Page 2 of 6 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#44925 - 12/14/10 07:53 PM Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: Jason King]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
Howdy. If you are real, rather than merely tdi with a different troll hat on, you should probably join in somewhere, there are several threads where you will likely be able to find something to say. This site is where the discussion is going to be, whenever we get around to it. You might want to wait a couple of weeks though, things being how they are.

In the meantime, I found the work cited murky and unsatisfying, it will certainly never have the popular appeal or reference value of anything by LaVey.

The commentary on Al Jilwah is particularly shallow, it is almost as if the author is unable to conceive of divinity in any way other than external. (FFS, in reading it one says "I" over and over again ...)

The misuse of mysticism throughout, both as itself and in the form of pseudoscience, makes for a very misleading view of the magical experience. The text absolutely drowns itself in set theory at one point, and in academic scatology in several others.

Much of this work appears to have been generated using something similar to this toy, brought to our attention by Dr. Aquino. On the whole, it is the sort of thing that should be confined to the Texas Schoolbook Depository for now, and replaced next year with something snazzier, with more pictures and less doubletalk.

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#44931 - 12/14/10 08:26 PM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: Aklo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Yes, I am curious about this book Postmodern Satanism but haven't had the time to sit down and read through it yet because of all the other study and reading I have lined up.

I have read JK's post in other places and have found them to be interesting and provocative.

I am not sure you can actually join the Postmodern and Satanism together in a meaningful way as I personally see Satanism as a fundamentally modernist notion.

To Aklo,

Are there any definitions of the modern, modernity and modermism, or postmodern, postmodernity or postmodernism provided in the work?

What about a definition of Satanism and how Satanism relates to the modern or postmodern?

I will have to read the work I know, but I am currently buried in some of the most challenging and interesting works from the TOS reading list.

Top
#44932 - 12/14/10 08:33 PM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: ]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
-I've never read postmodern Satanism

But,

Mr King is certainly the real deal.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#44934 - 12/14/10 09:13 PM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: ]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Quote:
Are there any definitions of the modern, modernity and modermism, or postmodern, postmodernity or postmodernism provided in the work?

What about a definition of Satanism and how Satanism relates to the modern or postmodern?


Sure, sort of. The one is treated as synonymous with the transcendence of traditional dichotomies, while the other is simplified into a recognition of the inherently hostile or "adversarial" quality of the universe.

So what makes this conception of the religion postmodern is its disdain for terms like LHP / RHP and Atheist / theist. But it fails, it is quite theistic, having a "Master" who is divine rather than human and a direction which is uniform rather than self-directed.

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#44935 - 12/14/10 09:27 PM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: Aklo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Aklo
 Quote:
Are there any definitions of the modern, modernity and modermism, or postmodern, postmodernity or postmodernism provided in the work?

What about a definition of Satanism and how Satanism relates to the modern or postmodern?

Sure, sort of. The one is treated as synonymous with the transcendence of traditional dichotomies, while the other is simplified into a recognition of the inherently hostile or "adversarial" quality of the universe.

So what makes this conception of the religion postmodern is its disdain for terms like LHP / RHP and atheist / theist. But it fails, it is quite theistic, having a "Master" who is divine rather than human and a direction which is uniform rather than self-directed.

And if you're still confused about "postmodernism", this should clear it up.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#44938 - 12/14/10 10:36 PM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Every time I see that damn postmodern essay calculator I burst out laughing Dr.

On a more serious note I think any work which attempts to describe a postmodern Satanism is going to have to define its terms carefully and then position itself within the current modern/postmodern debate, or else set its own position and explain that position and how it differs from the current debate.

There should at least be some reference made to Baudrillard, Lyotard, Habermas, Jameson etc. and possibly the more prominent Post-Structuralist’s.

This debate has been raging on now for nearly thirty years now and has included a wide variety of thinkers (some appropriated, some not) and artist’s etc. This debate, I feel, is primarily concerned with human beings, their relationships to each other and their social, political and cultural institutions and objects. It is also primarily concerned with a critical evaluation of the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge, with an unmasking of reason as will to power, and so called objectivity as merely the perception and discourse of the dominant. Also the notion of the stable modern subject, which comes under some fire, through Freud and Saussure and those who drew on their work, is under a great deal of critical scrutiny as well within postmodern theory.

I am not sure whether JK has addressed these issues in his work, but I feel they must be addressed. And LaVey and his work must be addressed as well I think.

Will read the work if I get time.

Top
#44939 - 12/14/10 10:44 PM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: ]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Quote:
I am not sure you can actually join the Postmodern and Satanism together in a meaningful way as I personally see Satanism as a fundamentally modernist notion.

Yeah you have some good positions on this technical jargon, you take a real beating for them in the advent of Superman? thread.

I would conditionally agree with you, in that I see Dr. LaVey's fondness for a structurally-sound pre-Nuremberg worldview and especially in that I view "postmodernism" quite negatively, as an anti-enlightenment mentality representative of increasing decadence and the collapse of quality standards.

But maybe we ought to take it over there, and leave this one for troll-baiting and bible-thumping \:\)
_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#44992 - 12/16/10 04:59 AM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: Aklo]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Aklo
it is almost as if the author is unable to conceive of divinity in any way other than external. (FFS, in reading it one says "I" over and over again ...)

The misuse of mysticism throughout, both as itself and in the form of pseudoscience, makes for a very misleading view of the magical experience. The text absolutely drowns itself in set theory at one point, and in academic scatology in several others.

Much of this work appears to have been generated using something similar to this toy, brought to our attention by Dr. Aquino. On the whole, it is the sort of thing that should be confined to the Texas Schoolbook Depository for now, and replaced next year with something snazzier, with more pictures and less doubletalk.



I've got an idea. Instead of speaking in generalities, why not offer a few specifics? I'd be really interested to hear you explain exactly how I "misused" mysticism. Or how the definition given for divinity marks it as exclusively "external," especially given the sections dealing with the interplay between microcosm and macrocosm.

JK (the real one)
_________________________



Top
#45002 - 12/16/10 10:56 AM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: Jason King]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Quote:
why not offer a few specifics? I'd be really interested to hear you explain exactly how I "misused" mysticism.

Happy to. Here's an example, the book abounds with this sort of thing:

 Quote:
The successful employ of magick rests
upon a deep cognizance of the
Fundamental Theorem, which states
that the microcosm (consciousness,
atman, hadit) and the macrocosm
(cosmos, brahman, nuit) are, despite
a phenomenal presentation to the
contrary, in fact nondual. This is not
to say that the two are identical, for if
they were, magick would be obviated
as a personal and meta-personal
transformative experience. But rather,
they are of the same taste, as the
mystics say. It is this fact which makes
the transferral of energy from one
sphere to the other possible, and is the
genesis of the dichotomization into
left-hand path and right-hand path.
These two are simply nothing more
than directions of flow, much as in the
movement of electrical charge across
an electromagnetic field in order to
maintain a balance of this quantum.
One direction of flow moves energy
from microcosm into macrocosm
(RHP), and the other syphons from
macrocosm into microcosm (LHP).
Much as in the case of electromagnetic
flux, there is a preferred direction of
flow, in our case, micro v macro
(RHP), as was understood by the
earliest Tantric adepts who discovered
the process. It is for this reason that
the left-hand path is regarded as
antinomian and counter to the natural
flow, although this is not exactly true
as generally offered. Nature herself
offers many instances of a chiral
preference: matter over antimatter,
left-handed amino acids, right-handed
dexterity, etc. However, a better
natural example in our case would be
the force of gravity, which builds an
impetus as more and more coupled
(in this case, “massive”) particles enter
the field. In the case of microcosm and
macrocosm, the latter serves to act as
a gravity-well of sorts, and creates the
chiral impulse defining the preferred
direction of flow (i.e. toward the more
massive). It is this inherent property
which defines both the natural limits
of magick, and also serves to define
the common world of experience - it
is an inbuilt preference for what might
be called “objectivism” over
“subjectivism,” and is furthermore the
basis of natural law itself. Though the
individualized will may be boundless
and completely free, its intersection
with the common world of
phenomena occurs within a sharply
defined boundary, and is restrained by
all the other operant individuated
wills. The left-hand path resists this
natural inclination, and is in some
ways opposed to it, but this does not
make it unnatural per se, as it is
nothing more nor less than a
counterbalancing mechanism and also
the impulse giving rise to the
individuation itself! In other words, the
reverse flow, or swimming against the
stream, is the very vehicle of
conscious perception. The successful
magus not only understands this
asymmetry, but makes full use of its
power through the practice of magick.
The importance of this realization
cannot be overstated, and for all magi
who truly understand the
Fundamental Theorem there is a
recognition that both directions of flow
are necessary to a successful
practitioner. Thus the true magus is
not LHP or RHP, she is both and
neither, as the particular situation
merits. The macrocosm and the
microcosm each possess a certain type
of energy, both of which are vital to
the successful employ of magick, and
neither of which exists in a vacuum.

(Yeah, that's a three-and-a-half page paragraph -- J G Frazer would fall down in awe afore ye.)

The continuous misuse of the word "energy" is characteristic of pseudoscience. The pervasive talking-about-talking is exactly the sort of thing that Nietzche devotes several works to slapping down in Hegel and Schopenhauer etc. The battery analogy is interesting but false, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Law of Magic.

In the development of "As above, so below" in physics as Relativity via Galileo, Newton, Einstein etc. we see that what it means is that to be accurate, any principle must be equally applicable in all times and all conditions. This is so far from the usual "magical thinking" delusion that the name is the thing and the map is the territory, as to virtually earmark the discussion as ludicrous.

But ludicrous is fine, I suppose. To the extent that magic works, it depends on the fact that much of what we conceive of as the real world, derived second-hand through our senses and our organization of the data we already have, is in fact so filtered and interpreted as to place its reality entirely inside our own minds and the world models found therein. In this sense, though, it isn't a matter of sharing "the same taste" at all; our head can be conceived as a sort of n-dimensional mobius strip, or klein bottle, in which the outside is the inside. To highjack a quote from Robert Anton Wilson, "mind and its contents are functionally identical".

On top of all this, you seem to be identifying evocation (calling up, bringing out) as the domain of the right-hand path and invocation (calling down, bringing in) as that of the left. If all you are doing is being backwards about reversal, where have you gotten?

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#45005 - 12/16/10 11:51 AM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: Aklo]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Aklo

(Yeah, that's a three-and-a-half page paragraph -- J G Frazer would fall down in awe afore ye.)


You must've missed the part at the beginning about no paragraphs, anywho . . .

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
The continuous misuse of the word "energy" is characteristic of pseudoscience.


Seeing as how science has never given a real definition, I don't see this as a valid point.

I've defined energy thusly in another medium: "Energy is the dynamic and holistic activity of the World in manifestation. It is the answer to the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?'

Energy is the basis for both a quantitative (external) projection as well as qualitative (internal) deepening of experience-as-such. This creative impulse (Tibetan: rTsal) gives rise to the states of natural unenlightenment in which Self and World are distinguished and vectorialized as experiential states of affairs. The necessary obtaining of these states of affairs gives rise to the materialistic or realist ontology."

Now I realize you will probably rejoin with some form of "that's gobbledygook," however I'd ask you to show me a better definition vis a vis "science". And it will be more than helpful if you can quote whoever you'll be quoting.

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
The battery analogy is interesting but false, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Law of Magic.


I wasn't aware that I gave any "battery analogy". Help me out here . . .

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
In the development of "As above, so below" in physics as Relativity via Galileo, Newton, Einstein etc. we see that what it means is that to be accurate, any principle must be equally applicable in all times and all conditions.


Really? I'm guessing you missed the point of Relativity altogether. I.e. there is no absolute frame of reference with respect to the universe and her laws. Not to mention other errors in the above which don't really matter at the moment.

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
This is so far from the usual "magical thinking" delusion that the name is the thing and the map is the territory, as to virtually earmark the discussion as ludicrous.


If this were true, that would make your comment a red herring, if false, well . . .

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
But ludicrous is fine, I suppose. To the extent that magic works, it depends on the fact that much of what we conceive of as the real world, derived second-hand through our senses and our organization of the data we already have, is in fact so filtered and interpreted as to place its reality entirely inside our own minds and the world models found therein. In this sense, though, it isn't a matter of sharing "the same taste" at all; our head can be conceived as a sort of n-dimensional mobius strip, or klein bottle, in which the outside is the inside. To highjack a quote from Robert Anton Wilson, "mind and its contents are functionally identical".


And to think, you accused me of unfounded "mysticism". BTW, "same taste" refers to the qualitative (yet not quantitative) identity between microcosm and macrocosm.

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
On top of all this, you seem to be identifying evocation (calling up, bringing out) as the domain of the right-hand path and invocation (calling down, bringing in) as that of the left.


I wasn't aware that I ever used the terms "invocation" and "evocation," but if I read you correctly in your interpretation, yes. I do offer a singular understanding of the LHP/RHP interplay which may strike those who are used to the standard drivel as "outside the box". I'm taking it back to the Root, and away from certain modern misconceptions. Thanks for noticing.

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
If all you are doing is being backwards about reversal, where have you gotten?


On the contrary, I'm pressing the issue laterally. You know, "cutting against the grain". You know . . . <cough, cough>

Aklo, I want to thank you for posting an awesome (if I may say so myself) quote from Postmodern Satanism. And I'm being 100% tongue-out-of-cheek on that. Reading it again, with your "critique" at hand, I'll just say, thanks again.

JK
_________________________



Top
#45006 - 12/16/10 12:03 PM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: Jason King]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
Back from the jargon basement.

 Quote:
You seem to enjoy throwing words around with no inkling as to proper usage.

Yeah I love it! It excites the wicked, amuses the strong, and makes the pretentious hop and squeal! *long stare*

 Quote:
Transcendental Meditation (TM) is a specific thing (hence the caps), and is irrelevant to anything in Postmodern Satanism.

I think I am particularly justified in doing it this time though, in that the semantics involved are already heavily deprecated, and in that I am using them in their degraded form as epithets. Anyone who fights their way through the first few sections of your steamboat is going to understand exactly what I mean by these colloquialisms.

 Quote:
And last time I checked, epistemology is the most important branch of philosophy.

But you can feel free to substitute the more direct phrases "goofy brain exercises introduced without proper grounding" and "talking about talking, to the point of pissing into the wind" if it helps you sleep better at night.

 Quote:
I eagerly await your corrections on these points . . .

Don't hold your breath. Like the Hitchhiker's Guide, even if I'm wrong, I am at least definitively wrong.

 Quote:
I doubt you'll even find the term "mantra" anywhere therein.

Page 88, quoting Crowley. And it would have been better if you had discussed the verbal devices for breath-timing, at least then your meditation systems would have a better chance of actually doing any good.

Though your work itself does provide a good vehicle for pratyahara, in the sense that my eyes glaze over. (credit Dr. Aquino)
_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#45009 - 12/16/10 12:27 PM Re: Jason King hands Aklo's ass to him [Re: Aklo]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
Aklo, I'm not sure how things work here, but are you cross-posting threads with no notification? That's not cool, but then again . . .

Maybe I'll just fuck with the thread title. That would mark me as uber-cool (aklo-cool?).

"page 88" ???

I wasn't aware that Postmodern Satanism had page numbers, but what do I know, I'm just the guy who wrote it.

And what I really love is how you do the name-dropping thing with serious non-skill. If Michael Aquino has an issue with me, I'm sure he'll bring it to fore in whatever conversation is relevant. But you "buttressing" your points with fond memories of something he may have said elsewhere (as if it were currently relevant) is FUCKING PATHETIC.

JK
_________________________



Top
#45013 - 12/16/10 12:56 PM Re: Jason King hands Aklo's ass to him [Re: Jason King]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
If Michael Aquino has an issue with me, I'm sure he'll bring it to fore in whatever conversation is relevant.

No, no issues ... right now I'm just enjoying the Aklo/JK whocandrinkwhomunderthetable encounter.

My most revered guru, Freddy the Pig, once said:

 Originally Posted By: Freddy, in Freddy and the Men From Mars
When everything seems like a hopeless mess, the thing to do is stir it up good. Then something always comes to the top that you can use.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#45014 - 12/16/10 01:07 PM Re: Jason King hands Aklo's ass to him [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

No, no issues ... right now I'm just enjoying the Aklo/JK whocandrinkwhomunderthetable encounter.


<hiccup> What? <hiccup>

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
My most revered guru, Freddy the Pig, once said:

 Originally Posted By: Freddy, in Freddy and the Men From Mars
When everything seems like a hopeless mess, the thing to do is stir it up good. Then something always comes to the top that you can use.



I'm sure Sun Tzu said something analogous . . .

JK
_________________________



Top
#45015 - 12/16/10 01:24 PM Re: Postmodern Hand-Jive [Re: Jason King]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Quote:
On the contrary, I'm pressing the issue laterally. You know, "cutting against the grain". You know . . . <cough, cough>

Aklo, I want to thank you for posting an awesome (if I may say so myself) quote from Postmodern Satanism. And I'm being 100% tongue-out-of-cheek on that. Reading it again, with your "critique" at hand, I'll just say, thanks again.

Extremely good answer! I'm very glad you have joined the discussion here, I think we are going to have a lot of fun.

I derived my conclusions about your reversifimication of evocation and invocation from this wad o' text right here, which is also what I'm generalizing as a "battery analogy".

 Quote:
These two are simply nothing more
than directions of flow, much as in the
movement of electrical charge across
an electromagnetic field in order to
maintain a balance of this quantum.
One direction of flow moves energy
from microcosm into macrocosm
(RHP), and the other syphons from
macrocosm into microcosm (LHP).
Much as in the case of electromagnetic
flux, there is a preferred direction of
flow, in our case, micro v macro
(RHP), as was understood by the
earliest Tantric adepts who discovered
the process.


This "pole shift", as it were, forced me to think in several ways. I have long used evocation as exemplary of the LHP, with models to show what we have in parallel with the priests and shamans of the RHP systems. Imagine the priest standing in front of a church, with a huge Pentagram in stained glass overhead. When the congregation looks up, they see a lovely Christmas star. He sees the shadow of a goat's head though \:\)

Or again, consider the diviner sitting across from the client, with a pentacle on the table between them. The recipient sees it "right side up," but not the reader. In the same way, what comes out of us when we evoke, as symbolized by our lovely pythagorean Baphomet, is what goes into them as they invoke, signified by their more-respectable Wiccan / Christian star-stones.

So I'd be interested in hearing more about your Tantric view and what justifies the inversion of these basic principles in your mind.

 Quote:
I'm guessing you missed the point of Relativity altogether. I.e. there is no absolute frame of reference with respect to the universe and her laws.

Not at all, here's a very basic discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

 Quote:
In physics, the principle of relativity is the requirement that the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all admissible frames of reference.

For example, in the framework of special relativity the Maxwell equations have the same form in all inertial frames of reference. In the framework of general relativity the Maxwell equations or the Einstein field equations have the same form in arbitrary frames of reference.

Several principles of relativity have been successfully applied throughout science, whether implicitly (as in Newtonian mechanics) or explicitly (as in Albert Einstein's special relativity and general relativity).

Newton is our first English of Hermes Trismegistus, but Galileo had already extrapolated out the rule of judging what happens in the sky by what we see on a smaller scale in front of us. Einstein's effort to formulate new more universal laws when Michelson-Morley collapsed the Ether meme and proved C invariant are what led to him to name his theories after Newton's formulation of Galileo's principle.

 Quote:
Seeing as how science has never given a real definition, I don't see this as a valid point.

I've defined energy thusly in another medium: "Energy is the dynamic and holistic activity of the World in manifestation. It is the answer to the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?'

Energy is the basis for both a quantitative (external) projection as well as qualitative (internal) deepening of experience-as-such. This creative impulse (Tibetan: rTsal) gives rise to the states of natural unenlightenment in which Self and World are distinguished and vectorialized as experiential states of affairs. The necessary obtaining of these states of affairs gives rise to the materialistic or realist ontology."

Now I realize you will probably rejoin with some form of "that's gobbledygook," however I'd ask you to show me a better definition vis a vis "science". And it will be more than helpful if you can quote whoever you'll be quoting.


Energy is a measurement of the capacity to do work; in other words it isn't a thing at all, it doesn't flow from anywhere to anywhere, all these conceptions are convenient tricks of language useful as shorthand but false-to-fact. This is such a simple and well-known fact of freshman physics, that I shouldn't really need to quote anyone, but I am more than happy to.

 Originally Posted By: Richard Feynman
here is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.


And that ought to be enough for now; but obviously it isn't.

 Quote:
And what I really love is how you do the name-dropping thing with serious non-skill. If Michael Aquino has an issue with me, I'm sure he'll bring it to fore in whatever conversation is relevant. But you "buttressing" your points with fond memories of something he may have said elsewhere (as if it were currently relevant) is FUCKING PATHETIC.

Hop and squeal much? Good show!

No, I'm just crediting him for the link I dropped. Same as with the essay-toy earlier. Are you having trouble seeing links for some reason?

 Quote:
cross-posting threads with no notification?

Because if so, you may want to get a handle on it, there's no need to look goofy. There are plenty of things to attack me on that I'm actually guilty of.

 Quote:
had page numbers, but what do I know

Yeah if you look at the bottom of your pdf reader, it tells you what page it is and so on. I'm using the version Goat of Mendes claims you gave them. But SO? You know as well as I do where the obeah and the wanga is at ...

 Quote:
You must've missed the part at the beginning about no paragraphs, anywho . . .

I didn't miss it, it was right next to where the Table of Contents should have been. I'm just calling attention to the results in my own thpethyial way \:\)

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
Page 2 of 6 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.