--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
> --- In email@example.com, "Ahn Eun Song" <ahn.unsong@g...>
> > It is also signed with an Eqyptian set of characters that
> > Gods.'
> That's irrelevant.
No, it's not at all irrelevant.
1. It directly follows the line you were talking about.
2. You want to take the one part (about Ankh fn Khonsu) literally, so
I am asking you to see how ridiculous a proposition that is by
extending the same exact literalism to the next part.
> The line says 'by appeal to my writings'. That's
> plural writings and singular 'my'. If was meant 'the writings of the
That's not my intended meaning at all. I think if you read more
carefully, you will see my intended meaning more consistently.
If I was not clear the first time around (in the post you are
quoting) the first paragraph penned by me in /this/ (with two
numbered points) post is my intended meaning in these regards, so
there should be no further confusion about the matter in the future,
if you wish to discuss the point in more detail.
> the line would have been 'by appeal to our writings' and if was
> meant TBOTL the line would have said 'my writing' and the signature
> would have read either 'Aiwass' or 'Aleister Crowley'.
> Since neither is the case, we must conclude that, since
> Ankh-af-na-khonsu is not the author of TBOTL but its mere scribe,
> 'my writings' points to documents other than TBOTL, not written by
> either Crowley or Aiwass, of which Ankh-af-na-Khonsu claims
> >Ankh fn Khonsu is a psuedonym of
> > AC until I receive proof that it isn't.
> It's just a pseudonym if he published works under that name. Even
> then, the line would just point to documents published under that
> name, not to all documents authored by Aleister Crowley.
Wrong. Obvious artistic license is being taken here with the names
used. If you bolster your points with a little bit of reality or
research, it might help your cause.
> >The simplest answer is the
> > correct answer.
> Your answer is very incorrect.
> > lots of stuff that is blatantly anti-dogs.
> > Anti-dogs?! It's a metaphor, you twit!
> Yes, it's a dog unfriendly metaphor. If it would have said 'death to
> the negroes' would it have been just a metaphor too?
Re: negroes: What do you think?
I think you've made a ridiculous comparison.
'Dog-unfriendly metaphor?' What kind of Orwellian PC nightmare do you
live in to make you think anyone is going to take this line of
> > I know about the 'cat inside.' It's a lot better than the 'dog
> > inside!'
> For someone who claims to be cool you seemed to have missed out on a
> few classics - may i recommend 'Can your pussy do the dog' by the
I never /once/ claimed to actually be cool! For someone who claims to
be able to read, you sure are having a difficult time parsing the
simplest of sentences!
In case you don't remember, and/or are lazy (and don't want to look
at the actual quote in T93), I originally said:
>$I /have/ invested a lot in being cool (or at least my own version
I never said I /attained anything in particular/ by such an
investment, least of all the status of 'cool.'
The Cramps /are/ a 'cool' group, though it's been some time since
I've listened to them. I don't download music, so it will be
impossible for me to listen to this song unless you can send me an
http:// style link. Since this is way off topic, I'd appreciate it if
you were to send any such links to my personal email. Thanks.