On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Alisa Chevalier wrote:

> Just jumping in the flow here. but I thought I'd point out.. we are
> animals.. no doubt about it. Hardwired instincts and all

No dearest. Humans are not_ animals.
Nor are they 'hardwired'.

Animals are 'hardwired'. Humans have the capacity to MASTER
the 'hardwiring'. Hence they are given 'animal nature' in themselves.
So that they may 'master' it without using others.

Note that 'master' doesn't mean what you'd likely read it to be.

Humans consist of 'mineral-demonic'
'plant-angelic'
'animal-archangelic'
'divine-conscious'
natures (and more than one tiers of the three lower natures).


Additionally emotions != plant-angelic
brain functions ! = thinking (animal archangelic)

Love + beauty + hope + faith + etc are neither 'plant-angelic'
(energetic feelings accessible by genuine empathy + co-resonance)
nor thinking proper (animal-archangelic).

They are properties of simply divine nature.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Alisa Chevalier wrote:

> Did you stop taking your balancing drugs again sweetness?

We don't need any 'balacing' drugs, Alisa.
Idiotic jabs are only reflective of your own psychotism.
Balancing 'drugs' won't help you out though.
Seeing as how your idiotism is 'hardwired'.

What you wrote is simply ignorant drivel.
Avoid using pitiful attempts at insults in order to justify
your moronism.

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

> Humans consist of 'mineral-demonic'
> 'plant-angelic'
> 'animal-archangelic'
> 'divine-conscious'
> natures (and more than one tiers of the three lower natures).
>
>
> Additionally emotions != plant-angelic
> brain functions ! = thinking (animal archangelic)
>
> Love + beauty + hope + faith + etc are neither 'plant-angelic'
> (energetic feelings accessible by genuine empathy + co-resonance)
> nor thinking proper (animal-archangelic).
>
Oh, please dont tell me this bollocks. Not only do I not want to know it,
but I dont understand why you feel it necessary to tell us this. I mean, it
does of course make you look really big and clever. But Id still rather not
have to read such a load of turgid old codswallop on a Monday night.

Actually, while I was bringing my kids home today, I realised that you, K,
are really like them. They have a huge capacity to annoy, to grate, to wind
up, to cause friction. I know its only part of their development,
essentially harmless and fundamentally attention seeking. I know that they
prefer angry shouted attention to no attention at all. I know that they have
no deep understanding of the niceties of human behaviour and that its
pointless to try to reason with them or to shout at them. I know a lot of
what they say is dredged up nonsense. I have learned that the best way to
deal with attention seeking is to ignore it. It doesnt take long to calm the
situation. There is no memory or malice. At the same time, it is amazing how
often I dont remember this in the heat of an exchange, and keep on
responding to a grouchy five year old. >

K, Im not sure, but I think you may be one of my children. If not, can you
please stop sucking on my tit with all your attention seeking.

Cheers, Ivan

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Alisa Chevalier wrote:

> Yes, it was a pathetic jab, in one sense. In the other sense it was trying
> to get a point across.

No dear. It was just_ a pathetic jab. So is your 'point'
and your entire behavior.

> that point is, you are ridiculous.

No dearest, we are not ridiculous.
You, howevera re.

> We are animals and we are hardwired.

No dear, the only hardwired animal here is you.
You're demonstracting it quite clearly as well.

We are not you, we are not the same as you,
and we certainly don't have any interest
in your idiotic attempts to speak for 'everybody'.

> you just threw in a bunch of unsubstanciated gobbledygook
> and expect a person to take it with a straight face?

No, dearest. We did nothing of the sort.
The only one throwing 'unsubstancianted gobbledook' here is you,
because that is all_ your statements about humans, and us are.

> It's biology.

No, it isn't. Your myopic kindergarten understanding of 'biology'
is your personal problem.

> We are a mammal.

No dear. You_ are mammal.

> Just like all the other animals out there. We are descended from
> apes.

You're speaking for yourself. And in fact, you're not even 'descended'
from apes, youa re one.

> get real banana peel!

Ah lovely. We are real. Unlike you.

And your 'unsubstanciated' drivel.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Ivan Pope wrote:


> Oh, please dont tell me this bollocks.

Nobody was speaking to you, Ivan.
Nor is what we wrote bollocks.
If you want to see bollocks look at what you spew:

> Not only do I not want to know it,

We suggest jumping from a cliff.
Rhizome is not 'list about what Ivan wants to know'.
Avoid attempting to dictate our behavior by
'lack of interest' apathetic posturing.

> but I dont understand why you feel it necessary to tell us this.

We do not justify our behavior to you, idiot.

> I mean, it does of course make you look really big and clever.

No, it doesn't. You're attempting to passa projection.
We are not 'clever'.

> But Id still rather not
> have to read such a load of turgid old codswallop on a Monday night.

Nothing of what we wrote is 'turgid old codwsallop'.
Nor does our behavior revolvea round your penis, baby.

> Actually, while I was bringing my kids home today, I realised that you, K,
> are really like them.

Actually dearest, we are nothing like anyone else.
Humans are not 'like this or that'.
We are not like 'your kids' nor 'your friend'
and again you astound with the murderousa pe behavior towards either.

> They have a huge capacity to annoy, to grate, to wind
> up, to cause friction.

No dearest. Annoyance, grating, winding up and friction result out
of bloated egotism + ignorance.

> I know its only part of their development,
> essentially harmless and fundamentally attention seeking.

Dearest, you know nothing of the sort.
Nor are they 'seeking attention'
and neither are we.
In fact, we were not writing to you. AT ALL.

Nevertheless, you fancy this 'personal'.

It is truly revolting how you put your children down +
attempt to use them to condescend + peddle your ego.

> I know that they
> prefer angry shouted attention to no attention at all.

No they do not. Anger is emotional abuse vented at another.
We are not masochosts, nor do your children deserve your anger.

> I know that they have no deep understanding of the niceties of human
> behaviour

Dear idiot, your children, unlike you, are in fact far more capable of
nice human behavior.

We are in fact also perfectly_ nice_.
And we are capable of it.
Observe the simpleton lashing out in egotism, arrogance + anger,
and of course that is because 'the children' or 'we' want it.

Twit.

> and that its pointless to try to reason with them or to shout at them.

Programmatic knee-jerks from your brain are not reason ape.
You possess no reason.

> I know a lot of
> what they say is dredged up nonsense.

No dearest. That is what you_ do.
And we feel rather symapthetic to your chilsdren having to put up
with your idiocy.

> I have learned that the best way to deal with attention seeking is to
> ignore it.

As we have suggested: go jump from a cliff.
We weren't writing to you. AT ALL.
Avoid pretending that we were.
Rhizome is not you.


> It doesnt take long to calm the
> situation. There is no memory or malice.

Just simpleton idiotic ape brutality.

> At the same time, it is amazing how
> often I dont remember this in the heat of an exchange, and keep on
> responding to a grouchy five year old. >

No dearest. The 'grouchy five year old' is you.

> K, Im not sure, but I think you may be one of my children. If not, can you
> please stop sucking on my tit with all your attention seeking.

Dearest ivan, we are not your children.
Nor are we 'sucking' on anything of yours.

That is in fact exactly what you_ are attempting to do.

Continuously.

Rhizome is still a public forum.

If you dislike what we have to post, do not respond.
Filter, Kill yourself.

Avoid to seek attention by mindless attempts at condescension
when you are not capable of talking about anything besides your idiotic
+ egotistical self.

We are not your brain knee-jerks.
+ Using your children in this,

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Alisa Chevalier wrote:

> Sweetest, you are going to have to make yourself just a tad bit clearer I
> am afraid. I think far too clearly to quite get your silliness.

We are perfectly clear, dear. Nor are we 'sarcastic' sweetest.
We are however very amused by your 'kitten' claws.
Your illiteracy is yoir own problem.

> do you have mice in your pocket? what does howevera mean? and re?? to what
> are you referring?

It was perfectly clear, love.

> so are you.

No dearest. We are not.
We know it's hard to swallow,
but not everyone suffers from your personal idiocy.

> we are all animals.

No dearest. You are an animal. And you are only capable of speaking
for yourself (+easily enraged + threatened :)

> It is proven quite clearly in the archaeological record.

It's proven, said the brain obsessed ape.
In the archaelogical record? Tzzt.
Now we area mused.

> I only speak for what history has quite clearly proven.

"History" hasn't "proven" anything of the sort love.
Nor does history "prove" matters. Nor do you have anyaccess to history.

> It has to do with scientific research.

No dearest, it has to do with drivel, babycheeks.

> You are familiar with the idea of Science aren't you?

The sweetness knee-jerks from its ego + condescends.
How scientific. We DO know about science, love,
we DO. You_ 'know' kitsch programmatic 'popular' drivel.

> as I said are you quite sure you are on the medications you quite clearly
> require.. either that or your mummy is calling you.

No dearest. We do not require medications.
Nor do we require any 'mummies' unlike you.

> how then do you explain your existance.

We don't 'explain' our existence nor does our existence
require explanation. Nor do you really carea bout 'existence' love.
Just using 'science' as a crurch for your ego, you are.


> you are just a figment of our collective imagination perhaps?

No dear. You have no capacity to perceive outside yourself.

> Sweetest.. what then do you call yourself..

We don't call ourselves.

> by the biblical record even an angel is a mammal.

We ain't religious love. We don't care about the
delusional drivel passeda round as 'the bible'
+ nor are you literate + capable of discerning
what is in the bible.

> youa re one? is this sometype of odd slang? where are you from anyway
> Jersey??

Burble burble, said the ape.

> If I am not real then what am I? one of your acid induced inspirations??

NOTHING.
A raggedy doll for forces you have no awareness of + which we
enjoy observing acting via you.

So dearest idiota, time to waltz, shall we?

One never gets enough voluntary scientific vict… er we mean
royal subjects.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Alisa Chevalier wrote:

> your real name is Kat? tak?

Meaningless drivel.

> which is it I can't quite make out.

That is your own very personal problem.

> Sheesh you are the one talking about junk food mr ding dong..

More meaningless posturing.

> prove to me

Prove, prove, prove. said the brain obsessed idiotic ape.
Me, me, mr, me. The world revolves around this very 'humble'
animaux.

> I might condescend to speak to you


Ah yes. If one plays along with your brain-obsessed egotistical idiocy,
you might condescend.

But you are not capable of speaking love, nor do we care
for your ego.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Alisa Chevalier wrote:

> What he means when he say's superior is delusional and clearly insane.

No dearest. We mean exactly what we say.
Not the delusional, myopic clearly insane projections
that you wish to replace our intent with.

> Yes people off their meds are VERY difficult to understand.

The only one in need of medication here is you,
brain-obsessed illiterate ape :)

And we will not deliver it to you.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Alisa Chevalier wrote:

> Honest to goodness you Crack me up Kandykane.

You're neither capable of honesty, nor goodness.
Nor do 'we' crack you up. You crack yourself up.
Grimacing self-debasing ape.

Additionally, our name is not "Kandykane".

> but I can't be bothered to read all the way through one of your posts.

Bloat, bloat, said the self-important ego.
Dearest, your failure to read is simply reflective of your idiocy.

> you wallow in stuff and nonsense.

No, dearest, we do not wallow. Nor do we engage in
"stuff and nonsense'. Keeo your self-debasory projections
to yourself.

> I Tire of you already…

Ah, the affected pose. Dearest, you only 'tire' yourself out
by self-debasing. And that is your own responsibility + fault.
Not ours, not anyone else's.

> enough enough Vanish Figment of my
> delusional imagination, and bring in something more entertaining!

We are not a figment of your imagination love.

But let's stick to the subject shall we?

The princessa made a fallacious+ dictatorial statement
, followed through with attempts at abusing another
via attempts at forcing or knee-jerking emotional
impulses or bashing others over the head by attempting
to dictate their behavior via simplistic brain-identification,
and when the other will not play along,

the princessa is so 'cracked up'

How about we remove that veneer, babycheeks, and look at what
motifates your 'appearance':

a weakling imbecile rather 'hardwired'
a coward recoiling in fear
a bloated egotistical princessa
a few instinctual impulses

An 'elaborate' cultural programming.
An even more 'elaborate' cultural programming
dictated to you for millennia.
And a rather 'elaborate' genetic programming.

All of the above comprising an asleep bleat, bleat
system incapable of doing anything besides knee-jerking
according to program and receiving + dictating
further programming to others + producing
energy in a bleat bleat manner.

And amazingly enough it fancies its state of idiocy,
egotism and slavery, that of 'intelligence' 'value'
and something that would be sought after.

A hardwired 'animal' bleat (but animals are superior
to you princessa). And everyone is like you, n'est pas?

A bientot.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Alisa Chevalier wrote:

> so Kat,

Our name is not Kat.

> do enlighten our poor feeble encrusted grey matter, as to what it is
> that endows you with this all knowing glare of supremacy?

Enlighten us. Another word for explanation, n'est pas?
Your backhanded attempts at snide commentary will
not really invalidate what we do.

"Knowing glares of superemacy" exist only in your
delusional brain.

Enlighten yourself, princessa.

> You are very good at never answering a single question and turning
> everything that is said around.

Your myopic misinterpretations of what we do
are not at all related to what we do.

Avoid using idiotic projections as an attempt to dictate our behavior.

> You are the biggest hypocrite I have ever seen.

We are nothing of the sort babycheeks.
The only hypocrite is inside your brain.

> My guess is that you are a chat bot.

Ahso. Standard programmatic knee-jerk.

> You type something to this address it
> gets spewn into the machine and out it garbles some meaningless twang which
> is sent back to the list for all to giggle at.

The only one sending meaningless twang is you babycheecks.
Ahso. The 'imaginary all giggling' as a control-device.
Guess what love, your 'giggling' is little but the defensive
knee-jerk of an impotent dictatorial ape.

> Honest to goodness,

You're neither honest, nor good, nor capable of either.

> that is what I think you are!

You don't exist, love.
Nor are you capable of thinking.

"Honest to goodness" all you can do is project
your self-debasory desires onto another.

And "Honest to goodness" my dearest, the only one
you can talk about is yourself.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Alisa Chevalier wrote:

> Kittens are quite endearing if you ask me.

But we are not asking you. Nor is your condescension towards 'kittens'
justification for your idiocy.


> I do have to enquire how does it possibly equate to my illiteracy?

We nevver implied that it did, love. You're simply illiterate.
Explanations you won't get.


> You are the one who can't seem to type!

Our typing is absolutely perfect, love.
And typing is not literacy.


> Where, I must enquire, does illiteracy enter the equation?

There is no 'question' love.
You're simplement illiterate.

> > do you have mice in your pocket? what does howevera mean? and re?? to
> what
> > are you referring?
>
> It was perfectly clear, love.
>
>
> What is perfectly clear sweetness?

What we wrote is perfectly clear.

> That you aren't capable of typing or spelling?

Nothing of the sort is 'clear' love.
Keeop your egotistical projections to yourself.
They are only reflective of your own simpleton idiocy.

> that your drugs aren't working or aren't being taken??

I'm not sure what you fancy you're doing, baby.
We do not need any drugs. Do you fancy yourself 'tough'
for attempting to harrass humans emotionally? It would seem that you do.

> I do not see how the equates my love,

We are not 'yours' baby.
Nora re you capable of love.

> you must show me some proof before I
> can bow to your SO obvious upper limits of wisdom.

Dear we are not interested in your self-humiliation.
The dictatorial ape wrote: you must play my simpleton brain-obsessed
game, and THEN I will recognize you.

That is dearest, what you wrote: I love you only if you do as I say.

I love you, only if you are me.

We are not you dearest, our wisdom is_ superior,
and you will not get any proofs.

Your failures to recognize it are your own_ egotistical
problems and do not reflect on anyone but yourself.


> > we are all animals.
>
> No dearest. You are an animal. And you are only capable of speaking
> for yourself (+easily enraged + threatened :)
>
> I have no doubts as to my animal nature

Absolument! Total justificia.

> if you have no doubts of your own..

We do not have 'doubts' babycheeks.
Avoid attempting to project your own narcissusa princessa
onto us.

> we must all feel sorry for you.. (speaking in the queens own english of
> course)

Snif + sob. Bloat goes the idiotic princessa.
However, love, your egotism affects you + you only.

Won't you self-debase again?

> > It is proven quite clearly in the archaeological record.
>
> It's proven, said the brain obsessed ape.
> In the archaelogical record? Tzzt.
> Now we area mused.
>
> area mused.. I've never heard of such a concept.

That is your own problem.

> I must insist you make yourself clearer.

Avoid attempting to dictate our behavior idiota.

> you are sounding like a mere heathen…we must have some
> clearacy…

We are sounding nothing like the delusions inside your brain.

> Please prove your point my boiling bowl of cherries..

We don't havea point. Nor do we share your psychotic
ego-brain obsession. Nothing in the world requires
validation to your 'ego' by proof. Nothing.


> I fear I can't quite find myself to find my point.

Psychotic burble burble said the ape.

> > It has to do with scientific research.
>
> No dearest, it has to do with drivel, babycheeks.
>
> babycheeks.. what are you a goddamn pervert????

No dearest. Keep your wishful self-debasing projections
to ypurself.

> Please do make yourself clear,

We are perfectly clear dear.
Ah but look, the blind egotisrical proncessa fancies her illiteracy is
'our fault'.

> it sounds to me as if you were spouting off
> that ever popular pretentious poppycock..

It 'sounds' only in your wishful projections, babycheeks.
What we did had nothing to do with what you wish to PROJECT
we did.

> > as I said are you quite sure you are on the medications you quite
> clearly
> > require.. either that or your mummy is calling you.
>
> No dearest. We do not require medications.
> Nor do we require any 'mummies' unlike you.
>
>
> you only say that because you are in denial it is quite obvious..

No dearest. That is not 'why' we say things.
Keep your delusional self-debasing projections to yourself.

> I am very worried about you. I am afraid I shant sleep tonight.

da. Debase yourself again + again.

> please my love,

We are not 'yours' nora re you capable of love.

> besure
> to wear your coat tomorrow when you go out and you scarf.. eat your
> veggies and do not fail to wear your earmuff. I will not sleep otherwise….

Meaningless egotistical burble.

> > how then do you explain your existance.
>
> We don't 'explain' our existence nor does our existence
> require explanation. Nor do you really carea bout 'existence' love.
> Just using 'science' as a crurch for your ego, you are.
>
>
> please explain yourself.

Dear, you will not_ get an explanation.
The world does not revolvea round you.


> I am afraid you lost your thoughts somewhere in
> there and didn't quite realise it.

You're neither afraid nor capable of perceiving anyone at all.
We did nothing of the above.


> either that or you are quite incapable of
> thought and'nt haven't quite recognized it yet.

No dearest. We are none of the brain cut-out kneejerks
that you wish to project.

> If you require some sort of
> documentation. I can supply it quite easily.

We 'require' nothing dearest.

> > you are just a figment of our collective imagination perhaps?
>
> No dear. You have no capacity to perceive outside yourself.
>
>
> I require proof of that statement.

Said the brain obsessed ape.
You may 'require' what you want.
You will not receive it.

> > Sweetest.. what then do you call yourself..
>
> We don't call ourselves.
>
>
> are you talking about that mouse in your pocket again?

Meaningless jibberish.

> > by the biblical record even an angel is a mammal.
>
>
> We ain't religious love. We don't care about the
> delusional drivel passeda round as 'the bible'
> + nor are you literate + capable of discerning
> what is in the bible.
>
> you are talking about angels.

Indeed we were. talking about angels.

> I assumed YOU were religious.

That is exactly + only your problem.

> I am not religious. I am a long term atheist thanks.

Dearest, you are_ religious.

> > youa re one? is this sometype of odd slang? where are you from anyway
> > Jersey??
>
> Burble burble, said the ape.
>
>
> you are babbling again.

No dearest, we never babble.
That is what you do.

>
> > If I am not real then what am I? one of your acid induced
> inspirations??
>
> NOTHING.
> A raggedy doll for forces you have no awareness of + which we
> enjoy observing acting via you.
>
> So you assume.

No dearest. We don't assume'. That is what you ARE.

> that does not show any thought of actual thought or logical
> processes from your end. Only self assumed mange.

Does not compute! Dooes notcompute!
Said the brain obsessed ape.

And still what we wrote about you was accurate + precise.


> So dearest idiota, time to waltz, shall we?
>
> One never gets enough voluntary scientific vict… er we mean
> royal subjects.
>
>
> ah, you have delusions of grandeur as well?

We have no delusions of anything at all, love.
Keep ypur projections to yourself, narcissussa.

> a waltz in good taste can't be
> denied.. however, thinking ourselves a prince or princess
> when we are only amere flower seller is a fallacy to be mocked…

We are sorry to hear that that is how you view yourself.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Alisa Chevalier wrote:

> my famous little hummingbird..

Meaningless attempt ato condescension + ego-bloating.

> this is becoming too repetitious.

Repetition is failure on your behalf.

> I couldn't even be bothered to read the whole thing.

That is only reflective of your own idiocy, dear.

> Please do show some proof of your claims

We do not make 'claims' dear. What we wrote was accurate + precise.
Your failure to understand + read is your own_ problems.
What we do is not 'justifiable' 'provable' or 'explainable'
and certainly not TO YOU (da, the world does not revolve
around your enoromously bloated ego).

> or I can't be bothered to respond anymore.

Ah, the other shall play your petty dictatorial
brain obsessed ape games or the very important princessa
shall go away. Bloat.

Did we express desire to communicate with you? No.

In a flurry of self-important sub-mediocre blind +
projectionist jabs, designed simply for the masochistic
pleasure of inflating the ego + self-debasement
the princessa intruded herself onto the conversation,
attempted to dictate + left.