Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: damned to the basement

Expand Messages
  • Knott
    ... I keep well groomed, and do not tend to sloppy. Those who brew do not tend toward sloppy , as such would be for amatuers. Each bottle aged as fine wine,
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 2, 2005
      > Are you one of those sloppy beer drinkers Bill was referring to?

      I keep well groomed, and do not tend to sloppy. Those who brew do not tend toward
      'sloppy', as such would be for amatuers. Each bottle aged as fine wine, and it would
      ruin the experience to get sloppy over it.

      What i meant to suggest was, 1 pint of swill @ 3.5% is not comparable to 1 pint of
      homebrew @ 9 or 11% ... it's just math. If you are downing a half-pint of bud (though
      just mentioning 'pint' suggests not this), it's just a sip of real beer like we make in the
      cellar.

      If i have 2 of my pints I can't equate with half of yours without more detail...

      But here nor there, I couldn't fathom what you were saying, blame my brew, or yours.

      Untold Damage
    • louise
      look, who are you, anyway? do you think you re god or don t you? i ve never assumed so. what has the quantity of beer we ve consumed got to do with an
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 2, 2005
        look, who are you, anyway? do you think you're god or don't you?
        i've never assumed so. what has the quantity of beer we've consumed
        got to do with an intellectual argument? these are occasionally
        matters for symbolism when one is faced with enemies or confused
        friends entangled in psychical realities they've waded too far out
        to deal with in responsible fashion. in fact, i've nothing much to
        say in this reply if i were to dignify my message as such.
        refreshment of the list in my view continues to be necessary. the
        intensity of concentration required to follow the linkages between
        philosophy and academic or alternative sciences is beyond me right
        now. i'll be plodding on with the men i trust: Heraclitus,
        Epicurus, Aristotle with massive reservations, Socrates as rebel and
        sceptic, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and sundry less prominent figures:
        Herbert Spencer, David Hume, Christopher Smart, Robyn Hitchcock, to
        whom I listen right now. Worship?? Electricity. I love and do not
        adore. Honour is the starting point, and gratitude eventually
        follows.

        As for the Christians, especially in the 'land of the free', there's
        quite enuogh Belt to be going on with, surely.

        You are also wise to lose my train of thought. I would not wish you
        to get crushed.

        Modern Prophet
        ... walking in the footsteps of Mohammed ...


        - In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <god@t...> wrote:
        >
        > > I've already had
        > > a halfpint of beer tonight, and it served its purpose. For me
        it's
        > > not enough that Christ should sustain one, if one is Christian.
        > > What is required in addition is Christianity. That's a huge
        social
        > > project. In a sense, it's never been attempted yet. Jesus of
        > > Nazareth was nothing if not demanding.
        >
        > Damn, i guess my several pints puts us at intellectual odds. In
        other words, my dear,
        > I've lost your train of thought. It is difficult to tot up my
        actual pint intake as the
        > percentages vary so...
        >
        > But if you are saying most christians need to have a good belt, I
        couldn't agree more.
        > If you think christ should have a pint...pronto I say.
        >
        > nible bible
      • Knott
        ... I am as good a gawd as duard, but that isn t saying much. The reference to gawd is only that I am gawd if I am, as i perceive, the only world view.
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 2, 2005
          > do you think you're god or don't you?

          I am as good a gawd as 'duard, but that isn't saying much.

          The reference to gawd is only that I am gawd if I am, as i perceive, the only world
          view. Everything is created by my perception of it...however errant. Of course, that
          idea is limited by my misunderstanding, which is abundant.

          SO, i am not gawd if you want gawd to be what you would perceive as gawd. I yam
          gawd if i am my perception of the world, which i make up...but i may be deceived.

          Flushed Toilette
        • louise
          Knott, I very much like fencing with you, but if any kind of god is the subject, we seem rather doomed to be self-enclosed. You refer to duard, who seems to
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 2, 2005
            Knott, I very much like fencing with you, but if any kind of god is
            the subject, we seem rather doomed to be self-enclosed. You refer
            to 'duard, who seems to me your own creation, one I don't believe
            in. Whether he's willing to accept it or not, Eduard is my dramatic
            Jehovah figure, because he has stayed loyal through every storm to
            my need to state what I am and what I imagine, without coercion or
            terminal menace. That is the connection I find with the God of
            mercy and justice in the Old and New Testaments. It would not
            surprise me if I make little sense to you. As I keep repeating,
            some things take years to explain, and I feel I need a holiday,
            without really the means to achieve that. But two good days of rest
            and sleep might be enough. I haven't even seen my psychiatric nurse
            yet ... Louise the existentialist

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <god@t...> wrote:
            >
            > > do you think you're god or don't you?
            >
            > I am as good a gawd as 'duard, but that isn't saying much.
            >
            > The reference to gawd is only that I am gawd if I am, as i
            perceive, the only world
            > view. Everything is created by my perception of it...however
            errant. Of course, that
            > idea is limited by my misunderstanding, which is abundant.
            >
            > SO, i am not gawd if you want gawd to be what you would perceive
            as gawd. I yam
            > gawd if i am my perception of the world, which i make up...but i
            may be deceived.
            >
            > Flushed Toilette
          • louise
            ... Interesting, Knott, that you characterise/understate/parody the conception of deity by calling it gawd. A cartoon theology, rather than an historical
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 3, 2005
              > The reference to gawd is only that I am gawd if I am, as i
              >perceive, the only world view. Everything is created by my
              >perception of it...however errant. Of course, that
              >idea is limited by my misunderstanding, which is abundant.

              Interesting, Knott, that you characterise/understate/parody the
              conception of deity by calling it gawd. A cartoon theology, rather
              than an historical theology illuminated by modern references,
              including film, animation, etc. The latter is what interests me.
              Eduard's Nooism is I believe complementary to or at least compatible
              with my own poetic/dramatic meanderings. I certainly have never
              found eduard's contributions to existlist as promulgating
              exclusivist theological ideas, or exclusivist anything, actually.
              Seems to me such baseless accusations, open or implied, were what
              used to persuade him he was wasting his time here. And certainly
              I've gone through periods of feeling the same way. Just that I'm so
              mercurial, these periods would tend to last hours rather than
              weeks. Speaking of Mercury, I was just thinking how helpful it
              might be if we poetic types [addressing anybody here who wants to be
              included] re-named the planets of the solar system, since scientists
              get to do so much of this labelling business, usually without the
              first clue of the spiritual resonances invoked. Yes, I might go
              away and work on that little project ...

              pope the innocent
            • Knott
              ... there is nothing of what you say there. gawd is merely my way of spelling what everyone else already thinks they understand. i will not capitalize as it is
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 3, 2005
                > Interesting, Knott, that you characterise/understate/parody the
                > conception of deity by calling it gawd.

                there is nothing of what you say there. gawd is merely my way of spelling what
                everyone else already thinks they understand. i will not capitalize as it is not the same
                reference in every frame.

                This is a practical decision.

                As to you and le Duard...or to you alone as both -- it is not unlikely that you are the
                same, using a frivolous AKA
                (but unlikely that you are as you seem to use different words--if so, good play).
                Duard is, however, quite an idiot. i don't state such terms lightly. Too embedded in
                the 'reality' of his precious science (and i do have a science/mathematical background
                predominant to my written one) to realize that he is not perceiving even immediately
                what he thinks he sees. In fact, his science should tell him that sound comes after
                sight...and that the syncronicity of sense may be errant -- as seems to be most of
                perception, and more, our ridiculous interpretation of it.

                many people, for example, want to see the worst in a perspective, when I suggest that
                even murderers likely have an explanation for their disinteresting choices. Women
                almost insist that a man is bad, from my experience. it is a horemonal endulgence.
                Marz and venus, no doubt.

                I have probably never said this here...I once posed in a chat room that i was a female
                interested in men. Knowing reasonably what men might like, I posed a scenario of
                what i might like to do to a man, and the chat, which was loud and boistrous with
                many people clamoring in, became quite quiet....and listened to my false 10 minutes
                or more of fantasy play-acting. no one typed an interruption. Doubtless several took
                matters into their hands. In the end, more than five refused to believe i was not
                female, and no less than three continued to stalk my screen name for about a month,
                begging me to return to that facade...to me it was an exercise in interest--not as to
                how I could be a woman, but as to how well i could play a man's desire for one.

                In short, there is evil, and slack fun, and a combination of all. When one takes
                another's perspective too seriously, they are themselves the fool. I don't believe in
                any of you...even Bill, whose drill I feel the best.

                Narcodic Sljavic
              • louise
                Knott, Your reply to my comments don t make much sense to me. I ll ... spelling what ... capitalize as it is not the same ... Where do you get this from??
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 4, 2005
                  Knott,

                  Your reply to my comments don't make much sense to me. I'll
                  intersperse my own replies:

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <god@t...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Interesting, Knott, that you characterise/understate/parody the
                  > > conception of deity by calling it gawd.
                  >
                  > there is nothing of what you say there. gawd is merely my way of
                  spelling what
                  > everyone else already thinks they understand. i will not
                  capitalize as it is not the same
                  > reference in every frame.

                  Where do you get this from?? "what everyone else thinks they
                  understand"!! I thought you were a teacher, retired or not, rather
                  than some crazed cult leader or political dictator. What are your
                  grounds for such a truly absurd generalisation?

                  > This is a practical decision.

                  What is?

                  > As to you and le Duard...or to you alone as both -- it is not
                  unlikely that you are the same, using a frivolous AKA
                  > (but unlikely that you are as you seem to use different words--if
                  so, good play).

                  Excuse me!! le Duard seems to be your own invention - and I got
                  into hot water with Susan for ignorantly borrowing your moniker for
                  eduard, when Bill helpfuly explained to me how it 'burned him off'
                  (eduard that is) because you two didn't get on well, so I got all
                  upset in public and the moderator tells me not to be so personal ...
                  remember? Well, that last message was probably sent to me privately
                  by Susan. Anyway, I was most confused. I can only assume you have
                  a suppressed worship-fetish, and le Duard is your god - someone to
                  be resentful toward, perhaps. No, it's just a speculation. Of
                  course I don't know what's in your mind, any more than you know
                  what's in mine. And as to plain facts, eduard lives in Quebec,
                  Canada, I live in England, UK. We have never met, nor even
                  communicated by telephone. It's really intriguing, this possibility
                  of internet contact. I do find myself wondering about the sound of
                  people's voices. Photos give the visual rendition, of course.

                  > Duard is, however, quite an idiot. i don't state such terms
                  lightly. Too embedded in
                  > the 'reality' of his precious science (and i do have a
                  science/mathematical background
                  > predominant to my written one) to realize that he is not
                  perceiving even immediately
                  > what he thinks he sees. In fact, his science should tell him that
                  sound comes after
                  > sight...and that the syncronicity of sense may be errant -- as
                  seems to be most of
                  > perception, and more, our ridiculous interpretation of it.

                  There are more things in heaven and earth, my friend, than you can
                  quantify. I sure know what a 'scientific' assessment of my mental
                  condition led to in my own case ...

                  > many people, for example, want to see the worst in a perspective,
                  when I suggest that even murderers likely have an explanation for
                  their disinteresting choices. Women almost insist that a man is bad,
                  from my experience. it is a horemonal endulgence. Marz and venus,
                  no doubt.

                  Hormonal, maybe, and not necessarily indulgence. More like
                  necessity ... until one trains oneself philosophically/religiously
                  not to give way to hormonal cues. That's what Nooism is about, but
                  much more also.

                  > I have probably never said this here...I once posed in a chat room
                  that i was a female
                  > interested in men. Knowing reasonably what men might like, I posed
                  a scenario of
                  > what i might like to do to a man, and the chat, which was loud and
                  boistrous with
                  > many people clamoring in, became quite quiet....and listened to my
                  false 10 minutes
                  > or more of fantasy play-acting. no one typed an interruption.
                  Doubtless several took
                  > matters into their hands. In the end, more than five refused to
                  believe i was not
                  > female, and no less than three continued to stalk my screen name
                  for about a month,
                  > begging me to return to that facade...to me it was an exercise in
                  interest--not as to
                  > how I could be a woman, but as to how well i could play a man's
                  desire for one.

                  aha!! your secret is out, old cutie, a fantasist, an amorist, an
                  amateur sleuth psychologist, indeed, a natural pre-conscious ...
                  nooist neophyte.

                  > In short, there is evil, and slack fun, and a combination of all.
                  When one takes another's perspective too seriously, they are
                  themselves the fool. I don't believe in
                  > any of you...even Bill, whose drill I feel the best.
                  > Narcodic Sljavic

                  love and kisses, dear buffalo, from doting newly-groomed poodle ...
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.