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

Re: savages pavages

Expand Messages
  • the_mourning_train
    I agree wih Dr. Bombay... romanticising the past and dreading the future for unfounded reasons kind of paints the portrait of an angry, anxious poet who has a
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree wih Dr. Bombay... romanticising the past and dreading the
      future for unfounded reasons kind of paints the portrait of an angry,
      anxious poet who has a heavy amount of psuedo-conviction.

      Your writing is beautiful though.

      Hopefully we'll see some poems from you.

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:
      >
      > Yikes, man, do you drink a LOT? Your pie-in-the-eye vision is empty
      of a few things: good
      > reason and a solution being some of these. You are paranoid,
      delusional, and you believe
      > everything you say. I think that makes you more dangerous than a
      corporation.
      >
      > > We are today,
      > > as a national entity on the world stage, the least secure we have ever
      > > been.
      >
      > How do you measure that? By relative paranoia or a poll taken on AOL?
      >
      > > It is absolutely the large
      > > corporation that has ruined our national security, and immolated all
      > > its agencies.
      >
      > Again, you offer no substantiation -- as if your saying it makes it
      so...
      >
      > > We have already given the
      > > corporate entity the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to
      > > personal privacy.
      >
      > OK, so you say corporations have secrets...lets grant that even if
      it isn't proven and move
      > on. Just hold this thought a moment, because it is about to be
      contradicted...
      >
      > > Secrets are revealed stingily on a need to know basis.
      > > One always thinks someone above them knows something more.
      >
      > So, from secrets, we go to 'some' secrets...You see the damn breaking...
      >
      > > Today we
      > > have no national security because the top secret, and the ultimate
      > > motivation, is known. Security now, is just damage control, the
      > > limitation of information. There are no national secrets.
      >
      > ...and then all is an open book. In the matter of just a few
      sentences. And the conclusion
      > rings that there is no secrecy. so which is it?
      >
      > > We have failed to protect the small
      > > businessman, the ordinary family provider, and instead greedily and
      > > fearfully ruined his uninformed ideological dreams.
      >
      > By gawd, with the evil Jimmy Carter at the helm (former owner of the
      Carter Evil Worm
      > farm and brother to the great Billy of Billy Beer brewing, which is
      responsible for 'piss-in-
      > a-can')
      >
      > > Ironically, freedom itself is responsible for that.
      >
      > Freedom is responsible for worms and 'piss-in-a-can'...gotcha.
      >
      > > Still we need not be hopeless because we are without
      > > resources or uninformed.
      >
      > Wait, are we reversing the motor again? there are no secrets but we
      are uninformed? if you
      > are saying that the average person doesn't pay attention to
      everything, um, well, what are
      > ou really saying? One cannot (as Sean Connery did in playing Zed in
      the awful movie
      > Zardoz) learn by osmosis.
      >
      > > The true nature of literature is such, that
      > > there really are no secrets.
      >
      > So, there are no secrets...again, but we don't know anything? so we
      are told everything and
      > there are secrets because we are too stupid to understand what we
      are told...or we don't
      > pay attention....don't care...forgive me if I am swirling in the
      logic of on-again, off-again.
      > Or the on-again-off-again logic.
      >
      > > This in itself assures that no man is
      > > actually ever permanently dominated by another. The failure of any
      > > dominion is inevitable
      >
      > OK, so the evil corporation of worms and piss-in-a-can driven by
      Jimmy Carter (in his very
      > smart pickup truck) to the brink of extinction by corporations who
      keep secrets very well
      > to themselves so that everyone else knows them and assures their own
      destruction...got it.
      > But wait...doesn't that contradict the idea that "We have already
      given the corporate entity
      > the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to personal
      privacy. Everything of life is
      > now measured by purchasing power. We passed, some years ago, the
      last point of no
      > return for a peaceful resolution for the ordinary American citizen."
      because if everything
      > 'assures its own destruction', it is likely that anything
      established (corporate entities,
      > purchasing power, ordinary citizens) will eventually be
      vanquished...unless I am really
      > reading in too hard here...
      >
      > > the sorrow of deluded conquest is
      > > ongoing and inescapable.
      >
      > Are you talking about your own post? it seems to me deluded conquest
      to assume you
      > know anything at all...and then back to the first sentence, and i am
      in finnegans wake all
      > over again...
      >
      > > As
      > > what I am, I can only read the end of the story and close the book on
      > > the very old broken promise of what I was expected to be.
      >
      > Such an inconclusinve conclusion where the author blames the reader,
      who is himself, for
      > the catastrophy of the problem of becoming less than he should have
      in the book that he
      > had written about himself in delusion which was, of course, the
      truth, because there were
      > no secrets. riverrun
      >
      > What I really want to know (because I won't have time to see the
      movie) is that if there is
      > an 'evil Jimmy Carter' does he sit on the right or left shoulder,
      and does his Billy Beer
      > swilling brother sit on the other in the angel costume, or is it
      just one of those standard
      > hollywood tricks of imposition, an impostor, or some clever
      character actor playing the
      > part, like Marion Lorne?
      >
      > You sound, sir, like a young deranged poet. and while I admire the
      energy, I believe far too
      > much of it is derived from anger and other conditions.
      >
      > Dr. Bombay
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.