I understand the fact that he stops short of any serious discussion of what occured on 9/11/01 , but the evidence to indict an already illegitimate class is damning enough without demonstrating an irrevocable connection. Is it plausible? yes. Is it likely that the  Bush admin deliberately allowed the event to happen to MANUFACTURE the CONSENT for an indefinite war? That was proven when Condi Hemmings Stonewalled the Clarke hearings. Let's not forget that his researching skills are first rate, one of the few authors that can prove what thousands of others do using conventional media, which takes time and patience, something I don't have the luxury to have. I know the guy lives in a nice community in Lexington MA, which is just the kind of comfort he would lose along with his tenure at MIT if he said anything regarding any inside job theory, no matter how evidence based. I suppose in that respect he is quite controlled [as we all are with it or externally driven to pursue it]. But I don't see how that diminishes any of his earlier work, particularly Failed States, Manufacturing Consent, or anything else he researched. Don't get me wrong  He gets a few grains of salt, but still a couple fewer then Alex Jones.    —- On Thu, 4/24/08, Christopher Gray rasputin-AT-teleport.com"><rasputin-AT-teleport.com> wrote: From: Christopher Gray rasputin-AT-teleport.com"><rasputin-AT-teleport.com> Subject: Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act To: "Situationist" situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org"><situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org> Cc: "Christopher Gray" rasputin-AT-teleport.com"><rasputin-AT-teleport.com>, "SMIRK" smirkers_of_the_world-AT-yahoogroups.com"><smirkers_of_the_world-AT-yahoogroups.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2008, 9:36 PM What a crock! I started the thread!  I didn't realize you were in control of whether discussions continued or not, whether they are groovy or not, whether they're politically correct or not?!  I will decide what I choose to speak about, by myself and in conjunction with trusted associates. You I wouldn't trust while you are religious, ever!. An idea to share: start your own thread about how religion is more than just a multi-level marketing scheme that steals its best foot forward from the leg of the poor by hacking it off in some ritual…. And then stop it when it closes in on the fact that you have nothing to say towards that topic except excuses and diversionary double-talk…. At least you can feel pseudo-self-power while threatening nothing in your characterological kneeling. That's Islamo-postmodernism for you: the spectacle of change. The sleight of hand is that all that changes is masters. However, not wanting to upset aspiring liar-to-self types (and the condition which makes them possible) who wish to continue along their chosen career path to becoming more generalized, i.e., a liar-to-others. Ah yes, every aspiring parasite starts with religion. It's apparent that some contentness, albeit intellectually indefensible, can be found with one's head up a deity's ass. Who am I to disturb such a pretzeling feat. Of course, I'd like to help you on to the ascent as soon as possible. Can we help you out of this life; you really do deserve the afterlife now. Perhaps you wish to lard around for a while like the bulbous, jiggly, pillaging, raping, murdering Mohammed/Mohamet, thug-pimping the afterlife to the poor before you head there so you'll have slaves here and there?! Great thinking. The first I've seen thus far coming from both sides of your mouth, as a matter of fact. Doth I impose such an honor too soon? The list rarely deals with the troublesome or necessary, and so, once again, will most likely die off into a whimper, with unconvincing moans from vacant stalls as the e-masturbation begins with some fantasized S.I. past, then with King Debord hastening disciples to the Situation Room to be interviewed by a bourgeois dreary newscaster about how they've helped bury proletarian revolution a bit deeper. The cycle begins again with the cyclical chant. Ideology. Duty. Banality. While that may bore even a religionist, I suggest you attempt to test your faith: Jesus/Mohammed Loves You - Kill Yourself! While both groups are stuck in ideology's shadows, some may break that 'circular' stride and actually read and who knows, discuss inflammatory texts or watch expository films, although I hope so I highly doubt you will dare to do so, please contact me off-list so we don't upset the others in their their "duh" mantra. The reification-soaked words of and the nose-picking tolerance for import-model charlatans, atomizing "projects", cynical bleacher-creaturing, and the culturally-psychoticized billows into the common air, where it will be noticed by the still-breathing. In the lull where one tries to catch the fresh rather than the recycled or lie-farting substitutes for 'the real thing', wonder what ever happened to the Situationist core critique which is 'the total suppression and supersession of all reification'. The fact that Islamo-postmodernists are quite at home here, and without much reproach, is not all that astounding when one contemplates the coveting and non-separated world where liars abound (e.g., anarcho-Stalinists, Chomskyholics, religio-primitivists, Clint-O-bama addicts, mystico-Maoists, and neolib green[back]ists) and ransack any and everything for its exchange-value on the "revolution" marketplace, "diverting" from real discussions about reification and its agents. This will be the historical path that leads to the new camps: an epitaph for silence tolerance for all that rules in common, a single rule followed by the common slave, wearing a button "I am not a slave by what I am, do, and become -  but because I wear this button". My "high state" is perceived by you incorrectly. It's just a conscious refusal to confuse 'tolerance for  miserable critique' with 'intolerant critique of the miserable'. Lest I forget, neither Islam, Christianity, and Judaism was ever a "race" except to a devout idiot. my best to those who at least TRY to break free from the chains that bind, chris NOTE: If you find the following aspect of evolution exciting — a starting point — as did Feuerbach, Bakunin, Marx, Dietzgen, then please contact me offline, at least where cops and the stench of failure to self-expand are less. We can start up discussions regarding analysis and interventions into the sand where too many heads suffocate in self-sacrificing (and thus, unequivocally as a result, in an anti-democratic practice  of "other"-sacrificing, that is, the sacrificing of us along with themselves) oxygen-starved bliss. Contact me at harpo-AT-smirkers-of-the-world.org" onclick="return newWindow(this.href);"><harpo-AT-smirkers-of-the-world.org>.                            __________________________ The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis , ["speech for the altars and hearths"] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a supernatural being, will no longer be tempted to find the mere appearance of himself, a non-human being ["Unmensch"], where he seeks and must seek his true reality. The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed man's self-consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has already lost himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man — state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself. It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth,                            __________________________ Andrew oommen wrote: i really think that this discussion has lost its point. Mr. Gray, you have diverted this issue into one of religion. I only am objecting to the generalization of every Muslim anywhere raping 9 year olds and such. this is not the case. why would this be productive? how can this be anything but a slap in the face to people who would or might start to understand your real message? This is the secondary point to this discussion. i would much appreciate you treating me as an equal as opposed to some religious paranoid. If you could come down from what ever higher state you are not in, you would see my criticism as an attack on your method of argumentation. your fundamental message may be true, but i haven't contested that. you say religion sucks, i haven't disagreed. i do oppose your equally inhumane treatment of all Muslims. think about the women in those videos getting stoned; did they choose a religion knowing they would be beat to death? its not their fault that they don't have the luxury that we do to escape what ever religiously illusive situation we find ourselves in. In this case, i think your generalization excludes the women who have not choice but Islam and are torture for that. That is what i mean when i said you were tolerant only insofar that you were intolerant. I don't see this as anything different from religious illusion. Your totalizing belief/critique ends abruptly because it can't cope with the differences in perspectives. That's why i asked for a much more deeper questioning of why. the narrative of the immigrant, getting back to the first topic, is important for Bardot because it is an issue she has raise in a larger context, that of capital, but further to domination and exploitation. Additionally, i think that your total critique isn't what is necessary for change, as is explained above. I also would say that not every religious teaching is incorrect necessarily. sure, thinking of heaven and god might alienate oneself, but the concept "thou shall not kill" or Zakaat isn't bad. i think people shouldn't kill and people who have should give plentifully to those without. I think this comes to mind because the lesson of religious teaching outside of any metaphysical pandering is that we should affirm life or critique ought to affirm, not simply negate. You can't just be tolerant while being intolerant. Your critique has to go further.  On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com" onclick="return newWindow(this.href);">rasputin-AT-teleport.com> wrote: It amazes me that no one ever reads either what I suggest or pages I suggest on my own web site(s). I DO rail against all. What do you think my references to "the triad of Middle East religions" is all about. What do you think my references to books by James DeMeo and Bruce Lerro are about?! They are comprehensive studies, not articles. Educate yourself with real books not tv generation "cyber-truths". Please stop using false accusations to cover for Islam. That was called collaboration in Russia, Germany, and other occupied territories. The triad religions (as well as Sainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism) all suck the life out of human experience. They all justify hierarchy. Islam just does it more obsessively and impolitely than the rest. Is that bad or good? Who cares! Again, they all do it BECAUSE reification is a reproducible human malady! Now please, please read more and re-present less!!!!!! That re-presentation process is called spectacularizing, and it ought to be the first thing used on this list that is not tolerated. Hell, hasn't anyone read a Situationist text besides that of Reverend Debord (e.g., Vaneigem) at all here?! Come on. Be more than an internet predator or spectator; it's that synthesizing, going beyond, and implementing/intervening zone wherein the future will be created, if we are to have one…. best wishes, chris Maxwell Despard wrote: Why focus on Islam? Why not rail against Christianity? Rail against patriarchy everywhere, not just in the religion that the PTB want us to fear. Unless you're detourning neo-con propaganda for some strange personal irony, you're missing the point. Oh, and there's the part about your gross generalizations, raging arrogance, and general theme of saying stupid shit. God sucks. That's awesome. Move on. On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com" onclick="return newWindow(this.href);">rasputin-AT-teleport.com> wrote: You see, the difference between myself and the Middle Eastern triad of religious types is basic. If we don't know each other I approach. You and those reptilian beliefs, on the other hand, "stay away". When not raping 9-year-olds one has to be wary of one's own ass. They are a hording and repugnant tradition, refusing to be open to the fact that "god/Allah/Jahweh" (or whatever the supreme alienated power is called by the bowing-and-scraping) is a prick who screwed them royally in the ass with desertification and a bloated sebnse of importance in the universe. They're afraid of his shadow and cower in small exclusive groups awaiting their next inevitable spanking. Good dogs in slavery. But bad dogs at heart. I prefer the Bakunin assessment: if God existed it would be necessary to overthrow him. Enough said on this "who's who in the world of fantastic enslavement schemes" topic as one always finds the invasion and imperial topic of organized fear (er, I mean religion) invading everywhere, because in spite of its consecrated reluctance to stand on its own alienated feet, it loves company (er, miserable company that cowers as it does). It must spread its seed of inauthenticity and fatalism by raping the whole of Earth and the universe. Such duty deserves to get fucked in the ass until it can't perform pimping tricks for deities any longer. As Vaniegem staes in "Contributions to The Revolutionary Struggle, Intended To Be Discussed, Corrected, And Principally, Put Into Practice Without Delay" at <http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/121>:                                   ________________________________________________ Has it ever happened that you spat on a passing priest? Or wanted to burn down a church, chapel, mosque or synagogue? If so you have come to realise that. Religion is the opium of the oppressed. All that is religious calls for sacrifices. Anything or anybody (militants, for example) that calls for sacrifices to be made, is religious. Religion is the universal model for falsehood, for the overthrow of the real for the benefit of the mythical world which will, once it has been stripped of its sanctity, be the spectacle of everyday life. The commodity system de-sanctifies: it destroys the religious spirit and holds its gadgetry (the Popes,Korans, Bibles, and crucifixes) up to ridicule… but at the same time it is careful to retain religion as a lasting incitement, preferral to the apparent over the real, suffering over pleasure, spectacle over experience, submission over freedom, the ruling system over our passions. The spectacle is the new religion and culture its critical spirit. Religious symbols testify to the lasting mistrust which hierarchical regimes down through the ages have harboured towards men. Take the example of Christ alone… Leaders in the field of marketing products of divinity, the Christian churches have bowed to the pressures of the commodity system and put on a display of contortionism which will not cease until their trademark, the chameleon-like Jesus, has been discarded entirety. Son of God, son of a whore, son of the virgin, worker of miracles and maker of loaves, militant and steward, pederast and puritan accuser and accused, convict and astronaut… no role is outside the range of this amazing puppet figure. He has been a hawker of suffering, waiter dispensing favours… he has been a sansculotte and socialist, a fascist and anti-fascist, a stalinist and barbudo, a Reichian and anarchist. He has marched on every side under every flag; he has been in every self-doubt and stood at both ends of the lash, and present at most executions where he has held the hand both of the executioner and of the executioner's victim. He has his place in police-station and prison and school, brothel and barrack, department store and guerilla-held territory. He has been used as a pendant and dipstick, as a scarecrow standing guard over the resting dead and the kneeling living; he has been used as torment and short rations: and once the hawkers of the blessed foreskins have rehabilitated sin as a commercial proposition he will serve as a dildo. Poor old Mahomet and Buddha and Confucious… sad symbols of rival firms lacking in push and imagination… Jesus outbids them on every front. Jesus Christ… superdrug and superstar… all the images of the man who sold out to God, caught up in the hard sell of the Godhead. The most accomplished symbol of man as the universal commodity is the scrotum of the great father figure staked out on 3 pins and made into an amulet. So you see, already you are fighting, consciously or otherwise, for a society in which the organisation of suffering will have vanished together with its compensations and where each individual being his own master, the notion of God will have no meaning. And above all, a society where the problems of genuine experience and of passions in need of satisfaction will at last take precedence over the problems of proxy living and of passions which have to be repressed.                                   ________________________________________________ If you cannot get behind this I suggest trying to synthesize where you are and it…. If that doesn't help, try three weeks non-stop sex (therapy) with an emancipated wo/man your own age. Whips, hair shirts, throat-slitting, diapers, s/m, machete slaughters, b/d, exclusions of any that would join in, or other surrogate [self-/other-]sacrificing will only deaden the experience of living; timeouts for food/water/bathing/speaking are part of the experience. ;-) There's more to "situationist" than joining a list… and there's less to "religion" than invading another. best, chris Andrew oommen wrote: you don't know me, so keep your ass away. 2008/4/23 richard haden <richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com" onclick="return newWindow(this.href);">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" onclick="return newWindow(this.href);">andrewomm-AT-gmail.com> To: Situationist <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org" onclick="return newWindow(this.href);">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 < Previous message in thread   |   Next message in thread Thread the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Christopher Gray / 22 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / "Andrew oommen" <andrewomm-AT-gmail.com> / 23 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 23 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Chris <chris-AT-christopherjee.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / "Andrew oommen" <andrewomm-AT-gmail.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Francisco Tellechea <tellechea-AT-mac.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / "Andrew oommen" <andrewomm-AT-gmail.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Lance <wearecareful-AT-yahoo.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Chris <chris-AT-christopherjee.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / "Andrew oommen" <andrewomm-AT-gmail.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Chris <chris-AT-christopherjee.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / "Maxwell Despard" <mdespard-AT-gmail.com> / 23 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / richard haden <richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / "Andrew oommen" <andrewomm-AT-gmail.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Chris <chris-AT-christopherjee.com> / 24 Apr 2008 RE: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Robert Smith <history_ssag-AT-hotmail.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Let's abolish money! / Robert Smith <history_ssag-AT-hotmail.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / "Maxwell Despard" <mdespard-AT-gmail.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / "Andrew oommen" <andrewomm-AT-gmail.com> / 24 Apr 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 25 Apr 2008 Chomsky? / zoe white <jpiersall1031-AT-yahoo.com> / 06 May 2008 • Re: Chomsky? / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 07 May 2008 Democratic schools / Robert Smith <history_ssag-AT-hotmail.com> / 08 May 2008 Lack of sense of Humor on the manufactured left / zoe white <jpiersall1031-AT-yahoo.com> / 11 May 2008 Re: Lack of sense of Humor on the manufactured left / "Vikki Riley" <riley.vikki-AT-gmail.com> / 11 May 2008 Re: Lack of sense of Humor on the manufactured left / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 11 May 2008 Re: Lack of sense of Humor on the manufactured left / "Vikki Riley" <riley.vikki-AT-gmail.com> / 12 May 2008 Re: Lack of sense of Humor on the manufactured left / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 12 May 2008 Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo. / zoe white <jpiersall1031-AT-yahoo.com> / 14 May 2008 Re: Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo. / "Vikki Riley" <riley.vikki-AT-gmail.com> / 15 May 2008 Re: Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo. / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 15 May 2008 Re: Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo [revised] / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 15 May 2008 Re: Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo [revised] / Kym Hammond <kymhammond2007-AT-gmail.com> / 16 May 2008 Re: Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo [revised] / Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> / 15 May 2008 Re: Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo [revised] / Kym Hammond <kymhammond2007-AT-gmail.com> / 16 May 2008 Re: Lack of sense of Humor on the manufactured left / kym <kymhammond-AT-digisurf.com.au> / 12 May 2008 Re: Lack of sense of Humor on the manufactured left / kym <kymhammond-AT-digisurf.com.au> / 12 May 2008 Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but last act / kym <kymhammond-AT-digisurf.com.au> / 25 Apr 2008 List Archives IMC General Browse Search RA-L Browse Search The Graphics List Browse Search The Situationist List Browse Search XTension Discussion Browse Search Accounts Username Password Create a new account Forgot your password?   This site made manifest by Manifesto software Page executed in 1.1405391693115 seconds. Loaded 106 classes from 6 of 10 total class files. Read 3 objects from the database. Served 2 items from the cache. Queries - count: 2 select: 4 update: 1