Oh, the good old days.
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 10 Feb 2005 15:18:27 -0800

--------

My first controversial alt.slack essay, iirc, way back in 1997, where
were all the johnny-come-lately, this is "our" news group fuddy-dudy so
called SubGenius regular types BACK THEN I wonder?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.slack/msg/967b763b15592575

How innocent, how full of promise it all seemed back then, SubGenii
proudly represented tolerance and diversity, acceptance, substance
abuse, unusual fashion tastes and a passion for slack. X-Day, the
*REAL* X-Day, was just around the corner, the X-ists where on their
way, or so we all thought, and Bob Dean was just some strange caller to
Reverend Bachner's radio show.

It must have been the early nineties when I first rented ARISE! from
Suspect Video in Toronto's Mervish Village. I listened to David's Radio
show. He played Hour of Slack and Over the Edge. It all seemed so
grand.

Where have all the rednecks come from?

Oh well.



Correspondent:: brthrn@dangermedia.org
Date: 10 Feb 2005 15:38:26 -0800

--------
yah. The good ole days. When we used to drag abominations like you down
to the shore to crack their fucking retard heads open with a rock.

We all miss them days.



Correspondent:: "Blackout"
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:20:39 -0700

--------

wrote

> yah. The good ole days. When we used to drag abominations like you down
> to the shore to crack their fucking retard heads open with a rock.
>
> We all miss them days.

I know I sure do.





Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:56:33 GMT

--------
"Quirk wrote:
>
>My first controversial alt.slack essay, iirc, way back in 1997, where
>were all the johnny-come-lately, this is "our" news group fuddy-dudy so
>called SubGenius regular types BACK THEN I wonder?
>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.slack/msg/967b763b15592575
>
>How innocent, how full of promise it all seemed back then, SubGenii
>proudly represented tolerance and diversity, acceptance, substance
>abuse, unusual fashion tastes and a passion for slack. X-Day, the
>*REAL* X-Day, was just around the corner, the X-ists where on their
>way, or so we all thought, and Bob Dean was just some strange caller to
>Reverend Bachner's radio show.
>
>It must have been the early nineties when I first rented ARISE! from
>Suspect Video in Toronto's Mervish Village. I listened to David's Radio
>show. He played Hour of Slack and Over the Edge. It all seemed so
>grand.
>
>Where have all the rednecks come from?
>

Bogalusa, Louisiana




Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:32:21 -0500

--------
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:18:27 -0800, Quirk wrote:

>
> My first controversial alt.slack essay, iirc, way back in 1997, where
> were all the johnny-come-lately, this is "our" news group fuddy-dudy so
> called SubGenius regular types BACK THEN I wonder?

I think SOMEONE feels under pressure to explain themselves.

"I WAS JUST KIDDING!! GET OFF OF ME!! GLURPG!!"

--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0



Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:30:56 -0800

--------
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:18:27 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>
>>
>> where
>> were all the johnny-come-lately, this is "our" news group fuddy-dudy so
>> called SubGenius regular types BACK THEN I wonder?

The same place they are now, in not-giving-a-shit-about-you land.



--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"Hi, we can't come to the phone right now - me an' the kids are out
back playing kitty piñata!!

(Meeeeowrrll! Rowlll!! Fss fs fsss!)



Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 11 Feb 2005 06:59:38 -0800

--------

Zapanaz wrote:

> >On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:18:27 -0800, Quirk wrote:

> >> where were all the johnny-come-lately, this is "our" news group
> >> fuddy-dudy so called SubGenius regular types BACK THEN I wonder?

> The same place they are now, in not-giving-a-shit-about-you land.

I wish everyone in not-giving-a-shit-about-me land all the best,
perhaps some of the people here that have developed some sort of
obsession with me may want to visit there and relax.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:44:57 GMT

--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:18:27 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>
>>
>> My first controversial alt.slack essay, iirc, way back in 1997, where
>> were all the johnny-come-lately, this is "our" news group fuddy-dudy so
>> called SubGenius regular types BACK THEN I wonder?
>
>I think SOMEONE feels under pressure to explain themselves.
>
>"I WAS JUST KIDDING!! GET OFF OF ME!! GLURPG!!"
>
>--

I was on FidoNet in 1990!!!1!
Maybe 1989, we didn't have electricty in those days,
and had to use 2,400 baud modems by candlelight
so I couldn't see the calendar except for the pictures.
On a 575k 'pooter!

We had nodes, back in the day...
not like today's nodeless wonders.
We'd go nodeling!

http://www.fidonet.org/








Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:03:02 -0500

--------
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:44:57 +0000, König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:

> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:18:27 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My first controversial alt.slack essay, iirc, way back in 1997,

> I was on FidoNet in 1990!!!1!
> Maybe 1989, we didn't have electricty in those days,
> and had to use 2,400 baud modems by candlelight
> so I couldn't see the calendar except for the pictures.
> On a 575k 'pooter!
>
> We had nodes, back in the day...
> not like today's nodeless wonders.
> We'd go nodeling!

I first got on the net back in 1947!!!!!@
We had to slap two pieces of wire together
to send EBDCIDCDCDCDCD codes at each other
because we didn't HAVE modems back THEN!!!1
Our monitors only had a width of THREE CHARACTERS,
not like these kids with their 75 character wide
monitors today, so we could only speak in 3 letter
acronyms!!!

AND WE WERE GRATEFUL BECAUSE IT KEPT THE RIFF RAFF OUT!!!


EOT!!!



--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:30:07 GMT

--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:44:57 +0000, König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:
>
>> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:18:27 -0800, Quirk wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My first controversial alt.slack essay, iirc, way back in 1997,
>
>> I was on FidoNet in 1990!!!1!
>> Maybe 1989, we didn't have electricty in those days,
>> and had to use 2,400 baud modems by candlelight
>> so I couldn't see the calendar except for the pictures.
>> On a 575k 'pooter!
>>
>> We had nodes, back in the day...
>> not like today's nodeless wonders.
>> We'd go nodeling!
>
>I first got on the net back in 1947!!!!!@
>We had to slap two pieces of wire together
>to send EBDCIDCDCDCDCD codes

Whoa! Ecidic! I've heard tell of such!





Correspondent:: "Doktor Dark"
Date: 11 Feb 2005 09:51:07 -0800

--------
It's been all downhill since Marconi. Or Samuel F.B. Morse.



Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 11 Feb 2005 09:58:41 -0800

--------

Doktor Dark wrote:

> It's been all downhill since Marconi. Or Samuel F.B. Morse.

At the recent Transmediale, a media arts festival here in Berlin, local
hacker group, c-base, set up two ancient teletype machines to
communicate with each other over a wireless internet mesh network, one
at the festival, and one across town at c-base.

I have seen the future!



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:46:56 -0800

--------
Doktor Dark wrote:
>
> It's been all downhill since Marconi. Or Samuel F.B. Morse.

I remember when we just used to wave our antennae at each other.


Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:50:40 -0500

--------
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:18:27 -0800, Quirk wrote:


> Where have all the rednecks come from?

...Having their way with your mother's ass.

You can come and pick her up now. She won't
be up to doing any hitch hiking for a few days.


--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:44:50 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> My first controversial alt.slack essay,

...if by "controversial" you mean BORING.

>
> Where have all the rednecks come from?

Those are the SUBGENIUSES.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 12 Feb 2005 03:51:56 -0800

--------

nenslo wrote:

> Quirk wrote:

> > My first controversial alt.slack essay,

> ...if by "controversial" you mean BORING.

Thanks Nenslo, your empty criticicsm is apreciated as always. All upper
case letters, now THAT'S convincing.

> > Where have all the rednecks come from?

> Those are the SUBGENIUSES.

Sure. I guess if they paid their $30.

Well, to use your terminology, I guess having paid the Church hasn't
made them any less "controversial" than Bill O'Rielly's other fans.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:23:37 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>nenslo wrote:
>
>> Quirk wrote:
>
>> > My first controversial alt.slack essay,
>
>> ...if by "controversial" you mean BORING.
>
>Thanks Nenslo, your empty criticicsm is apreciated as always. All upper
>case letters, now THAT'S convincing.
>
>> > Where have all the rednecks come from?
>
>> Those are the SUBGENIUSES.
>
>Sure. I guess if they paid their $30.
>
>Well, to use your terminology, I guess having paid the Church hasn't
>made them any less "controversial" than Bill O'Rielly's other fans.
>

So, keep on with your research and studies, I'd be the last to discourage you.
I found a site with lots of econometric software:
http://www.econ.vu.nl/econometriclinks/

Do you ever get to Düsseldorf? I have an American friend there who
works in IT--he's been there a couple of years, and likes it a lot.

How was the Carnaval in Berlin? Köln has the best, huh?

Grüß--








Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 12 Feb 2005 07:12:13 -0800

--------

König wrote:

> I found a site with lots of econometric software:
> http://www.econ.vu.nl/econometriclinks/

Nice site, Thanks. I still do not understand how someone with a
background in econometrics can hold the sort of unscientific, bigoted
views you hold. If you we're joking, let me know, I certainly have no
problem with offesive humour, however, I do have a problem with people
who wish death to whole catagories of innocent people, and mean it.
Sorry if you think that's square.

> Do you ever get to Düsseldorf? I have an American friend there who
> works in IT--he's been there a couple of years, and likes it a lot.

No, not yet. So far I've only been in and around the Brandenburg
region, including nearby places. I spend most my time in Berlin, but
I've been to Weimar, Leipzig around Ostsee, and a few small towns.

> How was the Carnaval in Berlin?

Stupid, it took me an extra thirty minutes to get to transmediale that
day because of it.

> Köln has the best, huh?

No, Sao Paulo does.



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:09:00 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> nenslo wrote:
>
> > Quirk wrote:
>
> > > My first controversial alt.slack essay,
>
> > ...if by "controversial" you mean BORING.
>
> Thanks Nenslo, your empty criticicsm is apreciated as always. All upper
> case letters, now THAT'S convincing.

Your brilliant sarcasm scathes like a motherfucker as usual.

>
> > > Where have all the rednecks come from?
>
> > Those are the SUBGENIUSES.
>
> Sure. I guess if they paid their $30.

The fact that you equate paying $30 dollars with being a subgenius
demonstrates that you aren't one.

>
> Well, to use your terminology, I guess having paid the Church hasn't
> made them any less "controversial" than Bill O'Rielly's other fans.

No, to use my terminology, fuck you.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 13 Feb 2005 12:11:29 -0800

--------

nenslo wrote:

> > Thanks Nenslo, your empty criticicsm is apreciated as always. All
upper
> > case letters, now THAT'S convincing.

> Your brilliant sarcasm scathes like a motherfucker as usual.

OK, Nenslo, I'm convinced.

Just to review.

- I'm sarcastic.
- I'm not really a SubGenuis.
- Fuck Me.

Got it. Thanks for clearing all this up.

You run along and find a "real" SubGenuis to play with now.



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:39:27 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> nenslo wrote:
>
> > > Thanks Nenslo, your empty criticicsm is apreciated as always. All
> upper
> > > case letters, now THAT'S convincing.
>
> > Your brilliant sarcasm scathes like a motherfucker as usual.
>
> OK, Nenslo, I'm convinced.
>
> Just to review.
>
> - I'm sarcastic.
> - I'm not really a SubGenuis.
> - Fuck Me.
>
> Got it. Thanks for clearing all this up.
>
> You run along and find a "real" SubGenuis to play with now.

SubGenuis, eh? Nope you are not even that, ya patronizing pie faced putz.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 14 Feb 2005 03:57:44 -0800

--------

nenslo wrote:

> > You run along and find a "real" SubGenuis to play with now.

> SubGenuis, eh? Nope you are not even that, ya patronizing pie faced
putz.

Thanks Nenslo.

- I'm STILL not a SubGenuis
- I'm patronizing
- I have a pie face
- I'm a putz

Wow. Who knew? Stunning display of logic.

And by "logic" I WOULD NEVER mean fallacy. Since you know all about
that too, allegedly.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:45:41 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>nenslo wrote:
>
>> > You run along and find a "real" SubGenuis to play with now.
>
>> SubGenuis, eh? Nope you are not even that, ya patronizing pie faced
>putz.
>
>Thanks Nenslo.
>
> - I'm STILL not a SubGenuis
> - I'm patronizing
> - I have a pie face
> - I'm a putz
>
>Wow. Who knew? Stunning display of logic.
>
>And by "logic" I WOULD NEVER mean fallacy. Since you know all about
>that too, allegedly.
>

Look out! I wouldn't argue logic with Nenslo
if I were you. HE'S GOT BOOKS!
(and he knows how to read)





Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:05:20 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> nenslo wrote:
>
> > > You run along and find a "real" SubGenuis to play with now.
>
> > SubGenuis, eh? Nope you are not even that, ya patronizing pie faced
> putz.
>
> Thanks Nenslo.
>
> - I'm STILL not a SubGenuis

Nor a SubGenius neither.

>
> Wow. Who knew? Stunning display of logic.

Nothing "logical" about it. I'm just saying stuff, not proving it.
>
> And by "logic" I WOULD NEVER mean fallacy. Since you know all about
> that too, allegedly.

Whoever alleged that, if anyone, was mistaken.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 14 Feb 2005 06:04:46 -0800

--------

nenslo wrote:

> SubGenuis, eh? Nope you are not even that, ya patronizing pie faced
putz.

Ok, I think I understand now.

- I'm STILL not a SubGenuis
- I'm patronizing
- I have a pie face
- I'm a putz

Wow. Brilliant. A stunning demonstration of logic.

And by "logic" I COULD NOT POSSIBLY mean fallacy. After all, you know
all about that. allegedly.

And here I was thinking that Bill O'Reilly fans and hatefilled bigots
where the definitive slack-fearing pinks. Thanks for setting me
straight.

Now I know that these are apparently the TRUEST of the TRUE SubGenii,
of the sort of status that is FAR SUPERIOR to those of us that merely
hang around, use slackware, believe in slack and tolerance for all, and
paid our $30.

And I thought that guy from dangermedia was just some kind of shrill
troll, now you have explained to me that this the new style of
SubGenuis sermon!

Thanks Nenslo. Really. I'm starting to get it now.



Correspondent:: brthrn@dangermedia.org
Date: 14 Feb 2005 09:14:36 -0800

--------
You lost your ASS CHERRY while Frankie Goes to Hollywood was playing.
Didn't you!



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:18:37 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
>
> And here I was thinking that Bill O'Reilly fans and hatefilled bigots
> where the definitive slack-fearing pinks. Thanks for setting me
> straight.
>
> Now I know that these are apparently the TRUEST of the TRUE SubGenii,
> of the sort of status that is FAR SUPERIOR to those of us that merely
> hang around, use slackware, believe in slack and tolerance for all, and
> paid our $30.
>
> And I thought that guy from dangermedia was just some kind of shrill
> troll, now you have explained to me that this the new style of
> SubGenuis sermon!
>
> Thanks Nenslo. Really. I'm starting to get it now.

What you appear to be "getting" seems to me to be stuff you just made up
which has nothing to do with anything I said. The term "slack-fearing
pinks" seems to be your invention. There is no such thing as a "true"
subgenius. You are either on the saucer or you are off the saucer.
Paying $30 does not make you a subgenius. (Which is spelled with the i
before the second u, not after.) Paying $30 doesn't mean anything
except you bought a membership in the church. Calling people you think
aren't subgeniusy enough "pink" doesn't make you a subgenius.

Nothing MAKES you a subgenius, you either are one or you aren't. The
SubGenius must have slack. Ranking everybody according to a pinkness
factor is not slack; it's just another manifestation of the Conspiracy
"Them-ism" program which breaks people down into tiny Us groups opposed
to billions of other tiny Them groups, rendering Us All utterly
powerless against the control of the REAL "THEM."

Solution? SHUT UP.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 15 Feb 2005 04:22:26 -0800

--------
nenslo wrote:

> > Thanks Nenslo. Really. I'm starting to get it now.

> What you appear to be "getting" seems to me to be stuff you just made
up
> which has nothing to do with anything I said.

Darn it, your ability to see through my sarcasm is uncanny. Perhaps I
should just be straight and explain simply that you did not really say
anything meaningfull, thus my allusion to fallacy. Sorry if it was too
subtle.

> The term "slack-fearing pinks" seems to be your invention.

Luckily, I am opposed to intellectual property, so we don't have to
fight about the authorship of this wonderfull phrase.

> There is no such thing as a "true" subgenius.

Now you're stealing my argument. Just as well, I suppose. I was done
with it.

> Calling people you think aren't subgeniusy enough "pink" doesn't make
you a
> subgenius.

If fans of Bill O'Rielly are not a pink, then the word has no meaning.
If racists are not pink, likewise.

> Nothing MAKES you a subgenius, you either are one or you aren't. The
> SubGenius must have slack.

Now I'm confused, just when you've explained to me that I am not really
a SubGenius, and later that I am *STILL* not a SubGenius, now you tell
me all I need is slack. I have no shortage of slack. So am I, or am I
not a SubGenius, oh great expert of us-and-them-ism.

> Ranking everybody according to a pinkness
> factor is not slack; it's just another manifestation of the
Conspiracy

I am not ranking anybody. I am criticizing the things people are
saying. Pointing out out the pink ideas they hold. I have not
questioned their belonging nor their right to express their ideas.

BTW, Bill O'Rielly, Ann Coutier and their fans are the agents of the
Conspiracy. Slack-fearing pinks. Why do they fear Slack? Because they
earn their privilege from those that want to destroy Slack. The Bosses.

> "Them-ism" program which breaks people down into tiny Us groups
opposed
> to billions of other tiny Them groups, rendering Us All utterly
> powerless against the control of the REAL "THEM."

Hate break it to you, but I am the one arguing *against* "Them-ism".
You are defending the "Themists", us in nu-monet's "us Fox TV watchers
are better than them Communists (KILL KILL!!!), by which I mean anybody
who disagrees with Ann Coutier" or even worse, KönigPruß's "us
members of the master race are better than them Black People and Jews."

I am merely trying to point out that these people are wrong, and that
their ideas are Pink. Not that they do not belong among us. Thats your
game. And their's.

> Solution? SHUT UP.

You first.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:02:59 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>nenslo wrote:
>
>> > Thanks Nenslo. Really. I'm starting to get it now.
>
>> What you appear to be "getting" seems to me to be stuff you just made
>up
>> which has nothing to do with anything I said.
>
>Darn it, your ability to see through my sarcasm is uncanny. Perhaps I
>should just be straight and explain simply that you did not really say
>anything meaningfull, thus my allusion to fallacy. Sorry if it was too
>subtle.
>
>> The term "slack-fearing pinks" seems to be your invention.
>
>Luckily, I am opposed to intellectual property, so we don't have to
>fight about the authorship of this wonderfull phrase.
>
>> There is no such thing as a "true" subgenius.
>
>Now you're stealing my argument. Just as well, I suppose. I was done
>with it.
>
>> Calling people you think aren't subgeniusy enough "pink" doesn't make
>you a
>> subgenius.
>
>If fans of Bill O'Rielly are not a pink, then the word has no meaning.
>If racists are not pink, likewise.
>
>> Nothing MAKES you a subgenius, you either are one or you aren't. The
>> SubGenius must have slack.
>
>Now I'm confused, just when you've explained to me that I am not really
>a SubGenius, and later that I am *STILL* not a SubGenius, now you tell
>me all I need is slack. I have no shortage of slack. So am I, or am I
>not a SubGenius, oh great expert of us-and-them-ism.
>
>> Ranking everybody according to a pinkness
>> factor is not slack; it's just another manifestation of the
>Conspiracy
>
>I am not ranking anybody. I am criticizing the things people are
>saying. Pointing out out the pink ideas they hold. I have not
>questioned their belonging nor their right to express their ideas.
>
>BTW, Bill O'Rielly, Ann Coutier and their fans are the agents of the
>Conspiracy. Slack-fearing pinks. Why do they fear Slack? Because they
>earn their privilege from those that want to destroy Slack. The Bosses.
>
>> "Them-ism" program which breaks people down into tiny Us groups
>opposed
>> to billions of other tiny Them groups, rendering Us All utterly
>> powerless against the control of the REAL "THEM."
>
>Hate break it to you, but I am the one arguing *against* "Them-ism".
>You are defending the "Themists", us in nu-monet's "us Fox TV watchers
>are better than them Communists (KILL KILL!!!), by which I mean anybody
>who disagrees with Ann Coutier" or even worse, KönigPruß's "us
>members of the master race are better than them Black People and Jews."
>

Better or not. Pincus Zuckerman can play violin just fine,
I still don't like him. And I don't have to like him just because
he's Jewish. Get over yourself, will you. I don't have to like
Blacks just because their black.

I am thoroughly tired of listening to "women and minorities"
and "women and people of colour." A lot of pseudo-Liberal
claptrap. If any of you bunch of genetic defectives could run
the joint, you be doing it, right?

"Oh, but the White Man has to give it to me!"

Not!

If Whitey has to give it to you, you're not competent
to manage the joint.

Like I said, get over yourself.

Take it!

You can have it! It's all yours! Go for it!

That ought to keep you busy, at least for the
rest of the afternoon.

Feh!









Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 15 Feb 2005 05:24:47 -0800

--------

Quirk wrote:

> >Hate break it to you, but I am the one arguing *against* "Them-ism".
> >You are defending the "Themists", us in nu-monet's "us Fox TV
watchers
> >are better than them Communists (KILL KILL!!!), by which I mean
anybody
> >who disagrees with Ann Coutier" or even worse, KönigPruß's "us
> >members of the master race are better than them Black People and
Jews."

König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:

> Better or not. Pincus Zuckerman can play violin just fine,
> I still don't like him. And I don't have to like him just because
> he's Jewish. Get over yourself, will you. I don't have to like
> Blacks just because their black.

I don't care who you like really, but if you *hate* them because they
are Black and Jewish, then you are a bigot.

Bigotry, like ignorance, is a characteristic of stupidity.

> I am thoroughly tired of listening to "women and minorities"
> and "women and people of colour." A lot of pseudo-Liberal
> claptrap.

What sloppy usage of the word "Liberal", do you mean liberals like
Thomas Paine and John Locke? Or do you mean "Liberal" in the ignorant,
Fox TV viewer straw-man sense.

By the way, who the fuck cares what you are tired of hearing? Lots of
people are tired hearing the racist crap you spew.

> If any of you bunch of genetic defectives could run
> the joint, you be doing it, right?

Please ask Nenslo to explain the logical fallacies to you.

> Like I said, get over yourself.

You are the one who thinks you are racially superior, not me, what do I
have to "get over" my convictions of equality?

Anyway, I was talking to Nenslo, don't you have a cross to burn or
something? I'm sure I saw nu-monet and fart@dangermedia around
somewhere, they're waiting for you to get started.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:56:02 GMT

--------

Quirk wrote:
>
>> >Hate break it to you, but I am the one arguing *against* "Them-ism".
>> >You are defending the "Themists", us in nu-monet's "us Fox TV
>watchers
>> >are better than them Communists (KILL KILL!!!), by which I mean
>anybody
>> >who disagrees with Ann Coutier" or even worse, KönigPruß's "us
>> >members of the master race are better than them Black People and
>Jews."
>
>König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:
>
>> Better or not. Pincus Zuckerman can play violin just fine,
>> I still don't like him. And I don't have to like him just because
>> he's Jewish. Get over yourself, will you. I don't have to like
>> Blacks just because their black.
>
>I don't care who you like really, but if you *hate* them because they
>are Black and Jewish, then you are a bigot.
>
>Bigotry, like ignorance, is a characteristic of stupidity.

Not necessarily!
You think if I was a smart guy, I'd be kissing your butt, right?

Even Liberal Berkeley is pro-Palestine.

>
>> I am thoroughly tired of listening to "women and minorities"
>> and "women and people of colour." A lot of pseudo-Liberal
>> claptrap.
>
>What sloppy usage of the word "Liberal", do you mean liberals like
>Thomas Paine and John Locke? Or do you mean "Liberal" in the ignorant,
>Fox TV viewer straw-man sense.
>
>By the way, who the fuck cares what you are tired of hearing? Lots of
>people are tired hearing the racist crap you spew.



>
>> If any of you bunch of genetic defectives could run
>> the joint, you be doing it, right?
>
>Please ask Nenslo to explain the logical fallacies to you.

Logic!?!? I don't need no steenking logic!

>
>> Like I said, get over yourself.
>
>You are the one who thinks you are racially superior, not me, what do I
>have to "get over" my convictions of equality?

Superior or not, I don't like you!
Also, what race am I? Like you're not racist!
God's chosen people! Feh! You got a divine right to something?
Just exactly what?

I don't come from a religious that mandates that the Wall
be built by a certain genetic lineage.

You are a victim of boomerang poop!
You went to shit, and fell back in it!

If you go looking for friends, you'll probably find them.
If you look for enemies, you'll find those, too!

Look out! There's a Red under the bed!

>
>Anyway, I was talking to Nenslo, don't you have a cross to burn or
>something? I'm sure I saw nu-monet and fart@dangermedia around
>somewhere, they're waiting for you to get started.
>


No crosses, they're Christian, which is more Jew spew!

Like I said, get over yourself.

OK, hypothetically, you got the moral high ground.
You win a prize or something?

Do you get a boner when you walk by the Reichstag?





Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 15 Feb 2005 06:45:26 -0800

--------

König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:

> >Bigotry, like ignorance, is a characteristic of stupidity.

> Not necessarily!

> You think if I was a smart guy, I'd be kissing your butt, right?

No, I think you make your disagreements intelligently, without bigotry.

> >Please ask Nenslo to explain the logical fallacies to you.

> Logic!?!? I don't need no steenking logic!

Exactly, what good is logic when you have hate?

> >You are the one who thinks you are racially superior, not me, what
do I
> >have to "get over" my convictions of equality?

> Superior or not, I don't like you!
> Also, what race am I? Like you're not racist!

I don't need to know what race you are *because* I'm not a racist, your
own words tell me all I need to know about you.

> God's chosen people! Feh! You got a divine right to something?
> Just exactly what?

See there you go again with your bigoted assumption that because I am
Jewish, you know what my opinions are. Why not stick the opinions I
actually express instead of attributing opinions to me because of my
ethnicity?

For the record, I think the idea of a "chosen people" is bunk, and I'm
against Isreali Aparthied, like many Jews, including Norman
Finkelstein.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com

> I don't come from a religious that mandates that the Wall
> be built by a certain genetic lineage.

Either do I. As someone who is not a racist like you, I don't see the
existence of some Jewish bigots to mean that all Jews are bigots.
That's your line.

> You are a victim of boomerang poop!
> You went to shit, and fell back in it!

Nope. Your shit is so misdirected, it was simply enough to duck and it
watch fly right back in your face. As usual.

> If you go looking for friends, you'll probably find them.
> If you look for enemies, you'll find those, too!

I am not your enemy. I'm just expressing and defending my ideas. Your
racist views just came out in the cross fire. You are your own enemy.

However, I am a little choosy when it comes to my friends. Actually,
thinking about my friends, not too choosy. I mean there are Blacks,
Jews, Heterosexuals, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Pornographers,
Fornicaters, SUBGENIUSES, Neoists, Communists, Anarchists, Artists,
Hackers, Ossis, Wessis, Yankees, Canucks, Limies, Frogs, Ruskies,
Poles, and deviants of many sorts among them. However, bigots tend to
spoil the mix.

> >Anyway, I was talking to Nenslo, don't you have a cross to burn or
> >something? I'm sure I saw nu-monet and fart@dangermedia around
> >somewhere, they're waiting for you to get started.

> No crosses, they're Christian, which is more Jew spew!

Ok, use an effigy of Odin's tree then. I don't think the others will
mind, so long as you hate someone.

> Like I said, get over yourself.

And like I said, what is it I need to get over? I have not made any
claims to superiority.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:00:44 GMT

--------
Quirk wrote:

>

>
>Ok, use an effigy of Odin's tree then. I don't think the others will
>mind, so long as you hate someone.

Go sit on a mezuzah!

>
>> Like I said, get over yourself.
>
>And like I said, what is it I need to get over? I have not made any
>claims to superiority.
>

You are an arrogant twat!





Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 15 Feb 2005 07:10:34 -0800

--------

König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:

> >Ok, use an effigy of Odin's tree then. I don't think the others will
> >mind, so long as you hate someone.

> Go sit on a mezuzah!

You sir, are no Arthur Fonzerelli.

> >And like I said, what is it I need to get over? I have not made any
> >claims to superiority.

> You are an arrogant twat!

Once again, You are the one who think himeself superior to others, not
me.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:28:21 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:
>
>> >Ok, use an effigy of Odin's tree then. I don't think the others will
>> >mind, so long as you hate someone.
>
>> Go sit on a mezuzah!
>
>You sir, are no Arthur Fonzerelli.
>
>> >And like I said, what is it I need to get over? I have not made any
>> >claims to superiority.
>
>> You are an arrogant twat!
>
>Once again, You are the one who think himeself superior to others, not
>me.
>

No, I'm not superior to anyone!
So, therefor, attention! Do not ask me for anything!
Do not demand that I like anyone because of their
race, gender and/ ethnicity! All of you equal people
go play with eachother in one big happy fun ball
of Lumpenproletaria.

You da man! You got it goin' on up in de house!

So, just handle it, and do not ask for shit.

Nobody's going to give you nothin'

Now, run along and go play with the Dresden Skinheads.

I have no messianic complex about trying to save the world,
it's not worth it; besides, if I save it, I get to keep it!

I don't think that you are trying to invent a better system,
just a system where you get a bigger slice of the pie,
and there aren't any bad people who will take it away
from you.

You are sort of like Leon Trotsky in drag.










Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 15 Feb 2005 07:58:51 -0800

--------

König wrote:

> No, I'm not superior to anyone!

Ok, and neither am I. So drop the get-over-yourself and arrogant bit.

> So, therefor, attention! Do not ask me for anything!

Umm. What am I asking from you?

> Do not demand that I like anyone because of their
> race, gender and/ ethnicity!

I am not demanding anything, you are responding to my posts with
criticism, I am refuting those criticisms.

So of my refutations have run along the lines that you should not hate
people because of their race, gender and ethnicity.

Your wishing death to people for being black is what I took exception
to.

I do not care who you like. I have not asked you to like anyone.

> So, just handle it, and do not ask for shit.

What It with this asking thing?

> Now, run along and go play with the Dresden Skinheads.

I'd rather play at the Die Neustadt Feiert Party in Dresden.

> I have no messianic complex about trying to save the world,
> it's not worth it; besides, if I save it, I get to keep it!

Either do I. Having an interest in political philosophy and economics
is not the same thing as having a messianic complex.

It's up to "Bob" to save the world.

> I don't think that you are trying to invent a better system,
> just a system where you get a bigger slice of the pie,
> and there aren't any bad people who will take it away
> from you.

Isn't a system where "there aren't any bad people who will take it away
from you" a better system?

> You are sort of like Leon Trotsky in drag.

Well, no argument there.

This is the picture of my you are thinking about right?

http://neoism.trick.ca/files/varia_074.jpg

And you are sort of like Helmut Kohl in a tutu.



Correspondent:: brthrn@dangermedia.org
Date: 15 Feb 2005 09:59:48 -0800

--------
"It's up to "Bob" to save the world. "


And there I thought it was up to "Bob" to save the subgenii. And FUCK
the rest of these whorebastards.


When I'm all alone. I think of me. When I'm all alone. I dream of me.

"We've worked hard this year...polishing our I.Q."



Correspondent:: "Blackout"
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:18:25 -0700

--------

"Quirk"

whatever fucked up inferior race it is that you belong to should be goose
stepped into the gas chambers toot sweet, you tepid bag of meat




Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:28:41 -0800

--------
Blackout wrote:
>
> "Quirk"
>
> whatever fucked up inferior race it is that you belong to should be goose
> stepped into the gas chambers toot sweet, you tepid bag of meat

Oh how SHOCKING! You PINK PINK MAN! How utterly VERMILION of you!


Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:34:14 GMT

--------
nenslo wrote:

>Blackout wrote:
>>
>> "Quirk"
>>
>> whatever fucked up inferior race it is that you belong to should be goose
>> stepped into the gas chambers toot sweet, you tepid bag of meat
>
>Oh how SHOCKING! You PINK PINK MAN! How utterly VERMILION of you!


OK, now hold it, Nancy!
Fuschia definitely clashes with my Chartreuse!







Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:22:18 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
>
> If fans of Bill O'Rielly are not a pink, then the word has no meaning.
> If racists are not pink, likewise.

The word has no meaning.

>
> > Nothing MAKES you a subgenius, you either are one or you aren't. The
> > SubGenius must have slack.
>
> Now I'm confused, just when you've explained to me that I am not really
> a SubGenius, and later that I am *STILL* not a SubGenius, now you tell
> me all I need is slack. I have no shortage of slack. So am I, or am I
> not a SubGenius, oh great expert of us-and-them-ism.

No, I did not tell you all you need is slack. I told you "the SubGenius
must have slack." It is not possible to have a shortage of slack.

"If you have to ask, then you don't know." - J. R. "Bob" Dobbs


>
> I am not ranking anybody. I am criticizing the things people are
> saying. Pointing out out the pink ideas they hold. I have not
> questioned their belonging nor their right to express their ideas.

There is no such thing as a "pink" idea. Pink is not a quality. There
are no objects of perception which are pinker than others except in the
literal description of coloration.

>
> BTW, Bill O'Rielly, Ann Coutier and their fans are the agents of the
> Conspiracy. Slack-fearing pinks. Why do they fear Slack? Because they
> earn their privilege from those that want to destroy Slack. The Bosses.

Slack cannot be feared. Every person in the concentration camp is a
victim of the system, the guards as well as the prisoners. All are
dehumanized and set in opposition to each other by a mere idea which
could be dispelled in a moment.

>
> > "Them-ism" program which breaks people down into tiny Us groups
> opposed
> > to billions of other tiny Them groups, rendering Us All utterly
> > powerless against the control of the REAL "THEM."
>
> Hate break it to you, but I am the one arguing *against* "Them-ism".
> You are defending the "Themists", us in nu-monet's "us Fox TV watchers
> are better than them Communists (KILL KILL!!!), by which I mean anybody
> who disagrees with Ann Coutier" or even worse, KönigPruß's "us
> members of the master race are better than them Black People and Jews."

I am not defending anyone. I am correcting semantic errors. Your
understanding of key concepts depends on your understanding of key
words. You have invented meanings for some terms and behave as if that
meaning is "real." You have created definitions for certain types of
people and permitted that definition to become a pejorative term by
which to describe anyone who resembles that type of person. (Treating
an entire class of people as if they are all alike is what prejudice and
discrimination is.) You have let two notable dumbasses yank your chain
repeatedly and relentlessly and still haven't noticed that they have
duped you into making a humiliating spectacle of your reactionary
idiocy. You have been given the inestimable privilege of benefiting
from the knowledge of an elder of the church of 20 years' standing and
have responded with peevishness at not being considered an authority on
things to which you have never given much thought before.

> I am merely trying to point out that these people are wrong, and that
> their ideas are Pink.

That is your primary error. In fact, you simply disagree with these
people and permit the fact that they have ideas which differ from yours
to get you all riled up. There is no such thing as a pink idea.

> Not that they do not belong among us. Thats your
> game. And their's.

I cannot imagine how you came to that conclusion about me short of sheer
dumbassedness and your desire to paint people who do not share your
convictions in the pinkest possible shade.


Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:45:59 GMT

--------
nenslo wrote:

>Quirk wrote:
>>
>>
>> If fans of Bill O'Rielly are not a pink, then the word has no meaning.
>> If racists are not pink, likewise.
>
>The word has no meaning.
>
>>
>> > Nothing MAKES you a subgenius, you either are one or you aren't. The
>> > SubGenius must have slack.
>>
>> Now I'm confused, just when you've explained to me that I am not really
>> a SubGenius, and later that I am *STILL* not a SubGenius, now you tell
>> me all I need is slack. I have no shortage of slack. So am I, or am I
>> not a SubGenius, oh great expert of us-and-them-ism.
>
>No, I did not tell you all you need is slack. I told you "the SubGenius
>must have slack." It is not possible to have a shortage of slack.
>
>"If you have to ask, then you don't know." - J. R. "Bob" Dobbs
>
>
>>
>> I am not ranking anybody. I am criticizing the things people are
>> saying. Pointing out out the pink ideas they hold. I have not
>> questioned their belonging nor their right to express their ideas.
>
>There is no such thing as a "pink" idea. Pink is not a quality. There
>are no objects of perception which are pinker than others except in the
>literal description of coloration.
>
>>
>> BTW, Bill O'Rielly, Ann Coutier and their fans are the agents of the
>> Conspiracy. Slack-fearing pinks. Why do they fear Slack? Because they
>> earn their privilege from those that want to destroy Slack. The Bosses.
>
>Slack cannot be feared. Every person in the concentration camp is a
>victim of the system, the guards as well as the prisoners. All are
>dehumanized and set in opposition to each other by a mere idea which
>could be dispelled in a moment.
>
>>
>> > "Them-ism" program which breaks people down into tiny Us groups
>> opposed
>> > to billions of other tiny Them groups, rendering Us All utterly
>> > powerless against the control of the REAL "THEM."
>>
>> Hate break it to you, but I am the one arguing *against* "Them-ism".
>> You are defending the "Themists", us in nu-monet's "us Fox TV watchers
>> are better than them Communists (KILL KILL!!!), by which I mean anybody
>> who disagrees with Ann Coutier" or even worse, KönigPruß's "us
>> members of the master race are better than them Black People and Jews."
>
>I am not defending anyone. I am correcting semantic errors. Your
>understanding of key concepts depends on your understanding of key
>words. You have invented meanings for some terms and behave as if that
>meaning is "real." You have created definitions for certain types of
>people and permitted that definition to become a pejorative term by
>which to describe anyone who resembles that type of person. (Treating
>an entire class of people as if they are all alike is what prejudice and
>discrimination is.) You have let two notable dumbasses yank your chain
>repeatedly and relentlessly and still haven't noticed that they have
>duped you into making a humiliating spectacle of your reactionary
>idiocy. You have been given the inestimable privilege of benefiting
>from the knowledge of an elder of the church of 20 years' standing and
>have responded with peevishness at not being considered an authority on
>things to which you have never given much thought before.
>
>> I am merely trying to point out that these people are wrong, and that
>> their ideas are Pink.
>
>That is your primary error. In fact, you simply disagree with these
>people and permit the fact that they have ideas which differ from yours
>to get you all riled up. There is no such thing as a pink idea.
>
>> Not that they do not belong among us. Thats your
>> game. And their's.
>
>I cannot imagine how you came to that conclusion about me short of sheer
>dumbassedness and your desire to paint people who do not share your
>convictions in the pinkest possible shade.


Ha! Everyone who disagrees with me has cooties!






Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 15 Feb 2005 17:36:19 -0800

--------

nenslo wrote:

> No, I did not tell you all you need is slack. I told you "the
SubGenius
> must have slack." It is not possible to have a shortage of slack.

This sentence makes no sense, like most of this post. You have clearly
taken this joke too far, you sound like you don't get it anymore.

> There is no such thing as a "pink" idea. Pink is not a quality.
There
> are no objects of perception which are pinker than others except in
the
> literal description of coloration.

Oh Brother. Of *course* there is such a thing as pink idea, in this
context, the pinks are the bosses, the ones that steal your slack.

Slack is a metephore for freedom, like much of the Church's humour, it
is rooted in taking a word that the targets of the parody (the
Christian right) would consider bad, and adopting it as a good thing.
Just like the church's use of words like "abnormal" and the endorsement
of general debauchery, the things that would be anathema to the
"pinks."

The Pinks are those that hold the ideology that the Church is
parodying, the Christian Right, Family Values, Arbeits macht frei
crowd. They are the pinks, their ideas are pink ideas.

Anyway, FORGET IT. If you want to try and pretend that SubGenius
terminology is more than a gag gift, we can use other words.

In plain English, what the are you really trying to say?

> Slack cannot be feared. Every person in the concentration camp is a
> victim of the system, the guards as well as the prisoners. All are
> dehumanized and set in opposition to each other by a mere idea which
> could be dispelled in a moment.

What are you talking about? The 10 cent philosophizing is clear enough,
your pretending that there is deeper meaning to "slack" that I'm just
not getting is ridiculous. There may be more subtlety to the inside
jokes that a casual member like me knows about, but you're really high
falutin the hell out of it.

The Church of the SubGenius is, at its essence, a parody of American
culture, it is a joke at the expense of the Evangelical Christians and
the Work ethic, with a bunch of other jokes rolled in over its long
history.

Once you start using psuedophilosophical mumbo-jumbo, with a straight
face, to try to explain the "true deeper meaning" of this ongoing joke,
you no longer get it.

> I am not defending anyone.

Yes. You are.

> I am correcting semantic errors.

How sweet that you feel a need to correct my semantic errors, despite
your conviction that I am not a true SubGenius, but you feel no need to
dispute openly racist comments, by those who you do consider true
SubGeniuses.

> Your
> understanding of key concepts depends on your understanding of key
> words. You have invented meanings for some terms and behave as if
that
> meaning is "real."

Nonsense, I have presented and defended many clear ideas, ideas about
freedom, equality, politics, philosophy, and economics, *AND* I have
made every effort to do so in the context of the Church's lingo, since
I am least *technically* a member, having paid my money.

You are avoiding understanding the key concepts in my arguments, using
some cloak of explaining Church semantics as a pretense.

> You have created definitions for certain types of
> people and permitted that definition to become a pejorative term by
> which to describe anyone who resembles that type of person.

More nonsense, every statement I have made, I have well explained,
logically, in plain English, any use (or misuse) of SubGenius
definitions has been peripheral, in tribute to the local lingo, and
never central to any of my arguments.

> (Treating
> an entire class of people as if they are all alike is what prejudice
and
> discrimination is.)

And this is something that I have never done, and have tried to explain
to both nu-monet and König Pruß.

> You have let two notable dumbasses yank your chain
> repeatedly

Bullshit, these dumbasses completely believe the spew they posted, it
is my rebuttals that have caused them to repeatedly blow gaskets.

If they were pulling my chain, that would mean that nu-monet, for
instance, was trying to get me to post more, which is obviously not the
case, since he was clearly trying to SHOUT ME DOWN and SHUT ME UP.
Ditto for his back slappers, like Artemia

> and relentlessly and still haven't noticed that they have
> duped you into making a humiliating spectacle of your reactionary
> idiocy.

Bullshit, you can't deal with the fact that these dumbasses posted
bigoted trash, I embarrassed them, and then wouldn't back down when you
all started back slapping each other in lynch mob solidarity rather
than deal with the truth.

Please furnish a quote of mine which you consider "reactionary idiocy."

> You have been given the inestimable privilege of benefiting
> from the knowledge of an elder of the church of 20 years' standing
and
> have responded with peevishness at not being considered an authority
on
> things to which you have never given much thought before.

What is this, the Vatican? Give up this holy of holies crap. This is
the Church of SubGenius we are taking about, not the fucking solar
temple.

I claim no authority on ANYTHING. My arguments speak for themselves,
and whatever authority they have is derived from their merit, not some
bullshit standing I claim.

> > I am merely trying to point out that these people are wrong, and
that
> > their ideas are Pink.

> That is your primary error. In fact, you simply disagree with these
> people and permit the fact that they have ideas which differ from
yours
> to get you all riled up.

I am not riled up in the slightest. I like usenet. I've been here for a
long time.

In fact I primarily participate in discusion forums to interact with
people who disagree with my ideas. I really appreciate logical
disagreements and I learn a lot from criticism.

However, some people also post vile ideas, like that blacks, Jews, and
"communists" and should be killed.

I take pleasure in rubbing these people's noses in their stupidity. As
I have done here. I consider it a public service. And fun.

Bigotry spoils the party.

I would rather ANNOY THE FUCK OUT OF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU, than be
complicit in making somebody who is black, Jewish, or DOBBS FORBID, not
an anti-communist reactionary, feel uncomfortable around here because
of the bigots and their back slappers.

> There is no such thing as a pink idea.

Wrong, but *OK*, lets just call them stupid, bigoted ideas then.

> > Not that they do not belong among us. Thats your
> > game. And their's.

> I cannot imagine how you came to that conclusion about me short of
sheer
> dumbassedness and your desire to paint people who do not share your
> convictions in the pinkest possible shade.

Oh, but your conclusions about me come from extensive research of my
history and life's work right?

Duh. I came to my conclusion because YOU SAID SO, you said I was not a
real SubGenius, creating an US and THEM dichotomy, exactly as stated.

"A Sub will TAKE THE RAP LIKE A MAN, but a Pink will go to the
trouble
of joining a LYNCH mob just to avoid admitting he might have
goofed."
-- Rev. Ivan Stang, Hour of Slack #64



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:11:15 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>nenslo wrote:
>
>> No, I did not tell you all you need is slack. I told you "the
>SubGenius
>> must have slack." It is not possible to have a shortage of slack.
>
>This sentence makes no sense, like most of this post. You have clearly
>taken this joke too far, you sound like you don't get it anymore.
>
>> There is no such thing as a "pink" idea. Pink is not a quality.
>There
>> are no objects of perception which are pinker than others except in
>the
>> literal description of coloration.
>
>Oh Brother. Of *course* there is such a thing as pink idea, in this
>context, the pinks are the bosses, the ones that steal your slack.
>
>Slack is a metephore for freedom, like much of the Church's humour, it
>is rooted in taking a word that the targets of the parody (the
>Christian right) would consider bad, and adopting it as a good thing.
>Just like the church's use of words like "abnormal" and the endorsement
>of general debauchery, the things that would be anathema to the
>"pinks."
>
>The Pinks are those that hold the ideology that the Church is
>parodying, the Christian Right, Family Values, Arbeits macht frei
>crowd. They are the pinks, their ideas are pink ideas.
>
>Anyway, FORGET IT. If you want to try and pretend that SubGenius
>terminology is more than a gag gift, we can use other words.
>
>In plain English, what the are you really trying to say?
>
>> Slack cannot be feared. Every person in the concentration camp is a
>> victim of the system, the guards as well as the prisoners. All are
>> dehumanized and set in opposition to each other by a mere idea which
>> could be dispelled in a moment.
>
>What are you talking about? The 10 cent philosophizing is clear enough,
>your pretending that there is deeper meaning to "slack" that I'm just
>not getting is ridiculous. There may be more subtlety to the inside
>jokes that a casual member like me knows about, but you're really high
>falutin the hell out of it.
>
>The Church of the SubGenius is, at its essence, a parody of American
>culture, it is a joke at the expense of the Evangelical Christians and
>the Work ethic, with a bunch of other jokes rolled in over its long
>history.
>
>Once you start using psuedophilosophical mumbo-jumbo, with a straight
>face, to try to explain the "true deeper meaning" of this ongoing joke,
>you no longer get it.
>
>> I am not defending anyone.
>
>Yes. You are.
>
>> I am correcting semantic errors.
>
>How sweet that you feel a need to correct my semantic errors, despite
>your conviction that I am not a true SubGenius, but you feel no need to
>dispute openly racist comments, by those who you do consider true
>SubGeniuses.
>
>> Your
>> understanding of key concepts depends on your understanding of key
>> words. You have invented meanings for some terms and behave as if
>that
>> meaning is "real."
>
>Nonsense, I have presented and defended many clear ideas, ideas about
>freedom, equality, politics, philosophy, and economics, *AND* I have
>made every effort to do so in the context of the Church's lingo, since
>I am least *technically* a member, having paid my money.
>
>You are avoiding understanding the key concepts in my arguments, using
>some cloak of explaining Church semantics as a pretense.
>
>> You have created definitions for certain types of
>> people and permitted that definition to become a pejorative term by
>> which to describe anyone who resembles that type of person.
>
>More nonsense, every statement I have made, I have well explained,
>logically, in plain English, any use (or misuse) of SubGenius
>definitions has been peripheral, in tribute to the local lingo, and
>never central to any of my arguments.
>
>> (Treating
>> an entire class of people as if they are all alike is what prejudice
>and
>> discrimination is.)
>
>And this is something that I have never done, and have tried to explain
>to both nu-monet and König Pruß.
>
>> You have let two notable dumbasses yank your chain
>> repeatedly
>
>Bullshit, these dumbasses completely believe the spew they posted, it
>is my rebuttals that have caused them to repeatedly blow gaskets.
>
>If they were pulling my chain, that would mean that nu-monet, for
>instance, was trying to get me to post more, which is obviously not the
>case, since he was clearly trying to SHOUT ME DOWN and SHUT ME UP.
>Ditto for his back slappers, like Artemia
>
>> and relentlessly and still haven't noticed that they have
>> duped you into making a humiliating spectacle of your reactionary
>> idiocy.
>
>Bullshit, you can't deal with the fact that these dumbasses posted
>bigoted trash, I embarrassed them, and then wouldn't back down when you
>all started back slapping each other in lynch mob solidarity rather
>than deal with the truth.
>
>Please furnish a quote of mine which you consider "reactionary idiocy."
>
>> You have been given the inestimable privilege of benefiting
>> from the knowledge of an elder of the church of 20 years' standing
>and
>> have responded with peevishness at not being considered an authority
>on
>> things to which you have never given much thought before.
>
>What is this, the Vatican? Give up this holy of holies crap. This is
>the Church of SubGenius we are taking about, not the fucking solar
>temple.
>
>I claim no authority on ANYTHING. My arguments speak for themselves,
>and whatever authority they have is derived from their merit, not some
>bullshit standing I claim.
>
>> > I am merely trying to point out that these people are wrong, and
>that
>> > their ideas are Pink.
>
>> That is your primary error. In fact, you simply disagree with these
>> people and permit the fact that they have ideas which differ from
>yours
>> to get you all riled up.
>
>I am not riled up in the slightest. I like usenet. I've been here for a
>long time.
>
>In fact I primarily participate in discusion forums to interact with
>people who disagree with my ideas. I really appreciate logical
>disagreements and I learn a lot from criticism.
>
>However, some people also post vile ideas, like that blacks, Jews, and
>"communists" and should be killed.
>
>I take pleasure in rubbing these people's noses in their stupidity. As
>I have done here. I consider it a public service. And fun.
>
>Bigotry spoils the party.
>
>I would rather ANNOY THE FUCK OUT OF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU, than be
>complicit in making somebody who is black, Jewish, or DOBBS FORBID, not
>an anti-communist reactionary, feel uncomfortable around here because
>of the bigots and their back slappers.

Well, if you can say "Kill the Pinks!" and make fun of the Xtians,
how come you can't say "Kill the Blacks!" and make fun of the Jews?

Typical auslander hypocritical bigotry!







Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 16 Feb 2005 05:17:18 -0800

--------

König wrote:

> Well, if you can say "Kill the Pinks!" and make fun of the Xtians,
> how come you can't say "Kill the Blacks!" and make fun of the Jews?

I do not say Kill the Pinks or the Xtians. I do not advocate killing,
excluding or silencing anyone.

And there is nothing wrong with making fun of beliefs, it is not
Christian ethnicity that the Church of the SubGenius mocks, the
majority are of Christian ethnicity, but the beliefs and practices of
the Christian Right, and the Family Values crowd.

Joe Lieberman is just as Pink as Newt Gingrich, it has to do with
beliefs, not ethnicity.

Just like I mock you for your beliefs, not your ethnicity.

> Typical auslander hypocritical bigotry!

No, you are just attempting the typical fallacy of a bigot.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:39:48 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>König wrote:
>
>> Well, if you can say "Kill the Pinks!" and make fun of the Xtians,
>> how come you can't say "Kill the Blacks!" and make fun of the Jews?
>
>I do not say Kill the Pinks or the Xtians. I do not advocate killing,
>excluding or silencing anyone.
>
>And there is nothing wrong with making fun of beliefs, it is not
>Christian ethnicity that the Church of the SubGenius mocks, the
>majority are of Christian ethnicity, but the beliefs and practices of
>the Christian Right, and the Family Values crowd.
>
>Joe Lieberman is just as Pink as Newt Gingrich, it has to do with
>beliefs, not ethnicity.
>
>Just like I mock you for your beliefs, not your ethnicity.
>
>> Typical auslander hypocritical bigotry!
>
>No, you are just attempting the typical fallacy of a bigot.
>

Nope, I am just feed up with your pat answers to everything/
"It's Whitey's fault!"

Like there aren't any other racists except White racist.

Oh, yeah! You can give a load of shit to anyone,
as long as they aren't women or minorities!
So, who does that leave? Yeah, well screw you, too!

You know, there are a billion Mulsims, and what?
maybe 12-15 million Jews? You like economics!
Hey! Who's got the oil? You do the math--

It's not racism, it's the economy, stoopid!

So, you're saying if I want to make fun of some
gefilte-eating schlub, it's OK?

Gee, thanks!








Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 16 Feb 2005 06:07:07 -0800

--------

König wrote:

> >No, you are just attempting the typical fallacy of a bigot.

> Nope, I am just feed up with your pat answers to everything/
> "It's Whitey's fault!"

If that is my pat answer to everything you should have no trouble
providing some quotes of me saying such.

Of course you can't, because I've never said such a thing.

> Like there aren't any other racists except White racist.

Racism is attributing unsubstantiated characteristics to a person
because of their race, usually for the purpose of oppression or
exclusion, this of course includes the characteristic "racist."

People of all races are equally likely to be racists.

This is nothing more than another straw man you are constructing.

> So, you're saying if I want to make fun of some
> gefilte-eating schlub, it's OK?

I actually don't care who you make fun of.

I care about who you wish death too, try to exclude, and support the
oppression of.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:16:13 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>König wrote:
>
>> >No, you are just attempting the typical fallacy of a bigot.
>
>> Nope, I am just feed up with your pat answers to everything/
>> "It's Whitey's fault!"
>
>If that is my pat answer to everything you should have no trouble
>providing some quotes of me saying such.
>
>Of course you can't, because I've never said such a thing.
>
>> Like there aren't any other racists except White racist.
>
>Racism is attributing unsubstantiated characteristics to a person
>because of their race, usually for the purpose of oppression or
>exclusion, this of course includes the characteristic "racist."
>
>People of all races are equally likely to be racists.
>
>This is nothing more than another straw man you are constructing.
>
>> So, you're saying if I want to make fun of some
>> gefilte-eating schlub, it's OK?
>
>I actually don't care who you make fun of.
>
>I care about who you wish death too, try to exclude, and support the
>oppression of.
>

Death th the Oppressors!

Off my back and outa my face!

Regardless of race, gender, or national origin!

There! Now're ya happy?

If you are, I'll have to start all over again.







Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 16 Feb 2005 07:48:28 -0800

--------

König wrote:
> "Quirk" wrote:

> Death th the Oppressors!
> Off my back and outa my face!
> Regardless of race, gender, or national origin!
> There! Now're ya happy?
> If you are, I'll have to start all over again.

Better.

But no, I'm still not happy because you're still wishing death to
people.

Change your first line to say "Destroy the apparatus of oppression!"

But please, start over, or at least back up until before you started
wishing death to black people and spewing hatred at jews, you where
doing just fine before that.

As I starting point of what the apparatus of oppression is based I
suggest Alienation of personal liberty. The most common tactic of this
alienation is turning nature into private property and then using
access to nature coercively. This boils down to private land ownership.



Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:20:29 -0800

--------
In article <1108568908.698909.235860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Quirk" wrote:

> König wrote:
> > "Quirk" wrote:
>
> > Death th the Oppressors!
> > Off my back and outa my face!
> > Regardless of race, gender, or national origin!
> > There! Now're ya happy?
> > If you are, I'll have to start all over again.
>
> Better.
>
> But no, I'm still not happy because you're still wishing death to
> people.
>
> Change your first line to say "Destroy the apparatus of oppression!"
>
> But please, start over, or at least back up until before you started
> wishing death to black people and spewing hatred at jews, you where
> doing just fine before that.
>
> As I starting point of what the apparatus of oppression is based I
> suggest Alienation of personal liberty. The most common tactic of this
> alienation is turning nature into private property and then using
> access to nature coercively. This boils down to private land ownership.

"This boils down to private land ownership."

As opposed to what? Collectivism?

pb


Correspondent:: "Revi Shankar"
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:22:57 -0500

--------
> In article <1108568908.698909.235860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Quirk" wrote:
>
> > König wrote:
> > > "Quirk" wrote:
> >
> > > Death th the Oppressors!
> > > Off my back and outa my face!
> > > Regardless of race, gender, or national origin!
> > > There! Now're ya happy?
> > > If you are, I'll have to start all over again.
> >
> > Better.
> >
> > But no, I'm still not happy because you're still wishing death to
> > people.
> > Change your first line to say "Destroy the apparatus of oppression!"

(well, I'm sticking my nose in. God help me.)

But WHY, ED, WHY? You know what the apparatus of oppression is? It's PEOPLE.
There isn't anything that oppresses anyone without the motive power of
ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. The same can be said about any "faceless" evil. At the
end, there is one or more PERSON(S). Some spout nonsense about "evil
corporations". Corporations don't even exist. It's PEOPLE that do things. As
long as one doesn't target evil directly, it'll never go away. DUH.

Note that I am not in any way shape or form advocating the death of anyone.
I'm just arguing a point.










Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:10:05 GMT

--------
"Revi Shankar" wrote:

>> In article <1108568908.698909.235860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Quirk" wrote:
>>
>> > König wrote:
>> > > "Quirk" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Death th the Oppressors!
>> > > Off my back and outa my face!
>> > > Regardless of race, gender, or national origin!
>> > > There! Now're ya happy?
>> > > If you are, I'll have to start all over again.
>> >
>> > Better.
>> >
>> > But no, I'm still not happy because you're still wishing death to
>> > people.
>> > Change your first line to say "Destroy the apparatus of oppression!"
>
>(well, I'm sticking my nose in. God help me.)
>
>But WHY, ED, WHY? You know what the apparatus of oppression is? It's PEOPLE.
>There isn't anything that oppresses anyone without the motive power of
>ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. The same can be said about any "faceless" evil. At the
>end, there is one or more PERSON(S). Some spout nonsense about "evil
>corporations". Corporations don't even exist. It's PEOPLE that do things. As
>long as one doesn't target evil directly, it'll never go away. DUH.
>
>Note that I am not in any way shape or form advocating the death of anyone.
>I'm just arguing a point.
>
>
>
>

Do-gooders and Crusaders scare me. I think that people with
"good intentions" often do things that are ill-thought out,
and do more harm than good, what starts out good can have
disasterous results. Cars are an example, they have become
a nightmare! And ecology has become sort of a joke! Save the
snail-darter! Ha! There are some very large issues and the silly
activists get diverted by small, insignificant things.

Evil corporations, yeah. That WorldCom guy, and even Martha Stewart.
Those first couple of Michael Moore films with the damage GM did to
Flint, Michigan. And Big Steel leaving Pittsburg was sort of a disaster.

And outsourcing. Globalization is too crazy when you call local
government to check something out and get someone in India.

I studied international development, which I thought would be
a good thing, but that's either Peace Corps assholes or the
World Bank and International Development Bank, which everyone
now hates.

Maybe instructive would be reading the Prisoner Game studies.
They were studies done on small alliances where partners could
stick, and through loyalty gain more in the long run. The studies
found that people will always sell eachother out! So much for
human nature.
http://perspicuity.net/sd/pd-brf.html
http://www.eur.nl/fsw/english/staff/homepages/pruijt/publications/sociology
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pdref.html






Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 17 Feb 2005 11:55:41 -0800

--------
Revi Shankar wrote:

> (well, I'm sticking my nose in. "Bob" help me.)

I've edited this line for you, no need to thank me.

> But WHY, ED, WHY? You know what the apparatus of oppression is? It's
> PEOPLE.

Yes, you have identified the oppressor in the most general sense
possible, it's a good start, now lets get on with the follow up
questions, like who and how.

> Note that I am not in any way shape or form advocating the death of
anyone.
> I'm just arguing a point.

Noted.

Regards.



Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 17 Feb 2005 09:19:25 -0800

--------

polar bear wrote:

Quirk wrote:

> "This boils down to private land ownership."

> As opposed to what? Collectivism?

What the Hayak & Von Mises crowd seem to have trouble grasping that
collective ownership of the natural environment is not some sort of
socialist plot, buy it is actually reality. We must share the planet.
We all need access to nature to live. We all have the same moral claim
to nature.

Nature can not morally be property because it is not the result of any
individual's productivity.

In anycase, AFAIK, "Collectivism" is not a school of political
philosophy that I am aware of, but rather a straw man common among
disciples of these "Austrian Libertarians."

Many actual schools of political philosophy, such as Anarchism and
Liberalism, especially the Georgist form, are opposed to private land
ownership.

I explain my point of view in my proposal, but here as some quote from
promenant liberals on the subject.

What man has produced belongs to the individual producer; what God
has
created belongs equally to all men ... therefore abolish all taxation
save
on the value of land.

-- Henry George

The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and to live on.
...
Wherever in any country there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it
is
clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to
violate
natural right.

-- Thomas Jefferson

The land, the earth, God gave to man for his home, sustenance and
support,
should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society or
unfriendly government, any more than the air or water

-- Abraham Lincoln

When the sacredness of property is talked of, it should be remembered
that
any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed
property.

-- John Locke

Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or
economizing.
The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the
efforts of
an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the
individual who might hold title.

-- John Stuart Mill

Men did not make the earth, and though he had a natural right to
occupy it,
he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of
it;

-- Thomas Paine

The interest of the landlord is always opposed to the interests of
every
other class in the community

-- David Ricardo

As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a
share of
almost all the produce which the labourer can either raise, or
collect from
it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labour
which
is employed upon the land.

-- Adam Smith

You may have heard of some of these people. They include among them the
founders of Economics, Liberalism and the United States of America.

Regards.



Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 17 Feb 2005 09:19:26 -0800

--------

polar bear wrote:

Quirk wrote:

> "This boils down to private land ownership."

> As opposed to what? Collectivism?

What the Hayak & Von Mises crowd seem to have trouble grasping that
collective ownership of the natural environment is not some sort of
socialist plot, buy it is actually reality. We must share the planet.
We all need access to nature to live. We all have the same moral claim
to nature.

Nature can not morally be property because it is not the result of any
individual's productivity.

In anycase, AFAIK, "Collectivism" is not a school of political
philosophy that I am aware of, but rather a straw man common among
disciples of these "Austrian Libertarians."

Many actual schools of political philosophy, such as Anarchism and
Liberalism, especially the Georgist form, are opposed to private land
ownership.

I explain my point of view in my proposal, but here as some quote from
promenant liberals on the subject.

What man has produced belongs to the individual producer; what God
has
created belongs equally to all men ... therefore abolish all taxation
save
on the value of land.

-- Henry George

The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and to live on.
...
Wherever in any country there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it
is
clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to
violate
natural right.

-- Thomas Jefferson

The land, the earth, God gave to man for his home, sustenance and
support,
should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society or
unfriendly government, any more than the air or water

-- Abraham Lincoln

When the sacredness of property is talked of, it should be remembered
that
any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed
property.

-- John Locke

Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or
economizing.
The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the
efforts of
an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the
individual who might hold title.

-- John Stuart Mill

Men did not make the earth, and though he had a natural right to
occupy it,
he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of
it;

-- Thomas Paine

The interest of the landlord is always opposed to the interests of
every
other class in the community

-- David Ricardo

As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a
share of
almost all the produce which the labourer can either raise, or
collect from
it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labour
which
is employed upon the land.

-- Adam Smith

You may have heard of some of these people. They include among them the
founders of Economics, Liberalism and the United States of America.

Regards.



Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:52:04 -0800

--------
In article <1108660766.042647.215710@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Quirk" wrote:

> polar bear wrote:
>
> Quirk wrote:
>
> > "This boils down to private land ownership."
>
> > As opposed to what? Collectivism?
>
> What the Hayak & Von Mises crowd seem to have trouble grasping that
> collective ownership of the natural environment is not some sort of
> socialist plot, buy it is actually reality. We must share the planet.
> We all need access to nature to live. We all have the same moral claim
> to nature.

There is no morality in nature. Morality is a human invention designed
to justify one form of behaviour over another. The true state of
nature is tooth and claw. Bears are neither moral nor immoral when
they kill a baby deer, and the mother deer is neither moral nor immoral
for trying to kill the bear's cub in revenge.
>
> Nature can not morally be property because it is not the result of any
> individual's productivity.

On the contrary, If I've noticed that seeds planted will grow crops,
and I decide this is a better method of survival than being a wandering
nomad following the reindeer herd, then by definition I have to enclose
the land and cultivate it. It follows that I will defend the results
of my efforts against maurauding bands of nomads who feel it's easier
to rip me off than to settle in the next valley and follow my example.

Every subsequent human action follows from this basic fact. You may
elaborate lofty theories to justify it; you may contend that it isn't
so, but when push comes to shove, I will surely kill you before I
surrender what's mine. No morality there. Just pure survival.

>
> In anycase, AFAIK, "Collectivism" is not a school of political
> philosophy that I am aware of, but rather a straw man common among
> disciples of these "Austrian Libertarians."

Tell it to the Kulaks.

>
> Many actual schools of political philosophy, such as Anarchism and
> Liberalism, especially the Georgist form, are opposed to private land
> ownership.

Key word: Philosophy.
>

pb
---
Desperation is the raw material of drastic change. Only those who can
leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape.
--Quotations from Chairman Burroughs


Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:48:11 -0800

--------
>In article <1108660766.042647.215710@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>"Quirk" wrote:
>
>> Nature can not morally be property because it is not the result of any
>> individual's productivity.

oh CHRIST not that old chestnut.

they've been saying that since the sixties and it sure sounds grand
but nobody really has the foggiest idea what it is supposed to mean in
practice.

In the end it doesn't mean any fucking thing unless you take it to the
older chestnuttier "property is theft" which is also certainly true in
some sense but also it's hard to say what the fuck it's supposed to
mean in practice.

Well let's see, I was born with two eyes and that's nature, that was
not the resuilt of my individual productivity, I was just born
naturally with two eyes, so I don't own my eyes, it would be immoral
for me to own them.

and so on and so on and so on.

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"My energies are much better spent teaching people to eat pork than teaching
pigs to be civilized."
- (Dr K. "Cortez" Legume)



Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 04:23:56 -0800

--------
Zapanaz wrote:

> >"Quirk" wrote:

> >> Nature can not morally be property because it is not the result of
any
> >> individual's productivity.

> oh DOBBS not that old chestnut.

It is quite an important chestnut, especialy in the context of
economics, in which //productivity// is particularily central.

> they've been saying that since the sixties

Since the sixties? You haven't been paying attention have you?

"The whole of the land was in the hands of a few, and if the
cultivators
did not pay their rents, they became subject to bondage."

-- Aristotle

"The land shall not be sold forever; for the land is mine."

-- Jehovah to Moses, Leviticus X MV:XXIII

> and it sure sounds grand but nobody really has the foggiest idea what
it is
> supposed to mean in practice.

Just because you have no idea, does not mean that nobody else does
either.

"What man has produced belongs to the individual producer; what God
has
created belongs equally to all men ... therefore abolish all taxation
save
on the value of land."

-- Henry George

"Ground rents seem in this respect a more proper subject of peculiar

taxation than even the ordinary rent of land."

-- Adam Smith

"There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free
enterprise --
and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad

taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the
unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many
years
ago."

-- Milton Friedman

"If a tax were imposed equal to the annual use value of real property
ex
its improvement, so that it would now have no net earnings and hence
no
capital value of its own -- progress would be orderly and its fruits
would
be equitably shared."

-- John Kenneth Galbraith


> In the end it doesn't mean any fucking thing unless you take it to
the
> older chestnuttier "property is theft" which is also certainly true
in
> some sense but also it's hard to say what the fuck it's supposed to
> mean in practice.

It is actually not so cryptic what Proudhon meant by this, you need to
understand that he is not talking about personal property, but rather
the property involved in production, that which modern economists call
"Capital."

I agree that this goes beyond what the liberals quoted above are
saying, this is exactly what I am trying to model in Venture Communism.
A means of mutualizing both nature and capital, without a state, and
without coercion.

> Well let's see, I was born with two eyes and that's nature, that was
> not the resuilt of my individual productivity, I was just born
> naturally with two eyes, so I don't own my eyes, it would be immoral
> for me to own them.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

The basis of liberal, anarchist, and libertarian trains of though is
the argument is that self-ownership is the basis of liberty.

Or are you really arguing that your eyes should not be your property?



Correspondent:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:01:42 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>Zapanaz wrote:
>
>> >"Quirk" wrote:
>
>> >> Nature can not morally be property because it is not the result of
>any
>> >> individual's productivity.
>
>> oh DOBBS not that old chestnut.
>
>It is quite an important chestnut, especialy in the context of
>economics, in which //productivity// is particularily central.
>
>> they've been saying that since the sixties
>
>Since the sixties? You haven't been paying attention have you?
>
> "The whole of the land was in the hands of a few, and if the
>cultivators
> did not pay their rents, they became subject to bondage."
>
> -- Aristotle
>
> "The land shall not be sold forever; for the land is mine."
>
> -- Jehovah to Moses, Leviticus X MV:XXIII
>
>> and it sure sounds grand but nobody really has the foggiest idea what
>it is
>> supposed to mean in practice.
>
>Just because you have no idea, does not mean that nobody else does
>either.
>
> "What man has produced belongs to the individual producer; what God
>has
> created belongs equally to all men ... therefore abolish all taxation
>save
> on the value of land."
>
> -- Henry George
>
> "Ground rents seem in this respect a more proper subject of peculiar
>
> taxation than even the ordinary rent of land."
>
> -- Adam Smith
>
> "There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free
>enterprise --
> and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad
>
> taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the
> unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many
>years
> ago."
>
> -- Milton Friedman
>
> "If a tax were imposed equal to the annual use value of real property
>ex
> its improvement, so that it would now have no net earnings and hence
>no
> capital value of its own -- progress would be orderly and its fruits
>would
> be equitably shared."
>
> -- John Kenneth Galbraith
>
>
>> In the end it doesn't mean any fucking thing unless you take it to
>the
>> older chestnuttier "property is theft" which is also certainly true
>in
>> some sense but also it's hard to say what the fuck it's supposed to
>> mean in practice.
>
>It is actually not so cryptic what Proudhon meant by this, you need to
>understand that he is not talking about personal property, but rather
>the property involved in production, that which modern economists call
>"Capital."
>
>I agree that this goes beyond what the liberals quoted above are
>saying, this is exactly what I am trying to model in Venture Communism.
>A means of mutualizing both nature and capital, without a state, and
>without coercion.
>

So, Proudhon's view of property is sort of your take-off point
for the Venture Capitalism? Is that consistent, too, with the
"rent" perspective? I'm not being snarky, just trying to figure
it out--

I think that some of the American Indian tribes did not have property,
as far as land, but had sort of a differentiated use by various tribe members.

As a kid, I liked Robin Hood, and I thought that The King's forrests were
maybe OK, but that HRH had no right to all of the damned deer.

OK, so rob from the rich and give to the poor, good idea.

When do we storm the Bastille?

Allons enfants de la patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arriv
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'tendard sanglant est lev
Entendez vous dans les campagnes,
Mugir ces froces soldats?
Ils viennent jusque dans nos bras
Egorger nos fils, nos compagnes!






Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 15:02:35 -0800

--------
polar bear wrote:

> > What the Hayak & Von Mises crowd seem to have trouble grasping that
> > collective ownership of the natural environment is not some sort of
> > socialist plot, buy it is actually reality. We must share the
planet.
> > We all need access to nature to live. We all have the same moral
claim
> > to nature.

> There is no morality in nature.

So then, you must also not believe in any property rights at all then,
since they are also a construct of human society.

If someone whith a greater capacity for violence than you do, and wants
what you have, do you think then, they its ok for them take it from you
by force and any human institution, founded on mere human philosphical
values, that tries to intervene on your behalf is thus interfering in
their freedom?

> > Nature can not morally be property because it is not the result of
any
> > individual's productivity.

> On the contrary, If I've noticed that seeds planted will grow crops,
> and I decide this is a better method of survival than being a
wandering
> nomad following the reindeer herd,

You can not notice that your seeds will grow crops until you have
access to the seeds themselves and the land to plant them on.

That is why access to land is a prerequisite for liberty.

> It follows that I will defend the results
> of my efforts against maurauding bands of nomads who feel it's easier
> to rip me off than to settle in the next valley and follow my
example.

And if those mauraders bands overwhelm your defenses, then do you
believe that they have the right to take what is yours?

> Every subsequent human action follows from this basic fact. You may
> elaborate lofty theories to justify it; you may contend that it isn't
> so, but when push comes to shove, I will surely kill you before I
> surrender what's mine. No morality there. Just pure survival.

However, Human Society is now far more complex than pure survival, we
are a gregarious species, and our moral ideas are very much a part of
our social order.

Are you proposing that we would be better off if the we allowed all who
have the greater capicity for violence to take whatever they can take?

> > In anycase, AFAIK, "Collectivism" is not a school of political
> > philosophy that I am aware of, but rather a straw man common among
> > disciples of these "Austrian Libertarians."

> Tell it to the Kulaks.

AFAIK, The Kulaks did no subscribe to any school of political thought
called "Collectivism" but rather had forced collectivization forced on
them by the Bolsheviks, who where Communists. I agree that Communism
does not work.

However, as I said, there are other schools of political philosophy who
also oppose private land ownership, including Liberalism, which has a
practical solution to the problem called Land Value Taxation,
popularized by Henry George, and Anarchism.

> > Many actual schools of political philosophy, such as Anarchism and
> > Liberalism, especially the Georgist form, are opposed to private
land
> > ownership.

> Key word: Philosophy.

Yes, Philosophy, an imortant part of *HUMAN* society.



Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:17:55 -0800

--------
In article <1108767755.784211.58270@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Quirk" wrote:

> polar bear wrote:
>
> > > What the Hayak & Von Mises crowd seem to have trouble grasping that
> > > collective ownership of the natural environment is not some sort of
> > > socialist plot, buy it is actually reality. We must share the
> planet.
> > > We all need access to nature to live. We all have the same moral
> claim
> > > to nature.
>
> > There is no morality in nature.
>
> So then, you must also not believe in any property rights at all then,
> since they are also a construct of human society.

The use of the word "rights" is misleading. No creature has a "right"
to anything beyond what they are capable of securing for themselves.
Just showing up doesn't qualify. You have to struggle. March or die,
as any bear cub will tell you.

>
> If someone whith a greater capacity for violence than you do, and wants
> what you have, do you think then, they its ok for them take it from you
> by force and any human institution, founded on mere human philosphical
> values, that tries to intervene on your behalf is thus interfering in
> their freedom?

Au contraire, and I'm surprised you ask this, if only rhetorically. It
is the very fact of violence, and one's absolute right of self-defense,
which gives rise to civilization. The minute you have something worth
defending, you'll be attacked, so you better have a strategy, or you
won't survive. Any philosophy that doesn't take that into account is
bound to fail.

>
> > > Nature can not morally be property because it is not the result of
> any
> > > individual's productivity.
>
> > On the contrary, If I've noticed that seeds planted will grow crops,
> > and I decide this is a better method of survival than being a
> wandering
> > nomad following the reindeer herd,
>
> You can not notice that your seeds will grow crops until you have
> access to the seeds themselves and the land to plant them on.

True, nor can you breathe air until you have a planet with an
atmosphere to live on. These are constants. They fall out of the
equation.

Incidently, agriculture itself grew (pun) out of the need for
self-defence. Consider the risks women (the gatherers) faced while
their men were off hunting and scavenging. They could be kidnapped,
eaten by a bear, bitten by a serpent. Risky times. So, the gradient
towards enclosure was already imbedded in the natural order.
Everything since then is just a variation of the basic formula.

>
> That is why access to land is a prerequisite for liberty.
>
> > It follows that I will defend the results
> > of my efforts against maurauding bands of nomads who feel it's easier
> > to rip me off than to settle in the next valley and follow my
> example.
>
> And if those mauraders bands overwhelm your defenses, then do you
> believe that they have the right to take what is yours?

The term "right" as I've pointed out, is a false construct. For a
philosophy to stand, it's precepts must be rooted in verifiable facts
independently observable by all. There is no "right" to life or
liberty in Nature. It cannot be observed. Nature offers only what
one can secure through thought, patience, and valliant effort. Any
"rights' bestowed thereby are merely a measure of success.
>
> > Every subsequent human action follows from this basic fact. You may
> > elaborate lofty theories to justify it; you may contend that it isn't
> > so, but when push comes to shove, I will surely kill you before I
> > surrender what's mine. No morality there. Just pure survival.
>
> However, Human Society is now far more complex than pure survival, we
> are a gregarious species, and our moral ideas are very much a part of
> our social order.

Obviously, and to the extent that our moral ideas fail to respect
natural law (which is almost all the time) we suffer needlessly in
ignorance and stupidity.
>
> Are you proposing that we would be better off if the we allowed all who
> have the greater capicity for violence to take whatever they can take?

"Allowing" implies that YOU have the greater capacity. Otherwise
they'd be making the rules and you'd be following them (or resisting -
the success of which would then make you the greater force)
>
> > > In anycase, AFAIK, "Collectivism" is not a school of political
> > > philosophy that I am aware of, but rather a straw man common among
> > > disciples of these "Austrian Libertarians."
>
> > Tell it to the Kulaks.
>
> AFAIK, The Kulaks did no subscribe to any school of political thought
> called "Collectivism" but rather had forced collectivization forced on
> them by the Bolsheviks, who where Communists. I agree that Communism
> does not work.

My point. Also a sly pun on strawman, since Kulaks were growers of
wheat, nyuk nyuk. (insert pithy nenslo comment here _________)
>
> However, as I said, there are other schools of political philosophy who
> also oppose private land ownership, including Liberalism, which has a
> practical solution to the problem called Land Value Taxation,
> popularized by Henry George, and Anarchism.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." --Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

>
> > > Many actual schools of political philosophy, such as Anarchism and
> > > Liberalism, especially the Georgist form, are opposed to private
> land
> > > ownership.
>
> > Key word: Philosophy.
>
> Yes, Philosophy, an imortant part of *HUMAN* society.

ibid.

pb


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 03:51:05 -0800

--------

polar bear wrote:


> > So then, you must also not believe in any property rights at all
then,
> > since they are also a construct of human society.

> The use of the word "rights" is misleading. No creature has a
"right"
> to anything beyond what they are capable of securing for themselves.

And forming arrangements with other humans is one way of securing these
rights for themselves, the aggregate of those arrangements is called
society.

You are evading my question Polar, do you believe that you have a right
to property or not.

I realize that the idea of rights presupposes social institutions to
provide them.

> > If someone with a greater capacity for violence than you do, and
wants
> > what you have, do you think then, they its OK for them take it from
you
> > by force and any human institution, founded on mere human
philosophical
> > values, that tries to intervene on your behalf is thus interfering
in
> > their freedom?

> Au contraire, and I'm surprised you ask this, if only rhetorically.
It
> is the very fact of violence, and one's absolute right of
self-defense,
> which gives rise to civilization. The minute you have something worth
> defending, you'll be attacked, so you better have a strategy, or you
> won't survive. Any philosophy that doesn't take that into account is
> bound to fail.

This is a non sequitur, the statement you are responding to asks you
very clearly if you are for or against the practice of forming
institutions to protect property, or if you believe that anybody who
can take your property by force should be allowed to do so.

It says nothing about a philosophy that does not take one's absolute
right of self-defense into account, I only mean to ask if you support
the practice of forming contracts with others for mutual self-defense,
which is a key component of society.

> > You can not notice that your seeds will grow crops until you have
> > access to the seeds themselves and the land to plant them on.

> True, nor can you breathe air until you have a planet with an
> atmosphere to live on. These are constants. They fall out of the
> equation.

Therefor, denying access to the land, just like denying access to the
air, is a violation of liberty, which is the fundamental base of many
varieties of the sort of social contracts for mutual self-defense
mentioned.

> Incidently, agriculture itself grew (pun) out of the need for
> self-defence.

And from these agricultural societies our modern complex societies
where born and the context of our discusion began to be framed.

> > And if those mauraders bands overwhelm your defenses, then do you
> > believe that they have the right to take what is yours?

> The term "right" as I've pointed out, is a false construct.

Not a false construct at all, but one that can only be understood in a
social context. Society is quite real, as are it's constructs.

I agree that there are no "inalienable rights endowed by our creator,"
rights are guaranteed by social institutions.

> > However, Human Society is now far more complex than pure survival,
we
> > are a gregarious species, and our moral ideas are very much a part
of
> > our social order.

> Obviously, and to the extent that our moral ideas fail to respect
> natural law (which is almost all the time) we suffer needlessly in
> ignorance and stupidity.

I agree that natural law is an important guide, and that we ignore
nature's wisdom at our own peril.

But how does it follow then that we should use the coercive force
available to our social institutions to guarantee the right to private
ownership of land?

> > Are you proposing that we would be better off if the we allowed all
who
> > have the greater capicity for violence to take whatever they can
take?

> "Allowing" implies that YOU have the greater capacity.

It is clear that when men bound together and create social institutions
that these institutions are able to wield, for better or worse, a
greater capacity for violence than private mobs.

The state itself has been frequently described as an institution in
which we grant the monopoly on the legitemate use of violence.

It is still not clear to me what this line of reasoning has to do with
the basic premise that the root of exploitation is alienation from
nature, and that admiting this in no way means accepting Communism.



Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 16 Feb 2005 07:48:28 -0800

--------

König wrote:
> "Quirk" wrote:

> Death th the Oppressors!
> Off my back and outa my face!
> Regardless of race, gender, or national origin!
> There! Now're ya happy?
> If you are, I'll have to start all over again.

Better.

But no, I'm still not happy because you're still wishing death to
people.

Change your first line to say "Destroy the apparatus of oppression!"

But please, start over, or at least back up until before you started
wishing death to black people and spewing hatred at jews, you where
doing just fine before that.

As I starting point of what the apparatus of oppression is based I
suggest Alienation of personal liberty. The most common tactic of this
alienation is turning nature into private property and then using
access to nature coercively. This boils down to private land ownership.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:03:31 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>König wrote:
>> "Quirk" wrote:
>
>> Death th the Oppressors!
>> Off my back and outa my face!
>> Regardless of race, gender, or national origin!
>> There! Now're ya happy?
>> If you are, I'll have to start all over again.
>
>Better.
>
>But no, I'm still not happy because you're still wishing death to
>people.
>
>Change your first line to say "Destroy the apparatus of oppression!"
>
>But please, start over, or at least back up until before you started
>wishing death to black people and spewing hatred at jews, you where
>doing just fine before that.
>
>As I starting point of what the apparatus of oppression is based I
>suggest Alienation of personal liberty. The most common tactic of this
>alienation is turning nature into private property and then using
>access to nature coercively. This boils down to private land ownership.
>

Yeah, make luv to Giaiayaya-the Earth Mutha!

But I was thinking about property ownership,
and that Africans have as much right to Africa
as the American Indians had to this place.
Alt least, Mexico is about 80% Indian or
mixed, and by the by, I lived there for five
years and didn't see any Blacks, nor felt
any great loss by their absence. I can live
without them! You NEED me, you OWE me!
I hear it over and over. My cousins are still
Mennonites in southern Ohio, and I'm going
to send the reparation-demanding blacks
a bill for hauling-their ass to Freedom, which
was done at no small risk to life and limb.

Lake Victoria in Uganda has fish made
fat by all the bodies thrown into the lake.
Welcome to the Hotel Ruwanda!
Such a lovely place
We're living it up in the Hotel Ruwanda!

So, I ran into a Liberian guy who had actually
read Franz Fanon's book, "The Wretched of
the Earth," Fanon was born in Martinique but was
a soldier and quite a writer about colonialism.
I think he died in North Africa someplace.
I hate to say it, but Fanon was a better writer
than I am, but I'm alive yet and may get better than
that. I'm a way better poet than Langston Hughes,
not that I let that stop me from reading him sometimes.

You know that in America, there are maybe 15-30 million
illegal aliens who have sneaked and fought their way here.
Why, I dunno. But the Afros can pack-up and go to Mexico,
where there is a marked paucity of homeboy talent, or go
on back to 'bama, or Liberia. If you can't stand up without
a White man's hand up yo' butt manipulating you like a
puppet, sit down and shut up.

Look, even uncle tom Bill Cosby told the blacks to take
some initiative and responsibility for they own selves.
What happened? But, no! It's Whitey's fault.

I don't know if you noticed, but things sort of made a
right-turn after 9/11. Maybe by accident, or by design.
But all the the loudmouthed bullshit that the Black Panthers
and the Nation of Islam black supremacists were spewing
got sort of quiet. Where is the gawdammed revolution?
You're ain't never gonna get a better chance. Put up,
or shut up. Thas right, drink another 40oz. and fire-up the
glass crack pipe, and blame Whitey. Punk-ass bitches.




Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 16 Feb 2005 10:26:55 -0800

--------

König wrote:

> >> If you are, I'll have to start all over again.

[...]

> Yeah, make luv to Giaiayaya-the Earth Mutha!

Oh. I see that by "start all over again" you meant go back to deranged,
idiotic ranting that bears no relationship to the post it is allegedly
a response to.

I'm sorry you have so much hatred, it must suck to be you, but I'm not
really interested in tearing down your straw men and fishing through
your red herrings, the stupidity of your spew should be clear enough to
all.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:18:35 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>König wrote:
>
>> >> If you are, I'll have to start all over again.
>
>[...]
>
>> Yeah, make luv to Giaiayaya-the Earth Mutha!
>
>Oh. I see that by "start all over again" you meant go back to deranged,
>idiotic ranting that bears no relationship to the post it is allegedly
>a response to.
>
>I'm sorry you have so much hatred, it must suck to be you, but I'm not
>really interested in tearing down your straw men and fishing through
>your red herrings, the stupidity of your spew should be clear enough to
>all.
>


Well, in another thread about appropriate language
for kicking Whitey's butt--by the way, I'm anti-Semantic

Let me say, it is one thing the Conservatives tell you about
arguing with a Liberal: "Don't start on the 50-yard line."
In the first place, you are not on the 50-yard line, and
I don't have to pretend that you are on the 10-yard line
because you are going to take it in the end zone.

I worked for NCPAC (National Conservative Political
Action Committee) in 1978-79 and actually met
Terry Dolan and talked informally with him a few times.
He had great fund-raising technology, push a button
and get a million bucks!

AUTHOR: John Terry Dolan (1950-86)
QUOTATION:Groups like ours are potentially very dangerous
to the political process. We could be a menace, yes. Ten independent
expenditure groups, for example, could amass this great amount of money
and defeat the point of accountability in politics. We could say whatever
we want about an opponent of a Senator Smith and the senator wouldn’t
have to say anything. A group like ours could lie through its teeth and
the candidate it helps stays clean.
ATTRIBUTION:JOHN TERRY DOLAN, as reported
by The Washington Post, August 10, 1980, p. F1.
(Dirty Deeds Done Dirt-Cheap!)
Dolan, chairman of the National Conservative Political Action Committee
(NCPAC), later claimed this remark was taken out of context, since he was
speaking of a hypothetical situation.
SUBJECTS:Campaign funds
http://www.bartleby.com/73/150.html

You should take a look at the current "Onion"
they have a funny bit about the new treaty between
the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians
have agreed not to drive the Israelis into the sea;
but rather, to drive them to the beach and show them
a good time!
http://www.theonion.com/images/425/image_article2759_418x430.jpg

IN YOUR DREAMS!




Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 16 Feb 2005 12:20:30 -0800

--------

König wrote:

> I worked for NCPAC

Sorry, I said "it must really suck being you," that was an
understatement.

It must REALLY, REALLY, REALLY suck to be you.

I'm starting to see why you harbour so much deranged bitterness.

Lucky for you we now have Nenslo's doctrine of Pink Apologist
Transcendental Slack, which teaches us to see Slack even in a
Conspiracy loving pink.



Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:55:37 -0700

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> Lucky for you we now have Nenslo's doctrine of Pink Apologist
> Transcendental Slack, which teaches us to see Slack even in a
> Conspiracy loving pink.


Damn, you know you rate right up there with Bob Dean
for utter, complete and total cluelessness?

He has psychiatric problems. What is your excuse?

Better yet, why don't you go away while the getting
is good. You don't really need to reply to this,
but you will. I made fun of you until you just got
utterly boring, then Konig did the same, intersperced
with others, all laughing at you to your face, and yet
you are still oblivious. Still with the dialectic of
a neurotic, self-hating bad Jew who sees the new
Jerusalem in the religion of communism.

But all told, you are on a par with some street paranoid-
schizo that the gutter punks make fun of. After they've
made you so mad you piss and shit in your pants, everybody
just wishes you would go away and take the Postal Inspector
General with you.

I could tell you to get help, but seriously the best thing
you could do for yourself would be to keep swallowing
prozac until it just didn't matter anymore. And give
your computer to the Salvation Army, even if they are
goyim.

You're just sad.

--
"Military intelligence is sifting
through the destruction..."
-- catchy quote from
The Washington Times


Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:54:13 GMT

--------
In article <4213C159.30DE@succeeds.com>,
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote:

> But all told, you are on a par with some street paranoid-
> schizo that the gutter punks make fun of. After they've
> made you so mad you piss and shit in your pants, everybody
> just wishes you would go away and take the Postal Inspector
> General with you.
>> I could tell you to get help, but seriously the best thing
> you could do for yourself would be to keep swallowing
> prozac until it just didn't matter anymore. And give
> your computer to the Salvation Army, even if they are
> goyim.
>> You're just sad.

Damn, you need to stop reading Nenslo's posts. I think they're starting
to rub off on you and do a nannite thing on your hypothalmus or
something. Whatever happened to that cuddly Nu-Monet who sent me the
bottle of opiated Ouzo and the bag of Barbie heads for Xmas? BTW, I
finally sprinkled them on the steps of a Pentecostal church and nailed a
Chuck Manson portrait to the door bearing the legend "YOU ARE NEXT."
I feel sure you'll approve.

--

HellPope Huey
Part of being HellPope
is that you have to spend
too much time at the office.

It is hard to be strong and not rash.
- Japanese Proverb
[from H.L. Mencken's Dictionary]

"I hear music in my head all the time.
Sometimes it makes my brain throb
and the room starts to turn.
I feel I'm going mad.
With this music, we will paint pictures
of earth and space
so that the listener can be taken somewhere.
It's going to be something
that will open up a new sense in people's minds.
- Jimi Hendrix


Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:17:33 -0700

--------
HellPope Huey wrote:
>
> Damn, you need to stop reading Nenslo's posts.
> I think they're starting to rub off on you and do
> a nannite thing on your hypothalmus or something.
> Whatever happened to that cuddly Nu-Monet who sent
> me the bottle of opiated Ouzo and the bag of Barbie
> heads for Xmas?

You got the Ouzo and the barbie heads?

Oh heck. I wonder what Sterno did with those roofing
nails, riding crop, home pizza tomato sauce spreader
and knit genitalia warmer with a tinkle bell on the end?

Or was that to Magdalen? Damn. I can never get these
things right. At least that habanero weed killer and
the 6' tall paper mache penis with a picture of Adolf
Hitler stenciled to it made it to Rev Stang.

And who the HELL got the woven pubic hair throw rug?


--
Unless there is some reason for investigation,
the federal law and the Constitution still
protect the rights of citizens.
--FBI agent Greg Stejskal


Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 03:29:50 GMT

--------
In article <42140CCD.2C13@succeeds.com>,
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote:

> At least that habanero weed killer and
> the 6' tall paper mache penis with a picture of Adolf
> Hitler stenciled to it made it to Rev Stang.

He shellaced the hell out of it and put wheels on it. Rides it to the
post office to pick up the mail. Its a rare quality to be able to give a
really thoughtful gift like that. You're definitely the John Wayne Gacy
of the accordion.

--

HellPope Huey
Part of being HellPope
is that you have to spend
too much time at the office.

It is hard to be strong and not rash.
- Japanese Proverb
[from H.L. Mencken's Dictionary]

"I hear music in my head all the time.
Sometimes it makes my brain throb
and the room starts to turn.
I feel I'm going mad.
With this music, we will paint pictures
of earth and space
so that the listener can be taken somewhere.
It's going to be something
that will open up a new sense in people's minds.
- Jimi Hendrix


Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:00:12 -0800

--------
In article <42140CCD.2C13@succeeds.com>, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:

> HellPope Huey wrote:
> >
> > Damn, you need to stop reading Nenslo's posts.
> > I think they're starting to rub off on you and do
> > a nannite thing on your hypothalmus or something.
> > Whatever happened to that cuddly Nu-Monet who sent
> > me the bottle of opiated Ouzo and the bag of Barbie
> > heads for Xmas?
>
> You got the Ouzo and the barbie heads?
>
> Oh heck. I wonder what Sterno did with those roofing
> nails, riding crop, home pizza tomato sauce spreader
> and knit genitalia warmer with a tinkle bell on the end?
>
> Or was that to Magdalen? Damn. I can never get these
> things right. At least that habanero weed killer and
> the 6' tall paper mache penis with a picture of Adolf
> Hitler stenciled to it made it to Rev Stang.
>
> And who the HELL got the woven pubic hair throw rug?

I got a rock.

pb


Correspondent:: "Rev. Ivan Stang"
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:46:49 -0500

--------
In article <42140CCD.2C13@succeeds.com>, nu-monet v7.0
wrote:


>
> Or was that to Magdalen? Damn. I can never get these
> things right. At least that habanero weed killer and
> the 6' tall paper mache penis with a picture of Adolf
> Hitler stenciled to it made it to Rev Stang.

I haven't tired of it yet! Thanks a million for that. The habanero is
starting to make my dick feel sort of numb now though, after so many
"usages".

--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 17 Feb 2005 11:31:47 -0800

--------

Welcome friends to another exiting episode of Idiotology Today, the
topic of this episode is THE LOGICAL FALLACIES, as demonstrated by
prize idiot nu-nu, three time winner of the world stuffing anus with
sausage championships.

Thank you nu-nu, HERE WE GO!

nu-monet v7.0 wrote:

> Damn, you know you rate right up there with Bob Dean
> for utter, complete and total cluelessness?
> He has psychiatric problems. What is your excuse?

Guilt by association, ad hominem tu quoque, loaded question.

> Better yet, why don't you go away while the getting
> is good. You don't really need to reply to this,
> but you will.

Argumentum in terrorem, special pleading.

> I made fun of you until you just got utterly boring, then Konig did
the
> same, intersperced with others, all laughing at you to your face, and
yet
> you are still oblivious.

Argumentum ad populum, Argumentum ad nauseam, ad hominem abusive.

> Still with the dialectic of
> a neurotic, self-hating bad Jew who sees the new
> Jerusalem in the religion of communism.

Argumentum ad hominem, straw man.

> But all told, you are on a par with some street paranoid-
> schizo that the gutter punks make fun of. After they've
> made you so mad you piss and shit in your pants, everybody
> just wishes you would go away and take the Postal Inspector
> General with you.

False analogy, Ad hominem abusive, false premise, argumentum ad
populum, special pleading.

> I could tell you to get help, but seriously the best thing
> you could do for yourself would be to keep swallowing
> prozac until it just didn't matter anymore.

Argumentum ad verecundiam, non sequitur, red herring.

> And give your computer to the Salvation Army, even if they are
> goyim.

Special pleading, non sequitur, loaded statement.

> You're just sad.

False premise.

Well done nu-nu! I think we've all learned a lot today. Tune in next
week when we go through the speeches of George W Bush.



Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:42:17 -0700

--------
Quirk wrote:
>

Fac ut vivas.

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Pigfucking commu-Nazi death-cultist.

--
"He's just screaming out
'Neuter Me!'"
-- some guy about his dog


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 03:04:56 -0800

--------

I'm sorry you haven't given up your dedication to fascism.

nu-monet v7.0 wrote:

> Fac ut vivas.
>
> Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
>
> Pigfucking commu-Nazi death-cultist.
>
> --
> "He's just screaming out
> 'Neuter Me!'"
> -- some guy about his dog



Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:27:49 -0700

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> I'm sorry you haven't given up your dedication to fascism.

Hey, it's commie-Nazis like you that have killed
more people than any other religion.

You put on a yamulke and goose-step around your
room screaming dialectic until the neighbors
yell at you to "shut the fuck up!"

Which to you means that they are fascist Nazis.

You are a living example of hate speech.


--
"This hedgehog will live with us!"


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 05:51:30 -0800

--------

IDIOTOLOGY TODAY.

Welcome back viewers. Regretably, we were unable to get legal clearance
to take a look at George W Bushes' speeches this episode, but viewer
favourite, idiot extraordinaire nu-nu is back for another wonderful
demonstration of idiothood.

HERE'S NU-NU!

nu-monet v7.0 wrote:

> > I'm sorry you haven't given up your dedication to fascism.
>
> Hey, it's commie-Nazis like you that have killed
> more people than any other religion.

Fase premise, ad hominem circumstantiae, false cause, package deal,
guilt by association.

> You put on a yamulke and goose-step around your
> room screaming dialectic until the neighbors
> yell at you to "shut the fuck up!"

Wishfull thinking, appeal to ridicule, argumentum ad nauseam, appeal to
probability.

> Which to you means that they are fascist Nazis.

Slothfull induction, false premise.

> You are a living example of hate speech.

False premise.

THANK YOU NU-NU! It's Idiots like you that help researchers worldwide
in their quest to understand the true nature of mindless stupidity.
With your help, one day we may find a cure.

IDIOTOLOGY TODAY is brought to you by the Church Of the SubGenius, The
great and secret usenet cabal, and the letter seven.



Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:42:18 -0700

--------
Quirk wrote:
>

Why don't you go away? It's obvious that nobody
here likes you. You don't get it. You have no
sense of humor. You belong to another religion,
and you are a fanatic about it, and I don't mean
Judaism, I mean communist-fascism. There is no
room left for humor, or us, for that matter. You
persuade nobody and you just spew more and more
hate.

There is somebody that you would get on great with.
He also used to annoy everybody on alt.slack, until
he went away. Now he hangs out on
alt.religion.subgenius, and if you go there, you
and he can talk endlessly about how wonderful life
would be like if you can just somehow take over the
Church of the SubGenius and make it communist, or
get us to like you and pay attention to you.

His name is Kevan. And he endlessly lurks there,
waiting for someone to post. I'm sure you can both
talk about how much you want to be loved. Maybe you
can hit it off and get together.

He will listen to you. You are much alike.

--
"I can imagine a LOT when it comes
to unimaginable power."
-- nu-monet


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 08:59:29 -0800

--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Quirk wrote:

> Why don't you go away?

Because I prefer to fish where the fish bite.

When you find a good hole, you keep casting.

> It's obvious that nobody here likes you.

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

> You don't get it.

I do get it, this can be easily seen by the fact that I explain my
opinions and all you do is insist.

> You have no sense of humor.

Now that is funny!

> You belong to another religion,

Every religion belongs to me.

> and you are a fanatic about it, and I don't mean
> Judaism, I mean communist-fascism.

More Argumentum ad nauseam.

Floss with my butt hair you fascist scum.

> There is no room left for humor, or us, for that matter.

Wishfull thinking, I have plenty of room left for you. At least during
the week. I spend less time at my computer during the weekend, so that
will give you some extra time to post lots of brainless nonsense.

> You persuade nobody and you just spew more and more
> hate.

I love you all nu-nu, all of Dobbs' creatures, even lying bigoted
idiots like yourself. Hate is for the cowardly and insecure. You
demonstate that so well.

> Now he hangs out on alt.religion.subgenius,

Thanks for the tip, I will include it in future crossposts.

> and Pay attention to you.

You can't stop Paying attention to me, all I did was cross post my
Venture Communism proposal here, and I've been basking in your generous
attention ever since.

Notice that I have never responding to anything you have said, ever, in
the history of the the universe, *except* when your post is about me or
in response to me? Yup. I'm really clamouring for *your* attention.

Keep up the wishfull thinking nu-nazi.

It's good to see that hope springs eternal, even in the most pathetic.



Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:35:35 -0700

--------
Quirk wrote:
>

Why don't you go away?

You do not belong to our religion, any more
than someone who invades a physical church
and yells at the congregation. Tossing a few
coins in a collection plate does not make you
a member in good standing to any religion.
Reverend Stang has even offered you your money
back, you are such a loser.

We do not like you, we understand the drivel
you are screaming at us, and we appreciate
that it is derivative, juvenile, irresponsible
and unfeasable. But you think that if you just
yell at us loud enough we will embrace your
nonsense.

Go ahead, then, spend hours and hours telling
us how brilliant you are. Eventually even the
most dedicated-to-laughing-at-you will stop
following up to your trolls, which is everything
you have ever written.

I don't even think I will respond to you anymore.
If you kill yourself or something like that, I'm
sure someone will mention it, but other than that...




--


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 15:19:45 -0800

--------

nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Quirk wrote:

> Why don't you go away?

We've covered this.

> You do not belong to our religion,
> any more than someone who invades a physical church
> and yells at the congregation.

We've covered this too.

> Tossing a few coins in a collection plate does not make you
> a member in good standing to any religion.

Actually it does.

> Reverend Stang has even offered you your money
> back, you are such a loser.

Which proves the above.

And in anycase, why would I give up my spot on the spaceship in
exchange for some American pesos. Can you even buy a box of of
cornflakes for $30 still?

> We do not like you, we understand the drivel
> you are screaming at us, and we appreciate
> that it is derivative, juvenile, irresponsible
> and unfeasable.

Which is why are unable to refute any arguments I've presented, and
resort to only insistance and name calling.

> But you think that if you just
> yell at us loud enough we will embrace your
> nonsense.

I'm not the one yelling, that's you.

> Go ahead, then, spend hours and hours telling
> us how brilliant you are.

It has nothing to do with my brilliance, just the logical basis of the
arguments themselves, which you free to dispute, but are unable to.

> Eventually even the
> most dedicated-to-laughing-at-you will stop
> following up to your trolls, which is everything
> you have ever written.

I'll believe it when I see it.

> I don't even think I will respond to you anymore.

A sad, sad loss, given the quality of your contributions.

> If you kill yourself or something like that, I'm
> sure someone will mention it, but other than that...

Awe. You really care. How touching.



Correspondent:: Kevan Smith
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 02:50:33 -0600

--------
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:42:18 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
from Jumping Iguana Industries, Ltd. wrote:

>There is somebody that you would get on great with.
>He also used to annoy everybody on alt.slack, until
>he went away. Now he hangs out on
>alt.religion.subgenius, and if you go there, you
>and he can talk endlessly about how wonderful life
>would be like if you can just somehow take over the
>Church of the SubGenius and make it communist, or
>get us to like you and pay attention to you.
>
>His name is Kevan.

You too.


Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:43:30 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> IDIOTOLOGY TODAY.
>

At last, the one topic on which you are an expert. Your own retarded
half-assed fucked up brain damaged kind.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 04:28:34 -0800

--------

retarded half-assed fucked brain damaged.



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:42:28 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> I'm sorry you haven't given up your dedication to fascism.
>

I'm glad you haven't given up your dedication to making a spectacle of
your pathetic idiocy.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 04:28:04 -0800

--------

pathetic idiocy



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:50:08 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>König wrote:
>
>> I worked for NCPAC
>
>Sorry, I said "it must really suck being you," that was an
>understatement.
>
>It must REALLY, REALLY, REALLY suck to be you.
>
>I'm starting to see why you harbour so much deranged bitterness.
>
>Lucky for you we now have Nenslo's doctrine of Pink Apologist
>Transcendental Slack, which teaches us to see Slack even in a
>Conspiracy loving pink.
>

I do not worry about right or wrong, I'm amoral.

I also had the good luck to work with one of the co-authors
a "Liberal Lefty" who wrote "The Political Image Merchants"

There was an Oregon Young Republicans
(remember "Nuke the Chinks!?) but no
Young Democrats, so we started one and
I pimped for McGovern, Oregon was the only
state that he won, I think.

Instead on NCPAC, I could have worked for Carter's
matching fund committee, but I'd never worked with the
conservatives, so I thought, what the hey!

I'm sure you think that I single-handedly got Reagan elected!
I was trying to get them to put up John Connely, and they spent
$2 million to figure out that he was unelectable.

I'm sure that you are not so blind that you can't feel what's
happening in Europe. So, when the shit finally does hit the fan,
just don't say, "Well, gee! I sure didn't see that coming!"

It doesn't suck too bad to be me, remember that I'm one
of those evil over-privileged White guys.







Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:45:50 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:

> Lucky for you we now have Nenslo's doctrine of Pink Apologist
> Transcendental Slack, which teaches us to see Slack even in a
> Conspiracy loving pink.

DISCLAIMER

This does not in any way represent or resemble anything I have ever said
or thought.


Correspondent:: "Rev. Ivan Stang"
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:48:08 -0500

--------
In article <4214055D.A7C78F49@yahoox.com>, nenslo
wrote:

> Quirk wrote:
>
> > Lucky for you we now have Nenslo's doctrine of Pink Apologist
> > Transcendental Slack, which teaches us to see Slack even in a
> > Conspiracy loving pink.
>
> DISCLAIMER
>
> This does not in any way represent or resemble anything I have ever said
> or thought.


Only a fucking idiot would think you did say that.

--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB


Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:21:55 -0800

--------
"Rev. Ivan Stang" wrote:
>
> In article <4214055D.A7C78F49@yahoox.com>, nenslo
> wrote:
>
> > Quirk wrote:
> >
> > > Lucky for you we now have Nenslo's doctrine of Pink Apologist
> > > Transcendental Slack, which teaches us to see Slack even in a
> > > Conspiracy loving pink.
> >
> > DISCLAIMER
> >
> > This does not in any way represent or resemble anything I have ever said
> > or thought.
>
> Only a fucking idiot would think you did say that.
>

Well thank god there ain't hardly any of them any more.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 17 Feb 2005 11:57:10 -0800

--------

Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:

> Only a fucking idiot would think you did say that.

Inverse no true scottsman fallacy.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:19:28 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
>
>> Only a fucking idiot would think you did say that.
>
>Inverse no true scottsman fallacy.
>

Oh? You've been looking under their kilts?




Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:39:34 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
>
> > Only a fucking idiot would think you did say that.
>
> Inverse no true scottsman fallacy.

Actually he was calling you a fucking idiot you fucking idiot.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 04:36:06 -0800

--------

nenslo wrote:

> > > Only a fucking idiot would think you did say that.

> > Inverse no true Scotsman fallacy.

> Actually he was calling you a fucking idiot you fucking idiot.

No, he was saying that only an idiot would think that, he only
*implied* I am an idiot, buy insisting nobody else would believe that.

Just calling me an idiot would be ad hominem abusive, making the
argument that only idiots believe the statement is an inverse version
of no true Scotsman, exactly as stated.

Both fallacies, admitidly, but different fallacies.

If you all pay attention well enough, once you know the logical
fallacies, perhaps I'll teach you Schopenhauer's Art of Controversy.

I'm really looking forward to the educational possibilities presented
by this endless thread of ours.



Correspondent:: "Rev. Ivan Stang"
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:13:12 -0500

--------
In article <1108730166.695544.156840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Quirk wrote:

> nenslo wrote:
>
> > > > Only a fucking idiot would think you did say that.
>
> > > Inverse no true Scotsman fallacy.
>
> > Actually he was calling you a fucking idiot you fucking idiot.
>
> No, he was saying that only an idiot would think that, he only
> *implied* I am an idiot, buy insisting nobody else would believe that.


Nenslo was correct. I was saying that I consider you to be an idiot.
There is no double meaning or secret meaning. I think you're an idiot.
The fucking part was not meant literally, but was merely inserted for
emphasis. So to speak.


>
> Just calling me an idiot would be ad hominem abusive, making the
> argument that only idiots believe the statement is an inverse version
> of no true Scotsman, exactly as stated.
>
> Both fallacies, admitidly, but different fallacies.
>
> If you all pay attention well enough, once you know the logical
> fallacies, perhaps I'll teach you Schopenhauer's Art of Controversy.
>
> I'm really looking forward to the educational possibilities presented
> by this endless thread of ours.
>

Again, I will happily refund your $30. You do not understand the Church
of the SubGenius and I personally would rather you stop pretending as
if you do.

--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 06:39:17 -0800

--------

Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:

> Nenslo was correct. I was saying that I consider you to be an idiot.

No, he was saying that only an idiot would think that, you only
*implied* I am an idiot, buy insisting nobody else would believe my
statement.

Just calling me an idiot would be ad hominem abusive, making the
argument that only idiots believe the statement is an inverse version
of no true Scotsman, exactly as stated.

Both fallacies, admitidly, but different fallacies.

> There is no double meaning or secret meaning.

Neither did I imply there was one, but it was an indirect, not direct
statement about me, thereby a different form of fallacy.

> I think you're an idiot.

That was clear, however it doesn't change the fact that it was a
inverse no true Scotsman fallacy.

> > I'm really looking forward to the educational possibilities
presented
> > by this endless thread of ours.

> Again, I will happily refund your $30.

I'm not giving up my spaceship ride. You're stuck with me. Luckily you
will learn a lot. Though it might make you mad. Tee hee.

> You do not understand the Church
> of the SubGenius and I personally would rather you stop pretending as
> if you do.

As I said, I do not claim to be an authority of anything, not the
Church of the SubGenius, nor anything else.

Whatever understanding I have is embodied in the statements I make, and
their merit.

If you dispute an assertion, then feel free to refute it.

But anyway, don't worry Stang, I know that you have to keep in mind
what side your bread is buttered, and that if Church revenue is coming
mostly from Right Wing Loons, then I'm a threat to your income.

Hell, tell them the spaceship is painted Pink and that Rush Limbaugh is
the navigator if that will get you their $30.

But if you think responding to me and calling me names will make me
stop posting, you are making a key strategic error.

You just give another post to respond to.



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:41:41 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> Whatever understanding I have is embodied in the statements I make, and
> their merit.

None, and none.
>
> But if you think responding to me and calling me names will make me
> stop posting, you are making a key strategic error.
>

Your delusion that anyone wants you to stop posting is pitiable and
absurd. We LOVE having a dipshit ninny like you to slap around. Your
reactions are so ludicrous! Nobody would ever take you as an example of
a SubGenius because you are so fucking boring and dumb!


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 04:27:42 -0800

--------

delusion pitiable dipshit ninny ludicrous boring dumb



Correspondent:: Rev DJ Epoch
Date: 21 Feb 2005 13:50:42 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote in news:1108988862.873940.322710
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> delusion pitiable dipshit ninny ludicrous boring dumb
>
>

Stupid argumenative encephalytic sperm-burping delusional repetitive envious
jackbooted Nazi-rainman-wannabe psycho jackass frootbat.

Oh yeah, and your mother dresses you funny you discussion-impaired ADHD
poster child.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 09:13:27 -0800

--------

Rev DJ Epoch wrote:

> Oh yeah, and your mother dresses you funny you discussion-impaired
ADHD
> poster child.

First of all, you're only jealous because you wish your mother dressed
YOU funny. Second of all, I am perfectly happy to discuss things. It is
certain others in here who are discussion impaired, and resport to
bitching and crying when they are unable to make an argument.

I continue to respond to all serious comments respectfully.

Idiotic blather and insults I return in kind.



Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 09:16:34 -0800

--------

I guess you didn't get it. I was just summarizing Nenslo's reply to me.

Interesting how you jump in when you see an opportunity to make empty
insults, but you where not nearly as interested in discussing things.

I did, if you recall, respond your arguments.

Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
> "Quirk" wrote in news:1108988862.873940.322710
> @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > delusion pitiable dipshit ninny ludicrous boring dumb
> >
> >
>
> Stupid argumenative encephalytic sperm-burping delusional repetitive
envious
> jackbooted Nazi-rainman-wannabe psycho jackass frootbat.
>
> Oh yeah, and your mother dresses you funny you discussion-impaired
ADHD
> poster child.



Correspondent:: Rev DJ Epoch
Date: 21 Feb 2005 20:41:19 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote in news:1109006194.546480.322180
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> I guess you didn't get it. I was just summarizing Nenslo's reply to me.

I got it. You didn't

>
> Interesting how you jump in when you see an opportunity to make empty
> insults, but you where not nearly as interested in discussing things.

Can't discuss things with someone who only discusses things to hork others
off. Your only reason for being here is to deride and chide and alienate.
Ergo: frootbat.

>
> I did, if you recall, respond your arguments.

If you call that a response, then Iraq is a response to Pres Bush needing
more work for Haliburtion. Same kind of logical though process going on
there.

>
> Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
>> "Quirk" wrote in news:1108988862.873940.322710
>> @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> > delusion pitiable dipshit ninny ludicrous boring dumb
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Stupid argumenative encephalytic sperm-burping delusional repetitive
> envious
>> jackbooted Nazi-rainman-wannabe psycho jackass frootbat.
>>
>> Oh yeah, and your mother dresses you funny you discussion-impaired
> ADHD
>> poster child.
>
>

BTW, TWO responses to ONE of my missives. Gee, musta struck a nerve there.



Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 22 Feb 2005 02:42:28 -0800

--------

Rev DJ Epoch wrote:

> "Quirk" wrote in news:1109006194.546480.322180
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> > I guess you didn't get it. I was just summarizing Nenslo's reply to
me.

> I got it. You didn't

Then explain it. I did.

> > Interesting how you jump in when you see an opportunity to make
empty
> > insults, but you where not nearly as interested in discussing
things.

> Can't discuss things with someone who only discusses things to hork
others
> off. Your only reason for being here is to deride and chide and
alienate.
> Ergo: frootbat.

Clearly, that's not me, since I have responded to many arguments
presented clearly and reasonably. This is just a stance you are taking
to justify your own attempts to deride, chide and alienate.

> > I did, if you recall, respond your arguments.

> If you call that a response, then Iraq is a response to Pres Bush
needing
> more work for Haliburtion. Same kind of logical though process going
on
> there.

False analogy.

My responses to you have been perfectly clear, please quote one you
feel isn't.

But since you bring up the Iraq war, the prime factor there seems to
have been Iraq's selling oil in Euros. It all has to to do with the
Balance of Trade crisis, and the unfolding collapse of the US dollar,
as I mentioned in the Richard Nixon thread.

No doubt some big bucks for Haliburton is a big bonus for crime family
Bush insiders, but the American ruling class in general would not have
allowed it were it not in their interest too.

The fact that worlwide oil trade is denominated in US dollars is one of
the few things keeping US currency barely afloat.

> BTW, TWO responses to ONE of my missives. Gee, musta struck a nerve
there.

Actually, you made at least three responses, to which I only responded
to two, but I'm not sure what meaning you see in this response algebra
of yours.

However if you were able to make an actual coherent argument, you would
not need to resort to such petty self congratulation.



Correspondent:: Rev DJ Epoch
Date: 22 Feb 2005 13:02:48 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote in news:1109068948.824848.246420
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
>
>> "Quirk" wrote in news:1109006194.546480.322180
>> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> > I guess you didn't get it. I was just summarizing Nenslo's reply to
> me.
>
>> I got it. You didn't
>
> Then explain it. I did.
>
>> > Interesting how you jump in when you see an opportunity to make
> empty
>> > insults, but you where not nearly as interested in discussing
> things.
>
>> Can't discuss things with someone who only discusses things to hork
> others
>> off. Your only reason for being here is to deride and chide and
> alienate.
>> Ergo: frootbat.
>
> Clearly, that's not me, since I have responded to many arguments
> presented clearly and reasonably.

Just not any answers that apply to the subject in any meaningful way. Ergo:
frootbat.

> This is just a stance you are taking
> to justify your own attempts to deride, chide and alienate.

Nice try parroting my reply. Come up with original material.

>
>> > I did, if you recall, respond your arguments.
>
>> If you call that a response, then Iraq is a response to Pres Bush
> needing
>> more work for Haliburtion. Same kind of logical though process going
> on
>> there.
>
> False analogy.
>

Much like your false reasoning.

> My responses to you have been perfectly clear, please quote one you
> feel isn't.

See above.

>
> But since you bring up the Iraq war, the prime factor there seems to
> have been Iraq's selling oil in Euros. It all has to to do with the
> Balance of Trade crisis, and the unfolding collapse of the US dollar,
> as I mentioned in the Richard Nixon thread.
>
> No doubt some big bucks for Haliburton is a big bonus for crime family
> Bush insiders, but the American ruling class in general would not have
> allowed it were it not in their interest too.
>
> The fact that worlwide oil trade is denominated in US dollars is one of
> the few things keeping US currency barely afloat.

Another red herring and off the intended subject. Nice try to deflect from
the criticism there 3rdReichPoopyHead, but no score.

>
>> BTW, TWO responses to ONE of my missives. Gee, musta struck a nerve
> there.
>
> Actually, you made at least three responses, to which I only responded
> to two, but I'm not sure what meaning you see in this response algebra
> of yours.
>
> However if you were able to make an actual coherent argument, you would
> not need to resort to such petty self congratulation.
>
>

Ah, but you were obviously miffed enough at the last one to post two
replies. Still must have struck a nerve. Dance, little stick man, dance.



Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 22 Feb 2005 06:22:10 -0800

--------
Rev DJ Epoch wrote:

> "Quirk" wrote in news:1109068948.824848.246420

> > Clearly, that's not me, since I have responded to many arguments
> > presented clearly and reasonably.

> Just not any answers that apply to the subject in any meaningful way.
Ergo:
> frootbat.

By which you mean to say replies that actually have content and not
just name calling. The kind of responses you hate because they make you
feel intellectually insecure. You would rather stick to the name
calling.

> > This is just a stance you are taking
> > to justify your own attempts to deride, chide and alienate.

> Nice try parroting my reply. Come up with original material.

Nice example of your unwillingness to discuss something, and your
dedication to petty, meaningless, bickering.

> > False analogy.

> Much like your false reasoning.

Yet another false analogy. Try substantiating your arguments. I did.

> > The fact that worlwide oil trade is denominated in US dollars is
one of
> > the few things keeping US currency barely afloat.

> Another red herring and off the intended subject. Nice try to deflect
from
> the criticism there 3rdReichPoopyHead, but no score.

Yes, thats right, your desire to post messages that contain nothing but
inane name calling are //the intended subject// and my attempt to
actually make a meaningful, albeit tangentail, statement is
//deflecting criticism.//

Thanks for further demonstrating that you are, as you said, discusion
impaired.

> Ah, but you were obviously miffed enough at the last one to post two
> replies.

Oh yeah, I'm "miffed."

Again, I suggest you try presenting a coherent argument. I guarantee
the satisfaction of actually using your brain will be far better then
yet more fatuous self congratulating.

> Still must have struck a nerve. Dance, little stick man, dance.

Umm, doesn't this comment imply that you are only "discussing things to
hork me off."

Wouldn't that make you, by your "reasoning," a "frootbat."

Never mind, no doubt irony is wasted on you.



Correspondent:: Rev DJ Epoch
Date: 22 Feb 2005 15:50:23 GMT

--------
"Quirk" did his little stickman dance.

"Yawn"



Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 22 Feb 2005 08:13:48 -0800

--------

Yawn.

Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
> "Quirk" did his little stickman dance.
>
> "Yawn"



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:37:47 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> Just calling me an idiot would be ad hominem abusive, making the
> argument that only idiots believe the statement is an inverse version
> of no true Scotsman, exactly as stated.

Just calling you an idiot would be a statement of fact. You aren't even
Scottish, you nazi scum.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 15:29:25 -0800

--------

nenslo wrote:

> You aren't even Scottish,

However the truth of my arguments is not dependant in whether or not I
am Scottish, thus the fallacy.

> you nazi scum.

Now you've sunk to stealing nu-nu's act.

Suits you.



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:27:52 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> nenslo wrote:
>
> > You aren't even Scottish,
>
> However the truth of my arguments is not dependant in whether or not I
> am Scottish, thus the fallacy.

Oh my god! I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT. You just scored your first point. Ever.
> > you nazi scum.
>
> Now you've sunk to stealing nu-nu's act.
>
> Suits you.

That's funny. You were calling HIM a nazi. You can't even keep track
of which idiot you are. Well, just keep worshipping me. Every word you
write to me is a prayer of love. You're not the first lonely computer
geek to come to alt.slack and fall in love with mighty Nenslo. I'll
tell you what I told them. YOU DISGUST ME.


Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:41:43 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> nenslo wrote:
>
> > No, I did not tell you all you need is slack. I told you "the
> SubGenius
> > must have slack." It is not possible to have a shortage of slack.
>
> This sentence makes no sense, like most of this post. You have clearly
> taken this joke too far, you sound like you don't get it anymore.

Actually that was three sentences. I don't know which you think makes
no sense.

>
> > There is no such thing as a "pink" idea.
> Oh Brother. Of *course* there is such a thing as pink idea, in this
> context, the pinks are the bosses, the ones that steal your slack.

You are mistaken.
>
> Slack is a metephore for freedom, like much of the Church's humour, it
> is rooted in taking a word that the targets of the parody (the
> Christian right) would consider bad, and adopting it as a good thing.
> Just like the church's use of words like "abnormal" and the endorsement
> of general debauchery, the things that would be anathema to the
> "pinks."

The term "slack" is only partially a metaphor for freedom. If you
believe that is its meaning, then you have missed the other 90% of the
concept. It is only partially and in very narrow contexts a term
signifying a non-positive thing. There are many real-world uses of the
term as a positive or necessary thing. For example, ropework of any kind.
>
> The Pinks are those that hold the ideology that the Church is
> parodying, the Christian Right, Family Values, Arbeits macht frei
> crowd. They are the pinks, their ideas are pink ideas.

You use the term pink the way the people you profess to despise might
use the word nigger or kike or liberal. You use the term pink as a
pejorative term for the bad "them" people you don't like, and whom you
point out as being the people who use pejorative terms for people and
things they don't like and separate themselves from the people THEY call
"them." If you don't like the way they act, it is better not to act
like them.

> In plain English, what the are you really trying to say?

In plain English, if you don't like people for acting in a certain way,
don't act like them.

>
> > Slack cannot be feared. Every person in the concentration camp is a
> > victim of the system, the guards as well as the prisoners. All are
> > dehumanized and set in opposition to each other by a mere idea which
> > could be dispelled in a moment.
>
> What are you talking about? The 10 cent philosophizing is clear enough,
> your pretending that there is deeper meaning to "slack" that I'm just
> not getting is ridiculous. There may be more subtlety to the inside
> jokes that a casual member like me knows about, but you're really high
> falutin the hell out of it.

There is an exoteric church and an esoteric church. If you have to ask,
then you don't know.

>
> The Church of the SubGenius is, at its essence, a parody of American
> culture, it is a joke at the expense of the Evangelical Christians and
> the Work ethic, with a bunch of other jokes rolled in over its long
> history.

That is the exoteric church.
>
> Once you start using psuedophilosophical mumbo-jumbo, with a straight
> face, to try to explain the "true deeper meaning" of this ongoing joke,
> you no longer get it.

The esoteric church is what YOU don't get.

>
> > I am not defending anyone.
>
> Yes. You are.

Please feel free to provide even one quote demonstrating that.

>
> > I am correcting semantic errors.
>
> How sweet that you feel a need to correct my semantic errors, despite
> your conviction that I am not a true SubGenius, but you feel no need to
> dispute openly racist comments, by those who you do consider true
> SubGeniuses.

There's nothing "sweet" about it. I am doing it because this is being
read by many other people who may benefit from seeing the concept
elaborated. I do not have a conviction that you are not a true
SubGenius. There is no such thing as a true (or false) SubGenius. That
is an example of your own invented terminology which you alone use. I
think you mistakenly believe yourself to be a SubGenius on the terms
which you stated above - that the church is solely a parody of things
you don't like. You have no basis for your statement that I consider
the makers of the openly racist comments to be "true" SubGenii. * There
is no such thing as a "true" or "false" SubGenius.* People make openly
racist comments because they are STUPID and disputation with STUPID
people is fruitless. Which if you have any wit at all you may be able
to read as a compliment.
>
> > Your
> > understanding of key concepts depends on your understanding of key
> > words. You have invented meanings for some terms and behave as if
> that
> > meaning is "real."
>
> Nonsense, I have presented and defended many clear ideas, ideas about
> freedom, equality, politics, philosophy, and economics, *AND* I have
> made every effort to do so in the context of the Church's lingo, since

Your use of church terminology is erroneous as a result of failing to
comprehend its meaning.

>
> You are avoiding understanding the key concepts in my arguments, using
> some cloak of explaining Church semantics as a pretense.

Your use of church terminology is erroneous as a result of failing to
comprehend its meaning.

> > You have created definitions for certain types of
> > people and permitted that definition to become a pejorative term by
> > which to describe anyone who resembles that type of person.
>
> More nonsense, every statement I have made, I have well explained,
> logically, in plain English, any use (or misuse) of SubGenius
> definitions has been peripheral, in tribute to the local lingo, and
> never central to any of my arguments.

You use the term pink as a pejorative label for a type of people you
don't like, in just the same way as they use nigger or kike or liberal
as a pejorative term for people they don't like.

>
> > (Treating
> > an entire class of people as if they are all alike is what prejudice
> and
> > discrimination is.)
>
> And this is something that I have never done, and have tried to explain
> to both nu-monet and König Pruß.

You use the term pink as a pejorative label for a type of people you
don't like, in just the same way as they use nigger or kike or liberal
as a pejorative term for people they don't like.

>
> > You have let two notable dumbasses yank your chain
> > repeatedly
>
> Bullshit, these dumbasses completely believe the spew they posted, it
> is my rebuttals that have caused them to repeatedly blow gaskets.

SUCKER. Those dumbasses are laughing their dumb asses off at you right now.

>
> If they were pulling my chain, that would mean that nu-monet, for
> instance, was trying to get me to post more, which is obviously not the
> case, since he was clearly trying to SHOUT ME DOWN and SHUT ME UP.
> Ditto for his back slappers, like Artemia

As we say on the Internet - LOL YHBT

>
> > and relentlessly and still haven't noticed that they have
> > duped you into making a humiliating spectacle of your reactionary
> > idiocy.
>
> Bullshit, you can't deal with the fact that these dumbasses posted
> bigoted trash, I embarrassed them, and then wouldn't back down when you
> all started back slapping each other in lynch mob solidarity rather
> than deal with the truth.

LOL YHBT

>
> Please furnish a quote of mine which you consider "reactionary idiocy."

Okay. "Bullshit, you can't deal with the fact that these dumbasses
posted bigoted trash, I embarrassed them, and then wouldn't back down
when you all started back slapping each other in lynch mob solidarity
rather than deal with the truth."

>
> What is this, the Vatican? Give up this holy of holies crap. This is
> the Church of SubGenius we are taking about, not the fucking solar
> temple.

There is the exoteric church and the esoteric church.
>
> I claim no authority on ANYTHING. My arguments speak for themselves,
> and whatever authority they have is derived from their merit, not some
> bullshit standing I claim.

Which is why they have no authority and are erroneous.

> I am not riled up in the slightest. I like usenet. I've been here for a
> long time.

Yet you haven't learned to spot a troll.

>
> I would rather ANNOY THE FUCK OUT OF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU, than be
> complicit in making somebody who is black, Jewish, or DOBBS FORBID, not
> an anti-communist reactionary, feel uncomfortable around here because
> of the bigots and their back slappers.

You've made a good start on that first part. Helping people feel
comfortable is where you need to do a little more refining of your technique.

>
> > There is no such thing as a pink idea.
>
> Wrong, but *OK*, lets just call them stupid, bigoted ideas then.
>
> > > Not that they do not belong among us. Thats your
> > > game. And their's.
>
> > I cannot imagine how you came to that conclusion about me short of
> sheer
> > dumbassedness and your desire to paint people who do not share your
> > convictions in the pinkest possible shade.
>
> Oh, but your conclusions about me come from extensive research of my
> history and life's work right?

This does not clarify the manner in which you came to that conclusion.

>
> Duh. I came to my conclusion because YOU SAID SO, you said I was not a
> real SubGenius, creating an US and THEM dichotomy, exactly as stated.

I never said you are not a real SubGenius. The creation of dichotomies
is not a criterion for the recognition of the SubGenius.

>
> "A Sub will TAKE THE RAP LIKE A MAN, but a Pink will go to the
> trouble
> of joining a LYNCH mob just to avoid admitting he might have
> goofed."
> -- Rev. Ivan Stang, Hour of Slack #64

EXACTLY. You told that very same guy that his telling you that you got
it all wrong is proof that you got it all right. Way to take the rap, man.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 17 Feb 2005 10:43:36 -0800

--------
nenslo wrote:

> The term "slack" is only partially a metaphor for freedom. If you
> believe that is its meaning, then you have missed the other 90% of
the
> concept. It is only partially and in very narrow contexts a term
> signifying a non-positive thing.

Perhaps I have, but these alleged subtle meanings of Slack have never
been central to any arguments I have presented. As a casual member, I
am content to limit my usage to the most common form.

> There are many real-world uses of the
> term as a positive or necessary thing. For example, ropework of any
kind.

Which is why it is a metaphor, since alt.slack is not widely considered
to be place to discuss the tightness of rope.

> > The Pinks are those that hold the ideology that the Church is
> > parodying, the Christian Right, Family Values, Arbeits macht frei
> > crowd. They are the pinks, their ideas are pink ideas.

> You use the term pink the way the people you profess to despise might
> use the word nigger or kike or liberal.

Not //despise// but disagree with. I have said many times I do not
despise any of these people. Pitty, yes. Eagerly mock, yes. Despise,
no.

> You use the term pink as a
> pejorative term for the bad "them" people you don't like, and whom
you
> point out as being the people who use pejorative terms for people and
> things they don't like and separate themselves from the people THEY
call
> "them." If you don't like the way they act, it is better not to act
> like them.

I do not act like them, for one, I do not promote their exclusion based
upon our disagreements, this alone refutes the concept that I making an
"us and them" dichotomy. Unless you think that making any disagreement
with anybody creates such.

And If would like me to quote examples of promenant Subs, including
Stang, using "pink" in pejorative sense, I would be happy to.

> > In plain English, what the are you really trying to say?

> In plain English, if you don't like people for acting in a certain
way,
> don't act like them.

I'm not. I'm acting like a SubGenius, or a smart ass of any stripe,
does when confronted with idiocy in a public forum.

> > What are you talking about? The 10 cent philosophizing is clear
enough,
> > your pretending that there is deeper meaning to "slack" that I'm
just
> > not getting is ridiculous. There may be more subtlety to the inside
> > jokes that a casual member like me knows about, but you're really
high
> > falutin the hell out of it.

> There is an exoteric church and an esoteric church. If you have to
ask,
> then you don't know.

Ok. I don't know. Why should I want to?

I like the comedic exoteric church I know. Esoteric churches are a dime
a dozen, why should a I ruin a perfectly good joke by getting all
mystical about it when I already have Lao Tzu?

The Slack that can be written is not Slack.

> > > I am not defending anyone.

> > Yes. You are.

> Please feel free to provide even one quote demonstrating that.

When you said "Those are the SUBGENIUSES" and described my linked
article as being boring, and then later said "fuck you," I took that to
be a defense of the people I was describing as rednecks. But now that
you have explained that you are part of an esoteric inner circle of the
Church of the SubGenius I agree that I may have misunderstood you, so
if you say you are not defending them, OK I believe you, we can move
on. They seem to think you are on their side, however, but that is not
my business really, that's between you and them.

> > How sweet that you feel a need to correct my semantic errors,
despite
> > your conviction that I am not a true SubGenius, but you feel no
need to
> > dispute openly racist comments, by those who you do consider true
> > SubGeniuses.

> There's nothing "sweet" about it. I am doing it because this is
being
> read by many other people who may benefit from seeing the concept
> elaborated.

Funny, that is exactly the same reasoning that I am using for my
continued participation, except rather then explaining the finer points
of esoteric slack, I am explained that bigotry is bad. Frankly, I am
surprised that is such a controversial stance around here.

> I do not have a conviction that you are not a true
> SubGenius. There is no such thing as a true (or false) SubGenius.

Well, when you said "The fact that you equate paying $30 dollars with
being a subgenius demonstrates that you aren't one" I took it to mean
what is says, that in your opinion I have demonstrated that am am not a
SubGenius. That seems to contradict with what you are now saying.
However we don't need to get bogged down here, if that is not the way
you meant it, I can accept that.

> People make openly racist comments because they are STUPID

I absolutely agree with you.

> and disputation with STUPID people is fruitless.

I don't think so, primarily for two reasons, 1) if you allow bigots to
spew hatred and back slap each other without anybody challenging them
you create the wrong impression for casual participants who may be
intimidated by these losers,or who may just assume that everyone here
is like them. This, in social justice circles, is "2) keeping the
subject open provides the chance that an actual intelligent participant
may jump in, such as Polar Bear joining this thread.

There are limits of course, and I admit that if this was the newsgroup
of an organization I respected less that the Church of the SubGenius I
would have shrugged and moved on long ago.

> > Nonsense, I have presented and defended many clear ideas, ideas
about
> > freedom, equality, politics, philosophy, and economics, *AND* I
have
> > made every effort to do so in the context of the Church's lingo,
since
>
> Your use of church terminology is erroneous as a result of failing to
> comprehend its meaning.

Perhaps, however it is consistent with common usage, and my arguments
do not depend on it, but are clear in any case.

> > You are avoiding understanding the key concepts in my arguments,
using
> > some cloak of explaining Church semantics as a pretense.

> Your use of church terminology is erroneous as a result of failing to
> comprehend its meaning.

Perhaps, but I am not sure how that would keep anyone from
comprehending my arguments.

And also, there are plenty examples of Church leaders, including Stang,
using the terms in a similar way, if that is some exoteric/esoteric
duality, then it should be clear that a casual member like me would be
using the exoteric meanings.

> > Bullshit, these dumbasses completely believe the spew they posted,
it
> > is my rebuttals that have caused them to repeatedly blow gaskets.

> SUCKER. Those dumbasses are laughing their dumb asses off at you
right now.

Sorry, I just to don't see them laughing, if they where laughing it
would be their intention to provoke me to post more, it is quite clear
from their comments to me and to each other that they want to shut me
up. They want to shut me up because they do not like my arguments and
can not refute them.

> As we say on the Internet - LOL YHBT

Quite the opposite.

I am possibly the only person who has been nominated for HLS and KOTM
in the same month in 1997, despite this being impossible according to
the definition of KOTM, since the rules say a kook can't be a troll. I
have been been interned in the Killfile Dungeon, I have allegedly cause
the biggest cancel war in usenet history. Not to mention, numerous
flame wars with legendary kooks, cranks and wannabe censors over the
last decade. I may not have written the book on usenet provocation, but
I certainly contributed a chapter or two.

In otherwords, you all HBT.

However, I am not one of this new generation of Troll that just posts
inflametory nonsense to get a rise out of people. I am an old school
agit-prop Troll.

> > Bullshit, you can't deal with the fact that these dumbasses posted
> > bigoted trash, I embarrassed them, and then wouldn't back down when
you
> > all started back slapping each other in lynch mob solidarity rather
> > than deal with the truth.

> LOL YHBT

Open your eyes Nenslo, these people are real life Bigots and Right Wing
loons, they would like nothing more than for me to just shut up.

There is a funny dynamic to a group, all groups become their members.
And all groups feel attacked when their members are attacked. This is
why so many people here would rather back-slap the bigots than confront
the reality that there are bigots among them.

I would prefer that we confront them. Who knows they may learn
something from the experience, or at least a passer-by would not get
the idea that the bigots and right wing loons are the true
representation of the Church.


> > Please furnish a quote of mine which you consider "reactionary
idiocy."

> Okay. "Bullshit, you can't deal with the fact that these dumbasses
> posted bigoted trash, I embarrassed them, and then wouldn't back down
> when you all started back slapping each other in lynch mob solidarity
> rather than deal with the truth."

Great quote. One of the best and clearest in my last article. I se
nothing eather reactionary or idiotic about it.

> > I claim no authority on ANYTHING. My arguments speak for
themselves,
> > and whatever authority they have is derived from their merit, not
some
> > bullshit standing I claim.

> Which is why they have no authority and are erroneous.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

> > I am not riled up in the slightest. I like usenet. I've been here
for a
> > long time.

> Yet you haven't learned to spot a troll.

Yes, I have, the legendary ones I know personally. These people are not
trolling, my agitation has provoked them to show their true colours.

> > I would rather ANNOY THE FUCK OUT OF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU, than
be
> > complicit in making somebody who is black, Jewish, or DOBBS FORBID,
not
> > an anti-communist reactionary, feel uncomfortable around here
because
> > of the bigots and their back slappers.

> You've made a good start on that first part.

The bigots around here should learn from Mark Twain; "Never pick a
fight
with anyone who buys their ink by the barrel."

> Helping people feel comfortable is where you need to do a little more

> refining of your technique.

Here we have a difference of opinion.

Regards.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:02:42 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>nenslo wrote:
>
>> The term "slack" is only partially a metaphor for freedom. If you
>> believe that is its meaning, then you have missed the other 90% of
>the
>> concept. It is only partially and in very narrow contexts a term
>> signifying a non-positive thing.
>
>Perhaps I have, but these alleged subtle meanings of Slack have never
>been central to any arguments I have presented. As a casual member, I
>am content to limit my usage to the most common form.
>
>> There are many real-world uses of the
>> term as a positive or necessary thing. For example, ropework of any
>kind.
>
>Which is why it is a metaphor, since alt.slack is not widely considered
>to be place to discuss the tightness of rope.
>
>> > The Pinks are those that hold the ideology that the Church is
>> > parodying, the Christian Right, Family Values, Arbeits macht frei
>> > crowd. They are the pinks, their ideas are pink ideas.
>
>> You use the term pink the way the people you profess to despise might
>> use the word nigger or kike or liberal.
>
>Not //despise// but disagree with. I have said many times I do not
>despise any of these people. Pitty, yes. Eagerly mock, yes. Despise,
>no.
>
>> You use the term pink as a
>> pejorative term for the bad "them" people you don't like, and whom
>you
>> point out as being the people who use pejorative terms for people and
>> things they don't like and separate themselves from the people THEY
>call
>> "them." If you don't like the way they act, it is better not to act
>> like them.
>
>I do not act like them, for one, I do not promote their exclusion based
>upon our disagreements, this alone refutes the concept that I making an
>"us and them" dichotomy. Unless you think that making any disagreement
>with anybody creates such.
>
>And If would like me to quote examples of promenant Subs, including
>Stang, using "pink" in pejorative sense, I would be happy to.
>
>> > In plain English, what the are you really trying to say?
>
>> In plain English, if you don't like people for acting in a certain
>way,
>> don't act like them.
>
>I'm not. I'm acting like a SubGenius, or a smart ass of any stripe,
>does when confronted with idiocy in a public forum.
>
>> > What are you talking about? The 10 cent philosophizing is clear
>enough,
>> > your pretending that there is deeper meaning to "slack" that I'm
>just
>> > not getting is ridiculous. There may be more subtlety to the inside
>> > jokes that a casual member like me knows about, but you're really
>high
>> > falutin the hell out of it.
>
>> There is an exoteric church and an esoteric church. If you have to
>ask,
>> then you don't know.
>
>Ok. I don't know. Why should I want to?
>
>I like the comedic exoteric church I know. Esoteric churches are a dime
>a dozen, why should a I ruin a perfectly good joke by getting all
>mystical about it when I already have Lao Tzu?
>
>The Slack that can be written is not Slack.
>
>> > > I am not defending anyone.
>
>> > Yes. You are.
>
>> Please feel free to provide even one quote demonstrating that.
>
>When you said "Those are the SUBGENIUSES" and described my linked
>article as being boring, and then later said "fuck you," I took that to
>be a defense of the people I was describing as rednecks. But now that
>you have explained that you are part of an esoteric inner circle of the
>Church of the SubGenius I agree that I may have misunderstood you, so
>if you say you are not defending them, OK I believe you, we can move
>on. They seem to think you are on their side, however, but that is not
>my business really, that's between you and them.
>
>> > How sweet that you feel a need to correct my semantic errors,
>despite
>> > your conviction that I am not a true SubGenius, but you feel no
>need to
>> > dispute openly racist comments, by those who you do consider true
>> > SubGeniuses.
>
>> There's nothing "sweet" about it. I am doing it because this is
>being
>> read by many other people who may benefit from seeing the concept
>> elaborated.
>
>Funny, that is exactly the same reasoning that I am using for my
>continued participation, except rather then explaining the finer points
>of esoteric slack, I am explained that bigotry is bad. Frankly, I am
>surprised that is such a controversial stance around here.
>
>> I do not have a conviction that you are not a true
>> SubGenius. There is no such thing as a true (or false) SubGenius.
>
>Well, when you said "The fact that you equate paying $30 dollars with
>being a subgenius demonstrates that you aren't one" I took it to mean
>what is says, that in your opinion I have demonstrated that am am not a
>SubGenius. That seems to contradict with what you are now saying.
>However we don't need to get bogged down here, if that is not the way
>you meant it, I can accept that.
>
>> People make openly racist comments because they are STUPID
>
>I absolutely agree with you.
>
>> and disputation with STUPID people is fruitless.
>
>I don't think so, primarily for two reasons, 1) if you allow bigots to
>spew hatred and back slap each other without anybody challenging them
>you create the wrong impression for casual participants who may be
>intimidated by these losers,or who may just assume that everyone here
>is like them. This, in social justice circles, is "2) keeping the
>subject open provides the chance that an actual intelligent participant
>may jump in, such as Polar Bear joining this thread.
>
>There are limits of course, and I admit that if this was the newsgroup
>of an organization I respected less that the Church of the SubGenius I
>would have shrugged and moved on long ago.
>
>> > Nonsense, I have presented and defended many clear ideas, ideas
>about
>> > freedom, equality, politics, philosophy, and economics, *AND* I
>have
>> > made every effort to do so in the context of the Church's lingo,
>since
>>
>> Your use of church terminology is erroneous as a result of failing to
>> comprehend its meaning.
>
>Perhaps, however it is consistent with common usage, and my arguments
>do not depend on it, but are clear in any case.
>
>> > You are avoiding understanding the key concepts in my arguments,
>using
>> > some cloak of explaining Church semantics as a pretense.
>
>> Your use of church terminology is erroneous as a result of failing to
>> comprehend its meaning.
>
>Perhaps, but I am not sure how that would keep anyone from
>comprehending my arguments.
>
>And also, there are plenty examples of Church leaders, including Stang,
>using the terms in a similar way, if that is some exoteric/esoteric
>duality, then it should be clear that a casual member like me would be
>using the exoteric meanings.
>
>> > Bullshit, these dumbasses completely believe the spew they posted,
>it
>> > is my rebuttals that have caused them to repeatedly blow gaskets.
>
>> SUCKER. Those dumbasses are laughing their dumb asses off at you
>right now.
>
>Sorry, I just to don't see them laughing, if they where laughing it
>would be their intention to provoke me to post more, it is quite clear
>from their comments to me and to each other that they want to shut me
>up. They want to shut me up because they do not like my arguments and
>can not refute them.
>
>> As we say on the Internet - LOL YHBT
>
>Quite the opposite.
>
>I am possibly the only person who has been nominated for HLS and KOTM
>in the same month in 1997, despite this being impossible according to
>the definition of KOTM, since the rules say a kook can't be a troll. I
>have been been interned in the Killfile Dungeon, I have allegedly cause
>the biggest cancel war in usenet history. Not to mention, numerous
>flame wars with legendary kooks, cranks and wannabe censors over the
>last decade. I may not have written the book on usenet provocation, but
>I certainly contributed a chapter or two.
>
>In otherwords, you all HBT.
>
>However, I am not one of this new generation of Troll that just posts
>inflametory nonsense to get a rise out of people. I am an old school
>agit-prop Troll.
>
>> > Bullshit, you can't deal with the fact that these dumbasses posted
>> > bigoted trash, I embarrassed them, and then wouldn't back down when
>you
>> > all started back slapping each other in lynch mob solidarity rather
>> > than deal with the truth.
>
>> LOL YHBT
>
>Open your eyes Nenslo, these people are real life Bigots and Right Wing
>loons, they would like nothing more than for me to just shut up.
>
>There is a funny dynamic to a group, all groups become their members.
>And all groups feel attacked when their members are attacked. This is
>why so many people here would rather back-slap the bigots than confront
>the reality that there are bigots among them.
>
>I would prefer that we confront them. Who knows they may learn
>something from the experience, or at least a passer-by would not get
>the idea that the bigots and right wing loons are the true
>representation of the Church.
>
>
>> > Please furnish a quote of mine which you consider "reactionary
>idiocy."
>
>> Okay. "Bullshit, you can't deal with the fact that these dumbasses
>> posted bigoted trash, I embarrassed them, and then wouldn't back down
>> when you all started back slapping each other in lynch mob solidarity
>> rather than deal with the truth."
>
>Great quote. One of the best and clearest in my last article. I se
>nothing eather reactionary or idiotic about it.
>
>> > I claim no authority on ANYTHING. My arguments speak for
>themselves,
>> > and whatever authority they have is derived from their merit, not
>some
>> > bullshit standing I claim.
>
>> Which is why they have no authority and are erroneous.
>
>Yes, I absolutely agree.
>
>> > I am not riled up in the slightest. I like usenet. I've been here
>for a
>> > long time.
>
>> Yet you haven't learned to spot a troll.
>
>Yes, I have, the legendary ones I know personally. These people are not
>trolling, my agitation has provoked them to show their true colours.
>
>> > I would rather ANNOY THE FUCK OUT OF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU, than
>be
>> > complicit in making somebody who is black, Jewish, or DOBBS FORBID,
>not
>> > an anti-communist reactionary, feel uncomfortable around here
>because
>> > of the bigots and their back slappers.
>
>> You've made a good start on that first part.
>
>The bigots around here should learn from Mark Twain; "Never pick a
>fight
> with anyone who buys their ink by the barrel."
>

Mark Twain also said:
"I don't have too many opinions,
and those I have I don't hold too strongly."

Twain bought ink by the barrel, and bombed in the publishing business.

See? There's a sucker born every minute.





Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 17 Feb 2005 11:48:54 -0800

--------

König, please learn the fine art of trimming your posts.

König wrote:

> Mark Twain also said:
> "I don't have too many opinions,
> and those I have I don't hold too strongly."

Speaking of Mark Twain:

Archimedes
by Mark Twain

"Give me whereon to stand", said Archimedes, "and I will move the
earth." The boast was a pretty safe one, for he knew quite well that
the standing place was wanting, and always would be wanting. But
suppose he had moved the earth, what then? What benefit would it have
been to anybody?

The job would never have paid working expenses, let alone dividends,
and so what was the use of talking about it? From what astronomers tell
us, I should reckon that the earth moved quite fast enough already, and
if there happened to be a few cranks who were dissatisfied with its
rate of progress, as far as I am concerned, they might push it along
for themselves; I would not move a finger or subscribe a penny piece to
assist in anything of the kind.

Why such a fellow as Archimedes should be looked upon as a genius I
never could understand; I never heard that he made a pile, or did
anything else worth talking about. As for that last contract he took in
hand, it was the worst bungle I ever knew; he undertook to keep the
Romans out of Syracuse; he tried first one dodge and then another, but
they got in after all, and when it came to fair fighting he was out of
it altogether, a common soldier in a very business-like sort of way
settling all his pretensions.


It is evident that he was an over-rated man. He was in the habit of
making a lot of fuss about his screws and levers, but his knowledge of
mechanics was in reality of a very limited character. I have never set
up for a genius myself, but I know of a mechanical force more powerful
than anything the vaunting engineer of Syracuse ever dreamed of. It is
the force of land monopoly; it is a screw and lever all in one; it will
screw the last penny out of a man's pocket, and bend everything on
earth to its own despotic will. Give me the private ownership of all
the land, and will I move the earth? No; but I will do more. I will
undertake to make slaves of all the human beings on the face of it. Not
chattel slaves exactly, but slaves nevertheless. What an idiot I would
be to make chattel slaves of them. I would have to find them salts and
senna when they were sick, and whip them to work when they were lazy.


No, it is not good enough. Under the system I propose the fools would
imagine they were all free. I would get a maximum of results, and have
no responsibility whatever. They would cultivate the soil; they would
dive into the bowels of the earth for its hidden treasures; they would
build cities and construct railways and telegraphs; their ships would
navigate the ocean; they would work and work, and invent and contrive;
their warehouses would be full, their markets glutted, and:


The beauty of the whole concern would be
That everything they made would belong to me.

It would be this way, you see: As I owned all the land, they would of
course, have to pay me rent. They could not reasonably expect me to
allow them the use of the land for nothing. I am not a hard man, and in
fixing the rent I would be very liberal with them. I would allow them,
in fact, to fix it themselves. What could be fairer? Here is a piece of
land, let us say, it might be a farm, it might be a building site, or
it might be something else - if there was only one man who wanted it,
of course he would not offer me much, but if the land be really worth
anything such a circumstance is not likely to happen. On the contrary,
there would be a number who would want it, and they would go on bidding
and bidding one against the other, in order to get it. I should accept
the highest offer - what could be fairer? Every increase of population,
extension of trade, every advance in the arts and sciences would, as we
all know, increase the value of land, and the competition that would
naturally arise would continue to force rents upward, so much so, that
in many cases the tenants would have little or nothing left for
themselves.

In this case a number of those who were hard pushed would seek to
borrow, and as for those who were not so hard pushed, they would, as a
matter of course, get the idea into their heads that if they only had
more capital they could extend their operations, and thereby make their
business more profitable. Here I am again. The very man they stand in
need of; a regular benefactor of my species, and always ready to oblige
them. With such an enormous rent-roll I could furnish them with funds
up to the full extent of the available security; they would not expect
me to do more, and in the matter of interest I would be equally
generous.


I would allow them to fix the rate of it themselves in precisely the
same manner as they had fixed the rent. I should then have them by the
wool, and if they failed in their payments it would be the easiest
thing in the world to sell them out. They might bewail their lot, but
business is business. They should have worked harder and been more
provident. Whatever inconvenience they might suffer, it would be their
concern, and not mine. What a glorious time I would have of it! Rent
and interest, interest and rent, and no limit to either, excepting the
ability of the workers to pay. Rents would go up and up, and they would
continue to pledge and mortgage, and as they went bung, bung, one after
another, it would be the finest sport ever seen. thus, from the simple
leverage of land monopoly, not only the great globe itself, but
everything on the face of it would eventually belong to me. I would be
king and lord of all, and the rest of mankind would be my most willing
slaves.


It hardly needs to be said that it would not be consistent with my
dignity to associate with the common rank and file of humanity; it
would not be politic to say so, but, as a matter of fact, I not only
hate work but I hate those who do work, and I would not have their
stinking carcasses near me at any price. High above the contemptible
herd I would sit enthroned amid a circle of devoted worshippers. I
would choose for myself companions after my own heart. I would deck
them with ribbons and gewgaws to tickle their vanity; they would esteem
it an honour to kiss my glove, and would pay homage to the very chair
that I sat upon; brave men would die for me, parsons would pray for me,
and bright-eyed beauty would pander to my pleasures. For the proper
management of public affairs I would have a parliament, and for the
preservation of law and order there would be soldiers and policemen,
all sworn to serve me faithfully; their pay would not be much, but
their high sense of duty would be a sufficient guarantee that they
would fulfil the terms of the contract.


Outside the charmed circle of my society would be others eagerly
pressing forward in the hope of sharing my favours; outside of these
would be others again who would be forever seeking to wriggle
themselves into the ranks of those in front of them, and so on, outward
and downward, until we reach the deep ranks of the workers forever
toiling and forever struggling merely to live, and with the hell of
poverty forever threatening to engulf them. The hell of poverty, that
outer realm of darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing
of teeth - the social Gehenna, where the worm dieth not, and the fire
is not quenched - here is a whip more effective by far than the keenest
lash of the chattel slave owner, urging them on by day, haunting their
dreams by night, draining without stint the life blood from their
veins, and pursuing them with relentless constancy to their graves. In
the buoyancy of youth many would start full of hope and with high
expectations; but, as they journeyed along, disappointment would follow
disappointment, hope would gradually give place to despair, the
promised cup of joy would be turned to bitterness, and the holiest
affection would become a poisoned arrow quivering in the heart!


What a beautiful arrangement - ambition urging in front, want and the
fear of want bringing up the rear! In the conflicting interests that
would be involved, in the throat-cutting competition that would
prevail, in the bitterness that would be engendered between man and
man, husband and wife, father and son, I should, of course, have no
part. There would be lying and cheating, harsh treatment by masters,
dishonesty of servants, strikes and lockouts, assaults and
intimidation, family feuds and interminable broils; but they would not
concern Me. In the serene atmosphere of my earthly paradise I would be
safe from all evil. I would feast on the daintiest of dishes, and sip
wines of the choicest vintage; my gardens would have the most
magnificent terraces and the finest walks. I would roam mid the
umbrageous foliage of the trees, the blooming flowers, the warbling of
birds, the jetting of fountains, and the splashing of pellucid waters.
My palace would have its walls of alabaster and domes of crystal, there
would be furniture of the most exquisite workmanship, carpets and
hangings of the richest fabrics and finest textures, carvings and
paintings that were miracles of art, vessels of gold and silver, gems
of the purest ray glittering in their settings, the voluptuous strains
of the sweetest music, the perfume of roses, the softest of couches, a
horde of titled lackeys to come and go at my bidding, and a perfect
galaxy of beauty to stimulate desire, and administer to my enjoyment.
Thus would I pass the happy hours away, while throughout the world it
would be a hallmark of respectability to extol my virtues, and anthems
would be everywhere sung in praise.


Archimedes never dreamt of anything like that. Yet, with the earth for
my fulcrum and its private ownership for my lever, it is all possible.
If it should be said that the people would eventually detect the fraud,
and with swift vengeance hurl me and all my courtly parasites to
perdition, I answer, "Nothing of the kind, the people are as good as
gold, and would stand it like bricks - and I appeal to the facts of
today to bear me witness."



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:17:09 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>König, please learn the fine art of trimming your posts.
>


If I trim posts, then you'll accuse me of quoting out of context.

Also, Twain used the dreaded "N" word.





Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 04:21:49 -0800

--------

König wrote:

> If I trim posts, then you'll accuse me of quoting out of context.

No, I wont. You only need to quote whatever specific statement you are
responding to. The rest of the context is preserved in usenet archives
world wide.

> Also, Twain used the dreaded "N" word.

There is no such thing as dreaded words, it is what you mean that
matters.

Yes, my eyes are closed to your light. I am an animal, a nigger. But
I can
be saved. You are fake niggers; maniacs, savages, misers, all of you.

Businessman, you're a nigger; judge, you're a nigger; general, you're
a
nigger; emperor, old scratch-head, you're a nigger: you've drunk a
liquor
no one taxes, from Satan's still. This nation is inspired by fever
and
cancer. Invalids and old men are so respectable that they ask to be
boiled.

-- Arthur Rimbaud



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:15:48 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>König wrote:
>
>> If I trim posts, then you'll accuse me of quoting out of context.
>
>No, I wont. You only need to quote whatever specific statement you are
>responding to. The rest of the context is preserved in usenet archives
>world wide.
>
>> Also, Twain used the dreaded "N" word.
>
>There is no such thing as dreaded words, it is what you mean that
>matters.
>
> Yes, my eyes are closed to your light. I am an animal, a nigger. But
>I can
> be saved. You are fake niggers; maniacs, savages, misers, all of you.
>
> Businessman, you're a nigger; judge, you're a nigger; general, you're
>a
> nigger; emperor, old scratch-head, you're a nigger: you've drunk a
>liquor
> no one taxes, from Satan's still. This nation is inspired by fever
>and
> cancer. Invalids and old men are so respectable that they ask to be
>boiled.
>
> -- Arthur Rimbaud
>


Oh, yeah! I've liked Rimbaud for a long time.
I first read his "Drunken Boat" in my freshman year
World Lit course. Too bad he died so young!

I like Artaud a lot, too; he was eating peyote way back in 1934!
http://www.antoninartaud.org/home.html

You maybe have heard of the Procustean Bed?
Procrustes
From Wikipedia
In Greek mythology, Procrustes ("the stretcher")
was a bandit from Attica killed by Theseus. In Eleusis,
he had a bed which he invited passersby to lie down in.
When they did so, he either stretched them or cut off body
parts to make them fit into the bed. He continued this until
he encountered Theseus and ended up in his own bed.

Procrustes was only a nickname for Damastus or Polypemon.

Any attempt to reduce men to one standard, one way of thinking,
or one way of acting, is called placing them on Procrustes' bed,
and the person who makes the attempt is called Procrustes.

Ovid VII, 438.

The moral of the story is used as a metaphor for life: I make my own bed, and lie in it.


The American Heritage® Dictionary
procrustean bed
An arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced.

You know, they just finished the Westminster Dog Show,
and there were 165 breeds and varieties. I think that you
are doing a great harm to the Human Race by restricting
it to five rigid categories. You are making a Procrustean bed.

Yet, any attempts at further classifying humankind are decried as "racism"

If this be treason, let us make the most of it...
















Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 07:54:01 -0800

--------

König wrote:

> Yet, any attempts at further classifying humankind are decried as
"racism"

This is nonsence and you know it König, medical science for instance
further classifies human beings, as do hair dressers and restaurants,
nobody consideres this racism.

Yes, human beings are diverse, that is not in dispute.

The are however morally equal, and each of us has as much claim to the
planet, to belonging and to our rights as any other.

It is when you justify oppression or exclusion based on our different
characteristics that it becomes racism, although the fallacy you are
attempting is commonly used by racists.



Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:20:30 GMT

--------

Most of you have probably heard of the "hoop snake," so named because
some wanker began to promote the idea that the critter actually took its
own tail in its mouth and rolled about like a wheel as a form of travel.

This is rather difficult to do while clenching a pipe in your teeth and
grinning like a 6-ton jackass, but you must admit, its admirable that so
many keep practicing as hard as they do.

Dobbs bless the little SubGenii; they fear and they abide.

--

HellPope Huey
I'm replacing Conan O'Brien in November.
Tune in, won't you?

Just as every conviction begins as a whim
so does every emancipator
serve his apprenticeship as a crank.
~Heywood Broun

"I'm going to go into rap music;
I'm going to call myself 'Muff Daddy.'"
- Eric Idle


Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:20:34 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>König wrote:
>
>> Yet, any attempts at further classifying humankind are decried as
>"racism"
>
>This is nonsence and you know it König, medical science for instance
>further classifies human beings, as do hair dressers and restaurants,
>nobody consideres this racism.
>
>Yes, human beings are diverse, that is not in dispute.
>
>The are however morally equal, and each of us has as much claim to the
>planet, to belonging and to our rights as any other.
>
>It is when you justify oppression or exclusion based on our different
>characteristics that it becomes racism, although the fallacy you are
>attempting is commonly used by racists.
>

No, I do not "know" that!
This is from Goethe's "Faustus"

One thing I know
That time has proven true
He only earns his freedom
Who each day conquers it anew


Get up off of your tired ass bitter weeds





Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 08:42:03 -0800

--------

Goethe also said, "The great ones of the world have taken this earth of
ours to themselves; they live in the midst of splender and superfluity.
The smallest nook of the land is already a possession; none may touch
it or meddle with it."

Notice he includes himself in "ours," but not in "themselves" nor
"they."

So he well understood the role of land monopoly.

Freedom for some is inhereted, thus it is not won everyday anew as he
would have it.

I do not endorse correcting inequality by granting special privilege to
those who are underprivileged. Rather I endorse the elimination of
privilege itself, which is rooted in private ownership of land and
always has been.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:16:06 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>Goethe also said, "The great ones of the world have taken this earth of
>ours to themselves; they live in the midst of splender and superfluity.
>The smallest nook of the land is already a possession; none may touch
>it or meddle with it."
>
>Notice he includes himself in "ours," but not in "themselves" nor
>"they."
>
>So he well understood the role of land monopoly.
>
>Freedom for some is inhereted, thus it is not won everyday anew as he
>would have it.
>
>I do not endorse correcting inequality by granting special privilege to
>those who are underprivileged. Rather I endorse the elimination of
>privilege itself, which is rooted in private ownership of land and
>always has been.
>


So, Faust, an architect and civil engineer sort of a guy,
sold his soul to the Devil in order to improve Man's lot.
I don't think you have that much training or are willing
to go that far.





Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 09:21:25 -0800

--------

König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:

> So, Faust, an architect and civil engineer sort of a guy,
> sold his soul to the Devil in order to improve Man's lot.
> I don't think you have that much training or are willing
> to go that far.

Correct.

I'm content to simply study the economic environment, figure out how to
hack it, and explain my hack to others, who can try or not as they
please.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:03:15 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:
>
>> So, Faust, an architect and civil engineer sort of a guy,
>> sold his soul to the Devil in order to improve Man's lot.
>> I don't think you have that much training or are willing
>> to go that far.
>
>Correct.
>
>I'm content to simply study the economic environment, figure out how to
>hack it, and explain my hack to others, who can try or not as they
>please.
>

Well, you aren't producing any kind of "breakthrough"
economic theories.

You walk by the Reichstag with your hands in your
pockets of pants made by Sam the Tailor and think
about what you might do, or what might have been.

OK, map it. There's econometrics. Not about what
you think, but what is. That Alan Greenspan guy,
his days are numbered. I will not let a Jew tell me
about how to manage my money. Game over, dOOd.
Remember Mo Greene? Shot thru the eyeball with a .22?
If I have to. No more Jews telling me how to run my house.
Sorry!

I know, I know! I'm a racist if I don't give it up to you,
but I'm sorry. That ain't going to get it no more.

Go on back to 'bama!





Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:19:13 GMT

--------
In article <1108744923.909224.315130@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Quirk" wrote:

> Goethe also said, "The great ones of the world have taken this earth of
> ours to themselves; they live in the midst of splender and superfluity.
> The smallest nook of the land is already a possession; none may touch
> it or meddle with it."
>
> Notice he includes himself in "ours," but not in "themselves" nor
> "they."
>
> So he well understood the role of land monopoly.
>
> Freedom for some is inhereted, thus it is not won everyday anew as he
> would have it.
>
> I do not endorse correcting inequality by granting special privilege to
> those who are underprivileged. Rather I endorse the elimination of
> privilege itself, which is rooted in private ownership of land and
> always has been.

Um.... what's it like to have goat urine in place of blood? I've been a
shithead a few times, but being a vessel of living piss is a new concept
and you are obviously well-versed in the condition. I'd just like your
first-person take on having ONE BIG FAT UREA CRYSTAL FOR A BRAIN.
Its so Star Trek-y, I am curious.

--

HellPope Huey
I'm replacing Conan O'Brien in November.
Tune in, won't you?

Just as every conviction begins as a whim
so does every emancipator
serve his apprenticeship as a crank.
~Heywood Broun

"I'm going to go into rap music;
I'm going to call myself 'Muff Daddy.'"
- Eric Idle


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 15:05:39 -0800

--------

HellPope Huey wrote:

> Its so Star Trek-y, I am curious.

I'm sorry that trying to grasp what I was saying caused your brain to
melt.



Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:07:44 GMT

--------
In article <1108767939.627840.227850@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Quirk" wrote:
> HellPope Huey wrote:
>
> > Its so Star Trek-y, I am curious.
>
> I'm sorry that trying to grasp what I was saying caused your brain to
> melt.

I wasn't trying to grasp it, I was trying to wipe it off my dickey, you
towering clot. The only thing posturing, pseudo-intellectual gimps like
you are good for is triggering extra episodes of "As The Nenslo
Metaphysically Clog-Dances On Your Dumb Ass" and that's been in reruns
for so long, it sent me screaming into the street to see "Constantine."
Damn you BOTH, eieieieiei!

You are the Usenet equivalent of the human-handed hamster the guy
crushed under his shoe in the original version of "The Fly." Good
morning!

--

HellPope Huey
I'm replacing Conan O'Brien in November.
Tune in, won't you?

Just as every conviction begins as a whim
so does every emancipator
serve his apprenticeship as a crank.
~Heywood Broun

"I'm going to go into rap music;
I'm going to call myself 'Muff Daddy.'"
- Eric Idle


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 04:36:34 -0800

--------

HellPope Huey wrote:

> The only thing posturing, pseudo-intellectual gimps like
> you are good for

There's another thing we're good for, demonstrating your intense
intellectual insecurity. If you could refute my arguments, you would,
you can't so you bitch, bitch, bitch.



Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:00:31 GMT

--------
In article <1108989394.497199.124790@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Quirk" wrote:

> HellPope Huey wrote:
>
> > The only thing posturing, pseudo-intellectual gimps like
> > you are good for
>
> There's another thing we're good for, demonstrating your intense
> intellectual insecurity. If you could refute my arguments, you would,
> you can't so you bitch, bitch, bitch.

Your sophomoric repetition & monochromatic attack-dog stance out you as
a Gunky. Your "arguments" are just petty baiting and it shows. At least
Nenslo has some variety going for him. Insert tawdry jab about your need
for cosmetic penile reconstruction here, nyuk nyuk nyuk!

--

HellPope Huey
I was Elvis in my previous life,
but I'm still porky and pilled-up in this one, too

"If you find yourself in a fight, never strike first,
but when you hit back, hit back hard.
Pick your time and place and nuke 'em.
Do not worry about making enemies.
The right enemy will be a sign
that you're growing up and that God loves you."
- Roger Rosenblatt

"Its either just a crack in the driveway
or the Chinese are finally making their move."
- "King of the Hill"


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 10:38:21 -0800

--------

HellPope Huey wrote:

> Your sophomoric repetition & monochromatic attack-dog stance out you
as
> a Gunky.

While I may well be sophomoric and repetitive, I have certainly not
taken any 'attack-dog' stance, that's just some lens your seeing
through.

> Your "arguments" are just petty baiting and it shows.

Your focus on insults and not making reference to my arguments is just
petty evasion, and it shows.

> At least Nenslo has some variety going for him.

You mean when he writes "retarded" as opposed to "RETARDED?"

I guess that's "variety" all right.

I've only quoted Rimbaud, Twain, among many historical, poetic and
philosophical references, along with using actual logic.

I guess that's "petty baiting" all right.

Believe whatever you want to believe, you obviously see whatever it is
you want to see to justify your intellectual insecurity.

But try a serious argument, and you will see that you get a serious
response, I'm not here to brow beat anyone.



Correspondent:: chip@pobox.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:17:16 -0000

--------
According to "Quirk" :
>I do not endorse correcting inequality by granting special privilege to
>those who are underprivileged. Rather I endorse the elimination of
>privilege itself, which is rooted in private ownership of land and
>always has been.

Bwaha! And yet there is no way to avoid the return of privilege,
because once any group is given the power to implement such ideals,
they will not (all) surrender it.

For every George Washington there are a hundred Lenins and Stalins.

We're all still monkeys, after all.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. -
"What I cannot create, I do not understand." - Richard Feynman


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 23 Feb 2005 08:32:26 -0800

--------
Chip Salzenberg wrote:

> Bwaha! And yet there is no way to avoid the return of privilege,

This fallacy is know as Appeal to probability.

You can not probe that there is no way, only that you do not know of
one, I'm not so quick to give up.

> because once any group is given the power to implement such ideals,
> they will not (all) surrender it.

Well, IMO, the two best models are the Georgist Land Value Tax and
Anarcho Syndicalism. The former relies on the simple taxation of land
owner privilege and is endorsed by pretty much all credible economists,
the later does not depend on any central group, but rather on
volluntray association.

I believe that both these tactics would help reduce inequality, and in
anycase the complete elimination of privilege is not the goal, only to
employ the best systems we have and to improve them as much as
possible.

As an Anarchist, I prefer a Stateless model.

> For every George Washington there are a hundred Lenins and Stalins.

To hell with all three of them.

I do not support violent revolution or coercive force.

Regards.



Correspondent:: chip@pobox.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:07:56 -0000

--------
According to "Quirk" :
>Chip Salzenberg wrote:
>> Bwaha! And yet there is no way to avoid the return of privilege,
>
>This fallacy is know as Appeal to probability. You can not probe
>that there is no way, only that you do not know of one, I'm not so
>quick to give up.

Hardly "probability". More like a positivist observation. In the
absence of evidence that something exists, that thing may as well not
exist.

There's no evidence that any economy, including the subset of
economies known as "governments", is immune to abusive subversion.
And the flaws that lead to abuse are built in to human nature.

If you want to put a system in charge that people can't subvert
... well, then, humans will have become slaves and the system will
rule them. Utopia? Dystopia? YOU BE THE JUDGE!

On the other hand, if the humans are not slaves, then they can
manipulate the system, for good or evil.

BTW, your fixation on land value is so cute! I keep expecting to see
an icon of Engels floating next to each of your posts.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. -
"What I cannot create, I do not understand." - Richard Feynman


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 23 Feb 2005 10:38:01 -0800

--------

Chip Salzenberg wrote:

> Hardly "probability". More like a positivist observation. In the
> absence of evidence that something exists, that thing may as well not
> exist.

That is of course a fallacy, since the nonexistence of a thing is not
proof that it can not exist.

> There's no evidence that any economy, including the subset of
> economies known as "governments", is immune to abusive subversion.

Nor is any proof needed, as this does not mean that efforts to
minimalize such subversion are necessarily fruitless.

> And the flaws that lead to abuse are built in to human nature.

Perhaps, so is cooperation and gregariousness.

> If you want to put a system in charge that people can't subvert
> ... well, then, humans will have become slaves and the system will
> rule them. Utopia? Dystopia? YOU BE THE JUDGE!

I only want to understand which systems are the best, and the least
subvertable.

> On the other hand, if the humans are not slaves, then they can
> manipulate the system, for good or evil.

It does not follow however that all systems are equal in regards to
their manipulability.

> BTW, your fixation on land value is so cute!

Glad to hear it.

> I keep expecting to see
> an icon of Engels floating next to each of your posts.

I have never read any Engels, however the concept of mutual land
ownership is central to Liberal and Anarchist philosophy.

For instance:

"Whenever there is any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor
it is
clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to
violate
natural rights. The earth is given as a common stock for man to
labor and
live on"

-- Thomas Jefferson



Correspondent:: chip@pobox.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:46:32 -0000

--------
According to "Quirk" :
>Chip Salzenberg wrote:
>> Hardly "probability". More like a positivist observation. In the
>> absence of evidence that something exists, that thing may as well not
>> exist.
>
>That is of course a fallacy, since the nonexistence of a thing is not
>proof that it can not exist.

Since you're so big on fallacies, you should be able to spot the
fallacy in your own reply. Except, now that I think about it, a
simple lack of comprehension isn't really fallacy. It's just sad.

>> And the flaws that lead to abuse are built in to human nature.
>
>Perhaps, so is cooperation and gregariousness.

Do you think that reply undermines my point? If so, you really need
to catch up on your evolutionary psych.

>I only want to understand which systems are the best, and the least
>subvertable.

"Only"? *chuckle*

>> On the other hand, if the humans are not slaves, then they can
>> manipulate the system, for good or evil.
>
>It does not follow however that all systems are equal in regards to
>their manipulability.

You've sure moved your goalposts. "Backpedaling", I believe it's
called.

>I have never read any Engels

Tsk. That's like an astronomer not reading Ptolemy.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. -
"What I cannot create, I do not understand." - Richard Feynman


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 24 Feb 2005 03:49:14 -0800

--------
Chip Salzenberg wrote:

> Since you're so big on fallacies, you should be able to spot the
> fallacy in your own reply. Except, now that I think about it, a
> simple lack of comprehension isn't really fallacy. It's just sad.

Please point the fallacy out, if you believe there is one. I'm sorry if
you are sad, I don't mean to sadden you, but attributing a "lack of
comprehension" instead of explaining your argument is a sure sign of
evasion.

> >> And the flaws that lead to abuse are built in to human nature.

> >Perhaps, so is cooperation and gregariousness.

> Do you think that reply undermines my point? If so, you really need
> to catch up on your evolutionary psych.

An argument that depends on mere allusion is also a sign of evasion.
The point being that human nature has many traits, none of which prove
that a political philosophy that holds land as mutual property is
contrary to them.

> >I only want to understand which systems are the best, and the least
> >subvertable.

> "Only"? *chuckle*

Yes, the point is that the impossibility of achieving perfection is not
an argument for not seeking improvements. However, I'm happy to see
your sadness has passed.

> >It does not follow however that all systems are equal in regards to
> >their manipulability.

> > You've sure moved your goalposts. "Backpedaling", I believe it's
> > called.

I don't see any backpedaling, but I will restate my original premise if
that will clear it up for you.

Exploitive privilege is rooted in the private ownership of land.

Or if you prefer, here it is as logical syllogisms.

Nobody is entitled to own that which they did not produce, since nobody
produced the land, thus the land can not be any individual's property.

Economic exploitation is collecting unearned income through the
coercive use of leverage, the privilege of private landowners to allow
or deny access to land to the productive gives them such leverage, thus
the unearned income derived from this privilege is exploitive.

The denial of enterprise is a violation of liberty, enterprise requires
access to land, thus the denial of access to land is a violation of
liberty.

> >I have never read any Engels

> Tsk. That's like an astronomer not reading Ptolemy.

If you feel that Engels has some light to shed on this discusion,
please present his arguments, however I am content in sticking with my
liberal and anarchist sources.

Regards.



Correspondent:: chip@pobox.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:01:07 -0000

--------
According to "Quirk" :
>The denial of enterprise is a violation of liberty, enterprise requires
>access to land, thus the denial of access to land is a violation of
>liberty.

That's so 19th century. In "enterprise requires access to X", the
list of valid values for X is very long.

>> >I have never read any Engels
>
>> Tsk. That's like an astronomer not reading Ptolemy.
>
>If you feel that Engels has some light to shed on this discusion,

*giggle*
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. -
"What I cannot create, I do not understand." - Richard Feynman


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 1 Mar 2005 08:14:50 -0800

--------

Chip Salzenberg wrote:

> According to "Quirk" :

> >The denial of enterprise is a violation of liberty, enterprise
requires
> >access to land, thus the denial of access to land is a violation of
> >liberty.

> That's so 19th century. In "enterprise requires access to X", the
> list of valid values for X is very long.

Considering that there are only three factors of production, and only
one of them has a fixed supply, it can't be that long.

> >If you feel that Engels has some light to shed on this discusion,

> *giggle*

While to some the fact that you chose to reply to a thread, many days
later, in order to post an erroneous statement and make the astounding
argument "*giggle*" would seem a little mysterious, However, I know the
reason.

I was just now going through all the Whois modules on CPAN, you must
have felt a psychic tingle.

Regards.



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:09:29 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> ... these alleged subtle meanings of Slack have never
> been central to any arguments I have presented. As a casual member, I
> am content to limit my usage to the most common form.

Your usage of the term is in fact most UNcommon, as a result of your
miscomprehension of the meanings of the word.

>
> > There are many real-world uses of the
> > term as a positive or necessary thing. For example, ropework of any
> kind.
>
> Which is why it is a metaphor, since alt.slack is not widely considered
> to be place to discuss the tightness of rope.

That shows how little you know.

>
> > > The Pinks are those that hold the ideology that the Church is
> > > parodying, the Christian Right, Family Values, Arbeits macht frei
> > > crowd. They are the pinks, their ideas are pink ideas.
>
> > You use the term pink the way the people you profess to despise might
> > use the word nigger or kike or liberal.
>
> Not //despise// but disagree with. I have said many times I do not
> despise any of these people. Pitty, yes. Eagerly mock, yes. Despise,
> no.

Correction noted. You use the term pink the way the people you disagree
with might use the word nigger or kike or liberal, thus manifesting the
very same behavior you condemn in them.

>
> > You use the term pink as a
> > pejorative term for the bad "them" people you don't like, and whom
> you
> > point out as being the people who use pejorative terms for people and
> > things they don't like and separate themselves from the people THEY
> call
> > "them." If you don't like the way they act, it is better not to act
> > like them.
>
> I do not act like them, for one, I do not promote their exclusion based
> upon our disagreements, this alone refutes the concept that I making an
> "us and them" dichotomy. Unless you think that making any disagreement
> with anybody creates such.

Promoting exclusion and creating a dichotomy are not identical or
necessarily related. The lack of the former does not refute the latter.
Your perception of exclusion promotion is another concept which you
hold important and which has never figured in my statements in any way.

>
> And If would like me to quote examples of promenant Subs, including
> Stang, using "pink" in pejorative sense, I would be happy to.

If Stang sawed his dick off with a rusty butter knife would you do it too?

> ...I'm acting like a SubGenius, or a smart ass of any stripe,
> does when confronted with idiocy in a public forum.

There's where you are wrong.


>
> > There is an exoteric church and an esoteric church. If you have to
> ask,
> > then you don't know.
>
> Ok. I don't know. Why should I want to?

No reason. You clearly enjoy making a humiliating spectacle of your
ignorance and stupidity.

>
> > > > I am not defending anyone.
>
> > > Yes. You are.
>
> > Please feel free to provide even one quote demonstrating that.
>
> When you said "Those are the SUBGENIUSES" and described my linked
> article as being boring, and then later said "fuck you," I took that to
> be a defense of the people I was describing as rednecks.

Saying a person is a subgenius is not a defense of them. Saying your
article was boring is not a defense of anyone. Saying fuck you is not a
defense of anyone. You took those things to mean something which was
your own invention and of which I knew nothing.

> But now that
> you have explained that you are part of an esoteric inner circle of the
> Church of the SubGenius I agree that I may have misunderstood you, so
> if you say you are not defending them, OK I believe you, we can move
> on. They seem to think you are on their side, however, but that is not
> my business really, that's between you and them.

I have not explained or claimed that I am "part of an esoteric inner
circle of the Church of the SubGenius." I don't even know which "they"
this they of yours is, and so do not know or care what they think.
There is nothing between me and them, whoever they are.


> Funny, that is exactly the same reasoning that I am using for my
> continued participation, except rather then explaining the finer points
> of esoteric slack, I am explained that bigotry is bad. Frankly, I am
> surprised that is such a controversial stance around here.

If that is what you are really explaining, and considering your tendency
to impute to the statements of others meanings which exist only in your
mind, I am not surprised that the general pre-existing knowledge that
bigotry is bad, and the general apathy at seeing someone behaving like a
Grand Revelator on that tiresome and overworked elementary topic is
interpreted by you as opposition and controversy. We have heard that
bullshit a million times and don't give a shit so shut the fuck up, you
fucking idiot. OH LOOK, I AM A LYNCH MOB NOW.
>
> > I do not have a conviction that you are not a true
> > SubGenius. There is no such thing as a true (or false) SubGenius.
>
> Well, when you said "The fact that you equate paying $30 dollars with
> being a subgenius demonstrates that you aren't one" I took it to mean
> what is says, that in your opinion I have demonstrated that am am not a
> SubGenius. That seems to contradict with what you are now saying.
> However we don't need to get bogged down here, if that is not the way
> you meant it, I can accept that.

If you can't see any difference between the terms "a SubGenius" and "a
true SubGenius" then you are the single biggest idiot who ever lived or
ever shall live. HINT - the word TRUE. Since you quote a statement
attributed to me which does not contain the word TRUE, and take that to
contradict my statement that there is no such thing as a "true"
SubGenius, what the fuck are you, retarded or something? You can take
anything to mean anything else, A = B, anything anybody says you can
"take to mean" any dumbassed jackass halfassed crap that you just make
up in your stupid retarded dumbfuck mind. Ahem. Excuse me. You
fucking idiot.

In plain english, if you say I said something I didn't say and that it
proves I think something I don't think, you are at best mistaken, and at
worst a liar.

>
> > People make openly racist comments because they are STUPID
>
> I absolutely agree with you.
>
> > and disputation with STUPID people is fruitless.
>
> I don't think so,

That's because you are an idiot.
>
> There are limits of course, and I admit that if this was the newsgroup
> of an organization I respected less that the Church of the SubGenius I
> would have shrugged and moved on long ago.

If you respected the Church of the SubGenius you would accept Stang's
offer of a refund of your membership and never post here again.

> > SUCKER. Those dumbasses are laughing their dumb asses off at you
> right now.
>
> Sorry, I just to don't see them laughing, if they where laughing it
> would be their intention to provoke me to post more, it is quite clear
> from their comments to me and to each other that they want to shut me
> up. They want to shut me up because they do not like my arguments and
> can not refute them.

LOL YHBT

>
> I am possibly the only person who has been nominated for HLS and KOTM
> in the same month in 1997, despite this being impossible according to
> the definition of KOTM, since the rules say a kook can't be a troll. I
> have been been interned in the Killfile Dungeon, I have allegedly cause
> the biggest cancel war in usenet history. Not to mention, numerous
> flame wars with legendary kooks, cranks and wannabe censors over the
> last decade. I may not have written the book on usenet provocation, but
> I certainly contributed a chapter or two.

Whoop de fucking doo.
>
> In otherwords, you all HBT.

Oh how shocking. You slackless pink, you!
>
> However, I am not one of this new generation of Troll that just posts
> inflametory nonsense to get a rise out of people. I am an old school
> agit-prop Troll.

Yes the kind that lets dumbasses jerk their chains for sick yux and then
act like you are nobly battling terrible people who want to silence you
because you are so right and good and they are bad and wrong. In short,
a dumbass.
>
> Open your eyes Nenslo, these people are real life Bigots and Right Wing
> loons, they would like nothing more than for me to just shut up.

Which is why they draw you out in long threads by saying the type of
inflammatory things they know will set you off on a long pompous rant.
To shut you up.

>
> I would prefer that we confront them. Who knows they may learn
> something from the experience, or at least a passer-by would not get
> the idea that the bigots and right wing loons are the true
> representation of the Church.

Passersby are more likely to get the impression that the true
representation of the Church is reactionary idiots who keep reposting
inflammatory rude-boy trolls and acting like they are doing everybody a
favor by perpetuating dumbasses' stupidity.
>
> > > Please furnish a quote of mine which you consider "reactionary
> idiocy."
>
> > Okay. "Bullshit, you can't deal with the fact that these dumbasses
> > posted bigoted trash, I embarrassed them, and then wouldn't back down
> > when you all started back slapping each other in lynch mob solidarity
> > rather than deal with the truth."
>
> Great quote. One of the best and clearest in my last article. I se
> nothing eather reactionary or idiotic about it.

That's because you are reactionary and idiotic.

>
> > Yet you haven't learned to spot a troll.
>
> Yes, I have, the legendary ones I know personally. These people are not
> trolling, my agitation has provoked them to show their true colours.

Those dumbasses have been playing yank the monkey with every fool they
can for years now. The same crap over and over again. Some ninny like
you comes along and acts all righteous and noble and they just go
CHACHING! Another sucker to bait for a week or two. They just say
nigger or whatever the latest dipshit's hot button is, and have their
childish fun for a while. Then you get tired and go away mumbling about
how you have not been silenced and are victorious over the powers of
darkness, and they wait for yet another schmuck.

> The bigots around here should learn from Mark Twain; "Never pick a
> fight
> with anyone who buys their ink by the barrel."

I am certain he was referring to the ability to bore an opponent to
death with tiresome flatulent self-adulation.
>
> > Helping people feel comfortable is where you need to do a little more
>
> > refining of your technique.
>
> Here we have a difference of opinion.

I would love to hear from anyone who feels better as a result of your
posts. I mean other than just from LAUGHING AT YOU.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 04:10:28 -0800

--------

nenslo wrote:

> Your usage of the term is in fact most UNcommon, as a result of your
> miscomprehension of the meanings of the word.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that rather than only insisting,
I have stated and defended my working definition.

As I said, Slack is a metaphor for freedom, chosen specificly because
of the devil's workshop connotation it has with the Christian Right.

In anycase, I am not terrible concerned with wether I use the term in
anysort of approved fashion, only that my meaning is clear, which it
is.

> > Which is why it is a metaphor, since alt.slack is not widely
considered
> > to be place to discuss the tightness of rope.

> That shows how little you know.

Cool. Well that's one I can be happy to wrong about. I've always wanted
to know the difference between a square knot and a lineman's loop. I
look forward to reading the threads here.

> > Not //despise// but disagree with. I have said many times I do not
> > despise any of these people. Pitty, yes. Eagerly mock, yes.
Despise,
> > no.

> Correction noted. You use the term pink the way the people you
disagree
> with might use the word nigger or kike or liberal, thus manifesting
the
> very same behavior you condemn in them.

Slothful induction.

It is not labeling people that I condemn, but rather unsubstantiated
labeling used to justify hatred and exclusion.

> > And If would like me to quote examples of promenant Subs, including
> > Stang, using "pink" in pejorative sense, I would be happy to.

> If Stang sawed his dick off with a rusty butter knife would you do it
too?

No, but I would take it to mean that this is normal church behavior-

> > ...I'm acting like a SubGenius, or a smart ass of any stripe,
> > does when confronted with idiocy in a public forum.

> There's where you are wrong.

No, there's where I'm right. Proof by insistence is so much fun.

> > Ok. I don't know. Why should I want to?

> No reason. You clearly enjoy making a humiliating spectacle of your
> ignorance and stupidity.

False premise, but close.

I clearly enjoy making a humiliating spectacle of your ignorance and
stupidity.

> Saying a person is a subgenius is not a defense of them.

I already said that I will not belabour this point, if you say you
where not defending them, fine, I believe you, I was just explaining
how I took that to be the case, not trying to prove you are doing
something you say you are not doing.

> I have not explained or claimed that I am "part of an esoteric inner
> circle of the Church of the SubGenius."

Then where does all the exoteric/esoteric duality fit in?

> OH LOOK, I AM A LYNCH MOB NOW.

Yup.

But no worries, a lynch mob of fumbling midgets with no rope have never
hurt anyone.

> > However we don't need to get bogged down here, if that is not the
way
> > you meant it, I can accept that.

> If you can't see any difference between the terms "a SubGenius" and
"a
> true SubGenius" then you are the single biggest idiot who ever lived
or
> ever shall live. HINT - the word TRUE.

Some scholars have proposed a theory that there is actually an even
bigger idiot, the kind that keeps arguing a point when the person they
are arguing with has already said that they accept it.

> In plain english, if you say I said something I didn't say and that
it
> proves I think something I don't think, you are at best mistaken, and
at
> worst a liar.

And If I say, "OK, if that's not what you meant, then I can accept that
I may have been mistaken," and yet you continue to want to debate the
point, what does that make you?

> > > and disputation with STUPID people is fruitless.

> > I don't think so,

> That's because you are an idiot.

This brings up an interesting syllogism.

Idiots are stupid, and disputation with stupid people is fruitless, I
am an idiot, thus disputation with me is fruitless.

So Nenslo. Please keep talking, with every word you prove, not that you
really think I'm stupid, but rather than you can not refute my
arguments so you resort to calling me names, like the rest of the
midget lynch mob.

> If you respected the Church of the SubGenius you would accept Stang's
> offer of a refund of your membership and never post here again.

Yeah right. And give up my bunk on the spaceship just because you
people can't stand arguing with me. You wish.

> > Sorry, I just to don't see them laughing, if they where laughing it
> > would be their intention to provoke me to post more, it is quite
clear
> > from their comments to me and to each other that they want to shut
me
> > up. They want to shut me up because they do not like my arguments
and
> > can not refute them.

> LOL YHBT

LOL YHTB AMAFO.

> Oh how shocking. You slackless pink, you!

I though I was a Bobbie? Or was it a Communist?

> > However, I am not one of this new generation of Troll that just
posts
> > inflametory nonsense to get a rise out of people. I am an old
school
> > agit-prop Troll.

> Yes the kind that lets dumbasses jerk their chains for sick yux and
then
> act like you are nobly battling terrible people who want to silence
you
> because you are so right and good and they are bad and wrong. In
short,
> a dumbass.

No, the kind that gets so far under your skin that scratch yourself raw
from the itch and can think of nothing but your next response to me.

Meanwhile I use the endlessly continuing discusion to lace the thread
with ideas about equality, land ownership philosophy, economics and the
rules of logic, in the tradion of interventionist action art. Only
without the funny outfit and samba band.

> > Open your eyes Nenslo, these people are real life Bigots and Right
Wing
> > loons, they would like nothing more than for me to just shut up.

> Which is why they draw you out in long threads by saying the type of
> inflammatory things they know will set you off on a long pompous
rant.
> To shut you up.

Great, then this thread should never end. I may even have a chance to
post the entire works of Henry George, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Guy
Debord.

Since you love posting long pompous rants so much, I guess I'll get the
opportunity to match you rant for rant for ever.

> Some ninny like you comes along and acts all righteous and noble and
they
> just go CHACHING! Another sucker to bait for a week or two.

BOY HAVE I STRUCK GOLD THEN.

This is the opportunity to go on and on for ever I have been looking
for.

> Then you get tired and go away mumbling about how you have not been
> silenced and are victorious over the powers of darkness

I've been at it for a decade now, in usenet anyway, I hope you are not
holding your breath for me to get tired real soon now.

> > The bigots around here should learn from Mark Twain; "Never pick a
> > fight with anyone who buys their ink by the barrel."

> I am certain he was referring to the ability to bore an opponent to
> death with tiresome flatulent self-adulation.

Actually it was about antagonizing newspaper editors, but take it
however you want. Just don't image my barrel is anywhere near empty.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:30:17 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>nenslo wrote:
>
>> Your usage of the term is in fact most UNcommon, as a result of your
>> miscomprehension of the meanings of the word.
>
>Then you should be able to demonstrate that rather than only insisting,
>I have stated and defended my working definition.
>
>As I said, Slack is a metaphor for freedom, chosen specificly because
>of the devil's workshop connotation it has with the Christian Right.
>
>In anycase, I am not terrible concerned with wether I use the term in
>anysort of approved fashion, only that my meaning is clear, which it
>is.
>
>> > Which is why it is a metaphor, since alt.slack is not widely
>considered
>> > to be place to discuss the tightness of rope.
>
>> That shows how little you know.
>
>Cool. Well that's one I can be happy to wrong about. I've always wanted
>to know the difference between a square knot and a lineman's loop. I
>look forward to reading the threads here.
>
>> > Not //despise// but disagree with. I have said many times I do not
>> > despise any of these people. Pitty, yes. Eagerly mock, yes.
>Despise,
>> > no.
>
>> Correction noted. You use the term pink the way the people you
>disagree
>> with might use the word nigger or kike or liberal, thus manifesting
>the
>> very same behavior you condemn in them.
>
>Slothful induction.
>
>It is not labeling people that I condemn, but rather unsubstantiated
>labeling used to justify hatred and exclusion.
>
>> > And If would like me to quote examples of promenant Subs, including
>> > Stang, using "pink" in pejorative sense, I would be happy to.
>
>> If Stang sawed his dick off with a rusty butter knife would you do it
>too?
>
>No, but I would take it to mean that this is normal church behavior-
>
>> > ...I'm acting like a SubGenius, or a smart ass of any stripe,
>> > does when confronted with idiocy in a public forum.
>
>> There's where you are wrong.
>
>No, there's where I'm right. Proof by insistence is so much fun.
>
>> > Ok. I don't know. Why should I want to?
>
>> No reason. You clearly enjoy making a humiliating spectacle of your
>> ignorance and stupidity.
>
>False premise, but close.
>
>I clearly enjoy making a humiliating spectacle of your ignorance and
>stupidity.
>
>> Saying a person is a subgenius is not a defense of them.
>
>I already said that I will not belabour this point, if you say you
>where not defending them, fine, I believe you, I was just explaining
>how I took that to be the case, not trying to prove you are doing
>something you say you are not doing.
>
>> I have not explained or claimed that I am "part of an esoteric inner
>> circle of the Church of the SubGenius."
>
>Then where does all the exoteric/esoteric duality fit in?
>
>> OH LOOK, I AM A LYNCH MOB NOW.
>
>Yup.
>
>But no worries, a lynch mob of fumbling midgets with no rope have never
>hurt anyone.
>

I certainly don't think that you're stoopid,
but you haven't yet hit your stride, reached
your peak. And deaf midgets from hell are
certainly a pesky annoyance. Perhaps you
should go to Heidelberg and practice your
fencing skills, and start wearing a pickelhaube.




Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 05:02:17 -0800

--------

König wrote:

> >But no worries, a lynch mob of fumbling midgets with no rope have
never
> >hurt anyone.

> Perhaps you should go to Heidelberg and practice your
> fencing skills,

Those people are just weird. What's the use of learning a form of
fencing that is only useful as long as your opponent stands perfectly
still at his kneipe tisch, and any granny with broom stick can still
beat your ass.

> and start wearing a pickelhaube.

Ok. Right after I gain a hundred pounds and join a gay motorcycle gang.

Perhaps you can give me a recommendation and get me into to yours?



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:05:10 -0800

--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> nenslo wrote:
>
> > Your usage of the term is in fact most UNcommon, as a result of your
> > miscomprehension of the meanings of the word.
>
> Then you should be able to demonstrate that rather than only insisting,
> I have stated and defended my working definition.

It doesn't need to be demonstrated, it is a fact and you are wrong.

>
> As I said, Slack is a metaphor for freedom, chosen specificly because
> of the devil's workshop connotation it has with the Christian Right.

Wrong again.

>
> In anycase, I am not terrible concerned with wether I use the term in
> anysort of approved fashion, only that my meaning is clear, which it
> is.
>

Yeah, it means you are a dumbass.

> > > Which is why it is a metaphor, since alt.slack is not widely
> considered
> > > to be place to discuss the tightness of rope.
>
> > That shows how little you know.
>
> Cool. Well that's one I can be happy to wrong about. I've always wanted
> to know the difference between a square knot and a lineman's loop. I
> look forward to reading the threads here.

I look forward to you kissing my fucking ass.
>
> > > Not //despise// but disagree with. I have said many times I do not
> > > despise any of these people. Pitty, yes. Eagerly mock, yes.
> Despise,
> > > no.
>
> > Correction noted. You use the term pink the way the people you
> disagree
> > with might use the word nigger or kike or liberal, thus manifesting
> the
> > very same behavior you condemn in them.
>
> Slothful induction.

Yet strangely factual and accurate.

>
> It is not labeling people that I condemn, but rather unsubstantiated
> labeling used to justify hatred and exclusion.
>
> > > And If would like me to quote examples of promenant Subs, including
> > > Stang, using "pink" in pejorative sense, I would be happy to.
>
> > If Stang sawed his dick off with a rusty butter knife would you do it
> too?
>
> No, but I would take it to mean that this is normal church behavior-

When you say "to" I take it to mean you want to be eternally buttfucked
by one of Sterno's chopped off living Mexican Quaker Homo dicks. Taking
something to mean something it doesn't mean is a game anyone can play.

>
> > > ...I'm acting like a SubGenius, or a smart ass of any stripe,
> > > does when confronted with idiocy in a public forum.
>
> > There's where you are wrong.
>
> No, there's where I'm right. Proof by insistence is so much fun.

Proving you are a dumbass.

>
> > > Ok. I don't know. Why should I want to?
>
> > No reason. You clearly enjoy making a humiliating spectacle of your
> > ignorance and stupidity.
>
> False premise, but close.

Factual analysis, right on the money.
>
> I clearly enjoy making a humiliating spectacle of your ignorance and
> stupidity.

Start whenever you like.

>
> > Saying a person is a subgenius is not a defense of them.
>
> I already said that I will not belabour this point, if you say you
> where not defending them, fine, I believe you, I was just explaining
> how I took that to be the case, not trying to prove you are doing
> something you say you are not doing.

Yet there you go belaboring the point.
>
> > I have not explained or claimed that I am "part of an esoteric inner
> > circle of the Church of the SubGenius."
>
> Then where does all the exoteric/esoteric duality fit in?

Don't worry about it numbnut. You're to fucking stupid to ever know.
>
> > OH LOOK, I AM A LYNCH MOB NOW.
>
> Yup.
>
> But no worries, a lynch mob of fumbling midgets with no rope have never
> hurt anyone.

Ooh, scathing. A lynch mob of fumbling midgets. Where's my notebook?

>
> > > However we don't need to get bogged down here, if that is not the
> way
> > > you meant it, I can accept that.
>
> > If you can't see any difference between the terms "a SubGenius" and
> "a
> > true SubGenius" then you are the single biggest idiot who ever lived
> or
> > ever shall live. HINT - the word TRUE.
>
> Some scholars have proposed a theory that there is actually an even
> bigger idiot, the kind that keeps arguing a point when the person they
> are arguing with has already said that they accept it.

Name those scholars please. Oh you can't because it's just another
stupid thing you just made up to pretend that you actually know
something about something. Which you don't.

>
> > In plain english, if you say I said something I didn't say and that
> it
> > proves I think something I don't think, you are at best mistaken, and
> at
> > worst a liar.
>
> And If I say, "OK, if that's not what you meant, then I can accept that
> I may have been mistaken," and yet you continue to want to debate the
> point, what does that make you?

Since this post is the first place you have ever said it, the point is
moot. Check my next post for an answer to your stupid question.

>
> > > > and disputation with STUPID people is fruitless.
>
> > > I don't think so,
>
> > That's because you are an idiot.
>
> This brings up an interesting syllogism.

No it doesn't.

> So Nenslo. Please keep talking, with every word you prove, not that you
> really think I'm stupid, but rather than you can not refute my
> arguments so you resort to calling me names, like the rest of the
> midget lynch mob.

Calling you names is not a resort it's a fucking THEME PARK! WHEEEEEEEEE!
>
> > If you respected the Church of the SubGenius you would accept Stang's
> > offer of a refund of your membership and never post here again.
>
> Yeah right. And give up my bunk on the spaceship just because you
> people can't stand arguing with me. You wish.

The fact that you believe that people who continue to argue with somehow
DON'T WANT to argue with you, and people who keep stimulating your
jackass idiocy to watch you jump around like a retarded monkey actually
want you to NOT do that, is just another indication of your idiotic
brain damaged stupidity.
>
> > > Sorry, I just to don't see them laughing, if they where laughing it
> > > would be their intention to provoke me to post more, it is quite
> clear
> > > from their comments to me and to each other that they want to shut
> me
> > > up. They want to shut me up because they do not like my arguments
> and
> > > can not refute them.
>
> > LOL YHBT
>
> LOL YHTB AMAFO.
>
> > Oh how shocking. You slackless pink, you!
>
> I though I was a Bobbie? Or was it a Communist?

Oh, you think you are a Bobbie, do you? Nobody said you were. Just
noting that fact. And for once save yourself the humiliation of trying
to prove I said something I didn't say by quoting where I didn't say it
and claim you took that to mean something entirely different.

>
> > > However, I am not one of this new generation of Troll that just
> posts
> > > inflametory nonsense to get a rise out of people. I am an old
> school
> > > agit-prop Troll.
>
> > Yes the kind that lets dumbasses jerk their chains for sick yux and
> then
> > act like you are nobly battling terrible people who want to silence
> you
> > because you are so right and good and they are bad and wrong. In
> short,
> > a dumbass.
>
> No, the kind that gets so far under your skin that scratch yourself raw
> from the itch and can think of nothing but your next response to me.

Ah, you do believe you matter to people don't you? A couple of minutes
of my attention is a big deal to you I see. Maybe if you had a REAL
boyfriend your day wouldn't be so empty and sad.

>
> Meanwhile I use the endlessly continuing discusion to lace the thread
> with ideas about equality, land ownership philosophy, economics and the
> rules of logic, in the tradion of interventionist action art. Only
> without the funny outfit and samba band.

Yeah, you have made yourself REAL BELIEVABLE. I bet you are changing
lives left and right.
>
> > > Open your eyes Nenslo, these people are real life Bigots and Right
> Wing
> > > loons, they would like nothing more than for me to just shut up.
>
> > Which is why they draw you out in long threads by saying the type of
> > inflammatory things they know will set you off on a long pompous
> rant.
> > To shut you up.
>
> Great, then this thread should never end. I may even have a chance to
> post the entire works of Henry George, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Guy
> Debord.

That's sure to be as interesting as anything you could ever write
yourself. By interesting I mean boring.
>
> Since you love posting long pompous rants so much, I guess I'll get the
> opportunity to match you rant for rant for ever.

Go ahead and try. Two weeks from now we won't even remember your name.

>
> > Some ninny like you comes along and acts all righteous and noble and
> they
> > just go CHACHING! Another sucker to bait for a week or two.
>
> BOY HAVE I STRUCK GOLD THEN.
>
> This is the opportunity to go on and on for ever I have been looking
> for.
>
> > Then you get tired and go away mumbling about how you have not been
> > silenced and are victorious over the powers of darkness
>
> I've been at it for a decade now, in usenet anyway, I hope you are not
> holding your breath for me to get tired real soon now.
>
> > > The bigots around here should learn from Mark Twain; "Never pick a
> > > fight with anyone who buys their ink by the barrel."
>
> > I am certain he was referring to the ability to bore an opponent to
> > death with tiresome flatulent self-adulation.
>
> Actually it was about antagonizing newspaper editors, but take it
> however you want. Just don't image my barrel is anywhere near empty.

I don't image your barrel at all, you incoherent jackass. I'm sure you
can keep pulling dumbass blather out of your limp bunghole forever.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 04:32:24 -0800

--------

wrong Wrong dumbass dumbas numbnut stupid stupid stupid idiotic
brain damaged stupidity incoherent jackass dumbass blather



Correspondent:: Rev DJ Epoch
Date: 21 Feb 2005 14:00:50 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote in news:1108989144.242345.73140
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> wrong Wrong dumbass dumbas numbnut stupid stupid stupid idiotic
> brain damaged stupidity incoherent jackass dumbass blather
>
>

Looks like you had a nice big heaping bowl of stupid this morning.


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 09:17:21 -0800

--------

Rev DJ Epoch wrote:

> "Quirk" wrote in news:1108989144.242345.73140
> @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> > wrong Wrong dumbass dumbas numbnut stupid stupid stupid idiotic
> > brain damaged stupidity incoherent jackass dumbass blather

> Looks like you had a nice big heaping bowl of stupid this morning.

Yup. Served up by Nenslo, his comments summerized above.



Correspondent:: "Rev. Ivan Stang"
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:40:32 -0500

--------


>
> >
> > And If would like me to quote examples of promenant Subs, including
> > Stang, using "pink" in pejorative sense, I would be happy to.
>
> If Stang sawed his dick off with a rusty butter knife would you do it too?

Please.

>
> > ...I'm acting like a SubGenius, or a smart ass of any stripe,
> > does when confronted with idiocy in a public forum.
>
> There's where you are wrong.

NO SHIT.


>
> > But now that
> > you have explained that you are part of an esoteric inner circle of the
> > Church of the SubGenius I agree that I may have misunderstood you, so
> > if you say you are not defending them, OK I believe you, we can move
> > on. They seem to think you are on their side, however, but that is not
> > my business really, that's between you and them.
>
> I have not explained or claimed that I am "part of an esoteric inner
> circle of the Church of the SubGenius." I don't even know which "they"
> this they of yours is, and so do not know or care what they think.
> There is nothing between me and them, whoever they are.

What Nenslo says there is true to the best of my knowledge. I might add
that it is also true of me.

>
>
> > Funny, that is exactly the same reasoning that I am using for my
> > continued participation, except rather then explaining the finer points
> > of esoteric slack, I am explained that bigotry is bad. Frankly, I am
> > surprised that is such a controversial stance around here.
>
> If that is what you are really explaining, and considering your tendency
> to impute to the statements of others meanings which exist only in your
> mind, I am not surprised that the general pre-existing knowledge that
> bigotry is bad, and the general apathy at seeing someone behaving like a
> Grand Revelator on that tiresome and overworked elementary topic is
> interpreted by you as opposition and controversy. We have heard that
> bullshit a million times and don't give a shit so shut the fuck up, you
> fucking idiot. OH LOOK, I AM A LYNCH MOB NOW.

Nenslo is currently engaged in what we call "Unmasking the False
Prophets," in this case, highlighting Quirk's vanity.

> >
> > There are limits of course, and I admit that if this was the newsgroup
> > of an organization I respected less that the Church of the SubGenius I
> > would have shrugged and moved on long ago.
>
> If you respected the Church of the SubGenius you would accept Stang's
> offer of a refund of your membership and never post here again.

I agree wholeheartedly with Nenslo's assessment!



> >
> > However, I am not one of this new generation of Troll that just posts
> > inflametory nonsense to get a rise out of people. I am an old school
> > agit-prop Troll.
>
> Yes the kind that lets dumbasses jerk their chains for sick yux and then
> act like you are nobly battling terrible people who want to silence you
> because you are so right and good and they are bad and wrong. In short,
> a dumbass.

Succinctly put.


> >
> > Great quote. One of the best and clearest in my last article. I se
> > nothing eather reactionary or idiotic about it.
>
> That's because you are reactionary and idiotic.

I second the nomination.



>
> I would love to hear from anyone who feels better as a result of your
> posts. I mean other than just from LAUGHING AT YOU.


I feel that Quirk's vehement display of his lack of understanding has
prompted some especially pithy observations by the Assassinated
Nenmaster.

Here's a new quote for Quirk.

"This 'Quirk' guy has completely misunderstood what the Church is
about; his posts represent precisely the kind of shallow, vain,
self-absorbed thinking that's perfect for dissection and mockery." --
Rev. Ivan Stang, 2005

--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 07:19:08 -0800

--------

Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:

> Nenslo is currently engaged in what we call "Unmasking the False
> Prophets," in this case, highlighting Quirk's vanity.

No vanity, once again, I am not claiming to be authority on anything,
nothing I say should be considered true just because I said it, my
status, or my membership or non membership in anything.

They are true if they are true and for no other reason.

Thus, if you dispute them, present your argument.

Or go ahead and keep patting each other on the back and give me endless
opportunity to present my arguments without refutation.

> > If you respected the Church of the SubGenius you would accept
Stang's
> > offer of a refund of your membership and never post here again.

> I agree wholeheartedly with Nenslo's assessment!

I respect the Church as being a funny bunch of old guys to go camping,
that by no means that I accept their assertions without logical proof.

Respect does not mean blind acceptance.

It means that I think this community is worth while provoking, as
opposed to, say, stormfront.

> > Yes the kind that lets dumbasses jerk their chains for sick yux and
then
> > act like you are nobly battling terrible people who want to silence
you
> > because you are so right and good and they are bad and wrong. In
short,
> > a dumbass.

> Succinctly put.

The Irony that I've pretty much got the whole newsgroup jumping is lost
on you. Perhaps some of the political philosophy, logic, poetry, and
history will sink in though. Not that expect I you to admit it. Only to
keep responding and give me more opportunities to present it.

> > That's because you are reactionary and idiotic.

> I second the nomination.

I third that fallacy.

> I feel that Quirk's vehement display of his lack of understanding has
> prompted some especially pithy observations by the Assassinated
> Nenmaster.

I feel that my vehement display of clear understanding, as demonstrated
by the lack of refutations of my reasoning, has prompted some
especially desperate and shrill rationalizations by the Nenslo.

But if makes you feel a little better, see it your way.

> Here's a new quote for Quirk.

> "This 'Quirk' guy has completely misunderstood what the Church is
> about; his posts represent precisely the kind of shallow, vain,
> self-absorbed thinking that's perfect for dissection and mockery." --
> Rev. Ivan Stang, 2005

Thanks Rev, it was OK when only the lesser lights where obsessed with
me, it got better when Nenslo became obsessed with me, now you yourself
are obsessed with me. Which will mean everyone here will read my
responses.

Maybe I can sell advertising space here and use that revenue to fund
the Venture Communist global expansion.

Of course, I understand that you would be shallow, vain and
self-absorbed, and thus project those traits on to others, most
comedians are, and you are good comedian. One of my favourites.

I wonder if all comedians eventually think there schtick is some sort
of esoteric cult?



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:29:59 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
>Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
>
>> Nenslo is currently engaged in what we call "Unmasking the False
>> Prophets," in this case, highlighting Quirk's vanity.
>
>No vanity, once again, I am not claiming to be authority on anything,
>nothing I say should be considered true just because I said it, my
>status, or my membership or non membership in anything.
>
>They are true if they are true and for no other reason.
>
>Thus, if you dispute them, present your argument.
>
>Or go ahead and keep patting each other on the back and give me endless
>opportunity to present my arguments without refutation.
>
>> > If you respected the Church of the SubGenius you would accept
>Stang's
>> > offer of a refund of your membership and never post here again.
>
>> I agree wholeheartedly with Nenslo's assessment!
>
>I respect the Church as being a funny bunch of old guys to go camping,
>that by no means that I accept their assertions without logical proof.
>
>Respect does not mean blind acceptance.
>
>It means that I think this community is worth while provoking, as
>opposed to, say, stormfront.
>
>> > Yes the kind that lets dumbasses jerk their chains for sick yux and
>then
>> > act like you are nobly battling terrible people who want to silence
>you
>> > because you are so right and good and they are bad and wrong. In
>short,
>> > a dumbass.
>
>> Succinctly put.
>
>The Irony that I've pretty much got the whole newsgroup jumping is lost
>on you. Perhaps some of the political philosophy, logic, poetry, and
>history will sink in though. Not that expect I you to admit it. Only to
>keep responding and give me more opportunities to present it.
>
>> > That's because you are reactionary and idiotic.
>
>> I second the nomination.
>
>I third that fallacy.
>
>> I feel that Quirk's vehement display of his lack of understanding has
>> prompted some especially pithy observations by the Assassinated
>> Nenmaster.
>
>I feel that my vehement display of clear understanding, as demonstrated
>by the lack of refutations of my reasoning, has prompted some
>especially desperate and shrill rationalizations by the Nenslo.
>
>But if makes you feel a little better, see it your way.
>
>> Here's a new quote for Quirk.
>
>> "This 'Quirk' guy has completely misunderstood what the Church is
>> about; his posts represent precisely the kind of shallow, vain,
>> self-absorbed thinking that's perfect for dissection and mockery." --
>> Rev. Ivan Stang, 2005
>
>Thanks Rev, it was OK when only the lesser lights where obsessed with
>me, it got better when Nenslo became obsessed with me, now you yourself
>are obsessed with me. Which will mean everyone here will read my
>responses.
>
>Maybe I can sell advertising space here and use that revenue to fund
>the Venture Communist global expansion.
>
>Of course, I understand that you would be shallow, vain and
>self-absorbed, and thus project those traits on to others, most
>comedians are, and you are good comedian. One of my favourites.
>
>I wonder if all comedians eventually think there schtick is some sort
>of esoteric cult?
>

Naw, that's already been done.
"That's so far out, it's in!"

You got to build a fire on Main St. and shoot it full of holes
And stampede the herd and run them through the coals


Ah the rag man draws circles up and down the block.
I'd ask him what the matter but I know that he don't talk.
And the ladies treat me kindly and they furnished me with tape.
But deep inside my heart I know I can't escape.
Oh mama, can this really be the end.
To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.

Well Shakespeare he's in the ally with his pointed shoes and his bells.
Speaking to some french girl who says she knows me well.
And I would send a message to find out if she'd talked.
But the post office has been stolen and the mailbox is locked.
Oh mama, can this really be the end.
To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.

Mona tried to tell me to stay away from the train line.
She said that all the railroad men just drink up your blood like wine.
An' I said "oh I didn't know that, but then again there's only one I've met.
And he just smoked my eyelids and punched my cigarette".
Oh mama, can this really be the end.
To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.

Grandpa died last week and now he's buried in the rocks.
And everybody still talks about how badly they were shocked.
But me I expected it to happen, I knew he'd lost control.
When he built a fire on Main street and shot it full of holes.
Oh mama, can this really be the end.
To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.

Now the senator came down here, showing everyone his gun.
Handing out free tickets to the wedding of his son.
And me I nearly got busted. And wouldn't it be my luck.
To get caught without a ticket and be discovered beneath the truck.
Ah mama, is this really the end.
To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.

Now the teen preacher looked so baffled when I asked him why he'd dressed,
With twenty pounds of headlines stapled to his chest.
But he cursed me when I proved to him,
then I whispered said that not even you can hide.
You see your just like me I hope your satisfied.
Oh mama, can this really be the end.
To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.

Now the rainman gave me two cures, then he said "jump right in".
The one was Texas medicine, the other was just railroad gin.
And like a fool I mixed them, and it strangled up my mind,
And people just get uglier, and I have no sense of time.
Oh mama, can this really be the end.
To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.

When Ruthie says come see her in her honky tonk lagoon.
Where I can watch her waltz for free neath a Panamanian moon.
And I say ah come on now, you know you know about my debutantes.
She says your debutante knows what you need, but I knows what you want.
Oh mama, can this really be the end.
To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.

Now the bricks lay on Grand street. Where the neon madmen climb.
They all fall there so perfectly. It all seems so well timed.
And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out past.
You have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice.
Ah mama, is this really the end.
To be stuck here inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.





Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 18 Feb 2005 08:03:31 -0800

--------

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:28:24 GMT

--------
"Quirk" wrote:

>
> Come gather 'round people
> Wherever you roam
> And admit that the waters
> Around you have grown
> And accept it that soon
> You'll be drenched to the bone.
> If your time to you
> Is worth savin'
\

I like the old Country Joe&the Fish
"Please Don't Drop That H-Bomb on Me"

I called a radio station in Richmond, Virginia to play that,
and they played "Only the Strong Survive" instead!!!

Please don't drop that H-Bomb on me
Why don't you drop it on yourselves!

actual lyrics, and my actual sentiments





Correspondent:: "Chain Smerker"
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:14:53 GMT

--------

"Quirk" wrote in message
news:1108739948.800752.171330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
>
>> Nenslo is currently engaged in what we call "Unmasking the False
>> Prophets," in this case, highlighting Quirk's vanity.
>
> No vanity, once again, I am not claiming to be authority on anything,
> nothing I say should be considered true just because I said it, my
> status, or my membership or non membership in anything.
>
> They are true if they are true and for no other reason.
>
> Thus, if you dispute them, present your argument.
>
> Or go ahead and keep patting each other on the back and give me endless
> opportunity to present my arguments without refutation.
>
>> > If you respected the Church of the SubGenius you would accept
> Stang's
>> > offer of a refund of your membership and never post here again.
>
>> I agree wholeheartedly with Nenslo's assessment!
>
> I respect the Church as being a funny bunch of old guys to go camping,
> that by no means that I accept their assertions without logical proof.
>
> Respect does not mean blind acceptance.
>
> It means that I think this community is worth while provoking, as
> opposed to, say, stormfront.
>
>> > Yes the kind that lets dumbasses jerk their chains for sick yux and
> then
>> > act like you are nobly battling terrible people who want to silence
> you
>> > because you are so right and good and they are bad and wrong. In
> short,
>> > a dumbass.
>
>> Succinctly put.
>
> The Irony that I've pretty much got the whole newsgroup jumping is lost
> on you. Perhaps some of the political philosophy, logic, poetry, and
> history will sink in though. Not that expect I you to admit it. Only to
> keep responding and give me more opportunities to present it.
>
>> > That's because you are reactionary and idiotic.
>
>> I second the nomination.
>
> I third that fallacy.
>
>> I feel that Quirk's vehement display of his lack of understanding has
>> prompted some especially pithy observations by the Assassinated
>> Nenmaster.
>
> I feel that my vehement display of clear understanding, as demonstrated
> by the lack of refutations of my reasoning, has prompted some
> especially desperate and shrill rationalizations by the Nenslo.
>
> But if makes you feel a little better, see it your way.
>
>> Here's a new quote for Quirk.
>
>> "This 'Quirk' guy has completely misunderstood what the Church is
>> about; his posts represent precisely the kind of shallow, vain,
>> self-absorbed thinking that's perfect for dissection and mockery." --
>> Rev. Ivan Stang, 2005
>
> Thanks Rev, it was OK when only the lesser lights where obsessed with
> me, it got better when Nenslo became obsessed with me, now you yourself
> are obsessed with me. Which will mean everyone here will read my
> responses.
>
> Maybe I can sell advertising space here and use that revenue to fund
> the Venture Communist global expansion.
>
> Of course, I understand that you would be shallow, vain and
> self-absorbed, and thus project those traits on to others, most
> comedians are, and you are good comedian. One of my favourites.
>
> I wonder if all comedians eventually think there schtick is some sort
> of esoteric cult?
>

I really do want to get involved, ITS A JOKE




Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 21 Feb 2005 10:39:45 -0800

--------

Chain Smerker wrote:

> > I wonder if all comedians eventually think there schtick is some
sort
> > of esoteric cult?

> I really do want to get involved,

Who doesn't? Welcome aboard.

> ITS A JOKE?

I know. Pass it on.



Correspondent:: "Rev. ErRoR"
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:16:42 GMT

--------
In article <42126808.1464007F@yahoox.com>, nenslo
wrote:

> Quirk wrote:
> >
> >
> > If fans of Bill O'Rielly are not a pink, then the word has no meaning.
> > If racists are not pink, likewise.
>
> The word has no meaning.
>
> >
> > > Nothing MAKES you a subgenius, you either are one or you aren't. The
> > > SubGenius must have slack.
> >
> > Now I'm confused, just when you've explained to me that I am not really
> > a SubGenius, and later that I am *STILL* not a SubGenius, now you tell
> > me all I need is slack. I have no shortage of slack. So am I, or am I
> > not a SubGenius, oh great expert of us-and-them-ism.
>
> No, I did not tell you all you need is slack. I told you "the SubGenius
> must have slack." It is not possible to have a shortage of slack.
>
> "If you have to ask, then you don't know." - J. R. "Bob" Dobbs
>
>
> >
> > I am not ranking anybody. I am criticizing the things people are
> > saying. Pointing out out the pink ideas they hold. I have not
> > questioned their belonging nor their right to express their ideas.
>
> There is no such thing as a "pink" idea. Pink is not a quality. There
> are no objects of perception which are pinker than others except in the
> literal description of coloration.
>
> >
> > BTW, Bill O'Rielly, Ann Coutier and their fans are the agents of the
> > Conspiracy. Slack-fearing pinks. Why do they fear Slack? Because they
> > earn their privilege from those that want to destroy Slack. The Bosses.
>
> Slack cannot be feared. Every person in the concentration camp is a
> victim of the system, the guards as well as the prisoners. All are
> dehumanized and set in opposition to each other by a mere idea which
> could be dispelled in a moment.
>
> >
> > > "Them-ism" program which breaks people down into tiny Us groups
> > opposed
> > > to billions of other tiny Them groups, rendering Us All utterly
> > > powerless against the control of the REAL "THEM."
> >
> > Hate break it to you, but I am the one arguing *against* "Them-ism".
> > You are defending the "Themists", us in nu-monet's "us Fox TV watchers
> > are better than them Communists (KILL KILL!!!), by which I mean anybody
> > who disagrees with Ann Coutier" or even worse, KönigPruß's "us
> > members of the master race are better than them Black People and Jews."
>
> I am not defending anyone. I am correcting semantic errors. Your
> understanding of key concepts depends on your understanding of key
> words. You have invented meanings for some terms and behave as if that
> meaning is "real." You have created definitions for certain types of
> people and permitted that definition to become a pejorative term by
> which to describe anyone who resembles that type of person. (Treating
> an entire class of people as if they are all alike is what prejudice and
> discrimination is.) You have let two notable dumbasses yank your chain
> repeatedly and relentlessly and still haven't noticed that they have
> duped you into making a humiliating spectacle of your reactionary
> idiocy. You have been given the inestimable privilege of benefiting
> from the knowledge of an elder of the church of 20 years' standing and
> have responded with peevishness at not being considered an authority on
> things to which you have never given much thought before.
>
> > I am merely trying to point out that these people are wrong, and that
> > their ideas are Pink.
>
> That is your primary error. In fact, you simply disagree with these
> people and permit the fact that they have ideas which differ from yours
> to get you all riled up. There is no such thing as a pink idea.
>
> > Not that they do not belong among us. Thats your
> > game. And their's.
>
> I cannot imagine how you came to that conclusion about me short of sheer
> dumbassedness and your desire to paint people who do not share your
> convictions in the pinkest possible shade.

I just gotta repeat 'literal description of coloration'
OK I feel better now.

err.

--
"Error runs down an inclined plane, while Truth has to laboriously climb its
way up hill."
Madame Blavatsky


Correspondent:: Baldin Pramer
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:36:08 -0700

--------
nenslo wrote:

> Quirk wrote:
>
>>nenslo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Quirk wrote:
>>
>>>>My first controversial alt.slack essay,
>>
>>>...if by "controversial" you mean BORING.
>>
>>Thanks Nenslo, your empty criticicsm is apreciated as always. All upper
>>case letters, now THAT'S convincing.
>
>
> Your brilliant sarcasm scathes like a motherfucker as usual.
>
>
>>>>Where have all the rednecks come from?
>>
>>>Those are the SUBGENIUSES.
>>
>>Sure. I guess if they paid their $30.
>
>
> The fact that you equate paying $30 dollars with being a subgenius
> demonstrates that you aren't one.

The $30 is all it takes to be saved. Stealing some slack is another think.


--
Sir Baldin Pramer, R.P.A.


Correspondent:: brthrn@dangermedia.org
Date: 13 Feb 2005 16:26:13 -0800

--------
That's just LIKE something you'd say. You GLORY HOLE loving gas station
SUCKSLUT.



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:00:49 -0800

--------
Baldin Pramer wrote:
>
> nenslo wrote:
>
> > Quirk wrote:
> >
> >>nenslo wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Quirk wrote:
> >>
> >>>>My first controversial alt.slack essay,
> >>
> >>>...if by "controversial" you mean BORING.
> >>
> >>Thanks Nenslo, your empty criticicsm is apreciated as always. All upper
> >>case letters, now THAT'S convincing.
> >
> >
> > Your brilliant sarcasm scathes like a motherfucker as usual.
> >
> >
> >>>>Where have all the rednecks come from?
> >>
> >>>Those are the SUBGENIUSES.
> >>
> >>Sure. I guess if they paid their $30.
> >
> >
> > The fact that you equate paying $30 dollars with being a subgenius
> > demonstrates that you aren't one.
>
> The $30 is all it takes to be saved. Stealing some slack is another think.
>

Being a SubGenius is yet another. Thing. Any dumbass can buy a
membership. EVERY dumbass steals slack. Only a very few extra dumb
dumbasses are SubGenii.


Correspondent:: "Rev. Ivan Stang"
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:24:05 -0500

--------
In article <420FF83D.F8A6A5D1@yahoox.com>, nenslo
wrote:

> Baldin Pramer wrote:
> >
> > nenslo wrote:
> >
> > > Quirk wrote:
> > >
> > >>nenslo wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Quirk wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>My first controversial alt.slack essay,
> > >>
> > >>>...if by "controversial" you mean BORING.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks Nenslo, your empty criticicsm is apreciated as always. All upper
> > >>case letters, now THAT'S convincing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your brilliant sarcasm scathes like a motherfucker as usual.
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>Where have all the rednecks come from?
> > >>
> > >>>Those are the SUBGENIUSES.
> > >>
> > >>Sure. I guess if they paid their $30.
> > >
> > >
> > > The fact that you equate paying $30 dollars with being a subgenius
> > > demonstrates that you aren't one.
> >
> > The $30 is all it takes to be saved. Stealing some slack is another think.
> >
>
> Being a SubGenius is yet another. Thing. Any dumbass can buy a
> membership. EVERY dumbass steals slack. Only a very few extra dumb
> dumbasses are SubGenii.

Nenslo! I was over to the fair today, and YOUR PIG WON!

Quirk, you DID get it all completely back-asswards, and I'll happily
refund your $30 if you privately email me your address.

This has really been an enjoyable thread! In the course of it I figured
out who brthrn is... TOOK me long enough, sheesh. DUH! Only one
SubGenius uses periods that way.

To clear up a doctrinal point, the $30 DOES get ANY NINNY onto the
Escape Vessels of the Sex Goddesses, when X-Day comes. So if anybody
was holding back from ordering a Memb Pack because they thought maybe
they weren't WORTHY, PERISH THE THOUGHT! You'll get the saucer ride,
even if you're secretly the Pinkest Polly in the Parrot Cage.

You might be assigned a different kind of BUNK and BUNKMATE than, say,
Philo would get.

--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB


Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 15 Feb 2005 07:40:32 -0800

--------

Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:

> Quirk, you DID get it all completely back-asswards, and I'll happily
> refund your $30 if you privately email me your address.

YEAH RIGHT!

As if.

The last time I privately emailed you my address, I got so may Pizzas I
had to move to stop them from coming.

I wouldn't have minded so much but PINEAPPLES DO NOT GO WITH ANCHOVIES
AND GORGONZOLA.

Damn it.

It's ok, I like my new place much better anyway.

Now I have to figure out a way to lose those 15 pounds I gained.

Tricky bastard.

> To clear up a doctrinal point, the $30 DOES get ANY NINNY onto the
> Escape Vessels of the Sex Goddesses, when X-Day comes. So if anybody
> was holding back from ordering a Memb Pack because they thought maybe
> they weren't WORTHY, PERISH THE THOUGHT! You'll get the saucer ride,
> even if you're secretly the Pinkest Polly in the Parrot Cage.

So when you said I got it assbackwords, what you meant was that I was
exactly right.

You are so dang mystical with your saying one thing and meaning
another, is it to test the flock?

Congrats to Nenslo's pig.



Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:24:28 -0800

--------
"Rev. Ivan Stang" wrote:
>
> Nenslo! I was over to the fair today, and YOUR PIG WON!
>

I'll thank you not to speak that way of my mother.