:
>
>> Technically Brandon and Dale's prose is better. Bill's is wooden.
>> However as has been noted by many there is a sameness to what Brandon
>> and Dale write.
>
>refrigerator sound! It's neat that at my age (and in your
>condition) such discoveries can still be made.
>
Has her door been removed so that no small children will
suffocate inside her?
It is a surrealist imperative that we emacipate Andrea's
door!
(Students of proper flame technique will note that I am
supposed to take a posture and stick to it. One can
only suppose that I am a true rebel. Thank god I have
no idea why I wrote this.)
-B
Andrea Chen
>Andrea Chen wrote:
>
> Strangely I've noticed how similar you and an abandoned
>refrigerator sound! It's neat that at my age (and in your
>condition) such discoveries can still be made.
>
So you hear voices coming from refrigerators? And the voices which are
coming from these appliances sound like me (even though you've never
heard me)?
Cool! It's working!
I offer this as evidence of my superior surrealism. When an artist is
able to project herself into inanimate objects so that the viewer can
never escape her, then this objectively meets Barrett's and Barrett's
criteria that "surrealism is a way of life" while also illustrating
techniques beyond the imagination of Breton.
For those who would like to create similar effects I can provide
reasonably priced alien technology. I think the testimonial from Dale
sets to rest the slander that I provide inferior implants.
Brandon J. Freels
>When an artist is able to project herself into inanimate objects so that
the viewer can
>never escape her, then this objectively meets Barrett's and Barrett's
>criteria that "surrealism is a way of life" while also illustrating
>techniques beyond the imagination of Breton.
Hey! Your dead! I believe you should have stated "surrealism is a way of
afterlife." Hmm?
Dale Houstman
> Technically Brandon and Dale's prose is better. Bill's is wooden.
> However as has been noted by many there is a sameness to what Brandon
> and Dale write.
Strangely I've noticed how similar you and an abandoned
refrigerator sound! It's neat that at my age (and in your
condition) such discoveries can still be made.
Dendron/Braille
P.S. Oh, I nearly forgot: bitch!
APhi77ips
<fallin...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>Technically Brandon and Dale's prose is better. Bill's is wooden.
>However as has been noted by many there is a sameness to what Brandon
>and Dale write. There is no individuality. It's the product of our
>schools, the B+ essay writer.
>
B+ I wasn't referring to all of Brandon's prose, just his automatic writing.
> Bill creates an effect. It's not quite boring or monotony, it's
>something related to these which certain people find addictive.
For me, it's the challenge. I want to see if I can succeed where others
have failed, and get him to think critically about his writing.
Andy
Brandon J. Freels
you should have stated 'surrealism is a way of afterlife.' Hmm?"
I should clarify that I do not believe in an afterlife, but it still seems
to me that the only thing surreal about Andrea Chen is her ability to unite
her dead corpse with a living presence. Oh, Andrea, why are you are so
transparent, girl?
zeroten
<fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Dale Houstman wrote in message <3719621B...@gte.net>...
>>Andrea Chen wrote:
>>
>> Strangely I've noticed how similar you and an abandoned
>>refrigerator sound! It's neat that at my age (and in your
>>condition) such discoveries can still be made.
>>
>
> So you hear voices coming from refrigerators? And the voices which are
>coming from these appliances sound like me (even though you've never
>heard me)?
>
> Cool! It's working!
>
<snipola>
Aha! So you're the one behind all these messages from aliens that
new-agers have been channelling through their microwave ovens. I might
have known that you would be involved somewhere. Ms Chen, your
collaboration with the greys could be endangering the entire human
race! Do you think that it's really OK that our descendents will be a
few dispirited and sickly specimens in a zoo on Andromeda Prime? And
how do you think the innocent domestic appliances that you have been
abusing feel about this? Did you ask them if they minded being used? I
thought not!
Yours, disgustedly,
ZeroTen
Special Agent, Anti-Grey Militia
"Irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically"
Sol LeWitt, 'Sentences on Conceptual Art'
C. Francis
childish fightening....enough said....get on with the job......
--
"A letter is an unannounced visit,
the postman the agent of rude suprises.
One ought to reserve an hour a week for recieving letters
and afterwards take a bath."
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3718BD...@earthlink.net...
> Technically Brandon and Dale's prose is better. Bill's is wooden.
> However as has been noted by many there is a sameness to what Brandon
> and Dale write. There is no individuality. It's the product of our
> schools, the B+ essay writer.
>
> Bill creates an effect. It's not quite boring or monotony, it's
barrett john erickson
> never escape her, then this objectively meets Barrett's and Barrett's
> criteria that "surrealism is a way of life" while also illustrating
if i actually said this it was a mistake. but it is more likely another of
"Andrea's" transformations. i'd welcome the opportunity to verify which if
"she'll" please provide the post date and subject.
what i may have said at some time was "'surrealism' is a way of living" (but
even this sounds a bit thin to me). the difference, of course, is the
difference which defines "Andrea's" misunderstanding.
-- 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
elag
> Is this a site for the discussion of surrealism, or an arena for stupid
> childish fightening....enough said....get on with the job......
You know those people that stumble into you on the street.
Who step on your toes with nary a word of pardon.
The ones who scream, and sing bad pop lyrics outside your window late at
night. Who smash your jack-o-lantern on Halloween and walk their
incontinent dogs in your front yard.
Well, they all have computers now.
And, worse yet, modems.
Luckily, in 100 000 000 years (give or take)
none will remember the U-net
or the I-net
or the web
or what the big fuss was all about.
Asbestos Dust
<dale.h...@gte.net> flounced about in his most outre sequened
evening gown, blazing with frustration at his inability to have any
effect on the world whatsoever, his mascara eroding trails through his
over-rouged cheeks and his Mae West wig askew on his balding scalp.
With his hilarious cracking falsetto voice, he simpered out his most
devastating slam:
> bitch!
Geez, Dale, the ol' hormone replacement thing's just not working out
at all, is it? Maybe they can adjust your meds. Or perhaps a change
in scene is what's needed -- constantly crotch-crawling Brandon and
nuzzling his ass could wear on one, even one whose slavish need to be
dominated reaches your twisted depths. Take a break. Pick up a few
sailors, make a weekend of it. You deserve it. Come back Monday,
bruised, abused, and refreshed, ready to take up your role as
Brandon's butt-boy with new relish. You owe it to yourself -- you owe
it to us.
AD
Asbestos Dust
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Hey! Your dead!
OK, must be one of those new things. Like "Ooops! My bad!" So, if
she agrees, then it would be "Yeah, my dead." Or if she disagrees,
then it would be "Is not! Your dead, not mine!"
What does it all mean? Oh, golly, I just can't get a grip on all this
surrealist terminology. Curse this creaky old mind. If I could just
break loose from the calcified bonds of my mental strictures, perhaps
I could begin thinking on the same high plane as the Brandon/Dale
clusterfuck. Oh, woe. 'Tis never to be....
AD
==================================================
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
--H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
==================================================
Asbestos Dust
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>I should clarify that I do not believe in an afterlife,...
But of course you have to clarify it. If you didn't you'd be
suspected of breaking the draconian edicts of your liberated,
free-thinking, neo-facist philosophy.
They'd probably take away your Super-Secret Surrealist Decoder Ring.
AD
Asbestos Dust
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>I take it your really talking to, and about yourself? A friend of mine used
>to say that people only see in other people what they really see in
>themselves. You should think about Andrea. Why do you do what you do?
"I know you are, but what am I?" Good God, we have broken through the
mundane levels of surrealist thought into the rarified heights of Pee
Wee Herman. Who says there's no progress on usenet?
AD
Robert Maughan
elag <el...@concentric.net> writes
>You know those people that stumble into you on the street.
>Who step on your toes with nary a word of pardon.
>The ones who scream, and sing bad pop lyrics outside your window late at
>night. Who smash your jack-o-lantern on Halloween and walk their
>incontinent dogs in your front yard.
>
>Well, they all have computers now.
>And, worse yet, modems.
Interesting. I own computers and modems too. I'm teetotal (unlikely to
stumble into you or step on your toes). The only pop lyric I can recall
is ... no, it's gone. I'm not sure about the dogs business. How do they
get in? I probably would smash your stupid jack o'lantern, on principle.
I have a degree in History. I write for money. I have two wives, and my
kids have provided me with four grandchildren - then there's the second
team. I own property. I vote. Shit like that: know what I mean? So what
am I to think when you imply in your pathetic little post that I'm some
kind of second class citizen? I think of you and your pals as deadbeats.
Ironic, no? Not that I have anything to say about Surrealism one way or
the other - I'm guilty of exploiting the possibilities myself. But it's
very odd that you should choose to describe me / us as drunks, ruffians
and ne'er-do-well horrids because we think you're rather silly. There's
not much sillier than being surreal in Usenet. Is there? I mean how are
you going to know if you have been?
I think you should apologise to all the people you've insulted. Really
bad form to blame the lower orders for my / our behaviour.
RJM.
Spare Tombs
We down at the home, thought A.C. ran your kitchen refrigeration appliance,
which hummed sweet, soft nothings to your sensitive earholes, revealing the
truth of the conspiracy, to blissfully erradicate ignorance next Tuesday
at lunch time. Such lovely enamel. Such a lovely hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
Brandon J. Freels
Andrea Chen is dead. Read this document:
http://www.nyjournalnews.com/news/28jn7.sht
g.v.w. iv
Ehud's getting preachy. Too much contact with Brandon/Dale.
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
Revolutions are always verbose.
Leon Trotsky
Brother Blue
<fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Dale Houstman wrote in message <3719621B...@gte.net>...
>>Andrea Chen wrote:
>>
>> Strangely I've noticed how similar you and an abandoned
>>refrigerator sound! It's neat that at my age (and in your
>>condition) such discoveries can still be made.
>>
>
> So you hear voices coming from refrigerators? And the voices which are
>coming from these appliances sound like me (even though you've never
>heard me)?
As a bit of an odd aside here, prolific mindcontrol researcher/author
"Alex Constantine" also claims to hear voices coming from his
refrigerator, though their racial origin he has adamently refused to
publicly comment upon so far. But the fact remains that it is not
entirely inconceivable they may be Chinese in origin.
Of course, his meme is not silly like those of the saucer nuts who
attribute such Appliance-Based Communiques to rectum-coring lecherous
little leprechauns from the stars. Oh no, the Urgent Bulletins which
issue forth from his refrigerator (a Norge(tm), I believe) are
synchronistically intercepted comm-links from Microwave Mindcontrol
Satellites in Outer Space which the guvmint has spent billions of
scarce defense dollars upon to keep tabs on both him and Kathy Kasten.
"Alex's" meme, you see, is much more Scientific than the silly
speculations of the UFO nutters. That is why he's such a threat to
the National Security.
-Brother Blue, B:.B:.
Intergalactic Intelligence Analyst
Sacerdotal Knights of National Security
Bill Palmer
I DO know this, and I'm not going to make any
bones about telling you (again), Maughan. In
Usenet, and most especially in writing and prose
groups, you are what you write. That's all,
nothing more and nothing less. And if you don't
"own" the talent for putting words together in an
interesting fashion you don't OWN much of anything
since nobody around here is going to waste time
checking your Dun and Bradstreet when deciding
whether or not to read your next article.
We are just words on a screen, you and I, Maughan,
but the only difference is that since *I* know I
am words on a screen I try harder to make
myself interesting to readers--and that can't
be done by continually pointing away from
this screen, away from Usenet, as the place
where all our "real writing" exists. In
fact, I have heard that lame excuse from
you, Wilkes, Hope, Chris Mac, Adrian
Smith and other non-contributors so often
that I have long since concluded that you
never slap your cards on the "r.a.p. table"
because you are holding no good cards at
all. And when people come along and post
serious work here, talentless poseurs like
you start foaming at the mouth, Maughan.
So what
>>am I to think when you imply in your pathetic little post that I'm
some
>>kind of second class citizen?
Well, Maughan, show the folks what you can do.
Despite your horsefeathers and that we hear from
Wormy Wilkes and others, one of the main reasons
rec.arts.prose exists at all is for the posting
of prose pieces ("prose" in the sense of non-poetic
literary forms, such as short stories or essays).
Slap your cards on the table, since nobody is
interested in your resume if you can't keep the
readers of rec.arts.prose coming back to your
articles. And try to remember, rec.arts.prose
was not created as a repository for the peevish
drivel of Robert Maughan.
Dale Houstman
Ooooh a degree in History
Ooooh you own property
Ooooh you know how to procreate
Ooooh you can work a voting booth
Wow! I mean really Wow!
Do you own a dog?
Why do you think you're superior to drunkards and ruffians?
They give degrees to slinkveal.
DMH
Alan Hope
g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in article
<002601be89e8$1dd3f280$a0740280@gvw>...
> i have a conference to attend this week. i should be back by
Saturday.
You might want to reschedule. Have you seen that waddling figure on
the horizon?
AH
bob jones
> bob jones wrote:
>> The most interesting thing I find about athiests is how militant they can
be >> sometimes.
>> Another way of looking at this is to note
>i actually fancy myself agnostic, but i do so detest organised religion, and i
>pity it's countless
>victims.
At the risk of alienating everyone I wish you'd be more specific.
I mean do you think Buddhism and Christianity create victims in
the same way?
>what is the message here? "you people cant even tie your shoe's without divine
>intervention."
That's hom it seems sometimes.
>> that these conversions mostly happen at a particularly low point in
>>someone's life. If they
>> are able to transfer their worry and find meaning and therefore
>>fulfillment, enjoyment or
>> whatever, by
>but the point is the meaning is false. id rather have no truth than false
>truth. would it not be
>more beneficial to teach people self-reliance than to replace one dependency
>with another?
What works for you is fine. Self-reliance is fine but it won't
answer your questions. You don't know that the meaning is false,
as I've already pointed out. Why should they think any differently
if they are happy with their lives? Why do you feel superior?
>> suspending judgement and being born-again, who are the atheists to condemmn
>>them?
>> Who is more resentful and hate-filled? Athiests resent Christians (etc)
>>peace.
>> Understandable but not acceptable.
>there are manymany christians who dont preach peace. please visit
>www.godhatesfags.com
>or www.enyart.com (check out the quotes section)
Now just hold on there. Have I said that I thought
Christians were pacifists? I don't think so.
>> Being Atheist is just as much an act of faith as being Christian.
>i totally agree
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Bob Jones wrote: "The most interesting thing I find about atheists is how
militant they can be
sometimes."
>Now Bob, is this really true, or just an assumption. I think there are many
>Christians, especially the one's killing abortion doctors, who are much more
>militant than any atheist I've known.
Why are you comparing the militant tendancies of Christians and Atheists?
Is that a surrealist thing? I think what I said must have been truish.
I least I assume I think I thought it was true.
>I believe mike wrote: "id rather have no truth than false truth" and I agree,
>but how do we
>know if a truth is false? Do we just not accept anything?
WTF is 'false truth'? Do you need every
guidline laid down for you?
> Mike wrote: "there are many many christians who dont preach peace. please
> visit
> www.godhatesfags.com or www.enyart.com (check out the quotes section)."
>Thanks for these sites.
> Bob Jones wrote "Being Atheist is just as much an act of faith as being
> Christian." Like mike, I
> totally agree with this comment. But I have to wonder what isn't an act of
> faith?
Creativity.
Theo Mora <theo...@math.fsu.edu>
> Bob Jones wrote: "The most interesting thing I find about atheists is how
YM"Bob Hope" HTH!
One day, thanks though.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Robert Maughan
Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>I DO know this, and I'm not going to make any
>bones about telling you (again), Maughan. In
>Usenet, and most especially in writing and prose
>groups, you are what you write.
I agree. No matter how many times you tell me, I know this to be true.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> writes
That's my girl, swallow the groundbait. You and Bill Palmer, Bothidae
and Pleuronectidae. What a double act. Poor Brian, discarded puppet.
Still, I take your point about the dog. It's definitely a superiority
thing with me - there isn't a dumb animal or scalliwag that I wouldn't
look down on, given the opportunity, but what is most reprehensible is
that I can't stop myself sneering at the crippled and the afflicted in
Usenet.
I can't help the frisson of anticipation when your name, Dale, wonder
woman, appears in the headers. At last, I think to myself, a real shit
eater, none of your mimbly, pimply, manky wankers. No, you're the real
thing. A genuine poseur. I can see you now as you open the post, 'YES!'
I hear you cry 'A History graduate!' The rest, as we say, is Usenet. I
have a feeling you need to be fucked in the arse because your audience
is behind you. Your marvelous expositions about surrealism and its new
incarnation in the electric circus are testament to your erudition - I
know of no one who would utter plausible bullshit with such conviction,
and all plucked from the pages of magazines and travel brochures. What
a trouper. Sure, it helps that your literal interpretation of text has
never stopped you uttering opinions as though they were insights, that
is part of your charm - the idiot souvant at her ease.
I say! How does one operate a voting booth?
I look forward to more of your pretty nonsense, cutes. I so adore the
idea of you swimming in my pool.
RJM.
Dale Houstman
> That's my girl,
I'm beholden to a real man.
> swallow the groundbait.
It drags that low?
> You and Bill Palmer
Don't know him.
> Bothidae
Wouldn't wait to meet her.
> and Pleuronectidae.
Ah! The improved vocabulary of the Nemotode.
> What a double act. Poor Brian, discarded puppet.
>
> Still, I take your point about the dog.
I sincerely believe you don't get it at all, but must pretend to
to perserve your "normality status."
> It's definitely a superiority thing with me
The bronze squirrel speaks of superiority...
> there isn't a dumb animal or scalliwag that I wouldn't
> look down on,
except yourself, whom you look up to? Are those apples that
you're polishing?
> given the opportunity, but what is most reprehensible is
> that I can't stop myself sneering at the crippled and the afflicted in
> Usenet.
and joining them by choice, it seems.
> I can't help the frisson of anticipation when your name, Dale, wonder
> woman, appears in the headers. At last, I think to myself, a real shit
> eater, none of your mimbly, pimply, manky wankers. No, you're the real
> thing. A genuine poseur.
genuine and a poseur! I'm honored, you little "History Degree-Boy." A
degree of idiocy in your bloodline? And again, that so "yesterday" (like
junior high) disparaging of masturbation in the hopes (futile) that it
could
mean anything to an adult.
> I can see you now as you open the post, 'YES!'
> I hear you cry 'A History graduate!' The rest, as we say, is Usenet.
Pot calling the kettle, and all... another lame explosion from those
too used to shallow support from little "prosers."
> I have a feeling you need to be fucked in the arse because your
> audience is behind you.
First of all; you ain't got it, Muppet! Second you reveal your
commerical
notion of the poetic. I do not concern myself with this "audience" you are
so afraid of losing (or never gaining?). It means nothing to me, Now you
may
speak of "envy" or "sour grapes" because that is your preferred pathway of
cynicism. This is what pleasures you.
>Your marvelous expositions about surrealism and its new incarnation
>in the electric circus are testament to your erudition
Now you're blathering, hoping desperately to make a point...
>I know of no one who would utter plausible bullshit with such conviction
You don't know many people, do you?
> and all plucked from the pages of magazines and travel brochures.
But you own property, you have a History Degree; surely YOU are the
one who is more likely to stare fondly at travel brochures? You think the
world is always on the verge of "paying its debts" to you.
> What a trouper. Sure, it helps that your literal interpretation of text
> has
> never stopped you uttering opinions as though they were insights, that
> is part of your charm - the idiot souvant at her ease
And you, the idiot suivant, thrashing in anxiety...
> I look forward to more of your pretty nonsense, cutes. I so adore the
> idea of you swimming in my pool.
The one the filled with your own crap? No thank you; rain check.
DMH
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>Robert Maughan wrote:
>
>> That's my girl,
>
> I'm beholden to a real man.
>
Nah - you're patronised by a fake tan.
>> swallow the groundbait.
>
> It drags that low?
>
Well ... yes.
>> You and Bill Palmer
>
> Don't know him.
>
Me neither.
>> Bothidae
>
> Wouldn't wait to meet her.
>
>> and Pleuronectidae.
>
> Ah! The improved vocabulary of the Nemotode.
>
As I say, you're a flounder. Nice try, though.
>> What a double act. Poor Brian, discarded puppet.
>>
>> Still, I take your point about the dog.
>
> I sincerely believe you don't get it at all, but must pretend to
>to perserve your "normality status."
>
My god, you mean there was hidden profundity in, 'Do you own a dog?'
What ELSE am I missing? (!) I don't own a dog. I don't even keep fish.
Not since Ken died.
>> It's definitely a superiority thing with me
>
> The bronze squirrel speaks of superiority...
>
Like, the purple pussycat whispers sweet nothings. I hear you.
>> there isn't a dumb animal or scalliwag that I wouldn't
>> look down on,
>
> except yourself, whom you look up to? Are those apples that
>you're polishing?
>
Quite. The non sequitur has no purple drayhorse. As I say, your last
recourse, surrealistical blind wordness. A hint of desperation. Bizarre
by numbers. You endorse my opinion of your fellows. They're unlikely to
notice you insulting them.
>> given the opportunity, but what is most reprehensible is
>> that I can't stop myself sneering at the crippled and the afflicted in
>> Usenet.
>
> and joining them by choice, it seems.
>
Bugger - you didn't bite. What a shame.
>> I can't help the frisson of anticipation when your name, Dale, wonder
>> woman, appears in the headers. At last, I think to myself, a real shit
>> eater, none of your mimbly, pimply, manky wankers. No, you're the real
>> thing. A genuine poseur.
>
> genuine and a poseur! I'm honored, you little "History Degree-Boy." A
>degree of idiocy in your bloodline? And again, that so "yesterday" (like
>junior high) disparaging of masturbation in the hopes (futile) that it
>could
>mean anything to an adult.
>
Dear me, but you are one thick, semiliterate pillock. You are exactly
a genuine poseur. Not like our Brian - he doesn't at all succeed as a
poseur. He is faking it as a poseur. His affectation is unsuccessful
in convincing the populace. You, however are the genuine article. You
are THE poseur. Your pose is genuine. You no more believe what you say
than I believe in faeries. Where you fall down is in your comprehension
of text. I don't disparage masturbation, I sneer at helpless wankers. I
have no doubt you are wanking yourself silly as we speak and that it is
meaningless to you, being an adult. But you're getting it in the arse in
your newsgroup and you're hating it. It doesn't matter what protests you
utter - that's the hateful part for you. Here I am, a guttersnipe from a
horrid and nasty newsgroup quite beyond the pale - and I'm giving it to
you in the arse. And all because I say so. It's SO infuriating for you.
There, there, at least I'm not AD. He actually means it.
>> I can see you now as you open the post, 'YES!'
>> I hear you cry 'A History graduate!' The rest, as we say, is Usenet.
>
> Pot calling the kettle, and all... another lame explosion from those
>too used to shallow support from little "prosers."
>
Nnnng? You gotta stop this meaningless drivel. I want you to try harder.
"Prosers" for 'poseurs' is pussy. Shall we discuss 'LAME explosion'? I
think not.
>> I have a feeling you need to be fucked in the arse because your
>> audience is behind you.
>
> First of all; you ain't got it, Muppet! Second you reveal your
>commerical
>notion of the poetic. I do not concern myself with this "audience" you are
>so afraid of losing (or never gaining?). It means nothing to me, Now you
>may
>speak of "envy" or "sour grapes" because that is your preferred pathway of
>cynicism. This is what pleasures you.
>
Oh please. See above. Whether I 'got it' for you or not (I think I may
be a touch mature) I got it here and it's definitely for you. What the
fuck is a commercial notion of the poetic? Do tell. Only not 'at length'
for crisakes. Of course you're concerned with "audience". Are you going
to post a response to this because you need to explain the finer points
of modern surrealism on Usenet to me? No, you're going to respond to it
because you believe your "audience" expects you to demonstrate your own
surrealistical convictions. And because you have no choice. Me, I revel
in my audience. We all do. It's a recreational newsgroup. Nobody plays
ball in a darkened cell. Well, Paul Newman, but he's a rebel. You don't
"envy" nothin', and you don't got no "sour grapes". You're just a cute
chick and you insist on bending over in front of me. It's the audience
participation that pleasures me.
>>Your marvelous expositions about surrealism and its new incarnation
>>in the electric circus are testament to your erudition
>
>Now you're blathering, hoping desperately to make a point...
>
Oh? You're saying your expositions are less than marvelous? I disagree.
Difficult to substantiate my claim without going into DejaNews, I admit.
ALL your current posts on my server are inspired by rec.arts.prose. Not
even another cry from the heart to your pals urging they desist from re-
sponding to our horrid intrusion. How sad - no one is taking any notice
of us, except you.
>>I know of no one who would utter plausible bullshit with such conviction
>
>You don't know many people, do you?
>
No, no, that's it - I don't know many people. Tsk. You mean a percentage
diferential? Don't ask, I made that up. I know some people. Some here and
some in London. Some in Oz, Some in France. Some in the States. I know a
person on the Isle of Dogs but he's moving to Milton Keynes. He has his
reasons. You don't know shit, do you?
>
>> and all plucked from the pages of magazines and travel brochures.
>
> But you own property, you have a History Degree; surely YOU are the
>one who is more likely to stare fondly at travel brochures? You think the
>world is always on the verge of "paying its debts" to you.
>
I don't see how staring fondly at travel brochures follows from having a
History degree, I must admit. You got me there. I don't travel much these
days. Been there, done that. And I have a bad back. The very thought of
a bumpy landing gives me the screaming habdabs. Course, I'm teasing you.
You perceive that middle-class values must compel me to contemplate the
good life, at one remove. Not fucking likely. Travel brochures are for
holiday-makers and I wouldn't be caught dead in the same plaza as those
fuckers. But I can understand how you would be confused.
>> What a trouper. Sure, it helps that your literal interpretation of text
>> has
>> never stopped you uttering opinions as though they were insights, that
>> is part of your charm - the idiot souvant at her ease
>
> And you, the idiot suivant, thrashing in anxiety...
>
I follow your meaning, but you're following me. See? I say you're an
idiot and you follow me, like an idiot. Souvent. (!)
>> I look forward to more of your pretty nonsense, cutes. I so adore the
>> idea of you swimming in my pool.
>
> The one the filled with your own crap? No thank you; rain check.
>
Eow. Ugly, but yes, that's the one. A rain check. Implying a certain
passage of time.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>No thank you; rain check.
Lovely. I'll see you in - what? Three or four weeks? Months? Or will
you redeem your check almost immediately? I think you will. You don't
know what 'rain check' means. However will you get over your dilemma?
Now that you've looked it up.
RJM.
Bill Palmer
Well, then, why don't you start BEHAVING as if you
UNDERSTOOD that, Maughan? Or is it your point that
you represent nothing other than a "drooling mechanism"--
which is what your posted words suggest you in fact
are?
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
> RJM.
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan wrote:
Oh. He's accusing me of not knowing "big words" he learned
at college then promptly forgot over his first paycheck from
Rumptec Inc. That's clever.
I bet you don't know what "Robert Maughan" means. How will
you ever get over your impacted colonic noggin?
DMH
Dale Houstman
> Nah - you're patronised by a fake tan.
Better than that shit stain you picked up in a tunnel.
> >> swallow the groundbait.
> >
> > It drags that low?
> >
> Well ... yes.
We're were speaking of your back hair.
> >> You and Bill Palmer
> >
> > Don't know him.
> >
> Me neither.
Then stop being such a name-dropper. It's doesn't become you.
Of course, nothing does.
> >> Bothidae
> >
> > Wouldn't wait to meet her.
> >
> >> and Pleuronectidae.
> >
> > Ah! The improved vocabulary of the Nemotode.
> >
> As I say, you're a flounder. Nice try, though.
Bet you don't even know what "flounder" means.
> >> What a double act. Poor Brian, discarded puppet.
> >>
> >> Still, I take your point about the dog.
> >
> > I sincerely believe you don't get it at all, but must pretend to
> >to perserve your "normality status."
> >
> My god, you mean there was hidden profundity in, 'Do you own a dog?'
> What ELSE am I missing? (!) I don't own a dog. I don't even keep fish.
> Not since Ken died.
Hey, you're the fellow who said you got the point. I assume you were
flattering your precociousness, instead of demonstrating your obviousness.
> >> It's definitely a superiority thing with me
> >
> > The bronze squirrel speaks of superiority...
> >
> Like, the purple pussycat whispers sweet nothings. I hear you.
Never met a purple pussycat. Never hope to meet one.
> >> there isn't a dumb animal or scalliwag that I wouldn't
> >> look down on,
> >
> > except yourself, whom you look up to? Are those apples that
> >you're polishing?
> Dear me, but you are one thick, semiliterate pillock.
But me went to college and got a degree. Me own property.
> You are exactly a genuine poseur. Not like our Brian - he doesn't at all
> succeed as a
> poseur. He is faking it as a poseur. His affectation is unsuccessful
> in convincing the populace. You, however are the genuine article. You
> are THE poseur. Your pose is genuine. You no more believe what you say
> than I believe in faeries.
Exactly! And I am having your faeries dusted. For prints.
> Where you fall down is in your comprehension
> of text. I don't disparage masturbation, I sneer at helpless wankers. I
> have no doubt you are wanking yourself silly as we speak and that it is
> meaningless to you, being an adult. But you're getting it in the arse in
> your newsgroup and you're hating it. It doesn't matter what protests you
> utter - that's the hateful part for you. Here I am, a guttersnipe from a
> horrid and nasty newsgroup quite beyond the pale - and I'm giving it to
> you in the arse. And all because I say so. It's SO infuriating for you.
> There, there, at least I'm not AD. He actually means it.
Just like a bee: you lost your stinger the first time you struck it in
a passing nun. Now all you can do is dream of sticking it in
something again.
> Nnnng? You gotta stop this meaningless drivel. I want you to try harder.
> "Prosers" for 'poseurs' is pussy.
I meant it as a job title. "Pussy" for "passe" is pussy.
> Shall we discuss 'LAME explosion'? I think not.
An explosion of gold lame. I can't type the accented "e."
> >> I have a feeling you need to be fucked in the arse because your
> >> audience is behind you.
> >
> > First of all; you ain't got it, Muppet! Second you reveal your
> >commerical
> >notion of the poetic. I do not concern myself with this "audience" you are
> >so afraid of losing (or never gaining?). It means nothing to me, Now you
> >may >speak of "envy" or "sour grapes" because that is your preferred pathway
> of
> >cynicism. This is what pleasures you.
> >
> Oh please. See above. Whether I 'got it' for you or not (I think I may
> be a touch mature)
Just a touch, and then leave...
> I got it here and it's definitely for you. What the
> fuck is a commercial notion of the poetic? Do tell.
Your idea of audience (or loss of it) as somehow
pertinent to any discussion.
> Only not 'at length' for crisakes. Of course you're concerned with
> "audience". Are you going to post a response to this because you need to
> explain the finer points
> of modern surrealism on Usenet to me? No, you're going to respond to it
> because you believe your "audience" expects you to demonstrate your own
> surrealistical convictions.
Ooh! Premptive double-binding. Mother couldn't do better.
> And because you have no choice. Me, I revel in my audience. We all do. It's a
> recreational newsgroup. Nobody plays ball in a darkened cell. Well, Paul
> Newman, but he's a rebel. You don't "envy" nothin', and you don't got no
> "sour grapes". You're just a cute chick and you insist on bending over in
> front of me. It's the audience
> participation that pleasures me.
You have a real "arse" attraction that must have troubled your wife
and kids at some point. And I bet you laugh whenever a chimp
dresses up and plays the accordian on TV too.
> >>Your marvelous expositions about surrealism and its new incarnation
> >>in the electric circus are testament to your erudition
> >
> >Now you're blathering, hoping desperately to make a point...
> >
> Oh? You're saying your expositions are less than marvelous? I disagree.
No, I am saying your powers of description are corrupting your
need to get anything said with sweet purple nothings. 'Electric circus"?
Now that's retro.
> Difficult to substantiate my claim without going into DejaNews, I admit.
> ALL your current posts on my server are inspired by rec.arts.prose. Not
> even another cry from the heart to your pals urging they desist from re-
> sponding to our horrid intrusion. How sad - no one is taking any notice
> of us, except you.
So? You're the one who needs the audience.
> No, no, that's it - I don't know many people. Tsk. You mean a percentage
> diferential? Don't ask, I made that up. I know some people. Some here and
> some in London. Some in Oz, Some in France. Some in the States. I know a
> person on the Isle of Dogs but he's moving to Milton Keynes. He has his
> reasons. You don't know shit, do you?
All your friends live in fear of your History Degree.
> > and all plucked from the pages of magazines and travel brochures.
> >
> > But you own property, you have a History Degree; surely YOU are the
> >one who is more likely to stare fondly at travel brochures? You think the
> >world is always on the verge of "paying its debts" to you.
> >
> I don't see how staring fondly at travel brochures follows from having a
> History degree, I must admit.
So? Your admission of perplexity doesn't endear me to you.
> Travel brochures are for holiday-makers and I wouldn't be caught
> dead in the same plaza as those fuckers. But I can
> understand how you might be confused.
Did you get that out of a travel brochure?
> What a trouper. Sure, it helps that your literal interpretation of text
> >> has
> >> never stopped you uttering opinions as though they were insights, that
> >> is part of your charm - the idiot souvant at her ease
> >
> > And you, the idiot suivant, thrashing in anxiety...
> >
> I follow your meaning, but you're following me. See? I say you're an
> idiot and you follow me, like an idiot. Souvent. (!)
I say you're an idiot and you follow me, like an idiot. Suivant (!)
> >> I look forward to more of your pretty nonsense, cutes. I so adore the
> >> idea of you swimming in my pool.
> >
> > The one the filled with your own crap? No thank you; rain check.
> >
> Eow. Ugly, but yes, that's the one. A rain check. Implying a certain
> passage of time.
Yes, until you drain it and fill it with your blood.
DMH
APhi77ips
<r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>You know those people that stumble into you on the street.
>>Who step on your toes with nary a word of pardon.
>>The ones who scream, and sing bad pop lyrics outside your window late at
>>night. Who smash your jack-o-lantern on Halloween and walk their
>>incontinent dogs in your front yard.
>>
>>Well, they all have computers now.
>>And, worse yet, modems.
You know those people who are always sticking their big feet in your
way when you're trying to stumble down the road? The ones who
twitch their lace curtains so annoyingly when you try and have a bit
of a sing-song? The ones whose jack-o-lanterns grin so idiotically, just
daring you to kick their faces in?
Andy
Robert Maughan
Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>>I DO know this, and I'm not going to make any
>>>bones about telling you (again), Maughan. In
>>>Usenet, and most especially in writing and prose
>>>groups, you are what you write.
>>
>> I agree. No matter how many times you tell me, I know this to be
>>true.
>
>Well, then, why don't you start BEHAVING as if you
>UNDERSTOOD that, Maughan? Or is it your point that
>you represent nothing other than a "drooling mechanism"--
>which is what your posted words suggest you in fact
>are?
>
Jesus, but you're a stupid cunt, Palmer. Still.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>> Nah - you're patronised by a fake tan.
>
> Better than that shit stain you picked up in a tunnel.
>
So you say. And I didn't pick it up.
[...]
> We're were speaking of your back hair.
>
We're were who? Come on, Dale, take a deep breath - oh and let it out
of course.
[...]
>> As I say, you're a flounder. Nice try, though.
>
> Bet you don't even know what "flounder" means.
>
You win. I have no idea.
[...]
>> My god, you mean there was hidden profundity in, 'Do you own a dog?'
>> What ELSE am I missing? (!) I don't own a dog. I don't even keep fish.
>> Not since Ken died.
>
> Hey, you're the fellow who said you got the point. I assume you were
>flattering your precociousness, instead of demonstrating your obviousness.
>
Oh. I'm beginning to think you may be unreal, after all.
>> >> It's definitely a superiority thing with me
>> >
>> > The bronze squirrel speaks of superiority...
>> >
>> Like, the purple pussycat whispers sweet nothings. I hear you.
>
> Never met a purple pussycat. Never hope to meet one.
>
>> >> there isn't a dumb animal or scalliwag that I wouldn't
>> >> look down on,
>> >
>> > except yourself, whom you look up to? Are those apples that
>> >you're polishing?
>
>> Dear me, but you are one thick, semiliterate pillock.
>
> But me went to college and got a degree. Me own property.
>
Oh dear. My mistake, you're not unreal. I take it you meant university.
Did you go to college? Do you own property? Of course, the former. We're
all educated here. Aren't we? We all know how much there is to learn. I
suppose you're too young to own property. Never mind.
[...]
> Your pose is genuine. You no more believe what you say
>> than I believe in faeries.
>
> Exactly! And I am having your faeries dusted. For prints.
>
Oh. Imagine a polite laugh.
>> Where you fall down is in your comprehension
>> of text. I don't disparage masturbation, I sneer at helpless wankers. I
>> have no doubt you are wanking yourself silly as we speak and that it is
>> meaningless to you, being an adult. But you're getting it in the arse in
>> your newsgroup and you're hating it. It doesn't matter what protests you
>> utter - that's the hateful part for you. Here I am, a guttersnipe from a
>> horrid and nasty newsgroup quite beyond the pale - and I'm giving it to
>> you in the arse. And all because I say so. It's SO infuriating for you.
>> There, there, at least I'm not AD. He actually means it.
>
> Just like a bee: you lost your stinger the first time you struck it in
>a passing nun. Now all you can do is dream of sticking it in
>something again.
>
Just like a bee: right, right, OK, whatever you say, but what has this
to do ... never mind. This post of yours has been a bit of a failure,
Dale. I'm going to bed in a minute, early start tomorrow. Why not try
again - see if you can't summon up the old vitriol. Much more you.
>> Nnnng? You gotta stop this meaningless drivel. I want you to try harder.
>> "Prosers" for 'poseurs' is pussy.
>
> I meant it as a job title. "Pussy" for "passe" is pussy.
>
OK. Right. I meant pussy not passe but - whatever you say.
>> Shall we discuss 'LAME explosion'? I think not.
>
> An explosion of gold lame. I can't type the accented "e."
>
Oh. I'll take your word for it. Exploding gold lamé then ... no, no,
it's still a lousy quip.
[...]
>> Oh please. See above. Whether I 'got it' for you or not (I think I may
>> be a touch mature)
>
> Just a touch, and then leave...
>
Nah, I like to fuck you in the arse. I got a thing for it, metaphoric-
ally. As well.
>> I got it here and it's definitely for you. What the
>> fuck is a commercial notion of the poetic? Do tell.
>
> Your idea of audience (or loss of it) as somehow
>pertinent to any discussion.
>
I see. My idea of audience is somehow pertinent to the discussion is a
commercial notion of the poetic. An obscure reference to adcopy I must
suppose. And you haven't quite got the nous to turn it into satire. Oh
my god. It's flu, isn't it? You're ill and I'm being horrid. Shame.
>> Only not 'at length' for crisakes. Of course you're concerned with
>> "audience". Are you going to post a response to this because you need to
>> explain the finer points
>> of modern surrealism on Usenet to me? No, you're going to respond to it
>> because you believe your "audience" expects you to demonstrate your own
>> surrealistical convictions.
>
> Ooh! Premptive double-binding. Mother couldn't do better.
>
That's true.
>> And because you have no choice. Me, I revel in my audience. We all do. It's a
>> recreational newsgroup. Nobody plays ball in a darkened cell. Well, Paul
>> Newman, but he's a rebel. You don't "envy" nothin', and you don't got no
>> "sour grapes". You're just a cute chick and you insist on bending over in
>> front of me. It's the audience
>> participation that pleasures me.
>
> You have a real "arse" attraction that must have troubled your wife
>and kids at some point.
Troubled my first wife, I gotta tell you. Convent girl. I love arse. My
brother has an arse to die for - bastard. I could lose a coupla pounds.
I knew this girl, Louise, I still remember her arse. I think it was her
arse that got me started. I'm very keen on the inner thigh, too. I very
much enjoy a good nipple. Your oriental woman is prone to the pronounced
nipple. I had a temp once, Vietnamese girl, tits like sparrows nesting
but, boy - did she sport a pair of walnuts, or what?
>And I bet you laugh whenever a chimp
>dresses up and plays the accordian on TV too.
>
Chimps don't dress up, ducky, they're dressed up. I laugh at the Typhoo
ads. Don't ask.
[...]
>> Oh? You're saying your expositions are less than marvelous? I disagree.
>
> No, I am saying your powers of description are corrupting your
>need to get anything said with sweet purple nothings.
Nnng? It's surreal isn't it? Pass.
>'Electric circus"?
>Now that's retro.
>
Nah. It's up to the minute comment on this environment.
>> Difficult to substantiate my claim without going into DejaNews, I admit.
>> ALL your current posts on my server are inspired by rec.arts.prose. Not
>> even another cry from the heart to your pals urging they desist from re-
>> sponding to our horrid intrusion. How sad - no one is taking any notice
>> of us, except you.
>
> So? You're the one who needs the audience.
>
That's true.
>> No, no, that's it - I don't know many people. Tsk. You mean a percentage
>> diferential? Don't ask, I made that up. I know some people. Some here and
>> some in London. Some in Oz, Some in France. Some in the States. I know a
>> person on the Isle of Dogs but he's moving to Milton Keynes. He has his
>> reasons. You don't know shit, do you?
>
> All your friends live in fear of your History Degree.
>
How I wish. Very ordinary degree, sadly. Very ordinary university. My
friend Isobel took a Double First with allsorts up at Cambridge when we
were still sleeping together, all those years ago. Couldn't get it up
for weeks. Some of my friends have science degrees. What's that about?
My son has two. Starts writing his doctorate next year. Already done the
deal to publish his thesis. So, no, not all my friends live in fear of
my History degree. Phil the Greek thinks I'm an intellectual. He deals
in culinary products so that's no surprise.
[...]
>> I don't see how staring fondly at travel brochures follows from having a
>> History degree, I must admit.
>
> So? Your admission of perplexity doesn't endear me to you.
>
'Endear you to me.'
>> Travel brochures are for holiday-makers and I wouldn't be caught
>> dead in the same plaza as those fuckers. But I can
>> understand how you might be confused.
>
> Did you get that out of a travel brochure?
>
Nah. It was just another throwaway line I threw away.
I can't bring myself to quote any of that 'idiot' stuff. Now, off you
go, and take your time, Dale. See if you can't do better next time. We
don't want people thinking you can't cut the mustard in rec.arts.prose.
Do we?
RJM.
Leo Sgouros
COOLER
dum dum....dum dum da dum dum
dum dum dum dum da da da dum dum-
my favorite theme!!
Ok, go back to whatever you were doing.
You wacky kidde's.
L
mike...
bob jones wrote:
> At the risk of alienating everyone I wish you'd be more specific.
> I mean do you think Buddhism and Christianity create victims in
> the same way?
i think most anything that people use as a crutch creates victims,
whether it be religion, shiny cars, or crack. ive never met a real-life
honest-to-goodness buddhist, but from what i understand, im sure
some of them get involved in buddhism as an extension of them-
selves, which i suppose is a-ok, but who knows? there may be some
who completely thrust themselves into it and run about on the streets
shouting "im a buddhist im a buddhist! be a buddhist!" in some sort
of attempt to re-build their identity and self-worth that they have lost
over the years.
ohhh, somebody call the grammar police.
> What works for you is fine. Self-reliance is fine but it won't
> answer your questions.
what questions?
> You don't know that the meaning is false, as I've already
> pointed out.
as have i, when i started slinging the word "agnostic" around.
you can't answer the question of "god?" i think it's futile to
ask, and futile to argue for or against.
> Why should they think any differently if they are happy with
> their lives?
because they're accepting something as absolute truth with
very very little proof, and in doing so, selling their freedom.
it's the same as taking a drug. cant handle existence? immerse
yourself in this and forget it all. trading free will for blind hap-
piness? no thanks.
> Why do you feel superior?
i dont think i do. if i thought i was superior, i would be the one
pushing organised religion. (not saying you are).
"these silly huddled masses are all empty and meaningless, we
better give them something to believe in, else they'll have no
reason to get out of bed in the morn! and let's toss in this set of
rules and threaten them with eternal spankings, to keep control
over them. for their own good of course."
i just wish people would stop selling themselves short.
> >> suspending judgement and being born-again, who are the atheists to condemmn
> >>them?
> >> Who is more resentful and hate-filled? Athiests resent Christians (etc)
> >>peace.
> >> Understandable but not acceptable.
>
> >there are manymany christians who dont preach peace. please visit
> >www.godhatesfags.com
> >or www.enyart.com (check out the quotes section)
>
> Now just hold on there. Have I said that I thought
> Christians were pacifists? I don't think so.
i dunno. you said atheists resent christian peace, and i was just
pointing out that christains arent the most peaceful people on
the planet. maybe atheists find killing in the name of dogma silly.
brandon wrote:
> >I believe mike wrote: "id rather have no truth than false truth" and I agree,
> >but how do we know if a truth is false? Do we just not accept anything?
i suppose that's an option. to not blindly accept anything. to
discover everything for yourself, set your own rules. create your
own reality.
watch me get off topic again. (aka, dear robert/gv 3:)
"this is not a pipe" may be 'cool' to say, and the picture of the
pipe may be mainstream, but is the actual idea mainstream?
not at all. a pipe is still a pipe, red is still red, 2+2 is still four.
surrealist pictures may be mainstream, but the ideas behind
the pictures certainly arent.
bob wrote:
> WTF is 'false truth'? Do you need every guidline laid down for you?
um, something accepted as a truth, when...it's infact, not.
bob, in response to brandon, wrote:
> > totally agree with this comment. But I have to wonder what isn't an act of
> > faith?
>
> Creativity.
anything that come from the self.
xomike
Robert Maughan
Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> writes
>Steve McQueen in The Great Escape, thats who.!
That IS who!! I was thinking of ... no, it's gone, 'Takin' it off here,
boss,' that one. Boiled eggs. Only he didn't throw a ball. Or even get
locked up in solitary. Or did he? Dunno.
Ruined my whole throwaway line - but worth it for the music.
Wacky.
Dale Houstman
> ive never met a real-lifehonest-to-goodness buddhist, but from
> what i understand, im sure some of them get involved in
> buddhism as an extension of them-selves, which i suppose is
> a-ok, but who knows? there may be some who completely thrust
> themselves into it and run about on the streets shouting "im
> a buddhist im a buddhist! be a buddhist!" in some sort of
> attempt to re-build their identity and self- worth that they
> have lost over the years.
Where I work there is a buddhist, and he is an unbearable person.
He is haughty and cannot engage in normal conversation, but only
in "presentations" of himself. But I assume these social "problems"
pre-existed his entry into the philosophy? It is my observation
that American buddhists come to it as another opiate for their
feelings of disengagement; from work, family, culture. And though
one cannot deny anyone their needed soporific, it does not
overall appear to be any more healthy than Christianity. He
also tends to "evangelize" although in a rather sedate way. Recently
someone was discussing a news story on Kosovo, mentioning
some horrid human disaster, ands he said "this concentration upon
blood and flesh shows that they are too focussed on the physical."
This, about people living and dying in a manmade tragedy. This sort
of unattachment strikes me as bordering on the fascist, although
other aspects of the religion probably dissuade active terrorism?
I find it unnerving.
> when i started slinging the word "agnostic" around.
> you can't answer the question of "god?" i think it's futile to
> ask, and futile to argue for or against.
It might be futile (I've certainly found it so, and feel tired everytime
anyone wants to engage in such a discussion), but nevertheless
it will be asked, and people will answer, tossing about the same
propositions and axioms. The trouble with "belief" is however
that it is ALL axioms, and no proofs. Really, religious belief
is a sort of rhetorical great divide, or breakwater. Once upon
the other side, the mutation of generally accepted forms of
argument makes it difficult to return. But I have found that
the "value" and health of any individual lies in other psychological
caches than in the "Godist/Atheist" drawer, and are more
important to the makeup and demeanor of that person.
> because they're accepting something as absolute truth with
> very very little proof, and in doing so, selling their freedom.
> it's the same as taking a drug. cant handle existence? immerse
> yourself in this and forget it all. trading free will for blind hap-
> piness? no thanks.
Yes. But the alternative argument will be that by not accepting
what (to a believer) is clearly "there" you are denying yourself
your total birthright as a being of divinity. It makes no difference
that I find this argument specious and circular; the believers are
grounded in their axiom: "God lives"
DMH
Dale Houstman
> We don't want people thinking you can't cut the mustard in rec.arts.prose.
> Do we?
Well, you're the one obviously besotted with the need for audience-
acceptance. It appears to be a running theme with you, to such a
degree that you can no longer envision that people exist who do
not live for others' attentions. It's an odd disease, but maybe not
so uncommon?
As for "cutting the mustard" in your little group, I have, for the
most part, found that (just like in the "real" world) the vast majority
of "literary" labor turns up shovels of sterile dirt. I have seen the
"marvelous" samples of composition in your cold coven, and the
desperate stabs at cognition and clarity. It is not impressive.
As for acceptance or not; why do you suppose I would give
a fig? All you say appears to me to fit on a 15' screen. You are
barely real, not even a refreshing liquid. All you ever had to "front"
in this forum was your attitude layered in between your ignorance
of surrealism itself, and (it appears) of art, and consciousness.
It seems all you can do is play games of rhetoric (and not really
very well, despite your obvious regard for yourself, your History
degree, your property...). You're ultimately a drudge of conformity,
slave to the usual masters, a sort of pasty shadow of what you
might have been if you hadn't found stupidity so comforting a
place to lay down your desires.
DMH
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>Robert Maughan wrote:
>
>> We don't want people thinking you can't cut the mustard in rec.arts.prose.
>> Do we?
>
> Well, you're the one obviously besotted with the need for audience-
>acceptance. It appears to be a running theme with you, to such a
>degree that you can no longer envision that people exist who do
>not live for others' attentions. It's an odd disease, but maybe not
>so uncommon?
>
I wonder if you repeat these conclusions because you forget your lines?
Of course, obviously I'm here for audience acceptance. It appears to be
a theme with me because it is a theme with me. I'm here to do writing,
for free, for recreation, and for attention. If I fuck up I get audience
rejection. See how that works? It's nearly like real life, only cheaper.
No doubt you have a higher calling, but lower expectations. Probably you
contribute to alt.surrealism because you want to be ignored.
> As for "cutting the mustard" in your little group, I have, for the
>most part, found that (just like in the "real" world) the vast majority
>of "literary" labor turns up shovels of sterile dirt. I have seen the
>"marvelous" samples of composition in your cold coven, and the
>desperate stabs at cognition and clarity. It is not impressive.
>
You're right to say it's a little group; it has little appeal. Prose
for it's own sake is hardly going to attract the attention of Usenet's
great unwashed - is it? You're confusing 'literary labour' with plain
prose. Ordinary writing. I quite agree that much literature is garbage.
Market forces dictate it. But this is rec.arts.prose. We're here to do
writing. There I go again, reiterating the obvious. Your criticism is
meaningless unless you're prepared to present a case. Of course there
is another slight problem - your own prose is hardly exciting - is it?
It has a kind of lumbering ineptitiude that demands parenthesis to em-
phasize irony. Marvelous samples of composition here are rare, as rare
as hen's titties, but there's often a phrase, a sentence, even a whole
paragraph that will knock your eye out. Know what I mean?
> As for acceptance or not; why do you suppose I would give
>a fig? All you say appears to me to fit on a 15' screen. You are
>barely real, not even a refreshing liquid. All you ever had to "front"
>in this forum was your attitude layered in between your ignorance
>of surrealism itself, and (it appears) of art, and consciousness.
>
You are accepted, so whether you give a fig or not is your business. I
don't give a fuck. You're really going to have to get to grips with this
urge to state the obvious. We've had it ad infinitum that we're words on
a screen, barely real ... though not often are we compared to refreshing
liquid, unfavourably, I must say. I don't know what you mean by "front".
My ignorance of surrealism is surpassed only by my tenuous grasp of the
workings of combustion engines. Surrealism, the movement, was a part of
my studies thirty years ago. I found it interesting. My ignorance of art
is inversely proportional to the sum of the paintings, sculptures, words
and music that I have enjoyed in fifty years. Obviously you are uniquely
able to plumb my consciousness. I shall think of you when next I have an
opportunity to touch a Giacometti.
> It seems all you can do is play games of rhetoric (and not really
>very well, despite your obvious regard for yourself, your History
>degree, your property...). You're ultimately a drudge of conformity,
>slave to the usual masters, a sort of pasty shadow of what you
>might have been if you hadn't found stupidity so comforting a
>place to lay down your desires.
>
Come, come, ducky. I play games of rhetoric that knocks you on your ass.
I am a drudge of conformity, alas. It snuck up on me soon after I saved
the world - and bought my first house. I think it was the kids forced me
into slavery with their constant unreasonable demands for food, clothing,
entertainment, and ultimately education. It's true I'm a shadow of what I
might have been. I might have been a struggling artist, hair shirted in a
garret, crying into my gruel about the cruel establishment that failed to
make me rich and successful and ignored my great work. Luckily, I figured
it was a lousy novel and took the offer from Harrison, Kolb and Rasche. I
found stupidity so comforting a place to lay down my desire, yet. Fuck me
but you do have the knack for an ugly phrase.
RJM.
barrett john erickson
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8SuKrTAk...@etymon.demon.co.uk...
> Of course, obviously I'm here for audience acceptance. It
appears to be
> a theme with me because it is a theme with me. I'm here to do
writing,
> for free, for recreation, and for attention. If I fuck up I get
audience
> rejection. See how that works? It's nearly like real life, only
cheaper.
> No doubt you have a higher calling, but lower expectations.
Probably you
> contribute to alt.surrealism because you want to be ignored.
no, we contribute to alt.surrealism because we want to find
colleagues and collaborators for the larger project (the
surrealist project).
> You're right to say it's a little group; it has little
appeal. Prose
> for it's own sake is hardly going to attract the attention of
Usenet's
> great unwashed - is it? You're confusing 'literary labour' with
plain
> prose. Ordinary writing. I quite agree that much literature is
garbage.
> Market forces dictate it. But this is rec.arts.prose. We're
here to do
> writing.
but "this" is also alt.surrealism. here we don't give a shit
about your efforts at "Prose for it's own sake". we find that
empty and uninteresting, and the people who obsess over style and
technique equally empty and uninteresting.
>There I go again, reiterating the obvious. Your criticism is
> meaningless unless you're prepared to present a case. Of course
there
> is another slight problem - your own prose is hardly exciting -
is it?
talk about meaningless repetition. for someone so obsessed with
writing, you're not much for reading comprehension are you?
the case against you is self-evident: we don't care what you
think about _how_ we write, yet you keep telling us. that's all
you r.a.p.'ers have to offer and we find it worthless.
> entertainment, and ultimately education. It's true I'm a shadow
of what I
> might have been. I might have been a struggling artist, hair
shirted in a
> garret, crying into my gruel about the cruel establishment that
failed to
> make me rich and successful and ignored my great work.
or maybe you just might have had something to say?
-- 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
Robert Maughan
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org>
[...]
>Probably you
>> contribute to alt.surrealism because you want to be ignored.
>
>no, we contribute to alt.surrealism because we want to find
>colleagues and collaborators for the larger project (the
>surrealist project).
>
Jesus. Of course you do, you fucking idiot. Of course you contribute to
your newsgroup to find like-minded people. Unfortunately, you contribute
to RAP and expose your literal-minded reading of English language. Let's
see if we can help you - after a paragraph in which X describes how he's
definitely into attention just as Y has claimed, he says to Y, 'Probably
you contribute to alt.surrealism because you want to be ignored.' Now it
may seem to the casual observer that you simply do not get it; that your
skill lies elsewhere than in the written medium; that you know shit when
it comes to literary devices. But I don't accept this - I think you're a
determined pragmatist. I also think you're fucking blind but that's just
the way I see things.
> But this is rec.arts.prose. We're
>here to do
>> writing.
>
>but "this" is also alt.surrealism.
True - but I don't give a fuck. See how that works?
> here we don't give a shit
>about your efforts at "Prose for it's own sake".
And why should you? We don't give a shit either, only we don't give a
shit all the time. You are here because you are too fucking stupid to
work out that you were trolled. If I catch the bitch who did it, I'll
let you know.
> we find that
>empty and uninteresting, and the people who obsess over style and
>technique equally empty and uninteresting.
>
I can understand that, you have neither style nor technique. But you
are full of shit. I'm speaking of you in the singular there; it's rude
to generalize. You, in the plural, do seem as though you find us empty
and uninteresting. I imagine that the majority find us utterly, utterly
distateful, my dear. Quite right, too. Some of you are willing victims,
however, and here you are.
>>There I go again, reiterating the obvious. Your criticism is
>> meaningless unless you're prepared to present a case. Of course
>there
>> is another slight problem - your own prose is hardly exciting -
>is it?
>
>talk about meaningless repetition. for someone so obsessed with
>writing, you're not much for reading comprehension are you?
>
Pal, I WAS talking about meaningless repetition. Reading comprehension
is a phrase you heard somewhere. Isn't it? Be honest, you have no idea
what it means. I'm not much for divining what you are going to say. But
I comprehend it when you say it. Too obfuscatory for you? Most likely.
Which repetition is the one to which you refer?
>the case against you is self-evident: we don't care what you
>think about _how_ we write, yet you keep telling us. that's all
>you r.a.p.'ers have to offer and we find it worthless.
>
THE CASE? Good heavens - there's a case? This must be the repetition
you mean. The one where I repeat what I think of your writing that you
don't keep caring about. I can see now that I have wronged you. I shall
immediately scour the archive and find out who has been repeating this
vile calumny and have him flogged. We Rappers are a worthless bunch of
wasters. I can't repeat that often enough.
>> entertainment, and ultimately education. It's true I'm a shadow
>of what I
>> might have been. I might have been a struggling artist, hair
>shirted in a
>> garret, crying into my gruel about the cruel establishment that
>failed to
>> make me rich and successful and ignored my great work.
>
>or maybe you just might have had something to say?
>
I did actually. I said it in a cross between Lady Chatterley's Cunt and
Last Exit to Balham. I thought I'd bought up all the remaindered copies
but then I read Jackie Collins.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org>
>
>Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8SuKrTAk...@etymon.demon.co.uk...
[...]
>Probably you
>> contribute to alt.surrealism because you want to be ignored.
>
>no, we contribute to alt.surrealism because we want to find
>colleagues and collaborators for the larger project (the
>surrealist project).
>
Jesus. Of course you do, you fucking idiot. Of course you contribute to
your newsgroup to find like-minded people. Unfortunately, you contribute
to RAP and expose your literal-minded reading of English language. Let's
see if we can help you - after a paragraph in which X describes how he's
definitely into attention just as Y has claimed, he says to Y, 'Probably
you contribute to alt.surrealism because you want to be ignored.' Now it
may seem to the casual observer that you simply do not get it; that your
skill lies elsewhere than in the written medium; that you know shit when
it comes to literary devices. But I don't accept this - I think you're a
determined pragmatist. I also think you're fucking blind but that's just
the way I see things.
> But this is rec.arts.prose. We're
>here to do
>> writing.
>
>but "this" is also alt.surrealism.
True - but I don't give a fuck. See how that works?
> here we don't give a shit
>about your efforts at "Prose for it's own sake".
And why should you? We don't give a shit either, only we don't give a
shit all the time. You are here because you are too fucking stupid to
work out that you were trolled. If I catch the bitch who did it, I'll
let you know.
> we find that
>empty and uninteresting, and the people who obsess over style and
>technique equally empty and uninteresting.
>
I can understand that, you have neither style nor technique. But you
are full of shit. I'm speaking of you in the singular there; it's rude
to generalize. You, in the plural, do seem as though you find us empty
and uninteresting. I imagine that the majority find us utterly, utterly
distateful, my dear. Quite right, too. Some of you are willing victims,
however, and here you are.
>>There I go again, reiterating the obvious. Your criticism is
>> meaningless unless you're prepared to present a case. Of course
>there
>> is another slight problem - your own prose is hardly exciting -
>is it?
>
>talk about meaningless repetition. for someone so obsessed with
>writing, you're not much for reading comprehension are you?
>
Pal, I WAS talking about meaningless repetition. Reading comprehension
is a phrase you heard somewhere. Isn't it? Be honest, you have no idea
what it means. I'm not much for divining what you are going to say. But
I comprehend it when you say it. Too obfuscatory for you? Most likely.
Which repetition is the one to which you refer?
>the case against you is self-evident: we don't care what you
>think about _how_ we write, yet you keep telling us. that's all
>you r.a.p.'ers have to offer and we find it worthless.
>
THE CASE? Good heavens - there's a case? This must be the repetition
you mean. The one where I repeat what I think of your writing that you
don't keep caring about. I can see now that I have wronged you. I shall
immediately scour the archive and find out who has been repeating this
vile calumny and have him flogged. We Rappers are a worthless bunch of
wasters. I can't repeat that often enough.
>> entertainment, and ultimately education. It's true I'm a shadow
>of what I
>> might have been. I might have been a struggling artist, hair
>shirted in a
>> garret, crying into my gruel about the cruel establishment that
>failed to
>> make me rich and successful and ignored my great work.
>
barrett john erickson
>Unfortunately, you contribute to RAP
>You are here because you are too fucking stupid to
>work out that you were trolled. If I catch the bitch who did it,
I'll
>let you know.
the fact that you added alt.surrealism to the r.a.p. post and
r.a.p. to the alt.surrealism post should make the task pretty
easy -- even for someone as conceptually challenged as you.
"the bitch" is you, robert (we already knew that).
i am well aware of the fact that you are but a troll. that was
the point of my little demonstration.
>I imagine that the majority find us utterly, utterly
>distateful, my dear. Quite right, too. Some of you are willing
victims,
>however,
sorry, but the fact that you continue to throw shit at us doesn't
make us willing victims. is your wife a willing victim of your
abuse also?
>and here you are.
only because you have no existence without us, apparently.
APhi77ips
<bar...@magneticfields.org> writes:
>
>the case against you is self-evident:
Something tells me he's going to state it anyway.
we don't care what you
>think about _how_ we write, yet you keep telling us. that's all
>you r.a.p.'ers have to offer and we find it worthless.
>
Do "we?" I love how all these free-minded individuals can speak for
each other.
Andy
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan wrote:
typical property-owning, history degree stuff interspersed with
gibbon gibber and the drool from that blowhole he uses to
store his pseudopodia in at night. Sleep comes hard to the
paramecium, but eventually he slips off into dreams of cilia
and flagellum like a mantilla about his bloated "place-where-
a-face-should-be," and he knows (inside the surface tension
of his moist memory) that he once again defined the word
"asinine" with just a few flicks of his monocyte hairs.
....
DMH
See you through the microscope...
Dale Houstman
> sorry, but the fact that you continue to throw shit at us doesn't
> make us willing victims. is your wife a willing victim of your
> abuse also?
Surely, his wife is what he was referring to when he boasted of
"owning property" as if it were relevant to anything but his "arse"
fixation?
DMH
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan wrote:
Something gaseous from his cassius. A badly-lit bit of colonic
effusion somehow stinky but yet thin, and liable to dissipate.
In the cool night air of his self-regard, this takes on a texture
not unlike uncooked albumen but partaking of dried cheese
particles stuck in the mouth of a lemur who often dreams
of St. Paul eating a piece of bread in a subway station,
as real people rush by in the cars, totally ignoring him,
which upsets his delicate notions of himself, and reduces
him to a smear on a plastic replica of the Black Hole
of Calcutta, where he once grew parsnips and ate flies
out of the earholes of a sacred cow named Andrea,
whose "arse" he worshipped as a reticule for his sterile
jism.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan wrote:
Aggression for aggression's sake, and we all went "Wow!"
because that degree of emptiness, surrounded by such
a thick wall of shit is (after all) a natural phenomenon. A few
tourists remain after the vapor has dispersed, but only to
pick up the tiny pieces of fossilized worm shit that have
been deposited by his streamy excretions. The children
(because children are impressionable and excited by
mere noise) want to come back next year, but the parents
only nod and say "We'll see..."
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
Robert Maughan: shit salad
Robert Maughan
>gibbon gibber and the drool from that blowhole he uses to
>store his pseudopodia in at night. Sleep comes hard to the
>paramecium, but eventually he slips off into dreams of cilia
>and flagellum like a mantilla about his bloated "place-where-
>a-face-should-be," and he knows (inside the surface tension
>of his moist memory) that he once again defined the word
>"asinine" with just a few flicks of his monocyte hairs.
>
the microscope indeed. I see you, you pathetic little pseudo-cytologist.
I see the basic unit of alt.surrealism, the lonely biologically active
Dale Houstman, surrounded by selectively permeable plasmageloid wankers,
reproducing independently, completely sexless, joyless, witless, utterly
devoid of imagination and swimming in your own juices.
I see you queening it over the discs and rods, the spheres and spindles
as you alone locomote - I am the High Amoeboid - I hear you roar, as you
organize those organelles, grope those genes, controlling all about you,
and all about you is alternatively surreal, eukaryotic blips in the eye,
the world of Dale Houstman - Brandon cell and Barrett cell, and any other
cell with a half life of null and void. I see you in my microscope cutes.
You're a fraud.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
RJM.
Robert Maughan
must be so desperate, you poor thing, to have committed this -
>In the cool night air of his self-regard, this takes on a texture
>not unlike uncooked albumen but partaking of dried cheese
>particles stuck in the mouth of a lemur who often dreams
>of St. Paul eating a piece of bread in a subway station,
Who are you kidding?
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> writes
I gotta tell you, Dale, your fixation on my fixation is sending me
into a frenzy of fixation.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org>
>Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>
>>Unfortunately, you contribute to RAP
>
>>You are here because you are too fucking stupid to
>>work out that you were trolled. If I catch the bitch who did it,
>I'll
>>let you know.
>
>the fact that you added alt.surrealism to the r.a.p. post and
>r.a.p. to the alt.surrealism post should make the task pretty
>easy -- even for someone as conceptually challenged as you.
>
The fact is Barrett old bean, that your brain cell is burning up on re-
entry. It was a 'repeat' joke. Geddit? The conception and execution were
a matter of moments. Nobody but you will have any difficulty with the
concept, but only you will strain your credibility by pointing out that
the posts that were repeated were repeated.
>"the bitch" is you, robert (we already knew that).
>
>i am well aware of the fact that you are but a troll. that was
>the point of my little demonstration.
>
I'm 'the bitch'? You're seriously disturbed, mate. Mind you, I rather
like the idea. I shall have to study my movements of two weeks ago to
find out if I did it ... wait! Oh my god! What if I really am Andr ... ?
Oh my god! How will I explain ... no, no, I can't be. If I was Andr ...
I'd have bigger tits. Phew, that was close. You're a bit of a card, eh,
young Erickson? Had me going then, for a minute.
>>I imagine that the majority find us utterly, utterly
>>distateful, my dear. Quite right, too. Some of you are willing
>victims,
>>however,
>
>sorry, but the fact that you continue to throw shit at us doesn't
>make us willing victims. is your wife a willing victim of your
>abuse also?
>
Barrett, pal, throwing shit is easy, anyone can do it, as you will
point out, or would have pointed out if I hadn't pre-empted your out-
pointing. My wife? Have a care, pal, the woman is highly dangerous.
See these wounds? Eyelashes.
>>and here you are.
>
>only because you have no existence without us, apparently.
>
At last you've managed to redeem yourself. Without you we are nothing
but a turbid backwater of the Great Usenet River. We stroke ourselves,
when we can be bothered, occasionally posting short pieces to make it
worthwhile, now and again bemoaning the dreadful ennui of our louche
existence, sometimes disappearing completely up our own collective
arsehole but always, always emerging at last, stronger, or weaker,
depending. Yes, it's true, we ARE nothing without our visitors. I
know I'm grateful.
RJM.
Asbestos Dust
<r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> writes
>
>>Steve McQueen in The Great Escape, thats who.!
>
> That IS who!! I was thinking of ... no, it's gone, 'Takin' it off here,
>boss,' that one. Boiled eggs. Only he didn't throw a ball. Or even get
>locked up in solitary. Or did he? Dunno.
Yup, he did. When his mama died, and the warden figured he'd get
"rabbit". Cool Hand Luke.
AD
"What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate"
bob jones
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
> Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>
> >I imagine that the majority find us utterly, utterly
> >distateful, my dear. Quite right, too. Some of you are willing
> victims,
> >however,
>
> sorry, but the fact that you continue to throw shit at us doesn't
> make us willing victims.
Quite right, that would be your responding, making you
willing victims. Unless, of course, the rap folk are
achieving some kind of irresistible effect, forcing
you to spout your ill-conceived notions.
> >and here you are.
>
> only because you have no existence without us, apparently.
So now you are our Universe? Please.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Leo Sgouros
Asbestos Dust wrote in message <371d4e47...@news.cooke.net>...
"did ya wear a black armband when you shot the man who said
peace could last forever"
"my hands are tied
the billions sway from side to side"
*~~~~~~zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
~~~/~@
the cow says
when my BlueOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooH
moon turns to gold agin
Trim Witless
bob jones
"mike..." <mik...@coconet.com> wrote:
>
>
> bob jones wrote:
>
> > At the risk of alienating everyone I wish you'd be more specific.
> > I mean do you think Buddhism and Christianity create victims in
> > the same way?
>
> i think most anything that people use as a crutch creates victims,
> whether it be religion, shiny cars, or crack. ive never met a real-life
> some of them get involved in buddhism as an extension of them-
> selves, which i suppose is a-ok, but who knows?
I'm going to stop trying to contradict you now.
> there may be some
> who completely thrust themselves into it and run about on the streets
> shouting "im a buddhist im a buddhist! be a buddhist!" in some sort
> of attempt to re-build their identity and self-worth that they have lost
> over the years.
>
I hope not. A central tenet is not to contradict the
beliefs of others, that's why it's spread, entirely
peacefully, as far as it has. Not by adherents
preaching.
> > What works for you is fine. Self-reliance is fine but it won't
> > answer your questions.
>
> what questions?
That one ^ for a start, 'what should I do with
my life?' might be another.
> > You don't know that the meaning is false, as I've already
> > pointed out.
>
> as have i, when i started slinging the word "agnostic" around.
> you can't answer the question of "god?" i think it's futile to
> ask, and futile to argue for or against.
>
Probably.
> > Why should they think any differently if they are happy with
> > their lives?
>
> because they're accepting something as absolute truth with
> very very little proof, and in doing so, selling their freedom.
> it's the same as taking a drug. cant handle existence? immerse
> yourself in this and forget it all. trading free will for blind hap-
> piness? no thanks.
Well, I see what you mean. There was even a time I'd have
agreed with you. Perhaps I judge contentment and happiness
above truth. These people seem to enjoy themselves quite
well as they are, I don't see why they should change if they
don't want to. Christians can have free will if they want.
They're also free'er than if they worried about the nature of
the universe. They seem to handle existence alright.
>
> > Why do you feel superior?
>
> i dont think i do. if i thought i was superior, i would be the one
> pushing organised religion. (not saying you are).
I take that back. But I still reckon most Athiests
consider themselves superior to, say, Christians.
>
> i just wish people would stop selling themselves short.
>
> >
> > >there are manymany christians who dont preach peace. please visit
> > >www.godhatesfags.com
> > >or www.enyart.com (check out the quotes section)
> >
> > Now just hold on there. Have I said that I thought
> > Christians were pacifists? I don't think so.
>
> i dunno. you said atheists resent christian peace, and i was just
> pointing out that christains arent the most peaceful people on
> the planet. maybe atheists find killing in the name of dogma silly.
What I was trying to say was they find peace in their beliefs.
Not that they are non-violent (which is patently untrue).
> > totally agree with this comment. But I have to wonder what isn't an act
of
> > > faith?
> >
> > Creativity.
>
> anything that come from the self.
bob jones
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
> > I see you queening it over the discs and rods, the spheres and spindles
> as you alone locomote - I am the High Amoeboid - I hear you roar, as you
> organize those organelles, grope those genes, controlling all about you,
> and all about you is alternatively surreal, eukaryotic blips in the eye,
> the world of Dale Houstman - Brandon cell and Barrett cell, and any other
> cell with a half life of null and void. I see you in my microscope cutes.
> You're a fraud.
>
>
She seems genuine to me.
Anyway, Lady Chatterley's Cunt meets Last Exit to Balham
(is that the one with Peter Sellers?).
What's the chances of getting a couple of pages transcribed
and posted, eh? I'm intrigued.
Herry
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
>
> I'm crossposting this to some newsgroups where "gvwivism" might be more
> sutable.
>
> g.v.w. iv wrote
> >>I mean this sincerely: Bill Palmer's writing is better than Brandon's.
> It
> >is
> >>possible to relate to Bill's prose on *some* level. Brandon's is sheer
> >noise.
> >>Bill's writing might be the newsgroup equivalent of an info-mercial, but
> at
> >>least it's tuned to a station. Brandon's has no aerial, no channels, and
> >>apparently, no off button.
> >
> >
> >Brandon's female alter ego, Dale Houstman the angry sock-puppet, performs
> >just as miserably.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Andy
> >>
> >
> > gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
> > http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
> > <a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
> >
> > Revolutions are always verbose.
> > Leon Trotsky
> >>
> >>
> >
--
"We all know that the French are the greatest lovers in the world.
It's their great oral sex. Hey, you'd want it to be good after all
those centuries experience licking German boots"
- Jean Kitson
e-mail address - mongrelatnetspacedotnetdotau
Herry's No Frills A.t archives - temporarily closed for business
"Email is NOT secure...", the Australian Federal Police to me.
da...@computraining.com.au webm...@godhatesfags.com
sa...@nisitasecurity.com reiner...@riotinto.com.au
Dale Houstman
> Quite right, that would be your responding, making you
> willing victims.
Yet this is both silly and destructive; to turn the human response
reflex into a sign of victimhood. And not to respond is what? Well,
as we have seen (again and again), this is also a sign of victimhood!
This is, of course, the point, but it is a stupid, quasi-human point.
To set up rhetorical barriers to communication is (of course)
possible, and is one of the functions of "pure rhetoric" divorced
from ethos (something the ancient orators railed against). But
it does not constitute an actual language event, since it is merely
self-involved, and is entirely "front-loaded" in its outcome; there
can be no error on the perpetrator's part, so there can be no
communing. It is a corruption of the higher uses of language.
> kind of irresistible effect, forcing you to spout your ill-conceived
> notions.
This is your opinion, and you are welcome to it, but I don't see
that the response is any more il-conceived than the initial post,
and (as I have said) it is at least based in the hope (however futile
considering the intent and "mind"-set of the initial poster) that
some communication outside the endless game might occur. This
is human. It is commendable, and it should not be allowed to
be overcome by the simple (very simple) intent of the one who
merely wants to "win" some vague contest they create in their
own heads, and are self-satisfied by before they even send it.
> So now you are our Universe? Please.
Since you preconceive the entire universe in terms of your own
rhetoric, I think we shall reserve the right to consider you as corrupted
citizens of our own cosmos, and treat you accordingly, until such
time as you deign to use language not as a blunt sword to pop your
own pimples in childish delight, but as a communication method,
no matter how clumsy.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan wrote:
>chirp chirp cough chirp cough hack oink neigh chirp cough
>burp poot chirp chirp oink hack neigh mooo chirp chirp poot
>cough hack oink chirp chirp chirp burp poot oink.
oooh! the "prose guy" found his "voice"!
We await his historical novel filled with scenes of property-owning...
DMH
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan wrote:
some bad prose (again!).
speak of "a hint of desperation." Or (with you)
would it be 'the taint of defecation"?
one never knows, does one?
when you are through sniffing your own "arse" let your wife
get in there for a time. She must be lonely being the property
of a proser with a history degree.
DMH
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>Robert Maughan wrote:
>
>>chirp chirp cough chirp cough hack oink neigh chirp cough
>>burp poot chirp chirp oink hack neigh mooo chirp chirp poot
>>cough hack oink chirp chirp chirp burp poot oink.
>
Mooo?
>oooh! the "prose guy" found his "voice"!
>We await his historical novel filled with scenes of property-owning...
>
Oh dear, Dale. You really must stick to being horrible and terrible and
stuff. Petulant girl next door just isn't you.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
bob jones <fr...@my-dejanews.com> writes
>She seems genuine to me.
>
I'll go along with that, she seems earnest enough. The biology though,
which I specifically meant, was more of our Dale's magazine gleanings
hinting at erudition. She's much better when she gets nasty.
>typical property-owning, history degree stuff interspersed with
>gibbon gibber and the drool from that blowhole he uses to
>store his pseudopodia in at night. Sleep comes hard to the
>paramecium, but eventually he slips off into dreams of cilia
>and flagellum like a mantilla about his bloated "place-where-
>a-face-should-be," and he knows (inside the surface tension
>of his moist memory) that he once again defined the word
>"asinine" with just a few flicks of his monocyte hairs.>
>....
>DMH
>See you through the microscope...
Compare it with mine - a genuine con straight out of Pears.
>Anyway, Lady Chatterley's Cunt meets Last Exit to Balham
>(is that the one with Peter Sellers?).
>
>What's the chances of getting a couple of pages transcribed
>and posted, eh? I'm intrigued.
You're more than intrigued, pal. Verity Goodleigh (Geddit?) is alive
and well and living on the coast. I'll mail you a page if you pay.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
>
You think? A critique would be appreciated. Always willing to learn.
>speak of "a hint of desperation." Or (with you)
>would it be 'the taint of defecation"?
>
I suspect it would be more the taint of defecation with me - but with
you, I think it's desperation.
>one never knows, does one?
>
One can take a damn good guess at it.
>when you are through sniffing your own "arse" let your wife
>get in there for a time. She must be lonely being the property
>of a proser with a history degree.
>
See what I mean? Write 'sniffing'/'arse'/'wife' - that'll show me. I'm
mortified, of course, to have my fragrant arse discussed in public. You
wouldn't consider phone sex, I suppose? You could tell me about your
arse. I'll give you a cellphone number - private. Waddya say?
I'm trying to figure out how your last sentence works, but I can't. She
also has two degrees, by the way, and a flat in London. Her cat, Dennis,
is a bit of an arse licker. He has no education at all but he does bring
her small dead birds in season, - something I have always failed to do.
RJM.
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan wrote:
but he forgot to think first, so (out of embarrassment for his
nth cortical leakage in a row) we turn away, although his
smell lingers. But I suppose that smell is the property he
is so proud of owning.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Mister I Have a History Degree wrote:
But he didn't have any toliet paper around to wipe it off
his "arse" so he posted it instead.
DMH
Dale Houstman
moira's aromatic bilgeport groaned and we all went to sleep...
DMH
Dale Houstman
Robert Maughan wrote:
>I own property.
your small feudalism is entrancing, My Lord. If only your
property would shut up and drop a few kids around the
house, so you could boast of being "manly" to your
weekly "arse-tuning" sessions with Madame Golden Showers.
DMH
mike...
moira d wrote:
oh: more on my complete misunderstandings of surrealism:
(not that im actually interested in understanding)
> Oh: more on the mainstreaming of surrealism:
>
> Zippy. Many television commercials (e.g. Motorola "Wings").
> Alternateen clothing/hairstyles. The old Punk Rock movement
> of the seventies. President Clinton telling us, in serious,
> somber tones, that "we must teach our children to work out
> their agressions using words, rather than weapons" even while
> NATO was bombing Milosevic's political headquarters.
>
> --
> moira
>
> The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.
assimilating the aesthetic of an idea while conveniently casting aside
the driving force behind it doesnt count as becoming "mainstream."
example: dali used surreal imagery. dali was mainstream. dali was not a
surrealist.
a pipe is still a pipe, and i dont think you care to see it any
differently.
xo,mike
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
childlike, and quite charming to be sure. I'll post a couple myself
in a minute, just to show you that I'm not averse to a little child
like japery. I can't do it just at the moment, though, because some
of my friends are coming round to admire my extremely large penis.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Ever since Brian told me Dale has a really fragrant arsehole and a huge
gaping cunt I haven't been able to sleep.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Dale (Gaping Cunt) Houstman desperately tried to convince:
Sadly, she spurted a tiny little sentence from her fragrant arsehole
and it dried up on the screen like monochrome diarrhea.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
>
>your small feudalism is entrancing, My Lord. If only your
>property would shut up and drop a few kids around the
>house, so you could boast of being "manly" to your
>weekly "arse-tuning" sessions with Madame Golden Showers.
a good woman should, while I went out doing manly things. In fact I was
so manly that I went around sniffing girl's arseholes and pissing over
their expectant bodies while she stayed at home doing the cooking and
cleaning. The present incumbent did once try a golden shower, at my
request, sure, but unfortunately she fell about laughing so hard I
had to excuse her. I bet you do a lovely golden shower, Dale, mm?
It's making my mouth water.
RJM.
Dale Houstman
I pass on stribs' collective yawn to you. Like most prosers, you are
an empty box on a South Dakota highway in the fog.
Back to your history degree, your abused chattel, your yawping
grandchillen, your material holdings, your "literature" without
merit, your audience hidden in your pants, your rubbery "arse,"
your chilling lack of desire, your inability to learn, your quite
palpable air of desperate worthlessness, and all your offered
signs of normality and mainstreamed desire.
Poof! You're gone. From now on, everything posted under your
name shall be considered a forgery, and I will not abuse my warm
memories of you by responding to the ignoble emptiness being
presented beneath your pilfered gnomen.
Rest in peace, little Bobby.
DMH
Robert Maughan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
>From now on, everything posted under your
>name shall be considered a forgery, and I will not abuse my warm
>memories of you by responding to the ignoble emptiness being
>presented beneath your pilfered gnomen.
RJM.
Jack Wilson
Dale Houstman wrote:
> you are
> an empty box on a South Dakota highway in the fog.
<snip the rest>
You have to learn when to stop, but the point is, about the image above--
Dude, if only everybody insulted everybody else with such sad beauty.....
"you are an empty box on a South Dakota highway in the fog"
Thank you, and whoever you are insulting should thank you, too.
Dale Houstman
empty rhetoric is that my first response to you (since I "suspect"
you) is to tell you to drop dead.
Or I could take you at face value and prepare to be called
some version of Mr Winters' "boring" when (obviously)
Mr Winters is the dullest correspondent yet.
So you see (because of all your empty-headed and pointlessly
antagonistic "writing" compatriots), I have no intention of
caring what you think, precisely due to the corruptions they
have seeded normal language with.
Such enemies of language should not be allowed to call
themselves writers, but they do. And you embrace their
insect-like machinations as "style" or (maybe) "wit" or
(at the very least) "cleverness." It is this lack of a broader
comprehension of language that leads to that drivel and trivia
posted in "prose" and "writing" (and "poetry") groups.
All trash filled with bugs.
But - thank you...
DMH
bob jones
> In <002601be89e8$1dd3f280$a0740280@gvw> "g.v.w. iv"
> <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> but the only difference is that since *I* know I
> am words on a screen I try harder to make
> myself interesting to readers--and that can't
> be done by continually pointing away from
> this screen, away from Usenet, as the place
> where all our "real writing" exists. In
> fact, I have heard that lame excuse from
> you, Wilkes, Hope, Chris Mac, Adrian
> Smith
If anyone cares, that's another Palmer lie.
All the above write elsewhere, true. Their
writing here is obviously just as real, or
whatever, however. Usenet is only a part
of their lives but Palmer, while on the one
hand claiming to have no life outside of
usenet, on the other relates stories of sea
frenzy. Oh, where have you been this time?
Maybe someone from the x-post groups can
help us out. Can anyone shed any light
on Bill Palmer's claim to be 'interesting'?
> and other non-contributors so often
> that I have long since concluded that you
> never slap your cards on the "r.a.p. table"
Reminds me of the time you asked me to slap my
cards down on the Hotel Bar, where did you get
to that time?
> >> I think you should apologise to all the people you've insulted.Really
> >>bad form to blame the lower orders for my / our behaviour.
> >>
> >> RJM.
AFFA MU
>Maybe someone from the x-post groups can
>help us out. Can anyone shed any light
>on Bill Palmer's claim to be 'interestin
I find it interesting that you use only h
seems that doing this makes it much harde
USENET. In the future, please use all of
reported to the proper authorities.
In response to your question, "is Bill Pa
the affirmative, but only because he's go
found here. I see no reason to take measu
any fun. I know I've been there. Besides,
are you going to do about it?
Cheers,
Douglas Goodall
cuprum at earthlink network
B. Callaghan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote in article <371F06F0...@gte.net>...
[...]
Here we have The General who fought the good fight (or not), waved the white
flag, unsheathed the ceremonial sword and surrendered unconditionally. Later on
that evening he tells his troops they must celebrate with a victory party.
Surrealist!
- bettina
Dale Houstman
This probably strikes you as both clever and pertinent. It strikes me
as neither.
How different we are!
Isn't it cute the way these "hollow howler monkeys" think it simple
of you
to respond, and also simple to cease responding? How quaint and
anti-human
a notion to be contained in a shriveled noggin.
Your self-satisfaction with your self-immolation is just boring...
DMH
Dale Houstman
Throckey wrote:
>
>
> Has her door been removed so that no small children will
> suffocate inside her?
Unfortunately, she only suffocates herself.
When is a Chen not a Chen? When she is Adored...
DMH
B. Callaghan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote in article <3721E606...@gte.net>...
> How different we are!
You think?? Oh well, there goes the 'separated twins' theory.
> Isn't it cute the way these "hollow howler monkeys" think it simple
> of you
> to respond, and also simple to cease responding? How quaint and
> anti-human
> a notion to be contained in a shriveled noggin.
How sweet. Like a horrid child who torments the houseguests and then bursts
into tears when they're about to leave, Dale worries that the 'prosers' will cease to
respond. Not to worry, little Dale - this is no orchestrated effort; we can stay as
long as we wish!
>
> Your self-satisfaction with your self-immolation is just boring...
Thank you! I take this imperious proclamation to mean I've been knighted.
- bettina
> DMH
>
Dale Houstman
>
>
> How sweet. Like a horrid child who torments the houseguests and then bursts
> into tears when they're about to leave, Dale worries that the 'prosers' will cease to
> respond. Not to worry, little Dale - this is no orchestrated effort; we can stay as
> long as we wish!
How stupid. Like a fat toreador who can't fit into his pants, and
then
cuts off the ear of the senorita and gives it to the bull, B.C. fails to
realize
that what I was referring to was the attitude of the "prosers" toward
their
"victims" and not the other way about. Not to worry, you paelolithic
mook - we expect so little of you "prose for prose's sake" fellows, that
this slip in no way invalidates our already low opinion of you.
>
>
> Thank you! I take this imperious proclamation to mean I've been knighted.
>
> And I take your typically dull riposte to mean that I've been bored once more...
Sir Perfluous...
DMH
B. Callaghan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote in article <37238447...@gte.net>...
> How stupid. Like a fat toreador who can't fit into his pants, and
> then
> cuts off the ear of the senorita and gives it to the bull, B.C. fails to
> realize
> that what I was referring to was the attitude of the "prosers" toward
> their
> "victims" and not the other way about. Not to worry, you paelolithic
> mook - we expect so little of you "prose for prose's sake" fellows, that
> this slip in no way invalidates our already low opinion of you.
How poignant. Like the forlorn hostess who sees the guests driving away, Dale
locks herself in the house and sets fire to it in order to gain our attention.
> > And I take your typically dull riposte to mean that I've been bored once
more...
> Sir Perfluous...
Thank you! I take it you are now saving my responses on hard drive.
- bettina
> DMH
>
Dale Houstman
>
>
> How poignant. Like the forlorn hostess who sees the guests driving away, Dale
> locks herself in the house and sets fire to it in order to gain our attention.
How pointless. Like the fat-free embolism on the gecko's
"happyport," B.C.
finds fit to fling its cardboard angelisms into my house fire in a vain
attempt to
sublimate out three or four functioning neurons, mistaking them for the
worms
it eats from a rotting stump.
> > > And I take your typically dull riposte to mean that I've been bored once
> more...
> > Sir Perfluous...
>
> Thank you! I take it you are now saving my responses on hard drive.
>
Too soft to stick to "real" matter...
DMH
B. Callaghan
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote in article <3723F971...@gte.net>...
> How pointless. Like the fat-free embolism on the gecko's
> "happyport," B.C.
> finds fit to fling its cardboard angelisms into my house fire in a vain
> attempt to
> sublimate out three or four functioning neurons, mistaking them for the
> worms
> it eats from a rotting stump.
How disconcerting. Like our panicked hostess in the burning house
who goes unnoticed, Dale opens up an old book of Semaphore and calls
Emergency 911, thinking this would be a fun time to try it out.
- bettina
> DMH
>