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 wishe