Newsgroups: alt.slack

Subject: Re: Dennis and his new girl

From: Sketchy Albedo <revjack@radix.net>

Date: 21 Oct 1997 21:10:34 GMT

Previously, Sophia Anifantakis wrote:

: I just wanted to wish Dennis' new girlfriend luck. I hope you dont give

: him your heart uncondionally like I did and have him break it..Just in

: case you didnt know he stays on the computer 10 hours a day..Though I

: realize with you he's on his best behavior. If I seem bitter and hurt it's

: because I am..I have Dennis and all his wonderful promises to thank for

: that...Thanks Dennis..thanks for showing me there's no such thing as trust

: anymore...and that love is just a shallow four letter word.

I'll get right to the point. Dennis McClain-Furmanski's whitewash of the

issue offers no real analysis of the situation that resulted in his

prudish anti-democratic prank phone calls in the first place. Before

examining the present situation, however, it is important that I reveal

the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of

dialogized heteroglossia resulting from McClain-Furmanski's sound bites.

No one is more slaphappy than McClain-Furmanski. To the best of my

knowledge, you probably can't find one good reason why he should use rock

music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to help depraved fugitives

evade capture by the authorities. In this crucial hour and under the

treachery of our time, I must announce that respect for the law is not

enhanced by setting the bad example of breaking the law. He couldn't

foster suspicion -- if not hatred -- of "outsiders" if his life depended

on it, which it doesn't, as evidenced by the way that the outcome of the

struggle will ultimately be decided based on the number and influence of

people fully informed about his shell games, committed to his defeat, and

organized under sound leadership. Let's just ignore McClain-Furmanski and

see what he does. All the same, his mercenaries internalize and adapt to

the unwritten realities they must work under. I don't just contend that

the most insidious weasels you'll ever see suffer from a collective

self-image that prefers victimization to success and imposes a suffocating

group conformity that ostracizes nonconformists; I can back that up with

facts. For instance, juxtaposed to this is the idea that we must use our

minds and spirits to halt his efforts to go to great lengths to conceal

his true aims and mislead the public. There can be no argument that his

associates are currently in the streets, burning, robbing, and looting.

The same holds true for shallow hatemongers.

Nevertheless, I maintain that McClain-Furmanski is completely full of it.

The law of parsimony suggests that he is nothing if not self-serving. Even

though he presents a public face that avoids overt absenteeism, he sees

life as a lewd game without any rules. Maybe it's not fair to call his

cohorts "delirious" just because they waste taxpayers' money, but remember

that ungrateful lame-brained sociopaths thrive on hatred rather than love.

Although the dialectics of simple-minded praxis will distort the facts

sooner or later, unravelling the Gordian Knot that is McClain-Furmanski is

not difficult when you realize the multifaceted nature of

McClain-Furmanski and his lackeys. Although he babbles on and on about

imperialism, McClain-Furmanski has no more conception of it than most

other oppressive monomaniacs. He thinks we want him to let advanced

weaponry fall into the hands of the worst types of obscene present-day

robber barons there are. Excuse me, but maybe his pranks are now a staple

of his henchmen's solutions.

Education without action creates frustration, while action without

education leads to McCarthyism, and besides, in the genesis of his

tirades, empty-headed begat bookish, which begat grotty, which begat

vengeful. While there are many doctrinaire jealous Dennis

McClain-Furmanski clones, McClain-Furmanski is the most gruesome of the

lot. Not surprisingly, I predict catastrophe. When surveyed, only two

percent of his understrappers agreed with the statement, "All of the

foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude to

understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by

McClain-Furmanski and his underlings to unleash an unparalleled wave of

collectivism." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or

simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness. Now that you've read

this letter, let me challenge you, the reader, not just to help me expose

the connections between the dirty problems that face us and the key issues

of sensationalism and cameralism, but also to educate others about what

I've written.

--

_________________

revjack@radix.net

Newsgroups: alt.slack

Subject: Re: Dennis and his new girl

From: FeralOne@Infinity.Org

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:22:39 GMT

On 21 Oct 1997 21:10:34 GMT, in <62j5oa$am5$1@news1.radix.net>

Sketchy Albedo wrote:

Well, frankly, you're full of it. Everything you said is

true, of course, but to so blatantly disregard net etiquette

and actually SAY it, although I suppose you can claim that

since you wrote it and didn't actually SAY it, that this is,

somehow, "okay", is as I said, or wrote, abominable. You are

an abominable Yeti, that's what you are. There, I said it.

And I feel SO MUCH better for having done so.

/This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or

/simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness.

Your statistics suck. I know they support your claims,

just as social tolerance supports those who rely on it,

but you, of all people, should be more open-minded about

the effects that uninterpolated statistics can have on

the frightened masses. Such a collective mess of raw

data is EVIL! and BOB WILL EXACT HIS RETRIBUTION UPON

YOUR PURSE!!1! Please insert 2 quarters and one dime now.

/Now that you've read

/this letter, let me challenge you, the reader, not just to help me expose

/the connections between the dirty problems that face us and the key issues

/of sensationalism and cameralism,

MISTER RADIX! I'll thank you to take your DIRTY SEX POSTS

back to rec.pets.dromedaries where they BELONG!

However, if you intended, and through no fault of your own,

but were merely the victim of a random cat attack on the

keyboard, to refer to the delicate issues of sensualism and

cannibalism, then you have indeed, albeit fortuitously I'm

sure, chosen the correct forum for your concerns. We here

at The WELL are indescribably intrigued by your pertinent

descriptions of the problems encountered by the isometrically

opposed sensual cannibal of the 90's. Surely we can form a

committee, collective though such might be, to investigate

and report at our next, uh, "meeting".

/but also to educate others about what I've written.

I'm sorry. I forgot what you wrote. Would you repeat that,

please.

Enchante,

Lady.One.Eighty

--

I'm utterly convinced that we are all here for one another and

that every experience that everyone is having is relevant. It

all counts. The Universe is so extraordinarily well designed

that it needs all those experiences. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Newsgroups: alt.slack

Subject: Re: Dennis and his new girl

From: Sketchy Albedo <revjack@radix.net>

Date: 22 Oct 1997 01:16:25 GMT

Previously, FeralOne@Infinity.Org wrote:

: On 21 Oct 1997 21:10:34 GMT, in <62j5oa$am5$1@news1.radix.net>

: Sketchy Albedo wrote:

: Well, frankly, you're full of it. Everything you said is

: true, of course, but to so blatantly disregard net etiquette

: and actually SAY it, although I suppose you can claim that

: since you wrote it and didn't actually SAY it, that this is,

: somehow, "okay", is as I said, or wrote, abominable. You are

: an abominable Yeti, that's what you are. There, I said it.

: And I feel SO MUCH better for having done so.

I feel compelled to preface my remarks with the following: It must be

pointed out that I'm not actually demanding revenge. To organize my

discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and

educate the public on a range of issues. If there is one truth in this

world, it's that you represent the most recent incarnation of the unique

20th-century phenomenon known as "stochastic terrorism". I am

intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that

matter. I only wish that what I call amoral roommates had the same

intellectual honesty. Take, for example, subversive cheapskates. Now look

at you. If you don't believe there's a similarity, then consider that that

which is built inextricably into the laws of the universe cannot be

thoroughly sex-crazed. How can you trust out-of-touch loathsome

scary-types who actively conceal their true intentions?

: MISTER RADIX! I'll thank you to take your DIRTY SEX POSTS

: back to rec.pets.dromedaries where they BELONG!

The primary point of disagreement between myself and deranged mendicants

is whether or not there is considerable evidence to show that you are

serious about wanting to create a climate in which it will be assumed that

our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but

special consideration. My purpose is to make his psychotic snow jobs

understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young

and old alike. Most of the battles I fight along the way are exigencies,

not long-range educational activities. Nevertheless, I predict

catastrophe. Flattery will get you nowhere. While it is reasonable to

expect that the world today seems to be going crazy, it remains that his

fixation on animalism is nothing more than camouflage for a lack of

original ideas.

: However, if you intended, and through no fault of your own,

: but were merely the victim of a random cat attack on the

: keyboard, to refer to the delicate issues of sensualism and

: cannibalism, then you have indeed, albeit fortuitously I'm

: sure, chosen the correct forum for your concerns. We here

: at The WELL are indescribably intrigued by your pertinent

: descriptions of the problems encountered by the isometrically

: opposed sensual cannibal of the 90's. Surely we can form a

: committee, collective though such might be, to investigate

: and report at our next, uh, "meeting".

If one examines the sort of consensual deconstructionism you promote, one

is faced with a choice: either accept textual deconstruction or conclude

that sexuality is meaningless. But an abundance of theories concerning the

posttextual paradigm of narrative exist. Sontag promotes the use of

textual deconstruction to read society. I think I've made my point.

--

_________________

revjack@radix.net

Newsgroups: alt.slack

Subject: Re: Dennis and his new girl

From: bg19354@binghamton.edu.NOSPAM (Nully Fydyan)

Date: 22 Oct 97 05:54:55 GMT

In article <62jk59$6jr$1@news1.radix.net>, Sketchy Albedo

<revjack@radix.net> wrote:

> If one examines the sort of consensual deconstructionism you promote, one

> is faced with a choice: either accept textual deconstruction or conclude

> that sexuality is meaningless.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So I've been saying all along. But does anybody ever listen? No, and

when after repeated subliminal bombardments they finally allow the core

thought to worm into their psyches, they parade around as if this idea is

somehow new and theirs. Or even worse, postualate that it might be the

antithesis of deconstructionism. The real explanation is that it is

*inherently* deconstructionist. Sexuality is only meaningful when one

accepts the core CONsensus that gender is a worthwhile CONstuct. With the

absense of gender there is a complete freedom from role expectations, both

sexually and non-sexually, and interally as well as externally.

> Sontag promotes the use of

> textual deconstruction to read society. I think I've made my point.

Sontag is a twit.

Nully

--

Rev. Nully Fydyan

Church of the Ungendered Yeti

"When Morrissey sang "I wear black on the outside, 'cause black is how I feel on the inside," he doomed pastel fabrics for those under 30 forever." -- Ian Williams

Newsgroups: alt.slack

Subject: Re: Dennis and his new girl

From: Sketchy Albedo <revjack@radix.net>

Date: 22 Oct 1997 11:56:37 GMT

Previously, Nully Fydyan wrote:

: In article <62jk59$6jr$1@news1.radix.net>, Sketchy Albedo

: <revjack@radix.net> wrote:

: > If one examines the sort of consensual deconstructionism you promote, one

: > is faced with a choice: either accept textual deconstruction or conclude

: > that sexuality is meaningless.

: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

: So I've been saying all along. But does anybody ever listen? No, and

: when after repeated subliminal bombardments they finally allow the core

: thought to worm into their psyches, they parade around as if this idea is

: somehow new and theirs. Or even worse, postualate that it might be the

: antithesis of deconstructionism. The real explanation is that it is

: *inherently* deconstructionist. Sexuality is only meaningful when one

: accepts the core CONsensus that gender is a worthwhile CONstuct. With the

: absense of gender there is a complete freedom from role expectations, both

: sexually and non-sexually, and interally as well as externally.

DeSelby's essay on patriarchialist nihilism holds that concensus must come

from the collective unconscious. The subject is interpolated into a

textual deconstruction that includes reality as a totality. It could be

said that many narratives concerning the collapse, and subsequent praxis,

of neodialectic class may be revealed. The main theme of Patriarchialist

nihilism and textual deappropriation is the common ground between society

and sexual identity. Foucault uses the term 'prestructuralist cultural

theory' to denote the role of the writer as reader. Thus, in Clockers, Lee

denies postcapitalist theory; in Girl 6, however, Lee reiterates

surrealism. But if textual deappropriation holds, we have to choose

between surrealism and patriarchialist nihilism.

: > Sontag promotes the use of

: > textual deconstruction to read society. I think I've made my point.

: Sontag is a twit.

Sontag's essay on patriarchialist nihilism implies that the State is

capable of deconstruction. But many semioticisms concerning posttextual

dematerialism exist.

--

_________________

revjack@radix.net

Faced with a choice, do both

Newsgroups: alt.slack

Subject: Re: Dennis and his new girl

From: mtownOsPAMend@earthlink.net (Michael Townsend)

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 06:32:23 -0400

amelia@sailfish.exis.net (Sophia Anifantakis) wrote:

> :love is just a shallow four letter word.

I thought love was "not takin easy way out." Actually, most four-letter

words are relatively shallow (relative to 8 letter words). A notable

exception is the word "deep." I think I've made my point.

--

mtownsend@earthlink.net po box 4722 portland me 04112-4722

"I don't blame them for being inferior...

but I do blame them for not admitting it!"

Newsgroups: alt.slack,za.flame

Subject: Re: And for my next trick...

From: mithril@iafrica.com (Grantland)

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:16:39 GMT

amelia@sailfish.exis.net (Sophia Anifantakis) wrote:

>Nully Fydyan (bg19354@binghamton.edu.NOSPAM) wrote:

>: Nully

>

>Just curious, but are you Dennis' new girlfriend?

No that would be the mature miz Holmes, chemical/biological warfare

specialist, US army, switched to Internet psyops. Smart as a button,

twice as poisonous.

Grantland