direct experience

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:34 pm

I think my point is that it is very uncreative to Ban Art.

I don't believe that Jiffy Lube Art was "banned". The LEO asked Burning Man LLC if it could be moved, the LLC asked the owners if they would move it. The owners agreed to move it. Then someone else wanted to protest it being moved. The protest was allowed. The whole story is right there on the website if you care to read it and find out the facts. I would love to argue the facts, however the facts seem to be something that you're not very good at.

http://www.burningman.com/blackrockcity ... ylube.html

http://www.newsreview.com/issues/reno/2 ... /cover.asp

http://www.blue-period.com/pissclear/Ar ... yLube.html

dirtytuba · Post by **dirtytuba** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:08 pm

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:30 pm

the example has already happened... no need for specifics, because I want to have a general discussion.

Sorry, I had a difficult time following which specific issue was being discussed, thanks for clearing that one up.

I don't have the scoop on why La Contessa was banned, just what I've read here. Which is that the people operating her were doing so in a decidedly unsafe fashion and that the Rangers tried to work things out but couldn’t resolve the issue so it was decided that La Contesssa would not be allowed back.

Is that about right? If that account is accurate then it seems pretty reasonable. If there are some facts you would like to bring to light here feel free to do so.

I apologize for my rudeness. I would really like to know what's going and discuss the facts rather than dealing with innuendo and vague accusations.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:36 pm

The protest was allowed.

FYI. The protest went on because I and several others decided it needed to be done. I asked no one if it was OK and no 'permission's were granted (or sought) except for the artist who agreed to take it from behind Jiffy Lube and helped me put it in the back of my pickup truck. It was done with the sole intent of challenging Sheriff Ron Skinner's 'critique' that the piece was 'pornographic.'

The intent was to get arrested and take him to the mat as far as challenging his interpretation of the piece.

This is the first time since the event that I've spoken publicly about my role in the whole sordid mess. I'll not be saying more - in public.

Yea Larry. That was me.

Lydia Love · Post by **Lydia Love** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:59 pm

Badger, you fucking rock.

dirtytuba · Post by **dirtytuba** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:14 pm

Chai Guy wrote: innuendo and vague accusations.

are uncreative too... I guess I should say, good bye. I've turned...d... on myself.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:42 pm

ObArnold, much Burning Man bureaucratic clutter could be eliminated with a no-motor art policy. Put art-wagons of the burnable/pyrotechnic sort under the oversight of the pyro dept, and get rid of the DMV.

In my direct experience, once people start claiming sanctity for a particular class of art, you have to wonder how grateful they really are for a free parking spot at the ranch.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 12:54 am

I try to stay out of these things, but I was really enjoying this discussion up until now. I get up from being sick as a dog for 4 days, all excited to check out the eplaya, and I come to find this.

It hurts me greatly when I see reasonable people turn to adolescent mudslinging rather than expressing themselves the way I know they can.

If you don't agree with something, don't throw a spitball. Explain your position then sit back. If someone isn't persuaded to your side, you can try again. If they're still not persuaded, so what?

If someone throws a spitball, don't slam them back with a hammer to the forehead. We know you have big guns, there is no need to fire them on someone packing a straw and some wadded up paper who is agro enough to try to engage you in combat.

If you ever catch yourself typing "since we are slinging insults"...

STOP THERE.

I'm not going to moderate anything, but you need to know that this is not the intention of this board. This board is being maintained to sustain productive, supportive, and/or engaging discussions. It is not here for any pissing contests other than LRB's graphics.

IMO, this kind of thing is more discouraging to participation than WSPR's claptrap. That, I can wholeheartedly ignore.

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:37 am

Regarding banning La Contessa: I gotta say, I loved the ship, adore Extra-Action, and am very sorry to see them go (I know Extra Action wasn't banned, but their web page says they'll be skipping the event next year). That being said, they fucked up. A huge vehicle careening around under the control of a bunch folks who really enjoy speed (both kinds) is just a disaster waiting to happen.

Also, speaking of "un BurningManity" (or whatever you want to call it), there was a certain exclusionary elitism about the ship I found rather distasteful. It was a very big "cool factor" thing to be let on board, and I'm not just sour graping because I did have friends in Extra Action and did get on the ship.

Another topic -very cool about your part in the Jiffy Lube incident, Badger. Interesting that in the Piss Clear article it sounds like the protest was planned with the advance knowledge of the LLC.

talisen · Post by **talisen** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:47 pm

technopatra wrote:
If you don't agree with something, don't throw a spitball. Explain your position then sit back. If someone isn't persuaded to your side, you can try again. If they're still not persuaded, so what?

Well put

Perhaps a tatoo of that on the underside of ones eyeballs as a reminder

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:36 pm

their web page says they'll be skipping the event next year). That being said, they fucked up.

That's their choice of course. It's important to keep in mind that 'they' didn't so much fuck up as several people in (or associated with) their camp made the decision to eschew all responsibility for safety when operating the Contessa.

Having someone shooting a pellet rifle from the crow's nest of the ship in the general direction of camps with people freely walking within range of the shots didn't go well towards their assurances of taking safety seriously either.

Karma · Post by **Karma** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:57 am

"The intent was to get arrested and take him to the mat as far as challenging his interpretation of the piece.

This is the first time since the event that I've spoken publicly about my role in the whole sordid mess. I'll not be saying more - in public.

Yea Larry. That was me."

Badger, I'm thoroughly convinced that you, a bottle of Tuaca and a couple comfy chairs would make a fine way to pass an afternoon in BRC.
Maybe this year.

dirtytuba · Post by **dirtytuba** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 7:56 am

KellY wrote:Regarding banning La Contessa: I gotta say, I loved the ship, adore Extra-Action, and am very sorry to see them go (I know Extra Action wasn't banned, but their web page says they'll be skipping the event next year). That being said, they fucked up. A huge vehicle careening around under the control of a bunch folks who really enjoy speed (both kinds) is just a disaster waiting to happen.

yeah they fucked up. and we all know that avoid disaster is exactly what burningman is all about. And I heard that some of the band members were doing lines with their kids and watching teen gay porn on a portable DVD player.

KellY wrote:Also, speaking of "un BurningManity" (or whatever you want to call it), there was a certain exclusionary elitism about the ship I found rather distasteful. It was a very big "cool factor" thing to be let on board, and I'm not just sour graping because I did have friends in Extra Action and did get on the ship.

ever stop to think that they were limiting the number people on board for safety reasons? No, you're right it was the "cool factor", they had this questionary that they had me fill out before I could go on board. I heard some people didn't pass the "cool as I am" test and weren't let on... that's a bummer.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:56 am

And homemade pinwheels on the Man's head were "banned" too. Sic transit and all that.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:25 am

ever stop to think that they were limiting the number people on board for safety reasons?

Given the facts Tuba, that's the most disingenuous shit you've muttered to date. With all the other experiences related to the operation of the Contessa I doubt seriously that limiting the number of people on the vehicle was driven by any safety concerns.

At this point your credibility is plunging faster than a dropped anchor.

dirtytuba · Post by **dirtytuba** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:08 pm

Badger wrote:
stupid tuba wrote:ever stop to think that they were limiting the number people on board for safety reasons?
Given the facts Tuba, that's the most disingenuous shit you've muttered to date. With all the other experiences related to the operation of the Contessa I doubt seriously that limiting the number of people on the vehicle was driven by any safety concerns.

At this point your credibility is plunging faster than a dropped anchor.

what facts? do you have video? apadavids? first hand accounts. incriminating evidence? ...actually I bet you do. lol

...credibility? psha! thats a good one. I don't need no stinking credability.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:31 am

dirtytuba wrote:what facts? do you have video? apadavids? first hand accounts. incriminating evidence? ...actually I bet you do. lol

ITYM "direct experience".

dirtytuba · Post by **dirtytuba** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:44 pm

Bob wrote:ITYM "direct experience".

wait, you have a direct experience with regaurds to how the contessa crew decided how many people were let onboard?

and what does ITYM mean?
not familar with lingo.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:39 pm

Sorry... the lingo's got my baby.

I'm still trying to figure out what "apadavids" is.

Any resemblance with Eric the Half A Bee?

BlueBirdPoof · Post by **BlueBirdPoof** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:59 am

Bob wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what "apadavids" is.

Aint it some sort of Dinosour uncovered in the Indus Valley?

dirtytuba · Post by **dirtytuba** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:01 am

Boob wrote:Sorry... the lingo's got my baby.

I'm still trying to figure out what "apadavids" is.

Any resemblance with Eric the Half A Bee?

Apadavid - noun

1. A person (usually with the name of David, but not all the time) that has no oppinion of his/her own, but constintly reaffirms everyone else's oppinion with sayings like, "Yeah, what he said!" or, "Yeah, you fucking rock" after someone else's long winded diatribe."

2. I_HATE_CONTESSA is a classic example of a apadavid. (beware she is a spy, not a sock puppet)

Last Real Burner · Post by **Last Real Burner** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:56 pm

Yeah! What he said....

"Death might be an antidote to stupidity, but that’s only if there is no afterlife. "

apadavidly,
mr smith

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:05 pm

Maybe all the independant complaints that were made about the La Contess were the results of a secret conspiracy. According to Dirtytuba the drivers could do no wrong, but for some reason people just chose to throw themselves indiscriminately in front of the moving vehicle. I can understand being upset about being banned, however, usually in such situations it is a good idea to look at the underlying reasons such dramatic action was taken. I don't detect any bit of recognition of responsibility on Dirtytuba's part (being that he has choosen to represent the camp/art car in this discussion). Instead I sense some of the same attitude that may have led to the decision to not let La Contessa back. Sure Burning Man is wild and free, however if enough people clearly felt that their own safety or that of others was in jeopordy to make complaints then it's something to look at. The driving rules are in place for a reason. Plain and simple as that. I never witnessed any of these alledged occurances and I have no videotape or court documents to back up my points, but clearly there was a problem and after repeated attempts "the organization" decided it was best to tip the balance in favor of public safety. I support their decision.

BTW, I loved the effort that was made to build the ship. It was quite amazing. It's just too bad that the behavior of those "responsible" for the vehicle couldn't be as good as their artwork.

direct experience

of Finland

Ahemmm....