tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post5971722533995750238..comments2023-12-08T00:45:09.046-08:00Comments on The Fullfillment* Centre: carlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17886258675618058752noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-4485780597196472010-03-02T11:37:16.902-08:002010-03-02T11:37:16.902-08:00Nothing to see here now... move along, move along....Nothing to see here now... move along, move along.<br /><br />Nothing left here but the recordings....<br /><br />And all's well that ends well. <br /><br />Night night.<br /><br />Night.chimpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-83772391953148865732010-03-02T11:01:13.845-08:002010-03-02T11:01:13.845-08:00van booby: sycophancy is no substitute for an actu...van booby: sycophancy is no substitute for an actual argument. <br /><br />Seb, you were by far the best of the bunch. Even if that's damning with faint praise, I'm still sorry I came down so hard on you. Being an optimist, I didn't realise how very much worse it could get.("van booby" and "ratfarts"... know thyselves. God, you Lads are a laugh a minute.) <br /><br />Carl: many thanks for your essay on Withnail & I, sincerely. It opened my eyes to certain aspects of that brilliant film I'd never properly noticed before, even though I'd seen it many times. (I went back and watched it again.) But no thanks for this truly awful concoction, for reasons already given. Not everything can be approached from the standpoint of a fan or a non-fan. The corporate media's represention of a real mass murder (and universal casus belli) is something very different from a movie or any other artwork. For a start, it is not self-contained, it is not autonomously generated, and it cannot possibly constitute the evidence of its own truth. <br /><br />The "conspiracy theorists" [sic] you sling together in a ragbag, stick a thoughtstopping label on & slag off so intemperately have at least noticed that, even if not all of them have drawn conclusions I can share 100%. <br /><br />Watch that other movie I linked to, if you ever find the time. It's not nearly as funny as Withnail, but then not every truth can be funny, to say nothing of the many corporate-media untruths it depicts and describes.<br /><br />Down with thoughtstopping Guardianista labels! The only people they help are warmongering bastards.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-82148562090317403952010-03-02T04:51:27.590-08:002010-03-02T04:51:27.590-08:00Qlipoth in the first comment on this post:-
&quo...Qlipoth in the first comment on this post:-<br /><br />"Words are weapons, and you are handling them with less care and attention than a three-year-old with a hand-grenade. "<br /><br />Well you sure followed your own advice there buddy!<br /><br />Carl - keep it up. I don't read Impostume for cutting edge political comment, but rather for the acerbic wit which wonderfully exposes people like Qlipoth. Nice going! <br /><br />ps. can i borrow your Ocean Colour Scene album?van boobynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-3824075131010350782010-03-01T06:25:35.716-08:002010-03-01T06:25:35.716-08:00Just like Tony Blair, George W. Bush enjoys wieldi...Just like Tony Blair, George W. Bush enjoys wielding Carl's trusty thoughtstopping cosh:<br /><br /><i>"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories..."</i><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQQlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-86422486927496977282010-03-01T05:07:48.547-08:002010-03-01T05:07:48.547-08:00Ratfarts Lad, I didn't delete it. Qlipoth is a...Ratfarts Lad, I didn't delete it. Qlipoth is a group blog and I wasn't the author of that post. I do know her, though, and if she deleted a comment, then it can only have been because, yet again, some lovable InterLad was posting her home address, or details of her personal life, or calling her not just a ConT (ho ho) but an actual cunt. <br /><br />Such things can happen when you rile the Lads up, and not too seldom either. They tend to have very fragile egos.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-84931307906299633022010-03-01T00:29:18.766-08:002010-03-01T00:29:18.766-08:00http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8539/78257063.p...http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8539/78257063.pngratfartsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-34218390726273562342010-02-28T15:43:45.804-08:002010-02-28T15:43:45.804-08:00"I've decided to use Qlipoth's trick ...<i>"I've decided to use Qlipoth's trick of removing troublesome comments from his own blog by removing myself from this one henceforth."</i><br /><br />Quelle surprise. This is very impressive.<br /><br />Off you go then, chump, just like Seb. You might yet catch up with him. If The Lads are united, they will never be detected. <br /><br />PS I have never removed a comment from any blog.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-11069124043167456352010-02-28T14:12:55.366-08:002010-02-28T14:12:55.366-08:00I've decided to use Qlipoth's trick of rem...I've decided to use Qlipoth's trick of removing troublesome comments from his own blog by removing myself from this one henceforth.chumpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-84542205050135478452010-02-28T13:50:22.958-08:002010-02-28T13:50:22.958-08:00Blair borrows Carl's cosh:
Blair: Iraq oil cl...<i>Blair borrows Carl's cosh</i>:<br /><br /><b>Blair: Iraq oil claim is 'conspiracy theory'</b><br /><br />Guardian, Wednesday January 15, 2003<br /><br /> Tony Blair today <b>derided as "conspiracy theories"</b> accusations that a war on Iraq would be in pursuit of oil, as he faced down growing discontent in parliament at a meeting of Labour backbenchers and at PMQs. [...]<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jan/15/foreignpolicy.ukQlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-22845329436753101572010-02-28T11:23:20.344-08:002010-02-28T11:23:20.344-08:00"my piss poor gag"
Correct, chump. Like...<i>"my piss poor gag"</i><br /><br />Correct, chump. Like the Impostume's "they're too clever" it was another sadly failed attempt at "irony". (And apparently I'm "frothing" if I dismiss it in two lines.) But if you're not in fact badly hungover, then maybe you can explain your responses so far.<br /><br /><i>"even my piss poor gag gets you frothing (and more tellingly ignoring and diverting)"</i><br /><br />Bluff. That ruse won't work, chump. As anyone can see, I ignored nothing of any importance, and I diverted precisely nothing. <br /><br />Next.<br /><br /><i>"When i suggest Anton Wilson, you extrapolate that i therefore must have no other stance on the issues in the film other than to take refuge in entertainment"</i><br /><br />I extrapolated nothing, chump. In your own considered response to that film, you yourself articulated precisely no other stance on the issues it raises. Therefore, I'm perfectly entitled to presume you have none. (Maybe you have; but if so, don't expect me to discern it telepathically.) <br /><br />And you did indeed regard that film as entertainment, as you yourself both admitted and demonstrated. You described it as <i>"interesting"</i> - the emptiest, laziest and most carefully bet-hedging compliment in existence; that's why its a Guardian Arts favourite).<br /><br />And what was the one thing you chose to pick out for particular praise? That those women <i>"conducted themselves with great dignity and with patience"</i>. Right. They're primarily "interesting" to you as models of long-suffering and ladylike stoicism (which you primly and hypocritically suggest I should emulate, here in this very pissoir). Their evident anger merits no mention. <br /><br />So, Chump: Finally we come to your sole, one-line, response to the actual <i>content</i> of that documentary film. It's well worth waiting for: <br /><br /><i>"I admired the steady, rational approach of the group of women to simply try to get their government to account for <b>certain actions / decisions / failures."</b></i><br /><br />You see how you chose to frame it? How very misleadingly? "Actions" - entirely neutral. "Decisions" - entirely neutral. "Failures" - the poor US ruling class is incompetent at worst, according to you. (And "certain"! It seems those "actions" etc. are entirely unnamable.)<br /><br />Really, chump, it's worthy of the Guardian, the sheer pusillanimity and automatic disingenuousness of it all. Not one word from you about the actual innumerable and blatant <b>lies</b> exposed in that film. Not a peep from you about the fact that those lies implicate many still-very-powerful people in <b>mass murder</b>, and in very much more than that since September 2001.<br /><br />The kicker comes at the end, though, complete with a jolly exclamation mark:<br /><br /><i>"As a literary footnote here, the comments on this post just make me want to read Robert Anton Wilson!"</i><br /><br />Why, chump? Why your immediate yearning for a "zany" "imaginative" decades-old fictional entertainment about disoriented wackos, weird hallucinations, the mysterious number 23, hibernating Nazis, talking cetaceans and the Evil Illuminati? <br /><br />It is transparently obvious why: so that you could go straight back to sniggering at "conspiracy theorists" [sic]. Having just "admired" the unspecifiably "interesting" Jersey Widows -- who are among Carl's "conspiracy theorists", let's remember --, you were now badly missing your comfort zone. Like Carl, you prefer comic-book loonies to real-life sane people. They disturb you less, and not for no reason.<br /><br />That's Laddism.<br /><br />PS But thank you, chump, sincerely, for at least having bothered to watch the film. No other Lad has risked commenting on it. All they have to offer is smelly little ratfarts. The Lads are not Alright.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-11383999665885480582010-02-28T10:19:33.623-08:002010-02-28T10:19:33.623-08:00Qlipoth....hmmm...
Ah.. just looked this guy'...Qlipoth....hmmm...<br /><br />Ah.. just looked this guy's blog and it all makes sense.<br /><br />Blogging on Sopranos / The Wire in Feb 2010.. little after the fact but ok i'll indulge you a little...<br /><br />Deleting comments by anyone but himself and his line-towing mates, whilst attacking other bloggers in bizarre fashion and not allowing them the right of reply. Sounds like a 9/11 commission or something!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />..ratfartsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-68294958581830716802010-02-28T09:03:01.392-08:002010-02-28T09:03:01.392-08:00Oh god you're too easy to bait! Like no way du...Oh god you're too easy to bait! Like no way dude! <br /><br />Really, even my piss poor gag gets you frothing (and more tellingly ignoring and diverting)<br /><br />ay ay ay .... are you sure you're not the comic dealer from the Simpsons? Can you really not see through girl's clothes?chumpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-59800999441282805932010-02-28T08:56:28.419-08:002010-02-28T08:56:28.419-08:00"Right, off to nurse the lager hangover"...<i>"Right, off to nurse the lager hangover"</i><br /><br />Ah yes, that would go some little way towards explaining the quality of your arguments. <br /><br />The Lads are clearly very far from Alright, but Alka Seltzer won't be nearly enough to cure what ails them.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-59980306465611000552010-02-28T08:39:01.019-08:002010-02-28T08:39:01.019-08:00Qlipoth -
I love the way you make massive leaps ...Qlipoth - <br /><br />I love the way you make massive leaps in your responses. (sounds like something else... conT perhaps?)<br /><br />When i suggest Anton Wilson, you extrapolate that i therefore must have no other stance on the issues in the film other than to take refuge in entertainment. (It's deeply presumptuous and insulting to suggest that i view people's misery and anger as such - but no surprise 'cos you're the only valiant kind who can really feel those folks' pain while we all laugh yeah?) <br /><br />It is possible to have more than one way of looking at things you know. If anything, that's what i enjoy most about Wilson - his multifaceted approach to examining very serious issues- "reality is at minimum 5-fold" etc. But i guess his early satire on Conspiracy Theorists mark him as a proto-lad and therefore easily dismissed yeah?<br /><br />"I think bullying should be opposed rather than just ignored. You disagree, for reasons I won't attempt to psychoanalyse"<br />I was bullied at school actually (for being English in Scotland)which was pretty hard to ignore, so again i must take issue with your hasty and convenient assumptions.<br /><br />Now when it comes to cod-psychoanalysis, your statement that the Jersey Girls are "at least as angry as i am" is a beauty....<br /><br />Right, off to nurse the lager hangover and catch the rest of the cup final.chumpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-41192042781777590262010-02-28T04:43:07.099-08:002010-02-28T04:43:07.099-08:00"As a literary footnote here, the comments on...<i>"As a literary footnote here, the comments on this post <b>just</b> make me want to read Robert Anton Wilson!"</i><br /><br />Precisely. That's the only response you can imagine: a good entertaining read about the comfortingly impenetrable wackiness of the world. And that's just one of the many things that distinguishes you from the Jersey Girls and Paul Thompson, whom you "admire" [sic] mainly for their entertainment value. But you'll be damned if it's ever going to cost you anything. <br /><br />What's on the telly, Lads?Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-59463258633524687152010-02-28T04:33:14.218-08:002010-02-28T04:33:14.218-08:00"Qlipoth - you (by your own repeated admissio...<i>"Qlipoth - you (by your own repeated admission) don't think much of this blog or those who often inhabit it's comments section. You sneer at Carl's perceived "laddishness" and his discussion/love of music and film."</i><br /><br />If I "sneer", then I sneer only in reponse to the incessant and deeply obnoxious sneering of Carl and the Interlads. As I say, if someone is going to attempt condescension, then it's advisable for them not to do so from a position of complete ignorance. Bluffs need to be called, and these Lads are all bluff.<br /><br /><i>"Why would you spend time reading something that you patently dislike and which seems to anger you greatly?"</i><br /><br />Why would I not? See, this is it, chump, this is what it always comes down to: your dismally typical and predictable response exemplifies precisely the kind of feeble hipsterish aestheticism that now does service as a political stance. Your immediate response is to suggest I switch channels or go buy a different CD. If something is deeply dislikable and makes you very angry, then (according to you) the only sensible response is to ignore it completely and maybe go play your favourite records instead. Should Marx have taken your august advice? Should Martin Luther King? Should the Jersey Girls? Che Guevara, Bernadette Devlin, Gerrard Winstanley? Gore Vidal, Michael Parenti? What's <i>their</i> excuse for their peculiar "masochism" [sic]? Surely they should just have switched channels or gone shopping instead? But no doubt they too were "bullied at school" (sic). Perhaps psychoanalysis could have helped them to learn to chill. <br /><br /><i>"I watched the film you link to by the way, and found it very interesting. I admired the steady, rational approach of the group of women to simply try to get their government to account for certain actions / decisions / failures."</i><br /><br />Yes, the Jersey Girls (and Paul Thompson and Bob McElvaine, etc.) are much more rational and honest and in every way more admirable than the sniggering Interlads who happily insult them and lump them in with David Icke in order to flatter their own fragile egos. Glad you agree. And they're admirable not least because they are so unapologetically angry and resistant to bullying. <br /><br /><i>"Considering their personals losses, they conducted themselves with great dignity and with patience - something you may wish to reflect on."</i><br /><br />What you call their patience is merely their persistence. And you can believe me when I say that they are at least as angry as I am. They are up against a stone wall erected by their lying, <i>conspiring</i>, murdering, warmongering, protofascist rulers. I was merely up against a crassly bullying and childishly "provocative" blogpost by some Lad who fondly imagines he's better than them, and then I was up against the sniggering Interlads, whose foolish lies and whose Thinkers' Library pretentions don't bother you nearly as much as my objections to them - something you may wish to reflect on. <br /><br /><i>"Were you bullied as a child?"</i><br /><br />No, chump, but it's nice of you to ask, although your amateurish attempts at long-distance psychoanalysis reveal much more about you than about me. Nor did I ever bully anyone. <br /><br />How about you, chump? Personally I've always detested bullies, especially when they're ignorant bluffers, as they nearly always are. That's precisely why I objected to Carl's bullying and ignorant blogpost, and that's why I called his bluff (and Seb's and Rossikovsky's). I think bullying should be opposed rather than just ignored. You disagree, for reasons I won't attempt to psychoanalyse. But I do know what kind of politics it makes for. QED, chump. (Yes, yet again.)Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-5177011460340606042010-02-28T03:36:51.303-08:002010-02-28T03:36:51.303-08:00Qlipoth - you (by your own repeated admission) don...Qlipoth - you (by your own repeated admission) don't think much of this blog or those who often inhabit it's comments section. You sneer at Carl's perceived "laddishness" and his discussion/love of music and film. <br />Why do you read it then? Did you just happen upon this post having never seen the blog before? Due to your broad and perverted knowledge of the blog i suspect you are a frequent flyer here..<br />Are you therefore a masochist? Why would you spend time reading something that you patently dislike and which seems to anger you greatly?<br />Is it to aid the fostering of a "now do you see you fools?" mentality, which your aggressive and wounded aloofness point to? Were you bullied as a child? <br />The nature and style of all your comments here really do no service to your "ideas" being taken seriously, and only succeed in perfectly illustrating Carl's character study. <br />QED as you might say. <br /><br />I watched the film you link to by the way, and found it very interesting. I admired the steady, rational approach of the group of women to simply try to get their government to account for certain actions / decisions / failures. Considering their personals losses, they conducted themselves with great dignity and with patience - something you may wish to reflect on.<br /><br />As a literary footnote here, the comments on this post just make me want to read Robert Anton Wilson!chumpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-30543400014470983272010-02-27T20:23:30.897-08:002010-02-27T20:23:30.897-08:00Congratulations, Qlipoth, you blew this thread up ...Congratulations, Qlipoth, you blew this thread up so much you attracted the spambots.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-29620997603121066122010-02-27T11:30:48.009-08:002010-02-27T11:30:48.009-08:00Christ, typos. Three things, not two. And for &quo...Christ, typos. Three things, not two. And for "presenting", read "presented".Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-69038123819236199122010-02-27T11:27:57.141-08:002010-02-27T11:27:57.141-08:00Link, for the third time:
*http://video.google.co...Link, for the third time:<br /><br />*http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481#<br /><br />I'd like to know two things:<br /><br />1. Whether any of those people fit the self-serving and laddishly insulting stereotype presenting in the Impostume's blogpost;<br /><br />2. Whether those people appear both more rational and more honest than any of the sniggering Interlads who deride them as loonies;<br /><br />3. Whether any of the things said and shown in the film deserve, at the very least, very serious consideration.<br /><br />The film requires 84 minutes of your valuable time, but that time will not be wasted. Thank you in advance for any honest and rational responses.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-76107048315279889712010-02-27T10:22:10.662-08:002010-02-27T10:22:10.662-08:00"Qlipoth - really it's difficult to debat...<i>"Qlipoth - really it's difficult to debate with someone who affects to speak languages they can't actually speak"</i><br /><br />Rossikovsky, du hast den Arsch offen. Dass du ein armseliger Angeber und Lügner bist, steht außer Frage. Führe dich selbst ruhig weiterhin vor, wenn du denn meinst, es unbedingt tun zu müssen, aber bitte versuch' es nicht auf meine Kosten. Ich hab' schon Sardinen gegessen, die mehr Verstand und mehr Rückgrat hatten als du, und die waren alle schon tot und filetiert. Ein Windbeutel bist du, die reinste Zeitvergeudung.<br /><br /><i>"to have read books they haven't actually read"</i><br /><br />Woher willst du das wissen, du Möchtegern? Und wie? Tatsache ist: 1. Du weiß es eben nicht. 2. Du hast auch nicht den geringsten Grund, es auch nur zu glauben. 3. Wäre deine Behauptung auch wahr (und es ist in Wahrheit selbstverständlich unwahr), dann täte es eh nichts zur Sache, rein gar nichts. Und sowieso: Spengler und Toynbee, fürwahr! Hast du überhaupt eine Ahnung, wie lächerlich du wirkst? <br /><br /><i>"and responds to <b>questions not addressed to them</b> in a defensive manner and then <b>retrospectively affects disinterest</b>."</i> <br /><br />Siehe da! Wer hätte es gedacht? Noch mehr strunzdumme und völlig durchsichtige Lügen. Der Laddismus als ununterbrochene und unfreiwillige Selbstentlarvung. <br /><br /><i>"Also, you tend to ramble a bit, which tends to hide the small items of value that you may be contributing."</i><br /><br />Rossukovsky, are you a Surrealist? Just stop talking shit at me, stop telling lies about me, stop filling the thread with your irrelevant library and your icky obsessions, and then I won't actually be <i>forced</i> to "ramble". <br /><br />Deal? Bitte. Das wäre echt supernett von dir, Meister.<br /><br />Back on-topic, if humanly possible. Did anyone actually watch the film I linked to here two days ago? What did you think of them thar "conspiracy theorists" [sic]? A reasoned response, anyone?Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-58602679040230448412010-02-27T09:17:53.561-08:002010-02-27T09:17:53.561-08:00Anon - fair enough.
Qlipoth - really it's dif...Anon - fair enough.<br /><br />Qlipoth - really it's difficult to debate with someone who affects to speak languages they can't actually speak, to have read books they haven't actually read, and responds to questions not addressed to them in a defensive manner and then retrospectively affects disinterest. <br /><br />Also, you tend to ramble a bit, which tends to hide the small items of value that you may be contributing.Rossikovskynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-69222889382082073582010-02-27T06:04:49.449-08:002010-02-27T06:04:49.449-08:003. My initial post about Icke's covering-up of...<i>3. My initial post about Icke's covering-up of his head injury was addressed to no-one in particular (I asked if "anyone" knew anything about it) and yet you were the only respondant to jump on it and address me directly.</i><br /><br />Yes, because you were attempting to divert this thread into a chat about something not just profoundly trivial and entirely irrelevant but perhaps even wholly imaginary, and which only you find even remotely interesting. In fact, you appear to be positively obsessed with it. Cui bono?<br /> <br /><i>You have subsequently <b>affected a disinterest</b> in Icke,</i><br /><br />What on earth are you rabbiting on about? I have never <i>had</i> any interest in David bloody Icke. Nor have I ever <i>affected</i> any interest in him, ever. On the contrary. Nor did I even mention the guy, UNTIL YOU DID. <br /><br /><i>which is not remotely convincing,</i><br /><br />Rossikovsky, I do beg your pardon, but what the <i>fuck</i> are you talking about? Really, what do you imagine that line of yours is supposed to mean? Anything at all?<br /><br /><i>and appear to be fully prepared to bluster around the subject</i><br /> <br />There's something wrong with this microphone. Testing, testING, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? GOOD: I never decided that David fucking Icke was "the subject" [sic!], NOR IS HE. It was YOU who pulled him out of your sleeve (or some other tube) because you want to bolster your fragile ego by having a good little snigger at a cherrypicked loony to whom you can feel superior even without balancing on that tottering stack of Cole's Notes, or on the Collected Works of Arnold Toynbee, or even on your complete if dusty set of the Enyclopaedia Brittanica.<br /><br />You Lads are so transparent. And it's high time you tidied up your rooms. <br /><br /><i><b>rather than offer a convincing explanation as to why the conspiracy-smeller pursuivant is happy to cover up his own past.</b></i><br /><br />What the...? Look, seriously, Rossikovsky, are you actually brain-damaged yourself, or what? What past are you accusing me of wanting to "cover up" [sic]? Chapter and verse, please. Quotes, links, footnotes and references. Perhaps you can find them in one of your tubes.<br /><br />Jesus wept, and my eyes too are beginning to waQlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-71265237195589417452010-02-27T06:02:19.929-08:002010-02-27T06:02:19.929-08:001. It only works for me as "man sieht wessen ...<i>1. It only works for me as "man sieht wessen Geistes Kind du bist" but perhaps you can expand on an aspect of German I have not previously been exposed to.</i><br /><br />You're missing a comma after "sieht". In any case: the form I used is archaic and has survived into contemporary usage only in that one particular locution. It derives from a quote from a certain old and famous translation of an even older and extremely well-known book you have very probably heard of. Look it up sometime, or else don't, as you see fit. If you do opt to go the route of knowledge rather than just switching on the telly, then there are things called search engines nowadays that can assist you in your tireless pursuit of wisdom. <br /><br />But of course that's not what this thread is about, any more than it's about Icke, Spengler, Toynbee, J.G. Ballard, H.G. Wells, P.G. Tips, Lady GaGa, Harry Potter, or whatever books, CDs, comics or DVDs you happen to have currently out on loan from your local public library. It's about a blogpost by the Impostume on what he chooses to call "conspiracy theorists"[sic], that titterworthy fungible mass he concocted for your pleasure and his own.<br /><br /><i>2. Well you're the one who claimed to have read Spengler, and when I point out (as any fule kno) that his (and Toynbee's) basic historical philosophy is cyclicism you can't suddenly turn around and call <b>it</b> reactionary (as though the idea struck you for the first time)</i><br /><br />Historical Note: I didn't call "it" reactionary. I said the <i>Interlads'</i> politics were repulsively reactionary and obscurantist, including yours. QED, richly, throughout this deeply informative and sociologically fascinating thread. <br /><br />So, Rossikoksky, having tried unsuccessfully to divert this discussion into a study of the Mr. David Icke's real or merely aprocyphal headwounds, you're now hoping to divert it into an examination of two of your favourite Great Men of the West, Arnold Toynbee and Oswald bleeding Spengler. <br /><br />I know your little game, matey. No dice. Please address the actual topic of this thread (i.e., the blogpost that provoked it) and kindly stop wasting everybody's time. <br /><br />- contd.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31416501.post-85131147741533676742010-02-26T21:27:29.977-08:002010-02-26T21:27:29.977-08:00The boss' murderous feverThe boss' <a href="http://bit.ly/bEyOZt" rel="nofollow">murderous fever</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com