[MD] free sausages

[ian glendinning]

Hi Gav,

You admitted you were a bit "tipsy" when you wrote this one, and I see
you are still thrashing around in other threads trying to find some
middleground between some utopian anarchism and suicidal hopelessness.
Most responsible, intellectual people who are pro-psychedelics agree
that once or twice a year is more than enough. Take care, I think you
are over half-way to the enlightenment already.

You said here
>
> okay back to sanity: i think we all need to remember
> that there are a lot of people on the list with rather
> funny names that may well be 'agent provocateurs'. the
> hostility towards MOQ is proportionate to its
> importance. old oscar wilde understood this rather
> well: a great piece of art is either hated or
> adored...nothing in between.
>

I have certainly been playing "agent provocateur" in the conscience
pricking sense recently (and have apologised repeatedly for the
unintended downside effects of that). However I'm as pro-MoQ and as
high-minded as anyone in taking the enormous significance of the MoQ
seriously in world affairs - probably a little overblown and pompous
ego-wise too at times. Mea Culpa, but I have never my hidden my
identity.

That said, I'd be very interested to hear which named posters (if any)
you consider to be hostile towards the MoQ, or not taking its
significance seriously ?

Ian

On 11/6/06, gav <gav_gc at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> alright all you guys suck man...i hate all of
> you....give me a spanner and i'll fix you all
> up...yeah....where's me coat?
>
> as i was saying....i think we all are taking things a
> little too seriously eh? i mean anabel doesn't take
> things seriously and she has no problems...just floats
> around talking to lamposts and such...great life...
>
> okay back to sanity: i think we all need to remember
> that there are a lot of people on the list with rather
> funny names that may well be 'agent provocateurs'. the
> hostility towards MOQ is proportionate to its
> importance. old oscar wilde understood this rather
> well: a great piece of art is either hated or
> adored...nothing in between.
>
> so this means we should be wary and non-reactive. shit
> will be stirred but we don't have to jump into the
> barrel of swirling steamers ourselves. lots of
> emotions get stirred up here and we need to take a few
> deep breaths some times. i hate to say it (and i have
> been a regular offender) but sometimes we can look a
> little like petulant whatsits.
>
> to ant and horse: muchas gracias. you guys keep the
> show on the road, full stop. and you both get
> virtually zero recognition/reward. i am personally
> making a commitment to get over to europe next year
> sometime  so we can party like its 1999. of course my
> accountant (DSS) will have to okay this.
>
> second:, and this may sound harsh but i am tipsy and
> tired and i don't care: let's live the fucking
> philosophy first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> who on the list is vegetarian? if we ain't then we are
>  being immoral according to the MOQ. very interested
> to hear the responses to this question. (is bob
> one?.....)
>
> we all spend hours a week talking about the philosophy
> but this is all philosophology if we don't embody it.
>
> shit we are all probably guilty of moral
> transgressions every day...trangressions that the MOQ
> has brought to our attention in a new light and with
> new clarity and yet we still just talk and keep doing
> the same static immoral shit half the time.
>
> we are supposed to be helping each other evolve...not
> dragging each other back into the SOM soap opera, no?
>
> signed
> gav the perfect one
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>