In a message dated 6/27/2002 11:52:19 AM Central Daylight Time,
invisible@cfl.rr.com writes:
> The language of the internet is too ephemeral to put that
> much significance in it.
I think that Shakespeare is as much a result of technology as I am. He was
the printing press guy, I'm the internet guy. We both use words, is the main
thing. I use 'em, he uses 'em.
Genius 2000 language indeed is not ephemeral but rooted, suffocating, and
durable, much as say the trees are. The trees sing a message of Genius 2000.
You don't think they do? OK. I don't mind. They do. I sing the body
electric, the genius 2000.
Language, talking, thinking, seeing, and believing are all now very different
because of the internet, which you might easily call the ShakespeareWeb or
language-matrix of today if you want. Technology changes language.
But who changes it back? There is in fact change-backing going on under the
nasty sty. Language changes technology too.
Shakespeare was a monument-builder. I must insist that he knew that.
I am by far the superior writer to Shakespeare. Why is this true? Because
what you think writing is is not what I think it is. It's omnimedia like
Martha Stewart–inscrutable. Martha Stewart is of course based on–don't
guess–Lady Macbeth. Agree or disagree? Judson! Medea?
So let's all write away, about Genius 2000. Now that it's such a big part of
our language-lives we're obliged to in fact.
Max Herman
Because G2K IS the Solution
www.geocities.com/genius-2000
genius2000.net
++
You crack me up Max! Genius 2000 this, Genius 2000 that! If it's so
intrinsic to our being and all that exists then why must it be endlessly
promoted?
I think the sun or maybe the moon could use a publicist too, maybe.
Nmherman@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/27/2002 11:52:19 AM Central Daylight Time,
> invisible@cfl.rr.com writes:
>
>
>
>> The language of the internet is too ephemeral to put that
>> much significance in it.
>
> I think that Shakespeare is as much a result of technology as I am.
> He was the printing press guy, I'm the internet guy. We both use
> words, is the main thing. I use 'em, he uses 'em.
>
> Genius 2000 language indeed is not ephemeral but rooted, suffocating,
> and durable, much as say the trees are. The trees sing a message of
> Genius 2000. You don't think they do? OK. I don't mind. They do.
> I sing the body electric, the genius 2000.
>
> Language, talking, thinking, seeing, and believing are all now very
> different because of the internet, which you might easily call the
> ShakespeareWeb or language-matrix of today if you want. Technology
> changes language.
>
> But who changes it back? There is in fact change-backing going on
> under the nasty sty. Language changes technology too.
>
> Shakespeare was a monument-builder. I must insist that he knew that.
>
> I am by far the superior writer to Shakespeare. Why is this true?
> Because what you think writing is is not what I think it is. It's
> omnimedia like Martha Stewart–inscrutable. Martha Stewart is of
> course based on–don't guess–Lady Macbeth. Agree or disagree?
> Judson! Medea?
>
> So let's all write away, about Genius 2000. Now that it's such a big
> part of our language-lives we're obliged to in fact.
>
> Max Herman
> Because G2K IS the Solution
> www.geocities.com/genius-2000
> genius2000.net
>
> ++
>
In a message dated 6/28/2002 12:24:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
invisible@cfl.rr.com writes:
> I think the sun or maybe the moon could use a publicist too, maybe.
I love to crack people up, but some nuts are hard to crack. For example, if
you don't say it's the moon, you walk in mud. Control and discipline.
Plus it's Britney killing Shakespeare, not Genius 2000–don't blow sunshowers
up my ass please. Not that you would, but that you could.
KMK also relates to Femme Nikita, you see that one?
If Genius 2000 was a network, would you watch it? If not, sip lightly from
the Pierian Spring, and don't get Gray on me.
Gray,
Max Herman
++