On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> > It's a matter of polite speech, dearest. That's all.
>
> there's nothing polite about you

Quite the opposite; I have been perfectly polite with you.
Your wishful derogatory projections, whose entire intent
is to debase and damage other humans has little to do with
'my' behavior.

> > No dearest, there was no compliment.
> > But I can see how you can be so starved that you hallucinate them.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not at all.

> >
> > > whacked logic
> >
> >
> > No logic dearest.
>
> uninspired twit

You're talking about yourself. Empty labeling is not insightful.
And logic hasn't gota nything to do with 'inspiration'.


> >
> > > from a clever spindoctor and liar
> >
> > There is no 'spindoctoring' or 'lying'.
> > Keep your myopic projections to yourself.
>
> yes, you are

No, sorry. Your brutish attempts to force an
incorrect image are simply supportive what I have written about you:
that your problem with conscious wearing of masks is due to
control-freak brain-obsessed murderous impulses which cannot
'accept' anything less than a brutalized, victimized, passive
reflection of a human.

> >
> > > – take your filter off.
> >
> > Nor filtering.
>
> yes, you are

No dearest, there is no filtering here at all.

> > > here is the original post with my reply:
> > >
> > > –K wrote–
> > > > Furthermore, you expressed an incessant desire to see that
> > > > that violation of basic human rights, brutality, ignorance,
> > > > and debasement and devaluation of humans be passed on as
> > > > governmentally enforced laws.
> > >
> > > –David replied–
> > > liar"
> >
> > No this was not the original post; however it's quite obvious who is
> > trying to be a 'spin doctor'.
>
> yes, it is

Absolutely dearest.

> >
> > > > I don't favor violation of basic human rights, dearest.
> > >
> > > yes, you do
> >
> > Only in your deluded wishful soastic impotence.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not at all. And at this point, I do recommend that you get yourself
checked in a mental hospital; considering that this has been
going on (repetition of this idiocy) for over a month,
I suspect you have a series of serious_ problems, and the last
thing that you are capable of is 'art'.

But then again, a brief view of your website is quite revealing:
all humans are 'predictable' and 'trapped in hell'. Amazing
brute propaganda isn't it? Church is over dearest; nobody is in 'hell'
nor predictable. Humans are not pitiful weakling-victims trapped
anywhere. Your murderous desire to reduce them to such
is psychotic.

Nevertheless, you're a perfect example of what I refer to in terms of
the necessity for humans to realize that this kind of behvaior is not
'imaginary' and does cause actual_ damage to humans overall–
the absolute basest forms of psychick damage–and this does_ exist
(targetted at rhizome + thingist).

Apparently Mr. david here lives in his own 'personal hell'
which s largely his psychotic overblown ego, accompanied
by self-loathing and hate towards humans, and he wants to
lash out at others 'freely'. Because this is what free speech
is about.

How about the personal threats you made towards my physical being?

Hmm.. right.


> > There is no 'twisted' logic nor 'twisted' personas.
>
> yes, there is … and yours is the twistedist

No dearest, I am not emplying any logic at all.
Your idiotic debasory projections are entirely your problem.
And that applies not only to 'me' but to others as well.

> yes, you are a contrarian

A contrarian. Ahem.

> >
> > > in particular,
> > > > nor will I be
> > >
> > > yes … you always will be
> >
> > Only in your deluded brain.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not at all.

> > These are no interpretations, nor are they weak.
> > These are your own words.
>
> liar

No, I am not a liar. Amazing how you won't stop at anything
to brutalize another isn't it?

> >
> >
> > > > So entertain us all, and say it again, you know you want to.
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN. i'm just relpying to your lies and misinterpretations.
> >
> > No dearest. You're simply in denial.
>
> wrong AGAIN

No.

> > There have been no lies nor misinterpretations.
>
> yes, you have

I have what?

> > You made a bunch of ignorant idiot statements,
>
> wrong AGAIN

No.

> > now have the courage to take the responsibility for them.
>
> i am not responsible for your mis-interpretations

You are responsible for your own behavior however,
and direct citation of your words are not 'misinterpretations'.

> wrong AGAIN

No.

> >
> > Come on, do the 'wrong AGAIN' trick :)
> >
>
> only when you are


Ah no. You do it for other 'reasons'.
You are_ responsible for your own behavior.
Don't attempt to abrogate the responsibility
for your murderous brute behavior and psychotic
verbiage to me.

NOBODY besides you is responsible for what you post.

On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

[+some of the more general statements are applicable to Joseph McElroy as
well]

> > > there's nothing polite about you
> >
> > Quite the opposite; I have been perfectly polite with you.
> > Your wishful derogatory projections, whose entire intent
> > is to debase and damage other humans has little to do with
> > 'my' behavior.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not at all. Not only am I polite, but I am incredibly gentle
with you, and especially considering the nasty trick you are
attempting: fucking around with a person's brain mechanisms,
attempting to unbalance the being, drag it away from REALITY
(which the unconscious brain is apt to do–but then again, 'you'
do enjoy taking advantage of weaknesses don't you? makes one
feel so powerful) by means of SHOUTING and pseudo-logical
'arguments', and when the individual is disoriented and
removed from any base of functioning, attempting to shovel in
shit and 'punches' that the being would be incapacitated enough to
deal with.

But then again, the entire reason why you're attempting to 'pick on me'
is because you're an idiot psycho-bully who thinks it's discovered
a 'coward'–and we all know what should be done to them cowards huh?
Forget no fear mudras and the like, beat them assholes up.

And all the meanwhile singing that song about 'i'm myself and nothing
else, I'm plain and obvious nice logical guy'. No, really, you're a nice
guy. Politeness, my dear, hasn't got anything to do with treating you
like the fantastic human being that you're not.

> > You're talking about yourself. Empty labeling is not insightful.
> > And logic hasn't gota nything to do with 'inspiration'.
>
> no, i'm talking about you

No, dearest. You are not talking about me, nor are you capable of
talking about anything besides yourself–like it or not.
And until you deal with your state, the ONLY thing capable
of talking about will be YOURSELF. And unlike most others,
who with all of their shortcomings are still capable of recognizing
this simple fact, you are cowardly enough to not acknowledge
and realize that. And your state is that of an ignorant, dumb,
dense brute.

> > that your problem with conscious wearing of masks is due to
> > control-freak brain-obsessed murderous impuAlses which cannot
> > 'accept' anything less than a brutalized, victimized, passive
> > reflection of a human.
>
> wrong AGAIN. your misinterpretations are obvious to all

Direct citations of your words are not interpretations to any degree.
Secondly, nothing of the sort is 'obvious to all' no matter how much
you delude yourself and stomp your feet. Considering that you're
incredibly dense, ignorant, and totally swamped over by your ego,
your claims to be able to 'see' anything would be laughable if they
weren't so incredulously pathetic and harmful to unsuspecting others.
Nevermind the 'intimidating' tactic of attempting to pre-empt 'victory'
by saying it is 'obvious to all'. Guess what. It isn't. Your wishful
hallucinations about how the situation is are not_ what the situation
is, and your opinion_ is thoroughly inconsequential. Take your cheap
murderous tactics elsewhere.

> > No dearest, there is no filtering here at all.
>
> yes, you are.

No, and you can continue frothing, and pretending you can make statements
of the above, but dearest, you're merely a petty, sub-mediocre idiot.
You have neither the capacity nor the authority to make such statements,
and to make matters even worse you're degrading yourself to a degree
at which you are incapable of making any_ statements. But then again,
this impulse of the human to corner itself into sheer idiocy
is indeed one of the things that interests me in this situation,
and what's even worse, I_ am not doing it–you're doing it to yourself.
But thena gain, being so enlightened and aware of the truth, you should
know that when you attack others, you only attack yourself.


> > Absolutely dearest.
>
> clever boy … clever wordsmith … clever spindoctor

No 'cleverness' here at all dearest. take your psychotic
'patronizing' 'i've figured you out' idiocy elsewhere.
Your wishful attempts to misrepresent me as something that
I am not are merely the impotent kicks of a coward who is
afraid to admit his own failures, hence needs to project
the 'problem' as someone else's failure. (cf. Keef's behavior).

Secondly, you have no capability to discern reality from
non-reality, considering that you exist entirely in the latter,
so your attempts to make such statements are worthless.

Also, whatever happened to 'free speech' dearest? On multiple
occasions you've tried to get me to 'shut up'–and this is
yet another one of those–free speech, but anyone who points
out David's idiocy is 'clever'.

Dearest, I have absolutely no place in my life for idiocies
such as 'cleverness'–which is largely–anda gain–your projecting
your own motivational impulses onto me. Moreso, what you're doing
is looking for inner qualities inside yourself which you 'hate'
and project them outwardly in some attempt to debase.

And this dearest, is one of the real_ motivations of brute behavior
(self)-hatred. And it's high-time that it is recognized that
neither 'warriorship proper' nor self-discipline nor self-control
nor active_ manifestations are connected to that: rather
passive idiocy which finds outlets in either brute physical force,
or brute mental / psychological behavior, and increasingly so this
is finding place in mediamistic 'expressions' and being attempted
to be passed on as 'art'. Brutality in the form of words or images
is brutality, not art.

> > Not at all. And at this point, I do recommend that you get yourself
> > checked in a mental hospital; considering that this has been
> > going on (repetition of this idiocy) for over a month,
>
> your desire to mis-interpret is amazing

There is no such thing, baby–take your own 'spindoctoring' elsewhere.
Again, you're doing the only thing you can do–'mirroring' or
'shadowing' or 'mimicrying' my behavior and fancying that by this means
you will achieve the validity of what I do. Impotent leech.
My behavior is absolutely free of any 'desire' whatsoever.
Taking theoutward packaging of my words and attempting
to pass it on as some 'insight' into my behavior is idiotic,
as well as a cheap trick counting on infantile identification.

> > I suspect you have a series of serious_ problems, and the last
> > thing that you are capable of is 'art'.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Oh no not wrong at all. It's patently obvious that you're a
sexually inept, brain-obsessed murderous ape. What a shame that
the likes of you attempt to present themselves at 'artists'–
but that's the 'trap' of net.art (and easy access to media) these days:
every monkey with a computer makes a claim to artistry and dumps
its psychotic impulses into 'media' without an ounce of responsibility
of what is being psychically done to 'humanity' overall.

> > But then again, a brief view of your website is quite revealing:
> > all humans are 'predictable' and 'trapped in hell'.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Really? Direct citation again:

Writers and artists
[of whom David Goldschmid has very_ little_ experience–obviously]
have been revealing the human experience for thousands of years.

They reveal our humanity …
[no they don't–and luckily they don't share your psychotic
ego-driven obsession]

and human hell is a very common theme.
[mr. goldsmidt's interpretation which he is attempting to superimpose
on 'artists and writers']

It is a trait that we cannot escape.
[rather the opposite, and this is what_ writers and artists create]

Writers and artists are able to express [human hell] because there
is a certain logic that reveals itself [in the words and actions] of
someone trapped in hell.

[That is, Mr. Goldschmid is an irresponsible weaking twit, who is unable
and irresponsible enough to refuse_ dealing with his inner state,
and as is standard for such behavior will attempt to drag down
everything with him.

Your own 'personal hell' david is your_ responsibility_.
Not reflective of 'humanity'.]

Additionally CITING_ 'Humans are so damned easy and predictable
because they are trapped in their condition'.

And by the way love–pointing out things that you so fervently
try to HIDE and pretend that are NOT THERE in your behavior
is not 'misinterpretations' (talk about cowardly hiding
behind your ego). Additionally, trying to convince
others that you're something you are NOT is indeed cowardice,
and you try to peddle it about as 'sincere' because it's
'unconscious.' However unconscious indeed it may be,
it's pre-meditated and calculated. I'm Mr. Goldschmidt,
and I'm honest and flat and myself, really really, please buy it.
All the while attempting to pretend that the mask that you are wearing
is not your NARCISSISTIC EGO, but that of a conscious being
who can perceive others. You sure are.. a Buddha.
The compassionate saintly mirror that sees through other humans.
The facts? rather the opposite, a weak spiteful idiot,
who attempts to project on humans a constricted, weak, flat,
pigeonholed state, because that is the only way you can 'deal'
with it–ie, by attempting to CONTROL:

> Amazing
> > brute propaganda isn't it?
>
> no.

Indeed: your brute propaganda is cheap and submediocre.

> Church is over dearest; nobody is in 'hell'
>
> occassionally, everyone is

No dearest, and avoid speaking for 'everyone'. You're neither capable
nor qualified. A far cry from a world leader. Secondly, utilization of
such large symbolisms as 'hell' to feasibly tamable sensations of anger,
etc. is psychotic and irresponsible. Projecting your own impotence
and inability to deal with these things is one thing, attempting
to psychologically force identification with such states as the
'insecapable status quo'–and attempting to destroy any work
done in that directions by others is yet another, and moreso
a violation of a basic human right. And_ you want this passed on
as 'free speech'–and you want to abuse the 'constitution' to
justify your murderous impulses. Evenmoreso, you're so dense as to not
realize that the US constitution applies to the US, and what you're
doing isa ttempting to 'create hell' for US artists.


Lastly, your statement is merely an attempt to drag everyone
to the 'same level'–'we are all equal, suffering monkeys'.
The REAL cowardice of an idiot, who cannot stand the idea
that no 'we are nota ll equal' and that in fact liberation
from entanglement in such stares (which haven't got anything
to do with hell) is not only possible, but also a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
Aka dearest 'constitutional freak' the right of LIBERTY.
Which you deny, because it's not convinient, and because
it would reveal you to be the weak irresponsible slug that you are.


> > nor predictable.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not at all. And dearest, avoid 'speaking for all'. Humans are (still at
least) individual entities, with (hopefully) their own voices. Have the
courage and integrity to make something about YOURSELF Monsieur (I'm not
wearing a mask, really, really, and hence I'm not a coward really
really). By the way, you've recently admitted to wearing a mask,
does that make you a coward?

Secondly, fear is present in the majority of humans,
and only two 'entities' are qualified to deal with it:
the human itself, or a qualified being. You're neither.

I suggest you check your 'indignation' towards cowards,
because you are one, and so are the majority of humans
you meet in your life, and the mark of a 'powerful'
person is not that of one who threatens to 'beat them up'
because of their possessing a weakness. The latter
is the modus operandi of a psychotic imbecile.

> Humans are not pitiful weakling-victims trapped

> > anywhere.
>
> again, your desire to mis-interpret is amazing

There is no such thing occurring, Mr. Trapped animeau.
Your wishful delusions are entirely_ and only_
existent within your mind and nowhere else.
My behavior on the other hand is entirely desire-free.

> Your murderous desire to reduce them to such
> > is psychotic.
>
> wrong AGAIN
>

Not at all. You are a psycho, and a weak one as well.


> > Nevertheless, you're a perfect example
>
> of a human being

No, of a weak and mediocre asshole. Don't attempt to exert
justification for your abrogation of responsibility with beating
yourself across the chest about your 'humanity'. Being you aren't
even close to.

And avoid attempting to 'dissect' my sentences in order to push your
ego-driven agenda. You are an example of what i WROTE, not of what you
wish to sing & dance convince-misrepresent yourself as.

> of what I refer to in terms of
> > the necessity for humans to realize that this kind of behvaior is not
> > 'imaginary' and does cause actual_ damage to humans overall–
> > the absolute basest forms of psychick damage–and this does_ exist
> > (targetted at rhizome + thingist).
>
> you just described yourself and your actions perfectly

No dearest, I didn't. I described YOUR actions.
Your mediocre childish finger-pointing is not insight.
And this is in fact a part of the underlying basis of your
we are all 'weak' psychotism as well as self-professed
problem with the appearance of 'athority'. Wouldn't
it be nice if all humans were trapped asleep weaklings?
Then you could get away with your idiocy and nobody would
be able to truthfully to point out what you are doing and hold
you responsible.


> >
> > Apparently Mr. david here lives in his own 'personal hell'
>
> wrong AGAIN

Oh quite the opposite. Your 'mental state' is on display.
Not mine. And trust me dearest, it's a real possibility.
You and I are not equal, and i_ am not trapped in self-reflective
slumber.


> > which s largely his psychotic overblown ego,
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not at all. And no amount of psychotic hammer-head behavior on your part
will make me 'wrong'.

> accompanied
> > by self-loathing and hate towards humans,
>
> wrong AGAIN

As above.

> and he wants to
> > lash out
>
> wrong AGAIN

Your actions speak for themselves.

> at others 'freely'. Because this is what free speech
> > is about.
>
> free speech is more important than property.

It would seem that the writers of the constitution–
genuinely superior men with rgards to you, are not
in agreement. Moreso, what you want is NOT free speech,
you want the right to irresponsibly mouth off and lash out,
and this is not free speech. You also_ want whatever you
say to be accepted as 'word of the law', just as in the
the above attmpt at attempting to pass as a fact something
which isn't, and lastly, what you want is the freedom
to APPROPRIATE other people's 'intellectual' and otherwise
'intangible' property–and specifically images.
Images are the result of the essence-capability, work,
and effort of individuals–and you have absolutely no
RIGHTS to the results of other humans work unless
they choose to, of their own volition to delegate
such rights to you.

And that applies to physical property, intellectual
property, and all other 'intangible' ascpects of the human
including masks, which area natural_ and necessary_
quite admirable ascpects of the human and other Beings.

> >
> > How about the personal threats you made towards my physical being?
>
> liar. i said that you were a coward living in fear because you
> intentionally hide behind a mask when you go out in public.

Oh no dearest, I do_ nothing of the sort. I USE masks.
I do not HIDE behind masks. Your attempts at insisting that
your own programmatic association of HIDING and MASKING is
an actuality is thoroughly psychotic.

Moreso, this is the impulse of a passively voyeristic and
crude asshole who has no capability of understanding and respecting
the idea of privacy as well as that you have no 'rights'
to other humans at all. None whatsoever.

> then i said
> that i thought that it was a good idea because if you ever revealed your
> [true] self to someone … they would probable beat the fuck out of you.

No dearest, you said that YOU would 'beat the fuck out of me'.
Don't attempt to change your words. Nevermind the psychotic
bullyism of attempting to force the 'self' out of its
natural + conscious veiling by brute threats.
The true self of all_ humans is veiled for a reason.

Additionally, don't attempt to make it seem like
your brute impulses belong to 'just anyone' and 'are normal'.
Most humans in fact don't share your psychotic idiocy.

> > Hmm.. right.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Ever get the feeling that you're shooting blanks?
Because you should be, by now.

> > > > Only in your deluded brain.

> yes, you are

I am not you, ape.

> >
> > > > These are no interpretations, nor are they weak.
> > > > These are your own words.
> > >
> > > liar
> >
> > No, I am not a liar. Amazing how you won't stop at anything
> > to brutalize another isn't it?
>
> again, you describe yourself perfectly

No dearest. I am not describing myself,
I am describing you, and you're not getting away with
nya nya childish finger pointing.

> > > > There have been no lies nor misinterpretations.
> > >
> > > yes, you have
> >
> > I have what?
>
> nothing to offer

Absolutely nothing. Humans are not created to 'offer'
things to other humans. Nor are they capable of
offering anything, seeing as all that they have
has been given and granted anyways. The obsession
with 'giving and receiving' is a childish-stuck
in-your-arse energetically vampiric feeding
mechanism. Nobody on the entire planet owes you anything,
and the entire meaning of 'giving' proper is functioning
at one's BEST at all times. C'est tout.
There is no 'giving' no 'feeding' no 'someone doing things
for' etc. You're not a baby. And natural_ cooperation
is the cooperation resulting from independent
and 'free' individuals co-existing.
The true_ meaning of 'giving' is cultivation and
development of personal ability to DO. Not energetic
leeching, and NOT taking from others what is not yours,
and certainly NOT attempting to bash over the head those who
are ahead of you, and NOT attempting to 'steal' their
personal power as you are attempting to do
HERE, and with your idiotic insistence on appropriating
the results of such efforts.

I have absolutely no intentions of 'giving' you anything,
and especially so considering the worthless scum that you are.

Things are given in accordance with internal merit, and yours
is zero.


> > You are responsible for your own behavior however,
> > and direct citation of your words are not 'misinterpretations'.
>
> they are when you change the context and/or project incorrect intent

Nobody has changed the context or projected 'incorrect intent'.
Neither do you know what intent is, nor how it works.
It's a word that you saw me use and now are monkeying around.
First: you attempted to 'run away' from the original conversation
by attempting to 'divorce' the conversation from its original
by screaming 'no' at everything said, and now attempting to say
the context is changed. It isn't. And your cheap trick was
predictable from mile away.

Secondly, there is no such tning as 'correct' or 'incorrect'
intent. Thirdly, intent lacks the quality of being projected.
Again you're simply mimicrying words that you see me use
in attempt to APPROPRIATE the APPEARANCE of someone
who KNOWS WHAT THEY MEAN nad POSSESSES UNDERSTANDING of
such matters (just like you want to POSE as an ARTIST).

Lastly, your DRIVEL is not motivated by INTENT.
You have none. You're a brain obsessed raggedy doll, whom anyone /
anything can and does kick around freely. INTENT my dearest
is an internal quality of facing one's true fate, and among
other things it implies the fully conscious awareness of one's
initial worthlessness, masks, and lack of power.


> > > wrong AGAIN
> >
> > No.
>
> yes

Impotent noises from an ape.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Come on, do the 'wrong AGAIN' trick :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > only when you are
> >
> >
> > Ah no. You do it for other 'reasons'.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Absolutely correct with regards to your bhavior.

> > You are_ responsible for your own behavior.
> > Don't attempt to abrogate the responsibility
> > for your murderous brute behavior and psychotic
> > verbiage to me.
>
> you are the murderous neanderthal

You're talking about yourself baby.
Repeating what I wrote about you is impotence.

> >
> > NOBODY besides you is responsible for what you post.
>
> communication is a two person sport.

No it isn't. Communication is not a sport either.

> you're not reading me.

I am reading_ you quite correctly.
Your problem is that I'm not buying your facade.

> you only see what you want to see.

I 'want' to see nothing dearest.
I SEE exactly what you are doing as_ you are doing it.
what you want to pass on as 'conversation' is my passively
accepting, reflecting, and nodding to the pretty icon
of yourself that you fancy you are. You also want
your psychotic ignorant 'statements' to be passively
accepted as true. Conversation dearest, is not something
you're either attempting or capable of.

Only myopic narking derived from your brain,
attempting to mirror the little bit that is 'perceived'.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

I am attempting to kill the Buddha. It is not easy nor quick. I still don't
understand how you can go one mile east and one mile west at the same time.

joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309



Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

>
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> [+some of the more general statements are applicable to Joseph McElroy as
> well]
>
> > > > there's nothing polite about you
> > >
> > > Quite the opposite; I have been perfectly polite with you.
> > > Your wishful derogatory projections, whose entire intent
> > > is to debase and damage other humans has little to do with
> > > 'my' behavior.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Not at all. Not only am I polite, but I am incredibly gentle
> with you, and especially considering the nasty trick you are
> attempting: fucking around with a person's brain mechanisms,
> attempting to unbalance the being, drag it away from REALITY
> (which the unconscious brain is apt to do–but then again, 'you'
> do enjoy taking advantage of weaknesses don't you? makes one
> feel so powerful) by means of SHOUTING and pseudo-logical
> 'arguments', and when the individual is disoriented and
> removed from any base of functioning, attempting to shovel in
> shit and 'punches' that the being would be incapacitated enough to
> deal with.
>
> But then again, the entire reason why you're attempting to 'pick on me'
> is because you're an idiot psycho-bully who thinks it's discovered
> a 'coward'–and we all know what should be done to them cowards huh?
> Forget no fear mudras and the like, beat them assholes up.
>
> And all the meanwhile singing that song about 'i'm myself and nothing
> else, I'm plain and obvious nice logical guy'. No, really, you're a nice
> guy. Politeness, my dear, hasn't got anything to do with treating you
> like the fantastic human being that you're not.
>
> > > You're talking about yourself. Empty labeling is not insightful.
> > > And logic hasn't gota nything to do with 'inspiration'.
> >
> > no, i'm talking about you
>
> No, dearest. You are not talking about me, nor are you capable of
> talking about anything besides yourself–like it or not.
> And until you deal with your state, the ONLY thing capable
> of talking about will be YOURSELF. And unlike most others,
> who with all of their shortcomings are still capable of recognizing
> this simple fact, you are cowardly enough to not acknowledge
> and realize that. And your state is that of an ignorant, dumb,
> dense brute.
>
> > > that your problem with conscious wearing of masks is due to
> > > control-freak brain-obsessed murderous impuAlses which cannot
> > > 'accept' anything less than a brutalized, victimized, passive
> > > reflection of a human.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN. your misinterpretations are obvious to all
>
> Direct citations of your words are not interpretations to any degree.
> Secondly, nothing of the sort is 'obvious to all' no matter how much
> you delude yourself and stomp your feet. Considering that you're
> incredibly dense, ignorant, and totally swamped over by your ego,
> your claims to be able to 'see' anything would be laughable if they
> weren't so incredulously pathetic and harmful to unsuspecting others.
> Nevermind the 'intimidating' tactic of attempting to pre-empt 'victory'
> by saying it is 'obvious to all'. Guess what. It isn't. Your wishful
> hallucinations about how the situation is are not_ what the situation
> is, and your opinion_ is thoroughly inconsequential. Take your cheap
> murderous tactics elsewhere.
>
> > > No dearest, there is no filtering here at all.
> >
> > yes, you are.
>
> No, and you can continue frothing, and pretending you can make statements
> of the above, but dearest, you're merely a petty, sub-mediocre idiot.
> You have neither the capacity nor the authority to make such statements,
> and to make matters even worse you're degrading yourself to a degree
> at which you are incapable of making any_ statements. But then again,
> this impulse of the human to corner itself into sheer idiocy
> is indeed one of the things that interests me in this situation,
> and what's even worse, I_ am not doing it–you're doing it to yourself.
> But thena gain, being so enlightened and aware of the truth, you should
> know that when you attack others, you only attack yourself.
>
>
> > > Absolutely dearest.
> >
> > clever boy … clever wordsmith … clever spindoctor
>
> No 'cleverness' here at all dearest. take your psychotic
> 'patronizing' 'i've figured you out' idiocy elsewhere.
> Your wishful attempts to misrepresent me as something that
> I am not are merely the impotent kicks of a coward who is
> afraid to admit his own failures, hence needs to project
> the 'problem' as someone else's failure. (cf. Keef's behavior).
>
> Secondly, you have no capability to discern reality from
> non-reality, considering that you exist entirely in the latter,
> so your attempts to make such statements are worthless.
>
> Also, whatever happened to 'free speech' dearest? On multiple
> occasions you've tried to get me to 'shut up'–and this is
> yet another one of those–free speech, but anyone who points
> out David's idiocy is 'clever'.
>
> Dearest, I have absolutely no place in my life for idiocies
> such as 'cleverness'–which is largely–anda gain–your projecting
> your own motivational impulses onto me. Moreso, what you're doing
> is looking for inner qualities inside yourself which you 'hate'
> and project them outwardly in some attempt to debase.
>
> And this dearest, is one of the real_ motivations of brute behavior
> (self)-hatred. And it's high-time that it is recognized that
> neither 'warriorship proper' nor self-discipline nor self-control
> nor active_ manifestations are connected to that: rather
> passive idiocy which finds outlets in either brute physical force,
> or brute mental / psychological behavior, and increasingly so this
> is finding place in mediamistic 'expressions' and being attempted
> to be passed on as 'art'. Brutality in the form of words or images
> is brutality, not art.
>
> > > Not at all. And at this point, I do recommend that you get yourself
> > > checked in a mental hospital; considering that this has been
> > > going on (repetition of this idiocy) for over a month,
> >
> > your desire to mis-interpret is amazing
>
> There is no such thing, baby–take your own 'spindoctoring' elsewhere.
> Again, you're doing the only thing you can do–'mirroring' or
> 'shadowing' or 'mimicrying' my behavior and fancying that by this means
> you will achieve the validity of what I do. Impotent leech.
> My behavior is absolutely free of any 'desire' whatsoever.
> Taking theoutward packaging of my words and attempting
> to pass it on as some 'insight' into my behavior is idiotic,
> as well as a cheap trick counting on infantile identification.
>
> > > I suspect you have a series of serious_ problems, and the last
> > > thing that you are capable of is 'art'.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Oh no not wrong at all. It's patently obvious that you're a
> sexually inept, brain-obsessed murderous ape. What a shame that
> the likes of you attempt to present themselves at 'artists'–
> but that's the 'trap' of net.art (and easy access to media) these days:
> every monkey with a computer makes a claim to artistry and dumps
> its psychotic impulses into 'media' without an ounce of responsibility
> of what is being psychically done to 'humanity' overall.
>
> > > But then again, a brief view of your website is quite revealing:
> > > all humans are 'predictable' and 'trapped in hell'.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Really? Direct citation again:
>
> Writers and artists
> [of whom David Goldschmid has very_ little_ experience–obviously]
> have been revealing the human experience for thousands of years.
>
> They reveal our humanity …
> [no they don't–and luckily they don't share your psychotic
> ego-driven obsession]
>
> and human hell is a very common theme.
> [mr. goldsmidt's interpretation which he is attempting to superimpose
> on 'artists and writers']
>
> It is a trait that we cannot escape.
> [rather the opposite, and this is what_ writers and artists create]
>
> Writers and artists are able to express [human hell] because there
> is a certain logic that reveals itself [in the words and actions] of
> someone trapped in hell.
>
> [That is, Mr. Goldschmid is an irresponsible weaking twit, who is unable
> and irresponsible enough to refuse_ dealing with his inner state,
> and as is standard for such behavior will attempt to drag down
> everything with him.
>
> Your own 'personal hell' david is your_ responsibility_.
> Not reflective of 'humanity'.]
>
> Additionally CITING_ 'Humans are so damned easy and predictable
> because they are trapped in their condition'.
>
> And by the way love–pointing out things that you so fervently
> try to HIDE and pretend that are NOT THERE in your behavior
> is not 'misinterpretations' (talk about cowardly hiding
> behind your ego). Additionally, trying to convince
> others that you're something you are NOT is indeed cowardice,
> and you try to peddle it about as 'sincere' because it's
> 'unconscious.' However unconscious indeed it may be,
> it's pre-meditated and calculated. I'm Mr. Goldschmidt,
> and I'm honest and flat and myself, really really, please buy it.
> All the while attempting to pretend that the mask that you are wearing
> is not your NARCISSISTIC EGO, but that of a conscious being
> who can perceive others. You sure are.. a Buddha.
> The compassionate saintly mirror that sees through other humans.
> The facts? rather the opposite, a weak spiteful idiot,
> who attempts to project on humans a constricted, weak, flat,
> pigeonholed state, because that is the only way you can 'deal'
> with it–ie, by attempting to CONTROL:
>
> > Amazing
> > > brute propaganda isn't it?
> >
> > no.
>
> Indeed: your brute propaganda is cheap and submediocre.
>
> > Church is over dearest; nobody is in 'hell'
> >
> > occassionally, everyone is
>
> No dearest, and avoid speaking for 'everyone'. You're neither capable
> nor qualified. A far cry from a world leader. Secondly, utilization of
> such large symbolisms as 'hell' to feasibly tamable sensations of anger,
> etc. is psychotic and irresponsible. Projecting your own impotence
> and inability to deal with these things is one thing, attempting
> to psychologically force identification with such states as the
> 'insecapable status quo'–and attempting to destroy any work
> done in that directions by others is yet another, and moreso
> a violation of a basic human right. And_ you want this passed on
> as 'free speech'–and you want to abuse the 'constitution' to
> justify your murderous impulses. Evenmoreso, you're so dense as to not
> realize that the US constitution applies to the US, and what you're
> doing isa ttempting to 'create hell' for US artists.
>
>
> Lastly, your statement is merely an attempt to drag everyone
> to the 'same level'–'we are all equal, suffering monkeys'.
> The REAL cowardice of an idiot, who cannot stand the idea
> that no 'we are nota ll equal' and that in fact liberation
> from entanglement in such stares (which haven't got anything
> to do with hell) is not only possible, but also a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
> Aka dearest 'constitutional freak' the right of LIBERTY.
> Which you deny, because it's not convinient, and because
> it would reveal you to be the weak irresponsible slug that you are.
>
>
> > > nor predictable.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Not at all. And dearest, avoid 'speaking for all'. Humans are (still at
> least) individual entities, with (hopefully) their own voices. Have the
> courage and integrity to make something about YOURSELF Monsieur (I'm not
> wearing a mask, really, really, and hence I'm not a coward really
> really). By the way, you've recently admitted to wearing a mask,
> does that make you a coward?
>
> Secondly, fear is present in the majority of humans,
> and only two 'entities' are qualified to deal with it:
> the human itself, or a qualified being. You're neither.
>
> I suggest you check your 'indignation' towards cowards,
> because you are one, and so are the majority of humans
> you meet in your life, and the mark of a 'powerful'
> person is not that of one who threatens to 'beat them up'
> because of their possessing a weakness. The latter
> is the modus operandi of a psychotic imbecile.
>
> > Humans are not pitiful weakling-victims trapped
>
> > > anywhere.
> >
> > again, your desire to mis-interpret is amazing
>
> There is no such thing occurring, Mr. Trapped animeau.
> Your wishful delusions are entirely_ and only_
> existent within your mind and nowhere else.
> My behavior on the other hand is entirely desire-free.
>
> > Your murderous desire to reduce them to such
> > > is psychotic.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
> >
>
> Not at all. You are a psycho, and a weak one as well.
>
>
> > > Nevertheless, you're a perfect example
> >
> > of a human being
>
> No, of a weak and mediocre asshole. Don't attempt to exert
> justification for your abrogation of responsibility with beating
> yourself across the chest about your 'humanity'. Being you aren't
> even close to.
>
> And avoid attempting to 'dissect' my sentences in order to push your
> ego-driven agenda. You are an example of what i WROTE, not of what you
> wish to sing & dance convince-misrepresent yourself as.
>
> > of what I refer to in terms of
> > > the necessity for humans to realize that this kind of behvaior is not
> > > 'imaginary' and does cause actual_ damage to humans overall–
> > > the absolute basest forms of psychick damage–and this does_ exist
> > > (targetted at rhizome + thingist).
> >
> > you just described yourself and your actions perfectly
>
> No dearest, I didn't. I described YOUR actions.
> Your mediocre childish finger-pointing is not insight.
> And this is in fact a part of the underlying basis of your
> we are all 'weak' psychotism as well as self-professed
> problem with the appearance of 'athority'. Wouldn't
> it be nice if all humans were trapped asleep weaklings?
> Then you could get away with your idiocy and nobody would
> be able to truthfully to point out what you are doing and hold
> you responsible.
>
>
> > >
> > > Apparently Mr. david here lives in his own 'personal hell'
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Oh quite the opposite. Your 'mental state' is on display.
> Not mine. And trust me dearest, it's a real possibility.
> You and I are not equal, and i_ am not trapped in self-reflective
> slumber.
>
>
> > > which s largely his psychotic overblown ego,
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Not at all. And no amount of psychotic hammer-head behavior on your part
> will make me 'wrong'.
>
> > accompanied
> > > by self-loathing and hate towards humans,
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> As above.
>
> > and he wants to
> > > lash out
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Your actions speak for themselves.
>
> > at others 'freely'. Because this is what free speech
> > > is about.
> >
> > free speech is more important than property.
>
> It would seem that the writers of the constitution–
> genuinely superior men with rgards to you, are not
> in agreement. Moreso, what you want is NOT free speech,
> you want the right to irresponsibly mouth off and lash out,
> and this is not free speech. You also_ want whatever you
> say to be accepted as 'word of the law', just as in the
> the above attmpt at attempting to pass as a fact something
> which isn't, and lastly, what you want is the freedom
> to APPROPRIATE other people's 'intellectual' and otherwise
> 'intangible' property–and specifically images.
> Images are the result of the essence-capability, work,
> and effort of individuals–and you have absolutely no
> RIGHTS to the results of other humans work unless
> they choose to, of their own volition to delegate
> such rights to you.
>
> And that applies to physical property, intellectual
> property, and all other 'intangible' ascpects of the human
> including masks, which area natural_ and necessary_
> quite admirable ascpects of the human and other Beings.
>
> > >
> > > How about the personal threats you made towards my physical being?
> >
> > liar. i said that you were a coward living in fear because you
> > intentionally hide behind a mask when you go out in public.
>
> Oh no dearest, I do_ nothing of the sort. I USE masks.
> I do not HIDE behind masks. Your attempts at insisting that
> your own programmatic association of HIDING and MASKING is
> an actuality is thoroughly psychotic.
>
> Moreso, this is the impulse of a passively voyeristic and
> crude asshole who has no capability of understanding and respecting
> the idea of privacy as well as that you have no 'rights'
> to other humans at all. None whatsoever.
>
> > then i said
> > that i thought that it was a good idea because if you ever revealed your
> > [true] self to someone … they would probable beat the fuck out of you.
>
> No dearest, you said that YOU would 'beat the fuck out of me'.
> Don't attempt to change your words. Nevermind the psychotic
> bullyism of attempting to force the 'self' out of its
> natural + conscious veiling by brute threats.
> The true self of all_ humans is veiled for a reason.
>
> Additionally, don't attempt to make it seem like
> your brute impulses belong to 'just anyone' and 'are normal'.
> Most humans in fact don't share your psychotic idiocy.
>
> > > Hmm.. right.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Ever get the feeling that you're shooting blanks?
> Because you should be, by now.
>
> > > > > Only in your deluded brain.
>
> > yes, you are
>
> I am not you, ape.
>
> > >
> > > > > These are no interpretations, nor are they weak.
> > > > > These are your own words.
> > > >
> > > > liar
> > >
> > > No, I am not a liar. Amazing how you won't stop at anything
> > > to brutalize another isn't it?
> >
> > again, you describe yourself perfectly
>
> No dearest. I am not describing myself,
> I am describing you, and you're not getting away with
> nya nya childish finger pointing.
>
> > > > > There have been no lies nor misinterpretations.
> > > >
> > > > yes, you have
> > >
> > > I have what?
> >
> > nothing to offer
>
> Absolutely nothing. Humans are not created to 'offer'
> things to other humans. Nor are they capable of
> offering anything, seeing as all that they have
> has been given and granted anyways. The obsession
> with 'giving and receiving' is a childish-stuck
> in-your-arse energetically vampiric feeding
> mechanism. Nobody on the entire planet owes you anything,
> and the entire meaning of 'giving' proper is functioning
> at one's BEST at all times. C'est tout.
> There is no 'giving' no 'feeding' no 'someone doing things
> for' etc. You're not a baby. And natural_ cooperation
> is the cooperation resulting from independent
> and 'free' individuals co-existing.
> The true_ meaning of 'giving' is cultivation and
> development of personal ability to DO. Not energetic
> leeching, and NOT taking from others what is not yours,
> and certainly NOT attempting to bash over the head those who
> are ahead of you, and NOT attempting to 'steal' their
> personal power as you are attempting to do
> HERE, and with your idiotic insistence on appropriating
> the results of such efforts.
>
> I have absolutely no intentions of 'giving' you anything,
> and especially so considering the worthless scum that you are.
>
> Things are given in accordance with internal merit, and yours
> is zero.
>
>
> > > You are responsible for your own behavior however,
> > > and direct citation of your words are not 'misinterpretations'.
> >
> > they are when you change the context and/or project incorrect intent
>
> Nobody has changed the context or projected 'incorrect intent'.
> Neither do you know what intent is, nor how it works.
> It's a word that you saw me use and now are monkeying around.
> First: you attempted to 'run away' from the original conversation
> by attempting to 'divorce' the conversation from its original
> by screaming 'no' at everything said, and now attempting to say
> the context is changed. It isn't. And your cheap trick was
> predictable from mile away.
>
> Secondly, there is no such tning as 'correct' or 'incorrect'
> intent. Thirdly, intent lacks the quality of being projected.
> Again you're simply mimicrying words that you see me use
> in attempt to APPROPRIATE the APPEARANCE of someone
> who KNOWS WHAT THEY MEAN nad POSSESSES UNDERSTANDING of
> such matters (just like you want to POSE as an ARTIST).
>
> Lastly, your DRIVEL is not motivated by INTENT.
> You have none. You're a brain obsessed raggedy doll, whom anyone /
> anything can and does kick around freely. INTENT my dearest
> is an internal quality of facing one's true fate, and among
> other things it implies the fully conscious awareness of one's
> initial worthlessness, masks, and lack of power.
>
>
> > > > wrong AGAIN
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > yes
>
> Impotent noises from an ape.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Come on, do the 'wrong AGAIN' trick :)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > only when you are
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah no. You do it for other 'reasons'.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Absolutely correct with regards to your bhavior.
>
> > > You are_ responsible for your own behavior.
> > > Don't attempt to abrogate the responsibility
> > > for your murderous brute behavior and psychotic
> > > verbiage to me.
> >
> > you are the murderous neanderthal
>
> You're talking about yourself baby.
> Repeating what I wrote about you is impotence.
>
> > >
> > > NOBODY besides you is responsible for what you post.
> >
> > communication is a two person sport.
>
> No it isn't. Communication is not a sport either.
>
> > you're not reading me.
>
> I am reading_ you quite correctly.
> Your problem is that I'm not buying your facade.
>
> > you only see what you want to see.
>
> I 'want' to see nothing dearest.
> I SEE exactly what you are doing as_ you are doing it.
> what you want to pass on as 'conversation' is my passively
> accepting, reflecting, and nodding to the pretty icon
> of yourself that you fancy you are. You also want
> your psychotic ignorant 'statements' to be passively
> accepted as true. Conversation dearest, is not something
> you're either attempting or capable of.
>
> Only myopic narking derived from your brain,
> attempting to mirror the little bit that is 'perceived'.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> ——————————————————————–
> t h i n g i s t
> message by "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> ——————————————————————–

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> I am attempting to kill the Buddha.

Meet him first.

> It is not easy nor quick.

The Buddha says you'd make a lousy housewife.

> I still don't understand how you can go one mile east and one mile west
> at the same time.

Mu.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

i knew you would understand

joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309



Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > I am attempting to kill the Buddha.
>
> Meet him first.
>
> > It is not easy nor quick.
>
> The Buddha says you'd make a lousy housewife.
>
> > I still don't understand how you can go one mile east and one mile west
> > at the same time.
>
> Mu.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> ——————————————————————–
> t h i n g i s t
> message by "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> ——————————————————————–

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> i knew you would understand

Nothing of the sort occurred.

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> >
> > [+some of the more general statements are applicable to Joseph McElroy as
> > well]
> >
> > > > > there's nothing polite about you
> > > >
> > > > Quite the opposite; I have been perfectly polite with you.
> > > > Your wishful derogatory projections, whose entire intent
> > > > is to debase and damage other humans has little to do with
> > > > 'my' behavior.
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN
> >
> > Not at all. Not only am I polite,
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> but I am incredibly gentle
> > with you,
>
> thanks … you're a sweetie
>
> and especially considering the nasty trick you are
> > attempting: fucking around with a person's brain mechanisms,
>
> wrong AGAIN. there your "brain mechanisms" … take responsibility for them
>
> > attempting to unbalance the being,
>
> wrong AGAIN

Meaningless posturing in order to avoid responsibility.
Nothing of what I wrote is wrong baby.

> >drag it away from REALITY
> your REALITY


No dearest. Actual_ Reality. Only you_ exist in 'your reality'.

> > (which the unconscious brain is apt to do–but then again, 'you'
> > do enjoy taking advantage of weaknesses don't you? makes one
> > feel so powerful)
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> by means of SHOUTING and pseudo-logical
> > 'arguments', and when the individual is disoriented and
> > removed from any base of functioning, attempting to shovel in
> > shit and 'punches' that the being would be incapacitated enough to
> > deal with.
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> >
> > But then again, the entire reason why you're attempting to 'pick on me'
>
> i'm not picking on you.
>
> > is because you're an idiot psycho-bully
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> >who thinks it's discovered
> > a 'coward'
>
> you are

It's patently obvious whois the coward dearest.
And your 'pretense' is obvious :)

> >–and we all know what should be done to them cowards huh?
>
> try not to generalize

This was not a generalization. Keep your patronizing idiocy to
yourself.

> > Forget no fear mudras and the like, beat them assholes up.
>
> wrong AGAIN
> >
> > And all the meanwhile singing that song about 'i'm myself and nothing
> > else, I'm plain and obvious nice logical guy'.
>
> i'm perfectly human … with both vice and virtue
>
> No, really, you're a nice
> > guy.
>
> thanks

Starved for compliments, the dog take kicks as such.

> Politeness, my dear, hasn't got anything to do with treating you
> > like the fantastic human being that you're not.
>
> not fantastic … perfect (perfectly human). please try and comprehend what
> i am writing.

There is nothing to comprehend; what you write is meaningless
egotistical drivel. Don't strain yourself trying to belabor
on behalf of something that's not there.

Perfection? Hardly. Vanity and egotism? Absolutely.

> >
> > > > You're talking about yourself. Empty labeling is not insightful.
> > > > And logic hasn't gota nything to do with 'inspiration'.
>
> your desire to misinterpret is amazing

My behavior is not informed by 'desire' love,
no matter how much you try to stomp your feets.

>
> > >
> > > no, i'm talking about you
> >
> > No, dearest. You are not talking about me
>
> yes, i am

No, nor are you capable of.

> , nor are you capable of
> > talking about anything besides yourself
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> –like it or not.
> > And until you deal with your state, the ONLY thing capable
> > of talking about will be YOURSELF. And unlike most others,
> > who with all of their shortcomings are still capable of recognizing
> > this simple fact, you are cowardly enough to not acknowledge
> > and realize that.
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> And your state is that of an ignorant, dumb,
> > dense brute.
>
> wrong AGAIN
>


Nothing wrong about what I wrote. The more you scream 'wrong AGAIN'
the more you demonstrate your impotence.

> >
> > > > that your problem with conscious wearing of masks is due to
> > > > control-freak brain-obsessed murderous impuAlses which cannot
> > > > 'accept' anything less than a brutalized, victimized, passive
> > > > reflection of a human.
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN. your misinterpretations are obvious to all
> >
> > Direct citations of your words are not interpretations to any degree.
>
> yes, they can be … i suggest you lookup the term "holistic semantics"

No thank you. Direct citations of your words are not misinterprtetation.
Semantics (holistic) or otherwise is drivel.

> > Secondly, nothing of the sort is 'obvious to all'
>
> yes, it is.

No, it isn't. There is no such 'occurrence'.


> no matter how much
> > you delude yourself and stomp your feet.
>
> i do neither

Yes, you do, love.

> Considering that you're
> > incredibly dense, ignorant, and totally swamped over by your ego,
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> > your claims to be able to 'see' anything would be laughable if they
> > weren't so incredulously pathetic and harmful to unsuspecting others.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Is impotence a characteristic of 'holistic semantics'? :)


> > Nevermind the 'intimidating' tactic of attempting to pre-empt 'victory'
> > by saying it is 'obvious to all'.
>
> a tactic you use repeatedly


Not at all. pay attention. If you can :)

> >Guess what.
>
> what?
>
> It isn't.
>
> it is
>
> Your wishful
> > hallucinations about how the situation is are not_ what the situation
> > is,
>
> ok GOD

Very good.

> >and your opinion_ is thoroughly inconsequential.
>
> as is yours

I have no opinions. You and I are not equal, and this
cheap tactic of attempting to devalue others by claiming
they are just like you, is not valid.

> >Take your cheap
> > murderous tactics elsewhere.
>
> yes, take your cheap murderous tactics elsewhere.

I have none such. Those belong to you.

> >
> > > > No dearest, there is no filtering here at all.
> > >
> > > yes, you are.
> >
> > No, and you can continue frothing, and pretending you can make statements
> > of the above, but dearest, you're merely a petty, sub-mediocre idiot.
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> > You have neither the capacity
>
> yes, i do

Not at all.
> >nor the authority to make such statements,
>
> yes, i do

Such capacities dear, belong to intelligent beings. You're not one of
them.

> > and to make matters even worse you're degrading yourself to a degree
> > at which you are incapable of making any_ statements.
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> > But then again,
> > this impulse of the human to corner itself into sheer idiocy
>
> very weak projection

There was no projection. Nor do you KNOW_ what projections are.
Amazing how you try to qualify everything as 'weak' huh?
It's an accurate and precise obvservation of what you are.

> > is indeed one of the things that interests me in this situation,
>
> what are the others?

None within the range of your limited capacities.

> > and what's even worse, I_ am not doing it–you're doing it to yourself.
>
> this is your mental masterbation … not mine

Sorry, there is no 'mental masturbation going on here, besides yours :)

> > But thena gain, being so enlightened and aware of the truth, you should
> > know that when you attack others, you only attack yourself.
>
> clever spindoctor
> is "wrong AGAIN" ad nauseum still a mystery to you?
> i doubt it
> everyone can see it for what it is … a defense against your attacks
> (delusions)

My attacks are no delusions. They are very accurate observations on your
behavior. And like it or not, you don't have an 'everyone' backing you
up. You are_ alone. And you can't do anything but alternately try to be
a bully and squirm and squeal pathetically.

> > > > Absolutely dearest.
> > >
> > > clever boy … clever wordsmith … clever spindoctor
> >
> > No 'cleverness' here at all dearest. take your psychotic
> > 'patronizing' 'i've figured you out' idiocy elsewhere.
>
> you're just a clever wordsmith … nothing more.

No dearest. I'm nothing of the self-debasory wishful projections
that you wish that I were. Pitiful coward.

> > Your wishful attempts to misrepresent me
>
> no, you misrepresent me

I present you quite accurately. what I don't do,
is play along with your myopic 'I'm a saint perfect icon' routine.


> >as something that
> > I am not are merely the impotent kicks of a coward
>
> wrong AGAIN

More impotence on your behalf.

> who is
> > afraid to admit his own failures,
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> >hence needs to project
> > the 'problem' as someone else's failure
>
> wrong AGAIN

As above.

> . (cf. Keef's behavior).
> >
> > Secondly, you have no capability to discern reality from
> > non-reality,
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> > considering that you exist entirely in the latter,
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> > so your attempts to make such statements are worthless.
>
> wrong AGAIN


As above.

> >
> > Also, whatever happened to 'free speech' dearest? On multiple
> > occasions you've tried to get me to 'shut up'–and this is
> > yet another one of those–free speech, but anyone who points
> > out David's idiocy is 'clever'.
>
> your desire to misinterpret is amazing

No desire informs my behavior. What I write about you is accurate and
precise.

>
> >
> > Dearest, I have absolutely no place in my life for idiocies
> > such as 'cleverness'
>
> that is what you are … a clever spindoctor.
> you intentinally take things out of context
> and then twist them to fit your own personal reality

I don't take things out of context, nor do I make them fit anything.
I don't have a personal' reality. What I write are direct observations
of what you are. And I can see you THROUGH your 'mask'–the one you
'unconsciously'–and cowardy hide behind.

> –which is largely–anda gain–your projecting
> > your own motivational impulses onto me.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Ne.

> Moreso, what you're doing
> > is looking for inner qualities inside yourself which you 'hate'
> > and project them outwardly in some attempt to debase.
>
> another perfect description of your own behavior

No, it is a description of yours. Your childish abrogation
of responsibility is absolutely worthless, and not
convincing anyone.

> >
> > And this dearest, is one of the real_ motivations of brute behavior
> > (self)-hatred. And it's high-time that it is recognized that
> > neither 'warriorship proper' nor self-discipline nor self-control
> > nor active_ manifestations are connected to that: rather
> > passive idiocy which finds outlets in either brute physical force,
> > or brute mental / psychological behavior, and increasingly so this
> > is finding place in mediamistic 'expressions' and being attempted
> > to be passed on as 'art'. Brutality in the form of words or images
> > is brutality, not art.
>
> interesting, i must confess. its too bad your so deluded that
> you don't even recognize the brute behavior you exhibit
> towards so many others

I am not deluded, nor do I exhibit any brute behavior.
My behavior is perfectly polite and accurate.
Revealing the hideousness of what you are is not
'brute behavior' on my part.
Nice trick but it won't work.
If you wanbt to be treated nicely, start acknowledging what you are
and taking responsibility for you.

Until then, you will be treated like the worthless slug that you are.
YOU_ in particular.

> > > > Not at all. And at this point, I do recommend that you get yourself
> > > > checked in a mental hospital; considering that this has been
> > > > going on (repetition of this idiocy) for over a month,
> > >
> > > your desire to mis-interpret is amazing
> >
> > There is no such thing, baby–take your own 'spindoctoring' elsewhere.
>
> wrong AGAIN


Not at all. Are you do is project your prejudices onto me.

> > Again, you're doing the only thing you can do–'mirroring' or
> > 'shadowing' or 'mimicrying' my behavior and fancying that by this means
> > you will achieve the validity of what I do.
>
> wrong AGAIN

No.

> > Impotent leech.
>
> i know you are but what am i?

No dearest. The impotent leech is you.

> > My behavior is absolutely free of any 'desire' whatsoever.
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> > Taking theoutward packaging of my words
>
> i've seen you do the same to everyone else.

I haven't don anything of the sort, love.

> that's what spindoctors do and that is all you are. keep spinning the
> words of others until they fit nicely into your own
> personal reality

No dearest. I never spin any other people's words.
YOU_ do. And that is quite apparent: all you do is mimicry
my words without even knowing what they mean and screan 'no' and
'wrong AGAIN'.

> >and attempting
> > to pass it on as some 'insight' into my behavior is idiotic,
> > as well as a cheap trick counting on infantile identification.
>
> "infantile identification"???? very, very weak.

Nothing 'weak,' idiotic brute. Precise, accurate and to the point.
You are an infantile dictatorial ape.

> >
> > > > I suspect you have a series of serious_ problems, and the last
> > > > thing that you are capable of is 'art'.
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN
> >
> > Oh no not wrong at all.
>
> yes, it is

Ne.

> >It's patently obvious
>
> further evidence of your own cheap tactics

No dearest. It is OBVIOUS is not the same as it is OBVIOUS TO ALL.
There is no 'tactics'. But you're illiterate and a twit.



> >that you're a
> > sexually inept, brain-obsessed murderous ape.
>
> i know you are but what am i?

No, the words appliy to you. Who is trying to spindoctor luv?


> >What a shame that
> > the likes of you attempt to present themselves at 'artists'–
>
> wrong AGAIN … never said i was an artist. i prefer newmedia author or
> newmedia editor

You're neither.

> > but that's the 'trap' of net.art (and easy access to media) these days:
> > every monkey with a computer makes a claim to artistry and dumps
> > its psychotic impulses into 'media' without an ounce of responsibility
> > of what is being psychically done to 'humanity' overall.
>
> first, humanity is not actionable.

Yes it is.

> you cannot do something/anything to humanity.

That would be nice wouldn't it? Then you'd have a perfect excuse
to keep refusing responsibility for the shit that you do.

it is what it is …
> a reflection of what we are … for better, for worse, for genius, for
> stupidity, for love, for hate


Boo-boo. Sob.Snif. Drivel.

> and second, you are a fascist and a censor.

And also an incarnation of Belial.

> you don't
> have the right or the qualifications to decide what people do with their
> computers

I certainly have the RIGHt AND the qualification
to do what I do. Especially to hold you RESPONSIBLE
for what you do with your computer.

>
> >
> > > > But then again, a brief view of your website is quite revealing:
> > > > all humans are 'predictable' and 'trapped in hell'.
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN
> >
> > Really? Direct citation again:
> >
> > Writers and artists
> > [of whom David Goldschmid has very_ little_ experience–obviously]
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> > have been revealing the human experience for thousands of years.
> >
> > They reveal our humanity …
> > [no they don't–and luckily they don't share your psychotic
> > ego-driven obsession]
>
> yes, they do.

Boo.-boo impotent drivel.

> >
> > and human hell is a very common theme.
> > [mr. goldsmidt's interpretation which he is attempting to superimpose
> > on 'artists and writers']
>
> not superimposed … revealed via metaphor.
> maybe your not mis-interpreting … maybe your just stupid

I am neither misinterpreting nor stupid.
You don't know what a metaphor is.

>
> >
> > It is a trait that we cannot escape.
> > [rather the opposite, and this is what_ writers and artists create]
>
> should probably say "we cannot easily escape".
> thanks for the feedback.

That would be a quantifiably different statement.

> > Writers and artists are able to express [human hell] because there
> > is a certain logic that reveals itself [in the words and actions] of
> > someone trapped in hell.
> >
> > [That is, Mr. Goldschmid is an irresponsible weaking twit, who is unable
> > and irresponsible enough to refuse_ dealing with his inner state,
> > and as is standard for such behavior will attempt to drag down
> > everything with him.
>
> wrong AGAIN

No. Maybe you should start considering what you do in
media again. I did give you the nice 'treatment' first–
that the situation isa s is is a result of your own behavior.

> >
> > Your own 'personal hell' david is your_ responsibility_.
> > Not reflective of 'humanity'.]
>
> "hell" is just one of the states that i examine … clever spindoctor.
> maybe you should ask your buddhist teacher if human hell exists

You don't 'examine' any states. Mechanical behavior is not 'hell'.

> > Additionally CITING_ 'Humans are so damned easy and predictable
> > because they are trapped in their condition'.
>
> yes, this is true. what's your point?

It's obvious :)

> >
> > And by the way love–pointing out things that you so fervently
> > try to HIDE and pretend that are NOT THERE
>
> babbling moron

I'm not the wishful prejudices insde your brain.

> > in your behavior
> > is not 'misinterpretations' (talk about cowardly hiding
> > behind your ego).
>
> more babbling

Not at all. It's very preciseand very accurate.
> Additionally, trying to convince
> > others that you're something you are NOT
>
> which is what?????
>
> >is indeed cowardice,
> > and you try to peddle it about as 'sincere' because it's
> > 'unconscious.'
>
> ??????? you are lost!

i am QUITE on the point dearest. The one LOST is you.

> However unconscious indeed it may be,
> > it's pre-meditated and calculated. I'm Mr. Goldschmidt,
> > and I'm honest and flat and myself, really really, please buy it.
> > All the while attempting to pretend that the mask that you are wearing
> > is not your NARCISSISTIC EGO,
>
> i've said it before and i'll say it again … you do not read me … you
> only see what you want to see

I read you quite ACCURATELY. I don't read what you WANT me to read.
And that'sa whole different story.


> > but that of a conscious being
> > who can perceive others. You sure are.. a Buddha.
>
> you are the one that repeatedly professes enlightenment … not I

Me? Profess enlightenment? Absolutely never.
rather I've made statements with regards to Enlightenment
in specific contexts to specific humans.

> > The compassionate saintly mirror that sees through other humans.
>
> that sees their humanity

Boo-hoo. Sniff. Compassion doesnt 'see' anyone's 'humanity'–
no such thing exists.

> > The facts? rather the opposite, a weak spiteful idiot,
> > who attempts to project on humans a constricted, weak, flat,
> > pigeonholed state,
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> > because that is the only way you can 'deal'
> > with it–ie, by attempting to CONTROL:
>
> wrong AGAIN … control is an illusion

It's easier to say than to practice.
Practice what you preach.


> >
> > > Amazing
> > > > brute propaganda isn't it?
> > >
> > > no.
> >
> > Indeed: your brute propaganda is cheap and submediocre.
>
> yes, your brute propaganda is cheap and submediocre.

No dearest, that is your propaganda I wrote of.
How's that 'illusionary' control?
Your shell is as dense as cement.


> >
> > > Church is over dearest; nobody is in 'hell'
> > >
> > > occassionally, everyone is
> >
> > No dearest, and avoid speaking for 'everyone'.
>
> its my OPINION. unlike you … who thinks that the voice of GOD re-verbs
> from your lips

I think nothing of the sort. Humans are perfectly capable of vocalizing
(aspects of) truth, but wouldn't it be nice if 'we were all lost poor
human baa' only capable of OPINIONS?


> >You're neither capable
> > nor qualified.
>
> neither are you

Oh yes I am. And evenmore, whether I am or I am not
is not within your capacity to determine. You are blind,
and subject to 'opinions'.

But I'm 'glad' to see you're on the way to declaring yourself a
Boddhisatvsa of 'compassion'.
Let me see.. humanswho wear conscious masks are cowards,
cowards should be beaten up,.. but David is the Grand Mirror of
Compassion. Are you sure you're not the Dalai Lama?




> A far cry from a world leader. Secondly, utilization of
> > such large symbolisms as 'hell' to feasibly tamable sensations of anger,
> > etc. is psychotic and irresponsible.
>
> wrong AGAIN

No.

> Projecting your own impotence
> > and inability to deal with these things is one thing, attempting
> > to psychologically force identification with such states as the
> > 'insecapable status quo'–and attempting to destroy any work
> > done in that directions by others is yet another, and moreso
> > a violation of a basic human right.
>
> wrong AGAIN

No.

> And_ you want this passed on
> > as 'free speech'–and you want to abuse the 'constitution' to
> > justify your murderous impulses.
>
> wrong AGAIN

No.

> > Evenmoreso, you're so dense as to not
> > realize that the US constitution applies to the US, and what you're
> > doing isa ttempting to 'create hell' for US artists.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Stick to he subject if you can, infantile ape.

> >
> >
> > Lastly, your statement is merely an attempt to drag everyone
> > to the 'same level'–'we are all equal, suffering monkeys'.
>
> wrong AGAIN

No.

> > The REAL cowardice of an idiot, who cannot stand the idea
> > that no 'we are nota ll equal'
>
> [essentially] equal, ya bitch

No, dearest, humans are not equal. Essentially or otherwise.
Avoid addressing me with derogatory labels.

> and that in fact liberation
> > from entanglement in such stares (which haven't got anything
> > to do with hell) is not only possible, but also a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
> > Aka dearest 'constitutional freak' the right of LIBERTY.
>
> "freedom from hell" as a basic human right?

No. I suggest you re-raed the above. HELL hasn't got anything
to do with it.

> and you think my work positions me against this idea?

I don't THINK so, I know so.

> you are the idiotic, illiterate ape!

Hardly. The only idiotic, illiterate ape here is you.
And you are again, mimicrying my verbiage,
when you don't even know whatit meant.
You look like a fool.


> > Which you deny, because it's not convinient, and because
> > it would reveal you to be the weak irresponsible slug that you are.
>
> wrong AGAIN

No.

> >
> >
> > > > nor predictable.
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN
> >
> > Not at all. And dearest, avoid 'speaking for all'. Humans are (still at
> > least) individual entities, with (hopefully) their own voices.
>
> yes, but … IN GENERAL … a very predictable voice.

No, nothing of the sort. The voice ofeach human is highly individual,
and utterly outside of 'prediction'.


> > Have the
> > courage and integrity to make something about YOURSELF Monsieur (I'm not
> > wearing a mask, really, really, and hence I'm not a coward really
> > really). By the way, you've recently admitted to wearing a mask,
> > does that make you a coward?
>
> i never said i wasn't wearing a mask … you did.

So you are wearing a mask consciously now?
Very good. Coward. :)


> > Secondly, fear is present in the majority of humans,
> > and only two 'entities' are qualified to deal with it:
> > the human itself, or a qualified being. You're neither.
>
> and you say i'm the "murderous brute" … ??? take a look in the mirror, ya
> bitch.

You are a murderous brute :)
Recognizing humans for what they are is not a 'murderous impulse'.

> > I suggest you check your 'indignation' towards cowards,
> > because you are one,
>
> no, you are

Sorry, I lack the capacoty to experience fear :)

> > and so are the majority of humans
> > you meet in your life,
>
> arrogant elitist

Nothing 'arrogant' or 'elitist' about me :)

> > and the mark of a 'powerful'
> > person is not that of one who threatens to 'beat them up'
> > because of their possessing a weakness.
>
> i never said the opposite

So you admit you're a weakling coward?

> > The latter
> > is the modus operandi of a psychotic imbecile.
>
> quite true

Squint :)

> >
> > > Humans are not pitiful weakling-victims trapped
> >
> > > > anywhere.
> > >
> > > again, your desire to mis-interpret is amazing
> >
> > There is no such thing occurring, Mr. Trapped animeau.
>
> yes, you are … and in very dramatic ways. its quite entertaining

No dearest, the trapped animal is you, And there is nothing
'entertaining' about it, I assure you. Your obliviousness
is quite tragic, but only sometimes.


> > Your wishful delusions are entirely_ and only_
> > existent within your mind and nowhere else.
>
> where else could one's delusions exist?

Stick to the subject.

> > My behavior on the other hand is entirely desire-free.
>
> laughable

Not at all, dearest. Nothing 'laughable' about desire-free behavior.
Go ask a Buddhist teacher. That is if you canfind one first.

> >
> > > Your murderous desire to reduce them to such
> > > > is psychotic.
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN
> > >
> >
> > Not at all. You are a psycho, and a weak one as well.
>
> i know you are but what am i?

No dearest, we are talking about you.

>
> >
> >
> > > > Nevertheless, you're a perfect example
> > >
> > > of a human being
> >
> > No, of a weak and mediocre asshole.
>
> i know you are but what am i?

As above.

> > Don't attempt to exert
> > justification for your abrogation of responsibility with beating
> > yourself across the chest about your 'humanity'. Being you aren't
> > even close to.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not at all.

> >
> > And avoid attempting to 'dissect' my sentences in order to push your
> > ego-driven agenda.
>
> hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahaha
> hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
> hahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah
> ahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahah
> ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
> hahahahahhahahahahahhaha
>
> again, look in the mirror, ya bitch

No thanks dearest. I don't suffer from your infantile mirror
identifications. You've been trying very very VERY hard topresent your
egotistical posturing as a MIRROR of ME but my dearest,
you only serve a PERFECT purpose in illustrating what I've said,
again and again. You're attempting to EXTERNALIZE your problems
imprint them onto someone else and proceed to cure (read: cripple)
the human. Do yourself a favor, and start making 'art' 'media' about
YOURSELF. You're not capable of dealing with OTHER humans.

>
> > You are an example of what i WROTE,
>
> then what do i say about you?

Nothing. I am not here.

> > not of what you
> > wish to sing & dance convince-misrepresent yourself as.
>
> then all of you comments about me are really
> about yourself …

No dearest, the comments are about you.

> which, of course, is what i have been saying all along.

Yes, you've been trying REAL HARD to avoid the real reflection
of what you are, an escapism behind an 'unconscious mask'.
Tell us something new.

> >
> > > of what I refer to in terms of
> > > > the necessity for humans to realize that this kind of behvaior is
> not
> > > > 'imaginary' and does cause actual_ damage to humans overall–
> > > > the absolute basest forms of psychick damage–and this does_ exist
> > > > (targetted at rhizome + thingist).
> > >
> > > you just described yourself and your actions perfectly
> >
> > No dearest, I didn't. I described YOUR actions.
>
> see ABOVE

It's you we're talking about Monsieur David You.

> > Your mediocre childish finger-pointing is not insight.
>
> nor is yours

There is no such occurrence in my behavior :)

> > And this is in fact a part of the underlying basis of your
> > we are all 'weak' psychotism as well as self-professed
> > problem with the appearance of 'athority'. Wouldn't
> > it be nice if all humans were trapped asleep weaklings?
>
> many are frequently [asleep] …
> some are occassionlly [awake] …
> and a few are frequently [awake]

Nice generealizations, of which you have
no understanding. BUt keep singing that sing-a-song.
What was that word you used? Spindoctor.
Anyone and their grandma is talking about Je-sus..
tralela.

> > Then you could get away with your idiocy and nobody would
> > be able to truthfully to point out what you are doing and hold
> > you responsible.
>
> lucky for humanity you caught me in time

Indeed.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Apparently Mr. david here lives in his own 'personal hell'
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN
> >
> > Oh quite the opposite.
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
> > Your 'mental state' is on display.
>
> which one … i have many

And a number of corresponding masks. Coward :)

> > Not mine.
>
> because you have no mental state?

Ask a Zen Buddhism teacher.

> And trust me dearest, it's a real possibility.
> > You and I are not equal, and i_ am not trapped in self-reflective
> > slumber.
>
> yes, you are. and more frequently than most others i have met.
> your words reflect two overriding mental states: hell and anger

Not at all dearest. I am neither angry nor in hell.
But again you demonstrate what I spoke of:
the murderous impulse to debase others.
I know very well you'd LIKe me to be 'angry' and 'in hell'
but i am neither.

Dearest, cure yourself of your own idiocy before attempting to cure
others. All you do is attemptto CRIPPLE them.


> >
> >
> > > > which s largely his psychotic overblown ego,
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN
> >
> > Not at all. And no amount of psychotic hammer-head behavior on your part
> > will make me 'wrong'.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Nein.

> >
> > > accompanied
> > > > by self-loathing and hate towards humans,
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN
> >
> > As above.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Nein.
> >
> > > and he wants to
> > > > lash out
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN
> >
> > Your actions speak for themselves.
>
> you mis-interpret my actions

You have no 'actions'. You only mouth off.

> >
> > > at others 'freely'. Because this is what free speech
> > > > is about.
> > >
> > > free speech is more important than property.
> >
> > It would seem that the writers of the constitution–
> > genuinely superior men with rgards to you, are not
> > in agreement.
>
> apparently so … but i stand by my statement

Which is absolute ignorant drivel.

> Moreso, what you want is NOT free speech,
>
> wrong AGAIN

Nein.

> > you want the right to irresponsibly mouth off and lash out,
>
> wrong AGAIN

Oh? I think your behavior speaks for itself.

> > and this is not free speech. You also_ want whatever you
> > say to be accepted as 'word of the law',
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not even in the slightest.

> just as in the
> > the above attmpt at attempting to pass as a fact something
> > which isn't,
>
> which of course you were able to recognize
> becasue its something you do every time you type a word

No dearest. I recognize it because I SEE YOU DOING IT.
Like it or not, I am not together, with you, trapped in a mirror
of self-reflection. This is how YOU_ recognize things :)

> and lastly, what you want is the freedom
> > to APPROPRIATE other people's 'intellectual' and otherwise
> > 'intangible' property–and specifically images.
> > Images are the result of the essence-capability, work,
> > and effort of individuals–and you have absolutely no
> > RIGHTS to the results of other humans work unless
> > they choose to, of their own volition to delegate
> > such rights to you.
>
> false … if its put into the public sphere then i have a right to use it.

No, you don't. You have no rights to Vermeer's paintings,
for example. You have no 'rights' to corporate logos, etc. You have NO
rights over other humans work unless they EXPLICITLY allow so.
What you are advocating is rape of others' work.


> i have the right to challenge the message and the messanger –
> as long as i don't try to sell (aquire fiscal profit) from the effort

Using other people's works is not 'challenging'
the messenger. It's attempting to appropriate power.
Something which you lack.
In order to CHALLENGE you must possess at least equalling
power and quite a bit of intelligence.


> just because ordinary citizens don't have millions of dollars to produce
> and market their message … should not inhibit their right to challenge
> the messages that are being thrown at them

Drivel.

> >
> > And that applies to physical property, intellectual
> > property, and all other 'intangible' ascpects of the human
> > including masks, which area natural_ and necessary_
>
> coward

Nothing cowardly about what I wrote.

> > quite admirable ascpects of the human and other Beings.
>
> deluded being

Not even in the slightest, dearest.
Nor are you capable of jusdging who is deluded.

As for challenging, it's apparent what it constitutes in:
surface appropriations, infantile mimicry, stomping of your foot,
screaming wrong and finger pointing.

> >
> > > >
> > > > How about the personal threats you made towards my physical being?
>
> > >
> > > liar. i said that you were a coward living in fear because you
> > > intentionally hide behind a mask when you go out in public.
> >
> > Oh no dearest, I do_ nothing of the sort. I USE masks.
>
> detached, deluded being

Oh the horror. Detachment is an insult now.
What was that about them Buddhist teachers?
Delusions I suffer not from ,love. Haven't in a number of years :)

> > I do not HIDE behind masks. Your attempts at insisting that
> > your own programmatic association of HIDING and MASKING is
> > an actuality is thoroughly psychotic.
>
> your constant use of the word "psychotic" is very amusing.

It's nothing of the sort. You REACT with patronizing 'amusement'.
My use of the word is devoid of emotional content and simply accurate.

> i get this image of you
> (a tiny little coward of a man)

Here goes the self-importance condescension knee-jerk.


> riding around on a bus (scared out of you mind)

You wish that I were don't you?
Unfortunately dearest these images are only reflective of you :)

> and
> constantly thinking that everyone you see is psychotic.

Idon't think.

> your a very angry little man.

I am not angry dearest, nor am I a 'little man'.
All you're doing is attempting belittlement in order to avoid
accepting that what I write about you is True, which dearest, it is :)
And today you trapped yourself :)

> > Moreso, this is the impulse of a passively voyeristic and
> > crude asshole
>
> wrong AGAIN … detached, deluded being

Not at all, Detached yes, deluded no :)

> who has no capability of understanding and respecting
> > the idea of privacy as well as that you have no 'rights'
> > to other humans at all. None whatsoever.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Stomp that foot again. Angry little man :)

> >
> > > then i said
> > > that i thought that it was a good idea because if you ever revealed your
> > > [true] self to someone … they would probable beat the fuck out of you.
> >
> > No dearest, you said that YOU would 'beat the fuck out of me'.
>
> liar … (either give the date and subject
> heading of the thread where i said that or
> forever be known for the liar that you are)

I am not a liar. Boo-boo childish idiocy.

> > Don't attempt to change your words.
>
> i'm not

Yes you are.

> Nevermind the psychotic
> > bullyism of attempting to force the 'self' out of its
> > natural + conscious veiling by brute threats.
>
> false projection

No projection here love. And avoid attempting to mimic words
adults use that you don't understand in order to add validity
and weight to what you're really doing: knee-jerk abrogation
of self-responsibility.


> > The true self of all_ humans is veiled for a reason.
>
> which is … oh enlightened one ????

Hidden from you.

> >
> > Additionally, don't attempt to make it seem like
> > your brute impulses belong to 'just anyone' and 'are normal'.
> > Most humans in fact don't share your psychotic idiocy.
>
> that's your opinion

No, itisn't. It's a statement of fact.

> >
> > > > Hmm.. right.
> > >
> > > wrong AGAIN
> >
> > Ever get the feeling that you're shooting blanks?
>
> no


> > Because you should be, by now.
>
> wrong AGAIN
>
Stomp the foot :)

> > > > > > Only in your deluded brain.
> >
> > > yes, you are
> >
> > I am not you, ape.
>
> i know you are but what am i?

Childishness isn't insight dsearest.
Defensiveness is more like what you're doing.
And defensiveness is neither defense, nor challenge,
more like you're curling in a ball and allowing yourself
to be kicked around.

> > No dearest. I am not describing myself,
>
> yes, you are

Sorry, you're not capable of making such statements.

>
> > I am describing you,
>
> no, your not

Yes dearest, I am :)

> > and you're not getting away with
> > nya nya childish finger pointing.
>
> "nya nya" ???????? laughing

Spastic posturing.

> > > > > > There have been no lies nor misinterpretations.
> > > > >
> > > > > yes, you have
> > > >
> > > > I have what?
> > >
> > > nothing to offer
> >
> > Absolutely nothing.
>
> thief. stop stealing from easter philosophy

I am not a thief dearest.
There is no 'eastern philosophy' except for in the West.
What you call 'eastern philosophy' has been given to me
by right.


> > Humans are not created to 'offer'
> > things to other humans. Nor are they capable of
> > offering anything, seeing as all that they have
> > has been given and granted anyways.
>
> idiot

I'm afraid not. But keep shooting yourself in the foot,
if you like. You're now knee-jerking to basic facts
about humans.

> > The obsession
> > with 'giving and receiving' is a childish-stuck
> > in-your-arse energetically vampiric feeding
> > mechanism.
>
> amusing

Not at all. You're simply attempting patronizing dismissal.

> > Nobody on the entire planet owes you anything,
> > and the entire meaning of 'giving' proper is functioning
> > at one's BEST at all times.
>
> something you know NOTHING about

No dearest, I am in fact perfectly knowledgeable about
giving proper. And that is a fact that you cannot alter.
All you're doing is attempting 'discreditation' because you
hate hearing and seeing your real state.

I'm not sure you even recognize how masochstic and weak you are.


> > C'est tout.
>
> bless you
>
> > There is no 'giving' no 'feeding' no 'someone doing things
> > for' etc.
>
> psychotic rantings BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

Yours are, indeed.

> You're not a baby. And natural_ cooperation
> > is the cooperation resulting from independent
> > and 'free' individuals co-existing.
>
> that smells like Ayn Rand. are you stealing again?

I have never started stealing, and no it smells nothinglike Ayn Rand.
Your programmatic knee-jerks are your own problem.

> > The true_ meaning of 'giving'
>
> somethng you know NOTHING about

I do. And additionally, you're not qualified to
judge who knows and who doesn't.

> is cultivation and
> > development of personal ability to DO.
>
> not … to DO … to BE (DOBE … or … doobie … get it?).
> you should … you really need to relax.

I am perfectly relaxed dearest. And yes,it is the ability to DO.
Your ignorance is quite apparent.


> > Not energetic
> > leeching,
>
> wrong AGAIN

what is wrong dearest?

> and NOT taking from others what is not yours,
> > and certainly NOT attempting to bash over the head those who
> > are ahead of you,
>
> well then you have nothing to worry about because you are the most
> retarded person i have ever met

I am hardly retarded dearest. keep your cheap attempts at insults
at yourself.


> and NOT attempting to 'steal' their
> > personal power as you are attempting to do
> > HERE,
>
> wrong AGAIN … you have no power to steal

There is no 'power' 'to steal'.
Stealing is not powerful. Nor can one STEAL power.
But one can delude others that one possesses it
and this is what a con.-man is:
and what you are.

> and with your idiotic insistence on appropriating
> > the results of such efforts.
> >
> > I have absolutely no intentions of 'giving' you anything,
> > and especially so considering the worthless scum that you are.
>
> i know you are but what am i?

No dearest, This is you :)

>
> >
> > Things are given in accordance with internal merit, and yours
> > is zero.
>
> and what goes around comes around … KARMA is coming you evil fuck

What goes around comes around? Sorry, but this is not Karma.
Nor is any KARMA coming after me at all.
Evil? Right.

> > > > You are responsible for your own behavior however,
> > > > and direct citation of your words are not 'misinterpretations'.
> > >
> > > they are when you change the context and/or project incorrect intent
> >
> > Nobody has changed the context or projected 'incorrect intent'.
>
> yes, you have

Not at all.

> > Neither do you know what intent is,
>
> yes, i do

No dearest you dont.

> >nor how it works.
>
> yes, i do

As above.

>
> > It's a word that you saw me use and now are monkeying around.
>
> you're arrogant enough to believe that crap

I am neither arrogant, nor believing.
What I wrote is correct, and that is patently obvious.'

> > First: you attempted to 'run away' from the original conversation
>
> wrong AGAIN

No.

> > by attempting to 'divorce' the conversation from its original
> > by screaming 'no' at everything said,
>
> wrong AGAIN. i'm stating "no" because you are an idiot and i disagree
> with most of what you say

Not at all. You are SCREAMINg 'no'–no cannot be 'stated'–but you sure
would like it won't you?–because you dislike the reflection of what you
really are. An idiot I am not, as for your 'disagreement' hahe.


> > and now attempting to say
> > the context is changed.
>
> keep spinning doc

No spinning dearest. I don't engage in the wishful delusions inside your
brain.

> > It isn't.
>
> at times, you have used my words out of context

No, I have not :) But unlike you, I know what context is.

> > And your cheap trick was
> > predictable from mile away.
>
> you are responsible for your own actions

I certainly am.. My responsibility for my actions
does not JUSTIFY what you do.

> >
> > Secondly, there is no such tning as 'correct' or 'incorrect'
> > intent.
>
> yes, there is … the interpretation of malice in one's words when there was
> no malice in the heart

There was no interpretation of malice. There is no malice?
Your words reek of it. malice, condescension, attempts to feed
energetically, attempts to debase, attempts to disbalance,
attempts to project and imprint your own state onto
others, etc..

> > Thirdly, intent lacks the quality of being projected.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not in the least.

> > Again you're simply mimicrying
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not in theleast monkey.

> > words that you see me use
> > in attempt to APPROPRIATE the APPEARANCE of someone
> > who KNOWS WHAT THEY MEAN nad POSSESSES UNDERSTANDING of
> > such matters
>
> becasue you are the only one that understands the meaning of these really
> really big words

As far as you and I are concerned yes.
I am the only one. You don't understand them, and you are illiterate.

> > (just like you want to POSE as an ARTIST).
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not in the least.

>
> >
> > Lastly, your DRIVEL is not motivated by INTENT.
>
> "intent" exists because most forms of communication are limited and
> impercise.

'intentions' are not 'intent'. Or intent.

> unles, of course, you are a detaced, deluded fool that has his own
> meaning for every single word

I am detached. Deluded,I am no. Your illiteracy I don't share.
The meanings of the words I use, you have no access to,
because you are powerless. And I make it so on purpose.
But the meanings are there if one can read.

> > You have none.
>
> yes, i do

You have calculatory brain-chatter. C'est tout.

> You're a brain obsessed raggedy doll, whom anyone /
> > anything can and does kick around freely.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Quite obviously not.

> INTENT my dearest
> > is an internal quality of facing one's true fate, and among
> > other things it implies the fully conscious awareness of one's
> > initial worthlessness, masks, and lack of power.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not in the least.

> > Impotent noises from an ape.
>
> i know you are but what am i?

The picture describes your real state, love.

> > > > You are_ responsible for your own behavior.
> > > > Don't attempt to abrogate the responsibility
> > > > for your murderous brute behavior and psychotic
> > > > verbiage to me.
> > >
> > > you are the murderous neanderthal
> >
> > You're talking about yourself baby.
>
> no, i'm talking about you

You lack the capacityto talk about anything but yourself :)

> > Repeating what I wrote about you is impotence.
>
> original words from a detached, deluded fool

No dearest, and no matter how many times you attempt to sling
debasory projections about, the motivation of your behavior
is one: you are a malicious, murderous, ignorant idiot,
who cannotstand the idea that someone is actually
of his own power (something you lack) and possesses enough
authority to accurately perceive and depict your behavior,
aside from the mask you attempt to peddle left and right :)

> >
> > > >
> > > > NOBODY besides you is responsible for what you post.
> > >
> > > communication is a two person sport.
> >
> > No it isn't. Communication is not a sport either.
>
> yes, it is. and "sport" was just a metaphor … ya moron

Sport is not a metaphor, nor is applicable in the situation.
Throwing meaningless associations about is NOT metaphor.
The only moron here is you :)

> >
> > > you're not reading me.
> >
> > I am reading_ you quite correctly.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not in the least :)

> > Your problem is that I'm not buying your facade.
>
> your not a problem … your quite amusing and a little interesting

I am not 'amusing' dearest. Nor am I interesting.

> >
> > > you only see what you want to see.
> >
> > I 'want' to see nothing dearest.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not at all.

> > I SEE exactly what you are doing as_ you are doing it.
>
> i'm that predictable eh?

Predictability hasn't got anything to do with it.

> > what you want to pass on as 'conversation' is my passively
> > accepting, reflecting, and nodding to the pretty icon
> > of yourself that you fancy you are.
>
> then … i guess i should thank you for your time. do you charge by the
> hour?

I suggest that you re-read the passage. You want passive reflection,
not conversation. It never occurred, hence you're pissy :)

> You also want
> > your psychotic ignorant 'statements' to be passively
> > accepted as true.
>
> wrong AGAIN … i'm looking for a challenge and instead

You're looking for a challenge? Now that is hilarious.
You've avoided EVERY challenge so far.
No dearest, what youre looking for is for ways to feed your
self-importance, and ways to run away from the real challenges.

> all i get is a deluded fool with a mesiah complex.

I am neither deluded, nor foolish, nor do I have any 'messiah
complexes'. rather the opposite.


> Seriously, i can get you the number of a good therapist …

Thanks, but keeo your egotistical patronizing to yourself.

> all you have to do is ask. of course, the first step is admitting
> that you have a problem … are you capable of that?

I have no problems dearest. And your attempts to present me
as someone who 'has a problem' is simply more running away :)

The brute tactics of the 'therapist' is a cheap empty trick.
On the other hand, I did mean my suggestion that you have
yourself commited to a mental institution :)
rarely has there been someone so densely locked in withinhis own ego.

> Conversation dearest, is not something
> > you're either attempting or capable of.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not at all.

> >
> > Only myopic narking derived from your brain,
> > attempting to mirror the little bit that is 'perceived'.
>
> very good stuff. is it copyrighted :)

You're the author of your own drivel, don't ask me.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

Hallo.

Cowardice wrapped as proposal for draw, attempted to be passed on as
(internal) victory. The wonders of the Universe.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> KAREI, i received the last email just before heading out for a few a
> days on the boat … and decided to print it (all 38 pages) and take it
> with me.

To which your contribution was multiple attempts at causing damage
to one who is unaware, shouting, psyching up 'efforts,' attempting
to induce fear (of which most humans including yourself_ are not free,
and which isn't something to (ab)use against a person, nor is there
any 'power' in doing such things, which are little but incapacitation
of the intended 'victim' due to one's inability to tolerate a strong,
healthy, and successful as a being other), and various other cheap
attempts at weak_, murderous, brute behavior. Which is what I addressed
in your behavior originally, and 'we' are not going to change the
subject. Not to mention that you're attempting to relegate this to
a 'fighting play'–which it isn't, in order to swie under the carpet
that what was said about you is valid.

> i read (and re-read) it … and i'm just blown away.

> i have never before witnessed one such as you.

I'm afraid you haven't 'witnessed' me at all.
But witness this: you're charmed by your own self-reflection, and you
are attempting to toss it over my way as well: there is little
'charming' in this display, but then again, you never chose to play
the 'charming' way, because you fancy that what you do is worthehile:
and it isn't. There is nothing 'powerful' about being an ignorant brute
bashing everything in one's way, be it by means of physical,
'intellectual'-mental, or (lower)-emotional way. This is being a
slave, and attempting to drag everybody down toyour slave-state.

If you want a 'challenge* here's one for you: recognize yourself
as you are, not as you want to think that you are, and most of the time,
you're not even 'wanting' but knee-jerking to an 'image' of power
that you're going to 'fit yourself into'.

Does it matter if it's the bad corporate guy, the saint, the martyr,
savior of the people, intellectual,, artist, politician, activist,
or what have you? Your particular mould is showing to be someone
who is highly_ programmaed by US TV/video-media imagery, and you are
wearing a suffocatingly thick layer of this material, all proped up by
tremendous faacious self-importance (self-pity), weakness, and egotism.

> your committment and dedication to your "online persona" is unnerving

This is not an online persona, no matter how much you try to insist
on that. Nor is what is involved 'commitment' or dedication' to a
persona, online or otherwise. Avoid attempting to dress me up in
pseudo-explanatory terminology that doesn't fit. I_ 'wear the mask'
and your 'explanations' are little but attempts at controlling that,
by verbiage and pseudo-flattery, paired with cheap attempts at
establisgment at rappaport by means of identificatory 'reflection'.

> but …
>
> then again …
>
> something similar may be said about me as well

No, it couldn't. And don't even attempt to think about
'shinging with reflected light'.

> = mask??? (is that the mask of which you speak?)

No. You're wearing a mask that has been 'forced' on you.
That you're unconscious of it, doesn't make it any better,
as any one can 'control' 'you' via that mask. *Fighting
corporations' and othersucj nonsense is part of that
'programmatic' control-mechanism, however, I'm not suggesting
any grand conspiracy theories as regards to what creates it.

> regarding whether or not i am aware of my mask … i would say no,
> i'm not.

And nevettheless, it uses you to harm other humans,
and to make matters better, it destroys you_ in the process.
Nice, isn't it?

> your comments and feedback have had an odd effect … and i've decided to make a few changes to my project. i'm sure you'll just love it (not). but it may be an improvement nonetheless

May _be. Yet what I wrote was valid. You're not requested to swallow
it, however, it wuld be nice if you re-consider that broadcasting
derogatory comments about humans (esp. 'they are so damned predictable'
and 'can't escape') is akin to bashing them over the head repeatedly.
Moreso than some ambiguous 'corporations' does that 'contribute'
to state of humanity. And maybe you could also try to look at what
'artists and writers' really_ do–and I mean real artists, as these
days, many who are not attempt to pass themselves as such.

No better than 'religion'.

You're welcome with regards the 'feedback'.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42