Once again, a brief response/question, to give everybody else the
distributed audience real-estate they seem to require: do you consider
it at all possible that to criticize certain samplings of a religion's
subjects as the "best examples" of a religion is to validate only
their interpretation, rather than to make the sweeping, grandiose
statement you would like to make about the product of a body of
thought immensely larger than the entirety of your life experience?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Andrew oommen andrewomm-AT-gmail.com"><andrewomm-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
 

you don't know me, so keep your ass away.

2008/4/23 richard haden richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com"><richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com>:

 

Ooman of the OH>>MAN tribe,
 Bare with me while I try to add a little light on the subject
 

(Perhaps in a scatological sense— a little Sepia instead)
 

 Perhaps it is with my ass or brown eye that I spot and judge thee a
 

follower of the worlds great religions—as cultural artfact of tolerance. I
tolerate and console those who wish merely to survive and not live…but in
their silence I occupy a grater space of freedom. The Christian and Muslim
Religions, by far the least interesting of his or her stories, managed back
in the day, through a newly bartering publicist , a lobbying campaign, any
corporate tobacco CEO would admire—to launch an improved, streamlined myth
to rule the peasantry—to better subjugate, circumscribe and repress with
there pre-Birkenstock(ian) sandal. To re-institutionalize and Market a
vehicle of greater manipulate-able religious nicotine like substance…To
the astonishment of conscience minds (minds eye) we today are constantly
reminded of how truly active is the pursuit of that great "Darwin Award".
http://www.darwinawards.com/
 

 Oh so easy to atomize through the medium of Ka-Boom; a view of the
 

world how ever it is after the fact.
 

 I am still leaning towards a Univocity or a nominalistic vectoring to
 

avoid the stains. I look for the rot on the root of ….inside.
http://users.rcn.com/bmetcalf.ma.ultranet/What%20is%20Univocity.htm If we
want to understand Deleuze's philosophy, it is important to come to terms
with his Spinozist Univocity. Or Or that the genus (Bi Pedal) Species
(Things with wings that look anthropomorphic) are substance abusing,
homeomorhphic, delusions.
 

Something like that
Richard Haden

——- Original Message ——
From: Andrew oommen andrewomm-AT-gmail.com"><andrewomm-AT-gmail.com>
To: Situationist situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org"><situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:51:52 AM
Subject: Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal,
 

but last act
 

You are not arguing with anyone but yourself. none of this disproves any
 

point from before. you are wrong.
 

For your ignorance, i point you to Reza Aslan, who provides two
 

translations of the same passage from the Koran.
 

"Men are the support of women [qawwamuna 'ala an-nisa] as God gives some
 

more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth (to provide
for them)…. As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then
leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them
(when they are willing).
 

Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made some of them excel the
 

others, and because they spend some of their wealth… And for those [women]
that you fear might rebel, admonish them and abandon them in their beds and
beat them [adribuhunna]" (No God but God, pg 69-70) (all authors original
notes).
 

Clearly people interpret different things. Your authors take one extremist
 

translation and call it a pillar holding up the entire religion. This author
looks at all sides and looks at its contextual history, not its political
"idiocracy" that has existed in Western culture.
 

Concedingly religion is not the solution to the worlds problems, but
 

nonetheless, it is not this savage beast you paint it as. Your ignorance is
so blatant that you don't answer the real arguments i make against your
position. i say you are intolerant while calling for tolerance (terrorizing
in the name of democracy, etc.). i say that your game theory is antihuman
(like capital). i also argue you dont know anything about totalizing
critiques (deleuze, debord, etc.). you have only made yourself look like an
ass. stop beating your head against the wall and go outside to real a book,
because none of these online sources will help you deal with you pathology.
 

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Christopher Gray rasputin-AT-teleport.com"><rasputin-AT-teleport.com>
 

wrote:
 

It is Islam, probably be better named "Abyslam". Read the tenets and
 

core. The fundamentalists are not "bad examples" of the religion, nut its
"best examples". Fortified reification is not warm'n'fuzzy; it's an
abomination of inverted humanness, and casts a murderous shadow o'er
authentic living. The triad of reifications from the Middle East are
co-dependently wretched at their very common core. They seethed forth from a
desertified human geography such that sacrifice, scarcity, hording, and
rigid hierarchy permeate them all to varying degrees. They are the practice
of death culture.