Am I right in thinking that Pink, Glorp and Subgenius are the same
thing?
Thistle "razorface" Kachunk QPM
qpm@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/soho/3216
"I drove across three states wearing her HEAD for a HAT"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cuthulu@prysm.net (aramchek)
You are mostly correct, except those self-styled SubGenii who are more akin
to Pinks and Glorps are reffered to as Bobbies and Gimme-Bobs. And while the
true yeti recognizes them and scorns them to a certain degree, they are
recognized as having a certain value in this industrial church of sales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dflync01@homer.louisville.edu (David F Lynch)
Thistle "Razorface" Kachunk QPM (qpm@geocities.com) wrote:
:
: Am I right in thinking that Pink, Glorp and Subgenius are the same
: thing?
Nah, that's solipsism. It is determined whether you are a SUBGENIUS by how
much ACID you are on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: phred@uss.net (Rev. Dr. Phrederick Q Armageddon (pope.))
Oh, Lynch, it's your innocence I find so endearing.... It's not how
much acid you're on that matters; it how much acid seeps from your
very pores that counts. One scores extra SubG points based upon how
many licks you receive within a given day.
How may licks does it take to get to a SubG's Nental Ife? The world
may never know....
Brought to you by those WONDERFUL folks at...
* * * BABBLE ON ENTERPRISES * * *
Notions & Potions!
Quotations for Donations!
Serving the needs of Reality since 1971
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: qpm@geocities.com
Some good points which did not quite answer my question, which is: are
pink, glorp and subgenius the same thing as Larry, Moe and Curly? And if
so, since Stang is an admitted Moe as are Jesus, Nickie and Legume, and
since "Bob" is the ultimate archetypical Moe, aren't you all MISSING
SOMETHING RATHER MAJOR? I mean, C'mon kids, every religious text is 40%
HORRIBLE LIES and...
But come to think of it, most of the church membership is Larry anyway.
Stang has dropped the hint to those who can see it. Those who understand
even vaguely what I am talking about, send me email and we will talk
more.
-st thistle qpm
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dflync01@homer.louisville.edu (David F Lynch)
qpm@geocities.com wrote:
:
: Some good points which did not quite answer my question, which is: are
: pink, glorp and subgenius the same thing as Larry, Moe and Curly? And if
: so, since Stang is an admitted Moe as are Jesus, Nickie and Legume, and
: since "Bob" is the ultimate archetypical Moe, aren't you all MISSING
: SOMETHING RATHER MAJOR? I mean, C'mon kids, every religious text is 40%
: HORRIBLE LIES and...
How is "Bob" a Moe? I always had him pegged as a Curly. With Moe it
was a constant and inefficient struggle for control- "Bob" may be inefficient,
but he's always EFFECTIVE. But really there are thousands of pat and
simple categories to put people in. Stang has his Larry, Moe, and Curly,
plenty of Subgenii have their Pinks and Yeti, the psychologists have
their Myers-Briggs scores, marketers have something like fifty-three
separate categories for defining you as a human being, and the only thing
all of these classification systems share is their immutability. It was
once proposed on alt.slack that "Subgenius" was simply another way of saying
"someone I like", and "Pink" was simply another way of saying "someone I
don't like", with these classifications literally given the status of holy
writ. I seldom see "glorp" used in any sense other than "an especially
irritating Pink" (and even then, not often) around alt.slack, and any
Subgenii I talk with tend to avoid buzzwords most of the time anyway; when
they talk the lingo it's because it's most convenient. Oh yeah, you've
got your emergentiles and your rewardians too, you've got every kind of
handy way of saying which is which and who is who. You've got your pigs,
your dogs, and your sheep. But if our religious text was only 40% horrible
lies I'd be deeply disappointed.
: But come to think of it, most of the church membership is Larry anyway.
My dad goes by Larry. He's too cheap to be in the Church, otherwise he
would be. Wild Man Fischer's name was Larry, too.
: Stang has dropped the hint to those who can see it. Those who understand
: even vaguely what I am talking about, send me email and we will talk
: more.
I vacillate between modes of complexity and simplicity; cosmologically, I'm
probably at the more reductionist end of the spectrum currently. Or to
say that without using so many fuckin' big words, there's not much of a
structure to my religion right now. Only Moes give a shit about the
difference between a Moe, a Larry, and a Curly anyway. I'm not much of a
"people person".
--
Brrr-woowoowooowooowoowoo-brrrRRRRRrrrrr (Galaxians 7/83)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Legion of Food <qpm@geocities.com>
David F Lynch wrote:
genii have their Pinks and Yeti, the psychologists have
> their Myers-Briggs scores, marketers have something like fifty-three
> separate categories for defining you as a human being,
OOK! Somebody send me a copy of this list!
and the only thing
> all of these classification systems share is their immutability. It was
> once proposed on alt.slack that "Subgenius" was simply another way of saying
> "someone I like", and "Pink" was simply another way of saying "someone I
> don't like", with these classifications literally given the status of holy
> writ. I seldom see "glorp" used in any sense other than "an especially
> irritating Pink" (and even then, not often) around alt.slack,
This is because you spend more time on alt.slack than you spend reading
the Book. Pinks are much more than people you don't like. Or much less
rather. There are MANY subgenii I can't STAND but will def acknowledge
their subgenhood. In fact I can't stand most subgenii for very long.
Pinks are much more endearing, like puppy dogs. I love how they always
beg me to suck my cock. They should DEFINITELY not be ruling the world
however. (Even though they're not, really. It's the GLORPS) You can tell
a pink not by selfish considerations of whether you like them, but by
much more aesthetic terms of their PSTENCH.
As for glorps, a glorp is yes generally much more irritating than a
pink, but there is more to it. Look in the BOOK and don't pester me with
this "alt.slack as the real subgeniusness" bullshit. This newsgroup is
PINK as are MOST "Subgeniuses", pinkness is NOT a matter of opinion, the
soul is NOT a "pleasant concept" it is a REAL THING.
and any
> Subgenii I talk with tend to avoid buzzwords most of the time anyway; when
> they talk the lingo it's because it's most convenient.
THE CHURCH IS NOT AN IN-JOKE. THEY ARE NOT BUZZWORDS. Yes, it's best to
use euphemisms for danger of getting LOCKED, but there is TRUTH in those
words!
Oh yeah, you've
> got your emergentiles and your rewardians too, you've got every kind of
> handy way of saying which is which and who is who. You've got your pigs,
> your dogs, and your sheep. But if our religious text was only 40% horrible
> lies I'd be deeply disappointed.
>
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU A MEMBER THEN? Are you too TECHNOBORED to do
anything but WASTE TIME? If you ain't a CONSTANT SCREAMER AND A-LAUGHER,
GET THE HELL OUT! I like you, Lynch, you psmell like green things. BUT
FOR HELL AND HEAVEN'S SAKE! Have Dynasor and Tarla etc STOLEN YOUR FIRE?
> : But come to think of it, most of the church membership is Larry anyway.
>
> My dad goes by Larry. He's too cheap to be in the Church, otherwise he
> would be. Wild Man Fischer's name was Larry, too.
OH WHAT DIVERTIST MEANINGLESSNESS!
>
> : Stang has dropped the hint to those who can see it. Those who understand
> : even vaguely what I am talking about, send me email and we will talk
> : more.
I SAY UNTO THEE! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
Thistle A. "Damocletian" Kachunk QPM
qpm@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3216
"...and the silken, sad, uncertain
rustling of each purple curtain..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dflync01@homer.louisville.edu (David F Lynch)
Legion of Food (qpm@geocities.com) wrote:
: This is because you spend more time on alt.slack than you spend reading
: the Book.
Why read books when I can just hang around and make fun of people?
To put it less cynically, religion is a living thing, and NOBODY lives
entirely by their Book. Alt.slack is applied religion, which is what
defines religion to me.
: Pinks are much more than people you don't like. Or much less
: rather. There are MANY subgenii I can't STAND but will def acknowledge
: their subgenhood. In fact I can't stand most subgenii for very long.
: Pinks are much more endearing, like puppy dogs. I love how they always
: beg me to suck my cock. They should DEFINITELY not be ruling the world
: however. (Even though they're not, really. It's the GLORPS) You can tell
: a pink not by selfish considerations of whether you like them, but by
: much more aesthetic terms of their PSTENCH.
Hate's a tricky thing. Quite a few Subgenii IRRITATE me, but this is
not something to worry about. Pinks generally do not bother me, in that
the worst they will do is stare back at me quizzically. However, I am
frustrated quite often with the nonsensicality of people in general.
Glorps may play a key role in ruling the world, but a pivotal role it
has to be said is also taken by (mostly Rogue) "yeti". As for aesthetics,
I don't differentiate that from personal taste, and I find it to be a selfish
consideration.
: As for glorps, a glorp is yes generally much more irritating than a
: pink, but there is more to it. Look in the BOOK and don't pester me with
: this "alt.slack as the real subgeniusness" bullshit. This newsgroup is
: PINK as are MOST "Subgeniuses", pinkness is NOT a matter of opinion, the
: soul is NOT a "pleasant concept" it is a REAL THING.
(Shrug) I'm not in the business of telling people whether they are or aren't
Pink. Seems to me using the Book as a sole determinant of value is no
different from Biblical fundamentalism. As per glorp, perhaps one could be
seen as one adept at mastering the self-contradictory nature of Pink
doctrine while still being bound by it, as opposed to rogue Subs who
manipulate Pink doctrine for personal benefit while personally knowing it's
a crock of shit. Paul of Tarsus was likely a Glorp, while the Church of
the Middle Ages likely was composed of rogue Subs.
: THE CHURCH IS NOT AN IN-JOKE. THEY ARE NOT BUZZWORDS. Yes, it's best to
: use euphemisms for danger of getting LOCKED, but there is TRUTH in those
: words!
That's what I was saying. The words are _not_ used as buzzwords.
: Oh yeah, you've
: > got your emergentiles and your rewardians too, you've got every kind of
: > handy way of saying which is which and who is who. You've got your pigs,
: > your dogs, and your sheep. But if our religious text was only 40% horrible
: > lies I'd be deeply disappointed.
:
: WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU A MEMBER THEN? Are you too TECHNOBORED to do
: anything but WASTE TIME? If you ain't a CONSTANT SCREAMER AND A-LAUGHER,
: GET THE HELL OUT! I like you, Lynch, you psmell like green things. BUT
: FOR HELL AND HEAVEN'S SAKE! Have Dynasor and Tarla etc STOLEN YOUR FIRE?
Listen, those lies are in there for a GOOD REASON. Thanks to the lies,
I don't have to go around looking for the enemies, or worrying about
aesthetics or anything like that, because they'll just up and show themselves.
I don't see how that's a waste. Certainly more fun than saying "and you
smell like MEAT.. and you smell like FISH.. and YOU'RE AN AGENT OF THE
BLOOD SNORTERS!!!!"
: OH WHAT DIVERTIST MEANINGLESSNESS!
Not everything I say is profound, nor should it be.
--
Brrr-woowoowooowooowoowoo-brrrRRRRRrrrrr (Galaxians 7/83)
Original file name: LARRY MOE CURLY
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.