Re: [CTRL] General Responses
-Caveat Lector- BFThe cat goes away for a few days and who comes out to play? (Just kidding.) OK, first of all, how dare I formulate an opinion without actually seeing something for myself? I averted my eyes when it was shown on television, as is my reflex. However, I did actually catch a glimse, and it was art but not really appropriate for prime time. You are right, I have an opinion on this without much knowledge, as we all formulate opinions based on our own biases at times. We do this when we are not particularly focused on the question, as I am not really focused on this question at this time. Ashcroft can do what he wants. I support him in this because I think it is a good idea. If I really wanted to go in depth I would have to be interested in naked statues inside of the D.O.J. Honestly, that does not pique my interest. I would say, in general, that a lot of the female statues in public places have their roots in eighteenth century neo-paganism, as has been discussed. That may be one reason Ashcroft did what he did. The re-design of the Pentagon, planned I believe from before 9-11, may be another sign that some forces want us to get away from the secret architecture paradigm. However, even there I would not involve myself directly, at this point, other than with my one urban renewal project, the one you all know and love, the one removing a symbol that, theoretically at least, no major religion would want there. What surprises me about all of this is that I really was making a whole other point. I was not trying to focus on that blasted statue. It is not high on my list of priorities. Perhaps Ashcroft is trying to send a message to Muslim allies, you know, a non-offensive message about how America is not really the Great Satan, etc. My real focus was on the rest of what I wrote. Does anyone remember? Milosevik and Stalin are getting fresh new support from the supposed intelligensia. I am a one-time friend of a friend of Michael Parenti, never having met him but having met students of his who knew him well. They studied Mao and Castro regularly. It was truly frightening. The fact that an educated man like this would go further than opposing NATO and actually uphold the Stalinist model is frightening. Also, the Arabic extremists have supporters among the Left-wing intelligensia, and they get much of their information from Hitler and the Holocaust denial people. Intelligent people, many of whom I have once respected, have taken positions that are truly frightening. It is more than just defending free speech, honestly. Part of this may be a Hegelian dialectic. I truly believe that many of these positions are manipulated by the Nimrodian powers. However, I cannot prove this and can only say that they are dangerous in their own right. I notice that few of them can really challenge me directly, not with substance. The only substantive challenges to anything I say seem to have to do with naked statues inside the D.O.J. I would rather have something of substance to discuss. Really. MHO Bates A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] General Responses
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Man on the Run [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [CTRL] General Responses -Caveat Lector- congratulations on an oustandingly vacuous response. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] General Responses
-Caveat Lector- Well June there you go again - speak for yourself, June, and not for me will you? I know the difference between art and pornography and if you had an original thought from time to time, you would find that this statute to which you refer, and to which Mr. Bates refers, has stoon on the same site for approximately 30 years. It was the press, the news media, who planned the picture - it was the news media who saw evil in this statute, and not Ashcroft. And I am surprised at you June - your lack of knowledge when it comes to true art forms - you did not even know the masterpiece memorial to our men in Iwo Jima, was a dedication to the United States Marines in memory of all all the men who died in this bitter battle. I imagine someday the news medial will put on a drive to have this art form removed as being too barbarian. Further June, as a former art studen and my sister was a professional artist who made thousands selling her work just by paiting a few pictures and having a garage sell, she could make an extra thousand a month, tax clear fun money. She studied Art under true professioinals and was a friend to Emerson Burkhart (and I have two of his painting worth now $30,000 each according to latest price in library) - we my sister and I both, knew the difference between art and garbage. The art display in the library June - can only be compared to the intent of the newsman who portrayed Ashcroft with the statue for a joke - it was funny, the laugh is over. Art is art and garbage is garbage. We all have our personal preferences - you seem to lean toward the pornographic while I prefer true art, and the true tests of an artist is, can he paint or sculp life forms, or like what we have outside our Columbus Museum now thanks to the Lazaras family - big heaps of metal some of which looks like dung hills which you would enjoy June for beauty they say is in the eye of the beholder. So you take Larry Flynt and shove him up your nose - I know art from garbage. OSaba Try studying Hogarth June - again the test of an artist is can he draw, paint, or produce a masterpiece such as the statute of Iwo Jima - you know June - the famous oh so famous statue of men in the US Marines dedicated to the US Marines one of the bloodiest battles in the war? June I believe you would delight in the works, of Jack the Ripper ... A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] General Responses
- Original Message - From: Man on the Run To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 7:52 AM Subject: [CTRL] General Responses BFI get the point. I really cannot understand why you would find me more offensive than the Nazis and Stalinists who post on this list. if we always questioned the "more offensive" evils on the list and forgot the "less?" offensive evils then the less offensive evils would go unquestioned... no? ;) I really find that strange. As far as the stratues that Ashcroft covered, I honestly have not seen them oh dear... no need to reply to that partiicular statement as it says enough about how you form your opinions on it's own. and perhaps they are "art" and not pornography (like David, Renoir, etc.) but I would say that, even if so, it is best not to broadcast them on prime time in the context given. why is best not to broadcast them on primetime? you haven't even seen them... how do oyu know? It is subjective, but remember that we are not talking about censorship covering up a seminude sculpture *because* it is seminude *is* censorship- whether it suits your point of view to name it as such or not. but a decision that Ashcroft has made with his personal space. I support it, as we are not talking about PBS art programs, where the context is clear. let's face it.. the nakedness in the statue is consistent with the styling of that particular statue. no one ever really bats an eyelid at it... because it is so consistent and within constext the breast is pretty much invisible.. or at least a non- issue unless some prurient mind projects dirtiness onto it. We are talking about a context where I think that female or male nudity is not appropriate. why? it is a breast. that's all... it is not doing anyone any harm... on the other hand if it was a statue of a painting of say, "the rape of lucretia" then i would agree with you that it is innapropriate. this is the point , batesy old boy, you cannot define art or nudity within art in a black and white way. just cause it is Rodin or leonardo or whoever that painted it- the subject matter may make the "art" innapropriate for some places... but this statue is just a passive representation of a beautiful woman and must be regarded and judged in a complex way. not simply is it nude ot is it not nude... or has it credibility as art because you approve of the artist... Do you really believe that the Department of Justice is where you want to appreciate the joy of the human body? Ylgghhh... uh... whatever you say...pah. Outright pornography is exactly what I said it was. no, it is your opinion of what pornography is. no-one elses. it does not become truth or an objective opinion ust because you think it. I stand by what I said. no problem with you standing by your own opinion.. Disagree all you want, but it is the truth. no, it is not "the truth" it is your opinion. If you do not believe that violent and vulgar exploitation of the human body and denial of women's rights are evil then we have nothing to really discuss. is the statue best described as vulgar and violent? oh yeah- youhaven't sen it but you spout off quite readily about it... sheesh... lord preserve us from the pious... At least be offended by the Nazis and Stalinists who defend Milosevik and Arafat more than by li'l ole me. Please! excuse me, norman, what about the nazis who defend bush and sharon? why do you insist on your own world view as the definitive one? Bates
Re: [CTRL] General Responses
-Caveat Lector- From: Saba [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know the difference between art and pornography and if you had an original thought from time to time, you would find that this statute Statute? which you refer, and to which Mr. Bates refers, has stoon stoon? on the same site for approximately 30 years. And so? I DID say it's been there for decades; you DO know what the word 'decade' means, don't you? It was the press, the news media, who planned the picture The hell they did; it was Ashcroft's people who set the podium up where they did, and who instructed the media representatives where to set up, not the other way around... - it was the news media who saw evil in this statute, and not Ashcroft. There we go with 'statute' again... And the media had absolutely NOTHING to say about that statue for all the DECADES that it has been in the DoJ building; it was Ashcroft's own twisted psyche which, after seeing pictures of himself with the statue behind him, decided there was something 'nasty' about the statue, and instead of just changing the location of his press conferences decided instead to waste thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to cover a statue that we had paid for. I read somewhere that he also thinks calico cats are evil... And I am surprised at you June - your lack of knowledge when it comes to true art forms - you did not even know the masterpiece memorial to our men in Iwo Jima, Which is arguably NOT a 'true art form'... was a dedication to the United States Marines in memory of all all the men who died in this bitter battle. I didn't say it was, I didn't say it wasn't; what I DID do was answer your statement regarding there being no national monument to veterans of WWII... I imagine someday the news medial will put on a drive to have this art form removed as being too barbarian. Not barbarian, and not 'art', either... It is a cast medal recreation of a photograph, no *art* involved at all, except in the original photograph... Further June, as a former art studen and my sister was a professional artist who made thousands selling her work So what is her name, and what museum/galleries contain her works? Former art studen [sic}...what a joke; Famous Artists School doesn't count, Colleen... I wish I had a dollar for all the 'former art students' I know...most of them just took a painting class where they copied postcards... I, OTOH, have not only taken REAL art classes in college, I also attended the Silvermine Art School here in Norwalk, Connecticut...where REAL artists are instructors, Colleen...artists whose works ARE in famous museums and well-known and respected galleries... Any 'former art student' worth anything would know that true art is not necessarily 'pretty' but, as a former art teacher of mine stressed, true art is what 'works'...one should not ask 'is it pretty', but rather ask 'does it work'? Your definition of 'art', Colleen, seems to be anything that would look good hanging in the livingroom over the couch; I bet all those Famous Artist sales held at your local Holiday and Ramada Inns every weekend see you as a steady customer, all the painters being former 'art' students of the Famous Artists mail-order school just like you and your sister...it's nice that you support the alumni of your former school, Colleen, but don't delude yourself into thinking that what you all produce is true art... just by paiting Paiting? That's a technique I haven't heard of before...perhaps you can elucidate on this new technique of 'paiting'? a few pictures and having a garage sell, she could make an extra thousand a month, tax clear fun money. Perhaps she could, from suckers who, like you, are looking for a pretty picture to hang over the livingroom couch... The fact that you admit that she could only sell her works at a garage 'sell' [sic] proves that she was no artist of note or renown... She studied Art under true professioinals Professioinals? and was a friend to Emerson Burkhart Groupie is probably more like it... If this Burkhart was such a good artist AND such a good friend, why couldn't he get your sister's works into a legitimate gallery, why did she have to resort to selling her paintings at tag sales? according to latest price in library) - we my sister and I both, knew the difference between art and garbage. And yet you admit that your sister could only sell her works at garage sales, along with all the other junk... The art display in the library June - can only be compared to the intent of the newsman who portrayed Ashcroft with the statue for a joke - it was funny, the laugh is over. The only setup was by Ashcroft's own people, who arranged for where the podium from where their boss would speak would be located; their choice of location assured that the statue in question would appear in the background behind Ashcroft, there was no way any camera could avoid it. Perhaps they deliberately chose the location, not knowing their
Re: [CTRL] General Responses
-Caveat Lector- It is a cast medal recreation of a photograph, Sorry for the typo; I obviously meant to type a cast METAL recreation, not 'medal recreation'...my bad... That statue is craft, not art, and definitely not 'true' art; the only art is perhaps in the original photograph...the statue, OTOH, was merely crafted by workers who were skilled in copying the 2D photographic image into a 3D medium. That they were extremely skilled craftsmen is true; but that is far from be For some reason my post got cut off... What the final sentence said was: That they were extremely skilled craftsmen is true; but that is far from being an actual artist, let alone a 'true' artist. June A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] General Responses
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Saba [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know the difference between art and pornography and if you had an original thought from time to time, you would find that this statute to which you refer, and to which Mr. Bates refers, has stoon on the same site for approximately 30 years. Actually the statue, The Spirit of Justice, also nicknamed Minnie Lou (although the origins of that name are unclear), was installed in 1934 along with a male counterpart, The Majesty of Law (not sure if that one has a nickname), which makes its place in the DoJ nearly 70 years old. So, not to nitpick, but Minnie Lou has been on this earth longer than John Ashcroft. - jt A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] General Responses
BF>Below are responses to many people, so please be patient... snip> "c." wrote: define pornography.or... tell me, is all representations of a nude animal of our species pornography? if not- what makes a nude representation of our species porn and what is not porn?i like a bit of porn i must say, but i have noticed (in my somewhat extensive research of this subject arf arf) that there is a definate difference (this must be subjective) between a nude that gets me hot and a nude that just makes me in awe of the beauty of the miracle of the human body.i think the statues are of the latter variety. i do not think there is a line between the two- but it is very rare that what i find truly beautiful also excites me in a sexual way. i can point to this, this and this and tell you definately which of these things are porn and which are "art" but i am certain that this is only my beholding eyes...to simply cover up ALL nudity because some of it may be found stimulating by some people is disingenuous as the victorians discovered- all it does is create fetishism and extremism. at least when people have the freedom to express and indulge their own sexual tastes- it is out in the open and more easily monitored... thus allowing more black and white definitions of right and wrong can be identified- i.e. don't mess with kids and don't do anything to anyone that they don't want. beyond that it is personal tate and personal rights. snip> BF>I get the point. I really cannot understand why you would find me more offensive than the Nazis and Stalinists who post on this list. I really find that strange. As far as the stratues that Ashcroft covered, I honestly have not seen them and perhaps they are "art" and not pornography (like David, Renoir, etc.) but I would say that, even if so, it is best not to broadcast them on prime time in the context given. It is subjective, but remember that we are not talking about censorship but a decision that Ashcroft has made with his personal space. I support it, as we are not talking about PBS art programs, where the context is clear. We are talking about a context where I think that female or male nudity is not appropriate. Do you really believe that the Department of Justice is where you want to appreciate the joy of the human body? Ylgghhh... Outright pornography is exactly what I said it was. I stand by what I said. Disagree all you want, but it is the truth. If you do not believe that violent and vulgar exploitation of the human body and denial of women's rights are evil then we have nothing to really discuss. At least be offended by the Nazis and Stalinists who defend Milosevik and Arafat more than by li'l ole me. Please! Bates snip> Andrew Hennessey wrote: -Caveat Lector- tons of patriot stuff on the net about China THE ENEMY - but consider this - it is a developing nation that has just bought into globalism and will neeed power stations, factories and infrastructure - AND has some of the worlds cheapest and most plentiful labour - something uncle multiSam cannot ignore. China is the Friend of UncleDisney - no-one is going to fight with it at least up front. I'm sure that the NWO want to exterminate China - but to do that they must first break it down and destroy its diet and culture and traditions by introducing poisons and toxins. Under what better guise than the international masonic 'hand' of industrial redevelopment. At this time China is more American than america - it has Disney, macDonalds AND fully staffed factory Gulags, maybe at some point soon the americans will catch up on that one. andrew hennessey A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org/A> DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl/A> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om snip> BF>It depends on what you mean by the "New World Order". The American version of it is very naive. It
Re: [CTRL] General Responses
But it is not his private space, but a public space, and he is spending our tax money to cover statues that I am sure our tax money bought and are a part of our national heritage. -Original Message-From: Man on the Run [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 1:52 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [CTRL] General ResponsesBFBelow are responses to many people, so please be patient... snip "c." wrote: define pornography.or... tell me, is all representations of a nude animal of our species pornography? if not- what makes a nude representation of our species porn and what is not porn?i like a bit of porn i must say, but i have noticed (in my somewhat extensive research of this subject arf arf) that there is a definate difference (this must be subjective) between a nude that gets me hot and a nude that just makes me in awe of the beauty of the miracle of the human body.i think the statues are of the latter variety. i do not think there is a line between the two- but it is very rare that what i find truly beautiful also excites me in a sexual way. i can point to this, this and this and tell you definately which of these things are porn and which are "art" but i am certain that this is only my beholding eyes...to simply cover up ALL nudity because some of it may be found stimulating by some people is disingenuous as the victorians discovered- all it does is create fetishism and extremism. at least when people have the freedom to express and indulge their own sexual tastes- it is out in the open and more easily monitored... thus allowing more black and white definitions of right and wrong can be identified- i.e. don't mess with kids and don't do anything to anyone that they don't want. beyond that it is personal tate and personal rights. snip BFI get the point. I really cannot understand why you would find me more offensive than the Nazis and Stalinists who post on this list. I really find that strange. As far as the stratues that Ashcroft covered, I honestly have not seen them and perhaps they are "art" and not pornography (like David, Renoir, etc.) but I would say that, even if so, it is best not to broadcast them on prime time in the context given. It is subjective, but remember that we are not talking about censorship but a decision that Ashcroft has made with his personal space. I support it, as we are not talking about PBS art programs, where the context is clear. We are talking about a context where I think that female or male nudity is not appropriate. Do you really believe that the Department of Justice is where you want to appreciate the joy of the human body? Ylgghhh... Outright pornography is exactly what I said it was. I stand by what I said. Disagree all you want, but it is the truth. If you do not believe that violent and vulgar exploitation of the human body and denial of women's rights are evil then we have nothing to really discuss. At least be offended by the Nazis and Stalinists who defend Milosevik and Arafat more than by li'l ole me. Please! Bates snip Andrew Hennessey wrote: -Caveat Lector- tons of patriot stuff on the net about China THE ENEMY - but consider this - it is a developing nation that has just bought into globalism and will neeed power stations, factories and infrastructure - AND has some of the worlds cheapest and most plentiful labour - something uncle multiSam cannot ignore. China is the Friend of UncleDisney - no-one is going to fight with it at least up front. I'm sure that the NWO want to exterminate China - but to do that they must first break it down and destroy its diet and culture and traditions by introducing poisons and toxins. Under what better guise than the international masonic 'hand' of industrial redevelopment. At this time China is more American than america - it has Disney, macDonalds AND fully staffed factory Gulags, maybe at some point soon the americans will catch up on that one. andrew hennessey A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance-not soap-boxing-please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'-with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds-is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available
Re: [CTRL] General Responses
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Man on the Run [EMAIL PROTECTED] BFI get the point. I really cannot understand why you would find me more offensive than the Nazis and Stalinists who post on this list. I really find that strange. As far as the stratues that Ashcroft covered, I honestly have not seen them and perhaps they are art and not pornography (like David, Renoir, etc.) but I would say that, even if so, it is best not to broadcast them on prime time in the context given. It is subjective, but remember that we are not talking about censorship but a decision that Ashcroft has made with his personal space. But, the thing is, nobody else ever seemed to have a problem with it, even people more prudish than Ashcroft. And the DOJ is not Ashcroft's personal space, even though he might see it that way. I support it, as we are not talking about PBS art programs, where the context is clear. We are talking about a context where I think that female or male nudity is not appropriate. Again, this was never a problem before now, not even for Ed Meese ... and the statue has been there since the 1930s. Do you really believe that the Department of Justice is where you want to appreciate the joy of the human body? Ylgghhh... Outright pornography is exactly what I said it was. I stand by what I said. Disagree all you want, but it is the truth. If you do not believe that violent and vulgar exploitation of the human body and denial of women's rights are evil then we have nothing to really discuss. Give me a break! Violent and vulgar exploitation of the human body? You really need to get a clue, Bates, or at least take a look at the statue for yourself. Do you find Michaelangelo's David to be offensive? Denial of women's rights ... What crap. Don't be an idiot. - jt A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] General Responses
-Caveat Lector- From: Man on the Run As far as the stratues that Ashcroft covered, I honestly have not seen them and perhaps they are "art" and not pornography Are you suggesting that the Department of Justice has been hosting pornographic statues for decades? What exactly IS your definition of 'pornography'? Are you like Colleen, and believe every representation of a nude human body is somehow 'nasty'? Are you one of those people who think fig leaves should be put on all the genitalia of ancient sculptures in museums? but I would say that, even if so, it is best not to broadcast them on prime time in the context given. What, pray tell, exactly IS 'in the context given'? What do you feel would be wrong with people, even the little kiddies, seeing a naked female breast on a piece of marble art in the background? And if it IS so objectionable, why not just have Ashcroft face a different direction, or choose another area of the DoJ building altogether, rather than spend thousands of taxpayers' dollars to cover a piece of art which was paid for with taxpayers' dollars and has been there for decades? It is subjective, but remember that we are not talking about censorship Sure we are; the decision to have the statue covered IS censorship, plain and simple. but a decision that Ashcroft has made with his personal space. Please justify your contention that the DoJ building, built and maintained with taxpayers' funds, has somehow become Ashcroft's PERSONAL SPACE? We are talking about a context where I think that female or male nudity is not appropriate. Do a little research...the representations of both Justice and of Liberty/Columbia in art have usually been of bare-breasted women, going back hundreds of years. Do you really believe that the Department of Justice is where you want to appreciate the joy of the human body? Ylgghhh... I think anywhere is appropriate to appreciate the BEAUTY of the human body, and that the naked human body is not something to be ashamed of... Outright pornography is exactly what I said it was. I stand by what I said. Then you prove how ignorant you are, if you believe all nudity is pornographic... If you do not believe that violent and vulgar exploitation of the human body Please explain to us what exactly is 'vulgar' and especially what is 'violent' in the representation of Justice that Ashcroft had covered and denial of women's rights Please explain to me how that statue in the DoJ building denies me my rights June www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
