[Burichan] [Futaba] [Futaba Ols] [Gurochan] [Photon] - [Home]

[Return]
Reply mode
Link
Subject
Comment
File
Verification
Password (for post and file deletion)
Leave empty (spam trap):
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.

File: 1217240263173.png -(798809 B, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
798809 No.1   [Reply]

mastermind

>> No.2  

>>1
Who. Russ?

>> No.3  

wish... is down?

>> No.4  

>>3
Apparently.
Since 4chan is back up, let's hope it last at least a few days so the trolls simply forget about it...

>> No.5  

Wish is fine; downtime was brief. You may resume stealing content from there at your leisure.

>> No.6  

>>5
bawww

>> No.7  

>>5
I wonder if you realize there is almost no Cracky related content that has ever been seen on wish that hasnt been already posted on bounce...

(It's a rhetorical question, every one knows you're a troll...)

>> No.8  

Nice to see Dolls section relinked. EOS needs relinked as the few others. I know, it's still there but it's nice just to click it and be there. Also, would be nice to have all the old threads back minus the image spamming poster.

>> No.9  

>>8
Just make a copy of http://195.242.99.71/index.html replacing bar.html with bar.html~ and you have most of the stuff you need.

>> No.10  

>>7

But it's not on "Bounce" any more, is it? If you save the content in advance, and it's later modfagged, and you repost it elsewhere, that's not stealing. But if you save it from a board, while it's still there, and post it to another board, and you don't give credit, that's stealing.

>> No.11  

>>10
Pretty convoluted thinking there. Do you give credit to SCM's LJ or her photobucket, or bounce when we were all a happy familly?

Again, rhetorical question, of course you dont. All you aim to do is stir your daily shit.

>Oh noes, modfagging! Oh noes, stoleding of pictars! Oh noes, stoleding of userers! War war war!

Your trolling tactics are stale, bounce and wish have both their uses.

>> No.12  

"Stealing"? What the fuck, seriously? You're like a fucking child in a playground screeching because someone stole your Charizard card. If you get that worked up about things being "stolen" from either side, gtfo.

>> No.13  

This is the same as the piracy arguments. It's not theft, theft removes the original.

>> No.14  

Attn all, the Wish DNS servers seem to be down again, though the actual server remains up. Since this seems to happen on a semi-regular basis, please add the following entries to your hosts file, and you'll be able to get in with no problem:

67.159.44.57 wish.kamistik.com
67.159.44.57 kamistik.com

I've notified Rob of the issue.

>> No.15  

>>14
useful, thanks.

>> No.16  
File: 1217593069530.jpg -(188735 B, 842x558) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
188735

Fuck you guys.

>> No.17  

>>16
Host fail. Just copy/paste >>14 's whole IP/URL deal into your hosts file and it'll work fine.

>> No.18  

>>17

What is that, some type of niggerspeak?

>> No.19  

>>16

Durr, you can't just go to the IP, it's a vhost, your browser has to send an HTTP 1.1 HOST header to tell it what domain you want.

Put it in your hosts file.

If you are using Windows, it's typically C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts (or C:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts if your install started out as NT4 or Win2K).

If you're on most Unix-like OS's (possibly including Mac OSX), it's just /etc/hosts

Otherwise, look it up.

>> No.20  

Delete your system32 folder.

>> No.21  
File: 1310515873011.jpg -(38746 B, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
38746

>>1

>> No.22  

I have only ever gotten a message that says "Apache is functioning normally". I did the host thing, and I'm not behind a proxy.

>> No.23  

>>22

iirc you need camel and a black cock to access the site

>> No.24  

>>23

sigh...here wo go again

>> No.25  

>>24
Nah, don't worry. The guy is clearly identifiable at this point as one of the "pseudo-Zen ballerina" types I mentioned. He's not interested in response or reaction, just dumb admiration of his wit and its odd, quirky sublimity. Fuck him along with the rest of you. You deserve each other.

>> No.26  
File: 1310579263355.jpg -(8048 B, 325x235) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
8048

>>23
>>24
>>25
There should be enough for all 3 of you...

>> No.27  

so much retardism on this site, Cracky is a cunt who doesn't care for any of you and most likely would hate you if she met you, most of you are bitter fucks and camel and black cock guy is the only person who even makes sense on here anymore.

>> No.28  
File: 1310647125210.jpg -(39445 B, 300x221) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
39445

>>27

Why don't you and him go suck each others' cocks and make a board dedicated to your own magical and special brand of bullshit, o son of a septic syph-sore? You are the one who gets to eat the salty cracker out of this partnership, I see.

Pic very related, it's you and black cock guy.

>> No.29  

>>28

you're a spastic.

why so offended by the truth, faggot?

>> No.30  

>>27
>>29
That's a lot of dumb misplaced rage right there, or just another troll attempt aiming at "offending faggots"...

Pretty ridiculous either way...

>> No.31  

>>27
that made no sense whatsoever, more black cocks, plz

>> No.32  

>>31

it makes sense, you're all making an idol of someone who would most likely hate you if you met her irl, she obviously doesn't give a shit about any of you or she'd communicate with someone here.

Camel's interest in nigger cock is also part of the whole love/hate thing and at least she's not afraid to admit it.

>> No.33  

>>32
made no sense, less words, more black cock

>> No.34  
File: 1310671841313.jpg -(99711 B, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
99711

>>32

If you don't get what this is about, why are you here?

>> No.35  

>>32
Camel's interest in nigger cock is pretty much on a par and of a piece with the interest felt by a bloke who's been digging a ditch all morning in a plate of fried eggs and bacon.

I suppose that's compatible with your thesis that "it's also part of the whole love/hate thing" if you happen to be an adherent to the philosophy of Anaximander, who considered the very stuff of the natural and human universe to be, for all its apparently infinite variety and diversity, reducible ultimately to the elementary principles of love and hate.

But, if such is the case, then to say that is to say no more than that Camel is acting according to Nature - and there are many more vocabularies beside the dusty old Anaximandrian one in which one might articulate that awesome and terrible truth.

>> No.36  

>>34

i'm here to help

>> No.37  

>>35
Take your fucking Anancy-mander and give him to the other Empedophiles and Empederasts to smear on your mother's Hairy-Clitoris, you pretentious Prick-Suckratic bastard, this board is about DIOGENES LAERTIUS!!!

>> No.38  

It seems to me that the voices claiming that Camel-and-black-cock fanfic is the only interesting thing on .71 these days are the only ones interested in Camel-and-black-cock fanfic, and that those same voices are either calling Cracky a cunt or professing their non-interest in Cracky while throwing as much contempt for Crackyfag as possible.

It becomes quite apparent that those voices have one goal: offending people they consider faggots for their own amusement.

I also note that this thread contains three layers of mindless trolling that didnt really take flight...

Mastermind indeed...

>> No.39  

>>38
PLEASE try to shake off your delusions of grandeur/persecution mania. They're really quite pathetic. I can't imagine that there is anybody who feels strongly enough about this board, or about the little Cracky community in general, to want to co-ordinate - or pseudo-cocrdinate by "trolling" and "sock-puppeting", as you seem to be suggesting - an attack on it.

It's not a matter that I consider worth giving very much thought to, but my guess would be that, in all probability, the "voices" you refer to really are the "voices" of three different people.

There's little doubt at this point, as I say, that "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy himself is one of those dime-a-half-dozen, pseudo-Zen virtuosi of the /b/board whom I've seen turn up from time to time here and on CH ("Fap-To-This" guy; "Pedrobear"; a couple of others who've become enamoured of a certain "super-cool", "idiot savant" stance and have copied it). He can't really be said to be RAISING THE TOPIC of Camel and black mem, because one thing you can be 100% sure about with these pseudo-Zen types is that wild horses couldn't drag them into any DISCUSSION of their single, ironically-repeated post. This type considers himself FAR, FAR, FAR too clever and cool to actually DIALOGUE with anybody. Silent awe and admiration is the only response he's looking for, and demands.

Insofar as this is the case, then, anyone calling "Camel-and-Black-Cock" "interesting" - let alone calling him "the most interesting thing on the board" - is guilty of a basic and serious confusion. The topic that "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy has been raisng MIGHT WELL be interesting - IF he were actually raising a topic, which he isn't (as I say, he's just a boundlessly self-regarding narcissist for whom other human beings (and their opinions) have no existence at all). Still, I don't doubt that the person who has posted that "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy is "the only one who makes sense" here is sincere, and really a different person from "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy. He seems to be confused, and not very bright or articulate, but I suppose the idea he is grasping and driving at is that the TOPIC OF DISCUSSION - beautiful young ex-Crackyfags and their possible motivations for taking black lovers - is a much more interesting one than most of the boring nonsense that people want to discuss on here.

And needless to say, I'll also insist - but I would, wouldn't I? - that the "third voice" that's been going on about Anaximander, Heraclitus and so on is indeed a third and different voice - the voice of someone who (in direct and absolute contrast to "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy himself - would be only too happy to talk, or just to joke, about the topic that "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy has pretended to raise.

>> No.40  

>>39
The point was that all of those voices are from people who have no interest in Cracky and a lot more interest in trolling Crackyfags, whatever the voice's source, or sources.

All your post has accomplished is further outlining your own delusions of grandeur and persecution, as usual, but it's intriguing you would bring up sock-pupetry. I really wasnt suggesting that.

Anyway, the point remains, you are here for one reason only, to amuse yourself at our expense. I have no doubt there are other trolls around, but I certainly would not put it past you to "craft" another "voice" just to spice things up. Same shit either way.

>> No.41  

>>40
Well, you should "put it past me" to do that. I've never done it and never will. I think, in fact, I must be about the ONLY person "in these circles" who has never deceived or misled anybody as to their identity and whose full real name etc. have been common knowledge from the start.

You're also entirely wrong about my "only being here to amuse myself at your expense". My contributions to this thread, at least - such as post no. 37 - were definitely intended to amuse YOU as well as me, and at NO ONE's "expense".

If you choose to grip onto your hate for months and years and decades ahead because I once said your post, or someone else's, was silly or something, that's your decision. But please don't read aggression and deceit in everything I do. Most of the time, it just isn't there - until YOU drag it in, with your endless boring vendetta.

>> No.42  

>>41
You are a liar.

You admitted, on CH in a thread that you later deleted that when you are bored, you go on boards that you consider populated by morons, where you make incendiary comments sparking flamewars you would then participate in for months, even years, for your amusement.

This, you were saying as an excuse to show that you hadn't targeted .71 specifically, but that it was on a list of boards you would use like so when you were bored.

As usual, you were making excuses after a spat of vicious posts insulting just about everybody gratuitously for a real or imagined slight by one person, minimizing your outrageous reaction by painting yourself as a misunderstood man of friendly, gentle nature that only slightly lost it, or was only joking, or some other excuse you served us as many times as you threw your bile and contempt around. That is also part of the patern.

Remember your own words, there is nothing for you here but the sad, neurotic spite of a bunch of utterly sterile, deeply unhappy people. Leave, because that is all we have to offer to YOU.

Take your own advice.

>> No.43  

>>42
Obviously, another absurd myth that you're intent on perpetuating is the one about some "list of boards" that I possess and that I systematically go around starting flame-wars on - a "secret list", moreover, that I desperately want to "hide and deny the existence of" and that I cunningly delete every reference to.

Just to explode your nonsense for at least the 45 minutes that is as long as people's memory on boards like this tends to last, here is the board and the discussion that you keep referring to:

http://karlomongaya.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/for-the-love-of-zizek-a-fan%E2%80%99s-confession/

It IS actually kind of "Cracky-relevant", actually, as I've seen several references to Slavoj Zizek, and to his mentor Lacan, made here and on other Cracky-boards. In addition to all the hokey Oriental-mystical and hokey Christological waffling about Cracky that goes on, the slightly better-educated among you seem also to have seized on the very hokiest of all hokey contemporary Continental philosophers as a means of creating clouds of impressive obfuscation around your pseudo-passion and pseudo-obsession.

But it's not as a warning for Crackyfags against the execrable charlatan Zizek that I post the link (though if it serves that purpose as well, it will have done no harm). Rather, I post it because it's a pretty convincing illustration of what a ridiculous thing interaction on the Internet generally is, and of how friendly, polite, well-intentioned comment can quickly end up being assimilated into a whole set of neurotic psycho-dramas that really have absolutely no connection with what was said.

On the blog I link to, for example, my simply quietly pointing out the inadequacy to scholarly standards of many of the publications of the hugely popular "cultural theorist" Zizek soon led to me being unwillingly co-opted as a representative of US global imperialism (I've never in my life set foot in the USA) on whom a bunch of (as it turned out) Filipinos could vent their fury over fifty or sixty years of their country's being used as America's aircraft carrier.

I would imagine it would now be as practically impossible for me to post on this blog-site again as it is for me to post here on .71. ANY post identifiable as authored by me would immediately result in a DefCon 1 alert with everybody running around screaming about "invading imperialist Americans".

All that just by way of giving you some perspective.

>> No.44  
File: 1310738907205.jpg -(91630 B, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
91630

>>43
If you weren't such a self-centered troll you'd understand the relationship instead of speaking random babble about obfuscation and whatnot.

Also, very Cracky related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg7qdowoemo

>> No.45  

>>43
It's not a myth, you admitted doing that, systematic paper-list or not.

When you are bored, you prowl on web-sites populated by people you have a low opinion of and you post some incendiary comment that usually spark a flamewar, which you derive amusement from by participating in it willingly for months, even for years. You admitted as much, and since it invalidates your claim that flamewars bore you and that you never start flamewars, you deleted it.

You are trying to obscure the perspective this gives everyone: you were then boasting about how you were fucking around with their minds for your own amusement, even if it meant that the whole board was in a turmoil for years, and admitted how you didnt stop even though you knew it was only going to make it worse.

You didnt say it then, or now, but it is evident that you enjoyed it, and are proud of having participated in this long flamewar, which you consider you won, with the trophy of having filipinos calling you an American crowning the whole event.

Given the parallels you make between .71 and that blog today, we have a rough couple of years ahead, and that's perspective.

The fact remains: you are not here for anything Cracky related as defined by you or anybody else, you are here to amuse yourself at the expense of people you only feel contempt for.

>> No.46  
File: 1310761357404.gif -(294483 B, 350x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
294483

>>43

First off this is coming from a guy who doesn't really like Alexs' posts but everyone deserves a chance to be heard, I suppose...
I read that stuff about that commie snake-oil salesman Zizek, nice one, Alex! You sure put those sycophantic fanboys in their place by amply demonstrating their Emperor has no clothes. But 71 is an image board dedicated to an internet pop culture icon, so you're going to find a different type of lurker here, and therefore more images and less verbosity is expected from all.

>> No.47  

>>46
Well, goodness me, a post, at last, by someone who appears to be basically sane and to be able and - more importantly - willing to engage in something like normal human communication!

Much as I welcome that, you'll all be glad to hear that I don't take it as an encouragement to "stay" - because I fully acknowledge both your other points as well.

You're right that I don't "speak your language". And you're right also that I have no interest at all in your particular "internet pop culture icon". Contrary to widespread rumours and/or slanderous inventions, my tastes don't run, as a rule, to girls in their early teens (though I wouldn't, as I say, deny too vehemently either that there could be some exceptions to that role; I never saw Camel at 14 or 15, but I can well believe that she was a heart-breaker). And the whole blood- and self-mutilation side of the Cracky "aesthetic" persona frankly makes me retch.

So yeah, I have no real business here. It looked for a while, on Crackyhouse, as though the scope of discussion and interaction within the "Cracky community" - if there is such a thing - could be expanded in such a way that there could be some entertaining and informative exchange of ideas on topics that are marginal but recurrent within the "Crackyverse". I mean topics like: Zizek and Lacan; certain personalities (like Camel or RavRav; I believe your generic term is 'Sisters of Mercy') who are, of course, 'not Cracky' but stand in a certain relation to her; the Internet and love and sexuality in general. Stuff like that. THAT I could possibly have made a constructive contribution to.

But I honestly haven't seen even an ATTEMPT to conduct a more general discussion of that sort either here or on CH for months now. Since the departure of people like Camel, Dolores, God knows who else, there appear to be just two sorts of "content" being created. Either the monomaniac old "I luv Cracky I luv Cracky I luv Cracky" mantra, or a load of "pwning-and-baiting" infantility from kids who probably got "into this" about three weeks ago.

I think CH has pretty much had it, but I sincerely hope that THIS board manages to survive and maybe become an interesting, entertaining place. Obviously, though, you have a better chance of doing that without me hanging around.

>> No.48  

Here's the thing: going on a site called "for the love of Zizek" to exchange with the people there your views that Zizek is an execrable charlatan, or coming here to tell us how Cracky aesthetic sense makes you retch is the least constructive contribution one could think of.

That's shitstorm generation material, and nothing else.

I'm sure someone with a doctorate would know that before posting anything anywhere.

>> No.49  

>>48
Well, I actually posted the link to demonstrate the dangers of a "fanboy mentality", which you seem to me to be displaying yourself in this latest comment.

I think people who admire and revere a particular personality or idea or practice should be able to listen to criticism of that personality, idea or practice without gathering into a pack of baying, snarling dogs around it/her and starting to screech in unison: "Fuck off and die, infidel!" etc.

If you read the exchanges, you'll see that my criticism, at the beginning, was expressed in very polite and moderate language. It was only when these guys started using phrases like "people of your kind" in their attempts to repel the "assault" that they believed was being made on them that I started saying things like, "Look, please don't be stupid".

(And remember, these guys had even less grounds than people here do to talk like that, as they had no knowledge of anything about me (age, nationality, or educational background) and yet were still so arrogant as to think they knew "my kind" just on the grounds of the fact that I didn't love something they loved.)

An amazingly similar development has occurred between me and the "Cracky community" over the years. It's no more the case that I completely and contemptuously reject Cracky than it is the case that I completely and contemptuously reject Zizek. My description of him as an "execrable charlatan" should be taken with the same pinch of salt as (I hope) the poster above's "commie snake-oil salesman". The really annoying thing about Zizek is that many of his ideas are very, very close to being interesting and even correct. And the "love of Cracky", likewise, is something I can ALMOST empathize and sympathize with, in certain respects.

The problem, though, is that that sort of "critical solidarity" is never ANYWHERE NEAR enough for the "fanboy mentality". The "fanboy" directs the same blind fury against the person who "doesn't love" his love-object as he does against the person who actively hates her - possibly even MORE blind fury, because the person who has expressed interest but CRITICAL interest has "touched" said object.

But enough...

>> No.50  

>>49
Arbitrarily saying "your kind" or arbitrarily painting someone as a "fanboy" is the same. You call it constructive, I see your usual provocations. After seeing you getting involved in most of the flamewars that went on in the last couple of years on CH, I can see you went there to pick a fight, pure and simple.

But it still all boils down to posting incendiary comments where you know they will not be well received, and precisely for the reasons you have a low opinion of your interlocutor.

This shows intent.

Spin it as much as you want, it's there, plain as day.

>> No.51  

>>50
Well, whether it's plain as day or not, one thing is for certain: it's going to get repeated, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, no matter what I say or do to try to convince you otherwise.

Just like the "I love Cracky" guys are going to do THEIR thing, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and the sniggering little 14-year-old baiters THEIR thing, over and over and over etc. etc. etc.

Cos it's the Internet, and the person who "wins" is not the person who proves or demonstrates anything, just the person who keeps going on and on and on and on and on and on until the other guy gets tired.

Which I hope to God I AM, at last. Surely I MUST be convinced at last that there is just NO HOPE on here of anything that could be called intelligent interaction.

>> No.52  
File: 1310773136654.jpg -(17711 B, 325x307) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
17711

>>51

Like I said, it's an imageboard. You expect too much from the denizens of 71. With the greatest respect, I suggest you learn more social skills if you wish to find like-minded individuals to converse with.

>> No.53  

>>51
So, this is why you're here? To go on and on and on until everybody else gets tired?

I rather think you're going to go on and on and on until it stops amusing you.

Same result either way...

>> No.54  

>>51
I'm sure i don't need to point out the irony in your post to you...

>> No.55  

>>51
You're going about it the wrong way.

You say that you sincerely hope that .71 manages to survive and maybe become an interesting, entertaining place, but that we'd have a better chance of doing that without you hanging around.

Prove that you are the honorable man you claim to be.

Leave.

Or better yet: shut up for a while, lurk, learn the ways of the anonymous Crackyfag, carefully avoiding recognition and joining the chorus of anonymous monks singing the praise of Our Lady through modesty, abnegation and anonymity. Wont be easy, but who doesnt love a challenge?

Maybe you'll even learn something about culture through this anti-culture, and religion through this anti-religion you never suspected was there to learn...

Others have done it, you know...

Here is a thin line, yours to do with as you please, but once.

>> No.56  

People actually still read that pseudo-intellectual drivel by that insufferable poser ? "tl;dr" is appropriate and more really than his pointless thesaurus driven rants deserve.

>> No.57  

>>56
Dropping a little oil on the fire mero?

>> No.58  

>>57
yeah, pointless second guessing of "who's who" in the crackyverse is going to help. Like the whole problem isn't people thinking they ought to be recognized for whatever reason isn't the problem in the first place.

>> No.59  

>>55
So, I guess Alex is not the honorable man he claims to be, then.

>> No.60  

>>59
What exactly would your definition of "honour" be?

I'd actually pretty much made up my mind, yesterday, to "do the honourable thing" and stop posting. But I noticed today that not only are yet greater quantities of the tedious old "insufferable old poser, uses a thesaurus" bullshit still being added to THIS thread but a NEW thread that someone just started has ALSO inevitably very quickly became a forum for people to hold long critical disquisitions on my character, intentions etc.

The former development wasn't quite so bad because ONE post on that thread, at least, seemed to have been composed by a sane, intelligent person in a spirit of witty, good-natured raillery (the "Sex Pistols" reference). I replied - as I always do to genuinely witty and friendly jokes made at my expense - in the same spirit of good humour, and I actually had hopes that we might be moving, through that thread, in the direction of something that ISN'T just spite and poison, for a change.

I see that you've noticed the same potential in that thread and - since spite and poison is what you're interested in perpetuating here - you've consequently chosen to post in THIS one, which, despite one or two sane people chipping in here too, is basically one of your traditional "we-hate-Alex-and-we-want-him-to-fucking-die" threads.

I actually find it a very saddening and wearying situation that about 75% of the posts on the first page of this board allegedly about Cracky are currently posts whining and snarling on about ME, many of them posted in my absence and when, as far as the posters were aware, I might have already been gone for good.

So yes, because I don't particularly want to be saddened and wearied, I may well take the path of what you describe as "honour" and just let you people rage on in my absence, calling me a liar and a narcissist and a destructive sadist or whatever you care to invent about me, for as many weeks or months or years as you want.

Only I would point out that THAT degree of lamb-like meekness and placidity in the face of sustained abuse is hardly a quality that merits the name of "honour". What you appear to require of me is something rather more like Christ-like self-abnegation and a sort of holy martyrdom.

That's not really my line, as I happen to be neither religious nor pseudo-religious. But if the price of leaving here is letting you spew and vomit bile and poison over my name for an indefinite period of time even AFTER I've left...well, so be it.

>> No.61  

I was refering to the honor you were using as a sort of high ground in >>47

You had a thin line to do with as you pleased, and I am disapointed with the choice you made. You may not care, or believe it but I did entertain the notion that you might do what you know is the honorable thing.

I have no interest in friendly banter with somebody who knows what the right thing is but wont do it out of spite, and constantly claims a high moral fiber while being a constant disappointment, never mind one who qualifies my appeal to his better nature as spite and poison.

Also note that by doing so you have validated most critical disquisitions on your character and intentions, and certainly did cast a doubt in my eye on every time you use the expression "I sincerely hope".

You brew that poison, and personally, I now suspect you enjoy it, in a masochistic way, as a defiant gimp calling his dominatrix a bitch when she kicks him in the nuts.

>> No.62  

>>61
You wouldn't happen to be Camel, would you?

I ask because the logic you seem to be applying here would appear to be of a similar order of absurdity to the one she applied in an e-mail she wrote to me a few months ago.

She wrote that, because she considered me to be a friend and a trusted "confidant", she wanted to ask a favour of me, and then went on to explain that the "favour" she wanted me to do her was: never contact her again and never mention her or make any reference to her in any communication with anyone else.

I pointed out to her, of course, that asking a "favour" like that has more than a little about it of "sawing off the branch one is sitting on". "Favours" are things that friends do for friends - or at least that people do for other people that they believe themselves to have SOME sort of relationship with, however lukewarm and nominal. There's a kind of "performative self-contradiction" in declaring to a person in one breath that you don't want ANY kind of relationship to exist between you and that person and then asking them, in the very next breath, to solemnly promise to observe certain restrictions not just on what they say TO you but also on what they say ABOUT you TO others. On what basis, exactly, would such a solemn promise be made? On the basis of the friendship and trust which you've just plainly declared DOESN'T exist between you and the person in question?

You'll understand, I'm sure, why the odd conception of "honour" you appear to be propounding reminds me very strongly of Camel's odd conception of "friendship" and "trust". That is to say, I suspect one would have to be as much of an idiot to fall for your "please be honourable" line as one would have to be in order to fall for Camel's "Alex, for the sake of our friendship I ask you this favour..." line.

As I pointed out to Camel, asking someone to "prove their friendship by benignly and obediently accepting that there is going to be no contact or relation between us of any sort in the future" is - since, from that point on, the "friendship" in question would only have a completely invisible, intangible, "transcendental" existence - actually, in practical terms, just a very roundabout, hypocritical way of saying: "I don't want to be friends with you anymore. I have no more use for you. Fuck off."

I have to ask myself: would the "honour" that would accrue to me through my finally ceasing to be a "disappointment" to you and permanently refraining from posting on this board be a purely "transcendental-invisible" honour analogous to Camel's "transcendental-invisible" trust and friendship? I mean, would there be any way of ACTUALLY TANGIBLY AND PRAGMATICALLY DISTINGUISHING between a situation whereby you and your buddies would have arrived at the position: "Well, so it turns out that Alex WAS a man of honour after all. Respect is owed to him for having meant well by the board - even though he's gone for good" and a situation in which you would have arrived at the position: "Fuckin A! He's gone for good. Who gives a fuck whether he was a man of honour or not. The important thing is we don't have to deal with that fucker."

I have to admit that I strongly suspect that the answer to both these questions is "yes" - that is, that your appeal to my "sense of honour" is really, as was Camel's appeal to my "friendship", just a rather "pretentious" (if you'll excuse the term) way of saying what the (much) less "pretentious" section of the board tend to say in just two brief syllables, the second of which is "off".

>> No.63  

tl;dr

It's sad that you're not wanted on a board where a Simon or even a Schwill, living synopsis of the DSM-4, was tolerated.

It's not your "superior intellect" that keeps you from connecting with people, it's your sociopatic personality.
But surely, there's always an excuse as to why you are being rejected; in real life, on the internet, everywhere.

>> No.64  

No, I am not Camel, I am just someone who took you at your word when you said that you sincerely hoped that .71 manages to survive and maybe become an interesting, entertaining place, but that we'd have a better chance of doing that without you hanging around.

It seems you didnt mean it, and the subsequent posts even suggest you meant the exact opposite.

So leave or dont leave, but add me to the crowd of Crackyfags that read aggression and deceit in everything you do, especially when you claim that you have bounceme's good and welfare at heart.

Not that you'd care, apparently, you prefer it that way.

>> No.65  
File: 1310889273738.jpg -(59352 B, 384x333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
59352

>>62 ITT: Alex still doesn't realize that exactly the same crowd populates both boards, with the exception of Gayry who's probably responsible for 80% of the non Cecil or Mero shit posts on CH, only he'll never fess up to it. Probably is Deletor too.

>> No.66  

>>65
No, I actually succeeded in working out that that was probably the case a couple of weeks ago.

I think it was on the same day that I discovered that you can copy and paste stuff using the "Control" key and the "C" button.

The subtle clue that gave it all away was the fact that no one has posted anything at all on CH since I stopped posting there, except some REALLY disturbing psycho-type who's screaming for photos of the thighs of some lesbian heroin-addict ripped apart by boat-hooks.

It's odd how I do feel impelled to respond to this stuff, though, even though I'm really fully aware that it's almost certainly just the same one or two little narcissistic show-offs who feel that I'm taking the spotlight away from them trotting out the same old insults for the umpteenth time.

It's not explainable by masochism, I assure you. The only form of abuse from MEN that I get off on is when they have sex with RavRav and taunt me about it. (RavRav's ex-boyfriend's large collection of computer games was largely funded by Paypal payments made for just this service in the course of 2009 and 2010).

The explanation for why I keep coming back HERE for more abuse is probably the much sadder, much less sexual one, I'm afraid, that I just don't have the inner strength to actually live by that principle of a total renunciation of human contact that my razor-shop mind and noble heart have established to be the only right one for me.

>> No.67  

>>65

I only frequent .71
I rest assured any rares posted there will end up here right after anyway, (not to mention that the order probably would be the other way round)

>> No.68  

>>66
you leaving the Crackyverse would be a win-win, too bad you keep going out of your way to be a loser

>> No.69  

>>66

>It's odd how I do feel impelled to respond to this stuff, though, even though I'm really fully aware that it's almost certainly just the same one or two little narcissistic show-offs who feel that I'm taking the spotlight away from them trotting out the same old insults for the umpteenth time.

It's kinda funny how the only faults you find in others are the ones that you yourself possess most prominently. Also, you think that we respond to you because you're taking the spotlight away from us insulting you? I'll leave you a moment to consider that circular logic.

Okay, now that you're done contriving an irrational explanation for why people respond negatively to your destructive presence, I'll give you a little more practice for the doublethink you use to tell yourself that you are appreciated here, since it's clear you think your posts all have some social, intellectual, or moral merit. People respond negatively to your posts because you diminish the enjoyment they get from these sites. You seem to think that people actually want to read your solipsistic rants about how something someone mentioned reminded you of something else, which in turn gave you inspiration to share with us a long analysis of god-knows-what. These long non sequiturs, due to the immense space they invariable take up, always distract from the conversation at hand, contributing nothing but an attempt at inflating your already extravagant ego, as you sit hoping that someone will tell you that your blithering is actually deeply insightful or meaningful. Your complete indifference to the fact that people were actually having a conversation completely unrelated to your tirade is why people come to hate you.

Besides lectures that no one wants to hear, we also have to endure equally long diatribes about how you're better than anyone criticizing you, which, ironically, always include accusations of narcissism and immaturity. No criticism can go unanswered, as you seem completely unable to walk away from any discussion about you that doesn't consist of praise, which it never does. You apparently need to excuse yourself of or deflect any criticism of you that would imply that you are not the "nice guy" that you think you are.

So no, the flak you get from posting in the Crackyverse is not because we're all envious of your obvious superiority: it's because your presence is incredibly destructive, as you make it a tremendous struggle to read the original conversations that you bury under a mountain of love-letters to your ego. You keep telling us and yourself that you have received numerous statements of praise and appreciation in the past, but even if this dubious claim is true, look around you: no one wants to put up with your bullshit anymore. The fact that you are wholly indifferent to everyone around you telling you that your input isn't appreciated, and the fact that you cannot acknowledge any related criticism of your callous and self-absorbed behavior, makes it very clear that you've been asked to leave any social or academic congregations that you've joined in your life, or been excluded until you stopped showing up of your own accord. And that, of course, is why WE have to deal with your infantile behavior: you can get away with it here, because no amount of us asking you to leave will get through to you in this medium. You can always just tell yourself that there are people silently appreciating your brilliant insights, and that your detractors are a small, jealous minority, and it's no coincidence that you choose to spend your time on boards that move slowly and have little moderation: you can interrupt as big a portion of conversations as you want, and the user base can do nothing about it.

But of course, your damaged psyche will never allow you to openly admit what you're doing, even if everyone who is unwillingly exposed to your pathetic life can deduce it very quickly. And when everyone makes it clear you're not welcome, you always fall back on informing us how everyone here is below you, while promising to leave, wondering aloud as to why you come here. Despite having said you'll leave hundreds of times, you never do, because you so desperately need the attention, regardless of whether it's negative or positive, because even insults are better than getting off the internet and facing a life where no one wants even the slightest thing to do with you. God knows why you need the attention, but my guess is your parents severely neglected you. Regardless, you come here and shit on any thread you feel like, insulting anyone and everyone that doesn't lavish you with the praise you think you deserve, and persist in your destructive presence no matter how much it's made clear that you aren't welcome or appreciated here, and THAT is genuine narcissism. Your posts are responded to with negativity because you are trash; genuine human garbage. But I think, deep down, you know that, which is why you'll never stop doing what you're doing. I just thought I should point out that everyone here sees through you, and you are no more welcome here than you were in all the places you've been throughout your life where people have universally rejected you. Please get your attention somewhere else.

>> No.70  

>>69
Crikey.

What puzzles me is that no one, either here or on Crackyhouse, ever seems moved to carry out an exposé of the inconsistencies and absurdities of THIS sort of post in the way they carry out exposés of mine.

I mean, there ARE some noteworthy oddities to it, aren't there, such as

(i) making such heavy play of these "original conversations" which, frankly, I can't see any evidence of at all. Surely you're not referring, when you say "conversation", to someone saying "I saw Crackys poon teehee" followed by someone else saying "no you dident"? Or to monosyllabic "is / isn't" / "is / isn't" contests about whether a detail in a photo of some random cam-whore's ass is a scrotum or a doorknob? Or - and I suppose this, sadly, is the most likely possibilty - to some "revered oldfag's" responding to the childish baiting of a 14-year-old from 4chan by wheeling out the ancient, exhausted joke of a bad imitation of the King James Bible for the umpteenth time: "Yea verily thou hast no understanding ye heathen lo and lest of the blessedness of those whom She has verily etc. etc. etc."?

I won't indulge in the groundless ignorant speculations about the further details of your life that you indulge about mine, but there really must be SOMETHING seriously wrong with you if you're hallucinating that anyone is actually having a CONVERSATION with anyone else on this board.

The only APPROACHES to anything like a "conversation" here are ALL made my ME and I think you'll find that the only threads I've "taken over" - for many weeks at least - are threads that no one was pursuing anyway, such as the one at the bottom of this page which began with the silly question about "who took the photo in the woods".

>> No.71  

>>70
And....well, I won't go on to list the other absurdities (such as the insane over-reaction implied by calling someone a "piece of human garbage" and so on just for making a few jokes on a near-dead image board that happen not to be to your taste).

I won't go on because I get sad as I note and list the utter sadness and triviality of the "contributions" made to boards like this and Crackyhouse and think that I bother to engage in interaction (well, attempts at interaction) here at all.

That does, it's true, make ME a pretty sad case.

Not as sad a case as YOU, of course, who - despite obviously being a relatively articulate individual well beyond junior-high-school age - appear to suffer from the pathetic delusion that there is something to be "defended" here tooth-and-nail.

But certainly sad enough to disgust myself.

So I really will drop it now.

Rage on for as long as you like. I won't be looking at this board from now on, any more than I will at the definitely dead-as-a-doornail Crackyhouse.

>> No.72  

>>71
Oh how you tease us with promises you'll never keep.

>> No.73  

I love how 71 has descended into open warfare

>> No.74  

just so there is no "pretention" floating around: fuck right off, Reynolds, you fucking parasite

>> No.75  

What is absurd is thinking Crackyfags would come to your defense after being at the receiving end of all the contempt you have thrown at them here and at CH.

Blame yourself for that one.

>> No.76  
File: 1310944023117.png -(56714 B, 179x135) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
56714

>>73 FUCK YEAH WAR!

Here's camel enjoying herself

>> No.77  

>>76
You're the only one who's really going to miss him...

>> No.78  

>>76

holy fuck! that real? More!

>> No.79  

>>76

moar!

camel and white cock guy ftw!

>> No.80  

cracky rares for the video

>> No.81  

>>80

who's cock is that?
WB's?

>> No.82  

>>81
Why doesn't anyone want to talk about my moral worthiness or unworthiness any more?

>> No.83  

>>82

Shut up, find me more pics.

>> No.84  

>>83
Would that I could.

It's not necessarily her, though. There's a surprisingly large number of girls out there whose faces form more or less perfect equilateral or isosceles triangles.

In his sequence of "Corum Jhaelen Irsei" fantasy novels from the early 1970s, Michael Moorcock even posited a whole para-human species -the "Vadagh" - who displayed this physical characteristic.

This may well, then, be an image, captured by trans-dimensional digital technology, of a beautiful Vadagh maiden engaged in her culture's traditional "Spirit-Quest for the Eternal Negro" (if it is, she's shown here at a stage of the Quest situated pretty close to its beginning: namely, going down on fairly well-hung white guys, so as to loosen up the thorax muscles for the eventual confrontation with the Final Nemesis).

>> No.85  
File: 1311021692855.jpg -(34613 B, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
34613

The face actually reminds me of Lia ever so slightly.

>> No.86  

>>85

beautiful, where's that pic from?

>> No.87  
File: 1311022143374.jpg -(248442 B, 800x1120) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
248442

>>85
OK, this thread is obviously up for grabs now and will go to He of the Strongest Will and his favoured cam-whore

>> No.88  
File: 1311022591013.jpg -(99182 B, 570x703) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
99182

>>84

Good to hear MM mentioned. Funny, but your words sounded like something I saved last night:

>> No.89  
File: 1311022662965.jpg -(4958 B, 310x163) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
4958

>>87
I also think Rose Byrne, who plays "Helen" in that TV show "Damages" is REALLY REALLY REALLY pretty...though I realize that film of her sucking cock - be it black, white or (and I mention the unlikely impossibility only for the sake of euphony) yellow - would be a very tall order indeed.

>> No.90  

>>88
Hmmm...the lines quoted are intriguing.

Ballard's a bit of a glaring hole in my general culture, but a lot of artists whom I DO know and admire esteem him highly, so maybe I should make an effort to check him out, even at this late date.

His volumes - some of them dauntingly bulky to the eyes of a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old - were certainly among those I used to see lying around, together with Moorcock's and others, in the living quarters of the older boys and of the younger, more approachable, "hippy"-generation teachers in the last two or three of the British boarding schools I attended around 1973, '74, '75. Possibly, the only reason I fastened on Moorcock rather than on Ballard was because the former's novels tended to be flimsy little things in comparison to giants like "Stand on Zanzibar", running to only 100 or 150 pages. I have no doubt, though, that Ballard was the finer author.

>> No.91  

>>90
Oh Jesus. I've just discovered that "Stand on Zanzibar", which I cited as a J.G. Ballard novel, was in fact by John Brunner.
Ah well, at least I began by saying that Ballard was "a glaring hole in my general culture", so that just bears that out.
The "New Wave" science fiction authors of the early-to-mid 1970s really are just a blur (though a deeply impressive blur)in my memory since, as I said, they were really the "property" of the generation(s) just above me.

But back to Camel and cocks....

>> No.92  
File: 1311024855246.jpg -(47547 B, 216x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
47547
>> No.93  

moar camel plz

>> No.94  

trading cracky rares for camel fuck

>> No.95  

>>94

blatently camel trying to extract cracky rarez



Delete Post []
Password