KUM-Pewter Litter-It???

<Handsome Bill> wrote in message news:3b14ada3_2@news.iglou.com...
> The Rev. Dr. Lt. Chaos Israel wrote in message ...
> >> It DOESN'T piss me off. That has NEVER pissed me off. People making
> >> mistakes with their equipment is NOT the problem. PINKIES resenting ME
> >> because THEY FEEL PUT DOWN IS A PROBLEM.
> >
> >Then stop putting them down.
> >Oh, wait, if you actually designed, built, and sold equipment the
> >normals could actually USE, you couldn't use the entire subculture of
> >tecnical elitism to "prove" your superiority to them. Then you might
> >actually have to face the fact that you're as Pink as they are.
>
> And right here is the crux of the issue. Or at least, one facet of it.
> Let's take Maggie's car example, for instance. Say you like to fix up
> old cars. You're not an expert at it, you just do it for fun on weekends,
> no big deal. NOW, when you run into a problem that you can't handle,
> and don't care to put in huge amounts of time to learn, and you go to
> a professional mechanic, DO YOU RESENT THE HELL OUT OF
> THAT PRO BECAUSE HE CAN DO SOMETHING YOU CAN'T??
> Of course not; cars aren't the same kind of Social Phenom that
> computers have become. See, I can't do my jawb in the presence
> of certain people (an increasing number of such people, in fact)
> without putting them off. ONLY because I-Wannabe-Kumpewter-
> Litterit is the Social Schmooze Catchphrase of the Day. They don't
> really want to "learn the secrets" of technology, they couldn't give
> less of a damn about it. They just want that K00L elite social status.
> But they feel threatened by the technical pros. As a result, us nerds
> are being deprived of our slack, hence my complaint.
>
> How many times do I have to spell it out? I thought this was the Church
> of the SubGenius, not the Church of the SubMoron!
>
> >>And BTW, you'd be surprised to know how many women I've helped over
> >> the years in their technical careers, and I happen to promote their
cause
> >> of better pay for superior performance.
> >
> >Then why are you slapping Maggie around? Is it personal? Did she turn
> >you down once? Or is it just that she's Heirarchy?
>
> The closest I came to "slapping Maggie around" was with the <I basically
> don't know WTF I'm doing> dig, which WAS intentional and purely for
> effect (and which worked better than I dared hope in the amount of
> attention and controversy my little rant generated), and for which I would
> offer my sincere apology except for the fact that the Dear Reverend has
> already gotten some pretty good digs of her own in. But I swear, my rant
> was not directed at Dear Maggie personally, it was merely inspired by the
> bitter indignation that she expressed toward technology.
>
> Besides, if you stick your butt in an ass-kicking machine you really
> shouldn't be surprised if it actually happens, should you?
>
> In any case, I would hope that she is at the very least enough of a "Rev"
> to know what she can do with herself if she can't take a joke. I doubt
> that YOU even know WTF I'm talking about.
>
> >
> >> I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly but sometimes it has
> >>unfortunate consequences with certain people. Especially notably
> >>PINK people with serious self-esteem issues.
> >
> >How's *your* self esteem? Seems like you want very badly to be
> >"right", about an issue that, in the greater scheme of things, really
> >*isn't* that significant.
> >
>
> You happen to be correct, it wouldn't be - were it not for the fact that
> it's
> a growing problem as I alluded to above, that is starting to have serious
> consequences. Not that I badly WANT to be right - it just happens to BE.
>
> >
> >> It wasn't "sexist", it was PINKIST! Which I claim a right to express
> >> in typical Sub-G fashion on an ostensibly Sub-G newsgroup in accordance
> >> with commonly accepted Sub-G doctrine, "Reverend".
> >
> >Who are you again, motherfucker? Let's see your resume before you go
> >calling someone who has done as much for the Church as Magdalen has
> >"pink".
> >
>
> "Who am I, motherfucker"? YOU can either call me "Dad" or "Bro", take
> your pick. Here, jackwad, print out a copy, frame it and hang it on the
> wall,
> kiss it every morning, jerk off to it every night:
>
> http://www.badart.com/cowb3/_handsome_bill.html
>
> "Done so much for the Church"? You mean that 30 bucks Stang bilked
> her out of? WHOOOOOOO!!!
>
> >> Ex-SQUEEZE ME, but that was NOT a reference to you. And here yet again
> >> we have a prime example of the kind of neurotic horseshit we techs have
> >> to endure almost every day. We can't even indifferently do our thing
> >> let alone actively give advice to you people without triggering your
> >> neuroses and once more catching heat for making you feel put down.
Just
> >> for doing what WE like to do, what WE get SLACK from!
> >
> >Then live in a fucking cave the rest of your life. If you're going to
> >design products for people, if your're going to help people use those
> >products, then goddamnit, YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE. REAL LIVE
> >ANNOYING PEOPLE. EVEN PEOPLE YOU *DON'T LIKE*.
> >If you can't cope with that, do something else. Stop treating the
> >people who sign your paycheck like dirt.
> >
> Well, Bobdamnit, why don't you take your stupid vitriolic complaint to
Ford,
> GM and Chrysler first? HMMM?? Have them design and sell reasonably
> priced cars that are so simple to fix nobody has to take them to an
> outrageously expensive repair shop anymore. OH, NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
> We can't demand THAT, CAN we?
>
> "Treat the people who sign my paycheck like dirt"?? I can be as polite as
> I can be, and as soon as I demonstrate that I know something they don't,
> WHAM! Don't you care to understand? Of course not, you're likely just a
> typical Pink Socializing Schmoozer yourself.
>
> >> You know, I am a bit troubled by self-proclaimed "Sub-G" "Reverends",
who
> >> are so obviously PINK themselves that they cannot help but be SO
offended
> >> by the slightest hint of implied political incorrectness that it
> >> completely overrides their professed philosophical leanings. Doesn't
> >> that kind of inconsistency betray the honorific? Or are you just being
> >> Stinky Pinky for effect?
> >
> >No we're just doing what we damn well please, which is what the $30
> >membership entitles us to. "Self Proclaimed?" Bob has seen MY $30, how
> >about YOU?
> >
>
> So what are you saying here? That I'm not allowed to participate in this
> loonfest unless I send CotSG 30 bucks? Shit, I guess I'd better send it,
> then, huh? Especially considering that I apparently understand the
Church's
> philosophy better than some of it's "Reverends".
>
> >Now SHUP UP BITCH, I'm sick of smelling your farts.
>
> And I suppose that you started shitting roses and farting perfume the
> moment you sent the Church $30, right?
>
> I know it doesn't need to be pointed out, but I will anyway; the biggest
> PINKS in the world are those who place a string of honorifics in front
> of their handle to show the world how elite they are.
>
> >The Rev. Dr. Lt. Chaos Israel.
> >"I could really use a cigarette right now..."
>
> I Gar-On-Tee that you're going to need a lot more of them once you
> hang my picture on your wall, considering how much you love me
> already!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Shit, this is like pissing all over a bunch of retarded fish spastically
> flopping around in a public commode.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: KUM-Pewter Litter-It???
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, May 31, 2001 3:52 AM
Message-ID: <3b15f4d5.28563889@news.mindspring.com>

"Boddhisatva Troutwaxer" <tungtung@pacbell.net> hunched over a
computer, typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Boddhisatva Troutwaxer" <tungtung@pacbell.net>
laughed madly, then wrote:

>In article <3B1530BE.1015B7@sheayright.com>, Artemia Salina
><y2k@sheayright.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok. After I'd called you pretentious, I got to thinking about it and
>> decided that that wasn't really what I meant, or at least it wasn't ALL
>> of what I meant. You're needy. You clamor for attention when you write
>> stuff, and in your backhanded way, you complain when you don't feel that
>> you've gotten the credit you deserve. Here's a quote from you which
>> illustrates what I mean:
>
>> "My discussion of that issue also relates to a strong
>> feeling that those who produce music, fiction, art, HTML, etc. for the
>> Church don't get the appreciation their effort
>> (good or otherwise) deserves. If everyone gave their fellow
>> SubGenii a few more attaboys, I think we'd all be happier."
>
>First of all, I hope you note that I live that. When I like something
>someone's done, I say so, even if I'm tired or in a hurry. I also try to
>give appropriate negative feedback where its merited. For example, I
>remember telling you once that I agreed with your point, but felt you'd
>undermined yourself by supporting your thesis by making a racial (or was
>it sexist - I forget) argument.
>
>Secondly, if you got "needy" out of that quote, its probably because I
>didn't phrase it terribly well, mainly because I hadn't finished my
>thinking on the subject. That thinking is ongoing, so what I'll be saying
>in reply to your position isn't my final word, it's more of an interim
>report. In this case, my ideas have gelled a bit more, so hopefully I'll
>be a bit more intelligible.
>
>> Now, "that issue", for the sake of context, was your complaint about
>> the Quijibos making a ruckus during Hellpope Huey's performance at an
>> X-Day, thus drowning him out or otherwise diverting attention from him
>> (which was resolved to have been just a matter of unfortunate timing).
>
>Well, that particular issue touched off the thinking process, but I
>probably would eventually have said something similar.
>
>> But what you advocate above is phoniness. "Tell me you love me. Tell me
>> you love me. Tell me you love me until you hate me." A sickeningly
>> saccharine slathering of slop to soothe your solicitous squalling.
>> People are going to give you (and me) the attention that THEY think is
>> appropriate, no matter what YOU think, and that's just the way it is.
>> Anything else would be unnatural, forced, and phony.
>
>I'm not sure that's true. The way people give others feedback is, at least
> to some extent, a learned behavior. And who have most SubGeniuses
>learned the art of feedback from? They've learned it from pinks who've
>been massively influenced by the conspiracy. As you can imagine, there's a
>problem here. The feedback the average SubGenius gets from pinks is almost
>uniformly negative, and is based in bullying, anger, jealousy and
>ignorance.
>
>Lets assume that little yeti Tommy writes a lovely story about a monster
> who wanders around the school eating the brains of his classmates. What
>happens to little Tommy? Well, first of all he's probably suspended, and
>his creation is reported to the police, who promptly begin investigating
>the child's parents. Meanwhile little Tommy is sent to see the school
>shrink, who promptly starts Tommy on a program of therapy based on the
>idea that having such ideas is the result of parental abuse. The
>assumption is not that Tommy is a nice, creative kid who's artistic
>direction currently leans toward telling horror stories, but that he is a
>potential psychopath, who will probably get ahold of a gun and kill his
>classmates.
>
>Now, those of us who are older have never experienced such painful
>feedback, but how many of us have created something in school of which
>Dobbs would doubtless have approved, and been told we're sick, fucked up
>weirdos? Those who didn't tell us that probably just ignored us and hoped
>we'd go away. The bullies who guard the herd of normals would probably
>have just have destroyed the creation, and those pinks who recognized the
>superiority of a yetisyny's creation would probably have pretended that it
>was just awful, because that is the nature of pink herd behavior. Then, of
>course, there are the ignorant, who can't understand the art or the
>references it makes, and hate it just because they don't get it at all...
>
>In such a case, no-one talks to little Tommy about his use of color in the
> illustrations, or points out that a particular scene should take place
>just before the climax rather than at the beginning of the work, or points
>out errors in spelling and grammer, or points Tommy to the works of
>Lovecraft, despite the fact that this is what Tommy really needs -
>feedback from an intelligent adult (or peer) who can help him grow as an
>artist.
>
>So how many of us do you think have made the conscious effort to get over
>the forms of criticism we've learned from the pinks? Those of us that
>haven't done so are making a crucial mistake - we're treating each other
>like pinks treat us.
>

Yeah but.

That's why I always come back to this newsgroup when I get sick of the
bullshit on the other groups. Because there seems to be no such thing
as OVER THE TOP here. And I LIKE that. I NEED that. Sometimes I get
tired of trying to pretend to be civil to some self inflated douchebag
for the sake of the greater peace. Sometimes it's a TREMENDOUS RELIEF
to feel like I can just cut loose anything I feel like and not have to
apologize for it.

Sometimes it's nice to feel like I'm somewhere that I can hit someone
with both barrels and be safe in assuming that they will be able to
scoop their guts up themselves later without any major problem.

Because in real life I'm usually very careful not to. Because I
really -can- hurt people when I really want to. You know, people tell
you your whole life "go ahead! let it all out! it's just words!
words never killed anybody!"

Bullshit. They've never seen me really go at it.

Cause everybody has that one spot. That one spot on their neck where
you just have to tap and they're going to be a quadripelegic for life.
And I can usually see that spot.

That's why I'm too nice most of the time.

So having a lack of rules can be a good thing. Because if there's no
way to win there's no way to lose.

***

Still at the same time I find myself nodding and agreeing with you.
There are a lot of people on this newsgroup who I really enjoy trading
insanity with. I know sometimes they don't know that. And that does
fuck me up sometimes.

But you know if we start trading group hugs and stuff; brother, it's
going to mess up the ambiance a bit.

>> Over the years, I've made attempts on a.b.s and here to be
>> entertaining, just as most everyone else has. Sometimes I've gotten
>> feedback, and sometimes not
>> (especially on a.b.s). I'd MUCH rather get negative feedback or NO
>> feedback at all than to think for a MOMENT that people felt OBLIGED to
>> respond to me for fear of making me feel neglected. I mean, the latter
>> thought makes me wretch!
>
>Oh, sure, I agree with you completely. I love negative feedback, at least
> if it's intelligent. (and I said that in the last conversation about this
>subject as well - perhaps you can find the quote.) Sometimes that's why I
> post. For example, I felt that "Connie Fucks and Kills in the Highlands
>of Tibet" was substandard. I was desperate for some good critical feedback
>which might point the way toward improving the story, and was quite
>disappointed when people liked it. (It's also the one time I solicited
>feedback - it just seemed weird that no-one at all had anything AT ALL to
>say about it.)
>

See that's a good example.

I really hated that one.

I didn't say anything though.

That's why the last one really blew my mind, it really was
extraordinarily good.

So what should we do? Do we make people feel less neglected and
ignored, or do we cut loose with both barrels at all times and fuck
people up when they're not ready for it?

I mean, -you- knew at the time that you were expecting something
negative, but nobody ELSE did. We aren't psychic.

What's so bad about expecting YOU to just say "this connie in tibet
thing, I think this sucks. somebody do me a favor and pick it apart"

That would have saved a lot of guesswork and put less strain on my
already overworked parapsychic pstench gland.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
-- Gene "spaf" Spafford (1992)

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: KUM-Pewter Litter-It???
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)

yougottabekidding@noway.com (Reverend DJ Epoch) hunched over a
computer, typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, yougottabekidding@noway.com (Reverend DJ Epoch)
laughed madly, then wrote:

>During joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby) 's last frop-induced
>vision, joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote :
>
>> Zen Cohen <walker555@MailAndNews.com> hunched over a computer, typing
>> feverishly;
>> thunder crashed, Zen Cohen <walker555@MailAndNews.com> laughed madly,
>> then wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>This is a group for folk who prefer straight tequilla to saccharine.
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking more drano, but yeah.

>
>Keep yer fuggin saccharine, that and Nutri-Sweet gives me fuggin migrane
>headpounders that makes me want to walk out on the freeway with a TOW
>missle and take out anything over 6 wheels that's tailgating.
>
>Or at least severely thrash any Jehoover's Witlesses that comes bangin' on
>the damned door....
>

I had two of them yesterday and I drew a COMPLETE BLANK. I couldn't
think of anything fucked up to say to them. I was just off my stride
or something.

It was weird though. I opens the door, and there's two of them there
in their neckties and white shirts. And for some reason the one
looked at me and just did this complete double take. It's like he
started to say something then lost his train of thought and was just
standing there looking at me. So I just waited. Obviously they were
going to try to religion me or why would they be standing on my front
door step in white shirts and ties. Unless they were well dressed
roving gay guys looking to pick me up. And maybe it's a finer
distinction than I realize.

So finally one starts going "blah blah jesus christ saints blah" and I
say "nah thanks I've got one already good luck have a nice day". And
they still kind of just stood there looking stoopit so I was going to
politely shut the door in their faces and then the one said "we could
come in and do some work if you want".

That threw me. I was seriously tempted to let them come in and clean
my apartment for me and vacuum and do the dishes and stuff while I
played Ozzy Osbourne in the background and maybe lit some black
candles on my Altar but somehow my sense of humor just wasn't there
yesterday.

Odd. odd odd.

>........AND TELL THAT FARGIN' COCKROACH TO QUIT STOMPIN' ON THE DAMNED
>COUNTER!!!!

Don't supress his creativity. he's an ARTIST

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

That is not dead, which can eternal lie.
Yet with strange eons, even death may die.

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: KUM-Pewter Litter-It???
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@home.com>

Boddhisatva Troutwaxer <tungtung@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:P9NR6.462$rY6.287424@news.pacbell.net...
> In article <3B15EC4E.2F1D45EF@sheayright.com>, Artemia Salina
> <y2k@sheayright.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, without insisting on a response from anyone, its not
> completely unreasonable to be disappointed with a lack of response.
> Obviously, as a SubGenius, I have to grant everyone else slack, or I'm
> just a bobbie.

What I do is, if nobody responds, I cry. Try it! Nobody likes to see a
grown man cry.

>
> On the gripping hand, I do practice what I preach, and make it a point to
> respond to the creative efforts of others.
>

That's one thing that I think is really important about our little
microcosm -- just because you're fair and nice doesn't mean that others will
treat you the same way. That's a good thing! This whole mess the
Conspiracy has gotten us into has resulted from too much trust, and an
anticipation of some kind of reward for "good" behavior. If only we could
train all the Pinks to see everything through a lens of sarcasm and
mistrust, hell, we might even find out who killed Kennedy!

> > There is nothing weird about it at all. That is the NATURE of your
> > audience here. To ask for any other behavior from them is to ask them
> > to act UNNATURALLY.
>
> That's where we disagree. I would argue that at least some of us are
> responding to conditioning. (We're not immune, just resistant.)

We're broken, BROKEN people. Or people that never got put together right in
the first place. Misfit toys out for vengeance on a world that tossed us
aside like so many used Kleenex brand facial tissues. The remnants of our
former conditioning float through our minds like disembodied demon-spirits,
rearing up to blast us with their infernal codes of behavior, but our
disjointed consciousnesses merely respond with "More Coffee."

>
> > The Nature of the Yeti is a solitary one.
>
> But it doesn't have to be. Once again, conditioning....

I think it does have to be. You see, each of us IS alone, imprisoned by our
senses. To be solitary is the natural state of any creature. It is only
the herd mentality that causes people to think they are "part of" something
larger, like America or The Team or The Cool City, or whatever. At least we
know that when we collaborate on things, we're not becoming "parts" of some
Other Thing, we're still who we are, just cooperating with other individuals
for our own selfish gain.

Back to document index

Original file name: Re- KUM-Pewter Litter-It??? - converted on Friday, 29 June 2001, 22:32