On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, sean henry wrote: > I suuport you a 100 per cent on that one! Why not organise a > duel with Kandinskij or whoever is hiding behind the > Kandinskij/Death Guy umbrella?
Avoid attempting to dictate our behavior, ape. Nobody is "hiding". > That'd sure be more fun than reading it everyday and could settle > matters once and for all(?). We don't exist around you. > Maybe we could chose a champion, or as many as we need, according to the > amount of people who use the Kandiskij address to represent No, you couldn't. Keep your competitive idiotic ape impulses to yourself. > manipulators and let them insult each other to death-since they'll > be using insults rather than weapons or their bare fists, I want no > first blood crap. We do not insult. Keep your myopic misinterpretations to yourself. Nor do we carea bout what you WANT. Dictatorial idiot. > How many times can one use the word "babycheek" We do not "use the word babycheeks". Your repetitive programmatic view of the world is your own problema. > talk about projected violence before boring somebody to death? Boredom is your own knee-jerk reaction. Avoid attempting to abrogate self-responsibility for your boredom to us, and using that as an emotional leash. If you do not want to see violence projected reflected, why don;t you stop it? Or are humans supposed to sit behind their monitors and just "take it" without uttering a word? Especially so in order to avoid BORING your PERSONA? Or should we just pretend it's "art"? Alle ist ART. > That'd be a good opportunity to find out... Of course, the public'd > better wear ear-muffs as a protection. > >Dear Kandinskij (You said it was not a pseudo, didn't You? Is it > your last > >name? Great name anyway), Aren't you nosy. > >In case You were not talking to me, I would like to say that I'm > talking to > >You. He also found that the odic field could be conducted through a wire. It traveled slowly at 13 feet per second. This speed depended on the density of the wire rather than its conductivity. He showed that part of this odic field could be focused like a light through a lens. There was no-thing transmitted to you. > >The more I read You, the more I love it. You read something that isn't there? > >You're so clever and brilliant, at least there's someone, or > something, my > >english is not good enough to have allowed me to distinguish > exactely what > >kind of entity recovers the "we" You are using, to tear off the > blindfold > >that covered my mind. Nobody is engaged in the above. > >Please go on, I mean it, but could you be just a bit more > pedagogical at We are not pedagogical dearest. No matter how much you wish to project so. > >least for me (I can't speak for the others, as far as I understood > what you > >wrote/said), so that I can follow the whole debate, which > impassionate me (I > >mean that I'm passionnately following it since the begining, but I > m not > >sure that this term exists in English, or exactely means what I > meant). It > >reminds me the debates that the Futurists used to have with their > audience > >(and I think this example is more relevant than the usual Dada > recallings) > >back in 1910's, just as cruel and fast as they were at that time, > having the > >same kind of use of the insult (which was used also by the > Situationnistes, > >and before by the Lettristes) as You do. It's really refreshing and > much > >unusual in this time of conviviality and "speakingly" correct > habits. > >However, these great ancestors, used to have these strong debates > in front > >of the object of their diatribes (Is this word used in English?), > and that, > >if You allow me to say/write it, makes all the difference: it's > much more > >challenging to pratice this kind of exchange when you have the > actual person > >in front you, Meaningless 'challengilistic' knee-jerk. Attempt at dictatorial control by "comparison" to masters + flattery + subsequent attempt at "elicitation" of control. We are not futurists. Letterists. Cryel. Nor do we insult. > because then arise the possibility that this person, > >renouncing to the classical ways of the debate, chose to come back > to the > >most antic ways to solve such situations by knocking your face. How nice. The ultra-idiotic ape who "thrives" on violence + views Futurism as "competitive sport". > You > should > >try once, because it's really intellectually exciting: We "shouldn't" anything babycheeks. We are not "intellectual". Nor do we carea bout your "excitement". > anyway you > can't > >loose: Win/lose primitive brain ape knee-jerk atempt. > if you're beatten, history will remind that your arguments > were so > >strong that your opponent had to kick you to admitt his weakness, No, dearest. We do not engage in brutality of ANY sort. > and if > >you're not, that means that your mind was quick and clever enough We are not using our "mind". We do not care about ape idiocies such as "quick and clever" mindfuck games. > to play > >with this risk untill the other one had to leave. We do not "play with risks". > Last, if you accept to > >fight, We find your idiotic screeching for BLOOD AND VIOLENCE utterly repulsive. > then history will remind that you were probably right, There is no history. > >Otherwise, do You know what is the problem with this debate (for > me, I can't > >say for the other fluxlisters)? It is that I don't know the work of > Joseph > >Yves, or Franklin or anywhat his name is, so I have to believe You > without > >being able to know if it's true or not, the problem is not what You > say > >about the aims of art and about the existence of crooks and > pseudo-gurus in > >art (and particularly in performative art), the problem is that I > have no > >way to know if what you say can be said of Joseph Yves or not. You're not being spoken to. And the only "problem" is that everything has to be about "you". The dictatorial ape demands blood + explanations. There will be none. > And > being > >unable to know that, means that I have to believe in You as I would > believe > >in god (if I was), without questionning what You say/write, which > means that > >I should have the Faith, and this Faith should be strong enough to > overwhelm > >my reason, and bring me to hate, or reject, someone for some > reasons I > >cannot relate to experience. No, you don't HAVE to any of the above. You simply knee-jerk. And that is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Not something we have to 'rectify'. > >And this, I'm sorry, but really I can't: Your problem. > >Morevover, this blind faith would mean that You're controlling my > mind, No, it wouldn't. If you want to sit there and beat your head with a stick, and play idiotic games with yourself that is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. > >which is in contradiction with your very aims: denouncing the art > >manipulators No, it IS NOT. We are not "manipulating you". > -and I woul add that the most terrible thing in these > >manipulators, is that they're often teaching art, at least in > France. Meaningless drivel. > >My warmest wishes in Your fight for Your noble cause We are not in a "fight for a cause". We are not in a fight. There is no cause. > >French students used to say in 1968 "Death to the Dummies" (Mort > aux Cons), > >which De Gaulle is said to have answered "Huge mission" (Vaste > programme). No, we do not share your predilection for murder. Damaging of "dummies" is a simpleton's mindfuck game. In other words, thanks for spewing your brain. But we are not this.
