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

Re: damn chee key

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.