Barlow essay on Burning Man and Schwartzenegger

All things outside of Burning Man.
Post Reply
Kinetic II

Post by Kinetic II » Sun Nov 09, 2003 1:30 pm

I don't watch much TV to begin with and classic TV even more so. My family hated much of the sitcoms, in particular Archie Bunker and I Love Lucy were downright despised. My dad literally threw a pipe wrench into the TV when the he couldn't change the channel and I Love Lucy came on once. Motorola made some good TV's but the massive pipe wrench was no contest for it.

And guess what his problem was? He hated Desi Arnaz. And yeah, because of his ethnic heritage. And he thought Lucille Ball was a slut.

Needless to say I didn't see much of Archie Bunker or most of the classic shows. Another on the hate list was The Waltons and in particular the Good Night sequence. Oh man did that start the bitching.

User avatar
Isotopia
Posts: 2848
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:26 am

Post by Isotopia » Sun Nov 09, 2003 1:42 pm

And he thought Lucille Ball was a slut.
Hell, NO telling what he'd think of me then.

User avatar
herself
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 8:41 am
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: Camp Crypto!
Location: Oakland Calif

Post by herself » Sun Nov 09, 2003 2:45 pm

A few comments: first, in a way, you can export your own posts here, because you CAN view all your own posts. I'd forgotten about that when complaining that I couldn't export my own posts here.

affg: back on the old eplaya I was offended by you a couple times but after getting used to you, I saw there was some consistency, and I think an attempt to communicate clearly. So I'm used to you. But I think what a couple people here are experiencing is what I experienced back then. I'd have to say that your login name is also a little hard to take sometimes when you make extremely controversial and arguably borderline bigoted remarks. It just makes you seem a little too smug. So it's not like I think every think you've written is A-OK, just that I've seen you around long enough to have a feel for your approach and I know you like to argue difficult points. Hope that makes sense.

hh

ps. I still like your term, and originally missed the latino reference completely : )

User avatar
herself
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 8:41 am
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: Camp Crypto!
Location: Oakland Calif

Post by herself » Sun Nov 09, 2003 2:48 pm

update on viewing/ exporting all of one's own posts: when I try to do so, I only see 50 posts, yet supposedly I have like 150 posts. Don't know why it doesn't work and also don't care enough about it to report the problem elsewhere.

User avatar
Don Muerto
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm

Post by Don Muerto » Sun Nov 09, 2003 3:52 pm

Since it was my debate with aforceforgood that largely lit this particular fire, I feel compelled to inject some perspective here.

First off, nothing affg said in this thread would lead me to label him a racist. I think his arguments have traversed the entire expanse of cultural insensitivity and definitely flirted with racism. As I said before I thought he was "straying" into racist territory, and I could give him the benefit of the doubt without a problem. The 'hisplachitino' remark and wondering whether I am hispanic are, in my opinion, not nearly as offensive as his views on bilingualism and the value of other cultures expressed in this thread.

However, the remarks regarding Islamic cultures and peoples made on the old eplaya are overtly and unquestionably racist. There is no way to excuse what you said there, -certainly not with the old standby of "I was drunk." I did bother to dig up your apology, it took you two and a half days and 23 defensive posts to come to:

"As for the offensiveness of that *one* post, yeah, it was, and I hereby formally apologize for it. Guess I should have read the warning on the beer bottle; "WARNING; Side effects may include overestimation of one's own funniness."

AFFG, you should be ashamed of what you said there, and what you said to defend it, -much of which is equally racist as "that one post". You defended that 'drunken' statement while sober, and I truly hope that you understand now that what you said was wrong and indefensible.

Do I think you are a racist? Tough question. I am pretty sure you don't think you are and intent is a big part of racism. I do think that what you have written in these two threads makes you appear ignorant and pigheaded and, most unfortunately, capable of believing your own bullshit while simultaneously tuning out information that conflicts with your self-image. I can't speak to your nature or motivations, only what you present and what it elicits in me.

Believe it or not, I have disagreed with you, but always given you the benefit of the doubt *and* treated you gently. If you reread my posts you will not find a personal attack, nor will you find me calling you a racist before I rode your backtrail on the old eplaya. In my younger days I would have gone up one side of you and down the other. I am older now, and a little wiser, so I know that approach closes more ears than it opens, -even when warranted.

I, and many others here, have given you well-reasoned food for thought, but at every turn you have rejected it without consideration. You keep asking for proof and reasons, but you refuse to consider what is set before you. As Badger aptly pointed out, you have taken exception to <u>every</u> suggestion and perspective offerred that differed from your own. How can you possibly learn like this?

Both in this argument and the one on the old eplaya, you have exhibited every behavior you continually accuse your critics of doing. Your responses are reactionary, hysterical and illogical, and the vast majority of your 'points' amount to nothing more than straw man and ad hominem abusive logical fallacies. This is the real reason you fail to sway opinion to your view, not because the entire world is a bunch of knee-jerk anythings.

Instead of quoting this post and letting me know how you disagree with me. Please consider doing the following instead.

1) Write me off as an idiot, but recognize that we learn from idiots as surely as the wise. I *might* have something to say that you need to hear.
2) Think about <u>your</u> responsibility in how you are being perceived via your words here.
3) Make an honest effort to consider how a comment you make might be misconstrued, and do your best to refine it until it expresses *exactly* what you mean it to. It will save you time and energy later.
4) Keep it light. Try not to become so emotionally invested in defending your positions.

These are good general suggestions for you or anyone, online or not, and I hope you can find the same value in them that I do. I wish you the best of luck in this and all things.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

User avatar
Alchemy
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 7:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Alchemy » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:24 am

We all knew that Arnold would win. The reports about his behavior are true,I know because in or around 1978 -9 I met Arnold on a rafting trip.I was propositioned in front of my father and while being sandwiched between our Govener elect and some of the other weight lifters on the trip.
He said " Today,I could make you a wvoman"his pecs were literally touching my forehead.
My reply was that if his dick was as big as his mouth he wouldnt have any of his current troubles picking up on chicks and perhaps he should fuck off.
My father was really put in a fucked up position .There was like 10 or more muscleheads there.

The difference between me and the other ladys is that I WAS 13.

Coincidently(sp) Arnold will be taking office on the anniverserie of the day I did loose my virginity,one year later.

Id say something but I cant risk a tiger biting tru MY neck at some random moment.What did Roy know?

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:25 am

:lol:

suckers!

User avatar
joel the ornery
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
Burning Since: 1998
Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
Contact:

Post by joel the ornery » Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:49 am

DE FACTO wrote::lol:

suckers!
Defacto, I find your position silly.

Have a nice silly day with your new governor.

By the way, the rest of the U.S.A is laughing at California's silliness.

Joel the Ornery

P.S. We have chief executive problems in Illinois as well (ie. Little Richie Daley, Mayor of Chicago plays sock puppet with our newly elected Governor Blagojevich.

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:44 am

joel the ornery wrote:
DE FACTO wrote::lol:

suckers!
Defacto, I find your position silly.

Have a nice silly day with your new governor.

By the way, the rest of the U.S.A is laughing at California's silliness.

Joel the Ornery
How do you figure him being my Governor? He won't be telling me what to do.

By the way, the rest of the U.S.A is laughing at California's silliness.
The rest of the U.S. of A has always laughed at Califonia. In all of my growing up in N.Y. California was always the butt of all jokes. I'm afraid that Califonia will never shake the reputation of being La La Land.
(as silly as my position may seem.) :lol:

User avatar
tzimisce1313
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: san francisco bay area
Contact:

Post by tzimisce1313 » Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:14 am

the one thing that they can not pin on us being dumb enough to vote for reagan. we're not the only ones to make that mistake.

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Sun Nov 16, 2003 11:35 am

tzimisce1313 wrote:the one thing that they can not pin on us being dumb enough to vote for reagan. we're not the only ones to make that mistake.
Misery loves company. :lol:

User avatar
tzimisce1313
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: san francisco bay area
Contact:

Post by tzimisce1313 » Sun Nov 16, 2003 12:43 pm

that is true. i can only sleep soundly knowing that arnold schwarzenegger can not run for president.

besides, i resent the fact that people think that ca is the brunt of some bad joke. i mean, maybe it's because i have lived here all my life. so there is a bit of californian pride that causes that resentment.

but at least i can say proudly, that i did not vote for the "govenator".

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:33 pm

tzimisce1313 wrote:that is true. i can only sleep soundly knowing that arnold schwarzenegger can not run for president.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but there are those that have had plans to change that (yes the constitution) soon so that he will be able to.

User avatar
Don Muerto
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm

Post by Don Muerto » Sun Nov 16, 2003 8:33 pm

In order to amend the constitution, you first must get legislation passed by a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. Then 3/4ths of the States must ratify the legislation.

Don't hold your breath, De Facto.
.
.

On second thought...
.
.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Sun Nov 16, 2003 8:36 pm

Don Muerto wrote:In order to amend the constitution, you first must get legislation passed by a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. Then 3/4ths of the States must ratify the legislation.

Don't hold your breath, De Facto.
.
.

On second thought...
.
.
I know, just like Bush could'nt become President because he did'nt have the majority vote.

Blue is a color that looks good on me.

User avatar
Don Muerto
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm

Post by Don Muerto » Sun Nov 16, 2003 8:46 pm

De Facto wrote:I know, just like Bush could'nt become President because he did'nt have the majority vote.
GW had the majority vote in the electoral college and that is what gets you elected per the Constitution. Strictly speaking, the popular vote counts for squat.

Nor is GW the first in his class (ever), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876) and Benjamin Harrison (1888) were elected despite losing the popular vote.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Lets see....today is nov. 19th...

Post by DE FACTO » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:54 am

tzimisce1313 wrote:that is true. i can only sleep soundly knowing that arnold schwarzenegger can not run for president.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but there are those that have had plans to change that (yes the constitution) soon so that he will be able to.
Don Muerto wrote:In order to amend the constitution, you first must get legislation passed by a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. Then 3/4ths of the States must ratify the legislation.

Don't hold your breath, De Facto.
.
.

On second thought...
.
.
2006 is one states constitutional amendment pushed through legislation.
To bad we have to wait till 08 to see the results of an in placed stratigie to take place of presidential proportions.


I think I'll hold on to this one. For future reference.

User avatar
Don Muerto
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm

Re: Lets see....today is nov. 19th...

Post by Don Muerto » Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:16 am

DE FACTO wrote:
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but there are those that have had plans to change that (yes the constitution) soon so that he will be able to.

2006 is one states constitutional amendment pushed through legislation.
To bad we have to wait till 08 to see the results of an in placed stratigie to take place of presidential proportions.
Your abuse of the English language makes you truly worthy of a summary execution. Are you saying some state is changing its constitution and this will affect the Presidency?
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

User avatar
TestesInSac
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Post by TestesInSac » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:39 am

Don Muerto wrote:Your abuse of the English language makes you truly worthy of a summary execution.
I'll get the sharp pole.
I am my own sock puppet.

blyslv
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: Fanta Se NM

Re: Lets see....today is nov. 19th...

Post by blyslv » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:54 am

[quote="DE FACTO]2006 is one states constitutional amendment pushed through legislation.
To bad we have to wait till 08 to see the results of an in placed stratigie to take place of presidential proportions.


I think I'll hold on to this one. For future reference.[/quote]

This kind of contentless, thoughless and just plain lazy post is why I spend less and less time here. I can understand not respecting yourself, but do you have to show such disrespect to everyone else who thinks this place has some value? Could you think about what you write and make some effort to express yourself in a manner that doesn't create more confusion and work?
Fight for the fifth freedom!

User avatar
Isotopia
Posts: 2848
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:26 am

Post by Isotopia » Wed Nov 19, 2003 11:13 am

Thanks for saying that.

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Wed Nov 19, 2003 11:48 am

is it the writing that bothers you or is it the truth that lays there within.

seems that the same indivisuals attack the same way no matter what is said.

it's ok though.

User avatar
Don Muerto
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm

Post by Don Muerto » Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:21 pm

De Facto, your post makes no sense. For real. You are not being picked on, -it's so malformed grammatically that it cannot be understood.

My best shot at an interpretation was that you are saying some state is amending its constitution and that will affect the Presidency.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

blyslv
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: Fanta Se NM

Post by blyslv » Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:26 pm

Your writing is so clotted that the only thing revealed is a lazy writer.

>>2006 is one states constitutional amendment pushed through legislation.
To bad we have to wait till 08 to see the results of an in placed stratigie to take place of presidential proportions. <<

What does this mean? I have no idea where to even begin parsing this. So I guess it's the writing that bothers me. Truth I can handle.
It bothers me that after I spend more then a few seconds looking at the sentences above, trying to figure what they could possibly mean, I realize that YOU probably don't even know what it means, couldn't care less and only wanted to see your name in print yet again. And this make me feel that you are a time thief, an attention slut, a pit of bottomless need. I liked your energy and enthusiasm when you first came to the board. Since then you have fouled the sandbox with an endless stream of semi-coherance. It's unfortunate, if you thought more and wrote less I wouldn't avoid threads that have your mark.
Fight for the fifth freedom!

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:54 pm

Don Muerto wrote:De Facto, your post makes no sense. For real. You are not being picked on, -it's so malformed grammatically that it cannot be understood.

My best shot at an interpretation was that you are saying some state is amending its constitution and that will affect the Presidency.
ok.

That makes sense. Thanks for putting it that way. I'm accustom to saying as little as possible physically to the person I am speaking to, understanding that they understand what I'm talking about.

Staying with the current events of the day/s, the results of the Massachusetts Gay marriage issue has made many in that state upset enough to draw up a bill to rewrite thier constitution. Thus creating the "buzz word" affect. (for lack of better words) in 2 years "rewrite the constitution" should be the buzz word for at least 2 years after that. which should subsequentialy cause the thought process of rewriting the actual constitution of the united states.

This Schwartzenegger recall election thing should have been foreseen when it is well know that Schwartzenegger met with Enron years before.

http://surreally.net/fullbleed/exlionta ... 01882.html

The set up normally goes this way, as was already done;

Put California in a difficult situation, say.... give them an energy crisis and blame it on the current governor then replace him (or get people to belive that he needs to be replaced.) and put who you want in office.

This is not a conspiracy theory, It's just the way the world works. Currently "The New American Century." who are not new, made these plans in 1992 along with creating a new middle east and putting in place the new world order.

http://www.newamericancentury.org

there's more to the plan but I hope I've made myself clear enough.

User avatar
BlueBirdPoof
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Where Angels fear to Parse

Post by BlueBirdPoof » Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:59 pm

blyslv wrote: >>2006 is one states constitutional amendment pushed through legislation.
To bad we have to wait till 08 to see the results of an in placed stratigie to take place of presidential proportions. <<

What does this mean? I have no idea where to even begin parsing this..
Hm. "2006 is one states. . ."
2006 is the number of a bill that went through a state legislature?
2006 is one's state? perhaps?
And did a constitutional amendment push through legislation? Or can you push the paper that the amendment is written on across the floor of a legislative with a broom. (Arnie could wave that broom around. . .)
"To bad. . ." So bad is now a verb, with an infinitive form.
". . . the results on an in placed stratagie (I could knock the spelling, but have no leg to stand on here) to take place of presidential proprotions."
Something to due with Executive Branch weight control and possibly an embedded reporter. Taft and Cleveland were a long time ago, or are we talking about Clinton again?

Yeah, if I wrote that and someone complained, I'd offer a clarification.

User avatar
joel the ornery
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
Burning Since: 1998
Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
Contact:

Post by joel the ornery » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:05 pm

Sometimes I imagine there are former high school government teacher's heads spinning right off their bodies because of the misinformed opinions about how our government works written here on the eplaya.

That is all... move along in an orderly fashion.

User avatar
Don Muerto
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm

Post by Don Muerto » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:07 pm

DE FACTO wrote:This is not a conspiracy theory, It's just the way the world works.
Well, I understand what you were saying now, but I disagree. This is a conspiracy theory, and one predicated on many, many spurious assumptions.

The New American Century is a scary and powerful bunch, but getting the Constitution amended in such a byzantine fashion strikes me as absurd. Why not just continue to crash airliners into cities and pass whatever they want in the legislative cowardice that follows?

Your method takes a lot of time, and does nothing in particular to guarantee the complicity of 66% of the Congress and 75% of State legislatures.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:07 pm

joel the ornery wrote:Sometimes I imagine there are former high school government teacher's heads spinning right off their bodies because of the misinformed opinions about how our government works written here on the eplaya.

That is all... move along in an orderly fashion.
your supposed to be getting back to fucking work.
:lol:

User avatar
BlueBirdPoof
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Post by BlueBirdPoof » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:08 pm

joel the ornery wrote:Sometimes I imagine there are former high school government teacher's heads spinning right off their bodies because of the misinformed opinions about how our government works.
Actually, it's possession by Satan.

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”