On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> A Critical Analysis of Mouchette.org
Certainly. Why not apply this 'critical analysis' to the general
inftantilism of the sexual impulse as encouraged by adults
in themselves, and others, and which is directy related to what I
have been addressing: ie the immaturity of the psycho-sexual
(belief) mechanism, and the manner in which the art-world
in general, and net.art mailing lists in general are fertile
playgrounds for the 'predatory' murderous impulses of
the ego-conflated voyeristic impulses of the subscribers?
> After a request from an artist claiming to be responsible for
> Mouchette.org in regards to my recent statements on the syndicate
> mailing list concerning the site, I intend to address how the web site
> http://www.mouchette.org can be seen as a glorification of sexual abuse
> and a celebration of pedophilia against young girls.
And why does this stop at 'young girls' and not the realization
that even though the physical body grows automatically, the
sexual–and higher centers in the human being do not grow AUTOMATICALLY,
and that you live in a society in which 'fucking' with humans
on various levels taking advantage of their state of unconsciousness,
is a perfectly acceotable behavior?
> For those who
> aren't familiar, the premise of the website is that a 12 year old girl
> by the name of Mouchette is going to commit suicide on her 13th
> birthday, and the website is a collection of her art work.
>
> I want to be careful in explaining that I am not intending to accuse the
> artist responsible for Mouchette.org of being a pedophile, nor that
> Mouchette.org advocates sex with children, merely that the art can be
> read as a glorification of youth sexualization.
Or in fact as a symptom of the general behavior of the 'collective'
over the internet: that is under the 'guise' of 'art' all sorts
of mental, emotional and sexual abuse is being passed on as
acceptable–and in fact intelligent, and clever. A behavior of which
you're not 'unguilty'.
> It has been mentioned to
> me that pedophilia against young girls has been a component of
> "legitimate" and "acceptable" art for centuries, including the
> obligatory references to Lolita, although I tend to think that we are
> not encouraged to feel sympathy for Humbert,
The impulse of infantile males to look for either a 'mommy' or 'little
girl' (because children feed on parents sexual energy biologically,
and little girls are too incapable of defending themselves (cf. Joseph
McElroy's behavior and his insistent and continuous attempts to 'feed'
and present that as 'power of giving', his 'childish' behavior,
his infantile identification attempts which work on an immature
sexual drive (there is no you and I, only 'we'–something which only
a parasitic feeder would say, his continuous attempts to 'force' love'
and 'friendship', etc). Shall we say NN's 'xy destruktiv' behavior?
Or your personal attempts at reduction of sexually mature and adult_
concepts such as beauty and intelligence into respectively, victimized
female 'prettiness' and emasculated 'cleverness' instead of
intelligence? Nevermind th related_ 'disempowered' wisdom (a female
principle) into cleverness, via emasculation of the son? Reduction
of mature behavior to disempowered 'cuteness'? Bashing of goths?
Rock and roll stars? Anyone who is actually in possession of
self-authority, autonomy, and power (whichis directly related to sexual
energy?). In the face of your own behvaior, this outcry for mouchette's
sak is simply laughable, if not another attempt at 'good citizen'
posturing.
> to feed on whereas with Mouchettes
> website, we are directly encouraged to participate in virtual
> interactions against a young girl.
Yet virtual interaction against internally immature humans in the form
of abuse is not only just fine, but the eptome of artistic expression.
> I see this as an attempt to evoke "the inner pedophile"
There is no 'inner pedophile'. It is an attempt to evoke the ego
driven sadistic self-destructive impulse–that is mouchette.org
is a passive-aggressive device, which attempts to trip humans
emotionally and sexually and an attempt 'to trip' that self-destructive
ego-button –much like your 'mockery' and 'criticism' of others has
done to them, and the self-destruction it also engenders in the
perpetrator.
On numerous occasions you_, and Joseph, and NN exhibit this kind of
'passive-aggressiveness' which is attempted to be passed on as
love, wisdom, and consciousness.
> and to relate child sexuality with "normal" (for
> lack of a better word) adult sexuality, something that Nabokov's text
> inherently condemns.
Does he? Nabokov doesn't condemn anything.
> Nor do I believe that because mankind has a
> tradition of fetishizing young girls,
And vampirizing fresh adults full of life-force.
> it makes an acceptable case for perpetuating it.
That's kinda funny: your actions contradict your 'belief'.
> The oppression of women has been a component of
> fundamentalist religion for centuries
Swiping generalization, which is meaningless.
Religion hasn't oppressed anyone; it is humans who have abused_ the
concept of religion–ie taking advantage of humans spiritual immaturity
via a fake IMAGE of religion (a fake OTHER, typically introduced
via the 'trap' of mimicry, identification, attachment and ego-possession
attempted to be passed on as MIRRORING (a capacity of an 'emlightened'
i n d i v i d u a l (and yes I mean individual, not collective–there is
no enlightened 'collective'–this is another abuse which I shan't go
into at the moment))–something which is thoroughly exemplified
by NN and Joseph's recent behavior (naturralich, they do not 'like'
religion (and no I'm not advocating religion, however misunderstanding
of what religion is is a delusion and leads to enslavement)), and which
is ridiculously perpetuated by self-professed spiritual hacks world-
wide and_ in the art-world.
> and I don't feel like this makes
> an acceptable case for sects that glorify female genital mutilation.
But mockery and verbal abuse of another is just fine?
It doesn't affect their sexual drive, you think?
> I can't really see any other interpretation for "music" that is made
> with the sounds of little girls crying or moaning depending on where you
> "penetrate" the screen with your "finger."
Yet you refuse to hear your own body's 'crying' when you are 'laughing
oh so hard' and 'just having fun'–or you refuse to consider what you're
'pushing' when you speak to another human, especially behind a
computer screen?. How did it go: If the person can't take my emotional
abuse fuck him/her? Ah yes.
> If this is presented as some sort of redemption for the abuses that
> Mouchette has been implied to endure,
Just like humans are supposed to endure your abuse?
Just like anyone_ is supposed to endure abuse perpetuated on these
lists?
> it is a poor one that serves no function,
Abuse and violence doesn't serve any function.
> aside from the further titillation of the audience and the
> degradation of the fictional child.
Just like your e-mail does. And many_ of your artworks, which
function on the same principle as mouchette, yet when Pet Name
addressed exactly that in your work, you weaseled out, just like
you attempted to 'weasel out' of what I was saying by attempts
at degradation and debasement.
Yet, 'effectively' mouchette.org does_ demonstrate
that in GENERAL humans attempt to peddle their egos (self-importance)
as goodness, and their FEEDING PITY (condescension) towards the
'desired' object of consumption as 'love'. Nevermind that the ego
in the West is conflated with a programmatic
christic-martyr-crucifiction savior-messiah impulse, due to above
mentioned abuse of religion (that is the egos of long dead
vampiric 'religious' power-heads imprinted onto their 'beloved '
victims). Cf. NN's behavior, Joseph's behavior, as well as yours
by making claims that you have 'influences' from Zen and Sufism
which you don't, as all of those emphasis on practice_ not reading
'about it' and not 'thinking about it' as well as your pretension
that projection and forcing of identification of your ego is 'empathy'
and condescension is 'compassion'.
Again, one may wosh to re-examine the statement that revolutions
are attempts by those weak and not in 'power' to assume positions
of power, and apply that to Eryk's and Joseph's 'rebellion against
religion' meanwhile both engaging in pseudo-religios attempts
of controlling the audience, and ERyk's emotional knee-jerk pleads about
them politicians who emotionally-knee jerk the population.
Our hearts go 'lub-dub'. Not.
> The final act of Mouchette's life is still that of a victim. Once she has committed to suicide, there can be
> no redemption; and Mouchette lives permanently as a martyr to the
> predatory lust that created her.
The universal installation of the christ-martyr in art galleries and
museums world-wide. And the impression of such behavior on 'young' and
'new' artists. AHHH. And what a wonderful and correct_ word: lust.
So how about everyone stop peddling their FEEDING SCREECHING LUST
as 'luv' and quit beating in yourselves in the chest about your
'compassion,' 'humanity' 'the power of giving etc.
Not to mention to understand that LOVE is not SEX, and that the relation
to other human beings is not via your reproductive organs. Nevermind
the psychic attempts at 'rape' by waving one's sexual organs about and
preaching luuuuuuuuuuuuuv. Sex is a mutual consent kind of thing.
Humans are not 'one' 'collective' sexually–in fact the sexual force
or kundalini is both male and female (unlike mating organs towards which
sexuality can_ be directed, but is not equivalent to) and UNIQUE in
each human. Moreso, everyone is given more than enough sexual energy
individually and there is no 'giving and taking' going on in a HEALTHY
ADULT sexual drive. Which is by the way one of many_ things
Annie Sprinkle's show is about, Liza Sabbater-Nappier. She's not
just running around being sexual and passing what she does as 'art'
because everything is art. Speaking of sexual negativity and violence
towards others, maybe you should reconsider your commentary towards
her work.
> It is a perfect resolution to this
> threadbare narrative,
Equally as threadbare as yours.
> since this ending merely glosses over the actual
> effects of sexual trauma.
Just like you gloss over the effects of your own behavior.
> As if to say that a child, once used, is worthless, and so it is made to disappear.
We will feed on you, or filter / censor you :)
> This convenient elimination of concern for consequences to the adult psychology of the victim keeps
> the child in perpetual youth.
As if. You live in a society in which perpetual youth, and 'playing'
I'm just 'playing' hihi tickle-and-slap I want I want infantilic
behavior towards everything including spirituality and sexuality is
THE modus operandi and abrogation of responsibility for one's actions
is the status quo to be maintained. Nevermind the perpetual
'invisible' victimizations of thousands.
> This is an extension of basic pedophiliac fantasies,
> an eternally innocent child to be used without consequence
> and therefore without remorse.
Standard artistic practice. Consider Mark Tribe's treatment of
his 'child' rhizome.
> (The same impulse which drives most child
> molesters towards children who live in poverty and are considered
> "neglected.")
The same impulse which pushes artistic individuals to be OUTCASTS,
VICTIMS, and MARTYRS, but especially OUTCASTS.
Therein you have the relationship between the art insitution and the
artist, the underlining mirror of it all being the relationship between
the 'collective' of unconscious individuals which tries to invade the
individual by presenting itself to be the fragmented reality of
the unenlightened individual's unconsciousness. We are you. Really.
ON GOES the IRON MASK (hello David Goldschmidt + Marc Garret), like a
lid on one's sexuality, ON goes the LEASH on one's attention (you must
believe in meeeeeeeeeeeeeee, look at me me, I'm a star, I shine, and
if you look at me and admire me–ahoh howasit Joseph, to watch is
the greatest service, you look to me as a dog to a bone? that's nice
dearest attempting to victimize another's attention–you're such
a clever boy–especially with that masochistic 'I love the man who
destroys me''victim as beauty' pose), and ON GOES THE SHOW, the
spectacle of sexual abuse of adults hihi, until they are sucked dry, and
their corpses tossed away auf uber Auschwitz. Being Fed onis POWER,
really. Really, it's power. You're not given sexual energy in order to
evolve, and achieve various stages of conscious behavior (which means
also a form of 'immortality') no–you're born to live, fuck, reproduce,
be fed on, die, and be discared as husks.
> One might ask why it matters if a website includes an "acknowledgment"
> of sexual instincts in children, but it's not as clear cut as that.
> There is a rampant tendency among pedophiles to defend themselves with
> the argument that their victims wanted to have sex;
Or victims who deserved to be mocked, brutalized, fuck them if they
can't take a joke, I can do whatever the fuck I want, pushing buttons
is clever, shhsshsshhshh individual development is a sssssecret
knowledge which belongs to only the sssselect few, but only if you dance
to someone else's dance and not your (kundalini's) own (joshua zeidner,
NN, Joseph McElroy)
> that children can
> and will deliberately seduce adults as a result of "hormones" or some
> misguided desire for affection. Because of this, the idea has made in
> roads in our culture;
The German is always happy to peddle his kultur.
> usually attributed to "liberal values" though they
> are, in fact, simply a defense tactic to garner what little public
> support pedophiles can muster.
Well they could just call it art. After all, the stuff of CANNOT
is the 'meat and potatoes' of artists, isn't it Ivan Pope?
Ah the forbidden delights of violence and abuse.
> situations? Is Mouchette trying to seduce us? What does this say about
> the cultural acceptance of such predatory instincts?
What DOES it babe?
> I point to the Barrett case because it is also a horrifying example of
> what happens in a culture of acceptable exploitation.
Good grief; of which you're a primary mover. But you will always scream
at easy pickings such as 'politicians' 'child molestors' 'rock stars'
'goths', anything, just to avoid the reality of your own asshole state.
> It is interesting to note that this same double standard also applies to
> Mouchette when it comes to criticism of the web site. I've noticed how
> other critics of net.art address the issue of Mouchette.org's content
> based on their gender. While Josephine Bosma, a female critic, makes the
> case that Mouchette is "based on staggeringly repulsive male fantasies"
> [from http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?1156 ], a male critic, after
> discussing at some length the pieces in which we are asked to taste
> Mouchettes tongue, makes this statement:
Oops there goes ERyk's exploitation of genders. As if females are
incapable of this predatorial behavior, snif.
> I'm not going to argue that this writer literally "enjoyed" the pieces
> sexual overtones, but at the very least, the entire text proves that
> such net.art criticism can be focused on the idea of technology and
> theory so much that it blinds us to the actual content an artist creates
> with it.
Oh but you attempt to blind with technology theoryand emotional jerks
your behavior all the time. And Sufism. And zen. halleluja, Praise the
lord. Every man a preacher, preaching the law according to HIS BOOK.
Jesus ist dead, long live Jesus.
> As I've mentioned, one of the biggest concerns I have is the
> "mainstreaming" efforts by pedophile organizations such as NAMBLA
> towards a concept of "acceptable pedophilia."
Yes, I'm sure you lose sleep over it, and are actively attempting to
prevent it.
> At the same time I am
> aware that work can be misinterpreted and that some "checklists" for
> sexual abuse are capable of making almost any individual into a
> pedophile. One website defending the notion of pedophilia has a list of
> oaths that pedophiles should take that read like the ambitions of anyone
> who "respects kids". I don't think that looking at Mouchette.org will
> breed a generation of child molesters. I want to be perfectly clear: the
> subject is not whether the creator of Mouchette.org [who remains
> anonymous] is a pedophile, but simply whether or not the site can be
> read as mainstreaming, putting out the idea that children are capable of
> seducing adults, an extension of the classic "she was asking for it /
> dressed for rape" defense by male rapists. My conclusion is that this
> can be read as the primary message within the work.
> I am not attempting to censor any artists,
Of course you're not such a nice guy that you are :)
> nor do I believe that art
> addressing the real impacts of sexual abuse would be problematic;
No, it's only filtered.
> nor
> that explorations of sexuality are "immoral". I am not a defender of
> policies which aim to child proof the world, nor do I believe in a world
> of 100% political correctness. I believe that we have to begin to look
> at net.art as a real art form that is interested in ideas and messages,
> and that we begin to evaluate such work on the merits of these
> intentions. To do this, we must look at the ideas and messages that
> artists are putting across in the work, for better or for ill.
As long as we don't do that yo YOUR work, n'est pas?
xoxo
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Hey K+ the key to a successful rant is to make it funny. As it is, you are
looking pretty ludicrous. As if I were the great and evil shaman. Ask some
people around here, they will tell you, I AIN'T THAT IMPORTANT.
The jokes on you.
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
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> > A Critical Analysis of Mouchette.org
>
> Certainly. Why not apply this 'critical analysis' to the general
> inftantilism of the sexual impulse as encouraged by adults
> in themselves, and others, and which is directy related to what I
> have been addressing: ie the immaturity of the psycho-sexual
> (belief) mechanism, and the manner in which the art-world
> in general, and net.art mailing lists in general are fertile
> playgrounds for the 'predatory' murderous impulses of
> the ego-conflated voyeristic impulses of the subscribers?
>
> > After a request from an artist claiming to be responsible for
> > Mouchette.org in regards to my recent statements on the syndicate
> > mailing list concerning the site, I intend to address how the web site
> > http://www.mouchette.org can be seen as a glorification of sexual abuse
> > and a celebration of pedophilia against young girls.
>
> And why does this stop at 'young girls' and not the realization
> that even though the physical body grows automatically, the
> sexual–and higher centers in the human being do not grow AUTOMATICALLY,
> and that you live in a society in which 'fucking' with humans
> on various levels taking advantage of their state of unconsciousness,
> is a perfectly acceotable behavior?
>
> > For those who
> > aren't familiar, the premise of the website is that a 12 year old girl
> > by the name of Mouchette is going to commit suicide on her 13th
> > birthday, and the website is a collection of her art work.
> >
> > I want to be careful in explaining that I am not intending to accuse the
> > artist responsible for Mouchette.org of being a pedophile, nor that
> > Mouchette.org advocates sex with children, merely that the art can be
> > read as a glorification of youth sexualization.
>
> Or in fact as a symptom of the general behavior of the 'collective'
> over the internet: that is under the 'guise' of 'art' all sorts
> of mental, emotional and sexual abuse is being passed on as
> acceptable–and in fact intelligent, and clever. A behavior of which
> you're not 'unguilty'.
>
> > It has been mentioned to
> > me that pedophilia against young girls has been a component of
> > "legitimate" and "acceptable" art for centuries, including the
> > obligatory references to Lolita, although I tend to think that we are
> > not encouraged to feel sympathy for Humbert,
>
> The impulse of infantile males to look for either a 'mommy' or 'little
> girl' (because children feed on parents sexual energy biologically,
> and little girls are too incapable of defending themselves (cf. Joseph
> McElroy's behavior and his insistent and continuous attempts to 'feed'
> and present that as 'power of giving', his 'childish' behavior,
> his infantile identification attempts which work on an immature
> sexual drive (there is no you and I, only 'we'–something which only
> a parasitic feeder would say, his continuous attempts to 'force' love'
> and 'friendship', etc). Shall we say NN's 'xy destruktiv' behavior?
> Or your personal attempts at reduction of sexually mature and adult_
> concepts such as beauty and intelligence into respectively, victimized
> female 'prettiness' and emasculated 'cleverness' instead of
> intelligence? Nevermind th related_ 'disempowered' wisdom (a female
> principle) into cleverness, via emasculation of the son? Reduction
> of mature behavior to disempowered 'cuteness'? Bashing of goths?
> Rock and roll stars? Anyone who is actually in possession of
> self-authority, autonomy, and power (whichis directly related to sexual
> energy?). In the face of your own behvaior, this outcry for mouchette's
> sak is simply laughable, if not another attempt at 'good citizen'
> posturing.
>
> > to feed on whereas with Mouchettes
> > website, we are directly encouraged to participate in virtual
> > interactions against a young girl.
>
> Yet virtual interaction against internally immature humans in the form
> of abuse is not only just fine, but the eptome of artistic expression.
>
> > I see this as an attempt to evoke "the inner pedophile"
>
> There is no 'inner pedophile'. It is an attempt to evoke the ego
> driven sadistic self-destructive impulse–that is mouchette.org
> is a passive-aggressive device, which attempts to trip humans
> emotionally and sexually and an attempt 'to trip' that self-destructive
> ego-button –much like your 'mockery' and 'criticism' of others has
> done to them, and the self-destruction it also engenders in the
> perpetrator.
>
> On numerous occasions you_, and Joseph, and NN exhibit this kind of
> 'passive-aggressiveness' which is attempted to be passed on as
> love, wisdom, and consciousness.
>
> > and to relate child sexuality with "normal" (for
> > lack of a better word) adult sexuality, something that Nabokov's text
> > inherently condemns.
>
> Does he? Nabokov doesn't condemn anything.
>
> > Nor do I believe that because mankind has a
> > tradition of fetishizing young girls,
>
> And vampirizing fresh adults full of life-force.
>
> > it makes an acceptable case for perpetuating it.
>
> That's kinda funny: your actions contradict your 'belief'.
>
> > The oppression of women has been a component of
> > fundamentalist religion for centuries
>
> Swiping generalization, which is meaningless.
> Religion hasn't oppressed anyone; it is humans who have abused_ the
> concept of religion–ie taking advantage of humans spiritual immaturity
> via a fake IMAGE of religion (a fake OTHER, typically introduced
> via the 'trap' of mimicry, identification, attachment and ego-possession
> attempted to be passed on as MIRRORING (a capacity of an 'emlightened'
> i n d i v i d u a l (and yes I mean individual, not collective–there is
> no enlightened 'collective'–this is another abuse which I shan't go
> into at the moment))–something which is thoroughly exemplified
> by NN and Joseph's recent behavior (naturralich, they do not 'like'
> religion (and no I'm not advocating religion, however misunderstanding
> of what religion is is a delusion and leads to enslavement)), and which
> is ridiculously perpetuated by self-professed spiritual hacks world-
> wide and_ in the art-world.
>
> > and I don't feel like this makes
> > an acceptable case for sects that glorify female genital mutilation.
>
> But mockery and verbal abuse of another is just fine?
> It doesn't affect their sexual drive, you think?
>
> > I can't really see any other interpretation for "music" that is made
> > with the sounds of little girls crying or moaning depending on where you
> > "penetrate" the screen with your "finger."
>
> Yet you refuse to hear your own body's 'crying' when you are 'laughing
> oh so hard' and 'just having fun'–or you refuse to consider what you're
> 'pushing' when you speak to another human, especially behind a
> computer screen?. How did it go: If the person can't take my emotional
> abuse fuck him/her? Ah yes.
>
> > If this is presented as some sort of redemption for the abuses that
> > Mouchette has been implied to endure,
>
> Just like humans are supposed to endure your abuse?
> Just like anyone_ is supposed to endure abuse perpetuated on these
> lists?
>
> > it is a poor one that serves no function,
>
> Abuse and violence doesn't serve any function.
>
> > aside from the further titillation of the audience and the
> > degradation of the fictional child.
>
> Just like your e-mail does. And many_ of your artworks, which
> function on the same principle as mouchette, yet when Pet Name
> addressed exactly that in your work, you weaseled out, just like
> you attempted to 'weasel out' of what I was saying by attempts
> at degradation and debasement.
>
> Yet, 'effectively' mouchette.org does_ demonstrate
> that in GENERAL humans attempt to peddle their egos (self-importance)
> as goodness, and their FEEDING PITY (condescension) towards the
> 'desired' object of consumption as 'love'. Nevermind that the ego
> in the West is conflated with a programmatic
> christic-martyr-crucifiction savior-messiah impulse, due to above
> mentioned abuse of religion (that is the egos of long dead
> vampiric 'religious' power-heads imprinted onto their 'beloved '
> victims). Cf. NN's behavior, Joseph's behavior, as well as yours
> by making claims that you have 'influences' from Zen and Sufism
> which you don't, as all of those emphasis on practice_ not reading
> 'about it' and not 'thinking about it' as well as your pretension
> that projection and forcing of identification of your ego is 'empathy'
> and condescension is 'compassion'.
>
> Again, one may wosh to re-examine the statement that revolutions
> are attempts by those weak and not in 'power' to assume positions
> of power, and apply that to Eryk's and Joseph's 'rebellion against
> religion' meanwhile both engaging in pseudo-religios attempts
> of controlling the audience, and ERyk's emotional knee-jerk pleads about
> them politicians who emotionally-knee jerk the population.
>
> Our hearts go 'lub-dub'. Not.
>
> > The final act of Mouchette's life is still that of a victim. Once she has
> committed to suicide, there can be
> > no redemption; and Mouchette lives permanently as a martyr to the
> > predatory lust that created her.
>
> The universal installation of the christ-martyr in art galleries and
> museums world-wide. And the impression of such behavior on 'young' and
> 'new' artists. AHHH. And what a wonderful and correct_ word: lust.
> So how about everyone stop peddling their FEEDING SCREECHING LUST
> as 'luv' and quit beating in yourselves in the chest about your
> 'compassion,' 'humanity' 'the power of giving etc.
>
> Not to mention to understand that LOVE is not SEX, and that the relation
> to other human beings is not via your reproductive organs. Nevermind
> the psychic attempts at 'rape' by waving one's sexual organs about and
> preaching luuuuuuuuuuuuuv. Sex is a mutual consent kind of thing.
> Humans are not 'one' 'collective' sexually–in fact the sexual force
> or kundalini is both male and female (unlike mating organs towards which
> sexuality can_ be directed, but is not equivalent to) and UNIQUE in
> each human. Moreso, everyone is given more than enough sexual energy
> individually and there is no 'giving and taking' going on in a HEALTHY
> ADULT sexual drive. Which is by the way one of many_ things
> Annie Sprinkle's show is about, Liza Sabbater-Nappier. She's not
> just running around being sexual and passing what she does as 'art'
> because everything is art. Speaking of sexual negativity and violence
> towards others, maybe you should reconsider your commentary towards
> her work.
>
> > It is a perfect resolution to this
> > threadbare narrative,
>
> Equally as threadbare as yours.
>
> > since this ending merely glosses over the actual
> > effects of sexual trauma.
>
> Just like you gloss over the effects of your own behavior.
>
> > As if to say that a child, once used, is worthless, and so it is made to
> disappear.
>
> We will feed on you, or filter / censor you :)
>
> > This convenient elimination of concern for consequences to the adult
> psychology of the victim keeps
> > the child in perpetual youth.
>
> As if. You live in a society in which perpetual youth, and 'playing'
> I'm just 'playing' hihi tickle-and-slap I want I want infantilic
> behavior towards everything including spirituality and sexuality is
> THE modus operandi and abrogation of responsibility for one's actions
> is the status quo to be maintained. Nevermind the perpetual
> 'invisible' victimizations of thousands.
>
> > This is an extension of basic pedophiliac fantasies,
> > an eternally innocent child to be used without consequence
> > and therefore without remorse.
>
> Standard artistic practice. Consider Mark Tribe's treatment of
> his 'child' rhizome.
>
> > (The same impulse which drives most child
> > molesters towards children who live in poverty and are considered
> > "neglected.")
>
> The same impulse which pushes artistic individuals to be OUTCASTS,
> VICTIMS, and MARTYRS, but especially OUTCASTS.
>
> Therein you have the relationship between the art insitution and the
> artist, the underlining mirror of it all being the relationship between
> the 'collective' of unconscious individuals which tries to invade the
> individual by presenting itself to be the fragmented reality of
> the unenlightened individual's unconsciousness. We are you. Really.
> ON GOES the IRON MASK (hello David Goldschmidt + Marc Garret), like a
> lid on one's sexuality, ON goes the LEASH on one's attention (you must
> believe in meeeeeeeeeeeeeee, look at me me, I'm a star, I shine, and
> if you look at me and admire me–ahoh howasit Joseph, to watch is
> the greatest service, you look to me as a dog to a bone? that's nice
> dearest attempting to victimize another's attention–you're such
> a clever boy–especially with that masochistic 'I love the man who
> destroys me''victim as beauty' pose), and ON GOES THE SHOW, the
> spectacle of sexual abuse of adults hihi, until they are sucked dry, and
> their corpses tossed away auf uber Auschwitz. Being Fed onis POWER,
> really. Really, it's power. You're not given sexual energy in order to
> evolve, and achieve various stages of conscious behavior (which means
> also a form of 'immortality') no–you're born to live, fuck, reproduce,
> be fed on, die, and be discared as husks.
>
> > One might ask why it matters if a website includes an "acknowledgment"
> > of sexual instincts in children, but it's not as clear cut as that.
> > There is a rampant tendency among pedophiles to defend themselves with
> > the argument that their victims wanted to have sex;
>
> Or victims who deserved to be mocked, brutalized, fuck them if they
> can't take a joke, I can do whatever the fuck I want, pushing buttons
> is clever, shhsshsshhshh individual development is a sssssecret
> knowledge which belongs to only the sssselect few, but only if you dance
> to someone else's dance and not your (kundalini's) own (joshua zeidner,
> NN, Joseph McElroy)
>
> > that children can
> > and will deliberately seduce adults as a result of "hormones" or some
> > misguided desire for affection. Because of this, the idea has made in
> > roads in our culture;
>
> The German is always happy to peddle his kultur.
>
> > usually attributed to "liberal values" though they
> > are, in fact, simply a defense tactic to garner what little public
> > support pedophiles can muster.
>
> Well they could just call it art. After all, the stuff of CANNOT
> is the 'meat and potatoes' of artists, isn't it Ivan Pope?
> Ah the forbidden delights of violence and abuse.
>
> > situations? Is Mouchette trying to seduce us? What does this say about
> > the cultural acceptance of such predatory instincts?
>
> What DOES it babe?
>
> > I point to the Barrett case because it is also a horrifying example of
> > what happens in a culture of acceptable exploitation.
>
> Good grief; of which you're a primary mover. But you will always scream
> at easy pickings such as 'politicians' 'child molestors' 'rock stars'
> 'goths', anything, just to avoid the reality of your own asshole state.
>
> > It is interesting to note that this same double standard also applies to
> > Mouchette when it comes to criticism of the web site. I've noticed how
> > other critics of net.art address the issue of Mouchette.org's content
> > based on their gender. While Josephine Bosma, a female critic, makes the
> > case that Mouchette is "based on staggeringly repulsive male fantasies"
> > [from http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?1156 ], a male critic, after
> > discussing at some length the pieces in which we are asked to taste
> > Mouchettes tongue, makes this statement:
>
> Oops there goes ERyk's exploitation of genders. As if females are
> incapable of this predatorial behavior, snif.
>
> > I'm not going to argue that this writer literally "enjoyed" the pieces
> > sexual overtones, but at the very least, the entire text proves that
> > such net.art criticism can be focused on the idea of technology and
> > theory so much that it blinds us to the actual content an artist creates
> > with it.
>
> Oh but you attempt to blind with technology theoryand emotional jerks
> your behavior all the time. And Sufism. And zen. halleluja, Praise the
> lord. Every man a preacher, preaching the law according to HIS BOOK.
> Jesus ist dead, long live Jesus.
>
> > As I've mentioned, one of the biggest concerns I have is the
> > "mainstreaming" efforts by pedophile organizations such as NAMBLA
> > towards a concept of "acceptable pedophilia."
>
> Yes, I'm sure you lose sleep over it, and are actively attempting to
> prevent it.
>
> > At the same time I am
> > aware that work can be misinterpreted and that some "checklists" for
> > sexual abuse are capable of making almost any individual into a
> > pedophile. One website defending the notion of pedophilia has a list of
> > oaths that pedophiles should take that read like the ambitions of anyone
> > who "respects kids". I don't think that looking at Mouchette.org will
> > breed a generation of child molesters. I want to be perfectly clear: the
> > subject is not whether the creator of Mouchette.org [who remains
> > anonymous] is a pedophile, but simply whether or not the site can be
> > read as mainstreaming, putting out the idea that children are capable of
> > seducing adults, an extension of the classic "she was asking for it /
> > dressed for rape" defense by male rapists. My conclusion is that this
> > can be read as the primary message within the work.
>
>
> > I am not attempting to censor any artists,
>
> Of course you're not such a nice guy that you are :)
>
> > nor do I believe that art
> > addressing the real impacts of sexual abuse would be problematic;
>
> No, it's only filtered.
>
> > nor
> > that explorations of sexuality are "immoral". I am not a defender of
> > policies which aim to child proof the world, nor do I believe in a world
> > of 100% political correctness. I believe that we have to begin to look
> > at net.art as a real art form that is interested in ideas and messages,
> > and that we begin to evaluate such work on the merits of these
> > intentions. To do this, we must look at the ideas and messages that
> > artists are putting across in the work, for better or for ill.
>
> As long as we don't do that yo YOUR work, n'est pas?
>
> xoxo
>
> `, . ` `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 Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
> Hey K+ the key to a successful rant is to make it funny.
This was not a rant dearest> it was rather accurate description
of your imbecility (and others). Idiocy is not 'funny' unless you're
masochist.
> are looking pretty ludicrous.
No dearest, I do not look ludicrous in the least.
Keep your wishful derogatory projections inside your bain.
> As if I were the great and evil shaman.
Shamans are neither great nor evil.
You appropriate their work and terminology unjustifiably,
as well as emply idiocy in your artwork'.
My commentaries with regards to what you do
are exactly with regards to what you DO.
No implication of shamanism at all and whatsoever.
Rather an indicationthat you are NOT a Shaman,
but a weak and impotent ape who attempts to
appear interesting and important by appropriating
stuff that doesn't fit.
> Ask some
> people around here, they will tell you, I AIN'T THAT IMPORTANT.
I've never thought or implied or regarded you
as important dearest. Rather the opposite.
And you're not being treated as you are because I think
you are a shaman.
> The jokes on you.
No, dearest it isn't. The 'joke' is a mindfuck game
that you play with yourself. Unfortunately,
life is not a game, and what I have_ written about you
is exactly the opposite: that you are an irresponsible,
dense, and idiotic infantile ape, who fancies it has
a right to misuse 'art' as a vehicle for channeling
its primitivistic problems.
And that the likes of YOU_ (that is, the small, simple
human/all/too/human 'unimportant' all is funny childish
apes who refuse to eve begin to acknowledge whatthey are
doing who cause atual suffering, and not some evil
'religions' 'corporations' 'businessmen' etc).
Suffering onthis planet is caused by unconsciousness, and your
behavior on many_ occasions is targetted at damaging other asleep
humans, or clawing at / feeding on those who have life/force.
Dont attempt to skirt it under 'it's not important'
or 'haha K looks ludicrious'–your 'laughter' is one of
fear.
> 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
>
> SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >
> > > A Critical Analysis of Mouchette.org
> >
> > Certainly. Why not apply this 'critical analysis' to the general
> > inftantilism of the sexual impulse as encouraged by adults
> > in themselves, and others, and which is directy related to what I
> > have been addressing: ie the immaturity of the psycho-sexual
> > (belief) mechanism, and the manner in which the art-world
> > in general, and net.art mailing lists in general are fertile
> > playgrounds for the 'predatory' murderous impulses of
> > the ego-conflated voyeristic impulses of the subscribers?
> >
> > > After a request from an artist claiming to be responsible for
> > > Mouchette.org in regards to my recent statements on the syndicate
> > > mailing list concerning the site, I intend to address how the web site
> > > http://www.mouchette.org can be seen as a glorification of sexual abuse
> > > and a celebration of pedophilia against young girls.
> >
> > And why does this stop at 'young girls' and not the realization
> > that even though the physical body grows automatically, the
> > sexual–and higher centers in the human being do not grow AUTOMATICALLY,
> > and that you live in a society in which 'fucking' with humans
> > on various levels taking advantage of their state of unconsciousness,
> > is a perfectly acceotable behavior?
> >
> > > For those who
> > > aren't familiar, the premise of the website is that a 12 year old girl
> > > by the name of Mouchette is going to commit suicide on her 13th
> > > birthday, and the website is a collection of her art work.
> > >
> > > I want to be careful in explaining that I am not intending to accuse the
> > > artist responsible for Mouchette.org of being a pedophile, nor that
> > > Mouchette.org advocates sex with children, merely that the art can be
> > > read as a glorification of youth sexualization.
> >
> > Or in fact as a symptom of the general behavior of the 'collective'
> > over the internet: that is under the 'guise' of 'art' all sorts
> > of mental, emotional and sexual abuse is being passed on as
> > acceptable–and in fact intelligent, and clever. A behavior of which
> > you're not 'unguilty'.
> >
> > > It has been mentioned to
> > > me that pedophilia against young girls has been a component of
> > > "legitimate" and "acceptable" art for centuries, including the
> > > obligatory references to Lolita, although I tend to think that we are
> > > not encouraged to feel sympathy for Humbert,
> >
> > The impulse of infantile males to look for either a 'mommy' or 'little
> > girl' (because children feed on parents sexual energy biologically,
> > and little girls are too incapable of defending themselves (cf. Joseph
> > McElroy's behavior and his insistent and continuous attempts to 'feed'
> > and present that as 'power of giving', his 'childish' behavior,
> > his infantile identification attempts which work on an immature
> > sexual drive (there is no you and I, only 'we'–something which only
> > a parasitic feeder would say, his continuous attempts to 'force' love'
> > and 'friendship', etc). Shall we say NN's 'xy destruktiv' behavior?
> > Or your personal attempts at reduction of sexually mature and adult_
> > concepts such as beauty and intelligence into respectively, victimized
> > female 'prettiness' and emasculated 'cleverness' instead of
> > intelligence? Nevermind th related_ 'disempowered' wisdom (a female
> > principle) into cleverness, via emasculation of the son? Reduction
> > of mature behavior to disempowered 'cuteness'? Bashing of goths?
> > Rock and roll stars? Anyone who is actually in possession of
> > self-authority, autonomy, and power (whichis directly related to sexual
> > energy?). In the face of your own behvaior, this outcry for mouchette's
> > sak is simply laughable, if not another attempt at 'good citizen'
> > posturing.
> >
> > > to feed on whereas with Mouchettes
> > > website, we are directly encouraged to participate in virtual
> > > interactions against a young girl.
> >
> > Yet virtual interaction against internally immature humans in the form
> > of abuse is not only just fine, but the eptome of artistic expression.
> >
> > > I see this as an attempt to evoke "the inner pedophile"
> >
> > There is no 'inner pedophile'. It is an attempt to evoke the ego
> > driven sadistic self-destructive impulse–that is mouchette.org
> > is a passive-aggressive device, which attempts to trip humans
> > emotionally and sexually and an attempt 'to trip' that self-destructive
> > ego-button –much like your 'mockery' and 'criticism' of others has
> > done to them, and the self-destruction it also engenders in the
> > perpetrator.
> >
> > On numerous occasions you_, and Joseph, and NN exhibit this kind of
> > 'passive-aggressiveness' which is attempted to be passed on as
> > love, wisdom, and consciousness.
> >
> > > and to relate child sexuality with "normal" (for
> > > lack of a better word) adult sexuality, something that Nabokov's text
> > > inherently condemns.
> >
> > Does he? Nabokov doesn't condemn anything.
> >
> > > Nor do I believe that because mankind has a
> > > tradition of fetishizing young girls,
> >
> > And vampirizing fresh adults full of life-force.
> >
> > > it makes an acceptable case for perpetuating it.
> >
> > That's kinda funny: your actions contradict your 'belief'.
> >
> > > The oppression of women has been a component of
> > > fundamentalist religion for centuries
> >
> > Swiping generalization, which is meaningless.
> > Religion hasn't oppressed anyone; it is humans who have abused_ the
> > concept of religion–ie taking advantage of humans spiritual immaturity
> > via a fake IMAGE of religion (a fake OTHER, typically introduced
> > via the 'trap' of mimicry, identification, attachment and ego-possession
> > attempted to be passed on as MIRRORING (a capacity of an 'emlightened'
> > i n d i v i d u a l (and yes I mean individual, not collective–there is
> > no enlightened 'collective'–this is another abuse which I shan't go
> > into at the moment))–something which is thoroughly exemplified
> > by NN and Joseph's recent behavior (naturralich, they do not 'like'
> > religion (and no I'm not advocating religion, however misunderstanding
> > of what religion is is a delusion and leads to enslavement)), and which
> > is ridiculously perpetuated by self-professed spiritual hacks world-
> > wide and_ in the art-world.
> >
> > > and I don't feel like this makes
> > > an acceptable case for sects that glorify female genital mutilation.
> >
> > But mockery and verbal abuse of another is just fine?
> > It doesn't affect their sexual drive, you think?
> >
> > > I can't really see any other interpretation for "music" that is made
> > > with the sounds of little girls crying or moaning depending on where you
> > > "penetrate" the screen with your "finger."
> >
> > Yet you refuse to hear your own body's 'crying' when you are 'laughing
> > oh so hard' and 'just having fun'–or you refuse to consider what you're
> > 'pushing' when you speak to another human, especially behind a
> > computer screen?. How did it go: If the person can't take my emotional
> > abuse fuck him/her? Ah yes.
> >
> > > If this is presented as some sort of redemption for the abuses that
> > > Mouchette has been implied to endure,
> >
> > Just like humans are supposed to endure your abuse?
> > Just like anyone_ is supposed to endure abuse perpetuated on these
> > lists?
> >
> > > it is a poor one that serves no function,
> >
> > Abuse and violence doesn't serve any function.
> >
> > > aside from the further titillation of the audience and the
> > > degradation of the fictional child.
> >
> > Just like your e-mail does. And many_ of your artworks, which
> > function on the same principle as mouchette, yet when Pet Name
> > addressed exactly that in your work, you weaseled out, just like
> > you attempted to 'weasel out' of what I was saying by attempts
> > at degradation and debasement.
> >
> > Yet, 'effectively' mouchette.org does_ demonstrate
> > that in GENERAL humans attempt to peddle their egos (self-importance)
> > as goodness, and their FEEDING PITY (condescension) towards the
> > 'desired' object of consumption as 'love'. Nevermind that the ego
> > in the West is conflated with a programmatic
> > christic-martyr-crucifiction savior-messiah impulse, due to above
> > mentioned abuse of religion (that is the egos of long dead
> > vampiric 'religious' power-heads imprinted onto their 'beloved '
> > victims). Cf. NN's behavior, Joseph's behavior, as well as yours
> > by making claims that you have 'influences' from Zen and Sufism
> > which you don't, as all of those emphasis on practice_ not reading
> > 'about it' and not 'thinking about it' as well as your pretension
> > that projection and forcing of identification of your ego is 'empathy'
> > and condescension is 'compassion'.
> >
> > Again, one may wosh to re-examine the statement that revolutions
> > are attempts by those weak and not in 'power' to assume positions
> > of power, and apply that to Eryk's and Joseph's 'rebellion against
> > religion' meanwhile both engaging in pseudo-religios attempts
> > of controlling the audience, and ERyk's emotional knee-jerk pleads about
> > them politicians who emotionally-knee jerk the population.
> >
> > Our hearts go 'lub-dub'. Not.
> >
> > > The final act of Mouchette's life is still that of a victim. Once she has
> > committed to suicide, there can be
> > > no redemption; and Mouchette lives permanently as a martyr to the
> > > predatory lust that created her.
> >
> > The universal installation of the christ-martyr in art galleries and
> > museums world-wide. And the impression of such behavior on 'young' and
> > 'new' artists. AHHH. And what a wonderful and correct_ word: lust.
> > So how about everyone stop peddling their FEEDING SCREECHING LUST
> > as 'luv' and quit beating in yourselves in the chest about your
> > 'compassion,' 'humanity' 'the power of giving etc.
> >
> > Not to mention to understand that LOVE is not SEX, and that the relation
> > to other human beings is not via your reproductive organs. Nevermind
> > the psychic attempts at 'rape' by waving one's sexual organs about and
> > preaching luuuuuuuuuuuuuv. Sex is a mutual consent kind of thing.
> > Humans are not 'one' 'collective' sexually–in fact the sexual force
> > or kundalini is both male and female (unlike mating organs towards which
> > sexuality can_ be directed, but is not equivalent to) and UNIQUE in
> > each human. Moreso, everyone is given more than enough sexual energy
> > individually and there is no 'giving and taking' going on in a HEALTHY
> > ADULT sexual drive. Which is by the way one of many_ things
> > Annie Sprinkle's show is about, Liza Sabbater-Nappier. She's not
> > just running around being sexual and passing what she does as 'art'
> > because everything is art. Speaking of sexual negativity and violence
> > towards others, maybe you should reconsider your commentary towards
> > her work.
> >
> > > It is a perfect resolution to this
> > > threadbare narrative,
> >
> > Equally as threadbare as yours.
> >
> > > since this ending merely glosses over the actual
> > > effects of sexual trauma.
> >
> > Just like you gloss over the effects of your own behavior.
> >
> > > As if to say that a child, once used, is worthless, and so it is made to
> > disappear.
> >
> > We will feed on you, or filter / censor you :)
> >
> > > This convenient elimination of concern for consequences to the adult
> > psychology of the victim keeps
> > > the child in perpetual youth.
> >
> > As if. You live in a society in which perpetual youth, and 'playing'
> > I'm just 'playing' hihi tickle-and-slap I want I want infantilic
> > behavior towards everything including spirituality and sexuality is
> > THE modus operandi and abrogation of responsibility for one's actions
> > is the status quo to be maintained. Nevermind the perpetual
> > 'invisible' victimizations of thousands.
> >
> > > This is an extension of basic pedophiliac fantasies,
> > > an eternally innocent child to be used without consequence
> > > and therefore without remorse.
> >
> > Standard artistic practice. Consider Mark Tribe's treatment of
> > his 'child' rhizome.
> >
> > > (The same impulse which drives most child
> > > molesters towards children who live in poverty and are considered
> > > "neglected.")
> >
> > The same impulse which pushes artistic individuals to be OUTCASTS,
> > VICTIMS, and MARTYRS, but especially OUTCASTS.
> >
> > Therein you have the relationship between the art insitution and the
> > artist, the underlining mirror of it all being the relationship between
> > the 'collective' of unconscious individuals which tries to invade the
> > individual by presenting itself to be the fragmented reality of
> > the unenlightened individual's unconsciousness. We are you. Really.
> > ON GOES the IRON MASK (hello David Goldschmidt + Marc Garret), like a
> > lid on one's sexuality, ON goes the LEASH on one's attention (you must
> > believe in meeeeeeeeeeeeeee, look at me me, I'm a star, I shine, and
> > if you look at me and admire me–ahoh howasit Joseph, to watch is
> > the greatest service, you look to me as a dog to a bone? that's nice
> > dearest attempting to victimize another's attention–you're such
> > a clever boy–especially with that masochistic 'I love the man who
> > destroys me''victim as beauty' pose), and ON GOES THE SHOW, the
> > spectacle of sexual abuse of adults hihi, until they are sucked dry, and
> > their corpses tossed away auf uber Auschwitz. Being Fed onis POWER,
> > really. Really, it's power. You're not given sexual energy in order to
> > evolve, and achieve various stages of conscious behavior (which means
> > also a form of 'immortality') no–you're born to live, fuck, reproduce,
> > be fed on, die, and be discared as husks.
> >
> > > One might ask why it matters if a website includes an "acknowledgment"
> > > of sexual instincts in children, but it's not as clear cut as that.
> > > There is a rampant tendency among pedophiles to defend themselves with
> > > the argument that their victims wanted to have sex;
> >
> > Or victims who deserved to be mocked, brutalized, fuck them if they
> > can't take a joke, I can do whatever the fuck I want, pushing buttons
> > is clever, shhsshsshhshh individual development is a sssssecret
> > knowledge which belongs to only the sssselect few, but only if you dance
> > to someone else's dance and not your (kundalini's) own (joshua zeidner,
> > NN, Joseph McElroy)
> >
> > > that children can
> > > and will deliberately seduce adults as a result of "hormones" or some
> > > misguided desire for affection. Because of this, the idea has made in
> > > roads in our culture;
> >
> > The German is always happy to peddle his kultur.
> >
> > > usually attributed to "liberal values" though they
> > > are, in fact, simply a defense tactic to garner what little public
> > > support pedophiles can muster.
> >
> > Well they could just call it art. After all, the stuff of CANNOT
> > is the 'meat and potatoes' of artists, isn't it Ivan Pope?
> > Ah the forbidden delights of violence and abuse.
> >
> > > situations? Is Mouchette trying to seduce us? What does this say about
> > > the cultural acceptance of such predatory instincts?
> >
> > What DOES it babe?
> >
> > > I point to the Barrett case because it is also a horrifying example of
> > > what happens in a culture of acceptable exploitation.
> >
> > Good grief; of which you're a primary mover. But you will always scream
> > at easy pickings such as 'politicians' 'child molestors' 'rock stars'
> > 'goths', anything, just to avoid the reality of your own asshole state.
> >
> > > It is interesting to note that this same double standard also applies to
> > > Mouchette when it comes to criticism of the web site. I've noticed how
> > > other critics of net.art address the issue of Mouchette.org's content
> > > based on their gender. While Josephine Bosma, a female critic, makes the
> > > case that Mouchette is "based on staggeringly repulsive male fantasies"
> > > [from http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?1156 ], a male critic, after
> > > discussing at some length the pieces in which we are asked to taste
> > > Mouchettes tongue, makes this statement:
> >
> > Oops there goes ERyk's exploitation of genders. As if females are
> > incapable of this predatorial behavior, snif.
> >
> > > I'm not going to argue that this writer literally "enjoyed" the pieces
> > > sexual overtones, but at the very least, the entire text proves that
> > > such net.art criticism can be focused on the idea of technology and
> > > theory so much that it blinds us to the actual content an artist creates
> > > with it.
> >
> > Oh but you attempt to blind with technology theoryand emotional jerks
> > your behavior all the time. And Sufism. And zen. halleluja, Praise the
> > lord. Every man a preacher, preaching the law according to HIS BOOK.
> > Jesus ist dead, long live Jesus.
> >
> > > As I've mentioned, one of the biggest concerns I have is the
> > > "mainstreaming" efforts by pedophile organizations such as NAMBLA
> > > towards a concept of "acceptable pedophilia."
> >
> > Yes, I'm sure you lose sleep over it, and are actively attempting to
> > prevent it.
> >
> > > At the same time I am
> > > aware that work can be misinterpreted and that some "checklists" for
> > > sexual abuse are capable of making almost any individual into a
> > > pedophile. One website defending the notion of pedophilia has a list of
> > > oaths that pedophiles should take that read like the ambitions of anyone
> > > who "respects kids". I don't think that looking at Mouchette.org will
> > > breed a generation of child molesters. I want to be perfectly clear: the
> > > subject is not whether the creator of Mouchette.org [who remains
> > > anonymous] is a pedophile, but simply whether or not the site can be
> > > read as mainstreaming, putting out the idea that children are capable of
> > > seducing adults, an extension of the classic "she was asking for it /
> > > dressed for rape" defense by male rapists. My conclusion is that this
> > > can be read as the primary message within the work.
> >
> >
> > > I am not attempting to censor any artists,
> >
> > Of course you're not such a nice guy that you are :)
> >
> > > nor do I believe that art
> > > addressing the real impacts of sexual abuse would be problematic;
> >
> > No, it's only filtered.
> >
> > > nor
> > > that explorations of sexuality are "immoral". I am not a defender of
> > > policies which aim to child proof the world, nor do I believe in a world
> > > of 100% political correctness. I believe that we have to begin to look
> > > at net.art as a real art form that is interested in ideas and messages,
> > > and that we begin to evaluate such work on the merits of these
> > > intentions. To do this, we must look at the ideas and messages that
> > > artists are putting across in the work, for better or for ill.
> >
> > As long as we don't do that yo YOUR work, n'est pas?
> >
> > xoxo
> >
> > `, . ` `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
> > ——————————————————————–
>
o
[ + ]
+ + +
| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>:
> You dont know what I was talking of.
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECT
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
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>:
> You dont know what I was talking of.
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > Hey K+ the key to a successful rant is to make it funny. As it is, you are
> > looking pretty ludicrous. As if I were the great and evil shaman. Ask
> some
> > people around here, they will tell you, I AIN'T THAT IMPORTANT.
> >
> > The jokes on you.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> > CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> > Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> >
> > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > >
> > > > A Critical Analysis of Mouchette.org
> > >
> > > Certainly. Why not apply this 'critical analysis' to the general
> > > inftantilism of the sexual impulse as encouraged by adults
> > > in themselves, and others, and which is directy related to what I
> > > have been addressing: ie the immaturity of the psycho-sexual
> > > (belief) mechanism, and the manner in which the art-world
> > > in general, and net.art mailing lists in general are fertile
> > > playgrounds for the 'predatory' murderous impulses of
> > > the ego-conflated voyeristic impulses of the subscribers?
> > >
> > > > After a request from an artist claiming to be responsible for
> > > > Mouchette.org in regards to my recent statements on the syndicate
> > > > mailing list concerning the site, I intend to address how the web site
> > > > http://www.mouchette.org can be seen as a glorification of sexual abuse
> > > > and a celebration of pedophilia against young girls.
> > >
> > > And why does this stop at 'young girls' and not the realization
> > > that even though the physical body grows automatically, the
> > > sexual–and higher centers in the human being do not grow
> AUTOMATICALLY,
> > > and that you live in a society in which 'fucking' with humans
> > > on various levels taking advantage of their state of unconsciousness,
> > > is a perfectly acceotable behavior?
> > >
> > > > For those who
> > > > aren't familiar, the premise of the website is that a 12 year old girl
> > > > by the name of Mouchette is going to commit suicide on her 13th
> > > > birthday, and the website is a collection of her art work.
> > > >
> > > > I want to be careful in explaining that I am not intending to accuse
> the
> > > > artist responsible for Mouchette.org of being a pedophile, nor that
> > > > Mouchette.org advocates sex with children, merely that the art can be
> > > > read as a glorification of youth sexualization.
> > >
> > > Or in fact as a symptom of the general behavior of the 'collective'
> > > over the internet: that is under the 'guise' of 'art' all sorts
> > > of mental, emotional and sexual abuse is being passed on as
> > > acceptable–and in fact intelligent, and clever. A behavior of which
> > > you're not 'unguilty'.
> > >
> > > > It has been mentioned to
> > > > me that pedophilia against young girls has been a component of
> > > > "legitimate" and "acceptable" art for centuries, including the
> > > > obligatory references to Lolita, although I tend to think that we are
> > > > not encouraged to feel sympathy for Humbert,
> > >
> > > The impulse of infantile males to look for either a 'mommy' or 'little
> > > girl' (because children feed on parents sexual energy biologically,
> > > and little girls are too incapable of defending themselves (cf. Joseph
> > > McElroy's behavior and his insistent and continuous attempts to 'feed'
> > > and present that as 'power of giving', his 'childish' behavior,
> > > his infantile identification attempts which work on an immature
> > > sexual drive (there is no you and I, only 'we'–something which only
> > > a parasitic feeder would say, his continuous attempts to 'force' love'
> > > and 'friendship', etc). Shall we say NN's 'xy destruktiv' behavior?
> > > Or your personal attempts at reduction of sexually mature and adult_
> > > concepts such as beauty and intelligence into respectively, victimized
> > > female 'prettiness' and emasculated 'cleverness' instead of
> > > intelligence? Nevermind th related_ 'disempowered' wisdom (a female
> > > principle) into cleverness, via emasculation of the son? Reduction
> > > of mature behavior to disempowered 'cuteness'? Bashing of goths?
> > > Rock and roll stars? Anyone who is actually in possession of
> > > self-authority, autonomy, and power (whichis directly related to sexual
> > > energy?). In the face of your own behvaior, this outcry for mouchette's
> > > sak is simply laughable, if not another attempt at 'good citizen'
> > > posturing.
> > >
> > > > to feed on whereas with Mouchettes
> > > > website, we are directly encouraged to participate in virtual
> > > > interactions against a young girl.
> > >
> > > Yet virtual interaction against internally immature humans in the form
> > > of abuse is not only just fine, but the eptome of artistic expression.
> > >
> > > > I see this as an attempt to evoke "the inner pedophile"
> > >
> > > There is no 'inner pedophile'. It is an attempt to evoke the ego
> > > driven sadistic self-destructive impulse–that is mouchette.org
> > > is a passive-aggressive device, which attempts to trip humans
> > > emotionally and sexually and an attempt 'to trip' that self-destructive
> > > ego-button –much like your 'mockery' and 'criticism' of others has
> > > done to them, and the self-destruction it also engenders in the
> > > perpetrator.
> > >
> > > On numerous occasions you_, and Joseph, and NN exhibit this kind of
> > > 'passive-aggressiveness' which is attempted to be passed on as
> > > love, wisdom, and consciousness.
> > >
> > > > and to relate child sexuality with "normal" (for
> > > > lack of a better word) adult sexuality, something that Nabokov's text
> > > > inherently condemns.
> > >
> > > Does he? Nabokov doesn't condemn anything.
> > >
> > > > Nor do I believe that because mankind has a
> > > > tradition of fetishizing young girls,
> > >
> > > And vampirizing fresh adults full of life-force.
> > >
> > > > it makes an acceptable case for perpetuating it.
> > >
> > > That's kinda funny: your actions contradict your 'belief'.
> > >
> > > > The oppression of women has been a component of
> > > > fundamentalist religion for centuries
> > >
> > > Swiping generalization, which is meaningless.
> > > Religion hasn't oppressed anyone; it is humans who have abused_ the
> > > concept of religion–ie taking advantage of humans spiritual immaturity
> > > via a fake IMAGE of religion (a fake OTHER, typically introduced
> > > via the 'trap' of mimicry, identification, attachment and
> ego-possession
> > > attempted to be passed on as MIRRORING (a capacity of an 'emlightened'
> > > i n d i v i d u a l (and yes I mean individual, not collective–there
> is
> > > no enlightened 'collective'–this is another abuse which I shan't go
> > > into at the moment))–something which is thoroughly exemplified
> > > by NN and Joseph's recent behavior (naturralich, they do not 'like'
> > > religion (and no I'm not advocating religion, however misunderstanding
> > > of what religion is is a delusion and leads to enslavement)), and which
> > > is ridiculously perpetuated by self-professed spiritual hacks world-
> > > wide and_ in the art-world.
> > >
> > > > and I don't feel like this makes
> > > > an acceptable case for sects that glorify female genital mutilation.
> > >
> > > But mockery and verbal abuse of another is just fine?
> > > It doesn't affect their sexual drive, you think?
> > >
> > > > I can't really see any other interpretation for "music" that is made
> > > > with the sounds of little girls crying or moaning depending on where
> you
> > > > "penetrate" the screen with your "finger."
> > >
> > > Yet you refuse to hear your own body's 'crying' when you are 'laughing
> > > oh so hard' and 'just having fun'–or you refuse to consider what
> you're
> > > 'pushing' when you speak to another human, especially behind a
> > > computer screen?. How did it go: If the person can't take my emotional
> > > abuse fuck him/her? Ah yes.
> > >
> > > > If this is presented as some sort of redemption for the abuses that
> > > > Mouchette has been implied to endure,
> > >
> > > Just like humans are supposed to endure your abuse?
> > > Just like anyone_ is supposed to endure abuse perpetuated on these
> > > lists?
> > >
> > > > it is a poor one that serves no function,
> > >
> > > Abuse and violence doesn't serve any function.
> > >
> > > > aside from the further titillation of the audience and the
> > > > degradation of the fictional child.
> > >
> > > Just like your e-mail does. And many_ of your artworks, which
> > > function on the same principle as mouchette, yet when Pet Name
> > > addressed exactly that in your work, you weaseled out, just like
> > > you attempted to 'weasel out' of what I was saying by attempts
> > > at degradation and debasement.
> > >
> > > Yet, 'effectively' mouchette.org does_ demonstrate
> > > that in GENERAL humans attempt to peddle their egos (self-importance)
> > > as goodness, and their FEEDING PITY (condescension) towards the
> > > 'desired' object of consumption as 'love'. Nevermind that the ego
> > > in the West is conflated with a programmatic
> > > christic-martyr-crucifiction savior-messiah impulse, due to above
> > > mentioned abuse of religion (that is the egos of long dead
> > > vampiric 'religious' power-heads imprinted onto their 'beloved '
> > > victims). Cf. NN's behavior, Joseph's behavior, as well as yours
> > > by making claims that you have 'influences' from Zen and Sufism
> > > which you don't, as all of those emphasis on practice_ not reading
> > > 'about it' and not 'thinking about it' as well as your pretension
> > > that projection and forcing of identification of your ego is 'empathy'
> > > and condescension is 'compassion'.
> > >
> > > Again, one may wosh to re-examine the statement that revolutions
> > > are attempts by those weak and not in 'power' to assume positions
> > > of power, and apply that to Eryk's and Joseph's 'rebellion against
> > > religion' meanwhile both engaging in pseudo-religios attempts
> > > of controlling the audience, and ERyk's emotional knee-jerk pleads
> about
> > > them politicians who emotionally-knee jerk the population.
> > >
> > > Our hearts go 'lub-dub'. Not.
> > >
> > > > The final act of Mouchette's life is still that of a victim. Once she
> has
> > > committed to suicide, there can be
> > > > no redemption; and Mouchette lives permanently as a martyr to the
> > > > predatory lust that created her.
> > >
> > > The universal installation of the christ-martyr in art galleries and
> > > museums world-wide. And the impression of such behavior on 'young' and
> > > 'new' artists. AHHH. And what a wonderful and correct_ word: lust.
> > > So how about everyone stop peddling their FEEDING SCREECHING LUST
> > > as 'luv' and quit beating in yourselves in the chest about your
> > > 'compassion,' 'humanity' 'the power of giving etc.
> > >
> > > Not to mention to understand that LOVE is not SEX, and that the
> relation
> > > to other human beings is not via your reproductive organs. Nevermind
> > > the psychic attempts at 'rape' by waving one's sexual organs about and
> > > preaching luuuuuuuuuuuuuv. Sex is a mutual consent kind of thing.
> > > Humans are not 'one' 'collective' sexually–in fact the sexual force
> > > or kundalini is both male and female (unlike mating organs towards
> which
> > > sexuality can_ be directed, but is not equivalent to) and UNIQUE in
> > > each human. Moreso, everyone is given more than enough sexual energy
> > > individually and there is no 'giving and taking' going on in a HEALTHY
> > > ADULT sexual drive. Which is by the way one of many_ things
> > > Annie Sprinkle's show is about, Liza Sabbater-Nappier. She's not
> > > just running around being sexual and passing what she does as 'art'
> > > because everything is art. Speaking of sexual negativity and violence
> > > towards others, maybe you should reconsider your commentary towards
> > > her work.
> > >
> > > > It is a perfect resolution to this
> > > > threadbare narrative,
> > >
> > > Equally as threadbare as yours.
> > >
> > > > since this ending merely glosses over the actual
> > > > effects of sexual trauma.
> > >
> > > Just like you gloss over the effects of your own behavior.
> > >
> > > > As if to say that a child, once used, is worthless, and so it is made
> to
> > > disappear.
> > >
> > > We will feed on you, or filter / censor you :)
> > >
> > > > This convenient elimination of concern for consequences to the adult
> > > psychology of the victim keeps
> > > > the child in perpetual youth.
> > >
> > > As if. You live in a society in which perpetual youth, and 'playing'
> > > I'm just 'playing' hihi tickle-and-slap I want I want infantilic
> > > behavior towards everything including spirituality and sexuality is
> > > THE modus operandi and abrogation of responsibility for one's actions
> > > is the status quo to be maintained. Nevermind the perpetual
> > > 'invisible' victimizations of thousands.
> > >
> > > > This is an extension of basic pedophiliac fantasies,
> > > > an eternally innocent child to be used without consequence
> > > > and therefore without remorse.
> > >
> > > Standard artistic practice. Consider Mark Tribe's treatment of
> > > his 'child' rhizome.
> > >
> > > > (The same impulse which drives most child
> > > > molesters towards children who live in poverty and are considered
> > > > "neglected.")
> > >
> > > The same impulse which pushes artistic individuals to be OUTCASTS,
> > > VICTIMS, and MARTYRS, but especially OUTCASTS.
> > >
> > > Therein you have the relationship between the art insitution and the
> > > artist, the underlining mirror of it all being the relationship between
> > > the 'collective' of unconscious individuals which tries to invade the
> > > individual by presenting itself to be the fragmented reality of
> > > the unenlightened individual's unconsciousness. We are you. Really.
> > > ON GOES the IRON MASK (hello David Goldschmidt + Marc Garret), like a
> > > lid on one's sexuality, ON goes the LEASH on one's attention (you must
> > > believe in meeeeeeeeeeeeeee, look at me me, I'm a star, I shine, and
> > > if you look at me and admire me–ahoh howasit Joseph, to watch is
> > > the greatest service, you look to me as a dog to a bone? that's nice
> > > dearest attempting to victimize another's attention–you're such
> > > a clever boy–especially with that masochistic 'I love the man who
> > > destroys me''victim as beauty' pose), and ON GOES THE SHOW, the
> > > spectacle of sexual abuse of adults hihi, until they are sucked dry,
> and
> > > their corpses tossed away auf uber Auschwitz. Being Fed onis POWER,
> > > really. Really, it's power. You're not given sexual energy in order to
> > > evolve, and achieve various stages of conscious behavior (which means
> > > also a form of 'immortality') no–you're born to live, fuck, reproduce,
> > > be fed on, die, and be discared as husks.
> > >
> > > > One might ask why it matters if a website includes an "acknowledgment"
> > > > of sexual instincts in children, but it's not as clear cut as that.
> > > > There is a rampant tendency among pedophiles to defend themselves with
> > > > the argument that their victims wanted to have sex;
> > >
> > > Or victims who deserved to be mocked, brutalized, fuck them if they
> > > can't take a joke, I can do whatever the fuck I want, pushing buttons
> > > is clever, shhsshsshhshh individual development is a sssssecret
> > > knowledge which belongs to only the sssselect few, but only if you
> dance
> > > to someone else's dance and not your (kundalini's) own (joshua zeidner,
> > > NN, Joseph McElroy)
> > >
> > > > that children can
> > > > and will deliberately seduce adults as a result of "hormones" or some
> > > > misguided desire for affection. Because of this, the idea has made in
> > > > roads in our culture;
> > >
> > > The German is always happy to peddle his kultur.
> > >
> > > > usually attributed to "liberal values" though they
> > > > are, in fact, simply a defense tactic to garner what little public
> > > > support pedophiles can muster.
> > >
> > > Well they could just call it art. After all, the stuff of CANNOT
> > > is the 'meat and potatoes' of artists, isn't it Ivan Pope?
> > > Ah the forbidden delights of violence and abuse.
> > >
> > > > situations? Is Mouchette trying to seduce us? What does this say about
> > > > the cultural acceptance of such predatory instincts?
> > >
> > > What DOES it babe?
> > >
> > > > I point to the Barrett case because it is also a horrifying example of
> > > > what happens in a culture of acceptable exploitation.
> > >
> > > Good grief; of which you're a primary mover. But you will always scream
> > > at easy pickings such as 'politicians' 'child molestors' 'rock stars'
> > > 'goths', anything, just to avoid the reality of your own asshole state.
> > >
> > > > It is interesting to note that this same double standard also applies
> to
> > > > Mouchette when it comes to criticism of the web site. I've noticed how
> > > > other critics of net.art address the issue of Mouchette.org's content
> > > > based on their gender. While Josephine Bosma, a female critic, makes
> the
> > > > case that Mouchette is "based on staggeringly repulsive male fantasies"
> > > > [from http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?1156 ], a male critic, after
> > > > discussing at some length the pieces in which we are asked to taste
> > > > Mouchettes tongue, makes this statement:
> > >
> > > Oops there goes ERyk's exploitation of genders. As if females are
> > > incapable of this predatorial behavior, snif.
> > >
> > > > I'm not going to argue that this writer literally "enjoyed" the pieces
> > > > sexual overtones, but at the very least, the entire text proves that
> > > > such net.art criticism can be focused on the idea of technology and
> > > > theory so much that it blinds us to the actual content an artist
> creates
> > > > with it.
> > >
> > > Oh but you attempt to blind with technology theoryand emotional jerks
> > > your behavior all the time. And Sufism. And zen. halleluja, Praise the
> > > lord. Every man a preacher, preaching the law according to HIS BOOK.
> > > Jesus ist dead, long live Jesus.
> > >
> > > > As I've mentioned, one of the biggest concerns I have is the
> > > > "mainstreaming" efforts by pedophile organizations such as NAMBLA
> > > > towards a concept of "acceptable pedophilia."
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm sure you lose sleep over it, and are actively attempting to
> > > prevent it.
> > >
> > > > At the same time I am
> > > > aware that work can be misinterpreted and that some "checklists" for
> > > > sexual abuse are capable of making almost any individual into a
> > > > pedophile. One website defending the notion of pedophilia has a list of
> > > > oaths that pedophiles should take that read like the ambitions of
> anyone
> > > > who "respects kids". I don't think that looking at Mouchette.org will
> > > > breed a generation of child molesters. I want to be perfectly clear:
> the
> > > > subject is not whether the creator of Mouchette.org [who remains
> > > > anonymous] is a pedophile, but simply whether or not the site can be
> > > > read as mainstreaming, putting out the idea that children are capable
> of
> > > > seducing adults, an extension of the classic "she was asking for it /
> > > > dressed for rape" defense by male rapists. My conclusion is that this
> > > > can be read as the primary message within the work.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I am not attempting to censor any artists,
> > >
> > > Of course you're not such a nice guy that you are :)
> > >
> > > > nor do I believe that art
> > > > addressing the real impacts of sexual abuse would be problematic;
> > >
> > > No, it's only filtered.
> > >
> > > > nor
> > > > that explorations of sexuality are "immoral". I am not a defender of
> > > > policies which aim to child proof the world, nor do I believe in a
> world
> > > > of 100% political correctness. I believe that we have to begin to look
> > > > at net.art as a real art form that is interested in ideas and messages,
> > > > and that we begin to evaluate such work on the merits of these
> > > > intentions. To do this, we must look at the ideas and messages that
> > > > artists are putting across in the work, for better or for ill.
> > >
> > > As long as we don't do that yo YOUR work, n'est pas?
> > >
> > > xoxo
> > >
> > > `, . ` `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
> > > ——————————————————————–
> > ——————————————————————–
> > t h i n g i s t
> > message by "joseph (yes)" <joseph@electrichands.com>
> > archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> > info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> > and write "info thingist" in the message body
> > ——————————————————————–
> >
>
> ——————————————————————–
> t h i n g i s t
> message by Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> ——————————————————————–
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
> Quoting Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>:
>
> > You dont know what I was talking of.
>
> YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECT
>
Masturbatory lexical category shifting about is not 'talking'.
As in the case of the above, neither of you is talkin about anything:
simply fucking around with each own's brains and fancying that clever
and witty.
So the animals are born, join the brain-circus-herd, die, ad rot.
Baa.
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
>
> So the animals are born, join the brain-circus-herd, die, ad rot.
>
> Baa.
>
>
>
And you don't offer or know of a better alternative. Just another animal
braying louder.
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
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > Quoting Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>:
> >
> > > You dont know what I was talking of.
> >
> > YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECT
> >
>
> Masturbatory lexical category shifting about is not 'talking'.
> As in the case of the above, neither of you is talkin about anything:
> simply fucking around with each own's brains and fancying that clever
> and witty.
>
> So the animals are born, join the brain-circus-herd, die, ad rot.
>
> Baa.
>
>
>
> ——————————————————————–
> 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 Thu, 21 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
> And you don't offer or know of a better alternative. Just another animal
> braying louder.
No dearest. I have found + executed the alternative.
I do KNOW it, despite your at this point outright jealous
and hateful projections. However the ALTERNATIVE is only
for those WORTHY of it.
You cannot EXTORT IT, BEAT IT out of another, STEAL IT,
COPY IT, BUY IT or get it in any other way but 'WORK'.
It is referred to as having a soul and spirit, and for
the former it is necessary to have an ESSENCE 'seed' and
utilize psychosexual energy to cultivate the soul.
This soul when created is indeed, omniscient, autonomous
and the source of authority in the individual.
YOU_ dearest have no ESSENCE-SEED.
I have told you many times, but you pretend like you ain't
hearing it. YOU JOSEPH have no WAY OUT but to be an ANIMAL.
And it is ony you_ who have done that to yourself.
Additionally, the whole of your behavior constitutes in
debasing, degrading, and attempting to feed on those
who have NOT 'lost the game'.
I am NOT an animal, nor WILL I be, at any point.
I am not like you, and fancy that, and you and I are not EQUAL.
You are not only below me, but below every single user on this list,
because there is nothing that brings down a human to a state of slug
than giving up its NON-HUMAN ESSENCE.
And you have done this to yourself by debasing yourself continuously.
You're simply an idiotic dog.
And you have no ability, nor autority to judge such matters of who
knows what, and who is at what stage of development.
Furthermore, you have no capability nor authority to be of service,
or a teacher of any sort.
I'll repeat it again just so you can squirm a bit more,
because you are. I have found the alternative, and I am not
OBLIGED to give it to anyone. It is only available to those
W O R T H Y. That is those willing to do WORK.
You're a lazi passive-aggressive egotistical leech.
And avoid attempting to 'extort' it from me by attempting
to demand proofs. The 'proof' of it is all around you,
you're siply blind, deaf, dumb, and illiterate.
And that is YOUR problem.
> 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
>
> SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>:
> > >
> > > > You dont know what I was talking of.
> > >
> > > YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECT
> > >
> >
> > Masturbatory lexical category shifting about is not 'talking'.
> > As in the case of the above, neither of you is talkin about anything:
> > simply fucking around with each own's brains and fancying that clever
> > and witty.
> >
> > So the animals are born, join the brain-circus-herd, die, ad rot.
> >
> > Baa.
> >
> >
> >
> > ——————————————————————–
> > 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
> > ——————————————————————–
>
o
[ + ]
+ + +
| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42