ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
The McElroys are a husband and wife collaborative artist, technology, and business team who bring significant artistic, technology and community development skills to Corporate Performance Artists. Joseph, is a graduate of Computer Science from Duke University and a former team leader at IBM. He has been a CEO of several companies, and has been responsible for raising $2 million to fund a startup company called EveryDayPrint.com, which while part of the dot-com boom and bust, he managed to bring to profitability and which still survives to this day.
Donna was an operations manager and PR specialist in the firms they have started together. She has recently been credited by several business leaders in the Bronx as being "top spokesperson for the Bronx." She is active in many community development projects, such as participating on the Board of the Bruckner Arts and Antique District, and working to promote many Bronx activities through an online newsletter called Cupcake Kaleidoscope.
Joseph was the leader of the Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Association. And was track co-chair for Open Source at the 2001 New York Software Industry Summit. He was on the advisory board for PostgreSql, Inc - the leading Open Source Database and has had articles published by Lutris Technologies and Open Magazine on Open Source business models and technology solutions. He is a database expert with extensive Fortune 500 experience. Among other awards, he won an IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
From magazine "Open" issue September 2001 - "The McElroys kick open the doors of old business models and capitalize on what they believe." The McElroys have achieved re-known as Open Source visionaries with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine, and others. Joseph and Donna make no claims of divine insight, but in review by Lewis Lacock, it is said, "that this dynamic duo of art are the closest things we have to true shamans today". They are doing their best to pursue the knowledge to support such claims someday.
HIGHLIGHTS
* Achieved reputation as Open Source visionarys with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine among others.
* National Columnist on Money Matters for Gather.com.
* Judge for the Advanced Technical Categories of the Emmys.
* Successfully raised $2 million funding for startup.
* Successfully built and sold two technology businesses.
* First Entry into the Multimedia wing of the Museum of Computer Art.
* Artwork collected by the Library at Cornell University.
* Artwork in the collection of Rhizome.org.
* Developed first ever Exhibition Catalog completely on CD Rom. Done for Alternative Museum. Reviewed by New York Times.
* Selected to attend first ever Summer Institute for Performance Art at The Kitchen in NYC.
* IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
* Various academic, mathematic and scholarship awards. Attended Duke University on a full scholarship in mathematics.
* Poetry published in various journals. Art exhibited in museum shows.
* Certificate of Artistic Excellence from Congressman Jose Serrano.
* Recognized by Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion for contributions to the community.
Donna was an operations manager and PR specialist in the firms they have started together. She has recently been credited by several business leaders in the Bronx as being "top spokesperson for the Bronx." She is active in many community development projects, such as participating on the Board of the Bruckner Arts and Antique District, and working to promote many Bronx activities through an online newsletter called Cupcake Kaleidoscope.
Joseph was the leader of the Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Association. And was track co-chair for Open Source at the 2001 New York Software Industry Summit. He was on the advisory board for PostgreSql, Inc - the leading Open Source Database and has had articles published by Lutris Technologies and Open Magazine on Open Source business models and technology solutions. He is a database expert with extensive Fortune 500 experience. Among other awards, he won an IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
From magazine "Open" issue September 2001 - "The McElroys kick open the doors of old business models and capitalize on what they believe." The McElroys have achieved re-known as Open Source visionaries with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine, and others. Joseph and Donna make no claims of divine insight, but in review by Lewis Lacock, it is said, "that this dynamic duo of art are the closest things we have to true shamans today". They are doing their best to pursue the knowledge to support such claims someday.
HIGHLIGHTS
* Achieved reputation as Open Source visionarys with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine among others.
* National Columnist on Money Matters for Gather.com.
* Judge for the Advanced Technical Categories of the Emmys.
* Successfully raised $2 million funding for startup.
* Successfully built and sold two technology businesses.
* First Entry into the Multimedia wing of the Museum of Computer Art.
* Artwork collected by the Library at Cornell University.
* Artwork in the collection of Rhizome.org.
* Developed first ever Exhibition Catalog completely on CD Rom. Done for Alternative Museum. Reviewed by New York Times.
* Selected to attend first ever Summer Institute for Performance Art at The Kitchen in NYC.
* IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
* Various academic, mathematic and scholarship awards. Attended Duke University on a full scholarship in mathematics.
* Poetry published in various journals. Art exhibited in museum shows.
* Certificate of Artistic Excellence from Congressman Jose Serrano.
* Recognized by Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion for contributions to the community.
PS1 gossip
Heard through the grapevine this bit of gossip - anyone know if it is true?
"And a little bit of labor/arts gossip relating to PS1. I was told today that
the guards at PS1 were fired two days ago because they were trying to
unionize. Not sure what the complete facts are on this..."
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
"And a little bit of labor/arts gossip relating to PS1. I was told today that
the guards at PS1 were fired two days ago because they were trying to
unionize. Not sure what the complete facts are on this..."
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
Re: housewife
Quoting Jess Loseby <jess@rssgallery.com>:
> sorry joseph but what are you on...?
A pink pony called joseph.
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
> sorry joseph but what are you on...?
A pink pony called joseph.
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
Re: RE: Re: Charity CD Project
Is Rhizome a vanity project for a select few or is meant to be a large
organization growing to support networked art and artists?
Convert the community efforts and obvious volunteerism into a large
"worthwhile" campaign to raise money or get off the pot.
(disgusted with everything today)
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
Quoting Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>:
> Mark & list
> I don't think anyone disputes that a fund raiser would
> be anything but token financially.
> I've certainly expressed myself in favour of fees and
> am willing to pay in order to keep Rhizome viable.
> Neither do I think anyone was asking for it to be an
> 'official' Rhizome project.
> What it would do is to provided excellent publicity
> for Rhizome's cause and show the
> solidarity of the Rhizome 'community', which might
> just impress potential funders.
> Unfortunately I think the negative tone of your mail
> will effectivley act as a spoiler in terms of a call
> for work on this list from as wide a range of known
> and unknown artists as would have been possible.
> I hope I'm wrong -I'd like the thing to happen and if
> people are up for it then they should
> post to that effect.
> I can't help feeling though in this instance that an
> appeal to 'the Rhizome community' was good insofar as
> it obtained an endorsement of fees but that it wasn't
> *really* intended to engender a wide and self starting
> debate or activity from Rhizome members.
> A pity.
> Michael
>
> --- Mark Tribe <mt@rhizome.org> wrote:
> > At 03:49 PM 11/5/2002 +0000, leewells@bb19.net
> > wrote:
> > >I agree.
> > >One thing we do need to consider is file size
> > limits.
> > >If we are going to use a cd that doesn't leave us
> > that much
> > >room, I guess we could upgrade to dvd.
> > >
> > >Once the official call of artists is relieced. Who
> > will manage the
> > >submissions? What would be the best way of
> > organizing the content? I was
> > >thinking all submitted content should be housed on
> > individual urls
> > >provided by the artists. Then we would only have to
> > arrange and organize
> > >the links. One submission per artist or group of
> > artists.
> > >
> > >Anyways...I'm at work and have to go.
> > >Let keep it rolling.
> > >
> > >Mark, do you have any thoughts on this. Ways of
> > making this run smoothly.
> >
> > Okay, here are my thoughts on the charity CD idea.
> > First, I really
> > appreciate the sentiment behind it. It's wonderful
> > that you want to support
> > Rhizome.org and are willing to donate your time and
> > art work.
> >
> > That said, I think it will take a lot of work to
> > pull it off. And even if
> > it turns out great, it will be very hard to sell
> > enough copies to earn a
> > significant amount of money. So although it may be
> > worth while as an end in
> > itself, I don't think it makes sense on a strictly
> > financial level as a
> > fundraising tool. That's why I don't want to devote
> > any of our very limited
> > resources to this project. Sorry to be a wet
> > blanket, but it's my job to
> > make these kinds of decisions.
> >
> > Because we are a registered not-for-profit
> > organization, we must follow the
> > US Charities laws, and there are a lot of them that
> > pertain to this kind of
> > thing. As we learned when we got involved in web
> > hosting and online
> > education, you have to be very careful when it comes
> > to earned income. We
> > can't afford to compromise our charitable status. So
> > we'd either have to
> > run the project ourselves (to make sure it complies
> > with all the US
> > Charities laws) or maintain a totally arms-length
> > relationship. Since we
> > don't think it would be a good use of our resources,
> > our only option is to
> > have nothing to do with it.
> >
> > Kinda sucks, but that's the way it is. If you still
> > want to go ahead with,
> > I suggest you handle it as follows:
> >
> > + Set up an independent group to produce/distribute
> > a CD-ROM.
> > + Manage all of your own income and expenses,
> > including any in-kind donations.
> > + Make it clear to all potential supporters of the
> > production and buyers of
> > the CD-ROM that you are the group that is producing
> > the product, and that
> > Rhizome is in no way involved in this production.
> > + Then, if you choose to, you can say that a % of
> > the proceeds will be
> > donated to Rhizome.org and you (the group) can make
> > a donation to Rhizome,
> > and whoever the donation comes from will get the tax
> > credit.
> >
> > This is the cleanest way to do it. You have control
> > of what you want to do,
> > we don't have to expend our scant resources
> > overseeing it, and we also
> > don't risk endangering our charitable status.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > + be me
> > -> 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
>
>
> =====
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
organization growing to support networked art and artists?
Convert the community efforts and obvious volunteerism into a large
"worthwhile" campaign to raise money or get off the pot.
(disgusted with everything today)
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
Quoting Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>:
> Mark & list
> I don't think anyone disputes that a fund raiser would
> be anything but token financially.
> I've certainly expressed myself in favour of fees and
> am willing to pay in order to keep Rhizome viable.
> Neither do I think anyone was asking for it to be an
> 'official' Rhizome project.
> What it would do is to provided excellent publicity
> for Rhizome's cause and show the
> solidarity of the Rhizome 'community', which might
> just impress potential funders.
> Unfortunately I think the negative tone of your mail
> will effectivley act as a spoiler in terms of a call
> for work on this list from as wide a range of known
> and unknown artists as would have been possible.
> I hope I'm wrong -I'd like the thing to happen and if
> people are up for it then they should
> post to that effect.
> I can't help feeling though in this instance that an
> appeal to 'the Rhizome community' was good insofar as
> it obtained an endorsement of fees but that it wasn't
> *really* intended to engender a wide and self starting
> debate or activity from Rhizome members.
> A pity.
> Michael
>
> --- Mark Tribe <mt@rhizome.org> wrote:
> > At 03:49 PM 11/5/2002 +0000, leewells@bb19.net
> > wrote:
> > >I agree.
> > >One thing we do need to consider is file size
> > limits.
> > >If we are going to use a cd that doesn't leave us
> > that much
> > >room, I guess we could upgrade to dvd.
> > >
> > >Once the official call of artists is relieced. Who
> > will manage the
> > >submissions? What would be the best way of
> > organizing the content? I was
> > >thinking all submitted content should be housed on
> > individual urls
> > >provided by the artists. Then we would only have to
> > arrange and organize
> > >the links. One submission per artist or group of
> > artists.
> > >
> > >Anyways...I'm at work and have to go.
> > >Let keep it rolling.
> > >
> > >Mark, do you have any thoughts on this. Ways of
> > making this run smoothly.
> >
> > Okay, here are my thoughts on the charity CD idea.
> > First, I really
> > appreciate the sentiment behind it. It's wonderful
> > that you want to support
> > Rhizome.org and are willing to donate your time and
> > art work.
> >
> > That said, I think it will take a lot of work to
> > pull it off. And even if
> > it turns out great, it will be very hard to sell
> > enough copies to earn a
> > significant amount of money. So although it may be
> > worth while as an end in
> > itself, I don't think it makes sense on a strictly
> > financial level as a
> > fundraising tool. That's why I don't want to devote
> > any of our very limited
> > resources to this project. Sorry to be a wet
> > blanket, but it's my job to
> > make these kinds of decisions.
> >
> > Because we are a registered not-for-profit
> > organization, we must follow the
> > US Charities laws, and there are a lot of them that
> > pertain to this kind of
> > thing. As we learned when we got involved in web
> > hosting and online
> > education, you have to be very careful when it comes
> > to earned income. We
> > can't afford to compromise our charitable status. So
> > we'd either have to
> > run the project ourselves (to make sure it complies
> > with all the US
> > Charities laws) or maintain a totally arms-length
> > relationship. Since we
> > don't think it would be a good use of our resources,
> > our only option is to
> > have nothing to do with it.
> >
> > Kinda sucks, but that's the way it is. If you still
> > want to go ahead with,
> > I suggest you handle it as follows:
> >
> > + Set up an independent group to produce/distribute
> > a CD-ROM.
> > + Manage all of your own income and expenses,
> > including any in-kind donations.
> > + Make it clear to all potential supporters of the
> > production and buyers of
> > the CD-ROM that you are the group that is producing
> > the product, and that
> > Rhizome is in no way involved in this production.
> > + Then, if you choose to, you can say that a % of
> > the proceeds will be
> > donated to Rhizome.org and you (the group) can make
> > a donation to Rhizome,
> > and whoever the donation comes from will get the tax
> > credit.
> >
> > This is the cleanest way to do it. You have control
> > of what you want to do,
> > we don't have to expend our scant resources
> > overseeing it, and we also
> > don't risk endangering our charitable status.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > + be me
> > -> 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
>
>
> =====
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Re: [thingist] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: mask 2
I am attempting to kill the Buddha. It is not easy nor quick. I still don't
understand how you can go one mile east and one mile west at the same time.
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
>
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> [+some of the more general statements are applicable to Joseph McElroy as
> well]
>
> > > > there's nothing polite about you
> > >
> > > Quite the opposite; I have been perfectly polite with you.
> > > Your wishful derogatory projections, whose entire intent
> > > is to debase and damage other humans has little to do with
> > > 'my' behavior.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Not at all. Not only am I polite, but I am incredibly gentle
> with you, and especially considering the nasty trick you are
> attempting: fucking around with a person's brain mechanisms,
> attempting to unbalance the being, drag it away from REALITY
> (which the unconscious brain is apt to do--but then again, 'you'
> do enjoy taking advantage of weaknesses don't you? makes one
> feel so powerful) by means of SHOUTING and pseudo-logical
> 'arguments', and when the individual is disoriented and
> removed from any base of functioning, attempting to shovel in
> shit and 'punches' that the being would be incapacitated enough to
> deal with.
>
> But then again, the entire reason why you're attempting to 'pick on me'
> is because you're an idiot psycho-bully who thinks it's discovered
> a 'coward'--and we all know what should be done to them cowards huh?
> Forget no fear mudras and the like, beat them assholes up.
>
> And all the meanwhile singing that song about 'i'm myself and nothing
> else, I'm plain and obvious nice logical guy'. No, really, you're a nice
> guy. Politeness, my dear, hasn't got anything to do with treating you
> like the fantastic human being that you're not.
>
> > > You're talking about yourself. Empty labeling is not insightful.
> > > And logic hasn't gota nything to do with 'inspiration'.
> >
> > no, i'm talking about you
>
> No, dearest. You are not talking about me, nor are you capable of
> talking about anything besides yourself--like it or not.
> And until you deal with your state, the ONLY thing capable
> of talking about will be YOURSELF. And unlike most others,
> who with all of their shortcomings are still capable of recognizing
> this simple fact, you are cowardly enough to not acknowledge
> and realize that. And your state is that of an ignorant, dumb,
> dense brute.
>
> > > that your problem with conscious wearing of masks is due to
> > > control-freak brain-obsessed murderous impuAlses which cannot
> > > 'accept' anything less than a brutalized, victimized, passive
> > > reflection of a human.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN. your misinterpretations are obvious to all
>
> Direct citations of your words are not interpretations to any degree.
> Secondly, nothing of the sort is 'obvious to all' no matter how much
> you delude yourself and stomp your feet. Considering that you're
> incredibly dense, ignorant, and totally swamped over by your ego,
> your claims to be able to 'see' anything would be laughable if they
> weren't so incredulously pathetic and harmful to unsuspecting others.
> Nevermind the 'intimidating' tactic of attempting to pre-empt 'victory'
> by saying it is 'obvious to all'. Guess what. It isn't. Your wishful
> hallucinations about how the situation is are not_ what the situation
> is, and your opinion_ is thoroughly inconsequential. Take your cheap
> murderous tactics elsewhere.
>
> > > No dearest, there is no filtering here at all.
> >
> > yes, you are.
>
> No, and you can continue frothing, and pretending you can make statements
> of the above, but dearest, you're merely a petty, sub-mediocre idiot.
> You have neither the capacity nor the authority to make such statements,
> and to make matters even worse you're degrading yourself to a degree
> at which you are incapable of making any_ statements. But then again,
> this impulse of the human to corner itself into sheer idiocy
> is indeed one of the things that interests me in this situation,
> and what's even worse, I_ am not doing it--you're doing it to yourself.
> But thena gain, being so enlightened and aware of the truth, you should
> know that when you attack others, you only attack yourself.
>
>
> > > Absolutely dearest.
> >
> > clever boy ... clever wordsmith ... clever spindoctor
>
> No 'cleverness' here at all dearest. take your psychotic
> 'patronizing' 'i've figured you out' idiocy elsewhere.
> Your wishful attempts to misrepresent me as something that
> I am not are merely the impotent kicks of a coward who is
> afraid to admit his own failures, hence needs to project
> the 'problem' as someone else's failure. (cf. Keef's behavior).
>
> Secondly, you have no capability to discern reality from
> non-reality, considering that you exist entirely in the latter,
> so your attempts to make such statements are worthless.
>
> Also, whatever happened to 'free speech' dearest? On multiple
> occasions you've tried to get me to 'shut up'--and this is
> yet another one of those--free speech, but anyone who points
> out David's idiocy is 'clever'.
>
> Dearest, I have absolutely no place in my life for idiocies
> such as 'cleverness'--which is largely--anda gain--your projecting
> your own motivational impulses onto me. Moreso, what you're doing
> is looking for inner qualities inside yourself which you 'hate'
> and project them outwardly in some attempt to debase.
>
> And this dearest, is one of the real_ motivations of brute behavior
> (self)-hatred. And it's high-time that it is recognized that
> neither 'warriorship proper' nor self-discipline nor self-control
> nor active_ manifestations are connected to that: rather
> passive idiocy which finds outlets in either brute physical force,
> or brute mental / psychological behavior, and increasingly so this
> is finding place in mediamistic 'expressions' and being attempted
> to be passed on as 'art'. Brutality in the form of words or images
> is brutality, not art.
>
> > > Not at all. And at this point, I do recommend that you get yourself
> > > checked in a mental hospital; considering that this has been
> > > going on (repetition of this idiocy) for over a month,
> >
> > your desire to mis-interpret is amazing
>
> There is no such thing, baby--take your own 'spindoctoring' elsewhere.
> Again, you're doing the only thing you can do--'mirroring' or
> 'shadowing' or 'mimicrying' my behavior and fancying that by this means
> you will achieve the validity of what I do. Impotent leech.
> My behavior is absolutely free of any 'desire' whatsoever.
> Taking theoutward packaging of my words and attempting
> to pass it on as some 'insight' into my behavior is idiotic,
> as well as a cheap trick counting on infantile identification.
>
> > > I suspect you have a series of serious_ problems, and the last
> > > thing that you are capable of is 'art'.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Oh no not wrong at all. It's patently obvious that you're a
> sexually inept, brain-obsessed murderous ape. What a shame that
> the likes of you attempt to present themselves at 'artists'--
> but that's the 'trap' of net.art (and easy access to media) these days:
> every monkey with a computer makes a claim to artistry and dumps
> its psychotic impulses into 'media' without an ounce of responsibility
> of what is being psychically done to 'humanity' overall.
>
> > > But then again, a brief view of your website is quite revealing:
> > > all humans are 'predictable' and 'trapped in hell'.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Really? Direct citation again:
>
> Writers and artists
> [of whom David Goldschmid has very_ little_ experience--obviously]
> have been revealing the human experience for thousands of years.
>
> They reveal our humanity ...
> [no they don't--and luckily they don't share your psychotic
> ego-driven obsession]
>
> and human hell is a very common theme.
> [mr. goldsmidt's interpretation which he is attempting to superimpose
> on 'artists and writers']
>
> It is a trait that we cannot escape.
> [rather the opposite, and this is what_ writers and artists create]
>
> Writers and artists are able to express [human hell] because there
> is a certain logic that reveals itself [in the words and actions] of
> someone trapped in hell.
>
> [That is, Mr. Goldschmid is an irresponsible weaking twit, who is unable
> and irresponsible enough to refuse_ dealing with his inner state,
> and as is standard for such behavior will attempt to drag down
> everything with him.
>
> Your own 'personal hell' david is your_ responsibility_.
> Not reflective of 'humanity'.]
>
> Additionally CITING_ 'Humans are so damned easy and predictable
> because they are trapped in their condition'.
>
> And by the way love--pointing out things that you so fervently
> try to HIDE and pretend that are NOT THERE in your behavior
> is not 'misinterpretations' (talk about cowardly hiding
> behind your ego). Additionally, trying to convince
> others that you're something you are NOT is indeed cowardice,
> and you try to peddle it about as 'sincere' because it's
> 'unconscious.' However unconscious indeed it may be,
> it's pre-meditated and calculated. I'm Mr. Goldschmidt,
> and I'm honest and flat and myself, really really, please buy it.
> All the while attempting to pretend that the mask that you are wearing
> is not your NARCISSISTIC EGO, but that of a conscious being
> who can perceive others. You sure are.. a Buddha.
> The compassionate saintly mirror that sees through other humans.
> The facts? rather the opposite, a weak spiteful idiot,
> who attempts to project on humans a constricted, weak, flat,
> pigeonholed state, because that is the only way you can 'deal'
> with it--ie, by attempting to CONTROL:
>
> > Amazing
> > > brute propaganda isn't it?
> >
> > no.
>
> Indeed: your brute propaganda is cheap and submediocre.
>
> > Church is over dearest; nobody is in 'hell'
> >
> > occassionally, everyone is
>
> No dearest, and avoid speaking for 'everyone'. You're neither capable
> nor qualified. A far cry from a world leader. Secondly, utilization of
> such large symbolisms as 'hell' to feasibly tamable sensations of anger,
> etc. is psychotic and irresponsible. Projecting your own impotence
> and inability to deal with these things is one thing, attempting
> to psychologically force identification with such states as the
> 'insecapable status quo'--and attempting to destroy any work
> done in that directions by others is yet another, and moreso
> a violation of a basic human right. And_ you want this passed on
> as 'free speech'--and you want to abuse the 'constitution' to
> justify your murderous impulses. Evenmoreso, you're so dense as to not
> realize that the US constitution applies to the US, and what you're
> doing isa ttempting to 'create hell' for US artists.
>
>
> Lastly, your statement is merely an attempt to drag everyone
> to the 'same level'--'we are all equal, suffering monkeys'.
> The REAL cowardice of an idiot, who cannot stand the idea
> that no 'we are nota ll equal' and that in fact liberation
> from entanglement in such stares (which haven't got anything
> to do with hell) is not only possible, but also a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
> Aka dearest 'constitutional freak' the right of LIBERTY.
> Which you deny, because it's not convinient, and because
> it would reveal you to be the weak irresponsible slug that you are.
>
>
> > > nor predictable.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Not at all. And dearest, avoid 'speaking for all'. Humans are (still at
> least) individual entities, with (hopefully) their own voices. Have the
> courage and integrity to make something about YOURSELF Monsieur (I'm not
> wearing a mask, really, really, and hence I'm not a coward really
> really). By the way, you've recently admitted to wearing a mask,
> does that make you a coward?
>
> Secondly, fear is present in the majority of humans,
> and only two 'entities' are qualified to deal with it:
> the human itself, or a qualified being. You're neither.
>
> I suggest you check your 'indignation' towards cowards,
> because you are one, and so are the majority of humans
> you meet in your life, and the mark of a 'powerful'
> person is not that of one who threatens to 'beat them up'
> because of their possessing a weakness. The latter
> is the modus operandi of a psychotic imbecile.
>
> > Humans are not pitiful weakling-victims trapped
>
> > > anywhere.
> >
> > again, your desire to mis-interpret is amazing
>
> There is no such thing occurring, Mr. Trapped animeau.
> Your wishful delusions are entirely_ and only_
> existent within your mind and nowhere else.
> My behavior on the other hand is entirely desire-free.
>
> > Your murderous desire to reduce them to such
> > > is psychotic.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
> >
>
> Not at all. You are a psycho, and a weak one as well.
>
>
> > > Nevertheless, you're a perfect example
> >
> > of a human being
>
> No, of a weak and mediocre asshole. Don't attempt to exert
> justification for your abrogation of responsibility with beating
> yourself across the chest about your 'humanity'. Being you aren't
> even close to.
>
> And avoid attempting to 'dissect' my sentences in order to push your
> ego-driven agenda. You are an example of what i WROTE, not of what you
> wish to sing & dance convince-misrepresent yourself as.
>
> > of what I refer to in terms of
> > > the necessity for humans to realize that this kind of behvaior is not
> > > 'imaginary' and does cause actual_ damage to humans overall--
> > > the absolute basest forms of psychick damage--and this does_ exist
> > > (targetted at rhizome + thingist).
> >
> > you just described yourself and your actions perfectly
>
> No dearest, I didn't. I described YOUR actions.
> Your mediocre childish finger-pointing is not insight.
> And this is in fact a part of the underlying basis of your
> we are all 'weak' psychotism as well as self-professed
> problem with the appearance of 'athority'. Wouldn't
> it be nice if all humans were trapped asleep weaklings?
> Then you could get away with your idiocy and nobody would
> be able to truthfully to point out what you are doing and hold
> you responsible.
>
>
> > >
> > > Apparently Mr. david here lives in his own 'personal hell'
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Oh quite the opposite. Your 'mental state' is on display.
> Not mine. And trust me dearest, it's a real possibility.
> You and I are not equal, and i_ am not trapped in self-reflective
> slumber.
>
>
> > > which s largely his psychotic overblown ego,
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Not at all. And no amount of psychotic hammer-head behavior on your part
> will make me 'wrong'.
>
> > accompanied
> > > by self-loathing and hate towards humans,
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> As above.
>
> > and he wants to
> > > lash out
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Your actions speak for themselves.
>
> > at others 'freely'. Because this is what free speech
> > > is about.
> >
> > free speech is more important than property.
>
> It would seem that the writers of the constitution--
> genuinely superior men with rgards to you, are not
> in agreement. Moreso, what you want is NOT free speech,
> you want the right to irresponsibly mouth off and lash out,
> and this is not free speech. You also_ want whatever you
> say to be accepted as 'word of the law', just as in the
> the above attmpt at attempting to pass as a fact something
> which isn't, and lastly, what you want is the freedom
> to APPROPRIATE other people's 'intellectual' and otherwise
> 'intangible' property--and specifically images.
> Images are the result of the essence-capability, work,
> and effort of individuals--and you have absolutely no
> RIGHTS to the results of other humans work unless
> they choose to, of their own volition to delegate
> such rights to you.
>
> And that applies to physical property, intellectual
> property, and all other 'intangible' ascpects of the human
> including masks, which area natural_ and necessary_
> quite admirable ascpects of the human and other Beings.
>
> > >
> > > How about the personal threats you made towards my physical being?
> >
> > liar. i said that you were a coward living in fear because you
> > intentionally hide behind a mask when you go out in public.
>
> Oh no dearest, I do_ nothing of the sort. I USE masks.
> I do not HIDE behind masks. Your attempts at insisting that
> your own programmatic association of HIDING and MASKING is
> an actuality is thoroughly psychotic.
>
> Moreso, this is the impulse of a passively voyeristic and
> crude asshole who has no capability of understanding and respecting
> the idea of privacy as well as that you have no 'rights'
> to other humans at all. None whatsoever.
>
> > then i said
> > that i thought that it was a good idea because if you ever revealed your
> > [true] self to someone ... they would probable beat the fuck out of you.
>
> No dearest, you said that YOU would 'beat the fuck out of me'.
> Don't attempt to change your words. Nevermind the psychotic
> bullyism of attempting to force the 'self' out of its
> natural + conscious veiling by brute threats.
> The true self of all_ humans is veiled for a reason.
>
> Additionally, don't attempt to make it seem like
> your brute impulses belong to 'just anyone' and 'are normal'.
> Most humans in fact don't share your psychotic idiocy.
>
> > > Hmm.. right.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Ever get the feeling that you're shooting blanks?
> Because you should be, by now.
>
> > > > > Only in your deluded brain.
>
> > yes, you are
>
> I am not you, ape.
>
> > >
> > > > > These are no interpretations, nor are they weak.
> > > > > These are your own words.
> > > >
> > > > liar
> > >
> > > No, I am not a liar. Amazing how you won't stop at anything
> > > to brutalize another isn't it?
> >
> > again, you describe yourself perfectly
>
> No dearest. I am not describing myself,
> I am describing you, and you're not getting away with
> nya nya childish finger pointing.
>
> > > > > There have been no lies nor misinterpretations.
> > > >
> > > > yes, you have
> > >
> > > I have what?
> >
> > nothing to offer
>
> Absolutely nothing. Humans are not created to 'offer'
> things to other humans. Nor are they capable of
> offering anything, seeing as all that they have
> has been given and granted anyways. The obsession
> with 'giving and receiving' is a childish-stuck
> in-your-arse energetically vampiric feeding
> mechanism. Nobody on the entire planet owes you anything,
> and the entire meaning of 'giving' proper is functioning
> at one's BEST at all times. C'est tout.
> There is no 'giving' no 'feeding' no 'someone doing things
> for' etc. You're not a baby. And natural_ cooperation
> is the cooperation resulting from independent
> and 'free' individuals co-existing.
> The true_ meaning of 'giving' is cultivation and
> development of personal ability to DO. Not energetic
> leeching, and NOT taking from others what is not yours,
> and certainly NOT attempting to bash over the head those who
> are ahead of you, and NOT attempting to 'steal' their
> personal power as you are attempting to do
> HERE, and with your idiotic insistence on appropriating
> the results of such efforts.
>
> I have absolutely no intentions of 'giving' you anything,
> and especially so considering the worthless scum that you are.
>
> Things are given in accordance with internal merit, and yours
> is zero.
>
>
> > > You are responsible for your own behavior however,
> > > and direct citation of your words are not 'misinterpretations'.
> >
> > they are when you change the context and/or project incorrect intent
>
> Nobody has changed the context or projected 'incorrect intent'.
> Neither do you know what intent is, nor how it works.
> It's a word that you saw me use and now are monkeying around.
> First: you attempted to 'run away' from the original conversation
> by attempting to 'divorce' the conversation from its original
> by screaming 'no' at everything said, and now attempting to say
> the context is changed. It isn't. And your cheap trick was
> predictable from mile away.
>
> Secondly, there is no such tning as 'correct' or 'incorrect'
> intent. Thirdly, intent lacks the quality of being projected.
> Again you're simply mimicrying words that you see me use
> in attempt to APPROPRIATE the APPEARANCE of someone
> who KNOWS WHAT THEY MEAN nad POSSESSES UNDERSTANDING of
> such matters (just like you want to POSE as an ARTIST).
>
> Lastly, your DRIVEL is not motivated by INTENT.
> You have none. You're a brain obsessed raggedy doll, whom anyone /
> anything can and does kick around freely. INTENT my dearest
> is an internal quality of facing one's true fate, and among
> other things it implies the fully conscious awareness of one's
> initial worthlessness, masks, and lack of power.
>
>
> > > > wrong AGAIN
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > yes
>
> Impotent noises from an ape.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Come on, do the 'wrong AGAIN' trick :)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > only when you are
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah no. You do it for other 'reasons'.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Absolutely correct with regards to your bhavior.
>
> > > You are_ responsible for your own behavior.
> > > Don't attempt to abrogate the responsibility
> > > for your murderous brute behavior and psychotic
> > > verbiage to me.
> >
> > you are the murderous neanderthal
>
> You're talking about yourself baby.
> Repeating what I wrote about you is impotence.
>
> > >
> > > NOBODY besides you is responsible for what you post.
> >
> > communication is a two person sport.
>
> No it isn't. Communication is not a sport either.
>
> > you're not reading me.
>
> I am reading_ you quite correctly.
> Your problem is that I'm not buying your facade.
>
> > you only see what you want to see.
>
> I 'want' to see nothing dearest.
> I SEE exactly what you are doing as_ you are doing it.
> what you want to pass on as 'conversation' is my passively
> accepting, reflecting, and nodding to the pretty icon
> of yourself that you fancy you are. You also want
> your psychotic ignorant 'statements' to be passively
> accepted as true. Conversation dearest, is not something
> you're either attempting or capable of.
>
> Only myopic narking derived from your brain,
> attempting to mirror the little bit that is 'perceived'.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> t h i n g i s t
> message by "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
understand how you can go one mile east and one mile west at the same time.
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
>
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> [+some of the more general statements are applicable to Joseph McElroy as
> well]
>
> > > > there's nothing polite about you
> > >
> > > Quite the opposite; I have been perfectly polite with you.
> > > Your wishful derogatory projections, whose entire intent
> > > is to debase and damage other humans has little to do with
> > > 'my' behavior.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Not at all. Not only am I polite, but I am incredibly gentle
> with you, and especially considering the nasty trick you are
> attempting: fucking around with a person's brain mechanisms,
> attempting to unbalance the being, drag it away from REALITY
> (which the unconscious brain is apt to do--but then again, 'you'
> do enjoy taking advantage of weaknesses don't you? makes one
> feel so powerful) by means of SHOUTING and pseudo-logical
> 'arguments', and when the individual is disoriented and
> removed from any base of functioning, attempting to shovel in
> shit and 'punches' that the being would be incapacitated enough to
> deal with.
>
> But then again, the entire reason why you're attempting to 'pick on me'
> is because you're an idiot psycho-bully who thinks it's discovered
> a 'coward'--and we all know what should be done to them cowards huh?
> Forget no fear mudras and the like, beat them assholes up.
>
> And all the meanwhile singing that song about 'i'm myself and nothing
> else, I'm plain and obvious nice logical guy'. No, really, you're a nice
> guy. Politeness, my dear, hasn't got anything to do with treating you
> like the fantastic human being that you're not.
>
> > > You're talking about yourself. Empty labeling is not insightful.
> > > And logic hasn't gota nything to do with 'inspiration'.
> >
> > no, i'm talking about you
>
> No, dearest. You are not talking about me, nor are you capable of
> talking about anything besides yourself--like it or not.
> And until you deal with your state, the ONLY thing capable
> of talking about will be YOURSELF. And unlike most others,
> who with all of their shortcomings are still capable of recognizing
> this simple fact, you are cowardly enough to not acknowledge
> and realize that. And your state is that of an ignorant, dumb,
> dense brute.
>
> > > that your problem with conscious wearing of masks is due to
> > > control-freak brain-obsessed murderous impuAlses which cannot
> > > 'accept' anything less than a brutalized, victimized, passive
> > > reflection of a human.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN. your misinterpretations are obvious to all
>
> Direct citations of your words are not interpretations to any degree.
> Secondly, nothing of the sort is 'obvious to all' no matter how much
> you delude yourself and stomp your feet. Considering that you're
> incredibly dense, ignorant, and totally swamped over by your ego,
> your claims to be able to 'see' anything would be laughable if they
> weren't so incredulously pathetic and harmful to unsuspecting others.
> Nevermind the 'intimidating' tactic of attempting to pre-empt 'victory'
> by saying it is 'obvious to all'. Guess what. It isn't. Your wishful
> hallucinations about how the situation is are not_ what the situation
> is, and your opinion_ is thoroughly inconsequential. Take your cheap
> murderous tactics elsewhere.
>
> > > No dearest, there is no filtering here at all.
> >
> > yes, you are.
>
> No, and you can continue frothing, and pretending you can make statements
> of the above, but dearest, you're merely a petty, sub-mediocre idiot.
> You have neither the capacity nor the authority to make such statements,
> and to make matters even worse you're degrading yourself to a degree
> at which you are incapable of making any_ statements. But then again,
> this impulse of the human to corner itself into sheer idiocy
> is indeed one of the things that interests me in this situation,
> and what's even worse, I_ am not doing it--you're doing it to yourself.
> But thena gain, being so enlightened and aware of the truth, you should
> know that when you attack others, you only attack yourself.
>
>
> > > Absolutely dearest.
> >
> > clever boy ... clever wordsmith ... clever spindoctor
>
> No 'cleverness' here at all dearest. take your psychotic
> 'patronizing' 'i've figured you out' idiocy elsewhere.
> Your wishful attempts to misrepresent me as something that
> I am not are merely the impotent kicks of a coward who is
> afraid to admit his own failures, hence needs to project
> the 'problem' as someone else's failure. (cf. Keef's behavior).
>
> Secondly, you have no capability to discern reality from
> non-reality, considering that you exist entirely in the latter,
> so your attempts to make such statements are worthless.
>
> Also, whatever happened to 'free speech' dearest? On multiple
> occasions you've tried to get me to 'shut up'--and this is
> yet another one of those--free speech, but anyone who points
> out David's idiocy is 'clever'.
>
> Dearest, I have absolutely no place in my life for idiocies
> such as 'cleverness'--which is largely--anda gain--your projecting
> your own motivational impulses onto me. Moreso, what you're doing
> is looking for inner qualities inside yourself which you 'hate'
> and project them outwardly in some attempt to debase.
>
> And this dearest, is one of the real_ motivations of brute behavior
> (self)-hatred. And it's high-time that it is recognized that
> neither 'warriorship proper' nor self-discipline nor self-control
> nor active_ manifestations are connected to that: rather
> passive idiocy which finds outlets in either brute physical force,
> or brute mental / psychological behavior, and increasingly so this
> is finding place in mediamistic 'expressions' and being attempted
> to be passed on as 'art'. Brutality in the form of words or images
> is brutality, not art.
>
> > > Not at all. And at this point, I do recommend that you get yourself
> > > checked in a mental hospital; considering that this has been
> > > going on (repetition of this idiocy) for over a month,
> >
> > your desire to mis-interpret is amazing
>
> There is no such thing, baby--take your own 'spindoctoring' elsewhere.
> Again, you're doing the only thing you can do--'mirroring' or
> 'shadowing' or 'mimicrying' my behavior and fancying that by this means
> you will achieve the validity of what I do. Impotent leech.
> My behavior is absolutely free of any 'desire' whatsoever.
> Taking theoutward packaging of my words and attempting
> to pass it on as some 'insight' into my behavior is idiotic,
> as well as a cheap trick counting on infantile identification.
>
> > > I suspect you have a series of serious_ problems, and the last
> > > thing that you are capable of is 'art'.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Oh no not wrong at all. It's patently obvious that you're a
> sexually inept, brain-obsessed murderous ape. What a shame that
> the likes of you attempt to present themselves at 'artists'--
> but that's the 'trap' of net.art (and easy access to media) these days:
> every monkey with a computer makes a claim to artistry and dumps
> its psychotic impulses into 'media' without an ounce of responsibility
> of what is being psychically done to 'humanity' overall.
>
> > > But then again, a brief view of your website is quite revealing:
> > > all humans are 'predictable' and 'trapped in hell'.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Really? Direct citation again:
>
> Writers and artists
> [of whom David Goldschmid has very_ little_ experience--obviously]
> have been revealing the human experience for thousands of years.
>
> They reveal our humanity ...
> [no they don't--and luckily they don't share your psychotic
> ego-driven obsession]
>
> and human hell is a very common theme.
> [mr. goldsmidt's interpretation which he is attempting to superimpose
> on 'artists and writers']
>
> It is a trait that we cannot escape.
> [rather the opposite, and this is what_ writers and artists create]
>
> Writers and artists are able to express [human hell] because there
> is a certain logic that reveals itself [in the words and actions] of
> someone trapped in hell.
>
> [That is, Mr. Goldschmid is an irresponsible weaking twit, who is unable
> and irresponsible enough to refuse_ dealing with his inner state,
> and as is standard for such behavior will attempt to drag down
> everything with him.
>
> Your own 'personal hell' david is your_ responsibility_.
> Not reflective of 'humanity'.]
>
> Additionally CITING_ 'Humans are so damned easy and predictable
> because they are trapped in their condition'.
>
> And by the way love--pointing out things that you so fervently
> try to HIDE and pretend that are NOT THERE in your behavior
> is not 'misinterpretations' (talk about cowardly hiding
> behind your ego). Additionally, trying to convince
> others that you're something you are NOT is indeed cowardice,
> and you try to peddle it about as 'sincere' because it's
> 'unconscious.' However unconscious indeed it may be,
> it's pre-meditated and calculated. I'm Mr. Goldschmidt,
> and I'm honest and flat and myself, really really, please buy it.
> All the while attempting to pretend that the mask that you are wearing
> is not your NARCISSISTIC EGO, but that of a conscious being
> who can perceive others. You sure are.. a Buddha.
> The compassionate saintly mirror that sees through other humans.
> The facts? rather the opposite, a weak spiteful idiot,
> who attempts to project on humans a constricted, weak, flat,
> pigeonholed state, because that is the only way you can 'deal'
> with it--ie, by attempting to CONTROL:
>
> > Amazing
> > > brute propaganda isn't it?
> >
> > no.
>
> Indeed: your brute propaganda is cheap and submediocre.
>
> > Church is over dearest; nobody is in 'hell'
> >
> > occassionally, everyone is
>
> No dearest, and avoid speaking for 'everyone'. You're neither capable
> nor qualified. A far cry from a world leader. Secondly, utilization of
> such large symbolisms as 'hell' to feasibly tamable sensations of anger,
> etc. is psychotic and irresponsible. Projecting your own impotence
> and inability to deal with these things is one thing, attempting
> to psychologically force identification with such states as the
> 'insecapable status quo'--and attempting to destroy any work
> done in that directions by others is yet another, and moreso
> a violation of a basic human right. And_ you want this passed on
> as 'free speech'--and you want to abuse the 'constitution' to
> justify your murderous impulses. Evenmoreso, you're so dense as to not
> realize that the US constitution applies to the US, and what you're
> doing isa ttempting to 'create hell' for US artists.
>
>
> Lastly, your statement is merely an attempt to drag everyone
> to the 'same level'--'we are all equal, suffering monkeys'.
> The REAL cowardice of an idiot, who cannot stand the idea
> that no 'we are nota ll equal' and that in fact liberation
> from entanglement in such stares (which haven't got anything
> to do with hell) is not only possible, but also a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
> Aka dearest 'constitutional freak' the right of LIBERTY.
> Which you deny, because it's not convinient, and because
> it would reveal you to be the weak irresponsible slug that you are.
>
>
> > > nor predictable.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Not at all. And dearest, avoid 'speaking for all'. Humans are (still at
> least) individual entities, with (hopefully) their own voices. Have the
> courage and integrity to make something about YOURSELF Monsieur (I'm not
> wearing a mask, really, really, and hence I'm not a coward really
> really). By the way, you've recently admitted to wearing a mask,
> does that make you a coward?
>
> Secondly, fear is present in the majority of humans,
> and only two 'entities' are qualified to deal with it:
> the human itself, or a qualified being. You're neither.
>
> I suggest you check your 'indignation' towards cowards,
> because you are one, and so are the majority of humans
> you meet in your life, and the mark of a 'powerful'
> person is not that of one who threatens to 'beat them up'
> because of their possessing a weakness. The latter
> is the modus operandi of a psychotic imbecile.
>
> > Humans are not pitiful weakling-victims trapped
>
> > > anywhere.
> >
> > again, your desire to mis-interpret is amazing
>
> There is no such thing occurring, Mr. Trapped animeau.
> Your wishful delusions are entirely_ and only_
> existent within your mind and nowhere else.
> My behavior on the other hand is entirely desire-free.
>
> > Your murderous desire to reduce them to such
> > > is psychotic.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
> >
>
> Not at all. You are a psycho, and a weak one as well.
>
>
> > > Nevertheless, you're a perfect example
> >
> > of a human being
>
> No, of a weak and mediocre asshole. Don't attempt to exert
> justification for your abrogation of responsibility with beating
> yourself across the chest about your 'humanity'. Being you aren't
> even close to.
>
> And avoid attempting to 'dissect' my sentences in order to push your
> ego-driven agenda. You are an example of what i WROTE, not of what you
> wish to sing & dance convince-misrepresent yourself as.
>
> > of what I refer to in terms of
> > > the necessity for humans to realize that this kind of behvaior is not
> > > 'imaginary' and does cause actual_ damage to humans overall--
> > > the absolute basest forms of psychick damage--and this does_ exist
> > > (targetted at rhizome + thingist).
> >
> > you just described yourself and your actions perfectly
>
> No dearest, I didn't. I described YOUR actions.
> Your mediocre childish finger-pointing is not insight.
> And this is in fact a part of the underlying basis of your
> we are all 'weak' psychotism as well as self-professed
> problem with the appearance of 'athority'. Wouldn't
> it be nice if all humans were trapped asleep weaklings?
> Then you could get away with your idiocy and nobody would
> be able to truthfully to point out what you are doing and hold
> you responsible.
>
>
> > >
> > > Apparently Mr. david here lives in his own 'personal hell'
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Oh quite the opposite. Your 'mental state' is on display.
> Not mine. And trust me dearest, it's a real possibility.
> You and I are not equal, and i_ am not trapped in self-reflective
> slumber.
>
>
> > > which s largely his psychotic overblown ego,
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Not at all. And no amount of psychotic hammer-head behavior on your part
> will make me 'wrong'.
>
> > accompanied
> > > by self-loathing and hate towards humans,
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> As above.
>
> > and he wants to
> > > lash out
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Your actions speak for themselves.
>
> > at others 'freely'. Because this is what free speech
> > > is about.
> >
> > free speech is more important than property.
>
> It would seem that the writers of the constitution--
> genuinely superior men with rgards to you, are not
> in agreement. Moreso, what you want is NOT free speech,
> you want the right to irresponsibly mouth off and lash out,
> and this is not free speech. You also_ want whatever you
> say to be accepted as 'word of the law', just as in the
> the above attmpt at attempting to pass as a fact something
> which isn't, and lastly, what you want is the freedom
> to APPROPRIATE other people's 'intellectual' and otherwise
> 'intangible' property--and specifically images.
> Images are the result of the essence-capability, work,
> and effort of individuals--and you have absolutely no
> RIGHTS to the results of other humans work unless
> they choose to, of their own volition to delegate
> such rights to you.
>
> And that applies to physical property, intellectual
> property, and all other 'intangible' ascpects of the human
> including masks, which area natural_ and necessary_
> quite admirable ascpects of the human and other Beings.
>
> > >
> > > How about the personal threats you made towards my physical being?
> >
> > liar. i said that you were a coward living in fear because you
> > intentionally hide behind a mask when you go out in public.
>
> Oh no dearest, I do_ nothing of the sort. I USE masks.
> I do not HIDE behind masks. Your attempts at insisting that
> your own programmatic association of HIDING and MASKING is
> an actuality is thoroughly psychotic.
>
> Moreso, this is the impulse of a passively voyeristic and
> crude asshole who has no capability of understanding and respecting
> the idea of privacy as well as that you have no 'rights'
> to other humans at all. None whatsoever.
>
> > then i said
> > that i thought that it was a good idea because if you ever revealed your
> > [true] self to someone ... they would probable beat the fuck out of you.
>
> No dearest, you said that YOU would 'beat the fuck out of me'.
> Don't attempt to change your words. Nevermind the psychotic
> bullyism of attempting to force the 'self' out of its
> natural + conscious veiling by brute threats.
> The true self of all_ humans is veiled for a reason.
>
> Additionally, don't attempt to make it seem like
> your brute impulses belong to 'just anyone' and 'are normal'.
> Most humans in fact don't share your psychotic idiocy.
>
> > > Hmm.. right.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Ever get the feeling that you're shooting blanks?
> Because you should be, by now.
>
> > > > > Only in your deluded brain.
>
> > yes, you are
>
> I am not you, ape.
>
> > >
> > > > > These are no interpretations, nor are they weak.
> > > > > These are your own words.
> > > >
> > > > liar
> > >
> > > No, I am not a liar. Amazing how you won't stop at anything
> > > to brutalize another isn't it?
> >
> > again, you describe yourself perfectly
>
> No dearest. I am not describing myself,
> I am describing you, and you're not getting away with
> nya nya childish finger pointing.
>
> > > > > There have been no lies nor misinterpretations.
> > > >
> > > > yes, you have
> > >
> > > I have what?
> >
> > nothing to offer
>
> Absolutely nothing. Humans are not created to 'offer'
> things to other humans. Nor are they capable of
> offering anything, seeing as all that they have
> has been given and granted anyways. The obsession
> with 'giving and receiving' is a childish-stuck
> in-your-arse energetically vampiric feeding
> mechanism. Nobody on the entire planet owes you anything,
> and the entire meaning of 'giving' proper is functioning
> at one's BEST at all times. C'est tout.
> There is no 'giving' no 'feeding' no 'someone doing things
> for' etc. You're not a baby. And natural_ cooperation
> is the cooperation resulting from independent
> and 'free' individuals co-existing.
> The true_ meaning of 'giving' is cultivation and
> development of personal ability to DO. Not energetic
> leeching, and NOT taking from others what is not yours,
> and certainly NOT attempting to bash over the head those who
> are ahead of you, and NOT attempting to 'steal' their
> personal power as you are attempting to do
> HERE, and with your idiotic insistence on appropriating
> the results of such efforts.
>
> I have absolutely no intentions of 'giving' you anything,
> and especially so considering the worthless scum that you are.
>
> Things are given in accordance with internal merit, and yours
> is zero.
>
>
> > > You are responsible for your own behavior however,
> > > and direct citation of your words are not 'misinterpretations'.
> >
> > they are when you change the context and/or project incorrect intent
>
> Nobody has changed the context or projected 'incorrect intent'.
> Neither do you know what intent is, nor how it works.
> It's a word that you saw me use and now are monkeying around.
> First: you attempted to 'run away' from the original conversation
> by attempting to 'divorce' the conversation from its original
> by screaming 'no' at everything said, and now attempting to say
> the context is changed. It isn't. And your cheap trick was
> predictable from mile away.
>
> Secondly, there is no such tning as 'correct' or 'incorrect'
> intent. Thirdly, intent lacks the quality of being projected.
> Again you're simply mimicrying words that you see me use
> in attempt to APPROPRIATE the APPEARANCE of someone
> who KNOWS WHAT THEY MEAN nad POSSESSES UNDERSTANDING of
> such matters (just like you want to POSE as an ARTIST).
>
> Lastly, your DRIVEL is not motivated by INTENT.
> You have none. You're a brain obsessed raggedy doll, whom anyone /
> anything can and does kick around freely. INTENT my dearest
> is an internal quality of facing one's true fate, and among
> other things it implies the fully conscious awareness of one's
> initial worthlessness, masks, and lack of power.
>
>
> > > > wrong AGAIN
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > yes
>
> Impotent noises from an ape.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Come on, do the 'wrong AGAIN' trick :)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > only when you are
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah no. You do it for other 'reasons'.
> >
> > wrong AGAIN
>
> Absolutely correct with regards to your bhavior.
>
> > > You are_ responsible for your own behavior.
> > > Don't attempt to abrogate the responsibility
> > > for your murderous brute behavior and psychotic
> > > verbiage to me.
> >
> > you are the murderous neanderthal
>
> You're talking about yourself baby.
> Repeating what I wrote about you is impotence.
>
> > >
> > > NOBODY besides you is responsible for what you post.
> >
> > communication is a two person sport.
>
> No it isn't. Communication is not a sport either.
>
> > you're not reading me.
>
> I am reading_ you quite correctly.
> Your problem is that I'm not buying your facade.
>
> > you only see what you want to see.
>
> I 'want' to see nothing dearest.
> I SEE exactly what you are doing as_ you are doing it.
> what you want to pass on as 'conversation' is my passively
> accepting, reflecting, and nodding to the pretty icon
> of yourself that you fancy you are. You also want
> your psychotic ignorant 'statements' to be passively
> accepted as true. Conversation dearest, is not something
> you're either attempting or capable of.
>
> Only myopic narking derived from your brain,
> attempting to mirror the little bit that is 'perceived'.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> t h i n g i s t
> message by "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [thingist] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: mask 2
i knew you would understand
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > I am attempting to kill the Buddha.
>
> Meet him first.
>
> > It is not easy nor quick.
>
> The Buddha says you'd make a lousy housewife.
>
> > I still don't understand how you can go one mile east and one mile west
> > at the same time.
>
> Mu.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> t h i n g i s t
> message by "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > I am attempting to kill the Buddha.
>
> Meet him first.
>
> > It is not easy nor quick.
>
> The Buddha says you'd make a lousy housewife.
>
> > I still don't understand how you can go one mile east and one mile west
> > at the same time.
>
> Mu.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> t h i n g i s t
> message by "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> --------------------------------------------------------------------