On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Adam Reeves wrote:

> Vijay's right.

Vijay is very far from right.

> I want out too.

Then ask nicely without attemptig to attach
emotional stabs with the message.

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Adam Reeves wrote:

> How do you spell 'irony'?

Powerless defensive automatic reaction,

(n) irony.: an adult defensive mechanism of late 20c / 21c
human apes who confuse spastic breain-reactions with humor

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> You were much closer before,

No dear. What we wrote was accurate + precise.

> my 'insecurity' is the task not accomplished.

Meaningless.

> Now I give you a weapon, so use it.

Ah yes, hit me where I've grown insensitive to my body.

No, don't worry. Soon you'll be so 'incensitive'
there will be no spot that hurts.

You've almost paid the price :)

>
> Can you guys please have your moot argument privately. I am tired of
> emails waisting my box about someone wanting to be smart and another guy
> wanting everyone else too know he is so smart that he can rip threw
> anybody and everybody. I think I have become dumber just by reading you
> pathetic flame war.

Actually Vijay. That's not what's going on.
This is not an argument nor is it up to you to determine 'mootness'.
Nor is this about 'smartness'. If you're tired, take a break.
If you've become 'dumber' it is your own responsibility.

And the one engaging in a pathetic flame war is you.

If you want your e-mail box not contacted, you can say so nicely.
Without the rest of the trash.

Quoting Vijay Pattisapu <disco@junglist.com>:


> because the white middle class never did stupid and evil things
> things and also oh yeah what did you want to tell me?

of course they did, so did every other class…why single one out?

> >I seem to be orange and pink, with blue shadows.
>
> What a fun little game! Let's play, then!

OK - why would I be orange and pink, with blue shadows? Because my 'sight' or
'perception' sees those colors when looking at my skin. Seeing 'white' is
clouded vision (cultural conditioning perhaps). Even using 'flesh' color from
the crayola box is clouded. If you look at the spectrum of 'white' people,
they vary tremendously in color hue, saturation, and contrast. What exactly are
you saying when you say middle class white people? Are you talking about an
italian, irish, jew, russian, other ethic type? Or perhaps you really are
referring to a mindset - naive, ignorant, blaise, etc? Or some characteristic
behavior that we are supposed to assume all middle class white people engage
in?

>
> >I don't have any money, so
>
> Aw. You want some? I got extra. It's okay, really.

I stated a temporary finacial condition and did not request assistance on your
part. Lack of money is not a reason for sarcasm, unless perhaps you are a
'middle class white person' (defined based upon a behavior)


> >maybe I am the pink lower class. Pretty in pink. My wife is orange and
> purple,
>
> Wow

My wife is african-american, they tend to be orange, yellow ochre, purple in my
vision. Occasional I will see a deep burnt umber, blue black. How about you?

>
> >with green shadows. Maybe togethor we are the pink and green class - wasn't

Very often the shadows on the human skin are a cool complement of the primary
skin color.

>
> hmm are you doing a stupid thing?

Are you?

>
> >that a 'preppy' color scheme? We are the preppie class. For what are we
> >preparing?

Ok, bad joke.

>
> >Are the white middle class the 'they'. I bet they are not the 'other'. My
>
> What a way with words! You should start replacing your "s"'s with "z"'s…

I am a cabinet maker, a house painter, a man with big hands. My words are tools
used to build packages (of information) - sometimes I miss the nail with the
hammer (wince) - but I seldom miss twice. Tools are very often missing to open
the packages by the reciever. Occasionally I ship tools.

>
> Didn't mean to confuse you. Just shot a few words out into space…

You didn't. It was said with rolling eyes.


>
> Pink's pretty nice.
>
> Pornographic?

"Into Pink" is a sexual reference.

>
>
> Really, though, I never intended to come off as some kind of champion of the
> proletariat or something…it was just a thought. What do you think dark
> humor is, then, and why do you think it's only appreciated here by
> coffeehouse college kids (hehe didn't use k's on all three…a joke!a joke!!)
> in the USA? I dunno. I apologize if I offended anyone.

You did not offend - just perhaps the problem lies not with the audience.
Performance poetry is usually won with charisma, not content.

> P.S., only vague correlate I could find was the portrayal of domestic
> violence in Tamil popular stage drama, but it's not as much 'humorous' as a
> complicated (perhaps)cathartic mix of Shakespearean comedy sensibilities with
> the Sanksrit rasa theory of drama…I myself don't understand it
> completely…if anyone on the list does, could you explain it to us?

My education is in the hands and eyes.

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

On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Vijay Gorrepati wrote:

> Did anyone invite you?

Yes dear. You did. You made a public undirected post.

> What I do remember is joseph(yes) saying something and you taking it
> upon yourself to tear it apart. So its apparent that invitations arent
> necessary or required.

Certainly they are.

> p.s. Asking if someone is invited in a conversation is such a programmed response produced by threated beasts. i guess you are what you preach everyone else is.

No dearest. It isn't.

Don't you remember? Moksha is liberation in action, not from_ action.
You have no capacity to perceive programmed responses.

Now don't be pissy because we won't do as you say.

xo.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Vijay Gorrepati wrote:

> Nope, no capacity at all..

None. And sarcasm isn't going to get you any.

> guess I will just fade like everyone else.

You're forgiven.

> oh yeah, you never did answer my question.

We are not obliged to answer anything.

> who DID invite you to the conversation since invitations ARE required.

It wasn't a conversation, love. You posted an undirected message.

> p.s. i wont deal myself with inferior beings,

The only 'inferior' being here is you, love.
And you will never achieve superiority proper until you walk down the
street and realize what runs every human, and that you, dearest
are un-worthy of the attention of the most destitute beggar,
the most illiterate and uneducated human.

The king is the beggar, Vijay. The king is the beggar.
Can't you see him behind the eyes?

> an opinion as to be heard to be expressed….HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That is not so. Besides, dear, we have no opinions,
nor do we 'express' anything. You project like others,
your own 'interpretations'–rather how you'd_
act in the situation if you were I. But I are not you.

Besides, dear, you're flipping out like all others
after failing to dictate behavior directly. Now you
fancy that you're 'needed' (Hello, Mr. Foltz), so you
see, 'you' won't offer your 'ear' unless we behave
like you want us to (passive-aggressive control).
Hello, Ms. Joseph.

Tak + tak.

Now we sing:

http://www.god-emil.dk/~333/simply.html

It's a lovely thing masochism isn't it?
I will self-destruct in order to attempt to control you.
I will self-destruct rather than treat you properly.
O, I will self-debase, I will knee-jerk, I will
be sarcastic, ironic, asshole, I will 'laugh'
HAHA, it's so funny, like a kick in the stomach,
butterflies, HAHA, it's so funny, oh-oh
now I think I damage the other, and I fail to
see how I am only damaging myself, 0, HAHA,
have you seen the moon lately, 0, HAHA,
dear Vijay, watch yourself behave like the
white middle-class that you are, indeed.
0 HA HA it's a virus, isn't it?
I will self-destruct because I just cannot
give up that I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I,
that program that runs me, ah oh, HAHA.
That SELF-IMPORTANCE SELF-PITY PROGRAM.

I will rebel, rebel, ah -ah ah.
Waxing and waning, left & right.
Have you seen the moon Vijay?
In the reflected light of the sicle-edge,
the sunset looks like a sunrise, and it feels
like love, ah finally it feels like love.
Ah finally, it feels like love, liberty, and
brotherhood, ah. Dear little soldats.
The revolution and freedom. Simply Superior.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/epr/posters/images/poster-moon-normal.jpg

> This is funny.

Ach. Like a kick in the stomach.
One feels 'butterflies'.
Fu-u-u-n-ny.
Ultra hilarious.
Dark hu-mor.

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

>
> > This is funny.
>
> Ach. Like a kick in the stomach.
> One feels 'butterflies'.
> Fu-u-u-n-ny.
> Ultra hilarious.
> Dark hu-mor.

A funny poem.

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

> A funny poem.

Were you invited in this conversation?

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

>
> > A funny poem.
>
> Were you invited in this conversation?

I agreed with your answer.

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

> Can someone please stop this guy.

> he's insane

> Can someone please stop this guy.

> he's insane

> and pissing off all of us

Anger is an emotion arising within you entirely.

> (I hope, at least he's pissing me off).

It speaks for all + hopes everyone is 'like it'.

> I hope he'll find another hobby

This is not a hobby. Nor do we engage in hobbies.

> soon instead of writing those idiotic emails 24/7…

The only one writing idiotic emails is you, love.

> anyone agrees?

Anyone agrees? Says the herd.

> so let's take action!

Bleat.

An artist? Huh?

Did I miss something?

Where's his art then?

Or are those emails his art?

"-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" wrote:

> And so the ape Adam Reeves 'writes,' having no 'interest' in us,
> indeed.
>
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Adam Reeves wrote:
> > oh, Rolf, we can't stop him! He's an artist!
>
> Surely we are, dear. Sarcastic self-debasement only reflects your own
> idiocy.
>
> > And a genius! We can only bow to his superior intellect.
>
> We are neithera 'genius' nor intellectual.
> Yet the ape will continue projecting + fancying
> that 'sarcasm' damages anyone but itself.
>
> > After all, if he didn't tell us what was wrong with us, we'd never know.
>
> You have no capacity to know currently + are debasing yourself further
> from it.
>
> > Thank god for this bastard who defiles the name 'Kandinski!'
>
> Excuse us dearest. We do not engage in acts of 'defilement'.
> Avoid attempting to emotionally knee-jerk some 'righteous' cause.
> We have perfect rights to bear the name Kandinskij.
> Your lack of awareness + infantile idiocy are not 'intelligent'
> nor 'poignant' nor 'funny'.
>
> Off goes the masochistic Adams's self-destructive knee-jerk.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

And so the ape Adam Reeves 'writes,' having no 'interest' in us,
indeed.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Adam Reeves wrote:
> oh, Rolf, we can't stop him! He's an artist!

Surely we are, dear. Sarcastic self-debasement only reflects your own
idiocy.

> And a genius! We can only bow to his superior intellect.

We are neithera 'genius' nor intellectual.
Yet the ape will continue projecting + fancying
that 'sarcasm' damages anyone but itself.

> After all, if he didn't tell us what was wrong with us, we'd never know.

You have no capacity to know currently + are debasing yourself further
from it.

> Thank god for this bastard who defiles the name 'Kandinski!'

Excuse us dearest. We do not engage in acts of 'defilement'.
Avoid attempting to emotionally knee-jerk some 'righteous' cause.
We have perfect rights to bear the name Kandinskij.
Your lack of awareness + infantile idiocy are not 'intelligent'
nor 'poignant' nor 'funny'.

Off goes the masochistic Adams's self-destructive knee-jerk.

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

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Rolf van Gelder wrote:

> An artist? Huh?

Tak.

You're incapable of judging 'artists'.

> Did I miss something?

Missing is all you do.

> Where's his art then?

Sai the very self-important competitively 'enraged' ape.

> Or are those emails his art?

You are my art, dear.

"-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Rolf van Gelder wrote:
>
> > An artist? Huh?
>
> Tak.
>
> You're incapable of judging 'artists'.
>
> > Did I miss something?
>
> Missing is all you do.
>
> > Where's his art then?
>
> Sai the very self-important competitively 'enraged' ape.
>
> > Or are those emails his art?
>
> You are my art, dear.

> You are my art, dear.

First line of the 500.000 you sent to Rhizome that makes sense……
Congrats!

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Rolf van Gelder wrote:

> First line of the 500.000 you sent to Rhizome that makes sense……

No, dearest. All of what we send makes sense.
Your illiteracy is your own problem.

Tak.

Additionally, you're not capable of perceiving what makes sense.

Your self-important egotistical posturing on the other hand..

now there's something..

..WITHOUT EXISTENCE.

> oh yeah, you have me all wrong.

No we don't, love.

> I DONT want everyone to behave like i want.

So you declare.

> I dont want anything from you or anyone else on this mailing list
> (except for vijay p to freestyle for me).

So you declare.

> all i got is love,

You're not capable of love (yet).
Desire is not love.

> have fun in your quest for affirmation,

We are not on a quest for affirmation, dear.
Keep your misinterpretations of our behavior to yourself.

> cause you got it from me.

Affirmation or negation of another is an attempt at control baby.

Human behavior is not subject to another's 'opinion'.

Perpetuation of delusions is driven by desire.

Affirming or denying another is based on a childish
+ undeveloped sexual drive which seeks 'reflection' in
another, much like a child looks up to its parents.

Additionally : you're knee-jerking from your self-importance,
fancying that you are someone who can_ affirm another.

Relate to us without infantilism, if you can.


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

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Vijay Gorrepati wrote:

> > There is no we, ape.
>
> Childish name calling, I thought you were above that.

Certainly. There is no childish name calling in the above statement.
Your reaction is to misinterpret the above as such,
which is your action, and your responsibility
+ then attempt to hold us responsible for it.

It doesn't work that way.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Vijay Gorrepati wrote:


> yo big wake up baby. I'm up. I'm up. take down this info. tell your girl to remember this or something. flight 504 leaving kennedy to the LAX. Ooooh, calli. yo big we gotta sell this shit. big get up, IM UP.

Meaningless ape posturing.

> the beggar is all, cause we are never happy.

There is no we, ape.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Vijay Gorrepati wrote:

> i cant relate, i am an ape, as you have labelled me.

You haven't been labeled, love.

> an ape that cant love and is prone to bouts of infantilism. damn, you
> got me perfectly. you know me so well, you sure you dont live in Jester.

Meaningless defensive sarcasm.

> i am guessing your the opposite..

Everything functions in opposites, ne?

> it seems you have certain rights that you think others shouldnt.

I don't think, dear. Nor is any of the above occurring.

> guess your special.

Standard knee-jerk.


> have you ever had ONE original thought in your life,

Standard knee-jerk.

> or are you like a robot in that you just gather information from other
> "thinkers"

You're talking about yourself, baby.

> then talk big by throwing out their terminology.

Nobody owns terminology, love. Nor am I doing anything of the above.
Nor are you capable of obsrrving us.

> its really bad when i can go threw each one of your emails
> and pick out which person you took their diagnoses from. and yes, I can.

No, dearest, you cannot, stomp your feets as you please :)


> this ape can read as well.

No, dear, you're illiterate.

> you are so far from the truth its sad, but hey, believe what you want, because thats all you "have."

No dear, we are not 'far from the truth' at all.
Nor are you capable of judging others.
Nor do we engage in beliefs.

Keep your 'badass' standard projectional attempts at insults
to yourself.

> p.s. next time you call BIG ape talk,
> vijay pattisapu (MFDISCO for the disheartened) is gonna bust you up. i
> know for a fact, because he has done it before.

Bust us up? Doubtful that.

Nor do you 'know' anything, as Vijay hasn't done anything of the sort :)

And yes, you are_ acting like an enraged ape.

Wink.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Vijay Gorrepati wrote:

> oh yeah, stop using we in your posts.

Er, avoid dictating what we should do, love.

> because from where i am standing, the only person responding is YOU.

No, dear. Nothing of the sort is occuring.
Nor are you capable of perceiving how 'many' are speaking :)

> therefore when i speak its directed at you.

Too bad there is no 'me'?

> there is no one behind you, just yourself.

Ah, the tough talk.

> there is no one with you, you are alone on this one. so stop trying to
> act like you are part of some group, when you are not.

We are a group, baby.

> p.s. now when are you actually going to say something in your posts.

Cheap territorial posturing.


> this has gone on for about 3-4 days, and you have one post where you
> have actually said something.

Drivel.

> everything else is just you breaking down posts and using other peoples ideas in trying to "diagnose" these people. i have been waiting patiently, but maybe you are incapable of expressing yourself without falling on that cruch. i didnt want to beleive, but i guess its true.

Keep your myopic hyped-ape delusional misinterpretations to yourself,
illiterate ape.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Vijay Pattisapu wrote:

> 1-You probably didn't get confused, but Vijay _–__Gorrepati_–__ is different from me, Vijay Pattisapu. Hope everyone knew dat.

Yes, I noticed it's a different person.

> 2-What is tak?

Tak is tak.

> 3-Who is Foltz?

Somebody famous.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Vijay Gorrepati wrote:

> Sorry for the spam, but I just got to end this.
> Anyways, one quick question Kman. What is your goal in all this? What
> was your purpose in breaking down joseph(yes)'s original post?

That is not what we did.

> What is your purpose in breaking each email and throwing different
> theories about why the people said them.

We have engaged in no such activity.

> Do you feel better letting others know what their faults are.

Cheap attempts at accusation about nothing we ever did.

> Or maybe its something as barbaric as you want other people to know you
> have been reading other peoples ideas, ideas that you think others can
> not comprehend.

Ah. The ape attempts to be subtly suggestive.
No dear, it's nothing of the sort.
Your myopic self-debasory knee-jerks are your own problem.

> therefore flexing your supposed intellect.

We are not interested in 'flexing anything'.
Nor are we engaged in any of the above behavior.

> I would rather give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

So gracious of you to condescend.
Too bad, you're not capable of perceiving others besides yourself>

> See, I know I prolly dont know you that well after 5 emails. but hey,
> you think you know me.

I don't think, dear. Nor do I 'think I know you'.

> p.s. the capacity and capability of one to love is not based on age,

Did we say anyhing about age?

> time, or enviroment.

Did we imply anything of the sort?

> Its based on experiences,

You don't know anything about love, dear.

> and therefore its impossible for you to know if I can love or not.

Actually it is quite possible.
And you are not.


> That was a silly comment on your part, as you have no idea what I have
> or have not experienced.

Silly? Should we feel ashamed?
But the comment was accurate :)

> Just because you think

We don't think.

> I fit into one of your self made categories

We are not fitting you into categories, love.
Nor anyone.

> does not mean you know anything about it.

Yes, but we do know.

> and also, i am not threatened nor was i ever.

No, you're not threatened at all.. just throwing
blind defensive moves left and right.

> just humored, and entertained.

You're neither humored, nor entertained.
Pose as you will, however.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Alex Sullivan wrote:


> WOULD YOU PEOPLE JUST LOOK AT YOURSELVES!

Ah look. A "general' approach with regards to 'our' statements.

> First of all I would think that the word "friends" could be used in this
> forum. But since some people took offense to that term,

No offense taking is going on.
Friendship is not automatic.


> With it, the addresses of "love" and "dear" are no longer fashionable
> since they are used primarily for show.

We do not use those terms or 'others' for show.

> Second, the very broad statements such as "you are not yet able to love"

This was not a very broad statement. It was precise + accurate.


> and many others should be explained.

Ah. More orders. No, thanks.

> That statement can't stand alone.
> It is no heroic couplet. If you want your
> broad statements understood, then give them some context.

Meaningless schoolyard propaganda.

> Third, I think you people should see what your doing.

We see exactly what we are doing.

> And what you're doing is nothing more than insulting each other.

We are not insulting anyone.
We also avoid speaking for everyone.

> Each email after email just tries to top the others by sounding more intellectual.

We are not intellectual.

> What you're doing in all actuallity is just a more cerebral version of throwing "yo-mama" jokes back
> and forth to no end.

No, this is your knee-jerk misinterpretation of the situation.

> Using terms like "love" in order to pull the other
> closer so you can stab them harder.

We do not stab anyone.
We have written extensively that when one ATTACKS another
one only ATTACKS oneself. If you feel 'stabbed' you should
examine your own behavior :)

> Philosophers have spent milennia,
> building off each other or building foundations of their own, in order to
> reach some higher understanding.

Have they?

> And not to gain profound knowledge of how to insult someone.

We are not insulting anyone.

> The only direction that this collective conversation is going towards is becoming enemies.

We are neither enemies nor frends.

> Fourth, I refuse to get into a back and forth battle with anyone.

That would be why you pretend like you're not speaking about
anyone in particular and 'addres the people'.

> I am not
> one to stand around the circle cheering for someone to beat the shit out of
> another person.

But you sure engage in sideways verbal jabs without direct
confrontation.

> Not like last night outside my window, not like right now in
> my email. I am not one for armed conflict.

Can we have it unarmed?

> I may have insulted some people
> in this email, but my intention was to hold up a mirror.

You're not capable of 'holding up mirrors'.

> I'm confident that
> everyone receiving this has enough self-esteem to handle whatever they see
> in the reflection.

Yes, which is projections of your genetics, cultural
conditioning and ego attempted to be forced as presentations
of others.

You've a lot of work to do before youcan 'hold up mirrors' love.

And one who 'holds up mirrors' doesn't
'hold up mirrors' and 'fuck off' with the responsibility
towards the one they're reflecting.

Rather the opposite, mirroring involves a GREAT responsibility.

Please avoid attempting to misuse 'mirrors'
in an attempt to pass on what you typed up as 'true'.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Adam Reeves wrote:

> If you have something to say to Alex, to Vijay, or to anyone, please say it
> to them only.

We do, dear, we do.

> I have no interest in your back and forths,

And the below is because youhave no interest?
Or are you saying that you have no interest in order to send
a massive attempt at offense, and pre-empt any sort of action
on the recepient's end?

> your underhand self-aggrandizing,

We are not underhanded, nor self-aggrandazing.
Keep your self-debasing projections to yourself.

> and your pseudo-intellectual witless retorts.

We are not 'pseudo-intellectual' or 'intellectual' even.
We are not 'witless' nor do we engage in retorts.

> You are a hack.

We are not a hack, love nor are you anywhere near the capacity
to make observations on such matters.

> You have absolutely nothing of value to say to me so stop talking to
> me.

More juvenile attempts at pre-emption of action.
You, dear, are not capable of discerning value, nor does
value revolve around your ego.

> It's worse than Alex's "yo mama" metaphor; it's playground
> defensiveness - "I know you are, but what am I?"

No, dear, it isn't. Nothing of the sort is going on.

> You talk about passive-agressiveness,

Yes, and unlike you, dear, we know_ what we're talking about.

> you talk about stunted intellectual growth.

We have never talked about stunted intellectual growth.

> Puh-fucking-lease.

Passive-aggressiveness.

> You send me and everyone else your drivel,

We do not send drivel, love.

> and I'm confident that I'm not alone

You're confident that there are many, many, many who support you.
Or are you attempting passive-aggressive censorship?

> in not wanting to get it in my mailbox.

There are many many who care about the content of your mailbox?

> Leave me out of it. It's easy.

Tak. If that's all you wanted, you could have said so.
But instead you want to pass all of this attached to the above.

> I don't have to ask nicely.

Yes dear, you do have to ask nicely.
When you speak or write to use, you will have to act nicely.

We do not 'follow examples'.

> love of utmost sincerity,

You're not capable of either, love.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Alex Sullivan wrote:

> QUESTION:
> I am assuming that there is a Homo sapien some where responding to all of
> these emails, among other assumtions.

All erroneous.

> The english language is flawed but in common usage some terms have become more definite, yet another assumption.

Another completely meaningless sentence.

You were not interested in speaking to us>

> For the Homo sapien responding to the these emails, why is it that you use
> the plural "we" instead of the singular "I",

Why? Oh why? We wonder why?! Why could we possibly use why?!

> with an understanding that the
> plural "we" is usually reserved for reference to multiple Homo sapien's?

A completely meaningless assumption?

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Vijay Gorrepati wrote:

> I have no clue who "they" are. They are on the rhizome mailing list. Ask vijay p about them, he has some interesting things to tell.

> anyways, have fun, kman is good at telling you to stop telling people do
> something.

We are not 'telling you' to 'stop telling people to do something'.
Meaningless generalities do not apply to Reality.

> and they like to

We neither like nor dislike.

> lean on a psychoanalytical cruch,

We lean on no crutches, love. Nor do we engage in 'psychoanalyis'.
Avoid attempting to present your cultural conditioing programmatic
knee-jerks as what 'we' are.


> albeit not very responsibly.

Dear, you have no understanding of responsibility.
You're simply throwong about verbal concepts.


> Somehow they instantly know who you are and


> WILL tell what you are doing,

That is not what we are doing, love.

> even if you are not, because they just know.

Nor is the above what we are doing.

> They also dont take responsibility in their actions

Actually dear, we are perfectly responsible for our actions.

> and are quick to forget them.

Dear we do nothing of the sort.

> Very hypocritical too.

Nor are we hypocritical in the least.

> APE!

So dear, can you do anything besides project
standard knee-jerk attempts at insults mixed up
with things you perceive as 'insults' on our behalf?

Can someone please stop this guy… he's insane and pissing off all of us (I hope, at least he's pissing me off).
I hope he'll find another hobby soon instead of writing those idiotic emails 24/7…

anyone agrees?

so let's take action!


"-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Alex Sullivan wrote:
>
> > QUESTION:
> > I am assuming that there is a Homo sapien some where responding to all of
> > these emails, among other assumtions.
>
> All erroneous.
>
> > The english language is flawed but in common usage some terms have become more definite, yet another assumption.
>
> Another completely meaningless sentence.
>
> You were not interested in speaking to us>
>
> > For the Homo sapien responding to the these emails, why is it that you use
> > the plural "we" instead of the singular "I",
>
> Why? Oh why? We wonder why?! Why could we possibly use why?!
>
> > with an understanding that the
> > plural "we" is usually reserved for reference to multiple Homo sapien's?
>
> A completely meaningless assumption?
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php




–
———————————————————————
CAGE - Cyber Art Gallery Eindhoven - gallery@cage.nl
CAGE - Web Design & Internet Consultancy - info@cage.nl
Rolf van Gelder
http://www.cage.nl/

CAGE - Mailing List:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAGE/join
Post message: CAGE@yahoogroups.com
———————————————————————

GO!Rolf…GO&fuck your litlle dog.
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "Rolf van Gelder" <cage@chello.nl>
To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
Cc: "Alex Sullivan" <dangersports@hotmail.com>; <vijayg@mail.com>;
<joseph@electrichands.com>; <adamreeves@mail.utexas.edu>;
<disco@junglist.com>; <list@rhizome.org>; <maheshp@microsoft.com>;
<taras@microsoft.com>; <rampatt@aol.com>; <luke21687@hotmail.com>;
<naveenpatt@hotmail.com>; <defwacto@yahoo.com>; <jpattisapu@aol.com>;
<annipatt@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: 2Moksha 2Moksha. Let's all be victims.


> Can someone please stop this guy… he's insane and pissing off all of us
(I hope, at least he's pissing me off).
> I hope he'll find another hobby soon instead of writing those idiotic
emails 24/7…
>
> anyone agrees?
>
> so let's take action!
>
>
> "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Alex Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > > QUESTION:
> > > I am assuming that there is a Homo sapien some where responding to
all of
> > > these emails, among other assumtions.
> >
> > All erroneous.
> >
> > > The english language is flawed but in common usage some terms have
become more definite, yet another assumption.
> >
> > Another completely meaningless sentence.
> >
> > You were not interested in speaking to us>
> >
> > > For the Homo sapien responding to the these emails, why is it that you
use
> > > the plural "we" instead of the singular "I",
> >
> > Why? Oh why? We wonder why?! Why could we possibly use why?!
> >
> > > with an understanding that the
> > > plural "we" is usually reserved for reference to multiple Homo
sapien's?
> >
> > A completely meaningless assumption?
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>
> –
> ———————————————————————
> CAGE - Cyber Art Gallery Eindhoven - gallery@cage.nl
> CAGE - Web Design & Internet Consultancy - info@cage.nl
> Rolf van Gelder
> http://www.cage.nl/
>
> CAGE - Mailing List:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAGE/join
> Post message: CAGE@yahoogroups.com
> ———————————————————————
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>