Iolchan
06-28-2011, 12:16 PM
<style>@font-face { font-family: "New York"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Times; }p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 16pt; font-family: "New York"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style>
You needn’t be flattered, Dixon – I have never yet read your column and your opinion matters no more to me than the opinion of any other moderately intelligent person who might respond to this thread, and plunge into this discussion. My “long poem” was a silly little piece of doggerel modeled on the chorus ”won’t you join the dance,” from a movie I once saw about Alice (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ww9c2JYOSI&feature=related), as an old dame, flashing back to her childhood, & Wonderland.
I wanted some kind of response from you; in acknowledgment of the fact that I had, at least, attempted to clear myself of the subtle –and groundless- inferences in your last post in this thread: that I might be some kind a closet elitist – or worse. And now you are suggesting, perhaps, that I wrote you a love poem?
The tone of that doggerel was that of irritation with you, Dixon; not infatuation - so get over it. I pulled it because it succeeded in irritating Imagery who complained that I had wasted one of his ”minutes.” I didn’t want more people chiming in, and stoning me for being a general community chrono-phage; so I pulled my post.
Earlier, Dan Fox successfully "outed" me on my position on the Bible - which in spite of all the mayhem that has been justified by misapplying and misinterpreting it's passages, is still the "Book of books" {in my book, that is.} I am still vestigially Christian, though I do not attend [Quaker] Meeting. In a similar vein, I am also still, vestigially "Socialist," though Debs is no longer in the running.
I must say that I really find quite tiresome, this Lowland tendency some of you WaccoBBians seem to have –perhaps it is a subconscious tendency?– this compulsion to peg every thing and to “out” everyone into the cubby-holes of a very boring & predictable schedule of Ism’s within the limited compartments of your tiny conceptual frameworks. There, I did it myself! You are all Lowlanders! Fie !
Q. Why can’t we enjoy the experience of Life the way we were able to do when we were two years old?
A. Because we are stuck at twenty, at the level of lazy sophomores, hazing freshmen, and trying to force-fit the phenomenal World into categories, instead of seeing it as an integrated Whole.
How many Ism’s are there? Quite a few. How many categories? I submit, even more. Why not just try to enjoy the world as a Manifestation of a plethora of random Meaning - all of it important, and all of it meaningful - yet none of it fully fit to pidgin-hole?
Conversely, also - and this is not a contradiction - one of the reasons we so often fail to understand the Phenomenal Reality of the World outside ourselves, is because our own conceptual framework contains too few categories.
Let me attempt to expand your conceptual horizons, just a little, to include the category: “Stanford Man” among the Subjects that are Germaine to this discussion:
The fact that John Jenkel was a Stanford man and the further fact that he was the Coachman for the Bohemian Grove both mean a great deal if we are attempting to understand the back-story of this present drama.
- And for the same reason that we may obtain a better understanding of why Bobby became a member of the Bohemian Grove after Jerry died, when we realize the significance of his last name, Weir. The Weirs have been - since the time there was a Stanford University - hereditary members on the Board of Trustees. Bobby was the black sheep of the clan, who got into sex, drugs, and Rock & Roll, back in ’64. It was pretty inevitable, that he would eventually be reeled back in to the Club, to partake of the spoils of his Class. { That's class as in Class-consciousness, kids, not "class of '70," which Bobby did not make, having gone "down the road feeling bad," on that "long strange trip."
I maintain that it is also valid, and relevant to this conversation to say of John Jenkel that he is smart – as in “ I may be stupid, but at least I’m not crazy” =OR= “I may be Crazy, but at least I’m not Stupid.” Pick your poison.
In this case, our man is averred by the Jury of the kept press; reporters for the Times Light, and the News directer at KRCB, to be “Crazy.” But friends of his – and observers, too, aver - ”well at Least he is Smart.” Get it?
I rest my case.
- Mark
Hey, Mark--
I'm flattered that you think my opinion is so important that you wrote a long poem imploring me to respond to your earlier post, though I don't know why you posted that poem to a different thread. Don't take my non-response personally....
Please note that your having posted does not convey upon others an obligation to respond, especially if you're not directing a question to them....
Having said that, and understanding your position a little better now, I stand by my assertion that your references to Jenkel's being from a "good family", a Stanford man, smart, etc. are irrelevant to the current discussion. I hope that's enough response to satisfy you, because it's likely all you're gonna get from me on that subject.
Cheers;
Dixon<style>p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Times; }h1 { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style>
Lang Kvetchin' Poem:
To the tune of The Lobster Quadrille:
won't you kindly answer, answer?
now dixon, like the hound o' hell i'll chase thee-
and hunt ye down, where i may find
your acid wit & nimble mind
a-sportin' in the fields o' waccobb :
since you ignore an answer o' mine
in 'tother thread way over yonder-
the one that's been there for some time?
-you know the one; 'bout ol' man jenkel?-
that's it, the "fool up on the hill."
well, dixon, now as you was tryin'
to out me, and questioned, whether i
was, you know, an elititistine
=i did provide for thee an answer
so kindly, if you would, render an answer
answer, answer, answer mine
yes dixon, do, please, kindly answer
my long response to your short question
o would you kindly, kindly answer
my long reply = please answer mine.
i spent a day there on that there answer
my long response, missive o' mine;
so won't you kindly answer, answer,
please dear dixon, answer mine.
o yes, dixon - it did take time, & since
you asked for my "credentials"
upon the score of elitizime,
i'd just request you take the time,
and check out this link here (https://www.paleoprogressives.org/socialist-art.html) ol' chap;
it has been posted for some time...
i'd say it speaks about my roots -
and also as to whether i'm
some sort o' closet nabob-booster
and also as to whether i'm
some kind o' nasty mammon groupie
=or= cringing, servile, molochine
truth is, i ain't, dear dixon, either...
so stay on track, and take the time
i would request, from you, an answer
to my lang missive - answer mine.
now as to this here hooters question;
i'd say we just give it the boot.
it ain't goin' nowhere, by all indication -
and anyway, who gives a hoot?
= Mark Walter Evans =
You needn’t be flattered, Dixon – I have never yet read your column and your opinion matters no more to me than the opinion of any other moderately intelligent person who might respond to this thread, and plunge into this discussion. My “long poem” was a silly little piece of doggerel modeled on the chorus ”won’t you join the dance,” from a movie I once saw about Alice (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ww9c2JYOSI&feature=related), as an old dame, flashing back to her childhood, & Wonderland.
I wanted some kind of response from you; in acknowledgment of the fact that I had, at least, attempted to clear myself of the subtle –and groundless- inferences in your last post in this thread: that I might be some kind a closet elitist – or worse. And now you are suggesting, perhaps, that I wrote you a love poem?
The tone of that doggerel was that of irritation with you, Dixon; not infatuation - so get over it. I pulled it because it succeeded in irritating Imagery who complained that I had wasted one of his ”minutes.” I didn’t want more people chiming in, and stoning me for being a general community chrono-phage; so I pulled my post.
Earlier, Dan Fox successfully "outed" me on my position on the Bible - which in spite of all the mayhem that has been justified by misapplying and misinterpreting it's passages, is still the "Book of books" {in my book, that is.} I am still vestigially Christian, though I do not attend [Quaker] Meeting. In a similar vein, I am also still, vestigially "Socialist," though Debs is no longer in the running.
I must say that I really find quite tiresome, this Lowland tendency some of you WaccoBBians seem to have –perhaps it is a subconscious tendency?– this compulsion to peg every thing and to “out” everyone into the cubby-holes of a very boring & predictable schedule of Ism’s within the limited compartments of your tiny conceptual frameworks. There, I did it myself! You are all Lowlanders! Fie !
Q. Why can’t we enjoy the experience of Life the way we were able to do when we were two years old?
A. Because we are stuck at twenty, at the level of lazy sophomores, hazing freshmen, and trying to force-fit the phenomenal World into categories, instead of seeing it as an integrated Whole.
How many Ism’s are there? Quite a few. How many categories? I submit, even more. Why not just try to enjoy the world as a Manifestation of a plethora of random Meaning - all of it important, and all of it meaningful - yet none of it fully fit to pidgin-hole?
Conversely, also - and this is not a contradiction - one of the reasons we so often fail to understand the Phenomenal Reality of the World outside ourselves, is because our own conceptual framework contains too few categories.
Let me attempt to expand your conceptual horizons, just a little, to include the category: “Stanford Man” among the Subjects that are Germaine to this discussion:
The fact that John Jenkel was a Stanford man and the further fact that he was the Coachman for the Bohemian Grove both mean a great deal if we are attempting to understand the back-story of this present drama.
- And for the same reason that we may obtain a better understanding of why Bobby became a member of the Bohemian Grove after Jerry died, when we realize the significance of his last name, Weir. The Weirs have been - since the time there was a Stanford University - hereditary members on the Board of Trustees. Bobby was the black sheep of the clan, who got into sex, drugs, and Rock & Roll, back in ’64. It was pretty inevitable, that he would eventually be reeled back in to the Club, to partake of the spoils of his Class. { That's class as in Class-consciousness, kids, not "class of '70," which Bobby did not make, having gone "down the road feeling bad," on that "long strange trip."
I maintain that it is also valid, and relevant to this conversation to say of John Jenkel that he is smart – as in “ I may be stupid, but at least I’m not crazy” =OR= “I may be Crazy, but at least I’m not Stupid.” Pick your poison.
In this case, our man is averred by the Jury of the kept press; reporters for the Times Light, and the News directer at KRCB, to be “Crazy.” But friends of his – and observers, too, aver - ”well at Least he is Smart.” Get it?
I rest my case.
- Mark
Hey, Mark--
I'm flattered that you think my opinion is so important that you wrote a long poem imploring me to respond to your earlier post, though I don't know why you posted that poem to a different thread. Don't take my non-response personally....
Please note that your having posted does not convey upon others an obligation to respond, especially if you're not directing a question to them....
Having said that, and understanding your position a little better now, I stand by my assertion that your references to Jenkel's being from a "good family", a Stanford man, smart, etc. are irrelevant to the current discussion. I hope that's enough response to satisfy you, because it's likely all you're gonna get from me on that subject.
Cheers;
Dixon<style>p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Times; }h1 { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style>
Lang Kvetchin' Poem:
To the tune of The Lobster Quadrille:
won't you kindly answer, answer?
now dixon, like the hound o' hell i'll chase thee-
and hunt ye down, where i may find
your acid wit & nimble mind
a-sportin' in the fields o' waccobb :
since you ignore an answer o' mine
in 'tother thread way over yonder-
the one that's been there for some time?
-you know the one; 'bout ol' man jenkel?-
that's it, the "fool up on the hill."
well, dixon, now as you was tryin'
to out me, and questioned, whether i
was, you know, an elititistine
=i did provide for thee an answer
so kindly, if you would, render an answer
answer, answer, answer mine
yes dixon, do, please, kindly answer
my long response to your short question
o would you kindly, kindly answer
my long reply = please answer mine.
i spent a day there on that there answer
my long response, missive o' mine;
so won't you kindly answer, answer,
please dear dixon, answer mine.
o yes, dixon - it did take time, & since
you asked for my "credentials"
upon the score of elitizime,
i'd just request you take the time,
and check out this link here (https://www.paleoprogressives.org/socialist-art.html) ol' chap;
it has been posted for some time...
i'd say it speaks about my roots -
and also as to whether i'm
some sort o' closet nabob-booster
and also as to whether i'm
some kind o' nasty mammon groupie
=or= cringing, servile, molochine
truth is, i ain't, dear dixon, either...
so stay on track, and take the time
i would request, from you, an answer
to my lang missive - answer mine.
now as to this here hooters question;
i'd say we just give it the boot.
it ain't goin' nowhere, by all indication -
and anyway, who gives a hoot?
= Mark Walter Evans =