Advertisement
LOKI POSTED : I wouldn't feel bad about how delicious this girl at the photoshoot on Saturday was. Damn, too: she kept smiling and flirting, moving closer; but, I *love* my wife. I mean I really *love* her! Not, "aw I'd feel guilty cause I'm married" but, "I will never leaver her side; I will never harm her; I will die for her". I *love* my wife. I know too well the hurt she would experience if she even knew how moved I was by the attentions of this other person.
RESPONSE : Was the girl at the photoshoot , last year, an absolutist who hated sex ? Furthermore , did she have skinny chaste looking legs ?
IF so tell her to visit central Florida , I'd probably like to go out on a date with her .
RESPONSE : Was the girl at the photoshoot , last year, an absolutist who hated sex ? Furthermore , did she have skinny chaste looking legs ?
IF so tell her to visit central Florida , I'd probably like to go out on a date with her .
posted by:
|
Florida
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Mon, September 28, 2009 - 7:42 PMNo. No, no, and more no. You make Norman Bates look like a well-adjusted guy. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Mon, September 28, 2009 - 7:50 PM"You make Norman Bates look like a well-adjusted guy."
Indeed. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Mon, September 28, 2009 - 8:12 PMOh Puleeease ...Jason would never defile a woman until he married and wished to procreate. Any absolutist, chaste woman with skinny legs is perfectly safe with him. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Mon, September 28, 2009 - 8:14 PMUntil he snaps. Then all bets are off. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Mon, September 28, 2009 - 8:28 PMI don't "snap" mentally , Enrika . -
-
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Mon, September 28, 2009 - 8:46 PMSeems only a matter of time, really. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, September 29, 2009 - 7:25 AMIt ain't gonna happen , folks . -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
-
-
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, September 29, 2009 - 9:45 AM*laughing*
Thanks, but I think I'll stick with the "stay several thousand miles away from him" plan. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, September 29, 2009 - 10:21 AMENRIKA ,
I'm as safe as your grandmother, or perhaps even safer !
Now if you are looking for someone to be worried about , try that Lokifreign guy. He has admitted to consentual violence games with former girlfriends . Heaven knows what that guy might do if you were to meet him ! -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, September 29, 2009 - 10:26 AMI'm quite fond of "consensual violence games." It's a fair bet that I've gone considerably farther than Loki in that arena.
I trust Loki with my life. You, I wouldn't come within a mile of. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, September 29, 2009 - 1:39 PMfunny how everyone but the naive Palma feels the same way.
Nobody would feel safe or comfortable setting Jason up with anyone they know.
oh... and as for "chaste Absolutist girls"....
good fucking luck buddy.
women are on the intuitive / emotional / abstract end of the personality spectrum. Your kind of mental train~wreck is at least twice as unlikely to afflict women as it is sad, pathetic men like yourself.
we come back to the same issue. You have no idea what you're talking about. For christ's sake~! Enrika had to explain to you; a grown man, how ejaculation works, and she's a woman. (who obviously has some experience with orgasms; not that we don't all share her common knowledge about the basics of human procreation...)
you sir are a :
1) Coward
2) Fool
3) Nuisance
4) PROBLEM
for the love of god, and the sake of future generations; I thank all that is holy that you are so damn wrong. The fact that you will not accept the many ways in which you are DEAD WRONG and learn from it, ensures that you WILL NEVER procreate and attempt to raise warped and stunted persons like yourself to continue your program of poisonous diatribe.
as an additional security thanks to the great mass of math that is the universe, I'm happy that even should you succeed somehow to procreate, the type of upbringing you have planned for those hypothetical children never ever works, because children rebel... and the more strict the code that the parent enforces, the wilder they are when they escape that tyranny. (see: preacher's son or duaghter as a mild example) -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, September 29, 2009 - 4:07 PMgenitic elitetists , ah the the launching pad twords genocide, has the great rocket fueled , ready for another mission of mans collective , insipid ego , blasting into same old cultural error, over and over and over again.
I.m making some popcorn, this is always entertaining..........
-
Scott you are in error again . Whiskers and paw prints on the Xerox machine !!!
Wed, September 30, 2009 - 9:24 AMZAE M POSTED : funny how everyone but the naive Palma feels the same way.
RESPONSE: Don't bet on it . Remember, Lucy Cannons also defended what I've posted, and told off Loki and the rest of y'all people who have been making wild accusations at me last year .She still gives support now and then over at Heated Debate . Plus, I've got friends on myspace that are militant absolutists . There's a great chick who goes by the screen name of Lazy Genius --that is quite an absolutists and loves debunking relativists . Granted she isn't quite as puritanical as I am on the issue of sex but on matters of epistemology , ontology and other matters of ethics , not necessarily pertaining to sex , she is quite the absolutist and loves to slam the opinions held by relativists . She is the kind who gets quite angry when people make MTV generation relativist statements like , "naziism is right for the nazi , but not right for us." . She knows that wrong is wrong and doesn't cotton well to that "shades of grey" hogwash .
I think I'll send her an e-mail and ask her to join tribe so she can help me tell off Lokifreign .
ZAE M POSTED :Nobody would feel safe or comfortable setting Jason up with anyone they know.
RESPONSE : On the contrary. My best friend Zack , in Winter Haven , who for many years now has been a fellow absolutist has (in recent years) been apparently persuaded to be *against* much of the liberated sex practices . He is now apparently against fellatio , though he is not as puritanical as I am ..not yet anyway . In recent years he and his wife now have a young daughter . Having a child has made him all the more against liberated /weird sexual practices .
Which leads to an important insight . There is a backlash against liberated sex growing and much of the momentum for it is coming from the people who have children and who care about protecting the children from decadent sexual filth .
I intend to pound the proverbial pulpit and make that backlash permanent and victorious .
There will be people ,Scott, that though they may not go as far as thinking that standard sex / sex for pleasure between a man and wife is inappropriate and sex should only be done for having children , will be (and some already are) receptive to the notion that states that it is vulgar and wrongheaded to engage in ghastly practices like fellatio, sodomy , domitinatrix related sado masochistic practices , and other weird kinks !
What may worry you ,Scott, is that there are people that are fed up and disillusioned with what pop culture in this present era is offering people. There are people who are fed up with the spirit of this era , the mood of the present age that offers us cultural detritus as "Dude, Where's My Car?", sexy vampire shows , edgy t.v. series on Lifetime, dime- a- dozen latest "thought provoking" hype movies, Desperate Houswives, gothic heavy metal and other trash .
There are people that are looking for something different ...and many of them aren't sure where to find it . There is an attraction in many people for the different . Well what people who agree with what I agree with is offerring them is something different . Though the present era is unspeakably bleak and good hopeful ventures often fail due to the bad winds of circumstance , there is a possibility that the "meme" that my fellow ideologues and I are trying to spread might just spread like widlfire. And when it does : look out !
ZAE M POSTED :oh... and as for "chaste Absolutist girls"....
good fucking luck buddy.
women are on the intuitive / emotional / end of the personality spectrum.
RESPONSE: The GOOD ONES are more analtyical (though still given to the nurturing emotions as well) .
ZAE M POSTED :Your kind of mental train~wreck is at least twice as unlikely to afflict women as it is sad, pathetic men like yourself.
RESPONSE: Yes, women who strive to be refined , quaint , singular, pure , ethereal in sensibility are much more few and far between in this present lousy era --at least in this present part of the country. Few and far between right now , for it is an evil age we live in . The present era is far more conformist , vapid and shallow than the midwestern suburbia of the 1950's in some ways . Yet throughout my life, now and then, I tend to meet some "rare birds" .
I've met some quite ethereal girls online recently , but they live far away across the ocean .
One of those days I'm gonna meet AGAIN in person a high fallutin chick who is also looking for what good old Tommy Wolfe called , 'the stone , the leaf, the unfound door, and all the forgotten faces.' If I don't meet an untimely end I shall seek and find her . NOT some bourgeous fake who dresses up like she was a bohemian but is a phony and steeps her mind in tacky kitsch like Ani De Franco, the Celestine Prophecy , and other trash but the genuine deal !
By the way there's a faction of feminist intellectuals that are against phallocentrism who could very well make good allies .
ZAE M POSTED : :we come back to the same issue. You have no idea what you're talking about.
RESPONSE: Now , Scott, you're a sharp fella; do you think I'm gonna fall for that hustle .?
ZAE M POSTED : For christ's sake~! Enrika had to explain to you; a grown man, how ejaculation works, and she's a woman. (who obviously has some experience with orgasms; not that we don't all share her common knowledge about the basics of human procreation...)
you sir are a :
1) Coward
2) Fool
3) Nuisance
4) PROBLEM
RESPONSE: Now I'm visualizing a tabby on a Xerox machine !!! Miaow, Miaow , you are being a copycat to the shtick of Lokifreign again !
ZAE M POSTED : for the love of god, and the sake of future generations; I thank all that is holy that you are so damn wrong. The fact that you will not accept the many ways in which you are DEAD WRONG and learn from it, ensures that you WILL NEVER procreate and attempt to raise warped and stunted persons like yourself to continue your program of poisonous diatribe.
RESPONSE: Please refer to such children as pure and wholesome, nice people rather than "warped and stunted persons".
Oh, and by the way, have you been reading the posts over at the Heated Debate tribe ? Pinky --a regular participant in that tribe reported to have learned of an anecdote of a religious couple recently that thought they could have a baby just by praying for it alone and went to the doctor when the woman did not become pregant after so long a time . Apparently, the couple found sex repulsive . Now granted , I don't go that far as to object to sex strictly for the purpose of procreation--- missionary position in a dimly lit room.
Nonethless, it is heartenng to find that there are still people even in this weird, decadent decade of sex positive types , that are *not* anywhere near sex positive. And of course one can still count on the Hutterites. old order Menonnites, and Bruderhoff to be opposed to liberated sex , also sects like the Wesleyans and others . Lately I've been attending a Greek Orthodox church . Eastern Orthodox clergy tend to be quite opposed to liberated sex . Unfortunately, some of the younger members of the congreagation when they attend public school allow themselves to get influenced by more contemporary /decadent influences , but at least the clergy are holding the line and preaching *against* liberated sex .
Plus we have good ole Joni Mitchell: one of the greatest singers of all time, singing against sex with the song , 'Sex Kills' !
Not only that, there are still young people that though not yet as puritanical in thought as I affilliate have had their hearts broken by a boyfriend or girlfriend cheating on them for cheap sex thrills --when they were hoping for a more romantic , sentimental relationship and the boyfriend or grilfriend wanted to get involved in some weird high jinks with a f---ck buddy or one night tryst . Those people , with the dissatisfaction they feel , could be excellent recruits for the anti-sex backlash, given someone who could talk to them about how decadent liberated sex leads to problems like that !
Even the emo movement among the young of the present era has some sad , disaffected young people that are mad at the world and apparently are looking for something sentimental and not mere sex , they could provide some good recruits also for an anti-sex , and hopefully, eventually, an even larger anti-kitsch crusade .
ZAE M POSTED : as an additional security thanks to the great mass of math that is the universe, I'm happy that even should you succeed somehow to procreate, the type of upbringing you have planned for those hypothetical children never ever works, because children rebel... and the more strict the code that the parent enforces, the wilder they are when they escape that tyranny. (see: preacher's son or duaghter as a mild example)
RESPONSE :For one , in regard to *some* matters I'd be a very lenient father .
Secondly, not only would my wife and I homeschool our kids to make sure they are sheltered , we would try to find a home in the country in some very rural area where the neighbors would not likely have television .
We very well may start a commune with other like-minded couples who hate decadent contemporary pop culture kitsch and are absolutists , that way our kids would have other pure- raised kids to play with , and would not even be exposed to decadence -
-
Re: Scott you are in error again . Whiskers and paw prints on the Xerox machine !!!
Wed, September 30, 2009 - 1:13 PMHas Zae M , been rendered speechless with shame, by the last post , Enrika ? -
-
Re: Scott you are in error again . Whiskers and paw prints on the Xerox machine !!!
Wed, September 30, 2009 - 1:14 PM*laughing*
I'm absolutely certain that he hasn't. :)
-
Re: Scott you are in error again . Whiskers and paw prints on the Xerox machine !!!
Wed, September 30, 2009 - 1:35 PMNot everyone lives on tribe, Jason. One of the many disturbing things about this thread is that you picked a post from Loki that was a year old, making you a bit of a stalker. Time to step away from the computer and go outside. -
-
Re: Scott you are in error again . Whiskers and paw prints on the Xerox machine !!!
Wed, September 30, 2009 - 3:25 PMThat doesn't make me a stalker , Molly .
I do go outside . I was outside a few minutes ago walking my dog . -
-
Willow
Wed, September 30, 2009 - 7:42 PMAnd how is Willow these days, Jason?
I hope you do find that pure and lovely gal you are looking for.
I know you are harmless and safe. You just have strong convictions.
I enjoy the way you phrase your ideas. -
-
Dreams of Lucy
Wed, September 30, 2009 - 8:23 PMEr uh;
"Lucy Cannons" is a diminutive Latino gentleman with a perverse and somewhat sadistic yen for dominating women that are markedly taller than he is.
PSA -
-
-
Re: Dreams of Lucy
Wed, September 30, 2009 - 11:54 PMhad a feeling you'd perk up!
-
-
I'm your huckleberry .
Thu, October 1, 2009 - 6:56 AMLOKI ,
You better keep a civil toungue in your head, mister , when typin about a lady .
I told you once and I'll tell you again, Lokifreign , don't mess with a lady ! -
-
Re: I'm your huckleberry .
Thu, October 1, 2009 - 7:50 AMWhy don't you call her up, have a chat. What could be more refined and genteel? Mint juleps and maybe some Blake, some Yeats - make an afternoon of it. -
-
Re: I'm your huckleberry .
Thu, October 1, 2009 - 11:37 AMThat is one of the once in a blue moon times, where you present something of a good notion .
Those times are few and far between ... Try, Loki, to make reasonable statements on a frequent not just once in a blue moon basis . -
-
Re: I'm your huckleberry .
Thu, October 1, 2009 - 3:54 PMIt's probably the best idea I ever had. Send her a PM. Go to her profile, and click the button that says "send message"; give her your address. Life is short.
-
-
-
Re: I'm your huckleberry Indeed
Mon, October 5, 2009 - 10:39 PMJason posted:
You better keep a civil toungue in your head, mister , when typin about a lady .
I told you once and I'll tell you again, Lokifreign , don't mess with a lady !
Zaem muses:
Isn't it interesting to note that men who have no idea what women are really thinking make statements like the one above.They get all riled up and pompous; declaring their white~knight~diatribe; and after a brief time they lady departs with the Black Knight with a bawdy and sinister glance over her shoulder at her "protector".
no woman wants to be placed on a pedestal so high that it becomes a tower prison. -
-
Postmodern hustle ...debunked .You cannot fool everybody , ZaeM . You *don't* speak for a whole gender and never did .
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 5:41 PMJason posted:
You better keep a civil toungue in your head, mister , when typin about a lady .
I told you once and I'll tell you again, Lokifreign , don't mess with a lady !
ZAEM POSTED :Zaem muses:
Isn't it interesting to note that men who have no idea what women are really thinking make statements like the one above.They get all riled up and pompous; declaring their white~knight~diatribe; and after a brief time they lady departs with the Black Knight with a bawdy and sinister glance over her shoulder at her "protector".
RESPONSE: Since when does anyone elect to speak for a whole gender ?
ZAEM POSTED :no woman wants to be placed on a pedestal so high that it becomes a tower prison.
RESPONSE: Since when is circumspection and refinement a prison ?
ZAEM POSTED : no woman wants to be placed on a pedestal so high that it becomes a tower prison.
RESPONSE: Who elected you to speak for the female gender ? Who told you that no woman wants such a pure chivalrous lady life ?...was it the screenplay for The movie Fight Club , some hipster movie like ' I Heart Hucabees' , or some other similar pop culture pap ?
Don't project the crassness you embrace on to every woman alive today ?
-
-
-
Re: Willow
Thu, October 1, 2009 - 7:14 AMHi Palma ,
Willow is doing well, although she is somewhat sluggish lately .
She is getting old. She was born in the autumn of 1997, and we got her in the spring of 1998 .
We gave her a bath the other day. She had been itching a lot , so she needed a bath .
One drag about her getting a bath , however, is that she temporarily looses that great smell she has when she hasn't bathed in a while .
Believe it or not when she goes without bathing for a while she actually gets an aroma that smells good .
It is hard to know what to liken it to . It is somewhat almost like a bready smell , yet not exactly .
Been taking her on a different walking route . I think going by the pond all the time gets monotonous for Willow , so I took her on the sidewalk behind the backyard of the house I'm staying at . I think she liked the small novelty it offererred .
Pets are amazing . My philodendron's been growing a lot putting out lots of new tendrils and not only more leaves but fatter leaves --since it has been transplanted .
I miss my bird Vincent , that died back in the 1990's .
Thank you for the good wishes on finding my muse-wife to be . -
-
Re: Willow
Sat, October 3, 2009 - 1:17 PMHi Jason,
Interesting that you are a connoisseur of dog aromas. Hounds have a distinctive odor.
I traveled to Wales to get a Welsh Corgi. He had a habit of swimming in the Irish Sea each morning. Even after he arrived in America, he still smelled of the Irish Sea (salty, earthy, clean and wild). Even after he'd been bathed a few times, he smelled of the Irish Sea.
I'm familiar with that yeasty smell you speak of. I had a pet Dachshund as a child and he used to sleep by my pillow. His feet smelled yeasty. I did not find it offensive.
I used to breed showdogs and they each had their own smell. My horses, did, too. I could identify all of them in the dark.
Of course, people are that way, too.
Ciao, dear Jason -
-
Re: Willow
Sat, October 3, 2009 - 3:05 PMPALMA POSTED :Hi Jason,
Interesting that you are a connoisseur of dog aromas. Hounds have a distinctive odor.
I traveled to Wales to get a Welsh Corgi. He had a habit of swimming in the Irish Sea each morning. Even after he arrived in America, he still smelled of the Irish Sea (salty, earthy, clean and wild). Even after he'd been bathed a few times, he smelled of the Irish Sea.
RESPONSE: It may be ironic coincidence, maybe that you should mention that because when I lived with Willow and Grandpa on Clearview , people told me that Willow looked like a Welsh Corgi though she is a German Shepherd / Bassett Hound mix .
My Grandpa on my mother's side, incidentally was of Welsh and Scottish ancestry .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Mon, October 5, 2009 - 10:13 PMJASON LEARY POSTED: I don't "snap" mentally , Enrika .
RESPONSE: Well then "snap" those fingers, daddy-o ! -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 5:44 PMDid somebody get an alt , that pretends to be my name ?
How is it that the tribe administrators allow that trash to go on .
I bet it was probable that Andrew the p[irate that pulled off that masquerade of pretending to me and posting the "snap your fingers ...ect above . -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 6:17 PMWe clones are all on the Christian forefront. Don't demure on a fellow brother, Jason Leary. I hate dah peanus as much as you do. It a horrible device! Let us work together to demoralize the pomo, sexually liberated degenerates, and convince them to stow they genitalia!
Doan be angry wit' a fellow sexless Christian agent of cultural and societal reversal. Everything is influenced by sex these days, and the flow of the moneys and banks we knows got nuthin' to do wit' it, right brother in Christ? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 6:23 PMYou started it, jackass. And you have never even manned up enough to get a face.
See you in prison. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 6:26 PMWe'll see if it's your "precinct". -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 7:59 PM"I was outside a few minutes ago walking my dog"
This is your new dog, isn't it? -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 1:56 AMNo. She is an old dog . Turns 12 in November .
-
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 8:38 PM -
-
Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 2:31 AMANDREW PRETENDING TO BE ME POSTED :Everything is influenced by sex these days, and the flow of the moneys and banks we knows got nuthin' to do wit' it, right brother in Christ?
RESPONSE: Actually , as sister Joni Mitchell points out in the song 'Sex Kills' sex is used to sell a multitude of things and phenomenon. The sex positive / liberated sex phenomenon , dovetails quite well with the ethos of mass man commercialism and its venality .Both venal consumerist greed and the desire for liberated sex have in common a crass , earthy sensibility which *rejects* the ethereal and contemplative , in favor of visceral excitement .
Liberated sex is the spawing ground where MTV Generation commercialism / target marketing / demographics goes quite swimmingly and spawns .
It is part and parcel of 'The Society of The Spectacle' and media noise .
The new era of sexy and suburban hypermedia ala MTV, CNN, FOX NEWS , amd LIFETIME channel is far more steeped in a hideous mood of conformity , jejune banality, and vapidness than the mileu of suburban Midwestern America in the 1950's ever was . What is worse: is it is marked by surface , cosmetic novelty , and a lack of genuine inner novelty in the life of the mind and in the moods of persons , at least the sort of persons it solicits !
The new era of sexy- television- and- I-pod suburban America could well be described as a land of cosmetic novelty but little or no deep novelty , the land of 10, 000 artificail flavors that all taste vaguely the same !
Witness how so many of the ballyhooed so-called thought provoking t.v. shows and movies all tend to have variations on the same present-decade cliche motifs. Sexy cliches with cosmetic variations ---describes the zeitgeist of the present, sexy, mundane conformist decade ! -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:01 AMTell me why I should read any of this human-based trash. It appears humanity wants to die, and I am fine with that. Looking at my watch right now.
Read the posts here yet?:
tribes.tribe.net/typewrite...2e2e0babb2
Have a brain? You simply won't stop talking aboutm sex. I'm going to have a lot of sex. I'm moving to San Fransisco. You hold it. Loser. Lying fucking loser wannabe rejector of Christ. Judger of other people. You're an idiot. Fess up. You don't even know why you are impelled to talk about this all the time.
YOU WON'T STOP TALKING ABOUT SEX. HAVE SOME. IT'S NO BIG DEAL. NO ONE HAS TO BE CELIBATE, THERE WILL BE NO MIRACLES. HUMANITY WILL LIVE OR DIE ON ITS OWN ACTIONS. Most likely will nuke itself. Have fun and a life now, while you can.
You cannot detect ironical turs of phrase at all. You are that dull. I am trying to tell you to find other things to blame, like those fucking useless Republicans you all encouraged to go bomb foreign countries so you could have cheap oil.
Humanity should gas itself with heavy amounts of Zyklon B simply because it contains retards like Jason.
SEX IS NOT THE PROBLEM. SMOKESCREEN. THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WITH ITS WARFARE FOR MONEY SCHEME IS THE PROBLEM. FALSE CHRISTIAN. -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:02 AMI DIDN'T PRETEND TO BE YOU, I CREATED AN ALT LAMPOONING YOU. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. A PARODY. BRAINLESS TWIT. -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:03 AMLet me avoid this thread... niw let me avoid that thread. Now let me ask from others something I am not capable of.
-
-
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:08 AMFace it putz, you're out of your league. I don't care if anything here even means shit; anything-- you, me, the world.
I say kill 'em all, kill the world, get everyone in the spirit together before God, and let his anger sort 'em out.
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:14 AMIs ethereal physical too? Human physical? Tired of this shit. You need your sex in Heaven? Honestly, dude, figure it out. This was the place to have short normal lives, enjoying sex with the opposite sex, NOT THINKING YOUR GONNA KNOCK UP A GAL WITH EACH EJACULATION, THAT IS A RETARDED NOTION, I had sex many times over without the girl ever getting knocked up the first time.
You ... are ... irrational. And everyone is laughing at you!
www.youtube.com/watch -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 4:59 AMIs ethereal physical too?
RESPONSE: Not in a coarse , earthy sense . No .
-
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:29 AMAnd why is it you think that sex so easily sells shit? It's because people aren't hooked up. All that sexual angst floating free. No one ever seems to get enough. And certainly it's purposeful for our own representatives in the government at all levels to constantly sell us down the river, making sure a shitload of houses were built by people who got paid jack shit (the laborers), then sold in subprime mortgages to people who's jobs were and are progressively being sent overseas, so a bunch of bureaucratic lawmen 9so they call themselves) and a bunch of hedge fund managers could make billions, and trash... lessee, Ireland's economy, Iceland's economy... Germany's too...
Do you ever bother to stay aware and read up on current events? Read the business page? Notice how these fucks operate?
It's only going to get worse. Build a circular mound around your house now, if you don't intend to move soon. Hurricane season is coming, and it's going to get worse with every coming year. I'm sure you have experienced your share already, given where you live. Look forward to it. Or imagine that by asking people to not have sex you can miraculously wish all this to the care of the Wizard of Oz's care, or somehow keep disaster from happening. Why else are you concerned is sex happens or not? It has very little to do with the world's real problems. -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:46 AMIf you want to continue querying me, drop the subject of sex, it gets you nowhere, stop the culture war, it's idiotic, ask the right questions, it's Christians who feel guilty for their sexual conduct, not anyone else, those people most likely escape this form, it's up to them, they are free thinkers, it's Christians who take the Bible as the dogmatic rule of thumb, quit asking for hand-outs from God, it's not possible, nearly everyone on the subject has reviled the notion of leaving God to its own devices, they want to own it, make money off it, gain prestige by it, control others by it. See me making any money?
Is there any sort of covenant between us and God any longer? Serious there. The large mass of modern day Christians decree that Jesus is Go, out of sheer desperation. Therefore improtant links have been severed. Plus, this is not Israel anywhere in its history. Religion is defunct. Face it. Belief has to mean something, and it has to have social impact. Imagine the world of strife Israel was centered in. They had reason to believe. No one here does any longer. Far too material.
Stop your verbal wanking it on the culture war. How near is it to you? You live in the boonies. Turn off the television, quite complaining that it's all bread and circuses. Discuss something serious, quit haranguing people here based on heresay and year-old posts. Makes you look ridiculous. I won't discuss anything you don't ask politely about. -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:51 AMYou Christians aren't God. I, nor anyone else, has to make a covenant with you. Quit being heavy-handed, quit judging others, be polite, don't get angry like a woman that you once told had a slight paunch and then they hold it against you for the rest of the relationship.
Always the physical. Bring Jesus back physically. Wrong belief to begin with. That's why we're where we're at.
Do you see? Physical, dogmatic, literal, judgmental, nosy, irritating, controlling, up in other's business.
Don't be a pawn. -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:57 AMIt's all just information to me, if it never means anything to anyone. A dead system, for dead people.
If yourequire someone to believe it BLACK AND WHITE, about the vices and virtues, while everyone else thinks (front mind) it's hogwash, why should I bother, why should anyone bother? If it's BLACK AND WHITE, how come no one else even wants to swing a bit away from greed, or lying, or warfare, or PRIDE, or bigotry, hypocrisy, the like. You seem many liberals being bigots? Probably many liberals hung with black men during the Civil Rights era. Did Southerners? Did they move to the Republican party?
It's all just information to me. -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 4:58 AMIt's all just information to me, if it never means anything to anyone. A dead system, for dead people.
If yourequire someone to believe it BLACK AND WHITE, about the vices and virtues, while everyone else thinks (front mind) it's hogwash, why should I bother, why should anyone bother?
RESPONSE: Because integrity is infinitely worthwhile and conformity to the status quo is NOT .
If it's BLACK AND WHITE, how come no one else even wants to swing a bit away from greed, or lying, or warfare, or PRIDE, or bigotry, hypocrisy, the like.
RESPONSE: An attitude of resignation. Sell out thinking .
Liberalism was once a noble movement before it got infilitrated by relativist ambivalent/ambiguous sellouts !
-
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 5:01 AMquit judging others
RESPONSE: That adage about' judge not that ye be not judged' does NOT apply to judging mere opinions, since the opinions that someone professes aree NOT a part of them .
-
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 4:02 AMThe reason you are constantly wailing against others about sex Jason is because so many Christian households are in shambles. And the rigidity of Christian belief concerning sex plagues them with guilt. Go get a girlfriend will ya? Find some emotional sustenance. Find a dangerous one. Those are fun. One that you are never sure what she's thinking. One you have to be really nice to. A fixer-upper. A snarler. One no more than ten years your junior. Someone not hit on recently. One that will respond to your natural shyness, your care for southern gentility.
I really have no idea what the milieu in central florida is like. The South scares me. I've been down there, but not to Florida. It's probably better than Arkansas or northern Louisiana. -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 4:12 AMDon't be surprised if within the first few weeks or month this girl you go out with wants to have sex with you. I think they pretty much demand it these days. At least then body to body you can stay within some limits. Hold her to sex once a month. See if you can resist her. But keep her on that leash with other forms of endearments. The fact is young people get together, may stay in a relationship for as long as possible, and have sex like bunnies for the first year. It's natural. All these restrictions that so-called religious society makes just hamper that free flow of sexual love. If the milieu allows you to find a woman willing to wait, I say good for you. But I doubt it exists anywhere anymore. Who knows. The South is strange, no? Marry one if you need to. Whatever your pan is. But there is really no reason to remain single if you don't want to. There's the rub. A 30 year old woman is going to want sex, and you know it. It's that clock. Stay away from the Britney bitches. -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 4:48 AMAsking for a physicallized god, in the form of Jesus or anyone else, to live for a thousand years, maintaining chastity, is to further an unbalanced situation. Same as asking for the Nephilim back. Why do all the Sitchinites want the Nephilim back? (Annunaki, Nephilim, same difference.)
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO RUN OUR BUSINESS. And to ask for a physicallized god, or many, is to invite disaster.
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 5:06 AMStay away from the Britney bitches.
RESPONSE: Amen to that .
'Laura is the face in the moonlight . Footsteps that you hear down the hall . A lamp that glows on a summer's night , that you can never quite recall.' ---from LAURA by Tommy Mercer . -
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 1:31 PMDon't have a clue as to your cultural touchstones.
If you need a woman, ethereal of not, I would advise finding one.
I prefer to eventually get away from such a stupid planet and its inhabitants.
That's gotta be one good way to refuse to ever get sucked in again. Forget the existence of this place. Don't wanna go on living in an outhouse forever.
-
-
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 5:02 AMget a girlfriend will ya? Find some emotional sustenance. Find a dangerous one. Those are fun. One that you are never sure what she's thinking.
RESPONSE: I prefer the pure , ethereal ones to the dangerous ones .
-
-
-
Re: Sex sells and sells sexy BANALITY .
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 4:55 AMAnd why is it you think that sex so easily sells shit?
RESPONSE: Because people have become vapid, credulous couch potatoes who have conned themselves into thinking tacky kitsch is somehow cute and endearing (when it is not) .
Do you ever bother to stay aware and read up on current events? Read the business page? Notice how these fucks operate?
RESPONSE : I'm aware of current events and know how the venal creeps operate .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 12:02 PM********** You make Norman Bates look like a well-adjusted guy. *****************
Norman Bates IS a well adjusted guy.
-
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 8:35 PMIt took me a while to remember exactly what you're referring to, but when I did, Ah! The rush of warm feelings and the permeating glow of life's craziest spices! Thanks for reminding me. Interesting how you seized on one little experience of mine and have been nurturing it in your heart all this time... interesting that it's the kind of experience you are least likely to encounter yourself. Is that why it makes you angry? Or is it because human beings give each other happiness, affirmation, and confidence via sexuality? You denied yourself this confidence, and have rejected its affirmation - it comes as no surprise, in that light, that your perception is so skewed and your faculty for reason is so stunted.
As for your personal questions, you will receive no answers from me on this or any other topic unless I feel amused to fuck with your pea brain. In those cases I may wield the truth to some effect or other, but never where my person is concerned. I dislike the fact that you already have some information on me, as you've shown yourself more than willing to slander, harm, and endanger people in the real world for the crime of not agreeing with your masturbatory "philosophy", which is as uneducated and weak as it is exemplary of a nearly perfectly isolated mind.
Every time you ask me for personal information, I become more disgusted with you. Every time you pretend your exhortations carry the force of anything more compelling than the uncontrolled farting of a state hospital mental patient, I become less predisposed to according your words even a cursory attention; I think you are a bad person, and I'm becoming earnestly concerned that your obsession with me is reaching a dangerous level. I will soon be forced to take further steps to limit your access to me, for the good of the people in my life, and perhaps, in some way, for your own stinking good as well, for, I assure you, there are aspects of your life that are in desperate need of your attention, and it is with 100% certainty that I assure you: I am not any of them.
Shut the fuck up. Go outside. Stop being an enemy to the human race - by any means necessary. -
-
Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Thu, October 8, 2009 - 4:25 PMLOKI POSTED : It took me a while to remember exactly what you're referring to, but when I did, Ah! The rush of warm feelings and the permeating glow of life's craziest spices! Thanks for reminding me.
RESPONSE: Your welcome , I suppose. However, the thoughts you have of an amorous sort should be only to your wife. You should be loyal to her in thought NOT just action !
LOKI POSTED : Interesting how you seized on one little experience of mine and have been nurturing it in your heart all this time... interesting that it's the kind of experience you are least likely to encounter yourself. Is that why it makes you angry? Or is it because human beings give each other happiness, affirmation, and confidence via sexuality? You denied yourself this confidence, and have rejected its affirmation - it comes as no surprise, in that light, that your perception is so skewed and your faculty for reason is so stunted.
RESPONSE :So the interest of that girl from the photoshoot in you was sexual ? Darn , i was hoping she wasn't a sex supporter . If that's the case I better not date her .
LOKI POSTED :As for your personal questions, you will receive no answers from me on this or any other topic unless I feel amused to fuck with your pea brain. In those cases I may wield the truth to some effect or other, but never where my person is concerned. I dislike the fact that you already have some information on me, as you've shown yourself more than willing to slander, harm, and endanger people in the real world for the crime of not agreeing with your masturbatory "philosophy", which is as uneducated and weak as it is exemplary of a nearly perfectly isolated mind.
RESPONSE: There is nothing slanderous about the posts i've posted here . There is no mastrubation going on with the philosophy I espouse !
Furthermore , the sheltered life is good !
LOKI POSTED : Every time you ask me for personal information, I become more disgusted with you.
RESPONSE: I was just wondering if the girl from the photo shoot last year might have been an absolutist who disliked sex and had thin, chaste looking legs . If so I might have wanted to date her .
LOKI POSTED :Every time you pretend your exhortations carry the force of anything more compelling than the uncontrolled farting of a state hospital mental patient, I become less predisposed to according your words even a cursory attention;
RESPONSE :That you make references to farting with such nonchalance, goes to show how crass and vulgar you are Loki in sensibility . The exhortations I've presented on the message boards on tribe are based on sound reasoning .
LOKI POSTED : I think you are a bad person,
RESPONSE : It is you who are very evil !
LOKI POSTED :and I'm becoming earnestly concerned that your obsession with me is reaching a dangerous level. I will soon be forced to take further steps to limit your access to me, for the good of the people in my life,
RESPONSE: Listen , I have NO desire whatsoever to go to Georgia to look for you or anything like that . In truth i'm more scared of you . I'm afraid that if you met me offline that you might possibly try and kill me or something diabolical .
You have nothing to worry about. I'm not going to join any more tribes that I know you are a member of . The ones I have already joined , however, I will stay in, and will continue to denigrate and belittle with the utmost vehemence the relativist and murky and froward beliefs you support. Where there are people that you are being rude to (like Lester in the Political Junkies message board , or Lucy in other message boards I will continue to stand up for them and rebuke you for the vulgar way you act .
LOKI POSTED :and perhaps, in some way, for your own stinking good as well, for, I assure you, there are aspects of your life that are in desperate need of your attention, and it is with 100% certainty that I assure you: I am not any of them.
RESPONSE: No there isn't .That just goes to show what a weirdo and screwed up person you are . I am going to continue to cultivate the sheltered life . I will stay right in the comfort zone like a barnacle to the hull of a sturdy ship !
I will certainly NOT come out of the comfort zone . I will continue to associate almost exclusively and eventually exclusively with people who agree with the outlook on living i do and love every minute of how such people reinforce what I already believe anyway ---yeehaw , I will love every minute of associating with people who
reinforce what I believe already...who reinforce the NOT racist bigotry and write off the notions you support
and love every moment and eat up the ecstasy of being around other people who want to no give and take with the
fashionably funky and liberated notions you support...and reinforce the one-sidedness against the notions you support ! Yeehaw , I love doing that !
LOKI POSTED :Shut the fuck up.
RESPONSE: What does that mean ?
LOKI POSTED :Go outside. Stop being an enemy to the human race - by any means necessary.
RESPONSE: I love humanity . I am NOT an enemy to the human race . I am on the side of the people you call "placid feebs" ...and I plan to stirr them up. There is a backlash against liberated sex ...and perhaps the beginnings of a backlash against the postmodern kitsch and macabre thinking you and those in the subcultures you affiliate with support . I'm going to all I can to make that backlash permanent and totally victorious and stirr up the placid febs'
against it ...promoting NON-racist "bigotry" to drench the Loki parade off the street .
I love humanity . Just Monday , I went to Zack's house and spent a remarkable afternoon and evening sharing the company of Zack, Azzie (Zack's 3 year old daughter) , and Zack's wife, . They are good wholesome people who like good wholesome activities .
Spent some great time pushing young Azzie in a swing of a swingset in Zack's back yard , teaching her a song she loved to sing ...and obliging her when she wanted me to push her swing again .
That pure , innocent child gives me much hope for humanity . Since Zack has had a daughter he has apparently more puritanical *against* the social phenomenon in contemporary times of liberated sexual trash. Though he isn't totally opposed to a man and his wife having sex for pleasure , nonetheless I have apparently persuaded him to oppose kinky liberated sexuality. When he has been told about the kinky liberated sexual phenomenon you , Loki , support he was quite repulsed . He would like to come to tribe and castigate you , but his job and the matters of taking care of his family don't give him much time to go online at present .
It is for the sake of the innocent pure children and the senior citizens of the quaint sort , (as well as the love of Truth itself) that I will continue to foster an outlook of disdain , scorn , and verbal intolerance towards the kitsch , the liberated sex , and macabre thinking that postmodern hipsters such as you Loki are supporting .
For you once stated that those who cry "oh, God the children" were allegedly "stupid" and "religious" . Well rest assured I will continue to pound the pulpit and continue to stirr up the placid feebs into a vehement , rigid us vs them attitude against the "multifaceted" crowd of Loki, and shame that postmodern crowd !
-
-
A GOOD BOOK FOR PALMA . THE MAYTREES
Sat, October 10, 2009 - 7:45 AMHi Palma ,
Since you like good books , have you read the Maytrees by Annie Dillard ? It is a good book and I had it from the local library and read it recently .It is worth reading and rereading again since it seems layered from a layer of statements which leap out at you with a granduer that leaps out at one at the onset, to other lines that taking a re-rerading to slowly tease out through parsing ...their hidden splendor . It is set in the area of Cape Cod, Massachussetts over several decades . It is cosmically pithy ..like the writings of Annie Dillard tend to be .
Here below is one excerpt :
'As they aged they grew more avid of beauty, the royal sea in their eyes in town, the dunes ' scimitar shadows, the ever persihing skies. The two were storing all this for what ? Blind death's long years .Bay tides amazed them again. Bay tides re- created the world, stink and all. Twice a month spring tides multiplied seas without diminishing sky. For three nights and days after full and new moons, the bay drowned the beach and climbed steps .It bore flat clouds upon it. From her kitchen window Lou looked down on the beach and saw clouds. People vanished . The sea swelled over ground without a sound and invisibly, as stars cross sky.'----pages 204-205 -
-
Re: A GOOD BOOK FOR PALMA . THE MAYTREES
Sat, October 10, 2009 - 7:52 AMPalma ,
Here below are some more excerpts from the Maytrees ...I have included the word Italicize in parenthesis where the text was italicized in the book .
'When he awoke at night , he saw Altair in Aquilla , Corona Borealis , and the wild swan sluicing down the Milky Way. The Little Dipper looked like a shopping cart. They should rename it.
Lou lay beside him, silent as bandages, her immense solitude so gloriously---he might say, for who will fault a dying man's diction ? broached. [Italicize] I wither slowly in thine arms, here at the quiet limit of the world.
She got up to stretch in her long dress, and his body drooped to the low and midgey spot she left warm .What was he trying to remember ? Was Alterf "the glance" ? He thought he had witnessed, and was now witnessing , the cutting edge of things. Had he helped cut? [Italics] I scarcely knew how pleasantly the moments were falling. He had enjoyed what the Brits called good innings .He had seen downy feathers on eggs. He saw auroras from the dunes . Once he saw a fireball .
Now the rising sea drwoned the flats with no struggle .The heavens slid down .Was dragging the bed outside Lou's idea? He would trail off into the skies like a cloud or sonic boom .Addio terra, addio cielo. Mayby like Lou he was more ironist than he knew . Around him her body, sawgras, trash, seas and skies altered, reeled, and gave way to dark. The gods in the night jumbled with beasts there and moved through tools , thrones , machines .Their legs tangled in one another's chariots .Their wings disrupted lovers .Horns' tips ran through eyes . A mess up there .
Only now did he reckon beauty itself was the great thing . As a deathbed revelation this required---------like most, he suspected----more thought .
Lou changed their sheets without getting him up, as she did in the rest home.Shifting him, she guessed he weighed about what his skeleton and teeth did. His rib cage through his shirt reminded her of a newsreel of the Hindenbvurg .Two days later he rarely opened his eyes. Still they moved him in and out; now he was out .Even in fog he wanted his bed on the beach. A gliding gull dropped its head, swivelled its neck, and peered under its tail to keep him in sight like a car crash. Frowning ,he looked as if he were trying to scry the back of his skull like a cave wall .She and Pete hated to interrupt , to chivvy him forth and try to make him drink . He was tied up elsewhere .He was lowering away. Davits started to swing .
Lou wondered where his information wouldgo when he died. Would filaments of learning plant patterns on earth ?
Would his brain train the sinking plankton to know their way around the seafloor from here to Stellwagen Bank ?
..
Excerpts From The Maytrees By Annie Dillard (part III)
'Clams squirted in the bucket by the door. Pete dug them at low tide .Now the ocean ponderously titled in its basin to flood North America a grain at a time . She and Pete sat by the bed where Maytree had lain indoors and unconscious , or bored stiff for two days. He neither ate, drank, eliminated , opened his eyes, or turned .She watched his clavicle. A piece of brilliance found his face through the French doors; it wrapped his features in shape shifting trapezoids as clouds passed. The room and all its glass faced south . ' (page 215)
..
Excerpts From The Maytrees By Annie Dillard (PART IV)
'Once on the wharf as Pete dropped his duffel from dock to deck, his father's face appeared behind the water----narrow skull, laugh creases, alert eyes under brows like shakes---and Pete felt the barometer needele swing over like a helm. SET FAIR .He had hobbed aboard. The needle stayed over ever since.
He remembered playing catch, rowing. His father let him open and shut his folding ruler .They dug clams. Sometimes his parents danced to Louis Armstrong on the radio and sent him aghast at the door. When his father looked up from the flats , or looked beyond the downstairs French doors to the bay, he tended to say ,
Where is there an end of them, the fishermen ssiling
Into the wind's tail, where the fog cowers ? ' (pages 135 -136)
Excerpts From The Maytrees By Annie Dillard (PART V)
'Her thoughts' motion accelerated in giant paces down the steep unending dune that revealed more dunes, each comprised all time and all place----a real rabbit hole .Taking those flying steps and not crashing ! It reminded her of an old parody of Ripley's Believe It Or Not: DUCKS CANNOT FLY ! [In Italics] They are merely GREAT LEAPERS ! '
Maytree would resume his life in Maine, and she would pick up her subjects' edges anywhere ---in other cultures, in any mind's track, in paleontology, old pecking and runes on stones, in Asian philosophy--...and poke up at the bottom of things with a stick, or however she used to work. She kept an eye on the rifling, fletching, skeg, or keel that trued her aim. What was it that hum? Did generations make it out or hear it ? She forgot herself like a cloud. This was the out of earshot life she cobbled from her freedom . '
-
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 9:07 AM<< I will continue to associate almost exclusively and eventually exclusively with people who agree with the outlook on living >>
While spending 22 hours a day typing denunciations and declamatory nonsense at people with whom you don't? -
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:25 PMROCKSTAR POSTED :While spending 22 hours a day typing denunciations and declamatory nonsense at people with whom you don't?
RESPONSE: It's declamatory truth . From whence does the figure of 22 hours come from ?
Furthermore, there is a duty to try and reform them . -
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:52 PMHow's that working for you? -
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:03 PMAn uphill battle ... along uphill battle Molly .
The present decade sucks beyond imagining ....
-
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 3:38 PM<< It's declamatory truth >>
Not for you to decide.
<< From whence does the figure of 22 hours come from ? >>
A down-n-dirty approximation based on the length of posts, breadth of posting and probable time spent in manufacturing and disseminating such a relentless Juggernaut of self-referential twaddle.
<< Furthermore, there is a duty to try and reform them >>
Who made you deputy dick inspector? -
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 3:59 PM"Who made you deputy dick inspector?"
You seem to have a knack for turning a phrase to make me laugh out loud. Not sure what it is exactly, but I appreciate it greatly. :) -
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 5:26 PMI,m the Sheriff and I didn't deputize any organ inspectors, would never inspect anything, i would form a posse.
and find them and hang them.
make em dance...
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 6:07 PMENRIKA POSTED :Who made you deputy dick inspector?"
You seem to have a knack for turning a phrase to make me laugh out loud. Not sure what it is exactly, but I appreciate it greatly. :) "Who made you deputy dick inspector?"
You seem to have a knack for turning a phrase to make me laugh out loud. Not sure what it is exactly, but I appreciate it greatly. :)
RESPONSE: You would , Enrika . You would .
You and Mr.Rockstar would do well to study the teaching of folk singer Joni Mitchell .
She has some words of wisdom I've posted below, that both of you (and that scurrilous Lokifreign) would do well to heed and study .
Preach on sister Mitchell !
' All these jackoffs at the office
The rapist in the pool
Oh and the tragedies in the nurseries-
Little kids packin guns to school
The ulcerated ozone
These tumors of the skin-
This hostile sun beating down on
This massive mess were in!
And the gas leaks
And the oil spills
And sex sells everything
And sex kills ...
Sex kills ...
Sex kills ...
Sex kills ...
Sex kills ... ' ---From the song 'Sex Kills' by Joni Mitchell
-
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 5:58 PM<< It's declamatory truth >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Not for you to decide.
RESPONSE: A priori , absolute precepts of ethics and esthetics decide ...I'm just a mere instrument for them .
<< From whence does the figure of 22 hours come from ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :A down-n-dirty approximation based on the length of posts, breadth of posting and probable time spent in manufacturing and disseminating such a relentless Juggernaut of self-referential twaddle.
RESPONSE: Down and dirty approximation indeed . Perhaps like Loki you find exhortations to accuracy to be a "pedantic" sort of nuisance . Many years ago when I was doing a research paper on George Bernard Shaw ...one commentator presented an apparent quote from Bertrand Russell to the effect that Shaw tended to mistake wit for wisdom . You , Mr. Rockstar are a clever and somewhat amiable chap ...something of a wordsmith , however, wit is no subsitute for accuracy , persipacity as to epistemic matters and so on ...
<< Furthermore, there is a duty to try and reform them >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Who made you deputy dick inspector?
RESPONSE: Exhorting people to cultivate dispositions of mind *above* the mental gutter of liberated sex and other kitsch ...does not make one a "dick inspector" . Again, ultimately , it is not about whether I'm this or that...it is about what methods of thought are right .
Roguishness is NOT endearing nor does it provide some sort of sagacious savoire faire to life , despite what the edgy movies tell us lately .
'Times have changed,
And we've often rewound the clock,
Since the Puritans got a shock,
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today,
Any shock they should try to stem,
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.
In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.
Good authors too who once knew better words,
Now only use four letter words
Writing prose, Anything Goes '. ---COLE PORTER
-
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 3:22 AM<< You seem to have a knack for turning a phrase to make me laugh out loud. Not sure what it is exactly, but I appreciate it greatly. :) >>
*bows*
Well, I have a great opening act. After one of Rev. Dr. Meatwad's lengthy jeremiads against his own schlong, all I have to do is shoot my cuffs and roll out the Henny Youngman stuff.
<< folk singer Joni Mitchell >>
Is THAT what she is? I thought she was like a designer lava lamp or something.
<< A priori , absolute precepts of ethics and esthetics decide >>
What? Whether you want white or red wine with the bullshit carbonara you're dishing up?
<< Perhaps like Loki you find exhortations to accuracy to be a "pedantic" sort of nuisance . >>
Perhaps I don't take you seriously enough to believe you're capable of doing anything with scholarship but blowing your nose on it.
<< Exhorting people to cultivate dispositions of mind *above* the mental gutter >>
Most people don't need help with this, seeming to instinctively reach for Something Better no matter what the crap that's handed them. What they *do* need are fewer bad vibrations from self-licensed bores.
<< liberated sex and other kitsch >>
What has sex (liberated or desublimated) to do with "kitsch"? The two are poles apart.
<< Again, ultimately , it is not about whether I'm this or that >>
Crap. Your behavior is ALWAYS about you.
<< wit is no subsitute for accuracy >>
Nonsense. It's what tells you you've hit the bullseye.
<< Roguishness is NOT endearing >>
Says who, Margaret Dumont? -
-
Re: Evil propaganda of Lokifreign
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 8:46 AM<< What? Whether you want white or red wine with the bullshit carbonara you're dishing up? >>
I'll take the Concha y Toro Casillero Del Diablo Carmenere please.
-
For the edification of Mr.Rockstar . Analytical esthetic criteria brought to light. [Don't you want a perfect beautiful world for the children to inherit, Mr.Rockstar?]
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 9:49 AM<< You seem to have a knack for turning a phrase to make me laugh out loud. Not sure what it is exactly, but I appreciate it greatly. :) >>
*bows*
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Well, I have a great opening act. After one of Rev. Dr. Meatwad's lengthy jeremiads against his own schlong, all I have to do is shoot my cuffs and roll out the Henny Youngman stuff.
RESPONSE: The jeremiads are against EVERY schlong under the sun ! (Yours truly wishes human men had the pelvic morphology more like unto male birds . Male birds don't have any external genitalia . Perhaps the Fall of man led to our spiritual cores being embodied in the manner we are since I believe the Eden narrative in Genesis ...which I hold to be allegorical in many ways ...reflects that there was a sort of spiritual preexistent realm before this one than man has fallen from . Apparently there are rabbinical writings , cognate with that notion ...but such investigations of cosmology are a topic for a whole other dissertation , so I just mention it here as an aside ...)
<< folk singer Joni Mitchell >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Is THAT what she is? I thought she was like a designer lava lamp or something.
RESPONSE: Hope your merely joking and NOT insulting the edfying and remarkable Joni Mitchell .
<< A priori , absolute precepts of ethics and esthetics decide >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :What? Whether you want white or red wine with the bullshit carbonara you're dishing up?
RESPONSE: IF you are rejecting the assertion that there are indeed *any* a priori precepts of ethics and esthetics then you confirm yourself either to be a relativist or a pyrrhonist . Granted being the former of the two would be a far worse affiliation .
<< Perhaps like Loki you find exhortations to accuracy to be a "pedantic" sort of nuisance . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Perhaps I don't take you seriously enough to believe you're capable of doing anything with scholarship but blowing your nose on it.
RESPONSE: Whether I am this or that is not ultimately salient . It is the content of what i am advocating that must be evaluated *indepedent of* any appraisals of me as a personality .
<< Exhorting people to cultivate dispositions of mind *above* the mental gutter >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Most people don't need help with this, seeming to instinctively reach for Something Better no matter what the crap that's handed them.
RESPONSE: Wish that such was the case . In the present tacky and sordid era of pop culture/ mass media influence (and the attendent relativism/duplicity that tends to go along with it) in so much of the world people either resign themselves to tackiness and /or vapidness, or try to grasp it with open arms !
ROCKSTAR POSTED : What they *do* need are fewer bad vibrations from self-licensed bores.
RESPONSE: More of the usual relativist sort of ethos...mellowness... whose upshot is to tell us to not take the endeavor of living, philosophizing so seriously ...more of the implicit appeals to not be so rigid ...to be somewhat more accepting... the mellowness you espouse tell us to *stop* trying to shake down the world with crusading idealism. It is the mellowness, ANTI-extreme shtick ...that you are tacitly appealing to Rockstar .
Rockstar , don't you want to change the world ? Have you ever wanted the world to be a totally noble , beautiful, idealistic place with nothing ever sordid ...filled with light and beatitude where the childrens' innocence is forever preserved ? Well I earnestly want that highfallutin beautiful tommorrow.... and woe betide me if ever swerve from wanting that or every inwardly compromise wanting it !
<< liberated sex and other kitsch >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :What has sex (liberated or desublimated) to do with "kitsch"? The two are poles apart.
RESPONSE :Liberated sex has a number of qualitative characteristics in common with cultural artifacts of kitsch. Notably, the theme of intentional NON-carefulness , a sense of a *lessening* of the sense of deliberative *care* in the conceiving of a project in both cases .With both endeavors there is the common characteristic of a *rejection* of great *deliberative care* in the acts of the people involved ...in so far as how the sensory qualia, in both types of endeavors are handled.
In both cases, a sharply-wrought, intricate production ...with what, in the discpline of esthetics is called 'significant form' is NOT sought at all ...and in many cases is even deliberately flouted !
What is sought *instead*, in both sorts of endeavors, is a metally lazy AMUSEMENT (both in kitch and liberated sex) .
The term 'amusement' is key in seeing the parallels between both liberated sex and kisch .
<< Again, ultimately , it is not about whether I'm this or that >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Crap. Your behavior is ALWAYS about you.
RESPONSE: On what specific grounds do you claim that? And by using the term 'you' is Rockstar using the term in the sense of what is called 'the editorial you' (as in any given person) or me personally ?
Furthermore, in what specific contextual sense do you claim it is about me (and whether you mean the editorial 'me' or the personal 'me' has yet do be delinateted)
<< wit is no subsitute for accuracy >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Nonsense. It's what tells you you've hit the bullseye.
RESPONSE: Wit and rhetorical flourish can be interesting . However, there are not conceptually identical with conceptual persipcacity , now are they, Rockstar.? It is conceptual perspacity that is the characteristic most salient to truth and normative and metanormative concerns .Surely you will conceed that, right ?
<< Roguishness is NOT endearing >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Says who, Margaret Dumont?
RESPONSE: I'm going to have to look her up. She might perhaps be an ideological ally . Perhaps she will provide more ballast for an ideologue like yours truly. I am edified to know that there are still other people who espouse high standards , like the editorialist Ms.King .
Roguishness belongs in a category of dispositions which is rightly classifed as *mentally entropic*. The momentum of roguishness, as a trait, is thematically towards the theme of dissolution , it's very *meta-thematic momentum* feeds on the themes of dissolution (either of self or others) , the sordid ...the sordid and the dissolute being comprised by the same theme of *mental entropy* . -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: For the edification of Mr.Rockstar . Analytical esthetic criteria brought to light. [Don't you want a perfect beautiful world for the children to inherit, Mr.Rockstar?]
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 10:38 PM<< The jeremiads are against EVERY schlong under the sun ! >>
Ah, then, tho' it is schlongdom itself against which you rail, you can't help but hate your *own* schlong all the worse, because of all the trouble it causes you and, well, because it's yours.
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Perhaps I don't take you seriously enough to believe you're capable of doing anything with scholarship but blowing your nose on it.
RESPONSE: Whether I am this or that is not ultimately salient . It is the content of what i am advocating that must be evaluated *indepedent of* any appraisals of me as a personality . >>
Since I've only your written ramblings to base any assessment of your "personality" on, pray *what* is the difference?
<< In the present tacky and sordid era of pop culture/ mass media influence (and the attendent relativism/duplicity that tends to go along with it) in so much of the world people either resign themselves to tackiness and /or vapidness, or try to grasp it with open arms ! >>
Culture made them aware of their genitalia?
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED : What they *do* need are fewer bad vibrations from self-licensed bores.
RESPONSE: More of the usual relativist sort of ethos...mellowness... whose upshot is to tell us to not take the endeavor of living, philosophizing so seriously ... .>>
No, it's a suggestion you wise the fuck up.
<< RESPONSE: On what specific grounds do you claim that?" >>
What do you mean by "specific", Jason?
>> ROCKSTAR POSTED :What has sex (liberated or desublimated) to do with "kitsch"? The two are poles apart.
RESPONSE :Liberated sex has a number of qualitative characteristics in common with cultural artifacts of kitsch. Notably, the theme of intentional NON-carefulness , a sense of a *lessening* of the sense of deliberative *care* in the conceiving of a project in both cases .With both endeavors there is the common characteristic of a *rejection* of great *deliberative care* in the acts of the people involved ..>>
1) You're wrong. Kitsch art often shows great, even painstaking, care.
2) There's no deliberation in the sexual act? I'd say you don't know enough about sex to make that comment.
3) The entire quoted snippet sounds like some homina-homina pulled by an undergrad when the prof calls them to account.
<< the mellowness you espouse >>
I have NEVER been accused of either espousing "mellowness" or being personally "mellow" myself.
<< Roguishness belongs in a category of dispositions which is rightly classifed as *mentally entropic* >>
By whom? Lynne Cheney? -
-
Re: For the edification of Mr.Rockstar . Analytical esthetic criteria brought to light. [Don't you want a perfect beautiful world for the children to inherit, Mr.Rockstar?]
Thu, October 15, 2009 - 10:42 AM<< The jeremiads are against EVERY schlong under the sun ! >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : Ah, then, tho' it is schlongdom itself against which you rail, you can't help but hate your *own* schlong all the worse, because of all the trouble it causes you and, well, because it's yours.
RESPONSE: Since I am *not* sexually active , how could it cause me any trouble ?
Furthermore, hating my own schlong is but merely ancillary and marginal to hating schlongdom itself !
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Perhaps I don't take you seriously enough to believe you're capable of doing anything with scholarship but blowing your nose on it.
RESPONSE: Whether I am this or that is not ultimately salient . It is the content of what i am advocating that must be evaluated *indepedent of* any appraisals of me as a personality . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Since I've only your written ramblings to base any assessment of your "personality" on, pray *what* is the difference?
RESPONSE: The statements I've presented in those typed ramblings often put forth precepts, insights , and methodological principles which TRANSCEND my personality ; transcend my personal self . It is very important to keep that in mind . The tenure I've had here (except perhaps on those times I've been sharing small talk and light conviviality with people on line) is merely subordinant to that as a mere instrument . The true beliefs I espouse are the content my personal self online is ultimately only important as a vehicle for that content .
It is those true beliefs that ultimately count far , far more than me as a person .
<< In the present tacky and sordid era of pop culture/ mass media influence (and the attendent relativism/duplicity that tends to go along with it) in so much of the world people either resign themselves to tackiness and /or vapidness, or try to grasp it with open arms ! >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Culture made them aware of their genitalia?
RESPONSE: Contemporary pop culture amplified that awareness and , hence, helped the lazy minded tendency towards phallocentrism to gain a lot more momentum than it would have had otherwise . It did not make a de novo awareness of it, but it certainly helped amplify that tendency .
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED : What they *do* need are fewer bad vibrations from self-licensed bores.
RESPONSE: More of the usual relativist sort of ethos...mellowness... whose upshot is to tell us to not take the endeavor of living, philosophizing so seriously ... .>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :No, it's a suggestion you wise the fuck up.
RESPONSE: "Wise the fuck up " in what sense ?
<< RESPONSE: On what specific grounds do you claim that?" >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :What do you mean by "specific", Jason?
RESPONSE :The following definition (2). culled from Webster's 1913 is quite edifying on the topic .
Although some necessary light on the notion is also presented by Wordnet :
Noun 1. specific - a fact about some part (as opposed to general); "he always reasons from the particular to the general"
Synonyms: particular
2. Specifying; definite, or making definite; limited; precise; discriminating; as, a specific statement.
>> ROCKSTAR POSTED :What has sex (liberated or desublimated) to do with "kitsch"? The two are poles apart.
RESPONSE :Liberated sex has a number of qualitative characteristics in common with cultural artifacts of kitsch. Notably, the theme of intentional NON-carefulness , a sense of a *lessening* of the sense of deliberative *care* in the conceiving of a project in both cases .With both endeavors there is the common characteristic of a *rejection* of great *deliberative care* in the acts of the people involved ..>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : 1) You're wrong. Kitsch art often shows great, even painstaking, care.
RESPONSE : Would you please mention some putative examples of kitsch art that shows great even painstaking care .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :2) There's no deliberation in the sexual act? I'd say you don't know enough about sex to make that comment.
RESPONSE : What I was referring to was a *lack* of deliberation in regard to the specifc context of any effort to handle or direct the sensory qualia involved in the sexual act towards a well- wrought presentation of such qualia. What I was referring to was that the sexual act , especially if it is an act of liberated sex or sex like act (an example of the latter being a hideous abomination like fellatio) ...due to some of the vicissitudes of the anatomy involved in such an act and the visual motions , rythmns attendent upon engaging that anatomy does not deploy the sensory qualia in a way that is artful in the highbrow sense of the word. The sexual act deploys sensory qualia in a way that lacks the orderly combination of (1). vividness in the contours of the sensory qualia and (2). harmonious contiguity between the parts of the production . Both (1) and (2) together are at the crux of what in analytical esthetics is called 'significant form' .
The lack of element (2) can be seen in the pelvic motions gyrations of many sexual acts the sort of NON-smooth choppy and sticking sort of motions of lovers in throes of coitus when they are , as the expression goes "going at it " .
One key consideration to keep in mind, when evalusting sex acts from an esthetic standpoint, is that the phallus is NOT in keeping with the objective characterisitics of beauty. Phalluses look like botched cylinders . Form follows biological function in a crude sense , so that a very crude almost-cylinder shape is obtained that lacks the sharp visual contour of a cylinder (or any other Euclidean shape). What one has is almost shape that lacks the sharp geometry od say an eye, or a hand, or a well-wrought arm .
3) The entire quoted snippet sounds like some homina-homina pulled by an undergrad when the prof calls them to account.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you affirm , Mr.Rockstar , that "the entire quoted snippt sounds like some homina-homina pulled by an undergrad when the professor calls them to account" .?
Please present a point counterpoint exposition of how that is puportedly so , showing how 'you Jason are remiss because of particular _____________________ consideration such and such ....
<< the mellowness you espouse >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :I have NEVER been accused of either espousing "mellowness" or being personally "mellow" myself.
RESPONSE: Hmnnn. But isn't the upshot of you objecting to the preachy absolutist polemics I've put forth
a tacit plea to exhort me to stop promoting single-minded, rigid tenets of what people should do and think...and for me to take a less serious , NON-preachy approach to philosophizing and discourse ? (Because * if * that is the upshot , that would be an exhortation from you to mellowness)
<< Roguishness belongs in a category of dispositions which is rightly classifed as *mentally entropic* >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : By whom? Lynne Cheney?
RESPONSE: By the a priori, preexisting absolute precepts of ethics and esthetics . -
-
Re: For the edification of Mr.Rockstar . Analytical esthetic criteria brought to light. [Don't you want a perfect beautiful world for the children to inherit, Mr.Rockstar?] ADDENTA
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 3:17 AM<< The jeremiads are against EVERY schlong under the sun ! >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : Ah, then, tho' it is schlongdom itself against which you rail, you can't help but hate your *own* schlong all the worse, because of all the trouble it causes you and, well, because it's yours.
RESPONSE: Since I am *not* sexually active , how could it cause me any trouble ?
Furthermore, hating my own schlong is but merely ancillary and marginal to hating schlongdom itself !
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Perhaps I don't take you seriously enough to believe you're capable of doing anything with scholarship but blowing your nose on it.
RESPONSE: Whether I am this or that is not ultimately salient . It is the content of what i am advocating that must be evaluated *indepedent of* any appraisals of me as a personality . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Since I've only your written ramblings to base any assessment of your "personality" on, pray *what* is the difference?
RESPONSE: The statements I've presented in those typed ramblings often put forth precepts, insights , and methodological principles which TRANSCEND my personality ; transcend my personal self . It is very important to keep that in mind . The tenure I've had here (except perhaps on those times I've been sharing small talk and light conviviality with people on line) is merely subordinant to that as a mere instrument . The true beliefs I espouse are the content my personal self online is ultimately only important as a vehicle for that content .
It is those true beliefs that ultimately count far , far more than me as a person .
<< In the present tacky and sordid era of pop culture/ mass media influence (and the attendent relativism/duplicity that tends to go along with it) in so much of the world people either resign themselves to tackiness and /or vapidness, or try to grasp it with open arms ! >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Culture made them aware of their genitalia?
RESPONSE: Contemporary pop culture amplified that awareness and , hence, helped the lazy minded tendency towards phallocentrism to gain a lot more momentum than it would have had otherwise . It did not make a de novo awareness of it, but it certainly helped amplify that tendency .
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED : What they *do* need are fewer bad vibrations from self-licensed bores.
RESPONSE: More of the usual relativist sort of ethos...mellowness... whose upshot is to tell us to not take the endeavor of living, philosophizing so seriously ... .>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :No, it's a suggestion you wise the fuck up.
RESPONSE: "Wise the fuck up " in what sense ?
<< RESPONSE: On what specific grounds do you claim that?" >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :What do you mean by "specific", Jason?
RESPONSE :The following definition (2). culled from Webster's 1913 is quite edifying on the topic .
2(a). Specifying; definite, or making definite; limited; precise; discriminating; as, a specific statement.
Although some necessary light on the notion is also presented by Wordnet
Noun 1. specific - a fact about some part (as opposed to general); "he always reasons from the particular to the general"
Synonyms: particular
>> ROCKSTAR POSTED :What has sex (liberated or desublimated) to do with "kitsch"? The two are poles apart.
RESPONSE :Liberated sex has a number of qualitative characteristics in common with cultural artifacts of kitsch. Notably, the theme of intentional NON-carefulness , a sense of a *lessening* of the sense of deliberative *care* in the conceiving of a project in both cases .With both endeavors there is the common characteristic of a *rejection* of great *deliberative care* in the acts of the people involved ..>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : 1) You're wrong. Kitsch art often shows great, even painstaking, care.
RESPONSE : Would you please mention some putative examples of kitsch art that shows great even painstaking care .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :2) There's no deliberation in the sexual act? I'd say you don't know enough about sex to make that comment.
RESPONSE : What I was referring to was a *lack* of deliberation in regard to the specifc context of any effort to handle or direct the sensory qualia involved in the sexual act towards a well- wrought presentation of such qualia. What I was referring to was that the sexual act , especially if it is an act of liberated sex or sex like act (an example of the latter being a hideous abomination like fellatio) ...due to some of the vicissitudes of the anatomy involved in such an act and the visual motions , rythmns attendent upon engaging that anatomy does not deploy the sensory qualia in a way that is artful in the highbrow sense of the word. The sexual act deploys sensory qualia in a way that lacks the orderly combination of (1). vividness in the contours of the sensory qualia and (2). harmonious contiguity between the parts of the production . Both (1) and (2) together are at the crux of what in analytical esthetics is called 'significant form' .
The lack of element (2) can be seen in the pelvic motions gyrations of many sexual acts the sort of NON-smooth choppy and sticking sort of motions of lovers in throes of coitus when they are , as the expression goes "going at it " .
One key consideration to keep in mind, when evalusting sex acts from an esthetic standpoint, is that the phallus is NOT in keeping with the objective characterisitics of beauty. Phalluses look like botched cylinders . Form follows biological function in a crude sense , so that a very crude almost-cylinder shape is obtained that lacks the sharp visual contour of a cylinder (or any other Euclidean shape). What one has is almost shape that lacks the sharp geometry od say an eye, or a hand, or a well-wrought arm .
3) The entire quoted snippet sounds like some homina-homina pulled by an undergrad when the prof calls them to account.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you affirm , Mr.Rockstar , that "the entire quoted snippt sounds like some homina-homina pulled by an undergrad when the professor calls them to account" .?
Please present a point counterpoint exposition of how that is puportedly so , showing how 'you Jason are remiss because of particular _____________________ consideration such and such ....
<< the mellowness you espouse >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :I have NEVER been accused of either espousing "mellowness" or being personally "mellow" myself.
RESPONSE: Hmnnn. But isn't the upshot of you objecting to the preachy absolutist polemics I've put forth
a tacit plea to exhort me to stop promoting single-minded, rigid tenets of what people should do and think...and for me to take a less serious , NON-preachy approach to philosophizing and discourse ? (Because * if * that is the upshot , that would be an exhortation, from you, to mellowness)
<< Roguishness belongs in a category of dispositions which is rightly classifed as *mentally entropic* >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : By whom? Lynne Cheney?
RESPONSE: By the a priori, preexisting absolute precepts of ethics and esthetics
By the way, almost forgot to ask again the question . Don't you, Mr.Rockstar, want a perfect, noble , idealistic , beautiful world for the children to inherit ? -
-
you have failed to consider the consequences
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 8:01 AMNow you've begun to lie about Rockstar, as well.
Is it your belief that your God will forgive your prevarications and obsessive assault on strangers because He supports your philosophy to the extent that He now rejects His own? Yours is *that* much better than the one God hath made? -
-
Loki interrupts .Loki the interruptionist .
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 9:17 AMLOKI POSTED : Now you've begun to lie about Rockstar, as well.
RESPONSE: What the Sam Hill are you referrin to , mister ? Do you use the word 'lie' to refer to anything you strongly dislike ?
LOKI POSTED : Is it your belief that your God will forgive your prevarications and obsessive assault on strangers because He supports your philosophy to the extent that He now rejects His own? Yours is *that* much better than the one God hath made?
RESPONSE: What are you insinuating that God made ? Are you blasphemin again ? The above statment just looks like a ramrod amalgam of disparate statements, so it behooves you to explicate, so people even know what you are typing about in the first place ! -
-
Re: Loki interrupts .Loki the interruptionist .
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 11:10 AMTo lie is to knowingly state something that is not true. Unless you are severely amnesiac, you know that most of what you accuse your targets of is your own fabrication.
The observation that you despise God may confuse you; I don't deny that you may be too slow to understand the consequences of your antipathy toward His creation. I assume, though, that you are in fact intelligent enough to see the bare truth that you hate what God intends for the human being, what God has created in the human being, the forms and functions that God Almighty has brought into existence; I think it's clear that you are simply insane, bilious, and evil-minded.
God hath made that you criticize and denounce. Your name will not be writ in the Book of Life; you will perish in the Lake of Fire. If you are not the liar you seem, then you believe this - or doubt it as faithlessly as you doubt the wisdom of the Lord, your creator. -
-
Re: Loki interrupts .Loki the interruptionist .
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 6:03 PMA poet is a liar, who always tells the truth.
-
Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 6:27 PMLOKI POSTED :To lie is to knowingly state something that is not true.
RESPONSE: Indeed it is , however the posts I've posted have *not* done that .
At another message board, you accused a participant named Dan of being a "liar" . Do you still maintain that he is a liar as well ?
LOKI POSTED :Unless you are severely amnesiac, you know that most of what you accuse your targets of is your own fabrication.
RESPONSE: I "know" (notice the word is put in sneer quotes) nothing of that sort . Anymore than I somehow could be plausibly said to have any so-called knowledge of 2+2 =20 , since true knowledge states that the sum is 4 .
LOKI POSTED :The observation that you despise God may confuse you; I don't deny that you may be too slow to understand the consequences of your antipathy toward His creation.
RESPONSE: There is NO antipathy towards his creation in what I've argued in the message board .
LOKI POSTED :I assume, though, that you are in fact intelligent enough to see the bare truth that you hate what God intends for the human being,
RESPONSE: IF you , Loki , are presuming that God intends for human beings to get involved in liberated sexual fil;th . If you clam that God wants people to get involved in immoral filth like fellatio, sado mascochistic dominatrix antics , or any other liberated sexual experimentation then YOU are insulting the Creator and a blasphemer . If liberated sexuality is such an exulted affair , that you as a sex positive libertine might be wont to allege, then explain why two Gospel accounts and the writings of early church fathers extioll the virgin birth of the Messiah as something desirable and of sacramental import ???
LOKI POSTED : what God has created in the human being,
RESPONSE: Are you so lazy-minded to allege , Loki, that if God creates an intelleigent being that God thus somehow then tacitly endorses every action or tendency they choose to cultivate and get involved in thereafter . That does not follow . Are you familar with the concept in Judaic and Christian cosmogony of The Fall of Man ?
LOKI POSTED :the forms and functions that God Almighty has brought into existence;
RESPONSE: Which forms and functions are you referring to , specifically ?
(There's probably more blasphemous assumptions and faulty exegesis and bad theology from Loki) .
LOKI POSTED : I think it's clear that you are simply insane, bilious, and evil-minded.
RESPONSE: Do you allege that I am delusional ? IF so how can you allege that I am lying IF you also allege that I am somehow delusional since , delusional people are said to earnestly beliveve the delusions . Is that one more in a slew of internally contradictory statements from Loki the relativist ?
LOKI POSTED :God hath made that you criticize and denounce.
RESPONSE: Do NOT blaspheme , Loki .
LOKI POSTED :Your name will not be writ in the Book of Life; you will perish in the Lake of Fire. If you are not the liar you seem, then you believe this - or doubt it as faithlessly as you doubt the wisdom of the Lord, your creator.
RESPONSE: The approach that you take to interpreting Biblical texts has about the credibility of that used by a Jim Jones of 1978 Guyana fame , or a David Koresh .
Folks , if Lokifreign should ever ask you to go to Guyana and drink cool aid in a place called Loki-town , don't do it !
Now it would be good to resume dialectic in the above exchange with Rockstar .
I wonder , if at one time in younger years he may have had the idealism which wanted to foster an excellent world for the children to inherit ...wanted to change the world ...and I'm hoping that if that was the case that the dialogue might revive that desire . -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Sat, October 17, 2009 - 7:01 PMYou lie whenever you characterize someone. For instance, you make up personal information about me quite regularly.
You will be cast into the Lake of Fire, not because of your lies, but because of your rejection of God. It is very, very simple.
It's also inescapable. If you're lying about your belief in God, then you will be cast in the Lake of Fire. If you are not, then you know you will be, for you have presumed to judge God, and God's creation. You have broken the elementary commandments - and denied the Golden Rule, as well.
Both in the specific and in the general, you have declared yourself - vociferously, regularly, stridently, proudly! - unfit for the Kingdom of the Lord, by dint of your hubris and unrepentant sins. Did you think *God* would be taken in by your rhetoric? Did you think *God* has not heard an ocean of your complaints before, made by far more brilliant abject sinners than you? Did you think *God* would suffer you in His Heaven for eternity, ungratefully whining about the cocks He made? Fool. Burn.
I will be there, burning next to you. You will recognize me. I will have a fork buried in your ribs. There, it will twist, twist, for eternity, as you contemplate your vicious pride and the idiotic rejection of your Savior. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 8:59 PMLOKI POSTED :You lie whenever you characterize someone. For instance, you make up personal information about me quite regularly.
RESPONSE: What personal information do you allege I make up , Lokifriegn about you ?
LOKI POSTED :You will be cast into the Lake of Fire, not because of your lies, but because of your rejection of God. It is very, very simple.
RESPONSE: I do NOT reject God. I reject evil ---which is what you Loki the blasphemer and enemy of decency support .
LOKI POSTED :It's also inescapable. If you're lying about your belief in God, then you will be cast in the Lake of Fire. If you are not, then you know you will be, for you have presumed to judge God, and God's creation.
RESPONSE: God does NOT rejoice in the phallus . He rejoices in wisdom and Goodness . You do NOT practice sound exegesis of the Biblical writings .
LOKI POSTED :You have broken the elementary commandments - and denied the Golden Rule, as well.
RESPONSE: How ?
LOKI POSTED :Both in the specific and in the general, you have declared yourself - vociferously, regularly, stridently, proudly! - unfit for the Kingdom of the Lord, by dint of your hubris and unrepentant sins.
RESPONSE: There is NO hubris in what I have posted .
LOKI POSTED : Did you think *God* would be taken in by your rhetoric? Did you think *God* has not heard an ocean of your complaints before, made by far more brilliant abject sinners than you?
RESPONSE: What complaints are you referring to ?
LOKI RESPONSE : Did you think *God* would suffer you in His Heaven for eternity, ungratefully whining about the cocks He made? Fool. Burn.
RESPONSE : Oh, I see what you are on about . You are defending phalluses . That's what I figured . Well perhaps you might consider St.Paul too guilty of being ungreatful to the cocks made , after all if I recall righly it is in Phillipians where he refers to 'this vile body' refering to the present human body .Also see again Exodus 12 , where the sight of the phallus was judged to be profane , so profane that the ancient Jewish tabernacle priests were instructed by Moses *not* to approach the altar with steps so their skirts ould not be hiked up and expose the phallus in the tabernacle and bring defilement ? Are you so blasphemous as to allege that God approves of the phallus ?
LOKI POSTED :I will be there, burning next to you. You will recognize me. I will have a fork buried in your ribs. There, it will twist, twist, for eternity, as you contemplate your vicious pride and the idiotic rejection of your Savior.
RESPONSE : I do NOT reject the savior . The savior is Jesus of Nazareth . The Savior is NOT the phallus nor cock .
Why will you be there ? What have you done ? -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 10:32 PMCry, sinner, and beg. Lake of Fire for you. You know it's true; your weak call for some careful exegesis (of the most straightforward and unambiguous book of the bible other than Numbers?) is a hilarious wail of terror from a perverted sinner that sees his doom all too clearly. Your pride, your self-love, will not allow you to admit it, as it has not ever allowed you to admit your errors, small and large alike, even when a dozen people are clearly and obviously aware of your failure. You compound your hubris with lies you hope will restore you in the eyes of your fellow humans (a typical myopic conceit of the Antichrist) - but, of course, God is not fooled by you, no more than any reasonably sane person of average intelligence is fooled by your clumsy attempts at turning logic to your childish purposes. You are not just a sinner, not just weak in spirit, but a *poisoner* - the very *worst* kind of sinner. You poison the brethren. You will perish, as the wages of sin is death. The life eternal is not for such as you, who reject the Lord, your God. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 3:18 AM"The life eternal is not for such as you, who reject the Lord, your God."
Who the fuck is that guy, after all?! I don't have a clue. I find it funny that we still have to think of our gods as 'lords', 'baals', bel's or whatnot.
Son of man. Son of (god). Son of a pagan god. It's all the same to me.
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 12:15 PMLOKI POSTED :Cry, sinner, and beg. Lake of Fire for you. You know it's true; your weak call for some careful exegesis (of the most straightforward and unambiguous book of the bible other than Numbers?) is a hilarious wail of terror from a perverted sinner that sees his doom all too clearly.
RESPONSE: Careful exegesis of Ecclesiastes is must for all who would handle it responsibly .
LOKI POSTED :Your pride, your self-love, will not allow you to admit it, as it has not ever allowed you to admit your errors, small and large alike, even when a dozen people are clearly and obviously aware of your failure.
RESPONSE: I am NOT motivated by any self pride .
LOKI POSTED :You compound your hubris with lies you hope will restore you in the eyes of your fellow humans (a typical myopic conceit of the Antichrist) - but, of course, God is not fooled by you, no more than any reasonably sane person of average intelligence is fooled by your clumsy attempts at turning logic to your childish purposes.
RESPONSE: There is NO "hubris" in what I've posted .That just goes to show the postmodernism of Loki showing through , the ownership fallacy .
LOKI POSTED :You are not just a sinner, not just weak in spirit, but a *poisoner* - the very *worst* kind of sinner. You poison the brethren. You will perish, as the wages of sin is death. The life eternal is not for such as you, who reject the Lord, your God.
RESPONSE: It is you who are like unto an antichrist , you son of darkness , Lokifreign Study EXODUS 20:26 and learn not to blaspheme . -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 3:59 PMGhana? Wet dream? Seriously. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 4:00 PMHumor is a wet towel to these people. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 4:55 PMWhat's the point? You can't squeeze a raddish and expect orange juice.
Everything is physical to Jason. Physical and sexual. Mindless? Can't get off that subject, can't view it humorously.
Tag, you're it.
Physical realm, expectation of physical results, sin the motivator and fuel. Forever? Licence to sin?
Insincerity?
Awkwardness.
-ity. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 4:59 PMRead the book and see if 'they' do it to a Christian, St Sebastian. I'm really quite curious. BTW, I was refused Christ by you evil doppelgangers more than a year ago.
Fear of the future. And a willingness to do absolutely anything to achieve the goal.
YEHOWAH. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 5:01 PMBack to the reason these people need others outside their sects to perform as they will not.
Br--- Hail Mary, full of grace. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 5:17 PMWho gets physical immortality? Does God (chokmah)? That's just spiritual force, correct? What about (binah) Elohim? Does that get physical immortality? [The Idea of Form]. So then Malkuth? Why?
Shouldn't have ever separated Elohim from YHVH, sorry I give not much more of a shit to explain more fullsomely (-ity).
Drastic separation. Binah in Assiah (Sophia, us, whatever) were taught the idea of physical immortality by something gone wrong, *if you choose to believe it existed*.
Otherwise, what do you want? A balancing of light and darkness? Where? Gotta get back that one that got away. So he can lead the sheeples who want to dominate. Sharru-Kin? It goes that far back. Nominated by who?
Who wanted to dominate? Israel (Good Night Israel) back then? Or the Romans? Is Christianity an invention of the Jews, really?
Who were the Romans? Romulus and Remus. Who were the Carthaginians? Did some come from Tyre? Antioch? Thereabouts? Look at the myths. I could note others. Where do you want to go with this? -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 5:35 PMStorm your thoughts and pound all posts
Dr. Death has risen to lecture all ghosts
About the queerness and verisimilitude of living alive
Against the content and repose of those life deprived.
He cries:" How foolish it is, to fret & to binge
Amid life''s dull flavors, to suffer gods bait & switch
When sweet dolor is awake, its odor rife
Hovering ontologically in one sullen cloud over the cook-out of life.
"Burn out that flabby subsistence that you call today
And into your bones' dust we sprinkle terl of decay
Priming your death with the host of demise
That after-blackness insanity is no surprise
Just look who it took to devise?
"Muddy rivers and knobby trunks
This blood and flesh disavowed by he who life flunks
Join, in fruitless fervor, our endless cabal
And your empty orbit death's sick opus will resolve."
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 5:47 PMThe day begins at nightfall, the night begins at daybreak.
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 6:06 PMRamble ramble gusto flourish mumbo-jumbo belief faith 1 year old must say amen resurrect, plea to the court, exoneration.
Force released upwards in a dualistic fashion, absolute severity below, grace and mercy above for the one who's brain (possibly?) might have been addled. Lather, rinse, repeat. What happened back then circa 2nd, 3rd century C.E.? Achieved effects sufficient? Momentarily.
Did someone catch on? "Perform miracles in the name of Jesus", Acts, so on. How much does it take? Feasibility study. Nicaea.
Yet... force release, please come back and separate, one side eternal "life", other SD, LoF.
Circumnavigate this intellect:
www.youtube.com/watch
Go out on the street and accuse! Where the punch line to this sales pitch?
-
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 6:09 PM -
-
Can You Guess?
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 6:14 PM
-
-
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Tue, October 20, 2009 - 7:19 AMANDREW POSTED :Otherwise, what do you want? A balancing of light and darkness?
RESPONSE: Certainly NOT . Total victory for the Light NOT balanced by any dark . -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Tue, October 20, 2009 - 11:11 AMThen why ask for the taking on of sin? Why should christianity continue? That's all it is. So long as one asks forgiveness, one may sin tomorrow. Now, did I not tell you that the light and dark are aspects of Binah, Form? God isn't light, or darkness. So, what's light to you, a vicious fascist authoritarianism, where you are deputized to look into everyone's sex lives? Why do you have so much interest? It's very unmanly of you. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Tue, October 20, 2009 - 12:46 PMYou have yet to demonstrate that light and darkness are both spects of Binah .
God is light [ See I John 1 ]
Causing people to feel guilty is NOT fascist anything .
Straighten up , Andrew .
Jesus takes away sin to purge away the darkness . -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 11:54 AMWhat a nimrod. Jesus does that forever? Why were additional miracles needed in the following years, and why did they stop? Did those (like Peter) who performmed miracles not also die horribly?
Jason, you cite non-jewish parts fo the Bible about the nature of God, while Genesis itself says God *said* "Let there be light", not God is light, and said himself. Creep into your hole, Daddy.
As to Binah, what most take as Chokmah and Binah (Light and Darkness, Fire and Water, shit like that, is all form-side reasoning contained in Binah), and a lower Binah at that. Binah has two aspects, over-feminized, that of Bright Fertile Mother (Aima) and Dark Sterile Mother (Amma) [Abba and Amma NOTE: AMMA, NOT AIMA] . Is this the groin area of a woman? I say no. It's far more complicated than that, and women, besides, are not their groins.
Practically everything you think about this shit is wrong, and that goes for the mass of humanity. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 11:58 AMIf it is the groin area of a woman, then the form pillar is inverted, they're doing a 69, and Peh between Hod (bottom of form/severity pillar) and Netzach (bottom of force/mercy pillar) means someone is sucking a cock, despite the fact that the cock is ordinarily associated with Yesod for some ridiculous reason, though if that were truly, where the fuck is the damn Yoni?
The Qabalah has been twisted by idiots who prefer form-based reasoning for far too long, and christianity is a result of this.
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 11:59 AMBright and Dark, Light and Dark, Fire and Water, I guess I have to show this in your face.
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 1:41 PMANDREW POSTED :What a nimrod. Jesus does that forever?
RESPONSE : He does it untill until the Kindom is fully instantiated on this present eareth [and perhaps other planets too] .
ANDREW POSTED : Why were additional miracles needed in the following years, and why did they stop?
RESPONSE: To continue the work of the Kingdom . Who says it stopped . Do you rule out the prosepct of miracles occurring in the present era ?
ANDREW POSTED :Did those (like Peter) who performmed miracles not also die horribly?
RESPONSE : If memory serves rightly one of the church fathers --Eusebius ? maintained he did .
ANDREW POSTED :Jason, you cite non-jewish parts fo the Bible about the nature of God,
RESPONSE: The followers of the way to whom the epistle of I John is addressed though the epistle was written in Greek might of well been Hellenic Jews who thought Yeshua [Jesus] is the messiah .
ANDREW POSTED :while Genesis itself says God *said* "Let there be light", not God is light, and said himself. Creep into your hole, Daddy
RESPONSE: That light was an emanation from the Greater Light that is God . God is the Uncreated Light . As the Jewish Psalmist wrote ,
'for with thee is a fountain of life and in thy light we see light ' .
Now I've got to prepare for a lengthy refutation of the post of Mr.Rockstar in the present thread . It might take more than a day . -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 1:54 PMIf God is Light, he isn't a human being. YEHOWAH.
"Do you rule out the prosepct of miracles occurring in the present era ?"
Most definitely. I don't authorize shit. The Magical Triangle, The Astral Triangle. Netzach (Unselfishness/Lust), Hod (Truth/Lies), Yesod (independence/Idleness)
Read the Qabalah Jason, work it to an incredible level, take on others' sins, be perfect in every way, including a pristinely chaste sexual state, learn how to perform a miracle using the Magical Triangle, perform many miracles, combat psychci constriction, then prepare for death, once something is proven to someone, and this world gives itself a reprieve. You know why they have to die? Because of overuse. That shit will go on forever, so this world at least has the mercy to recognize that people who fall into this trap to serve its desire to have belief instilled in it must eventually be put out of their misery. Because we are not God. God is not a man. Jesus is not God God is not light. The closer you restrict God to something understandable to humans and so therefore manipulateable, the more everyone of that mindset will abuse that concept, mostly to dominate others with the ensuing religion, JUST LIKE THEY HAVE USED CHRISTIANITY, LIKE YOU ARE USING CHRISTIANITY. You need God to be something you can understand so you can use it like a billyclub against people who want to have nothing to do with you, but would have been pleasant to you before you started to act all high and mighty. This could have turned out pleasantly for you Jason, but the more you order me or Loki or anyone else around, the more I hate you. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 1:57 PMSign sign every worthless fucker need a siiiiiiigggnnnnnn!!! Just so he will stop being an evil shit to other people.
Letter of the Law, Pharisee Jason.
Good Works? Actual Effort? Sharing? Being Kind to People? Fuck that shit, let's use our sin against someone.
Built on a faulty belief. Lazy motherfuckers.
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 1:59 PMWhat's that little itty bitty problem I see there at Hod? Are there a fuckload os worthless liars here on this planet?
Well, gosh, sir mighty daddy-o, weeze chock full of worthless lying shits!
Pardner, we iz fucked!
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 7:00 PMNote the Lemon twisting hat Zaphod is wearing:
www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies...er3.jpg
POV Gun:
ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...280_.jpg
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 1:26 AMANDREW POSTED :This could have turned out pleasantly for you Jason, but the more you order me or Loki or anyone else around, the more I hate you.
RESPONSE: Andrew, I'm trying to help you ! That is why I lecture you and tell you how you should think ! Not for personal power .
You assert that God is not light . Then what do you say God is ? Or do you take the approach of total via negativia when it comes to God lke Dionysius the Areopegite (early Christian mystic) of saying that God is not everything that can be thought of and named ? -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 12:16 PM"RESPONSE: Andrew, I'm trying to help you ! That is why I lecture you and tell you how you should think ! Not for personal power .
You assert that God is not light . Then what do you say God is ? Or do you take the approach of total via negativia when it comes to God lke Dionysius the Areopegite (early Christian mystic) of saying that God is not everything that can be thought of and named ?"
It's just as I said. You want to control God to us as a billclub agaist other people. VERY BAD CHOICE.
I don't have to give you my information. You are unstudied, so it wouldn't matter. You are uncomprehending. God is whatever the fuck it pleases itself to be. WATCH OUT. We don't control God with our minds. God is aware of your every thought, your every feeling. And yet he is impartial, up to a point. When does he reach that point? -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 12:16 PMAct---iv---IAAA!!!! isn't that a brand of fucking yogurt?
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 3:13 PMA lecture with AK-47's.
mrdsneighborhood.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/ak-47_type_ii_part_dm-st-89-01131.jpg -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 3:55 PM
-
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 3:14 PMHOW I SHOULD THINK?!? You are a bottomless pit in telling others how to think.
Meet me in the Abyss. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:01 PM -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:03 PMI'll go down there, give me something to fight with. FOLLOW ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:26 PMI give my soul, my self, to the Macrocosmic Geburah, for destruction. What will come of it?
heateddebate.tribe.net/thread...5101d19
heateddebate.tribe.net/thread...806c38b -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:34 PMQuit giving me your sexual bullshit, world, or I'll fucking kill you! -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:35 PMPoor little dicks and pussies are so far apart! Woe is fucking you, retards! -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:43 PMI'm gonna make this real sick for you all. What happens when I see a child? Does this chance to keep certain men from using child porn? Or is it the vacating of their momentary crimes? No women will fuck them, huh? Yet women still pine for a lover. But that one is befouled. But yet he still has sexual impulse. Whyso? Ageplay? Now... (fuck off, I'll shit down your throat), you women should have your cunts and asses spackled shut. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:45 PMYet, by Jason's decree, I may never have a woman. Maze of crucified christs. Humanity is a field littered with idiocy. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:45 PMWhat about women that nab young boys? Oh, they're excused! -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:48 PMPussy Jews "Avoid the Qliphoth!" I was given no choice. -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:49 PMNumber number numbers you can grok God by playing with numbers!
-
-
-
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:54 PMWHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT, TREBEK!! -
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:55 PMSo many trailer park christians (whether rich or poor) it's just disgusting!
-
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Hokey. Evil Hokey Pokey.
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 5:07 PMThis occurs because no one has any sense of personal conscience anymore.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Blasphemous filth from Loki. Evil Lokifreign
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 4:04 PMI'm almost afraid to ask this: what will you do Jason, when society breaks down sufficiently that the internet isn't handy as a ready tool to send scathing remonstances to people who can't personally strange you for quite apparent abject cowardice? Issue onto the streets to do it up close and personal?
Meet me at a protest. Why do I ever bother to be kind to you, Daddy?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Loki interrupts .Loki the interruptionist .
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 12:18 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
first loki and now rockstar, eh jason?
whaddya trying ta do? keep the whole west coast from getting laid while you tie up the best thinkers and fuckers with your dissociative diatribe?
Love is the law, love under will.
-
-
-
-
Re: Jason's brain has his own fingerprints on it
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 8:04 PM<< RESPONSE: Since I am *not* sexually active , how could it cause me any trouble ? >>
Except for castrati, one's schlong is never so much trouble as when it lacks occupation and application.
<< hating my own schlong is but merely ancillary and marginal to hating schlongdom itself ! ""
Why would you hate what God made and gave you? Are you a greater critic than He an artist?
Btw, have you self-castrated? You know, "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out"...
You claim to be a Christian, but no Christian theologian would presume to critique the Author's work so contemptuously, if at all. A male Christian mystic might hate a WOMAN'S body (well, that of an *attractive* woman, at any rate) as a vessel of sin and iniquity, but what is all the showy worship of a "God the Father" but an open celebration of patriarchy? As Christian, you are in deep error, I fear. Your theory of culture sucks ass too, but drawing a bunk on that won't send you to Hell.
This is fascinating. Can hatred of Bill Maher actually make a man deny God?
<< The statements I've presented in those typed ramblings often put forth precepts, insights , and methodological principles which TRANSCEND my personality >>
That I very seriously doubt.
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Culture made them aware of their genitalia?
RESPONSE: Contemporary pop culture amplified that awareness >>
One needs nothing more than unsupervised ownership of one human body to know this is utter moonshine, claptrap, balderdash and a very big load of Old Famous. The *entire* weight of experience and history suggests people's awareness of their own bodies has close to ZERO origin in ANY cultural expression deriving from it! It could scarcely be otherwise! Hyperawareness of sex is a consequence of having a sexual being and humans never so uproariously confirm this truth as when they try to deny it.
<< More of the usual relativist sort of ethos...mellowness..>>
What is so "mellow" about me telling you the Clue Train not only ran your ass over, but the engineer also backed up and ran it over a second time to compare squishes?
<< The tenure I've had here (except perhaps on those times I've been sharing small talk and light conviviality with people on line) is merely subordinant to that as a mere instrument . The true beliefs I espouse are the content my personal self online is ultimately only important as a vehicle for that content . >>
You're actually affording *me* the opportunity of never letting a moralist or wingnut or humor-impaired sophist do their work in public without heckling. This trust is one I've kept Ahab-like through one venue, cultural milieu, intellectual fashion craze after another down through the years. The world little prizes consistency, but so what? Ars est longa et vita brevis.
<< Liberated sex has a number of qualitative characteristics >
How much "liberated" sex have you experienced?
<< in common with cultural artifacts of kitsch. >>
Double crap. You don't even knw what "kitsch" is.
<< Notably, the theme of intentional NON-carefulness >>
1) How is "liberated sex" none-careful?
2) How is "kitsch" non-careful?
3) Is "kitsch" intentional?
<< Form follows biological function in a crude sense , so that a very crude almost-cylinder shape is obtained that lacks the sharp visual contour of a cylinder (or any other Euclidean shape). >>
At this point, you're beginning to associate your own dick with the kind of horrors that so entranced H.P. Lovecraft.
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED : By whom? Lynne Cheney?
RESPONSE: By the a priori, preexisting absolute precepts of ethics and esthetics >>
Right. Lynne Cheney. -
-
Re: Jason's brain has his own fingerprints on it
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 10:26 PMMr.Rockstar ,
Yours truly has to get some sleep , before he attempts to disabuse you of the cogitations manifested in the statements you posted above as well as answer more questions . Hopefully come manana will be able to provide a further exposition , if I can get some sleep .... -
-
Re: Jason's brain has his own fingerprints on it
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 10:40 PMSloth and cowardice will not redeem your wickedness. Sleep well, vassal of the Serpent. The Lake's flames will wait out the paltry 30 or so years you have left.
-
Re: Jason's brain has his own fingerprints on it
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 10:06 AM<< Yours truly has to get some sleep , before he attempts to disabuse you of the cogitations manifested in the statements you posted above >>
You might also wish to send out an APB to the Sophist's League of America frantically calling for backup.
If this were Politics Tribe, all you'd have to do is punch up a couple of alts and you could have your own grassroots movement and start teabagging right away...
-
-
Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 1:20 PM<< RESPONSE: Since I am *not* sexually active , how could it cause me any trouble ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Except for castrati, one's schlong is never so much trouble as when it lacks occupation and application.
RESPONSE: Since I do NOT engage in sexual activity and do NOT engage in wacking off, how could it provide trouble from its lack of occupation ?
<< hating my own schlong is but merely ancillary and marginal to hating schlongdom itself ! ""
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Why would you hate what God made and gave you?
RESPONSE: He allowed the phallus to develop the way it is as a concession to the vicissitudes of a fallen planet . The idea of the Fall of Man looms large . God does NOT rejoice in the phallus . Exodus 20:26 (sorry about the accidental earlier citation of Exodus 12 , it is Exodus 20:26) indicates that God regards the phallus with revulsion after all, he mandates that it *not* be exposed in the tabernacle .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Are you a greater critic than He an artist?
RESPONSE: No. That particular element he did not allow to form with an artistic aim in mind . See the notes in the paragraphs below which elaborate on the Fall of Man and the ramifications of Exodus 20:26 .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Btw, have you self-castrated? You know, "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out"...
RESPONSE: No. When and if I find my wife to be I want to have children . Plus that would be a physcally dangerous proceedure. Furthermore, I do not get involved in sexual activity and do NOT engage in "jacking off" so why should I ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You claim to be a Christian, but no Christian theologian would presume to critique the Author's work so contemptuously, if at all.
RESPONSE: Consider the conception of the Fall and how the fall of man brought diostortion on the creation .Much of creation is still beautiful, the fall did not engender total depravity , as the Calvinists falsely claim , however some of the creation was distorted as a result of the Fall. I regard the ugliness of the penis as an organ NOT to God , but to the Fall which I believe took place in some other para-physical realm .
ROCKSTAR POSTED : A male Christian mystic might hate a WOMAN'S body (well, that of an *attractive* woman, at any rate) as a vessel of sin and iniquity,
RESPONSE: Some male Christian mystics hated the bodies of attractive women on the grounds you have noted , yet not all .
The Song Of Solomon, which you have cited with approval in other posts, I interpret not as a celebration of sexual activity , but as a celebration of the beauty of the unclothed female body but purely for esthetic purposes ...NOT for sexual/ lustful purposes . I am aware that you *interpret* the Song of Solomon as a celebration of sex itself , but it could just as plausibly (if not more so) *interpreted* to mean a celebration merely of the beauty of the undressed female form without any sexual ..lustful overtones ---since there is NO explicit references to sex in the text .
Visual beauty can convey the spirtual--as been noted in such discplines as sacred geometry. Phalluses are NOT beautiful , they are not merely unbeautiful, but actively ANTI-beautiful .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :but what is all the showy worship of a "God the Father" but an open celebration of patriarchy?
RESPONSE: Not when one considers that there was in biblical Judiasm the conception of Hokmah the quasi-divine wisdom who in Proverbs 8 and in some of the Wisdom writings (that are not a part of the usual Protestant canon) such as the book of Wisdom was thought as the female consort of Yahweh Elohim (God) .
ROCKSTAR POSTED : As Christian, you are in deep error, I fear. Your theory of culture sucks ass too, but drawing a bunk on that won't send you to Hell.
RESPONSE: You are making a number of theologically unsound observations . And you have yet to explain why you allege that the theory I advocate regarding culture is supposedly remiss ...
ROCKSTAR POSTED :This is fascinating. Can hatred of Bill Maher actually make a man deny God?
RESPONSE: I don't deny God . God does NOT rejoice in the phallus . See Exodus 20:26 where exposure of the phallus was thought to bring defilement on the temple . St.Paul also proposed that the creation was made subject to corruption . In the epistle to the Phillipians he refers to 'this vile body' the current body .
<< The statements I've presented in those typed ramblings often put forth precepts, insights , and methodological principles which TRANSCEND my personality >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :That I very seriously doubt.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you doubt that statement ?
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Culture made them aware of their genitalia?
RESPONSE: Contemporary pop culture amplified that awareness >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :One needs nothing more than unsupervised ownership of one human body to know this is utter moonshine, claptrap, balderdash and a very big load of Old Famous. The *entire* weight of experience and history suggests people's awareness of their own bodies has close to ZERO origin in ANY cultural expression deriving from it! It could scarcely be otherwise!
RESPONSE: On the contrary , in this present era where imagery and motifs of sexuality are now more widely disseminated by a moving picture mass media (e.g. movies, televison , you tube et al) ...when uninhibited references to sex are all far more widely practiced then ever before (the only possible exception maybe being Rome at the time of its fall) then people are going to have such sexual drives far more amplified then in other eras when people did have sexual drives but such sexual drives, were not as stimulated by cultural motifs and "memes" about sex being pervasive like they are now ...now in the present era of Viagra commercials every few minutes on so many channels , soft drink commercials that use the double entendre of saying "don't you wanna?' to the screen , mass porn on the internet ect .....Often when one has more supply then more demand is stirred .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Hyperawareness of sex is a consequence of having a sexual being and humans never so uproariously confirm this truth as when they try to deny it.
RESPONSE : On what grounds do you claim that "humans never so uproariously confirm this truth when they try to deny it . "
<< More of the usual relativist sort of ethos...mellowness..>>
ROCKSTAR ASKED :What is so "mellow" about me telling you the Clue Train not only ran your ass over, but the engineer also backed up and ran it over a second time to compare squishes?
RESPONSE: The underlying ethos that leads you to disparage ideologues is, apparently, one of those who does NOT like people taking philosophy, moralizing, matters of ultimate concern , esthetics et al..so seriously ..one who is against rigid ideological consistency...one like so many pundits in thinkers in this present weird era prizes the air of being ironical , an ironical trickster who scoffs at those who take matters so seriously. Hence, you apparently come from a sensibility of mellowness ...
<< The tenure I've had here (except perhaps on those times I've been sharing small talk and light conviviality with people on line) is merely subordinant to that as a mere instrument . The true beliefs I espouse are the content my personal self online is ultimately only important as a vehicle for that content . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You're actually affording *me* the opportunity of never letting a moralist or wingnut or humor-impaired sophist do their work in public without heckling. This trust is one I've kept Ahab-like through one venue, cultural milieu, intellectual fashion craze after another down through the years. The world little prizes consistency, but so what? Ars est longa et vita brevis.
RESPONSE: Why is it that you seek to heckle rigid moralists ?
<< Liberated sex has a number of qualitative characteristics >
ROCKSTAR POSTED : How much "liberated" sex have you experienced?
RESPONSE: None . However, I have talked with people who have and heard them in the act of doing it .
One does not have to dive into a cesspool to know that the proximity of stinky stuff there would magnify stink all the more .
<< in common with cultural artifacts of kitsch. >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Double crap. You don't even knw what "kitsch" is.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you allege that ?
<< Notably, the theme of intentional NON-carefulness >>
1) How is "liberated sex" none-careful?
RESPONSE: I meant to type the word 'NON-careful' as a characterization . See the notes in the paragraph below on why it is NON-careful .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :2) How is "kitsch" non-careful?
RESPONSE: If one observes a work of kitsch art/craft one finds that it does NOT have vivivdness , sharp distinctness of line and contour . Also , in terms of various forms of composition ...colour and shape composition one finds that kitsch *lacks* structural contiguity . There is NOT the carefulness in the execution of the form to make sure that the various elements have an orderly (and *never* so orderly to be intricate) , composition in the visual arrangement . It lacks the effort being put forth towards the aim of structural contiguity .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :3) Is "kitsch" intentional?
RESPONSE: The making of kitsch is indeed intentional. However, what I met about a lack of deliberation in the building of a kitsch work of art , referred to the lack of deliberation in a specific context--- in the consistent crafting of line , contours , composition , colour handling .....kitsch has the look of something lazily strung together .
<< Form follows biological function in a crude sense , so that a very crude almost-cylinder shape is obtained that lacks the sharp visual contour of a cylinder (or any other Euclidean shape). >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : At this point, you're beginning to associate your own dick with the kind of horrors that so entranced H.P. Lovecraft.
RESPONSE: Please elaborate on that statement .
Furthermore, how about the analytic esthetics I've presented in that conceptual unpacking of the visual contours of the object in question ? The phallus of any man is a failed cylinder --fails to manifest the sharp Euclidean geometric form of a true cylinder .
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED : By whom? Lynne Cheney?
RESPONSE: By the a priori, preexisting absolute precepts of ethics and esthetics >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Right. Lynne Cheney.
RESPONSE: That is another example of you being facile, Mr.Rockstar, subsituting zingy one liners *instead of* a persipacious rebuttal which is conceptually salient .
You still haven't answered the question . don't you want a perfect, noble, beautiful idealistic world for the children to inherit ? One where they might maintain innocent throughout their adult life ?---I might add -
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .Reposted . Also a question about the welfare of the children .
Tue, October 20, 2009 - 7:21 AMFurther Explication for Mr.Rockstar .Yesterday, 1:20 PM
<< RESPONSE: Since I am *not* sexually active , how could it cause me any trouble ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Except for castrati, one's schlong is never so much trouble as when it lacks occupation and application.
RESPONSE: Since I do NOT engage in sexual activity and do NOT engage in wacking off, how could it provide trouble from its lack of occupation ?
<< hating my own schlong is but merely ancillary and marginal to hating schlongdom itself ! ""
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Why would you hate what God made and gave you?
RESPONSE: He allowed the phallus to develop the way it is as a concession to the vicissitudes of a fallen planet . The idea of the Fall of Man looms large . God does NOT rejoice in the phallus . Exodus 20:26 (sorry about the accidental earlier citation of Exodus 12 , it is Exodus 20:26) indicates that God regards the phallus with revulsion after all, he mandates that it *not* be exposed in the tabernacle .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Are you a greater critic than He an artist?
RESPONSE: No. That particular element he did not allow to form with an artistic aim in mind . See the notes in the paragraphs below which elaborate on the Fall of Man and the ramifications of Exodus 20:26 .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Btw, have you self-castrated? You know, "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out"...
RESPONSE: No. When and if I find my wife to be I want to have children . Plus that would be a physcally dangerous proceedure. Furthermore, I do not get involved in sexual activity and do NOT engage in "jacking off" so why should I ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You claim to be a Christian, but no Christian theologian would presume to critique the Author's work so contemptuously, if at all.
RESPONSE: Consider the conception of the Fall and how the fall of man brought diostortion on the creation .Much of creation is still beautiful, the fall did not engender total depravity , as the Calvinists falsely claim , however some of the creation was distorted as a result of the Fall. I regard the ugliness of the penis as an organ NOT to God , but to the Fall which I believe took place in some other para-physical realm .
ROCKSTAR POSTED : A male Christian mystic might hate a WOMAN'S body (well, that of an *attractive* woman, at any rate) as a vessel of sin and iniquity,
RESPONSE: Some male Christian mystics hated the bodies of attractive women on the grounds you have noted , yet not all .
The Song Of Solomon, which you have cited with approval in other posts, I interpret not as a celebration of sexual activity , but as a celebration of the beauty of the unclothed female body but purely for esthetic purposes ...NOT for sexual/ lustful purposes . I am aware that you *interpret* the Song of Solomon as a celebration of sex itself , but it could just as plausibly (if not more so) *interpreted* to mean a celebration merely of the beauty of the undressed female form without any sexual ..lustful overtones ---since there is NO explicit references to sex in the text .
Visual beauty can convey the spirtual--as been noted in such discplines as sacred geometry. Phalluses are NOT beautiful , they are not merely unbeautiful, but actively ANTI-beautiful .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :but what is all the showy worship of a "God the Father" but an open celebration of patriarchy?
RESPONSE: Not when one considers that there was in biblical Judiasm the conception of Hokmah the quasi-divine wisdom who in Proverbs 8 and in some of the Wisdom writings (that are not a part of the usual Protestant canon) such as the book of Wisdom was thought as the female consort of Yahweh Elohim (God) .
ROCKSTAR POSTED : As Christian, you are in deep error, I fear. Your theory of culture sucks ass too, but drawing a bunk on that won't send you to Hell.
RESPONSE: You are making a number of theologically unsound observations . And you have yet to explain why you allege that the theory I advocate regarding culture is supposedly remiss ...
ROCKSTAR POSTED :This is fascinating. Can hatred of Bill Maher actually make a man deny God?
RESPONSE: I don't deny God . God does NOT rejoice in the phallus . See Exodus 20:26 where exposure of the phallus was thought to bring defilement on the temple . St.Paul also proposed that the creation was made subject to corruption . In the epistle to the Phillipians he refers to 'this vile body' the current body .
<< The statements I've presented in those typed ramblings often put forth precepts, insights , and methodological principles which TRANSCEND my personality >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :That I very seriously doubt.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you doubt that statement ?
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Culture made them aware of their genitalia?
RESPONSE: Contemporary pop culture amplified that awareness >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :One needs nothing more than unsupervised ownership of one human body to know this is utter moonshine, claptrap, balderdash and a very big load of Old Famous. The *entire* weight of experience and history suggests people's awareness of their own bodies has close to ZERO origin in ANY cultural expression deriving from it! It could scarcely be otherwise!
RESPONSE: On the contrary , in this present era where imagery and motifs of sexuality are now more widely disseminated by a moving picture mass media (e.g. movies, televison , you tube et al) ...when uninhibited references to sex are all far more widely practiced then ever before (the only possible exception maybe being Rome at the time of its fall) then people are going to have such sexual drives far more amplified then in other eras when people did have sexual drives but such sexual drives, were not as stimulated by cultural motifs and "memes" about sex being pervasive like they are now ...now in the present era of Viagra commercials every few minutes on so many channels , soft drink commercials that use the double entendre of saying "don't you wanna?' to the screen , mass porn on the internet ect .....Often when one has more supply then more demand is stirred .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Hyperawareness of sex is a consequence of having a sexual being and humans never so uproariously confirm this truth as when they try to deny it.
RESPONSE : On what grounds do you claim that "humans never so uproariously confirm this truth when they try to deny it . "
<< More of the usual relativist sort of ethos...mellowness..>>
ROCKSTAR ASKED :What is so "mellow" about me telling you the Clue Train not only ran your ass over, but the engineer also backed up and ran it over a second time to compare squishes?
RESPONSE: The underlying ethos that leads you to disparage ideologues is, apparently, one of those who does NOT like people taking philosophy, moralizing, matters of ultimate concern , esthetics et al..so seriously ..one who is against rigid ideological consistency...one like so many pundits in thinkers in this present weird era prizes the air of being ironical , an ironical trickster who scoffs at those who take matters so seriously. Hence, you apparently come from a sensibility of mellowness ...
<< The tenure I've had here (except perhaps on those times I've been sharing small talk and light conviviality with people on line) is merely subordinant to that as a mere instrument . The true beliefs I espouse are the content my personal self online is ultimately only important as a vehicle for that content . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You're actually affording *me* the opportunity of never letting a moralist or wingnut or humor-impaired sophist do their work in public without heckling. This trust is one I've kept Ahab-like through one venue, cultural milieu, intellectual fashion craze after another down through the years. The world little prizes consistency, but so what? Ars est longa et vita brevis.
RESPONSE: Why is it that you seek to heckle rigid moralists ?
<< Liberated sex has a number of qualitative characteristics >
ROCKSTAR POSTED : How much "liberated" sex have you experienced?
RESPONSE: None . However, I have talked with people who have and heard them in the act of doing it .
One does not have to dive into a cesspool to know that the proximity of stinky stuff there would magnify stink all the more .
<< in common with cultural artifacts of kitsch. >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Double crap. You don't even knw what "kitsch" is.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you allege that ?
<< Notably, the theme of intentional NON-carefulness >>
1) How is "liberated sex" none-careful?
RESPONSE: I meant to type the word 'NON-careful' as a characterization . See the notes in the paragraph below on why it is NON-careful .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :2) How is "kitsch" non-careful?
RESPONSE: If one observes a work of kitsch art/craft one finds that it does NOT have vivivdness , sharp distinctness of line and contour . Also , in terms of various forms of composition ...colour and shape composition one finds that kitsch *lacks* structural contiguity . There is NOT the carefulness in the execution of the form to make sure that the various elements have an orderly (and *never* so orderly to be intricate) , composition in the visual arrangement . It lacks the effort being put forth towards the aim of structural contiguity .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :3) Is "kitsch" intentional?
RESPONSE: The making of kitsch is indeed intentional. However, what I met about a lack of deliberation in the building of a kitsch work of art , referred to the lack of deliberation in a specific context--- in the consistent crafting of line , contours , composition , colour handling .....kitsch has the look of something lazily strung together .
<< Form follows biological function in a crude sense , so that a very crude almost-cylinder shape is obtained that lacks the sharp visual contour of a cylinder (or any other Euclidean shape). >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : At this point, you're beginning to associate your own dick with the kind of horrors that so entranced H.P. Lovecraft.
RESPONSE: Please elaborate on that statement .
Furthermore, how about the analytic esthetics I've presented in that conceptual unpacking of the visual contours of the object in question ? The phallus of any man is a failed cylinder --fails to manifest the sharp Euclidean geometric form of a true cylinder .
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED : By whom? Lynne Cheney?
RESPONSE: By the a priori, preexisting absolute precepts of ethics and esthetics >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Right. Lynne Cheney.
RESPONSE: That is another example of you being facile, Mr.Rockstar, subsituting zingy one liners *instead of* a persipacious rebuttal which is conceptually salient .
You still haven't answered the question . don't you want a perfect, noble, beautiful idealistic world for the children to inherit ? One where they might maintain innocent throughout their adult life ?---I might add -
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .Reposted . Also a question about the welfare of the children .
Tue, October 20, 2009 - 11:11 AMtltr (too long to read)
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .Reposted . Also a question about the welfare of the children .
Tue, October 20, 2009 - 12:56 PMFurther Explication for Mr.Rockstar .Yesterday, 1:20 PM
<< RESPONSE: Since I am *not* sexually active , how could it cause me any trouble ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Except for castrati, one's schlong is never so much trouble as when it lacks occupation and application.
RESPONSE: Since I do NOT engage in sexual activity and do NOT engage in wacking off, how could it provide trouble from its lack of occupation ?
<< hating my own schlong is but merely ancillary and marginal to hating schlongdom itself ! ""
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Why would you hate what God made and gave you?
RESPONSE: He allowed the phallus to develop the way it is as a concession to the vicissitudes of a fallen planet . The idea of the Fall of Man looms large . God does NOT rejoice in the phallus . Exodus 20:26 (sorry about the accidental earlier citation of Exodus 12 , it is Exodus 20:26) indicates that God regards the phallus with revulsion after all, he mandates that it *not* be exposed in the tabernacle .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Are you a greater critic than He an artist?
RESPONSE: No. That particular element he did not allow to form with an artistic aim in mind . See the notes in the paragraphs below which elaborate on the Fall of Man and the ramifications of Exodus 20:26 .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Btw, have you self-castrated? You know, "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out"...
RESPONSE: No. When and if I find my wife to be I want to have children . Plus that would be a physcally dangerous proceedure. Furthermore, I do not get involved in sexual activity and do NOT engage in "jacking off" so why should I ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You claim to be a Christian, but no Christian theologian would presume to critique the Author's work so contemptuously, if at all.
RESPONSE: Consider the conception of the Fall and how the fall of man brought diostortion on the creation .Much of creation is still beautiful, the fall did not engender total depravity , as the Calvinists falsely claim , however some of the creation was distorted as a result of the Fall. I regard the ugliness of the penis as an organ NOT to God , but to the Fall which I believe took place in some other para-physical realm .
ROCKSTAR POSTED : A male Christian mystic might hate a WOMAN'S body (well, that of an *attractive* woman, at any rate) as a vessel of sin and iniquity,
RESPONSE: Some male Christian mystics hated the bodies of attractive women on the grounds you have noted , yet not all .
The Song Of Solomon, which you have cited with approval in other posts, I interpret not as a celebration of sexual activity , but as a celebration of the beauty of the unclothed female body but purely for esthetic purposes ...NOT for sexual/ lustful purposes . I am aware that you *interpret* the Song of Solomon as a celebration of sex itself , but it could just as plausibly (if not more so) *interpreted* to mean a celebration merely of the beauty of the undressed female form without any sexual ..lustful overtones ---since there is NO explicit references to sex in the text .
Visual beauty can convey the spirtual--as been noted in such discplines as sacred geometry. Phalluses are NOT beautiful , they are not merely unbeautiful, but actively ANTI-beautiful .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :but what is all the showy worship of a "God the Father" but an open celebration of patriarchy?
RESPONSE: Not when one considers that there was in biblical Judiasm the conception of Hokmah the quasi-divine wisdom who in Proverbs 8 and in some of the Wisdom writings (that are not a part of the usual Protestant canon) such as the book of Wisdom was thought as the female consort of Yahweh Elohim (God) .
ROCKSTAR POSTED : As Christian, you are in deep error, I fear. Your theory of culture sucks ass too, but drawing a bunk on that won't send you to Hell.
RESPONSE: You are making a number of theologically unsound observations . And you have yet to explain why you allege that the theory I advocate regarding culture is supposedly remiss ...
ROCKSTAR POSTED :This is fascinating. Can hatred of Bill Maher actually make a man deny God?
RESPONSE: I don't deny God . God does NOT rejoice in the phallus . See Exodus 20:26 where exposure of the phallus was thought to bring defilement on the temple . St.Paul also proposed that the creation was made subject to corruption . In the epistle to the Phillipians he refers to 'this vile body' the current body .
<< The statements I've presented in those typed ramblings often put forth precepts, insights , and methodological principles which TRANSCEND my personality >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :That I very seriously doubt.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you doubt that statement ?
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Culture made them aware of their genitalia?
RESPONSE: Contemporary pop culture amplified that awareness >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :One needs nothing more than unsupervised ownership of one human body to know this is utter moonshine, claptrap, balderdash and a very big load of Old Famous. The *entire* weight of experience and history suggests people's awareness of their own bodies has close to ZERO origin in ANY cultural expression deriving from it! It could scarcely be otherwise!
RESPONSE: On the contrary , in this present era where imagery and motifs of sexuality are now more widely disseminated by a moving picture mass media (e.g. movies, televison , you tube et al) ...when uninhibited references to sex are all far more widely practiced then ever before (the only possible exception maybe being Rome at the time of its fall) then people are going to have such sexual drives far more amplified then in other eras when people did have sexual drives but such sexual drives, were not as stimulated by cultural motifs and "memes" about sex being pervasive like they are now ...now in the present era of Viagra commercials every few minutes on so many channels , soft drink commercials that use the double entendre of saying "don't you wanna?' to the screen , mass porn on the internet ect .....Often when one has more supply then more demand is stirred .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Hyperawareness of sex is a consequence of having a sexual being and humans never so uproariously confirm this truth as when they try to deny it.
RESPONSE : On what grounds do you claim that "humans never so uproariously confirm this truth when they try to deny it . "
<< More of the usual relativist sort of ethos...mellowness..>>
ROCKSTAR ASKED :What is so "mellow" about me telling you the Clue Train not only ran your ass over, but the engineer also backed up and ran it over a second time to compare squishes?
RESPONSE: The underlying ethos that leads you to disparage ideologues is, apparently, one of those who does NOT like people taking philosophy, moralizing, matters of ultimate concern , esthetics et al..so seriously ..one who is against rigid ideological consistency...one like so many pundits in thinkers in this present weird era prizes the air of being ironical , an ironical trickster who scoffs at those who take matters so seriously. Hence, you apparently come from a sensibility of mellowness ...
<< The tenure I've had here (except perhaps on those times I've been sharing small talk and light conviviality with people on line) is merely subordinant to that as a mere instrument . The true beliefs I espouse are the content my personal self online is ultimately only important as a vehicle for that content . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You're actually affording *me* the opportunity of never letting a moralist or wingnut or humor-impaired sophist do their work in public without heckling. This trust is one I've kept Ahab-like through one venue, cultural milieu, intellectual fashion craze after another down through the years. The world little prizes consistency, but so what? Ars est longa et vita brevis.
RESPONSE: Why is it that you seek to heckle rigid moralists ?
<< Liberated sex has a number of qualitative characteristics >
ROCKSTAR POSTED : How much "liberated" sex have you experienced?
RESPONSE: None . However, I have talked with people who have and heard them in the act of doing it .
One does not have to dive into a cesspool to know that the proximity of stinky stuff there would magnify stink all the more .
<< in common with cultural artifacts of kitsch. >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Double crap. You don't even knw what "kitsch" is.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you allege that ?
<< Notably, the theme of intentional NON-carefulness >>
1) How is "liberated sex" none-careful?
RESPONSE: I meant to type the word 'NON-careful' as a characterization . See the notes in the paragraph below on why it is NON-careful .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :2) How is "kitsch" non-careful?
RESPONSE: If one observes a work of kitsch art/craft one finds that it does NOT have vivivdness , sharp distinctness of line and contour . Also , in terms of various forms of composition ...colour and shape composition one finds that kitsch *lacks* structural contiguity . There is NOT the carefulness in the execution of the form to make sure that the various elements have an orderly (and *never* so orderly to be intricate) , composition in the visual arrangement . It lacks the effort being put forth towards the aim of structural contiguity .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :3) Is "kitsch" intentional?
RESPONSE: The making of kitsch is indeed intentional. However, what I met about a lack of deliberation in the building of a kitsch work of art , referred to the lack of deliberation in a specific context--- in the consistent crafting of line , contours , composition , colour handling .....kitsch has the look of something lazily strung together .
<< Form follows biological function in a crude sense , so that a very crude almost-cylinder shape is obtained that lacks the sharp visual contour of a cylinder (or any other Euclidean shape). >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : At this point, you're beginning to associate your own dick with the kind of horrors that so entranced H.P. Lovecraft.
RESPONSE: Please elaborate on that statement .
Furthermore, how about the analytic esthetics I've presented in that conceptual unpacking of the visual contours of the object in question ? The phallus of any man is a failed cylinder --fails to manifest the sharp Euclidean geometric form of a true cylinder .
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED : By whom? Lynne Cheney?
RESPONSE: By the a priori, preexisting absolute precepts of ethics and esthetics >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Right. Lynne Cheney.
RESPONSE: That is another example of you being facile, Mr.Rockstar, subsituting zingy one liners *instead of* a persipacious rebuttal which is conceptually salient .
You still haven't answered the question . don't you want a perfect, noble, beautiful idealistic world for the children to inherit ? One where they might maintain innocent throughout their adult life ?---I might add
-
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Tue, October 20, 2009 - 7:49 AMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Exodus 20:26 - yeah, and the line before that says you can't make the altar out of cut stone, either, it should just be a big pile of fucking rocks (it's for sacrificing goats and oxen, by the way!) two lines later it's giving advice on buying hebrews as slaves.
that line, that 20:26, that's the damn historical equivalent of "don't bend over in the garden, granny, you know them taters got eyes!"
frankly, i wouldn't want my genitals flying around if people are gonna be cutting up cows either, but of course the implication is that there's already genitalia everywhere - at least from the view from below. ('cause that's what the line actually refers to, ya know, is that there shouldn't be any steps leading to the altar, 'cause if there are steps than the altar itself will be able to catch free peeps!)
shit! people say My spirituality is weird! y'all with your winking altars and animal sacrifice...
the song of solomon: well, you could interpret las vagas as mankind's greatest monument to the alternating spark plug but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
"Let him kiss me with the kisses of my mouth...he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts...I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste... My beloved put his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved him..."
i mean DAY-YUM! with porn like that, how'd ya'll get to be so screwed up?
your idea that people only want sex in permissive cultures is ludicrous, ahistoric, and clearly fallacious to any boy who's ever lived past the age of thirteen.
"The underlying ethos that leads you to disparage ideologues is, apparently, one of those who does NOT like people taking philosophy, moralizing, matters of ultimate concern , esthetics et al..so seriously ..one who is against rigid ideological consistency..."
what?!? no, sweetie, people don't like ideologues on account of their often blindly partisan adherence to a particular ideology, regardless of the unpleasant intrusions of fact and logic!
"ROCKSTAR POSTED : How much "liberated" sex have you experienced?"
"RESPONSE: None . However, I have talked with people who have and heard them in the act of doing it ."
oh gawds... only a christist would consider themselves an expert on something they've never experienced...
"You still haven't answered the question . don't you want a perfect, noble, beautiful idealistic world for the children to inherit ? One where they might maintain innocent throughout their adult life ?---"
The exposure of innocence is a lie.
i don't want a perfect world. i want a world where i can strive ever to more - where i can Exceed. i want the work of creating a perfect world. i want the joy of Becoming.
i don't want a noble world. nobility implies birth-rank and privilege. nobility implies a code of behavior that only applies to the powerful and monied amongst themselves, and to the hounds with everybody else. i want a world where people match their behavior to their own ideals, instead of somebody elses.
i don't want a beautiful world. a world of beauty would become a world of banality, a world where one person's aesthetic is forced up all. a beautiful world imples a completed world, a dead, stangnant land where the work of creation has been replaced by mere maintanence. i want a world where beauty can still be discovered, found, and Created.
i don't want an idealistic world. an idealistic world - the way you would define it, christist - is a world where everyone shares the same ideals, where all are kept in step and forced to march instead of dance. a world where every table is an exact duplicate of every other table, where evey chair is an exact duplicate of every other chair, where every sitter is an exact duplicate... i want a world of conflict, of ideas in motion and flux - beauty & strength, leaping laugher and delicious langour, force & fire. most of all - CHANGE. the idealistic world is static, cessation, death.
don't give me your shit about innocence. "innocence" is just your way of saying "ignorance that i control." kids are trying to fuck by two years of age - ask anybody that does day care. seriously. you can slap their hands away and tell them they're dirty but in the end... not you, not your friends, not your family, not your co-religionists, not your pundits or your politicians will Ever be able to stop people from doing what comes naturally.
(i mean Fucking, in case that was unclear.)
Love is the law, love under will. -
-
Re: "I'm gonna take my right foot and put it over your left shoulder"
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 11:39 AM<< He allowed the phallus to develop the way it is as a concession to the vicissitudes of a fallen planet . >>
Says who? Is there a Scriptural citation for this crankery or are you projecting your own self-revulsion onto God?
<< God does NOT rejoice in the phallus . Exodus 20:26 (sorry about the accidental earlier citation of Exodus 12 , it is Exodus 20:26) indicates that God regards the phallus with revulsion after all, he mandates that it *not* be exposed in the tabernacle .>>
Just as I thought. Instead of manning-up and accepting the way God made you, you blame the Almighty for your personal inability to heed the good counsel you go on places like Tribe.net to receive. All you have to do is get the whole private grievance up in mock-Biblical dog and you can pose as a Holy Man instead of one more sex-obsessed single male cruising the Internet.
You're like the parson who spends just an *awful* lot of time down at the House of the Rising Sun...
<< the Fall which I believe took place in some other para-physical realm . >>
www.youtube.com/watch
<< The Song Of Solomon, which you have cited with approval in other posts, I interpret not as a celebration of sexual activity , but as a celebration of the beauty of the unclothed female body but purely for esthetic purposes ...NOT for sexual/ lustful purposes . >>
Piffle.
<< St.Paul also proposed that the creation was made subject to corruption . >>
He would've known.
<< The statements I've presented in those typed ramblings often put forth precepts, insights , and methodological principles which TRANSCEND my personality >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :That I very seriously doubt.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you doubt that statement ? >>
It's sheer rib-rocking implausibility.
<< RESPONSE: On the contrary , in this present era where imagery and motifs of sexuality are now more widely disseminated by a moving picture mass media (e.g. movies, televison , you tube et al) ...when uninhibited references to sex are all far more widely practiced then ever before (the only possible exception maybe being Rome >>
They had TV and movies in ancient Rome? HAHAHA!!
Did Caligula ride a dinosaur as well?
<<.Often when one has more supply then more demand is stirred . >>
Ah. Supply-side spunk economics- supply of porn equals demand on the sore-abused schlong of he who looks at it.
The economic theory that sunk America applied to the bedroom. Jason must have some kind of wingnut funding for this...
<< RESPONSE : On what grounds do you claim that "humans never so uproariously confirm this truth when they try to deny it . " >>
Because the confirmation is FUNNY.
<< The underlying ethos that leads you to disparage ideologues is, apparently, one of those who does NOT like people taking philosophy, moralizing, matters of ultimate concern , esthetics et al..so seriously ..one who is against rigid ideological consistency...one like so many pundits in thinkers in this present weird era prizes the air of being ironical , an ironical trickster who scoffs at those who take matters so seriously. Hence, you apparently come from a sensibility of mellowness ... >>
So, no matter how often or viciously I kick your ass in argument, I'm still a Pickwickian apostle of Mellow, and I CAN'T really mean anything to the contrary?
Oh GOODIE! It's as if Daffy Duck were to actually ENJOY the taste of gunpowder...
<< RESPONSE: Why is it that you seek to heckle rigid moralists ? >>
To acquit an artistic impulse.
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Double crap. You don't even knw what "kitsch" is.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you allege that ? >>
The following-
<<: If one observes a work of kitsch art/craft one finds that it does NOT have vivivdness , sharp distinctness of line and contour . Also , in terms of various forms of composition ...colour and shape composition one finds that kitsch *lacks* structural contiguity . There is NOT the carefulness in the execution of the form to make sure that the various elements have an orderly (and *never* so orderly to be intricate) , composition in the visual arrangement . It lacks the effort being put forth towards the aim of structural contiguity .>>
is nonsense in its entirety. Please provide examples of any part of this. Try to be specific.
<< Form follows biological function in a crude sense , so that a very crude almost-cylinder shape is obtained that lacks the sharp visual contour of a cylinder (or any other Euclidean shape). >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : At this point, you're beginning to associate your own dick with the kind of horrors that so entranced H.P. Lovecraft.
RESPONSE: Please elaborate on that statement . >>
No.
<<< RESPONSE: That is another example of you being facile, Mr.Rockstar, subsituting zingy one liners *instead of* a persipacious rebuttal which is conceptually salient . >>
A zinging one-liner is a sort of ultimate in relevance, since the zing derives from its salience and accuracy. -
-
Refutation of the diverginary thinking presented by Mr.Rockstar .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 10:51 AM<< He allowed the phallus to develop the way it is as a concession to the vicissitudes of a fallen planet . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Says who? Is there a Scriptural citation for this crankery or are you projecting your own self-revulsion onto God?
RESPONSE: Yours truly has been made aware that there are apparently esoteric rabbinical writings that purport such a thesis .
<< God does NOT rejoice in the phallus . Exodus 20:26 (sorry about the accidental earlier citation of Exodus 12 , it is Exodus 20:26) indicates that God regards the phallus with revulsion after all, he mandates that it *not* be exposed in the tabernacle .>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Just as I thought. Instead of manning-up and accepting the way God made you, you blame the Almighty for your personal inability to heed the good counsel you go on places like Tribe.net to receive. All you have to do is get the whole private grievance up in mock-Biblical dog and you can pose as a Holy Man instead of one more sex-obsessed single male cruising the Internet.
RESPONSE: Notice that you diverge from any direct commentary on the Bible verse under review in the excerpt shown above and go off on a tangent making undemonstrated claims that I have such and such motivation , and in doing so trying to "read between the lines" rather than cite anything explicit to vindicate such a conjecture .
Dialectic and exegesis requires a much more clinical / analytical point by point, "square" approach instead of Freudian rebuffs , Mr.Rockstar .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You're like the parson who spends just an *awful* lot of time down at the House of the Rising Sun...
RESPONSE: Is that an ad homenin conjecture from you , Mr. Rockstar ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :<< the Fall which I believe took place in some other para-physical realm . >>
www.youtube.com/watch
<< The Song Of Solomon, which you have cited with approval in other posts, I interpret not as a celebration of sexual activity , but as a celebration of the beauty of the unclothed female body but purely for esthetic purposes ...NOT for sexual/ lustful purposes . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Piffle.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you claim that the above sentence excerpted above is piffle ?
<< St.Paul also proposed that the creation was made subject to corruption . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :He would've known.
RESPONSE : What does that statement mean , "he would have known" . Do you assert he was mistaken about that statement ? (Granted I'm not a proponent that everything Paul wrote was inerrant ; the notion that wives should submit to their husbands is rather dubious , but I think what he wrote in Romans about the creation being made subject to a sort of corruption , is a rather insightful statement )
<< The statements I've presented in those typed ramblings often put forth precepts, insights , and methodological principles which TRANSCEND my personality >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :That I very seriously doubt.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you doubt that statement ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :It's sheer rib-rocking implausibility.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you allege that the proposition that the statements I've presented in typed ramblings put forth insights, precepts, and principles that transcend my personality ---is so implausible a proposition in the first place ????
<< RESPONSE: On the contrary , in this present era where imagery and motifs of sexuality are now more widely disseminated by a moving picture mass media (e.g. movies, televison , you tube et al) ...when uninhibited references to sex are all far more widely practiced then ever before (the only possible exception maybe being Rome >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :They had TV and movies in ancient Rome? HAHAHA!!
Did Caligula ride a dinosaur as well?
RESPONSE: No, Mr.Rockstar, those statements shown above are a glaring example of how you ought to slow down and parse what I post in a linear/careful manner . I was referring to the apparent level of sexual debauchery in Rome around the time of its fall from rectitude with the level of sexual debauchery in mass media influenced America and Europe today ! I was referring to the level of sexual debauchery being practiced (in light of what the commentors on the fall of the Roman Empire have reported) . The level of media dissemination of motifs and themes of sexual debauchery was predicated in the paragraph of the contemporary era !
<<.Often when one has more supply then more demand is stirred . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Ah. Supply-side spunk economics- supply of porn equals demand on the sore-abused schlong of he who looks at it.
RESPONSE: Last time I heard the news pundits (the talking heads--- and I'm not referring to the musical group ...I like that musical group by the way , but that's beside the point) ... make reference to supply side economics , I seem to recall that it was portrayed as the Reaganesque view that if big business executives and corporate officers were unfetterred by taxation and other restrictions to make larger profits that the supposed rising tide of economic prosperity would "trickle down" to middle income and low income people in time . I certainly do NOT agree with that trickle down Reagan-esque notion , by the way . But until now I had not heard the term 'supply side economics' used to refer to the mere notion alone that there is a financial dynamic where larger scale supply of a product , or service , or phenomenon .
Are you sure Rockstar that you are using the term 'supply side economics' in keeping with linguistic precedent as to how the term was used before ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :The economic theory that sunk America applied to the bedroom. Jason must have some kind of wingnut funding for this...
RESPONSE: I have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate . I despise the catering to the rich that conservatives and Ronald Reagan engaged in . I am an ANTI-conservative ideologue who chastises NEO-liberals for wanting some middle ground with the worthless venal and vulgar ideology of conservatism , so please slow down and stop making such "quantum leaps" in cogitation .
<< RESPONSE : On what grounds do you claim that "humans never so uproariously confirm this truth when they try to deny it . " >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Because the confirmation is FUNNY.
RESPONSE: So because such a predication is funny that makes it count , regardless of whether it is veridical or not ?
<< The underlying ethos that leads you to disparage ideologues is, apparently, one of those who does NOT like people taking philosophy, moralizing, matters of ultimate concern , esthetics et al..so seriously ..one who is against rigid ideological consistency...one like so many pundits in thinkers in this present weird era prizes the air of being ironical , an ironical trickster who scoffs at those who take matters so seriously. Hence, you apparently come from a sensibility of mellowness ... >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :So, no matter how often or viciously I kick your ass in argument, I'm still a Pickwickian apostle of Mellow, and I CAN'T really mean anything to the contrary?
Oh GOODIE! It's as if Daffy Duck were to actually ENJOY the taste of gunpowder...
RESPONSE: It is as if you use such biting wit---- NOT against the claims of those who tolerate ambiguity--- where you ought to direct such scathing piss and vinegar , but, instead, like to direct them at single-minded, true believers... those who insist on NON-flexible methods of thought and inquiry . That fosters the impression that you are indeed a relativist , one who takes umbrage at people who vehemently proclaim that there are absolute truths .. That fosters the impression that you are mellow in ideological orientation , or perhaps a better way to phrase it that you have a penchant for that ambivalent sort of sophistication that is all so prized in the present day and age (including much of academia, since relativism has infiltrated so much of it ) . Just where do you stand Mr.Rockstar ? Are you one of those people who claims that there are so-called "shades of grey", in regard to matters of ultimate concern , or "gray areas" in life ?
Not that too many years ago , I read an editorial (if memory serves rightly : a book review) either in the New Yorker Or Harpers (I forget which of those publications it was) It was around 2005, when I read it . The editorialist was actually disparaging of a female author who had gotten a Nobel prize for literature and wrote about how she was not conflicted about anything ---AS IF that were some sort of drawback for her not to be conflicted in thinking ! Such a prizing of ambivalence is indeed hideous .
<< RESPONSE: Why is it that you seek to heckle rigid moralists ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :To acquit an artistic impulse.
RESPONSE: An artistic impulse towards what specific end or goal ?
Isn't the actual case, Rockstar, that you do NOT like NON-flexibile,extremely consistent thinking ...that you prize a "multifacted" approach ...one that is ironical and tolerant of ambiguity, one that prizes the notion that there are so-called "shades of grey"..that the approach of Rockstar does not like answer givers , but prefers a NON-serious trickster approach one that is *somewhat* conflicted and that rejects single-minded "fanaticism" . ?
That wrong penchant is in keeping with the wrong zeitgeist of this present weird ambivalent era )
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Double crap. You don't even knw what "kitsch" is.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you allege that ? >>
The following-
<<: If one observes a work of kitsch art/craft one finds that it does NOT have vivivdness , sharp distinctness of line and contour . Also , in terms of various forms of composition ...colour and shape composition one finds that kitsch *lacks* structural contiguity . There is NOT the carefulness in the execution of the form to make sure that the various elements have an orderly (and *never* so orderly to be intricate) , composition in the visual arrangement . It lacks the effort being put forth towards the aim of structural contiguity .>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : is nonsense in its entirety. Please provide examples of any part of this. Try to be specific.
RESPONSE: Due to the vicissitudes of the cut and paste text process , will (barring sudden computer malfunctions) post hyperlinks to photos from web site showing pictures of kitch art/ craft and then put relevant commentary underneath the hyperlinks to review the visual characteristics of the kitch artworks , in a subsequent post (which i hope to post immediately after the present one) .
<< Form follows biological function in a crude sense , so that a very crude almost-cylinder shape is obtained that lacks the sharp visual contour of a cylinder (or any other Euclidean shape). >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : At this point, you're beginning to associate your own dick with the kind of horrors that so entranced H.P. Lovecraft.
RESPONSE: Please elaborate on that statement . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :No.
RESPONSE: That is very fishy that you refuse to elaborate . Notice that Mr.Rockstar refuses to elaborate on a statement . Do you, Mr.Rockstar, refuse to elaborate on that statement because you are worried that internal contradictions and /or other fallacies might come to light in what you espouse, if you were to elaborate ?
It looks mighty suspicious when you refuse to elaborate .
<<< RESPONSE: That is another example of you being facile, Mr.Rockstar, subsituting zingy one liners *instead of* a persipacious rebuttal which is conceptually salient . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : zinging one-liner is a sort of ultimate in relevance, since the zing derives from its salience and accuracy
RESPONSE: Aren't you falsely equating wit with the separate quality of wisdom ? -
-
Re: Refutation of the diverginary thinking presented by Mr.Rockstar .WITH A TYPO FIXED (Addenta)
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 10:57 AM<< He allowed the phallus to develop the way it is as a concession to the vicissitudes of a fallen planet . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Says who? Is there a Scriptural citation for this crankery or are you projecting your own self-revulsion onto God?
RESPONSE: Yours truly has been made aware that there are apparently esoteric rabbinical writings that purport such a thesis .
<< God does NOT rejoice in the phallus . Exodus 20:26 (sorry about the accidental earlier citation of Exodus 12 , it is Exodus 20:26) indicates that God regards the phallus with revulsion after all, he mandates that it *not* be exposed in the tabernacle .>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Just as I thought. Instead of manning-up and accepting the way God made you, you blame the Almighty for your personal inability to heed the good counsel you go on places like Tribe.net to receive. All you have to do is get the whole private grievance up in mock-Biblical dog and you can pose as a Holy Man instead of one more sex-obsessed single male cruising the Internet.
RESPONSE: Notice that you diverge from any direct commentary on the Bible verse under review in the excerpt shown above and go off on a tangent making undemonstrated claims that I have such and such motivation , and in doing so trying to "read between the lines" rather than cite anything explicit to vindicate such a conjecture .
Dialectic and exegesis requires a much more clinical / analytical point by point, "square" approach instead of Freudian rebuffs , Mr.Rockstar .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You're like the parson who spends just an *awful* lot of time down at the House of the Rising Sun...
RESPONSE: Is that an ad homenin conjecture from you , Mr. Rockstar ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :<< the Fall which I believe took place in some other para-physical realm . >>
www.youtube.com/watch
<< The Song Of Solomon, which you have cited with approval in other posts, I interpret not as a celebration of sexual activity , but as a celebration of the beauty of the unclothed female body but purely for esthetic purposes ...NOT for sexual/ lustful purposes . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Piffle.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you claim that the above sentence excerpted above is piffle ?
<< St.Paul also proposed that the creation was made subject to corruption . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :He would've known.
RESPONSE : What does that statement mean , "he would have known" . Do you assert he was mistaken about that statement ? (Granted I'm not a proponent that everything Paul wrote was inerrant ; the notion that wives should submit to their husbands is rather dubious , but I think what he wrote in Romans about the creation being made subject to a sort of corruption , is a rather insightful statement )
<< The statements I've presented in those typed ramblings often put forth precepts, insights , and methodological principles which TRANSCEND my personality >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :That I very seriously doubt.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you doubt that statement ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :It's sheer rib-rocking implausibility.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you allege that the proposition that the statements I've presented in typed ramblings put forth insights, precepts, and principles that transcend my personality ---is so implausible a proposition in the first place ????
<< RESPONSE: On the contrary , in this present era where imagery and motifs of sexuality are now more widely disseminated by a moving picture mass media (e.g. movies, televison , you tube et al) ...when uninhibited references to sex are all far more widely practiced then ever before (the only possible exception maybe being Rome >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :They had TV and movies in ancient Rome? HAHAHA!!
Did Caligula ride a dinosaur as well?
RESPONSE: No, Mr.Rockstar, those statements shown above are a glaring example of how you ought to slow down and parse what I post in a linear/careful manner . I was referring to the apparent level of sexual debauchery in Rome around the time of its fall from rectitude with the level of sexual debauchery in mass media influenced America and Europe today ! I was referring to the level of sexual debauchery being practiced (in light of what the commentors on the fall of the Roman Empire have reported) . The level of media dissemination of motifs and themes of sexual debauchery was predicated in the paragraph of the contemporary era !
<<.Often when one has more supply then more demand is stirred . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Ah. Supply-side spunk economics- supply of porn equals demand on the sore-abused schlong of he who looks at it.
RESPONSE: Last time I heard the news pundits (the talking heads--- and I'm not referring to the musical group ...I like that musical group by the way , but that's beside the point) ... make reference to supply side economics , I seem to recall that it was portrayed as the Reaganesque view that if big business executives and corporate officers were unfetterred by taxation and other restrictions to make larger profits that the supposed rising tide of economic prosperity would "trickle down" to middle income and low income people in time . I certainly do NOT agree with that trickle down Reagan-esque notion , by the way . But until now I had not heard the term 'supply side economics' used to refer to the mere notion alone that there is a financial dynamic where larger scale supply of a product , or service , or phenomenon (ADDENTA OF missing phrase added) can engender greater demand from potential buyers .
Are you sure Rockstar that you are using the term 'supply side economics' in keeping with linguistic precedent as to how the term was used before ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :The economic theory that sunk America applied to the bedroom. Jason must have some kind of wingnut funding for this...
RESPONSE: I have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate . I despise the catering to the rich that conservatives and Ronald Reagan engaged in . I am an ANTI-conservative ideologue who chastises NEO-liberals for wanting some middle ground with the worthless venal and vulgar ideology of conservatism , so please slow down and stop making such "quantum leaps" in cogitation .
<< RESPONSE : On what grounds do you claim that "humans never so uproariously confirm this truth when they try to deny it . " >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Because the confirmation is FUNNY.
RESPONSE: So because such a predication is funny that makes it count , regardless of whether it is veridical or not ?
<< The underlying ethos that leads you to disparage ideologues is, apparently, one of those who does NOT like people taking philosophy, moralizing, matters of ultimate concern , esthetics et al..so seriously ..one who is against rigid ideological consistency...one like so many pundits in thinkers in this present weird era prizes the air of being ironical , an ironical trickster who scoffs at those who take matters so seriously. Hence, you apparently come from a sensibility of mellowness ... >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :So, no matter how often or viciously I kick your ass in argument, I'm still a Pickwickian apostle of Mellow, and I CAN'T really mean anything to the contrary?
Oh GOODIE! It's as if Daffy Duck were to actually ENJOY the taste of gunpowder...
RESPONSE: It is as if you use such biting wit---- NOT against the claims of those who tolerate ambiguity--- where you ought to direct such scathing piss and vinegar , but, instead, like to direct them at single-minded, true believers... those who insist on NON-flexible methods of thought and inquiry . That fosters the impression that you are indeed a relativist , one who takes umbrage at people who vehemently proclaim that there are absolute truths .. That fosters the impression that you are mellow in ideological orientation , or perhaps a better way to phrase it that you have a penchant for that ambivalent sort of sophistication that is all so prized in the present day and age (including much of academia, since relativism has infiltrated so much of it ) . Just where do you stand Mr.Rockstar ? Are you one of those people who claims that there are so-called "shades of grey", in regard to matters of ultimate concern , or "gray areas" in life ?
Not that too many years ago , I read an editorial (if memory serves rightly : a book review) either in the New Yorker Or Harpers (I forget which of those publications it was) It was around 2005, when I read it . The editorialist was actually disparaging of a female author who had gotten a Nobel prize for literature and wrote about how she was not conflicted about anything ---AS IF that were some sort of drawback for her not to be conflicted in thinking ! Such a prizing of ambivalence is indeed hideous .
<< RESPONSE: Why is it that you seek to heckle rigid moralists ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :To acquit an artistic impulse.
RESPONSE: An artistic impulse towards what specific end or goal ?
Isn't the actual case, Rockstar, that you do NOT like NON-flexibile,extremely consistent thinking ...that you prize a "multifacted" approach ...one that is ironical and tolerant of ambiguity, one that prizes the notion that there are so-called "shades of grey"..that the approach of Rockstar does not like answer givers , but prefers a NON-serious trickster approach one that is *somewhat* conflicted and that rejects single-minded "fanaticism" . ?
That wrong penchant is in keeping with the wrong zeitgeist of this present weird ambivalent era )
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Double crap. You don't even knw what "kitsch" is.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you allege that ? >>
The following-
<<: If one observes a work of kitsch art/craft one finds that it does NOT have vivivdness , sharp distinctness of line and contour . Also , in terms of various forms of composition ...colour and shape composition one finds that kitsch *lacks* structural contiguity . There is NOT the carefulness in the execution of the form to make sure that the various elements have an orderly (and *never* so orderly to be intricate) , composition in the visual arrangement . It lacks the effort being put forth towards the aim of structural contiguity .>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : is nonsense in its entirety. Please provide examples of any part of this. Try to be specific.
RESPONSE: Due to the vicissitudes of the cut and paste text process , will (barring sudden computer malfunctions) post hyperlinks to photos from web site showing pictures of kitch art/ craft and then put relevant commentary underneath the hyperlinks to review the visual characteristics of the kitch artworks , in a subsequent post (which i hope to post immediately after the present one) .
<< Form follows biological function in a crude sense , so that a very crude almost-cylinder shape is obtained that lacks the sharp visual contour of a cylinder (or any other Euclidean shape). >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : At this point, you're beginning to associate your own dick with the kind of horrors that so entranced H.P. Lovecraft.
RESPONSE: Please elaborate on that statement . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :No.
RESPONSE: That is very fishy that you refuse to elaborate . Notice that Mr.Rockstar refuses to elaborate on a statement . Do you, Mr.Rockstar, refuse to elaborate on that statement because you are worried that internal contradictions and /or other fallacies might come to light in what you espouse, if you were to elaborate ?
It looks mighty suspicious when you refuse to elaborate .
<<< RESPONSE: That is another example of you being facile, Mr.Rockstar, subsituting zingy one liners *instead of* a persipacious rebuttal which is conceptually salient . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : zinging one-liner is a sort of ultimate in relevance, since the zing derives from its salience and accuracy
RESPONSE: Aren't you falsely equating wit with the separate quality of wisdom ? -
-
Hyperlink To Examples Of Kitsch Art and How It Lacks The Visual Characteristic Of Sharp, Vivid Line and Contour (In Review Of The Visual Characteristics Of Kitsch from a previous post)
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 11:13 AMHere is a a hyperlink where (provided the hyperlink takes without malfunction) one can see for oneself, Mr.Rockstar a an artwork of apparent kitsch a ceramic or porcelain figure of what is supposed to be a depiction of an angel :
images.google.com/imgres
Look at the muddled renditions of line in the hands, face, garments , and wings of the angel . The facial features such as lips, eyes, nose et al on the depiction of the angel are barely set apart from the expanse of the surrounding face area ...*not* set apart in any bold , distinct relief at all .
The lines of the hands , garment, wings and so on do not have a sharp continuity in the figurine .
Compare and contrast the work of the angel figurine in the photo of an apparent work of kitsch art with the sharp , clean / distinct lines extant in say Neoclassical sculptures of angel figures or the clean disttinct lines in teh features of angels depicted by the remarkable Russian surrealist painter Mark Chagall . Quite a difference !
Thus, the figurine shown in the photo behind the hyperlink shows how kitsch art lacks the visual characteristics of vivdness . -
-
Re: Hyperlink To Examples Of Kitsch Art and How It *Lacks* The Visual Characteristic Of Structural Contiguity (In Review Of The Visual Characteristics Of Kitsch from a previous post)
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 11:46 AM
Here are yet other examples of kitsch art to be found by clicking on the hyperlinks (provided the hyperlinks take without any malfunction) :
Ugly kitch clock
www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2...249x400.jpg
AND
25 Wed, October 21, 2009 - 5:35 PM
YET MORE UGLY KITCH TO PRESENT TO ROCKSTAR
www.worldofkitsch.com/objects...ain.html
The latter website has more than one example of kitch art that can be seen by navigating about the site .
In the case of the clock and in the case of the other kitsch objects there is not only a lack of sharp cleanly delineate visual line , but a lack of much apparent visual contiguity amongst the elements of the image.
With the clock in particular the simulated ivy does NOT look very well attached to the body of the clock, for example it lloks like a stuck on sort of relationship between the figure of the simulated ivy (which sticks out a bit) and the ground of the clock . The simulated "ivy" doesn't quite flow with the arrangement of the body of the clock very well visually .
With the simulated porcelain depiction of a poodle with a bow tie at the other website, there is a lack of a good colour coordination ---in terms of a chromatic context of structural contiguity . Note that the off white, almost dirty pale peach or dirty pale tan colour of the poodle figurine (which is lacking in its own right since it seems to be a muddled attempt at a tertium quid betwixt and between separate colours) does not make the scarlet or crimson dots on the simulated bow tie stand out in any bold relief, nor are they what could be called a chromatically reluctant hue , insasmuch as they are a slightly "loud" red but not nearly loud enough hue of red . Furthermore, the body of the simulated bow tie on the poodle figurine does not have any background colour to distinguish it from the colour of the body of the poodle figurine --thus that is another example of a lack of stuctural contiguity of colour inasmuch as it apes a distinction of one feature from another but does a partway "job" at it !
Furthermore , the lines of the simulated bow tie are not vivid , bold relief enough to set it apart very much from the bodily backround of the poodle's body .
Hopefully , later yours truly can find more contemporary exmaples of imagery of a kitsch sort of cultural artefact ---one which can be seen in a still as opposed to a moving photo, since yours truly has a dial up internet connection and accessing You-tube and the like is a somewhat rickety , choppy affair .
.
An example of contemporary type of kitsch that shows the ugly worthless cultural zeitgeist of this present decade , which comes to mind ---in the genre of cinema--is the worthless , trashy stoner geek-chic movie titled 'Dude Where's My Car ?' , a movie that yours truly has a never ending supply of just hatred for --since it has a motley sort of arrangement and usage of images ...but it would be hard to post such moving imagery here .
Certainly trash like 'Dude, Where's My Car?' stands in quite strong contrast to the beautiful artful cinema of say Kurasowa, or Igmar Bergman , or Kazan ...... -
-
Re: Hyperlink To Examples Of Kitsch Art and How It *Lacks* The Visual Characteristic Of Structural Contiguity (In Review Of The Visual Characteristics Of Kitsch from a previous post)
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 8:36 AMRockstar ,
so when you gonna address line by line the examples of kitsch in the hyperlinks and the commentary I provided, and refute it if you can .? -
-
Re: Hyperlink To Examples Of Kitsch Art and How It *Lacks* The Visual Characteristic Of Structural Contiguity (In Review Of The Visual Characteristics Of Kitsch from a previous post)
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 9:40 AM"Rockstar ,
so when you gonna address line by line the examples of kitsch in the hyperlinks and the commentary I provided, and refute it if you can .?"
I can't believe Rockstar took the time to respond to this demand.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 11:43 AM<< Exodus 20:26 - yeah, and the line before that says you can't make the altar out of cut stone, either, it should just be a big pile of fucking rocks (it's for sacrificing goats and oxen, by the way!) two lines later it's giving advice on buying hebrews as slaves. >>
Thank you. One takes a safety tip as a sign one is cursed by God at some considerable peril... -
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 1:47 PM<< Exodus 20:26 - yeah, and the line before that says you can't make the altar out of cut stone, either, it should just be a big pile of fucking rocks (it's for sacrificing goats and oxen, by the way!) two lines later it's giving advice on buying hebrews as slaves. >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Thank you. One takes a safety tip as a sign one is cursed by God at some considerable peril...
RESPONSE : It is NOT a safety tip . Read the text of Exodus 20:26 closely. note the 'that thy nakedness be not be discovered thereon ' . Not "so that they naked parts be not injured" . -
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 2:14 PMAren't you taking this bit of Godly short-arm inspection a bit too unseriously for purposes of scholarship?
I worry after this trendy, superficial, no-context new wave in Biblical exegesis you're trying to sell to the MTV generation... -
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 4:19 PMROCKSTAR POSTED :Aren't you taking this bit of Godly short-arm inspection a bit too unseriously for purposes of scholarship?
RESPONSE :On the contrary, I've been taking it very seriously . I've been rigidly using linear thinking
in unpacking the text ..to such an extent that Loki would call "pedantic " .
When it comes to exegesis I have been thinking totally *inside* the box .
The issue was one of defilement of the tabernacle and altar, hence the verse , 'that thy nakedness not be discovered theron' . It did not state so that" thy secret parts not suffer injury "
ROCKSTAR POSTED : I worry after this trendy, superficial, no-context new wave in Biblical exegesis you're trying to sell to the MTV generation...
RESPONSE: That is yet another *switcharoo* inversion from Mr.Rockstar . The invectives I have presented as part of the exegesis are the OPPOSITE of trendy, and superficial and *against* the thinking of the MTV Generation .Stop swicharooing . -
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 6:30 PM<< I've been rigidly using >>
Yet another manifestation of your Portnoy's Complaint -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port..._Complaint
Your mind seems ever on your wang.
<< unpacking >>
Please. This endless dirty talk has gone on long enough. I don't care *what* you've had packed, Jason...
<< When it comes to exegesis I have been thinking totally *inside* the box >>
Rot. You wouldn't be positing nonsense speculation about what plane of existence the Fall took place if that were so.
<< The issue was one of defilement of the tabernacle and altar >>
No, the issue is a male dress code. The gym teacher didn't make you wear a jockstrap because he hated nads, did he? -
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 6:37 PMShit you did not just bring up that novel! That is one of the most darkly dreary comedic novels I've ever read. He's got plenty, but I just read that one. That is one funny Jew.
"Rot. You wouldn't be positing nonsense speculation about what plane of existence the Fall took place if that were so."
He I wrote some trash like that! Not like it could be figured out. Pretty much you go looking for that shit to unwind before your eyes, you go crazy. Like the escape from the minotaur maze crazy. I hope I left a trail to follow, I gotta get out of here 'fore that thing's bellowing drives me nuts! -
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 6:39 PMI want a transcript of what this boy thinks while he's "inside the box".
-
-
Rockstar makes facile equivocation with aplomb
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 11:08 PM<< I've been rigidly using >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Yet another manifestation of your Portnoy's Complaint -
RESPONSE: You are equivocating . I was *not* referring to rigidity of the phallus. Was referring to rigidlity of METHOD of inquiry which I use . Rigid linear thinking (i.e. logic)
ROCKSTAR POSTED :en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port..._Complaint
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Your mind seems ever on your wang.
RESPONSE : You have been found guilty of the fallacy of equivocation .
<< unpacking >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Please. This endless dirty talk has gone on long enough. I don't care *what* you've had packed, Jason...
RESPONSE: I was referring to *conceptual* unpacking ....the resolutive composite method of unfolding concepts. Stop making gutter minded equivocations .
<< When it comes to exegesis I have been thinking totally *inside* the box >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Rot. You wouldn't be positing nonsense speculation about what plane of existence the Fall took place if that were so.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you claim that ?
<< The issue was one of defilement of the tabernacle and altar >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :No, the issue is a male dress code.
RESPONSE: How do you know ? Why wouldn't exposing male genitals be in concord with the dress code , if male genitals were not profane , as opposed to sacred ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :The gym teacher didn't make you wear a jockstrap because he hated nads, did he?
RESPONSE: Another apples and turnips comparison by Mr.Rockstar .
The gym teacher: (1).Was not an ancient Israelite . (2) . was not treating the gym like a tabernacle for liturgical purposes .
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 8:37 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"Thank you. One takes a safety tip as a sign one is cursed by God at some considerable peril."
...ah, i Missed you :D
Love is the law, love under will. -
-
Re: Further Explication for Mr.Rockstar .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 1:22 AM<< I've been rigidly using >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Yet another manifestation of your Portnoy's Complaint -
RESPONSE: You are equivocating . I was *not* referring to rigidity of the phallus. Was referring to rigidlity of METHOD of inquiry which I use . Rigid linear thinking (i.e. logic) >>
Nothing equivocal about the, dare I say, priapic insitence in which you use words commonly associated with the male member. Like Portnoy, you're obsessed over your meatsicle and it come a-bubbling from your fingertips. When those digits aren't otherwise occupied, of course...
<< RESPONSE : You have been found guilty of the fallacy of equivocation . >>
Irrelevant, incompetent, immaterial obiter dicta likely writ as a form of self-arousal.
<< unpacking >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Please. This endless dirty talk has gone on long enough. I don't care *what* you've had packed, Jason...
RESPONSE: I was referring to *conceptual* unpacking ....>>
Again, that you're packer, packee or been packed right full of boysenberry muffins, I'd really rather not know due to my insistent, indeed numbing, disinterest.
<< The issue was one of defilement of the tabernacle and altar >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :No, the issue is a male dress code.
RESPONSE: How do you know ? >>
How do **YOU** know God hates your pecker? Or His own, built as we are in His image.
<< if male genitals were not profane , as opposed to sacred ? >>
Some are more sacred than others. This is why men even *have* clothes.
<<ROCKSTAR POSTED :The gym teacher didn't make you wear a jockstrap because he hated nads, did he?
<< apples and turnips comparison >>
Again, any jocular pet names you have for your testicles are best left out of refined conversation before ladies.
Pray don't force me to chastise you as vulgarian.
<< (2) . was not treating the gym like a tabernacle for liturgical purposes . >>
No, but the fellow, like the God of Exodus, appears to have more concern for the goods than YOU do.
<< ...ah, i Missed you :D >>
*bows*
Likewise. ;) -
-
Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 9:18 AM<< I've been rigidly using >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Yet another manifestation of your Portnoy's Complaint -
RESPONSE: You are equivocating . I was *not* referring to rigidity of the phallus. Was referring to rigidlity of METHOD of inquiry which I use . Rigid linear thinking (i.e. logic) >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : Nothing equivocal about the, dare I say, priapic insitence in which you use words commonly associated with the male member.
RESPONSE: I did NOT intend the use of the term 'rigid' in a priapic context . I was referring to methodological NON-flexibility, NOT making any allusion to an erect phallus .
There are , furthermore, a lot of even physical objects that can be rigid that in NO way refer to the phallus . A tree can be rigid . A crystal can be rigid . The scales on an armadillo can be rigid . Rigdity does NOT necessarily pertain to an erect phallus .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Like Portnoy, you're obsessed over your meatsicle and it come a-bubbling from your fingertips. When those digits aren't otherwise occupied, of course...
RESPONSE: No I am *not* obessed with my phallus. You are projecting the motives of phallocentric people onto me and, hence, being quite facile .
Furthemore, for the umpteenth time, I have NO desire to get involved "in jacking off" . To say that such a practice does not appeal to me would be a cosmic understatement . Such a practice is so utterly repugnant and grotesque and (yes I am squeamish ) that I would not even fantasize of doing that , let alone, do that .
<< RESPONSE : You have been found guilty of the fallacy of equivocation . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : Irrelevant, incompetent, immaterial obiter dicta likely writ as a form of self-arousal.
RESPONSE: You are guilty , Mr.Rockstar, of the fallacy of poisoning the well . You are projecting the dispositions of phallocentric people onto me, as to why I use a term , presuming it is some sort of double entendre, or so-called Freudian slip, when it is NOT .
<< unpacking >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Please. This endless dirty talk has gone on long enough. I don't care *what* you've had packed, Jason...
RESPONSE: I was referring to *conceptual* unpacking ....>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Again, that you're packer, packee or been packed right full of boysenberry muffins, I'd really rather not know due to my insistent, indeed numbing, disinterest.
RESPONSE: By highlighting that the term unpacking was used in a purely *conceptual* manner , I sought to indicate to you that you reinterpreting it as some supposed metaphorical reference to some appraisal of my own phallus , as you reinterpreted the term , was an equivocation .
<< The issue was one of defilement of the tabernacle and altar >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :No, the issue is a male dress code.
RESPONSE: How do you know ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : How do **YOU** know God hates your pecker?
RESPONSE: You have *not* answered the intial question, as to how you know that the provison against the priests exposing their genitals in the tabernacle was merely some male dress code?, but , instead of answering that initial question you swerve it , by asking another question and leave the initial question unanswered !!!!
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Or His own, built as we are in His image.
RESPONSE: The image /likeness he has with us is in terms of common mental and spirtitual faculties , NOT in terms of a literal bodily similarity !!! God the Father does NOT have a body , otherwise the designation by Solomon when he weas planning to build the Temple , 'The Heaven of heavens cannot contain thee'. , would not be veridical , since a body has space around it and is therefore finite and can be spatially contained !
<< if male genitals were not profane , as opposed to sacred ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Some are more sacred than others. This is why men even *have* clothes.
RESPONSE: Is that the criteria you postulate as to why the temple priests were forbidden under the code ostensibly given by God to Moses as to why they should avoid exposing their genitals in the tabernacle, because some male genitals among the priests were more sacred than others ? Are you willing to go on record and postulate that such criteria was why they were forbidden to show their male genitals in the tabernacle ?
<<ROCKSTAR POSTED :The gym teacher didn't make you wear a jockstrap because he hated nads, did he?
<< apples and turnips comparison >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : Again, any jocular pet names you have for your testicles are best left out of refined conversation before ladies.
Pray don't force me to chastise you as vulgarian.
RESPONSE: Mr Rockstar, by the terms I was using I was using a turn of phrase to indicate that you were making loose comparisons between separate contexts , which were NOT analogous . You then reappropriate those terms and apply them to a metaphorical context that I had never intended them to signify .
That is a very facile tactic .
<< (2) . was not treating the gym like a tabernacle for liturgical purposes . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :No, but the fellow, like the God of Exodus, appears to have more concern for the goods than YOU do.
RESPONSE: That is a tangent ; an irrelevant statement not relevant to the conceptual pattern under review .You made a far fetched strained comparison between the doings of a gym teacher and the doings of an ancient Jewish tabernacle priest in Israel in the time of Moses . I then pointed out that the two contexts were disanalogous to each other and now you make a tangential statement about some gym teacher protecting people 's genitals .
You have failed there to use a "pedantic" (i.e.scholarly) approach to the subject matter . -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 3:31 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
if you think 'pedantic' means 'scholarly,' i recommend you trade your scriptures in for a dictionary.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...edantic
of course, given your predilection for pulling things out of context, i reckon one would probably serve you as well as the other :/
Love is the law, love under will. -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 3:42 PM -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 6:01 PM"show mercy, show mercy, I need you to build me up from the back of the mind! You're my pompom girl, my cheerleader, my self-esteem empath!"
Fuck off, assholes.
"I'm walking on sunshine, woah-oh-oh-oh! And don't it feel good!
Rendall can't be that pathetic. Solipsism, bitch!
Let me tell you something... a good while back, while I was still living up in Rainbow, during a night of sleeplessness, someone touched me right directly on the forehead. I don't know how. Third eye, and all that shit. One of the many times I was thinking of killing myself because of all this bullshit. I hate being manipulated by this shit. -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 6:02 PMYeah yeah, heal Loki, all that shit... -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 6:08 PMAnd the priest says, "I didn't see shit."
That's because I don't like you, fuckface!
And you are the one (today) looking for that shit, so you'll never get it!
Now, all that's in the past. Electromagnetism and such shit, as Andora might say. If the earth the pole to the Sun, Qabalistically, or is the Moon?
I don't know what effect that well-wishing had on Loki, and I don't care right now.
AndRendall can suck my ass, but at least I know it's him. Why? A Very Particular character.
Live in the real world, Jason-like christians! -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 6:11 PMRendall's got a shitload of goodness all on his won.
Thanks for the door gift, bitch! Come in a join the party. Keg's right there. -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 6:16 PM -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 6:30 PMgee, has anybody here really been in a real
garage band?
or even a knife fight?
can you remember your first
fistfight?
then i think she can too -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 6:37 PMSome favorite Runyon nomenclature: shiv for knife, snoot for nose; and, of course, girlfriends and wives were dolls, as well as Judies, pancakes and tomatoes. Most Runyon guys and dolls favored descriptive names over shorter, plainer ones. Nathan Detroit, Harry the Horse Thief, Nicely-Nicely, Good Time Charley, Dave the Dude and the Seldom Seen Kid represent just a small sampling of amusingly named Runyon guys.
www.curtainup.com/guysanddollsny09.html -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 6:40 PMtry organic produce
not this simon bullshit -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 7:37 PMI'm not in the delicatessen right now. -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 7:45 PMdon't bother
still don't know bush's real name? -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 8:10 PMWhy would I bother? I see him on the half-hour. He knows he's a figurehead. -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 8:35 PMscherff
or was it scherf?
zappata ring a bell? -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 8:43 PMI say we put you on a little round ball with weapons with these people, and you can work out your problems forever (since peace is a foregone conclusion). -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 9:00 PMafraid to answer?
i know you are; others don't -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 9:01 PMthe 41st president
his real name is not bush
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 9:09 PMI am afraid of
being here with you
and the numbers I will
kill.
I seek death
and
exit
from this reality. -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 9:20 PMthe day you quit
this tribe
so will i
but nobody will remember...
how to spell -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 9:47 PMyour problem is
I don't care
what you direct me to.
If you would but realize
that your worthless ass
is following me around
you would properly assess
your patheticness.
That you will lose
the power of speech
is no surprise.
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 9:49 PMyou, a small white man, at a distance
dare
to tell me what to do
through optic lines
and yet
if we were face to face
you know
you would find a chance
to save yourself
for a lesser
battle.
you are not decently prepared
to face
the likes of
me. -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 10:24 PMi have gagged on less talk than this
laughing
so you ever play?
naw
not hockey
nor football
you?
volleyball
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:09 PMNow, now, let's not be bothering Jason with petty things like facts and reality.
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 11:32 AMSolv ,
You are mistaken again. The word 'pedantic' is derivent from the word 'pedant' . At that same online dictionary you cited gave the following as a definition for 'pedant' .
'Pedant' --- 2c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching
So what the same hill is supposed to be wrong with being precisionist in teaching. Since when is great precision a drawback ?
Furthermore , in order to best adjuticate the evaluation of the word 'pedantic' we ought to consult Webster's Unabridged 1913 ! -
-
Re: Rockstar , you are intentionally being supercillous and facile .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 12:17 PMYou have a spotty vocabulary, frequently misusing terms ranging from the abstrusely academic to the very simple. You don't use precise language, nor are you exhaustive in your scholarship, nor have you ever in six years (!) responded to argument with anything distantly approaching the "specificity" you endlessly demand (even calling for it like a drunken ass in a bar immediately after it's just been tendered you).
You are the *bad* kind of pedant, if that clears things up for you. You use excess verbiage, poorly. You don't communicate, nor do you make cogent statements; you ramble, insanely. On the infrequent occasions you make grammatical sense, you are engaged in the solemn work of making a complete fool of yourself. -
-
Loki returns . He comes with an absence of evidence and and loads of mendacity . Hustler Loki .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 12:30 PMLOKI POSTED :You have a spotty vocabulary, frequently misusing terms ranging from the abstrusely academic to the very simple. You don't use precise language, nor are you exhaustive in your scholarship, nor have you ever in six years (!) responded to argument with anything distantly approaching the "specificity" you endlessly demand (even calling for it like a drunken ass in a bar immediately after it's just been tendered you).
RESPONSE : Well I would like you to present any evidence to back up those claims---but then I realize that since you don't present evidence to back up any claims---you won't likely provide any specific evidence this latest time ever---so the question remains why should anyone believe you Lokifreign ? That tends to be a good , pithy sort of question to ask a hustler like yourself, Loki so ...I'll go with that old reliable question . -
-
Re: Loki owns Jason outright. It's an outrage against humanity.
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 12:43 PMOn what specific grounds do you make the claim that I do not present evidence to back up my claims? -
-
Re: Loki owns Jason outright. It's an outrage against humanity.
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 3:09 PMLOKI GROUNDS :On what specific grounds do you make the claim that I do not present evidence to back up my claims?
RESPONSE: On the grounds that the replies you give are summary generalized sorts of putative designations, which do *not* present the particular complete sentences from the earlier posts I posted (then coupled with any effort from you of making any point counterpoint exegesis of the statements...one which lists specific methodlogical rules or conceptual criteria, which you could claim contraindicates the propositional content of each particular sentences I posted and do so line by line . -
-
Re: Loki owns Jason outright. It's an outrage against humanity.
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 3:59 PM<< On the grounds that the replies you give are summary generalized sorts of putative designations, which do *not* present the particular complete sentences from the earlier posts I posted (then coupled with any effort from you of making any point counterpoint exegesis of the statements...one which lists specific methodlogical rules or conceptual criteria, which you could claim contraindicates the propositional content of each particular sentences I posted and do so line by line . >>
Basically, he wants an explanation of why he always winds up on his ass in these encounters. Kind of a text-based version of "pics or it didn't happen."
He'll want an explanation of the explanation afterward, and so on-and-on into a kind of textual infinite regression. Refusal to do so means you lack what he calls "rigor" (a term he waterboards to mean "endless empty hours with nothing better to do than ask Jason why God hates his wee-wee") and he gets to dismiss everything you've said up to that point as not up to his greasy standards.
And you thought Rod Springer's victory conditions were low. Compared to Jason, that guy was a regular William Castle-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Castle -
-
Re: Loki owns Jason outright. It's an outrage against humanity.
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 5:00 PMYep.
"endless empty hours with nothing better to do than ask Jason why God hates his wee-wee"
Another belly laugh there, RS. :)
-
Looks like the post-accurate minds (e.g. Loki and Rockstar) are "circling the wagons"
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 5:38 PM<< On the grounds that the replies you give are summary generalized sorts of putative designations, which do *not* present the particular complete sentences from the earlier posts I posted (then coupled with any effort from you of making any point counterpoint exegesis of the statements...one which lists specific methodlogical rules or conceptual criteria, which you could claim contraindicates the propositional content of each particular sentences I posted and do so line by line . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Basically, he wants an explanation of why he always winds up on his ass in these encounters. Kind of a text-based version of "pics or it didn't happen."
RESPONSE: Since any claims someone else might be wont to make that you are some sort of mind reader ...as well as the attempts to "read between the lines" with what I've posted...are rather dubious , you might want to present something more than a faux paraphrase .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :He'll want an explanation of the explanation afterward,
RESPONSE: Why is it okay for Parmenides and Socrates to seek an explanation of an explanation, but somehow a no no for someone to do it in circa 2009 ?
Or do you and Loki write off Parmenides and Socrates as "bigots" and "placid feebs" also ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :and so on-and-on into a kind of textual infinite regression.
RESPONSE: No. so on and on till we reach the antecdent conceptual building blocks of a given assertion .
ROCKSTAR POSTED : Refusal to do so means you lack what he calls "rigor" (a term he waterboards to mean "endless empty hours with nothing better to do than ask Jason why God hates his wee-wee")
RESPONSE: The canard about me allegedly meaning that the word 'rigor' means what you stated in the excerpt shown above is yet another attempt of Rockstar trying to pass off some alleged "reading between the lines" as if it were a substitute for exegesis of texts .
-
-
-
-
Re: Loki returns . He comes with an absence of evidence and and loads of mendacity . Hustler Loki .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 1:22 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"pedant" has been a pejorative since shortly after shakespeare used it in Love's Labour's Lost. even your 1913 e.v. dictionary should give you That clue.
of course, i know being Correct here isn't actually your agenda.
see, i know you, Jason - i know you All Too Well. i know you to my very bones.
i've seen you a thousand times in a thousand forums, a thousand bars, a thousand temples... you're the one who thinks he's smarter than everybody else, simply because you decided at some point in your life that the people who say things and do things that you don't understand are stupid.
in fact, most people in the world are smarter than you. you suspect that to be true, in your secret heart of hearts, but you keep it locked away, where you think it can't hurt you.
i'm not fooled by your attempts to attack loki through your tireless sock-puppetry. i know you don't give a rat's ass in a rainstorm what he really thinks, any more than you actually believe the pseudo-religious garbage you vomit out like so many late-night currys. you hate the religious types as much as you hate loki, but while you believe it gives you a perfect opportunity to attack something you hate while damaging another thing you hate, what it Actually does is put the lie to your rantings and gives a rather stark view of your psychological landscape.
the only thing that really concerns you - that has Ever concerned you, since you were twelve - is Sex.
your character, celibate by choice, is a smokescreen. your reality is one of celibacy through necessity (however imaginary). the real reason you've been chasing loki around this board like a teenager in heat is simply that you see women that either Have or you think Would reject you sexually flirting with him, and it drives you completely insane.
"why loki and not me?!?" this is the refrain that runs through your head at night, while you sweat on your lonely sheets, wishing desperately that somebody, ANYbody would give you love and, perhaps even more important, Attention. the same animus drives your arguments with rockstar.
your sock-puppet doesn't get laid because it chooses not to. in meatspace, you don't get laid because you Can't.
women, you believe, don't find you attractive. it probably has something to do with constant criticisms from your mother when you were young that continued into adulthood. "all the assholes are the only ones the girls like. they don't like me, 'cause i'm too nice" is usually how the thinking expresses itself. it's nonsense, but that doesn't stop it from keeping you home evenings and up at night.
what the really pathetic thing is, at least from my point of view, is that you've transferred all of your sexual frustration into your bizarre relationship with lokifreign, and in the process of doing so you've actually become a rather queer version of the very thing you despise - sexually aggressive men.
one thing you and your character have in common is a hatred for what you perceive as sexual aggression. your definition of it is far, far too wide - even including simple courtship rituals like flirting in bars. "i would never just walk up to a woman like that and try to force my attention on her like that. why, if that guy would just walk up to somebody like that who knows what else he would do! what an asshole!"
most guys who deal with that particular issue get over it in their twenties, one way or another. you, on the other hand, never developed the necessary self-confidence. what you Have developed is a rerouting of your sexual frustration that now manifests in reflecting what you believe to be the same behavior in internet forums that has frustrated you so very much, if wrongly, over the entire course of your life since puberty.
"let's see how HE likes it," you think to yourself. maybe. if you're even capable of that level of self-analysis.
do you get it yet? do i need to say more?
probably.
here, i'll dumb it down for you. you believe loki represents what you don't like in men who fuck people you don't get to fuck. so you mirror the behavior in a different form, in this case, of a moronic christist pedant, who forces his attentions on others regardless of their requests to be left alone. what you do, though this action, is actually literally become Just Like The People You Hate.
you don't fool me for a fucking Minute. i occasionally dissect one of your character's posts, when it amuses me to do so, but i've never believed you were real. thing is, you're actually not very good at maintaining a consistent character. you get a little too cute when you let "jason" mock his own kind with his idiocy while you're using the puppet to stalk loki. it's obvious that you're a little bit smarter than the character you're playing - not smart enough, though, to really fool anybody who's starts to pay attention.
that's always what brings down folks like you in the end - your belief that you're smarter than everybody else, when you're really just a little bit below average, and too damn hardheaded to realize or admit it. you had a good run here on tribe, but now it's drawing to a close. the jig is up. the curtain has been lifted, and the people are paying attention to the sad little man behind it.
do yourself a favor, and perform your first graceful act with this "jason" sock-puppet - give it a Rest.
Love is the law, love under will. -
-
Re: Loki returns . He comes with an absence of evidence and and loads of mendacity . Hustler Loki .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 3:49 PMPOSTED :Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"pedant" has been a pejorative since shortly after shakespeare used it in Love's Labour's Lost. even your 1913 e.v. dictionary should give you That clue.
RESPONSE : Have you aqctually consulted the Webster's 1913 unabridged or is that surmise ?
of course, i know being Correct here isn't actually your agenda.
SOLV POSTED :see, i know you, Jason - i know you All Too Well. i know you to my very bones.
i've seen you a thousand times in a thousand forums, a thousand bars, a thousand temples... you're the one who thinks he's smarter than everybody else .
RESPONSE: I have NOT stated that I was smarter than everybody else---that is more facile supposition from you .
I read the rest of what you posted , and if you claim to read my mind , then you are going to have to present plausible evidence for a change . As it stands, I doubt that you are even a candidate for the Psychic Friends Network ... -
-
Re: Loki returns . He comes with an absence of evidence and and loads of mendacity . Hustler Loki .
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 6:01 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"I read the rest of what you posted , and if you claim to read my mind , then you are going to have to present plausible evidence for a change . As it stands, I doubt that you are even a candidate for the Psychic Friends Network ..."
i don't need to read your mind, jason. i just need to read your posts. your uncharacteristic lack of response shows how close i struck to the dark, dark place where you really live.
go get some help. you'll thank me in a few years.
Love is the law, love under will. -
-
Re: Loki returns . He comes with an absence of evidence and and loads of mendacity . Hustler Loki .
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 6:07 PMSolv ,
You are full of baloney . Take a course in logic ---take time out from your Aleister Crowley spells and hexes long enough to take a course .
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Rockstar is laughing at you
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 12:59 PM<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Yet another manifestation of your Portnoy's Complaint -
RESPONSE: You are equivocating . I was *not* referring to rigidity of the phallus. Was referring to rigidlity of METHOD of inquiry which I use . Rigid linear thinking (i.e. logic) >>
Stop projecting. YOU are equivocating! You compose quickly and at length, use words *very* carelessly and with comic imprecision, yet ALWAYS return to the subject of the penis, which you supposedly loathe. You use words commonly associated with it because you can't stop thinking about it, as your (oft expounded and truly bizarre) sex theories also prove. Indeed, ONE explanation for your many MANY infelicities, sophomoric mistakes and inconsistent spelling patterns is that you're simply jacking off while you're typing- a rare and bizarre case of Internet porn addiction.
Perhaps we should all try to shame you out of this for your own good...
<< methodological NON-flexibility >>
In other words, being a dick about everything. See? Your penis has wormed it's way into your entire intellectual practice! Like Portnoy, you're figuratively blinded by it!
<< NOT making any allusion to an erect phallus . >>
Uh-huh.
Your dick is beginning to act like Dr. Strangelove's right arm...
www.youtube.com/watch
<< There are , furthermore, a lot of even physical objects that can be rigid that in NO way refer to the phallus . A tree can be rigid . A crystal can be rigid . The scales on an armadillo can be rigid . Rigdity does NOT necessarily pertain to an erect phallus . >>
Yes. Once the ol' spunk begins to rise in the scroat, backing up into the brain with inexorably rising pressure, the subject begins to see phalluses, penises, rigidity everywhere; projecting lustful and rapacious fantasies onto everything- Loki, MTV, Bill Maher, armadillos.
You can't control your language, which means you likely have trouble controlling *other* impulses, Mr. Portnoy.
<< RESPONSE: No I am *not* obessed with my phallus. You are projecting the motives of phallocentric people onto me and, hence, being quite facile . >>
I'm noticing what is plain for anyone to see and telling you about it.
<< Furthemore, for the umpteenth time, I have NO desire to get involved "in jacking off" . To say that such a practice does not appeal to me would be a cosmic understatement . Such a practice is so utterly repugnant and grotesque and (yes I am squeamish ) that I would not even fantasize of doing that , let alone, do that .>>
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
<< RESPONSE: You are guilty , Mr.Rockstar, of the fallacy of poisoning the well . >>
Yes. By noticing your behavior and commenting on it. How low *won't* I stoop?
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED : How do **YOU** know God hates your pecker?
RESPONSE: You have *not* answered the intial question >>
Bullshit. I've been asking for quite a while why you think God hates your pecker and I've yet to get anything like an answer. So you're in NO position to insist people answer ANYTHING. In fact, any such insistence at this point is just another one of your diversions.
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Some are more sacred than others. This is why men even *have* clothes.
RESPONSE: Is that the criteria you postulate as to why the temple priests were forbidden under the code ostensibly given by God to Moses as to why they should avoid exposing their genitals in the tabernacle, because some male genitals among the priests were more sacred than others ? >>
Yes, tho' this distinction is not exclusive to any priestly class of antiquity and applies to men in general.
<< Are you willing to go on record and postulate that such criteria was why they were forbidden to show their male genitals in the tabernacle ? >>
This question makes no sense.
<< You then reappropriate those terms and apply them to a metaphorical context that I had never intended them to signify . >>
Not all metaphor is intentional.
<< That is a very facile tactic . >>
Not at all. It requires lots of discipline and concentration, as does most literary endeavor.
<< nor have you ever in six years (!) >>
Jason's been doing this since 2003? Heavens, the world on Tribe has certainly contracted if I'm only just getting to this lovely specimen now!
<< On what specific grounds do you make the claim that I do not present evidence to back up my claims? >>
HAHAHA!! -
-
Gotcha ! ROCKSTAR PROPAGANDA REFUTED ..debunking the allegations of Rockstar .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 5:06 PM<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Yet another manifestation of your Portnoy's Complaint -
RESPONSE: You are equivocating . I was *not* referring to rigidity of the phallus. Was referring to rigidlity of METHOD of inquiry which I use . Rigid linear thinking (i.e. logic) >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Stop projecting. YOU are equivocating!
RESPONSE: Could you please provide any evidence that I and not you are the one who is equivocating or should such a switcharoo from Rockstar be accepted as some sort of unquestioned assertion ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You compose quickly
RESPONSE: What sort of timepiece do you use Rockstar to time the length of time it takes me to compose a post .?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :and at length, use words *very* carelessly and with comic imprecision,
RESPONSE: List some of the words I allegedly use very carelessly and with supposed imprecision and present lexical data as to how that is so .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :yet ALWAYS return to the subject of the penis, which you supposedly loathe.
RESPONSE: The times that I use figurative terms which you *interpret* to allude to that are certainly not valid cases of such , but the times I mention it is in response to someone trying trump up support for liberated sex (which the sex positive crowd is frequently doing on the tribe message boards) .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You use words commonly associated with it because you can't stop thinking about it,
RESPONSE: What evidence do you have that I associate those words with the phallus . We know you do , Rockstar, but not everyone takes such liberties with figurative terms .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :as your (oft expounded and truly bizarre) sex theories also prove.
RESPONSE: The penchant you have for "reading between th lines" is a lousy substitute for exegesis of texts .
ROCKSTAR POSTED : Indeed, ONE explanation for your many MANY infelicities, sophomoric mistakes and inconsistent spelling patterns is that you're simply jacking off while you're typing- a rare and bizarre case of Internet porn addiction.
RESPONSE: And is that so-called explanation culled from the National Enquirer or some other tabloid ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Perhaps we should all try to shame you out of this for your own good...
RESPONSE: How do you shame someone out of that which they are *not* doing ?
<< methodological NON-flexibility >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :In other words, being a dick about everything.
RESPONSE : Since when is consistent methodology "being a dick " ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED : See? Your penis has wormed it's way into your entire intellectual practice! Like Portnoy, you're figuratively blinded by it!
RESPONSE :Playing fast and loose with metaphors is the forte of Rockstar .
<< NOT making any allusion to an erect phallus . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Uh-huh.
Your dick is beginning to act like Dr. Strangelove's right arm...
www.youtube.com/watch
RESPONSE: Do you claim to have some sort of magical power to see into my house from afar ?
<< There are , furthermore, a lot of even physical objects that can be rigid that in NO way refer to the phallus . A tree can be rigid . A crystal can be rigid . The scales on an armadillo can be rigid . Rigdity does NOT necessarily pertain to an erect phallus . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Yes. Once the ol' spunk begins to rise in the scroat, backing up into the brain with inexorably rising pressure, the subject begins to see phalluses, penises, rigidity everywhere; projecting lustful and rapacious fantasies onto everything- Loki, MTV, Bill Maher, armadillos.
RESPONSE: Can you cite an explict quote from one of the past posts I posted, where there is any explicit quote that states that I see phalluses everywhere OR are we just supposed to accept the "brilliant" interpretation of Mr.Rockstar and not question how he supposedly can "read between the lines" ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You can't control your language, which means you likely have trouble controlling *other* impulses, Mr. Portnoy.
RESPONSE: What evidence do you have for the allegation that I cannot control the language I use ?
<< RESPONSE: No I am *not* obessed with my phallus. You are projecting the motives of phallocentric people onto me and, hence, being quite facile . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :I'm noticing what is plain for anyone to see and telling you about it.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you claim that such allegations are "plain for anyone to see" ?
<< Furthemore, for the umpteenth time, I have NO desire to get involved "in jacking off" . To say that such a practice does not appeal to me would be a cosmic understatement . Such a practice is so utterly repugnant and grotesque and (yes I am squeamish ) that I would not even fantasize of doing that , let alone, do that .>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Methinks thou doth protest too much.
RESPONSE: A facile and cheap reply you make .
<< RESPONSE: You are guilty , Mr.Rockstar, of the fallacy of poisoning the well . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Yes. By noticing your behavior and commenting on it. How low *won't* I stoop?
RESPONSE: To claim that *presuppositions* of how to interpret the way I behave are self-justifying, without any supplemental argument to vindicate that *interpretation* in the first place, fails to present evidence that you are doing anything near to an analytical evaluation , Mr.Rockstar .
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED : How do **YOU** know God hates your pecker?
RESPONSE: You have *not* answered the intial question >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Bullshit. I've been asking for quite a while why you think God hates your pecker and I've yet to get anything like an answer.
RESPONSE: The question I asked was previous to that question in the sequence of paragraphs within that particular post I posed , so to swerve the initial question I asked you by putting a question to me instead of that previous question in the sequence , is an example of NON-sequential thought from you ...as well as an *out of sequence* approach to discourse.
One of the rules of logic and philosophy in general is that concepts ought to be explored *in sequence*, never out of sequence !
ROCKSTAR POSTED :So you're in NO position to insist people answer ANYTHING. In fact, any such insistence at this point is just another one of your diversions.
RESPONSE: It is not the one who insists on questions that were the intital question in the sequence of an *particular exchange* be answered first that is guilty of diversion , rather it is the person who intentionally does not answer the first question in the sequence and then replies with another question instead , which is doing the diversion !
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Some are more sacred than others. This is why men even *have* clothes.
RESPONSE: Is that the criteria you postulate as to why the temple priests were forbidden under the code ostensibly given by God to Moses as to why they should avoid exposing their genitals in the tabernacle, because some male genitals among the priests were more sacred than others ? >>
ROCKTAR POSTED :Yes, tho' this distinction is not exclusive to any priestly class of antiquity and applies to men in general.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you allege that the thesis (which proposes that some male genitals are more sacred than others) was the supposed rationale for the provision in Exodus 20:26 which forbade the exposure of male genitals in the tabernacle ?
Do any of the rabbinical commentaries affirm that thesis was the rationale for the provision in Exodus 20:26 forbidding the priests in the tabernacle to exposure their genitals in the tabernacle .
<< Are you willing to go on record and postulate that such criteria was why they were forbidden to show their male genitals in the tabernacle ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :This question makes no sense.
RESPONSE: The gist of what I was asking is: are you committed to the notion that the putative rationale as to why God was purported to not want male genitals exposed in the tabernacle (according to EXODUS 20:26 ) was that *allegedly* some male genitals are more sacred than others or do you offer than as merely a tenative postulate ?
<< You then reappropriate those terms and apply them to a metaphorical context that I had never intended them to signify . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Not all metaphor is intentional.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you *claim* that " not all metaphor is intentional" ?
<< That is a very facile tactic . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Not at all. It requires lots of discipline and concentration, as does most literary endeavor.
RESPONSE: Discpline at honing the skill of finding cosmetically appealing retorts based on wit rather than substance ?
<< nor have you ever in six years (!) >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Jason's been doing this since 2003? Heavens, the world on Tribe has certainly contracted if I'm only just getting to this lovely specimen now!
RESPONSE : Where did that sentence fragment shown in the excerpt you posted above come from ? Was trhat culled from a post that someone else posted and did you decide to intersperse elements of texts --even taking an excerpt from a post I didn't post and then, elsewhere, taking very truncated excerpts from the post i did post seek to skew matters ?
<< On what specific grounds do you make the claim that I do not present evidence to back up my claims? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : HAHAHA!!
RESPONSE: Well if you just wish to signify that you are laughing, and do not want to tell anyone on what specific grounds you *allege* (key word) that I do not present specific evidence , we can note that such is an interesting development ...If you've grown tired of even trying to making even an almost passable attempt at substantial debate , it won't ruin the universe yet for you to do that ...at least not this present even . Yours truly has encountered a good day today , since a daughter of a neighbor-friend made a musical recording for yours truly with some damn good songs . among other songs she generously gave me a cd with such songs as the song by the French singer Claudine , 'Look what they done to my song , ma .' (The excellent version ---not the version of the song where Melanie mangled it) .There were songs also by Del Shannon , and a song by Joni Mitchell , so yours truly is feeling quite inspired today , too inspired to let facile apologists for the status quo ruin the evening . -
-
Re: Gotcha ! ROCKSTAR PROPAGANDA REFUTED ..debunking the allegations of Rockstar .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 5:38 PMjason is unemployed -
-
Re: Gotcha ! ROCKSTAR PROPAGANDA REFUTED ..debunking the allegations of Rockstar .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 5:42 PMYeah, aint half the nation. -
-
Re: Gotcha ! ROCKSTAR PROPAGANDA REFUTED ..debunking the allegations of Rockstar .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 7:36 PMunemployment at 21.5%
unless you want to believe
the federal government -
-
Re: Gotcha ! ROCKSTAR PROPAGANDA REFUTED ..debunking the allegations of Rockstar .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 7:47 PMwell, does that include all the disability, those that are mentally disabled (raises hand), those on welfare because men ran out on them, those who are trying to make do in their "senior years" with either food or meds, their choice?
Hey, that's my seed stock, I patented it!
-
-
-
-
Re: Gotcha ! ROCKSTAR PROPAGANDA REFUTED ..debunking the allegations of Rockstar .Typos Removed .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 9:58 PM<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Yet another manifestation of your Portnoy's Complaint -
RESPONSE: You are equivocating . I was *not* referring to rigidity of the phallus. Was referring to rigidlity of METHOD of inquiry which I use . Rigid linear thinking (i.e. logic) >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Stop projecting. YOU are equivocating!
RESPONSE: Could you please provide any evidence that I and not you are the one who is equivocating or should such a switcharoo from Rockstar be accepted as some sort of unquestioned assertion ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You compose quickly
RESPONSE: What sort of timepiece do you use Rockstar to time the length of time it takes me to compose a post .?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :and at length, use words *very* carelessly and with comic imprecision,
RESPONSE: List some of the words I allegedly use very carelessly and with supposed imprecision and present lexical data as to how that is so .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :yet ALWAYS return to the subject of the penis, which you supposedly loathe.
RESPONSE: The times that I use figurative terms which you *interpret* to allude to that are certainly not valid cases of such , but the times I mention it is in response to someone trying trump up support for liberated sex (which the sex positive crowd is frequently doing on the tribe message boards) .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You use words commonly associated with it because you can't stop thinking about it,
RESPONSE: What evidence do you have that I associate those words with the phallus ?. We know you do , Rockstar, but not everyone takes such liberties with figurative terms .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :as your (oft expounded and truly bizarre) sex theories also prove.
RESPONSE: The penchant you have for "reading between th lines" is a lousy substitute for exegesis of texts .
ROCKSTAR POSTED : Indeed, ONE explanation for your many MANY infelicities, sophomoric mistakes and inconsistent spelling patterns is that you're simply jacking off while you're typing- a rare and bizarre case of Internet porn addiction.
RESPONSE: And is that so-called explanation culled from the National Enquirer or some other tabloid ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Perhaps we should all try to shame you out of this for your own good...
RESPONSE: How do you shame someone out of which they are *not* doing ?
<< methodological NON-flexibility >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :In other words, being a dick about everything.
RESPONSE : Since when is consistent methodology "being a dick " ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED : See? Your penis has wormed it's way into your entire intellectual practice! Like Portnoy, you're figuratively blinded by it!
RESPONSE :Playing fast and loose with metaphors is the forte of Rockstar .
<< NOT making any allusion to an erect phallus . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Uh-huh.
Your dick is beginning to act like Dr. Strangelove's right arm...
www.youtube.com/watch
RESPONSE: Do you claim to have some sort of magical power to see into my house from afar ?
<< There are , furthermore, a lot of even physical objects that can be rigid that in NO way refer to the phallus . A tree can be rigid . A crystal can be rigid . The scales on an armadillo can be rigid . Rigdity does NOT necessarily pertain to an erect phallus . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Yes. Once the ol' spunk begins to rise in the scroat, backing up into the brain with inexorably rising pressure, the subject begins to see phalluses, penises, rigidity everywhere; projecting lustful and rapacious fantasies onto everything- Loki, MTV, Bill Maher, armadillos.
RESPONSE: Can you cite an explict quote from one of the past posts I posted, where there is any explicit statement that states that I see phalluses everywhere OR are we just supposed to accept the "brilliant" interpretation of Mr.Rockstar and not question how he supposedly can "read between the lines" ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :You can't control your language, which means you likely have trouble controlling *other* impulses, Mr. Portnoy.
RESPONSE: What evidence do you have for the allegation that I cannot control the language I use ?
<< RESPONSE: No I am *not* obessed with my phallus. You are projecting the motives of phallocentric people onto me and, hence, being quite facile . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :I'm noticing what is plain for anyone to see and telling you about it.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you claim that such allegations are "plain for anyone to see" ?
<< Furthemore, for the umpteenth time, I have NO desire to get involved "in jacking off" . To say that such a practice does not appeal to me would be a cosmic understatement . Such a practice is so utterly repugnant and grotesque and (yes I am squeamish ) that I would not even fantasize of doing that , let alone, do that .>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Methinks thou doth protest too much.
RESPONSE: A facile and cheap reply you make .
<< RESPONSE: You are guilty , Mr.Rockstar, of the fallacy of poisoning the well . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Yes. By noticing your behavior and commenting on it. How low *won't* I stoop?
RESPONSE: To claim that *presuppositions* of how to interpret the way I behave are self-justifying, without any supplemental argument to vindicate that *interpretation* in the first place, fails to present evidence that you are doing anything near to an analytical evaluation , Mr.Rockstar .
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED : How do **YOU** know God hates your pecker?
RESPONSE: You have *not* answered the intial question >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Bullshit. I've been asking for quite a while why you think God hates your pecker and I've yet to get anything like an answer.
RESPONSE: The question I asked was previous to that question in the sequence of paragraphs, within that particular post I posed , so to swerve the initial question I asked you by putting a question to me, *instead of* addressing that previous question in the sequence , is an example of NON-sequential thought from you ...as well as an *out of sequence* approach to discourse.
One of the rules of logic and philosophy in general is that concepts ought to be explored *in sequence*, never out of sequence !
ROCKSTAR POSTED :So you're in NO position to insist people answer ANYTHING. In fact, any such insistence at this point is just another one of your diversions.
RESPONSE: It is not the one who insists on a question that was the intital question in the sequence of an *particular exchange* be answered first ... that is guilty of diversion , rather it is the person who intentionally does not answer the first question in the sequence, and then goes off with another question instead , which is doing the diversion !
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Some are more sacred than others. This is why men even *have* clothes.
RESPONSE: Is that the criteria you postulate as to why the temple priests were forbidden under the code ostensibly given by God to Moses, as to why they should avoid exposing their genitals in the tabernacle, because some male genitals among the priests were more sacred than others ? >>
ROCKTAR POSTED :Yes, tho' this distinction is not exclusive to any priestly class of antiquity and applies to men in general.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you allege that the thesis (which proposes that some male genitals are more sacred than others) was the supposed rationale for the provision in Exodus 20:26 ,which forbade the exposure of male genitals in the tabernacle ?
Do any of the rabbinical commentaries affirm that thesis was the rationale for the provision in Exodus 20:26, forbidding the priests in the tabernacle to exposure their genitals in the tabernacle .?
<< Are you willing to go on record and postulate that such criteria was why they were forbidden to show their male genitals in the tabernacle ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :This question makes no sense.
RESPONSE: The gist of what I was asking is: are you committed to the notion that the putative rationale-- as to why God was purported to not want male genitals exposed in the tabernacle (according to EXODUS 20:26 ) was that *allegedly* some male genitals are more sacred than others, or do you offer that notion as merely a tenative postulate ?
<< You then reappropriate those terms and apply them to a metaphorical context that I had never intended them to signify . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Not all metaphor is intentional.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you *claim* that " not all metaphor is intentional" ?
<< That is a very facile tactic . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Not at all. It requires lots of discipline and concentration, as does most literary endeavor.
RESPONSE: Discpline at honing the skill of finding cosmetically appealing retorts based on wit rather than substance ?
<< nor have you ever in six years (!) >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Jason's been doing this since 2003? Heavens, the world on Tribe has certainly contracted if I'm only just getting to this lovely specimen now!
RESPONSE : Where did that sentence fragment , shown in the excerpt you posted above, come from ? Was that culled from a post that someone else posted and did you decide to intersperse elements of texts --even taking an excerpt from a post I didn't post and then, elsewhere, taking very truncated excerpts from the post i did post seek to skew matters ?
<< On what specific grounds do you make the claim that I do not present evidence to back up my claims? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED : HAHAHA!!
RESPONSE: Well if you just wish to signify that you are laughing, and do not want to tell anyone on what specific grounds you *allege* (key word) that I do not present specific evidence , we can note that such is an interesting development ...If you've grown tired of even trying to making even an almost passable attempt at substantial debate , it won't ruin the universe yet for you to do that ...at least not this present even . Yours truly has encountered a good day today , since a daughter of a neighbor-friend made a musical recording for yours truly with some damn good songs on it . Among other songs which she generously gave me on the CD were such songs as the song by the French singer Claudine , 'Look what they done to my song , ma .' (The excellent version ---not the version of the song where Melanie mangled it) .There were songs also by Del Shannon , and a song by Joni Mitchell on the recording , so yours truly is feeling quite inspired today , too inspired to let facile apologists for the status quo ruin the evening . -
-
Re: Gotcha ! ROCKSTAR PROPAGANDA REFUTED ..debunking the allegations of Rockstar .Typos Removed .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 11:35 PMi'm shall glad i do not have to read all this reiterated
drivel
over and over
-
-
Re: see Jason squirm like a poison toad...
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 9:02 AM<< Could you please provide any evidence.. >>
Not until you answer the questions I've been asking you for weeks. It's rude and stupid for you to demand answers when you yourself won't give any to even the simplest question.
<< What sort of timepiece do you use Rockstar to time the length of time it takes me to compose a post .? >>
The timestamps on your posts, dingaling.
<< List some of the words I allegedly use very carelessly and with supposed imprecision >>
Postmodernism
God
Schlong
Kitsch.
I'm sure we can make a fine group activity of compiling words you don't understand yet insist on using.
<< RESPONSE: What evidence do you have for the allegation that I cannot control the language I use ? >>
The language you use.
<< To claim that *presuppositions* >>
Observations.
<<of how to interpret the way I behave >>
YOU provide the behavior, I provide the interpretation. That's how it works.
<<are self-justifying,>
Everything you put up is ranting self-justification. Your intellectual judgments are laughable and you simply aren't up to arguing with educated people. Your only function here is as a kind of knock-down toy.
<<without any supplemental argument >>
If you want me to school you, send tuition. If you won't, then don't wheedle, beg and whine at busy people.
<< to vindicate that *interpretation* in the first place, fails to present evidence that you are doing anything near to an analytical evaluation >>
I don't have to. The face getting the pie doesn't get the recipe for the crust as well.
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Methinks thou doth protest too much.
RESPONSE: A facile and cheap reply you make . >>
This idiotic Philistine thinks SHAKESPEARE is "cheap" and "facile" yet thinks himself qualified to talk about culture!
You approach the end of the line for anything but ridicule out of me, dumbass. I truly dislike unread boors.
<< On what grounds do you allege that the thesis (which proposes that some male genitals are more sacred than others) was the supposed rationale for the provision in Exodus 20:26 which forbade the exposure of male genitals in the tabernacle ? >>
How many penises have you seen, Jason?
<< RESPONSE: On what grounds do you *claim* that " not all metaphor is intentional" ? >>
Only the obvious grounds, readily apparent to any dingbat.
<< you've grown tired of even trying to making even an almost passable attempt at substantial debate >>
You must have an EverReady of Stupidity up your ass, since you've making such attempts for about 20 hrs a day for weeks now.
<< so when you gonna address line by line the examples of kitsch in the hyperlinks and the commentary I provided, and refute it if you can .? >>
Provide some and I might.
<< a song by Joni Mitchell >>
*ugh* Your taste in music sucks too. I think I'd sooner listen to a flock of starving harpies tearing apart a hog. -
-
Preliminary note in lieu of a later rebuttals . Hopefully be back soon to disabuse Rockstar of numerous equivocations . The lateral thinking (i.e. wrong thinking) of Rockstar will not go unchalleged .
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 12:37 PM<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :Methinks thou doth protest too much.
RESPONSE: A facile and cheap reply you make . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :This idiotic Philistine thinks SHAKESPEARE is "cheap" and "facile" yet thinks himself qualified to talk about culture!
RESPONSE: No, another example of you playing fast and loose ,Mr. Rock and Roll .
The primary text of Shakespeare is NOT cheap nor facile , rather cheap and facile is the scurrilous reappropriation of what he wrote made by an apologist for contemporary attitudes like yourself ---a reappropriation that would likely make the bard of Strafford on Avon do cyclonic cartwheels in his proverbial grave . -
-
She was amazingly hot, J, but not at all in a conventional way. Leggy, exotic, pale and dark simultaneously, slightly self-inhibited but dawning into an awareness of her beauty...
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 12:42 PMYou have, to date, disabused 0% of of your targets of whatever notions they were entertaining, save one:
"Maybe this J Leary guy is not a completely worthless asshole; maybe he will contribute something of substance to the body of thought, someday"
It's the sole supposition you are able to handily puncture and deflate.
-
Re: containing a quote from an eminent poet
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 1:20 PM<< No, another example of you playing fast and loose ,Mr. Rock and Roll . >>
Liar. *You* wrote that Shakespeare's words are "facile" and "cheap" and are now doing a lot of fast and loose squirming trying to get out of your own inability to read or focus. This inability is perhaps due, as I noted, to incessant whacking off and splooging while online.
Again, you're knocked ON YOUR ASS spinning widdershins and spitting 100-proof spiritual bile and all you can do is whine about unfair it is. Grow up or go home, Skippy. Saints endured far worse than a joker's laughter.
<< in his proverbial grave . >>
Bad writing. His grave is *actual*, not proverbial. Be precise with words. Pay attention.
<< -a reappropriation that would likely make the bard of Strafford on Avon do cyclonic cartwheels>>
coarse
jocosity
catches the crowd
shakespeare
and i
are often
low browed
the fish wife
curse
and the laugh
of the horse
shakespeare
and i
are frequently
coarse
aesthetic
excuses
in bill s behalf
are adduced
to refine
big bill s
coarse laugh
but bill
he would chuckle
to hear such guff
he pulled
rough stuff
and he liked
rough stuff
- don marquis -
-
Your eminent poet ain't a Wallace Stevens , nor is he a Lorca or a Hopkins . And you passing off bluster as exegetics might be a hit at cocktail parties but it certainly isn't sound literary criticism
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 2:40 PM<< No, another example of you playing fast and loose ,Mr. Rock and Roll . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Liar. *You* wrote that Shakespeare's words are "facile" and "cheap" and are now doing a lot of fast and loose squirming trying to get out of your own inability to read or focus. This inability is perhaps due, as I noted, to incessant whacking off and splooging while online.
RESPONSE: Rockstar's getting even more desperate . I was referring to you making an misapplication of what
he wrote, which did *not* have any authorization from the Bard . Reappropriating Shakespeare on behalf of ANTI-polemics to defend sexual smut and middlebrow ideologies like relativism is bad form , Rockstar .
The Bard was a man of reserve and decorum apparently , *not* one who would like being made into a rhetorical proxy for the mileu of authors who once knew better words, now using four letter words, writing prose
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Again, you're knocked ON YOUR ASS spinning widdershins and spitting 100-proof spiritual bile and all you can do is whine about unfair it is. Grow up or go home, Skippy. Saints endured far worse than a joker's laughter.
RESPONSE : The desperation of Mr.Rockstar has come up a few notches .
<< in his proverbial grave . >>
ROCKSTAR PODSTED :Bad writing. His grave is *actual*, not proverbial. Be precise with words. Pay attention.
RESPONSE: Allright then, I should have phrased it 'doing the proverbial spinning in the grave' , since it was the spinning, rather than the grave, that is proverbial .
<< -a reappropriation that would likely make the bard of Strafford on Avon do cyclonic cartwheels>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :
coarse
jocosity
catches the crowd
shakespeare
and i
are often
low browed
the fish wife
curse
and the laugh
of the horse
shakespeare
and i
are frequently
coarse
aesthetic
excuses
in bill s behalf
are adduced
to refine
big bill s
coarse laugh
but bill
he would chuckle
to hear such guff
he pulled
rough stuff
and he liked
rough stuff
- don marquis
RESPONSE: Careful exegesis of the work of Shakespeare (as opposed to the poetry of Don Marquis) may not catch applause with a sliding noose , however, it would be more accurate . Accuracy might be a nuisance to you , Rockstar, but when the day is done, it is still the bottom line . -
-
Re: more pretentious word salad from Jason, strewn with muddy thinking and personal feegood slogans
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 3:24 PM<< cocktail parties >>
Haven't attended one in many years.
<< Wallace Stevens >>
*snore*
<< , nor is he a Lorca or a Hopkins >>
Sez one more Tribe.net boob without a spellchecker.
<< Rockstar's getting even more desperate . >>
For this assertion, can you produce anything more palpable than a wish, desperate in itself?
<< I was referring to you making an misapplication of what
he wrote >>
Prove it's a misapplication. Your anger and outrage doesn't make it so, bunkie.
<< The Bard was a man of reserve and decorum apparently >>
Prove.
The fellow who wrote the plays was a hearty jester who loved cheap puns and off-color jokes about body functions, lust, corpulence, the entire Seven Deadlies, He was also the boyish philosopher (Hamlet), the wastrel trickster (Falstaff), the hater-for-hatred's-sake (Richard, Iago), the hollow man of bombast (Polonius) and a hundred more. That same hand wrought the delicacy of the Sonnets. Amazing.
That might better fit Milton, but, alas, the author of Paradise Lost liked sex so much he married three times...
<< made into a rhetorical proxy for the mileu of authors who once knew better words, now using four letter words, writing prose >>
I try to follow the Bard's good example and only use profanity where it does the most good... -
-
A preliminary rebuttal in lieu of a lenghtjier refutation of the assertions of Mr.Rockstar .
Tue, October 27, 2009 - 9:31 PM<< The Bard was a man of reserve and decorum apparently >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Prove.
The fellow who wrote the plays was a hearty jester who loved cheap puns and off-color jokes about body functions, lust, corpulence, the entire Seven Deadlies, He was also the boyish philosopher (Hamlet), the wastrel trickster (Falstaff), the hater-for-hatred's-sake (Richard, Iago), the hollow man of bombast (Polonius) and a hundred more. That same hand wrought the delicacy of the Sonnets. Amazing.
RESPONSE : Consider the following historical commentary below where it is proposed that Shakespeare wrote poems as cautionary literature warning about the danger of the lust for sexual intercourse . Furthermore also consider that the villainry of Otello may have been a cautionary tale designed to show the wrongness of villanry .
In 1593 and 1594, when the theatres were closed because of plague, Shakespeare published two narrative poems on erotic themes, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. He dedicated them to Henry Wriothesley, earl of Southampton. In Venus and Adonis, an innocent Adonis rejects the sexual advances of Venus; while in The Rape of Lucrece, the virtuous wife Lucrece is raped by the lustful Tarquin.[115] Influenced by Ovid's Metamorphoses,[116] the poems show the guilt and moral confusion that result from uncontrolled lust.[117] Both proved popular and were often reprinted during Shakespeare's lifetime. A third narrative poem, A Lover's Complaint, in which a young woman laments her seduction by a persuasive suitor, was printed in the first edition of the Sonnets in 1609. Most scholars now accept that Shakespeare wrote A Lover's Complaint. ----Excerpt From Wikipedia article on Shakepeare
-
-
-
-
-
The Definition of Postmodernism . Here is the definition below (which sums up that sub-variant of the evil ideology of relativism)
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 11:22 AM'Postmodernism was originally a reaction to modernism. Largely influenced by the Western European disillusionment induced by World War II, postmodernism refers to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, interconnectedness or interreferentiality,[4] in a way that is often indistinguishable from a parody of itself'.---From Wikipedia
Here I will follow the above definition with some supplementary notes culled from another encyclopedia .
Notice how postmodernism is stated to embody contradiction and ambiguity . Internal contradiction /ambiguity ought to be hated .Such characteristics are evil . -
-
Re: The Definition of Postmodernism . Here is the definition below (which sums up that sub-variant of the evil ideology of relativism)
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 5:11 PMThus one can witness that postmodernism is an evil ideology , inasmuch as it prizes
NON-consistency/ ambiguity/ internal contradictions / fuzzy boundaries or lack of boundaries . It is thus opposed to epistemic virtues .
Here below are some notes from Encyclopedia .com which comment on poststructuralism which is another term for postmodernism .
'Poststructuralists such as those associated with the Yale School of academics in the 1970s deprived literary texts of subject authority ("the disappearance of the author"), coherence (texts are "de-centered"), and social reference ("there is nothing outside the text"). On the other hand, in poststructuralism, loss of authority also signified the positive alternative of reading as personal freedom ("re-creation"); Barthes wrote of the "pleasure of the text." In the Yale School, Geoffrey Hartman urged that the very indeterminacy of language empowered a creative criticism that broke the shackles of univocal meaning. ' -
-
Re: The Definition of Postmodernism . Here is the definition below (which sums up that sub-variant of the evil ideology of relativism)
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 6:02 PMYou have SUCH an utterly bizarre concept of evil. Stunning. -
-
Re: The Definition of Postmodernism . Here is the definition below (which sums up that sub-variant of the evil ideology of relativism)
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 6:08 PMWhat's bizarre , Enrika , is you disagreeing with it . -
-
Re: The Definition of Postmodernism . Here is the definition below (which sums up that sub-variant of the evil ideology of relativism)
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 6:41 PMIt's strange that you would call it bizzarre, since bizzarre refers to something out of the norm. In context of this tribe and most of society, your views are the bizzarre ones. Which might be interesting, if you weren't such a useless person. By the way, you're a relativist.
This is the last thing I'm posting or reading on this thread, by the way, it's too damn long. -
-
Re: The Definition of Postmodernism . Here is the definition below (which sums up that sub-variant of the evil ideology of relativism)
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 6:52 PMMOLLY POSTED :It's strange that you would call it bizzarre, since bizzarre refers to something out of the norm. In context of this tribe and most of society, your views are the bizzarre ones.
RESPONSE No, what I espouse is old fshioned not bizarre .
MOLLY POSTED : interesting, if you weren't such a useless person. By the way, you're a relativist
RESPONSE: I HATE relativism . -
-
Re: Bye Bye
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 9:00 PM<< In context of this tribe and most of society, your views are the bizzarre ones. Which might be interesting, if you weren't such a useless person. >>
VERY well put.
<<By the way, you're a relativist. >>
I'm SO glad someone *else* finally pointed that out to this schmuck! Thank you. On top of that, the guy's whole use of English, right down to the stereotyped misspellings, is a near-textbook example of Derridan slippage! As if that isn't pomo enough, the last twenty years of pop culture has so colonized this poor sap's brain he things the only way out is to start a social movement to make human history and reality conform to two or three of the most nauseating movies Jimmy Stewart ever made.
He's like a sort of ultimate Philip K. Dickhead- an android typing electric bleats.
<< This is the last thing I'm posting or reading on this thread, by the way, it's too damn long. >>
Roger that. I'm likewise done fucking with this balloon-head. I bang on him for months for a definition of "postmodernism" and he produces some dictionary crib he doesn't even understand. Really pitiful. I not only beat him, I beat him *weeks* ago!
Again, even Arthur/TL/Carlo gives better game than this degraded specimen. Yes, even Salil- I'll go *that* motherfucking low. A galvanized corpse croaking random vocoder snippets of the poetry of Edgar Guest would have more charm than dialogue with this rote-choking phonus balonus.
<< old fshioned not bizarre . >>
Yes. An online version of some 19th century sampler, with simple old-fashioned homilies updated to reach a hipster audience narcotized by TV.
This, I submit, is itself the absolute last word in postmodern alienation.
Jason is not only postmodern in himself, I take his Coming among us as harbinger of the final flippin', trippin' END of the whole feckless aesthetic. He's like a final distillation of deliberately cute and self-conscious sincerity-as-irony or the whole postmodern trip reduced to jacking off its own bad faith.
Pomo's been the reigning aesthetic since the Reagan Age, already! As we end the first decade of the 21st century, it's just another Idea whose Time has gone. -
-
Re: Bye Bye
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 10:15 PMsometimes, this thread is even...
interesting -
-
Re: Bye Bye
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 10:16 PMbut i hope all here can spell
FEMA
-
-
Latest relativist / postmodernist shtick accuse the absolutists of being pomo ! Peachy .Could the expose of how Rockstar reframed a term from the initial post as shown below have crashed him ?
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 10:44 PMROCKSTAR POSTED :Roger that. I'm likewise done fucking with this balloon-head. I bang on him for months for a definition of "postmodernism" and he produces some dictionary crib he doesn't even understand.
RESPONSE : What does Rockstar have against dictionaries ? Isn't that rather ANTI-intellectual to spurn dictionaries .
Rockstar asks for a definition and then, when I present one from a lexicon , he sulks off ???? Very odd .
When all the obsfucation is shown up , Rockstar runs from debate .....
(Keep in mind that Rockstar often writes for the Utne Reader : a publication for postmod hipsters ..the conflicted "multifaceted" relativist set of coffee klatch NEO-leftists ...limosine liberals and Lexus NEO-hippie bourgeous types who pretend to be bohemian . Such a publication is no Mother Jones , nor is it an Adbusters ...Kalle Lasn , last time I checked , was not on the pomo bus with Rockstar ) .
A sharp fellow like him could channel energy into changing the world ...but alas he finds sex laced NEO- leftist verve and irony a favorite *substitute* for earnest ideals . Sad .
Maybe he'll want to try to build a better world ...or better still an excellent world... for the children to inherit . Maybe one day . -
-
Re: Latest relativist / postmodernist shtick accuse the absolutists of being pomo ! Peachy .Could the expose of how Rockstar reframed a term from the initial post as shown below have crashed him ?
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 10:50 PMUtne Reader? I didn't know that! Good on ya, RS! :)
-
-
Re: Bye Bye
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 1:00 PMthe fact of J Leary's dedicated postmodernist assertions and nearly incomprehensible relativism has been pointed out repeatedly and regularly by a wide range of commentators on more than one website for many years. -
-
SWITCHAROO RELATIVISTS like LOKI and ROCKSTAR are thinking outside the box and ON THE LOOSE .
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 1:43 PMLoki and several of the other relativist copycats like Rockstar and others have the latest shtcik of doing a switcharoo of calling absolutists relativists . Inversion / switcharroo where they claim that absolutists are relativists and absolutism is relativism and postmodernism .
Well it figures cause relativists like Loki and Rockstar like incongruity ...they like lateral thinking and inverted thinking .
Will they next tell us war is peace and freedom is slavery ???
-
-
-
Re: The Definition of Postmodernism (imprecise yet still disintegrating the absurd "logic" J Leary uses to validate bigotry, but fear not: he is too stupid to see it under his nose)
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 12:43 PM>>"I HATE relativism . "<<
More pertinently, you hate the fact of relativity - you hate it more more than you hate causing harm. This is one of the more obvious ways in which you are unfit for society. The delusion by itself would be dangerously stupid, but the danger would most likely be more often confined to you than significant for others. That you allowed this retarded fear to blossom into a emotionally charged pogrom against human beings renders you actually dangerously insane.
Everyone with experience in these matters that has interacted with you sees it. You index right next to the most dangerous kinds of creeps the world has ever seen.
What you accuse others of being is the catalog of the dangers you pose.
The seriousness of that rather renders discussion of your curious misunderstandings re: "old fashioned", "relative", and "postmodern" frivolous. Suffice it to say you are an ignorant-yet-elitist, stupidly smug, unpleasant, and utterly cretinous and bigoted buffoon. Like so many bigots, you are worthless. Thus, your hatred for that which is prized by the community that has no place for you: true humanity, itself. -
-
Re: The Definition of Postmodernism (imprecise yet still disintegrating the absurd "logic" J Leary uses to validate bigotry, but fear not: he is too stupid to see it under his nose)
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 1:02 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
hm... this is (at the least) a fantastic diagnosis. i still think the 'jason' thing is just a character. it's too textbook, and sometimes the self-referential fun he pokes at his own persona gives him away.
of course, if - by some astonishing alignment of chance - i happen to be wrong, then i will have to give you full props.
i don't think i'm wrong, though. (then again, i Wouldn't, would i?) i reckon we'll find out sooner rather than later. he's ready to pop.
Love is the law, love under will. -
-
Re: factual disclaimer plus random bits of Jason Studies plus buh-bye
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 12:05 AM<< More pertinently, you hate the fact of relativity >>
Thank you. That's very succinct. He naturally has to externalize the threat and his insistently small and resentful mind can't think of a better way than to package it into a few cretinous slogans and plaster them on people who threaten him somehow.
<<you hate it more more than you hate causing harm. >>
I don't think this guy hates causing harm. I think there might be a future episode of AMERICAN MANIACS with this rachethead's name on it.
<< That you allowed this retarded fear to blossom into a emotionally charged pogrom against human beings renders you actually dangerously insane. >>
With people like Jason, there is no "allow." The pogrom against other human beings is the sole and entire object of the exercise. He's a HATER and has told us so many, many times. It's one of the few things he's said about himself I completely believe, actually.
<< i still think the 'jason' thing is just a character. it's too textbook, and sometimes the self-referential fun he pokes at his own persona gives him away. <<
Ever the rationalist. I see the same clues you do and your theory sounds better every time I hear it, but I can't get over the bedrock certitude of having eyeball-known humans at *least* twice as ring-a-ding crazy as this guy comes off. Two or three were people of rather more influence than he'll ever know.
<< Rockstar often writes for the Utne Reader >>
I've written for them exactly *once*. They normally do reprints from other publications, but this one was a request from the editors for a couple hundred words (done in the manner of Yours Truly) on a L.A. rock 'n' roll dive I know well and love dearly. Ya gotta hand 'em props for taste.
I know demanding accuracy in matters like these is like handing out speeding tickets at Daytona, but facts *do* matter, as I've told the object of our study many times.
Bye kids! Have fun with this guy! -
-
Re: factual disclaimer plus random bits of Jason Studies plus buh-bye
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 2:18 PM:<< Rockstar often writes for the Utne Reader >>
rOCKSTAR POSTED :I've written for them exactly *once*. They normally do reprints from other publications, but this one was a request from the editors for a couple hundred words (done in the manner of Yours Truly) on a L.A. rock 'n' roll dive I know well and love dearly.
RESPONSE: I see . Well over at the Politics Tribe where a number of months ago , you had first mentioned having written for them, you then had not specified the number of times you wrote for them .
-
-
-
What Loki calls "bigotry" ...NOT to be confused with racism (which yours truly hates) is just a term for someone who REFUSES to tolerate ambiguity (i.e refuses to sell out)
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 3:08 PM>>"I HATE relativism . "<<
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED : More pertinently, you hate the fact of relativity -
RESPONSE: Relativity to mere opinion is NOT even fact , let alone truth .
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED : you hate it more more than you hate causing harm.
RESPONSE: Hogwash .
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED :This is one of the more obvious ways in which you are unfit for society.
RESPONSE: Refusing to sell out to relativism makes one unfit for society , according to Loki ? NOT becoming a sellout ... NOT becoming one of those people who tolerates ambiguity, according to Loki , makes one allegedly unfit for society ? What corner of the postmodern Twilight Zone did you fall out of Lokifreign ?
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED : The delusion by itself would be dangerously stupid, but the danger would most likely be more often confined to you than significant for others.
RESPONSE : Since when is aspiring to total consistency a delusion ? Since when is *refusing* to balance consistency with a little duplicity (ambivalence) dangerous ????
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED : That you allowed this retarded fear to blossom into a emotionally charged pogrom against human beings renders you actually dangerously insane.
RESPONSE: I have a great adoration for the nice , wholesome . consistent , meek human beings and I seek to protect them and their children from the filth of the ideology of relativism which you switcharoo relativists promote ....i intend to protect the children and protect them well into the adult years with having to be exposed to the filth of you and your dominatrix bondage sex fetish pomo hipster crowd . You can damn well keep your fantasies which support depictions of rape for seedy amusement and sexist degrading photos that demean women by showing them tied up and approached by leather clad cretins with whips , *far away* from the nice people and their kids , degenerate Loki-filth .
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED :Everyone with experience in these matters that has interacted with you sees it.
RESPONSE: Experience at what : being a lackey brainwashed by contemporary pop culture decadence ...desensitized to sordid trash .?
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED : You index right next to the most dangerous kinds of creeps the world has ever seen.
RESPONSE: Get a load of it ---seedy Lokifreign : a man who sports photos of women being tied up in tawdry , seedy bondage , hardcore pornography --calling someone else a dangerous creep !
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED :What you accuse others of being is the catalog of the dangers you pose.
RESPONSE: Malarky from Loki the relativist .
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED :The seriousness of that rather renders discussion of your curious misunderstandings re: "old fashioned", "relative", and "postmodern" frivolous.
RESPONSE: Hogwash . Look at the other people on the tribe forums that have belittled the worthless opinions you espouse and told you off . Mr.B was about ready to kick you out of the Political Junkies tribe . Dan in Heated Debate called you a fool . Lucy has rebuked you on a number of occasions . Lester has chastised you for making garish personal attacks at him. Over at Cognitive Science they called you a 'hack' . Your washed up mister . And you aren't getting any younger despite your entourage of groupies . I think they ought to keep you on at political junkies so they can belittle the worthless opinions you advocate, instead of kicking you out .
And suffice it to say , that editorial columnist Jennifer King (who is apparently a refined and dignified woman) ..a woman would *not* approve of the tawdy sexual filth you showcase like an overgrown adolescent trying to shock people .
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED : Suffice it to say you are an ignorant-yet-elitist, stupidly smug, unpleasant, and utterly cretinous and bigoted buffoon.
RESPONSE: You are the one that is cretinous-- with all the seedy filth you promote. The junior high mentality you display is a testament to how this present era of contemporary pop culture promotes an extended adolescence .
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED : Like so many bigots, you are worthless.
RESPONSE: Hurrah for NON-racist "bigotry" ! NON-racist bigotry is great ! The NOT-racist bigots they just keep pounding don't they Loki. They keep raining on your parade don't they ! And my friends and I can do a rain dance !!
For every NON-racist bigot who ever denigrated and derogated the totally evil opinions of Loki the hipster and the degenerate lifestyle he promotes , I want to pat them on the back give them a hearty handshake , offer them cigars and/or free drinks on me around the house and kiss their hand and say , 'Way to go . Yeehaw glad you told that Lokifreign off . Glad to know there are still some upright citizens still out there !' And then we can get out Old Glory the American Flag and salute it with joy !
If you ever talk any filth around older senior citizens don't be suprised how fast they tell you to hit the road . .
LOKI THE RELATIVIST POSTED :Thus, your hatred for that which is prized by the community that has no place for you: true humanity, itself.
RESPONSE: The deep and abiding love for humanity that I have (and that my friend Zack has) will not be discouraged by monsters like you , Lokifreign .Love of humanity is a good quality . You ought to at least try to cultivate it . Give it a try .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rockstar caught in the act of baldfaced lateral thinking ! Lateral thinking oif Rockstar exposed .Rockstar takes a term and changes its very predication goes *against* initial sentence construction !
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 7:37 PMRockstar , it is important that you (and every one else who visits the present thread) take note of how you used lateral thinking when you reframed a term culled from an earlier post that I posted and, thus , skewed what the very context of the term by changing its predication ! Here is the initial sentence from an earlier post . I will put a numeral next to the phrase you culled from the post in order for you and other readers to highlight it . I will then explain how the *intitial sentence construction predicates* what the term originally referred to .
Then, I will show how you put a truncated version of the phrase, with the commentary you posted underneath it , and show how you gave the phrase a *different* frame of reference than was meant by the original sentence construction !
RESPONSE: To claim that *presuppositions* of how to interpret the way I behave are self-justifying (1), without any supplemental argument to vindicate that *interpretation* in the first place, fails to present evidence that you are doing anything near to an analytical evaluation , Mr.Rockstar .
The term 'self-justifying' in the sentence above is *predicated of the word 'presuppositions' (parse the sentence carefully and you shall see) NOT of my personal self . By the term , 'self-justifying' I was not referencing the word self in the context of a personal self , instead , the term was referring to the notion of a given phenomeon or object of thought (in the present case the object of thought was 'presuppositions') ..being somehow alleged to be somehow didactically sufficient unto itself and not wanting for any more evidence or argument .What I was calling into question was the notion that the *presuppostions* which you put forth to interpret the way I behave were self justifying presuppositions (i.e. presuppositions that lacked for no further argumentation or evidence) .
Thus, in the sentence construction of the sentence shown above, taken from the earlier post , the term 'self-justifying ' was a term predicated of the presuppositions you used to interpret the way I behave , and that claim that such preesuppositions you presented were self-justifying--- was a claim that was put into doubt .
Now look below at the technique you , Rockstar , use .
EARLIER POST OF ROCKSTAR :
<<are self-justifying,>
Everything you put up is ranting self-justification
Notice how YOU SWITCH THE CONTEXT of what the term 'self-justified' is predicated of . You reframe it to another context , you respond to the term 'self-justifying' (and that you snip that term without giving the full sentence in which it was encased helps the misleadment) *as if * the initial use of the term referred to self-justification in terms of a personal self ---when it had *not* . The original sentence construction referred NOT to the context of the personal self , but instead to the matter of whether or not the *presuppositions you used justified themselves* !
Let you, and everyone who follows the present exchange, note how you changed what the intial term was predicated of and thus Mr.Rockstar you are guilty of lateral thinking ! -
-
Re: Rockstar caught in the act of baldfaced lateral thinking ! Lateral thinking oif Rockstar exposed .Rockstar takes a term and changes its very predication goes *against* initial sentence constructi
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 1:03 PMYou're an idiot. No one is obligated by anything you write - not because of the rules of formal debate or the fantasies about logic you entertain like a giddy five year old on Easter, but simply because you're a gibbering gibbon and it's not necessary to take you seriously or even read what you type. You're an idiot that also happens to be offensively bigoted, dramatically insane, and dangerously obsessed.
Shut up; go away. -
-
Re: Rockstar caught in the act of baldfaced lateral thinking ! Lateral thinking oif Rockstar exposed .Rockstar takes a term and changes its very predication goes *against* initial sentence constructi
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 2:13 PMROCKSTAR POSTED :You're an idiot. No one is obligated by anything you write - not because of the rules of formal debate or the fantasies about logic you entertain like a giddy five year old on Easter,
RESPONSE : You call logic "fantasy" ---how goofy can you get ?
Yes , people certainly *are obligated* by the rules of debate and logic . If you don't like logic cause it goes against politically correct relativism ---then the problem is with the worthless ideology of relativism (relativism being
ANTI-philosophical ) .
LOKI POSTED : but simply because you're a gibbering gibbon and it's not necessary to take you seriously or even read what you type.
RESPONSE: Now that you've stated that, is there any sensible observations you'd like to present, for a change, Lokifriegn ?
You Loki are a vulgar , overgrown adolescent little snot, who declaims here with all the plausibility of someone in a junior high cretin blowing snot bubbles to get attention . You are what my friend and former co worker Jeremiah calls in the vernacular of working class African Americans (he is African American ...a group of people who as a group tend to have better acumen in a number of areas then a lot of caucasians do...) would likely call a 'punk' . And that term 'punk' it working class African American vernacular refers to a creepy and perverse sort of androgynous person ...NOT androgynous in a nurturing Grandmotherly way (which would be laudable) but more like in a seedy , puerile and funky way, like particular creepy cultural figures (like the lousy pop singers Iggy Pop and Mick Jagger) .
LOKI POSTED :You're an idiot that also happens to be offensively bigoted, dramatically insane, and dangerously obsessed.
RESPONSE: NON-racist "bigotry" (NOT to be confused with racism-- which I hate) can help to build a beautiful and noble bright tommorrow for the children to inherit . Zack (my best friend in Winter Haven, Florida) and I are going to do what we can to foster the intolerance that protects the innocence of the children from the scurrilous filth you and your hipster crowd promotes , Loki, we will NOT let you to tarnish the innocence of the children , any more than Eisenhower, Churchill, the French Resistance , and the troops at Normandy allowed the quasi-relativist , obscurantist nazis to corrupt the globe with trash . Go suck an egg , hipster ! Run along creepy boytoy of swinger hipsters .
LOKI POSTED : Shut up; go away.
RESPONSE: What do you mean by "shut up" ? -
-
WHOOPS A TYPO !
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 2:16 PMThe first paragraph of the reecent post above accidentally begins with the phrase , 'Rockstar Posted' . It should read 'Loki posted' . Force of habit caused the typo .
-
Rebuttals to Loki, hopefully without typos in syntax this present time . Better sentence arrangement .
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 5:21 PMROCKSTAR POSTED :You're an idiot. No one is obligated by anything you write - not because of the rules of formal debate or the fantasies about logic you entertain like a giddy five year old on Easter,
RESPONSE : You call logic "fantasy" ---how goofy can you get ?
Yes , people certainly *are obligated* by the rules of debate and logic . If you don't like logic cause it goes against politically correct relativism ---then the problem is with the worthless ideology of relativism (relativism being
ANTI-philosophical ) .
LOKI POSTED : but simply because you're a gibbering gibbon and it's not necessary to take you seriously or even read what you type.
RESPONSE: Now that you've stated that, is there any sensible observations you'd like to present, for a change, Lokifriegn ?
You, Loki, are a vulgar , overgrown adolescent little snot, who declaims here with all the plausibility of some junior high cretin blowing snot bubbles to get attention . You are what my friend, and former co worker, Jeremiah, would likely in the vernacular of working class African Americans (he is African American ...a group of people who as a group tend to have better acumen in a number of areas then a lot of caucasians do...) refer to as a 'punk' . And that term 'punk' ,in working class African American vernacular, refers to a creepy and perverse sort of androgynous person ...NOT androgynous, in a nurturing Grandmotherly way (which would be laudable), but instead in a seedy , puerile and funky way, like unto particular creepy cultural figures (like the lousy pop singers Iggy Pop and Mick Jagger) .
LOKI POSTED :You're an idiot that also happens to be offensively bigoted, dramatically insane, and dangerously obsessed.
RESPONSE: NON-racist "bigotry" (NOT to be confused with racism-- which I hate) can help to build a beautiful and noble, bright tommorrow for the children to inherit . Zack (my best friend in Winter Haven, Florida) and I are going to do what we can to foster the intolerance that protects the innocence of the children from the scurrilous filth you and your hipster crowd promotes , Loki, we will NOT let you to tarnish the innocence of the children , any more than Eisenhower, Churchill, the French Resistance , and the troops at Normandy allowed the quasi-relativist , obscurantist nazis to corrupt the globe with trash . Go suck an egg , hipster ! Run along, creepy boytoy of swinger hipsters .
LOKI POSTED : Shut up; go away.
RESPONSE: What do you mean by "shut up" ? -
-
you are a failure in every way
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 1:53 PMI will win. You will lose.
Nyah hah.
The children will flock to my banner, and your genome will die out in 40 years. My bastards will consume the entire earth, while simultaneously mass-gang-fucking and singing Britney tunes. -
-
Here Lokifreign reveals what he apparently desires to do .
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 6:06 PMLOKI POSTED : I will win. You will lose.
Nyah hah.
The children will flock to my banner,
RESPONSE: They will NOT . And your hardcore pornography will not come nigh their dwelling , monster .
LOKI POSTED :and your genome will die out in 40 years. My bastards will consume the entire earth, while simultaneously mass-gang-fucking and singing Britney tunes.
RESPONSE : Just look above at the filth Lokifreign advocates .! Will be included in the notes of the indictment . -
-
Re: Here Lokifreign repeats what makes J worthless
Sun, November 1, 2009 - 10:38 AMYes. They will. And it has nothing to do with pornography, you disgusting asshole. That, of course, is a huge factor in why you will fail - in how your hope dies anew each second: you are a moron, obsessed with trivia. -
-
Re: Here Lokifreign repeats what makes J worthless
Sun, November 1, 2009 - 12:55 PMyeah, but porn still plays
but because all here pretend to
work
try fighting...for real
ready to...
kill
re: FEMA
-
We will warn the chidlren to stay way from monsters like Lokifreign
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 8:14 AMLOKI POSTED :Yes. They will. And it has nothing to do with pornography, you disgusting asshole. That, of course, is a huge factor in why you will fail - in how your hope dies anew each second: you are a moron, obsessed with trivia.
RESPONSE: What make you think the children will flock to your banner, monster ?
Are you smoking cocaine ? -
-
Re: We will warn the chidlren to stay way from monsters like Lokifreign
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 2:13 PMYes; warn them - good idea. Muahahahaaaaaa! -
-
Re: We will warn the chidlren to stay way from monsters like Lokifreign
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 4:30 PMdon't worry
tribe.net likes their servers
working
-
-
-
-
Re: Where's the bloody porn, already?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 1:21 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
do you know what irritates me most about this whole interaction?
i have YET to see loki post any pornography!
come on, loki, bust out with the nudes. how are we supposed to flock to your banner if we don't even know what your butt looks like?
*flockflockflock*
hee hee - i've Always wanted to be a banner-flocker, but it's technically considered illegal in the commonwealth on account of one bloody district judge with a speech impediment and a marvel comics fixation. i, of course, would Never break the law! i'd write more about that, but i'm gonna be too busy flocking around in about ten minutes and i gotta check the weather and buy some flavored lubricant.
Love is the law, love under will. -
-
Hardcore porn-- may it wither
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 2:09 PMNone of the threads in any message board should be polluted with the sight of any butt .Lokifriegn can keep the pictures of his demonic, ANTI-Christ butt out of here . -
-
Re: Hardcore porn-- may it wither
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 10:48 AM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:32 PMI may end up starting a private tribe just to crow about how insane and awesome the situation has become since then, by the way; I try to be gentlemanly but eventually life pitches something at you and you just *bust* trying not to strut up and down the street with a sandwich board proclaiming "GOD CLEARLY LOVES ME MORE THAN YOU"
Moral of the story: "I dun't keer how PinC 'r ole-fashioned it saounds t'yew fokes: Happy Wife, Happy Life, amen n' hallelu" -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 5:40 PMand i'm living in a van, down by the river?
I shouldn't have tried that " love grass".
probably soy milks fault too?
damn health food store job............... -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 5:44 PMI guess if you live in a van down by the river you won't be in the crossfire. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 5:46 PMThere's a NAMBLA van down there by the river, you gay violence lover, join in.
If violence begets violence, then someone needs to put forward so much violence that it permanently kills those who live in a cycle of violence. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 7:52 PMexactly my thought on radical isalm, a compltely devastated culture really is no threat, to the devastators. -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, October 27, 2009 - 1:32 AMfor some reason nature did select Jason and put him in his? (a) place.
if it's a dead end mutation, not much harm can come of consequence,
whether for comedy relief or feeding some other need.
oh
"comedy invented serious, cause it's so funny." ~ aka somebody
uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Comedy
Please note before reading this article )or not( that comedy is a very serious matter and should be treated as such. This is a serious matter. And must be taken at a highly advised serious matter. Please also remember that this article banishes the viewpoint which treats comedy as a fictional cause of moments of insanity among humankind. dicks are funny lol =P -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, October 27, 2009 - 1:47 AMThe phoenix is special because it symbolizes afterbirth.
also an umbilical cord might be used to be a compatible donor with a sibling who could die too soon.
Today
Modern phoenixes live in the Hoggar Mountains where they can get some peace and quiet. People leave them alone because they are afraid of their flaming feathers...and because phoenix meat tastes like 10,000,000 red hot peppers all concentrated into one awesome mouthful. People don't like their heads asplode so they leave phoenixes alone.
Nowadays Ατομοπουλιών plays for the Red Sox football team.
Phoenixes are now often featured in films, a certain 'Harry Potter' has been known to be ordered around by the little buggers...
Harry potter being ordered around
Life Cycle
First a phoenix makes a burning nest in a burning bush. Then it lays a burning egg. When the egg hatches out comes a flame of fire, and then a new phoenix. Sometimes atomic mutation makes an eagle come out of the egg, and sometimes it's a beagle. One time a Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan came out of a phoenix egg, but he got mad and then caught fire, and ended up burning cross. Phoenixes are known to occasionally go on burning crusades throughout their lives.
Jesus Christ rose from the dead but phoenixes rise from their ashes. Their ashes are under them, and then they get up, so they rise from them. Then they go to brush their teeth. But they get confused because birds don't have teeth, so they burst into flames. Then they make a new burning nest in a burning bush, and their life recycles anew.
uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/T..._Turtle -
-
Re: WAS SHE ?
Tue, October 27, 2009 - 9:38 PMI really have no interest in this thread anymore, but I want to say hello to glen. His new avatar reminds me of a dream I had, one of the best. It was a long time ago. I met a ball of fire on a hill. A nice glassy slope. This was an immense ball of flame, and I do remember through the murky haze of dream-remembrance that it might have turned me into a ball of flame likewise. It was one of the sweetest dreams ever. Like childhood. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: WAS SHE ?
Wed, October 28, 2009 - 7:35 AMHi Hokey
pic was taken on a hillside.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 1:30 PMDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
i want to return to the original post for a moment.
now, we can all see how there's Some Girl that "jason" remembers loki metioning off-hand over a year ago, and that jason would like to go on a date with her. jason has never seen her, has never read a description of her and so on - all "jason" knows is that loki may have been momentarily attracted to her.
there are a million posts of loki's that "jason" could have picked, so the question that rears up before me is Why This Specific One?!?
i believe the answer is quite simple, and has a lot to do with "jason" - or, more properly, the person managing the "jason" sock-puppet - and his sexual fixation on loki.
"jason" doesn't consciously understand that he's completely transferred his sexuality to Loki - he's a "lokasexual," if you will, but closeted even from himself. what "jason" got from this message was a hint of something that loki might have actually been sexually attracted to. while the casual reader may believe that "jason" is simply trying to get loki's goat, what "jason" is actually doing is attempting to receive approval from the object of his desire - that object being loki - by valididating his taste in women to the point of stating interest in a date with someone he's never seen, spoken to, etc. this, in turn, reinforces "jason's" identification with loki, and brings "jason" (in his own mind) closer to a consummated relationship with loki.
like i said, "jason" could have chosen any subject. ask yourselves, if you'll indulge me, Why This Post if what i say is incorrect?
Love is the law, love under will. -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 10:52 AMJason! Jason!
Dude: I'm totally so much easier than this. A few joints, some banter, light wrestling, who knows? -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 11:47 AMWhat the Sam Hill are you meaning , Lokifreign ? -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 9:32 PMwhen he finds out, maybe he will tell us -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 9:43 PMI know Jason's intentionally dense, but what's your excuse, rog? -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 9:51 PMlet's let lokal answer
first -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!? OR WAS SHE SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:04 PMummmm OK let me think.
Roger's excuse is that he is only *very* occasionally not ripped on prescription pills.
How's that? -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!? OR WAS SHE SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:23 PMYOU , Lokifreign are full of baloney . -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!? OR WAS SHE SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:54 PMNO, cretin; I am full of organic chard, rye sprouts, spring water, and vitriol. -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!? OR WAS SHE SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 3:19 PMLOKI POSTED : NO, cretin; I am full of organic chard, rye sprouts, spring water, and vitriol.
RESPONSE : Spring water ? Well I was gonna sing , 'Bring me a little water, Silvy' , but on second thought , scratch that...I think Leadbelly would run from you in disgust, and Mr. Lomax would probably want to keep at a distance from you as well ...
Mister you's the one that's the cretin . You got more seedy and vulgar kinks then someone could shake a remote control at ....
-
-
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!? OR WAS SHE SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 4:42 PMpp: How's that?
104pm
dude, that was 30 years ago
duh
fyi: i figured it out a long time ago -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!? OR WAS SHE SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 4:45 PMp/oki?
you ever been on meds/pharms?
and maybe you still are... -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!? OR WAS SHE SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 11:57 PMNothing exciting, no. I occasionally dream that I'll get a psychiatrist appointment and account for my lack of energy and dismal moods with great great descriptiveness and earnest concern. But then I feel guilty about it. The aftermath of the really fun ones is too much for me to deal with, and my chemistry is weird for things like quetiapine - apparently I need like a zillion mg of seroquel to make any difference.
I'm just not a pill guy. I'm not against it or anything. If I really hurt your feelings, you should ignore me. It's the one thing people forget to do, for some reason. -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!? OR WAS SHE SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 12:13 AMpsychiatrists costs lots of money
besides, the whole profession has been flushed down the toilet
i cannot ignore somebody who is
honest...it would be fun to run your med records
i just don't have the time
pp: quetiapine
pp: seroquel
re: when it comes time to quit, DO NOT COLD TURKEY
when you quit, you must very slowly reduce the dosage
if you need instructional assistance go to tribe: depression help
it is not fun to find your kid in the back yard
hanging from a
tree -
-
Re: WAS SHE REALLY LOKI?!? OR WAS SHE SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 1:22 AMIf I'm just going for prescriptions to dexies and benzo, it ends up being worth it, monetarily speaking - but it wouldn't sit with me, really; it's just a fancy. Going through with it would be an insane hassle.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
