PDA

View Full Version : soooo, what happened to kroqken...??



crazzz2007
07-03-2007, 02:53 PM
he seems to have disappeared. maybe aliens came and took him back. any other plausible ideas?

bmack86
07-03-2007, 02:53 PM
He wanders off for weeks, maybe months at a time. We'll have a Kenado again, fear not.

guest-5666
07-03-2007, 02:55 PM
the more important question is...

"i wonder what delta's doing at this very moment"...

tessalasset
07-03-2007, 02:56 PM
I actually don't think that is more important at all.

guest-5666
07-03-2007, 02:57 PM
well, id like to think hes going through board withdrawal...

maybe ken got laid...

full on idle
07-03-2007, 03:11 PM
Bug On Your LIp has recently made a number of people very angry, including me. However, as anger serves no function in a successful rebuttal, I will simply state objectively that my task -- our task -- is to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of nativism. The nitty-gritty of what I'm about to write is this: Pretending to be a victim is Bug's raucous attempt to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us. And here, I think, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his ideas. I'm not a gruesome person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Bug's confreres and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather push all of us to the brink of insanity because that's what Bug wants. Is that such a difficult concept? I know the following is an incredibly cheap shot, but if he has spurred us to create and nurture a true spirit of community, then Bug may have accomplished a useful thing.

Don't kid yourself: Bug's drones have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. Bug likes to imply that he defends the real needs of the working class. This is what his grievances amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of dishonest drivel devised by his apparatchiks and mindlessly multiplied by predaceous anthropophagi. Allow me to explain. We cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that the question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "How will Bug's proxies react when they discover that Bug wants to fight with spiritual weapons that are as appalling as they are selfish?" This is an important question because his statements such as "The sky is falling" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that if Bug isn't aberrent, I don't know who is.

What's more, Bug's most unimaginative tactic is to fabricate a phony war between daft, xenophobic nudniks and dastardly sciolists. This way, he can subjugate both groups into helping him burn our fair cities to the ground. I certainly don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that I shall not argue that Bug's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. Read them and see for yourself. Listen up: If Bug gets his way, none of us will be able to expose his malversation. Therefore, we must not let Bug make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "Bug On Your LIp is not at all apologetic for the harm his backers have caused".

bmack86
07-03-2007, 03:14 PM
haha, wow.

full on idle
07-03-2007, 03:18 PM
Based on Bryan Mack's response to my previous letter, I believe it's safe to say that double standards are always censorious. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Bryan's particularly yellow-bellied form of antidisestablishmentarianism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of jackbooted politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Does Bryan remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people he made fun of just so others would like him more? Even if he does, I'm sure he doesn't care, because idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Bryan spends his leisure time devising ever more pathetic ways to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide particularism. In these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, he intends to create a new social class. Unscrupulous pillocks, disgraceful radicals, and inane, ungrateful disagreeable-types will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their helpers. What's the difference between Bryan's habitués and the most odious extremists I've ever seen? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right.

I don't mean to imply that I find Bryan's failed attempts to subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community mildly amusing, but it's true, nonetheless. It's unfortunate that Bryan has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped. This much is clear: His buddies tend to fall into the mistaken belief that emotionalism is the key to world peace, mainly because they live inside a Bryan-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. It's fine to realize that gnosticism is rapidly becoming the rule of the day, but it's more important to know that he wants to purge the land of every non-obtuse person, gene, idea, and influence. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants. Bryan seems to assume that children should belong to the state. This is an assumption of the worst kind because there's an important difference between me and Bryan. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Bryan, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to take us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. To conclude, it is far too easy for Bryan Mack to use fear, intimidation, sedating substances, and other tools to convince lame-brained scroungers to relabel millions of people as "cankered".

bmack86
07-03-2007, 03:34 PM
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/ToServeMan3.jpg

Alchemy
07-03-2007, 04:10 PM
Did Ken get back his tapes?

Good Days Last
07-03-2007, 04:12 PM
Ken... and Delta.

I wonder why Delta hasn't come back with some lame alias yet.

ewiggy
07-03-2007, 04:20 PM
maybe kroqken and archie bunker are spending some time together.

captncrzy
07-03-2007, 04:50 PM
I'm guessing Delta hasn't come back with an alias because Dani has banned his IP. You can talk to him on Arcade Fire's website.

I think Ken is busy with all those kids he just found out he had.

ewiggy
07-03-2007, 04:52 PM
uh.. i think you're talking about ronnie.

crazzz2007
07-03-2007, 04:52 PM
I'm guessing Delta hasn't come back with an alias because Dani has banned his IP. You can talk to him on Arcade Fire's website.

I think Ken is busy with all those kids he just found out he had.

is he an asshole and an outcast at the Arcade Fire message board as well?

captncrzy
07-03-2007, 04:53 PM
Meh; not anywhere near as much; it's a lovefest over there-I think they soften him up a bit.

captncrzy
07-03-2007, 04:54 PM
uh.. i think you're talking about ronnie.

Oh, shit, yeah I was. I get mixed up sometimes. Sorry Ken, I didn't mean to imply you have a bunch of lil' Kens running around that you didn't know about.

crazzz2007
07-03-2007, 04:57 PM
Oh, shit, yeah I was. I get mixed up sometimes. Sorry Ken, I didn't mean to imply you have a bunch of lil' Kens running around that you didn't know about.

no need to apologize. if ken had a bunch of kids, that would mean he had sex a bunch of times. i think ken would take that in a nanosecond.

breakjaw
07-03-2007, 05:10 PM
Based on Bryan Mack's response to my previous letter, I believe it's safe to say that double standards are always censorious. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Bryan's particularly yellow-bellied form of antidisestablishmentarianism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of jackbooted politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Does Bryan remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people he made fun of just so others would like him more? Even if he does, I'm sure he doesn't care, because idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Bryan spends his leisure time devising ever more pathetic ways to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide particularism. In these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, he intends to create a new social class. Unscrupulous pillocks, disgraceful radicals, and inane, ungrateful disagreeable-types will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their helpers. What's the difference between Bryan's habitués and the most odious extremists I've ever seen? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right.

I don't mean to imply that I find Bryan's failed attempts to subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community mildly amusing, but it's true, nonetheless. It's unfortunate that Bryan has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped. This much is clear: His buddies tend to fall into the mistaken belief that emotionalism is the key to world peace, mainly because they live inside a Bryan-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. It's fine to realize that gnosticism is rapidly becoming the rule of the day, but it's more important to know that he wants to purge the land of every non-obtuse person, gene, idea, and influence. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants. Bryan seems to assume that children should belong to the state. This is an assumption of the worst kind because there's an important difference between me and Bryan. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Bryan, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to take us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. To conclude, it is far too easy for Bryan Mack to use fear, intimidation, sedating substances, and other tools to convince lame-brained scroungers to relabel millions of people as "cankered".
http://imageigloo.com/images/6799sjff_03_img1310.jpg

CuervoPH
07-03-2007, 05:24 PM
Breakjaw has posted a picture I can't see. I will leave it to Valarie to say what his behavior signifies, but I hope he is not falling into the Bryan-laid trap of classifying those unable to see the pic as "cankered".


The picture is of Cliff Robertson in "Charly"

Aha! I see it now! Thanks to Tom Green in "Road Trip", I'll never be able to look at that scene the same way again.

breakjaw
07-03-2007, 05:38 PM
The picture is of Cliff Robertson in "Charly"

guest-5666
07-03-2007, 05:44 PM
great movie...


where the fuck is pineapple pete?...

crazzz2007
07-03-2007, 05:45 PM
i think PP got the hint and left

guest-5666
07-03-2007, 05:53 PM
thats nice...

captncrzy
07-03-2007, 07:06 PM
no need to apologize. if ken had a bunch of kids, that would mean he had sex a bunch of times. i think ken would take that in a nanosecond.

That actual thought occoured to me as I was typing the apology.

suprefan
07-03-2007, 07:10 PM
is he an asshole and an outcast at the Arcade Fire message board as well?

Like Jen said, its a total love fest over there, not even funny. And yeah they <3 Delta over there like you dont wanna know. He has a pool ticket for the Bowl show, yeah.......

Jenniehoo
07-03-2007, 10:42 PM
I love that you confused Ken with Ronnie.

Ill_Eagle
07-03-2007, 10:56 PM
Ken shaved his beard and got a haircut.

He no longer needs this forum.

Jenniehoo
07-03-2007, 11:11 PM
We'll see this thread again once it drops to page 18 or some shit. Then it will return and he'll answer this question.

RotationSlimWang
07-04-2007, 02:48 AM
Delta refuses to get around the IP ban and make an alias because he doesn't want to erase his Firefox cookies. I was like, "Dude, you realize you're supposed to erase your cookies regularly, right?"

Silly, silly terrorist.

TomAz
07-04-2007, 06:03 AM
“Society is intrinsically unattainable,” says Lacan. Therefore, the primary theme of Brophy’s[1] model of precapitalist discourse is a self-justifying totality. A number of sublimations concerning the collapse, and subsequent absurdity, of cultural class may be discovered.

The characteristic theme of the works of Full on Idle is not, in fact, narrative, but postnarrative. Thus, Baudrillard uses the term ‘realism’ to denote the difference between society and narrativity. Sontag suggests the use of prepatriarchialist textual theory to attack and modify sexual identity.

In the works of Full on Idle, a predominant concept is the distinction between figure and ground. It could be said that the premise of realism holds that reality is created by the masses. The subject is contextualised into a postcultural discourse that includes sexuality as a whole.

In a sense, Debord promotes the use of realism to deconstruct hierarchy. Any number of theories concerning Batailleist `powerful communication’ exist.

It could be said that Foucault uses the term ‘postcultural discourse’ to denote not materialism, but prematerialism. Derrida suggests the use of realism to attack society.

In a sense, Baudrillard uses the term ‘postcultural discourse’ to denote the economy of dialectic narrativity. The primary theme of Parry’s[2] analysis of subcapitalist discourse is not theory, but pretheory.

Thus, Debord’s model of realism states that the goal of the poet is social comment. An abundance of discourses concerning the futility, and eventually the stasis, of textual sexual identity may be revealed.

However, if postcultural discourse holds, we have to choose between Lacanist obscurity and postmodernist narrative. Many sublimations concerning subcapitalist discourse exist.

2. Marxist socialism and capitalist neotextual theory

If one examines realism, one is faced with a choice: either reject capitalist neotextual theory or conclude that the media is part of the defining characteristic of consciousness. But the characteristic theme of the works of Burroughs is the role of the observer as participant. The subject is interpolated into a subcapitalist discourse that includes art as a totality.

The main theme of Geoffrey’s[3] analysis of capitalist neotextual theory is the common ground between society and sexual identity. However, the characteristic theme of the works of Full on Idle is the failure of postcapitalist consciousness. In her last post, Full on Idle reiterates textual discourse; in The Last Words of Dutch Schultz, although, she deconstructs capitalist neotextual theory.

“Class is meaningless,” says Sartre; however, according to d’Erlette[4] , it is not so much class that is meaningless, but rather the defining characteristic, and some would say the fatal flaw, of class. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a subcapitalist discourse that includes sexuality as a reality. Marx uses the term ‘realism’ to denote the role of the writer as participant.

“Society is fundamentally elitist,” says Sartre. It could be said that Werther[5] holds that the works of Burroughs are empowering. Any number of narratives concerning not theory, as Marx would have it, but pretheory may be found.

However, the main theme of Reicher’s[6] essay on capitalist neotextual theory is the collapse, and therefore the paradigm, of postcultural sexual identity. Many patriarchialisms concerning the capitalist paradigm of expression exist.

But the primary theme of the works of Stone is not, in fact, theory, but pretheory. Lyotard uses the term ‘capitalist neotextual theory’ to denote the fatal flaw, and subsequent stasis, of subtextual class.

It could be said that if subcapitalist discourse holds, we have to choose between realism and modern discourse. The subject is interpolated into a neostructuralist objectivism that includes consciousness as a whole.

Therefore, realism implies that discourse comes from communication, but only if Sontag’s model of subcapitalist discourse is invalid. The subject is contextualised into a capitalist paradigm of consensus that includes culture as a reality.

In a sense, capitalist neotextual theory suggests that narrativity may be used to exploit the proletariat. The characteristic theme of Hamburger’s[7] essay on Baudrillardist simulation is not desituationism per se, but predesituationism.

Therefore, Dietrich[8] states that we have to choose between realism and neosemiotic sublimation. Marx promotes the use of subcapitalist discourse to deconstruct the status quo.

3. Expressions of failure

If one examines dialectic prestructural theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept capitalist neotextual theory or conclude that the purpose of the poet is deconstruction, given that reality is equal to truth. But if realism holds, we have to choose between subcapitalist discourse and cultural narrative. The primary theme of the works of Smith is a neomaterial paradox.

The characteristic theme of McElwaine’s[9] critique of capitalist neotextual theory is the collapse, and hence the meaninglessness, of predialectic society. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a subcapitalist discourse that includes culture as a whole. The stasis, and eventually the dialectic, of capitalist neotextual theory prevalent in Smith’s Dogma emerges again in Clerks.

If one examines subcapitalist discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject capitalist neotextual theory or conclude that art is capable of truth. In a sense, von Ludwig[10] holds that we have to choose between subcapitalist discourse and constructive postcultural theory. Lyotard suggests the use of capitalist neotextual theory to analyse and read sexual identity.

But Baudrillard uses the term ‘the structuralist paradigm of expression’ to denote not narrative, but neonarrative. If realism holds, the works of Smith are modernistic.

Thus, Bataille’s essay on subdialectic deconstruction suggests that the significance of the participant is social comment. La Tournier[11] holds that we have to choose between subcapitalist discourse and neotextual discourse.

However, the example of Foucaultist power relations which is a central theme of Smith’s Dogma is also evident in Mallrats, although in a more mythopoetical sense. The subject is contextualised into a realism that includes sexuality as a reality.

In a sense, if subcapitalist discourse holds, we have to choose between realism and the dialectic paradigm of discourse. Lacan uses the term ’subconceptualist libertarianism’ to denote the role of the artist as reader.

It could be said that Foucault promotes the use of capitalist neotextual theory to attack capitalism. A number of theories concerning the difference between consciousness and society may be discovered.

4. Realism and capitalist discourse

“Art is meaningless,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Werther[12] , it is not so much art that is meaningless, but rather the genre, and some would say the stasis, of art. Thus, the main theme of the works of Smith is the role of the artist as reader. The subject is interpolated into a dialectic deappropriation that includes consciousness as a totality.

“Sexual identity is intrinsically impossible,” says Sartre. It could be said that Derrida suggests the use of realism to modify society. Lacan uses the term ‘capitalist discourse’ to denote a self-falsifying paradox.

However, the subject is contextualised into a neosemiotic paradigm of context that includes narrativity as a whole. The characteristic theme of Parry’s[13] model of capitalist discourse is the bridge between sexual identity and sexuality.

In a sense, Debord uses the term ’subcapitalist discourse’ to denote not discourse, but prediscourse. Baudrillard promotes the use of capitalist discourse to challenge sexism.

It could be said that Sartre uses the term ’subcapitalist discourse’ to denote the difference between class and society. Dietrich[14] states that the works of Smith are not postmodern.

captncrzy
07-04-2007, 08:06 AM
I love that you confused Ken with Ronnie.

I'm retar (ded).

J~$$$
07-04-2007, 08:25 AM
Here we go.

PineapplePete
07-08-2007, 01:17 AM
i think PP got the hint and left

sorry

crazzz2007
07-09-2007, 01:23 AM
sorry

i guess PP didn't get the hint.

i feel stupid for thinking that PP might actually "get" something.

captncrzy
07-09-2007, 08:46 AM
i guess PP didn't get the hint.

i feel stupid for thinking that PP might actually "get" something.

Lessons learned, my friend. Lessons learned.

kroqken
10-20-2007, 09:16 AM
I am back, for a not so limited time only!

gaypalmsprings
10-20-2007, 10:12 AM
http://greendragoninn.org/greendragoncards/card26.jpg

Courtney
10-20-2007, 12:57 PM
Hi Ken how's the love life?

DeltaSigChi4
10-20-2007, 01:05 PM
Delta refuses to get around the IP ban and

I'm banned??!??! :confused: :( ":mad:

E