I heard her voice the other day. It sounds so sweet just like candy falling from the heavens at 102,264 miles an hour and it crushes my heart. I wish she would call. I wish I didn't feel alone but I do. I put too much hope in her. I should really stop doing that. It just leads to dissapointment.

Her blessings are so twisted, and hidden.
Do not lament the curse you have found,
for you would thus lament Her every blessing.

I know why you're here, Anon. I know what you've been doing. I know why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit at your computer. You're looking for Her. I know, because I was once looking for the same thing. And when She found me, She told me I wasn't really looking for Her. I was looking for an answer. It's the question that drives us, Anon. It's the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.

>>3

How dare you soil Botticelli like that. You should be ashamed.

>>5
Clumsily vandalizing, via Photoshop, the artistic patrimony of the ages is a large part of the "Cracky culture" these risible idiots make such a po-faced, pompous to-do about.

With their "thou"s and "thee"s, almost invariably hooked up to the wrong person of whatever archaic Jacobean verb they believe they're sounding impressive with, they're the 2011 equivalent of those now-almost-unimaginable dunderheads who, around the time that decals, production-line printing techniques and so on first came into affordable general use, began in all innocence and seriousness to turn out toilet-seat-covers with the Mona Lisa on them, versions of Michelangelo'd David in the form of coat-racks etc. etc.

These unspeakable and hilarious mental deficients were pretty much driven into extinction by the advent, around the mid-1980's, of the first-generation of super-ironic "post-modern" hipsters, who did the same thing but with knowing superior looks at one another.

Here at .71, however, we have Jurassic Park for fans of hopeless vulgar pretentiousness: the "Mona Lisa Toilet Seat Guy" who isn't even laughing at his own sickeningly bad taste.

And the nice friendly good natured gentleman is back to start some constructive, civil interaction with a bunch of spoilt two-year-olds banging their spoons on their high-chair, not even aware the value of the wisdom this benevolent fixer of websites is bestowing on them, again...

Well I wouldnt want to make a liar out of such an honest man, so here it is: fuck off, troll.

>>7
Note that these people are so verbally challenged and so devoid of imagination that they have to endlessly recycle not only their laughably clumsily composed and paralyzingly boring "excerpts from Holy Scripture" but even their "cleverly ironical" retorts to anyone who points out what sad mediocrities they actually are.

The parable of the troll under the mountain, for him to hear who needs to.

The troll under the mountain had been living in his cold, dark and damp hole for a long time. When he needed his ration of attention, he would come out, be obnoxious, get his ration and then he would go back to his hole. He then would remember how good the sun felt on his skin, as everybody was insulting him and enjoining him to go back to his cold, dark and damp cave. Surely, this was the best he could get. When he came out while it was raining for instance, nobody would be there for him to insult and to give him the attention he so intensely craved.

He could have stayed out until the sun came out, but what would have been the point. What he wanted was attention. Like the attention his mom would only give him when he spilled the milk. Or broke her things. Or failed a class. Or, lied about some nasty thing he pretended he had done.

And so, he learned how to feel love out of hatred, and whenever he would feel the sun on his skin, he knew he was sure to find people to abuse and insult, in order for him to feel the hate of his mother again. He was, after all, a little bit lazy. When he would get out, and it rained, or it was cold, dark and damp outside, he would go back to his cave and hate himself, out of love for his mother.

And what would a parable be without a morale: don’t hate the trolls, they learn hate at the tit of their mother, they just don’t know any better.

>>8
i.e. it probably took this poor mental asthmatic about an hour and a half to compose this post, and match it up to this image macro, a few days ago.

He'll be in convalescence and incapable of further mental effort for about a year or so now - I mean, he used IRONY! that's like Merlin "waking the World-Dragon" in his little world of single-figure IQs - so he'll just keep recycling this one "fuck you troll" post during that whole period - reaping endless LOLs thereby from his equally mentally challenged buddies.

feel flattered you got your own pasta?

>>9
The parable of the ignorant pretentious idiot on the Internet:

There was once an ignorant pretentious idiot who thought it made him look clever and important to deface famous paintings, and cobble together absurd incompetent pastiches of the King James Bible, and post the results of this on the Internet for him and four or five other equally ignorant pretentious people to admire and coo over.

Occasionally, someone with an education would pass by and remark: "Oh look, an ignorant pretentious idiot."

But that didn't stop him.

The moral: stupid people are there to be laughed at, not argued with.

>>10
It's still appropriate, and so is the macro.

You are a troll that either derails threads, throws insults around, whines he's been treated unfairly or that his humor is misunderstood out of spite, in whichever order, over and over and over.

WHARRGARBL indeed.

>>12
So, that's why you are here then, to laugh at ignorant pretentious idiots?

>>12
Go back to your cave, maybe there's a RavRav e-mail waiting for you in there...

Oh look, a flamewar, involving Alex, that he "technically" didnt start himself...

Point of order:

Babelfish typically reintroduces thee and thou in English when one of the target languages is French or Italian...

You are grasping at straws to find ways to express your contempt for Crackyfags, by flaunting an education which is your only asset, yet has no relevance in this world of narrowly set boundaries you care nothing about.

You're a salmon going up a stream cursing it for running against you.

>>17
Oh come on, don't try to tell me that it's just an accident of technology that the Patmos Gospel and all that bullshit is composed in a language approximate (approximate to the point of incompetence) to that of the King James Bible.

Clearly, the "thees" and "thous" are part of the deliberate attempt to create a "religious aura".

A sign in itself of vulgarity and of "how dangerous a thing a little learning is" because, of course, the fact that the English translation of the Bible which continues to mold our Christian rhetoric and sentiment today was produced in the late 16th / early 17th century is a fact of pure historical contingency which should have no relevance at all to religious language or feeling per se.

If what you are really concerned with in the "religion of Cracky" is some new truth or insight, and not just vain appearance and showing off, there is so need for the 16th century English, and all the "Lo"s and "Yea"s and "Fondly deem the Greeks" (whatever the fuck THAT means) at all.

Clearly, being hostile to Alex is absolutely unjustified. We need to stop and embrace this benevolent beacon of culture and thus be forever enlightened before we become completely and irremediably hopeless pretentious idiots...

Erm, do I need to explain how my pic is related?

Please remember people, all the grandstanding not withstanding, when you reply to him, you're really replying to a guy who posted nudes of himself to a 15 year old girl over the internet. Fun and games as it might seem to be,
ask yourself, "Do I really want to do this ?"

ok alex since you have never contibuted anything to the crackyverse that anyone has ever appreciated why dont you write your own cracky gospel and make it better than the existing ones.

>>18
Believe what you will. Patmos is composed of random phrases of the nonsensical Gospel, with some minimal rearrangement.

But what do you care?

Dont tell me it matters to you that someone is having fun with this?

Or is it just because they refuse to include you in their fun?

>>18

I always understood "fondly deem the Greeks" meant "feed the trolls" and "The Greeks were me, they were nurtured" as "I was a well fed troll"...

Is that irony?

>>20
Hey, if you're going to invent underage girls that I posted nudes of myself to, I have to say you're being a little pusillanimous - or maybe just characteristically unimaginative - in the "wild, desperate, venomous slander" department.

Why not make her 12? or 8?

Or a boy?

Or a 4-year-old purple-assed Guatamelan baboon?

That's the one really indisputable advantage in being a slimy cowardly snivelling little liar, after all.

Once you've sunk to that level, there's no reason not to go the whole hog.

>>23
I've had it quoted at me a few times, and it always struck me as some kind of hopelessly garbled version of the well-known passage from the Letter to the Romans that speaks about the idea of the Crucified Messiah's being "a stumbling block to the Jews and a foolishness to the Greeks" (I'm quoting from memory, so it may be the other way around, or may even be from "Corinthians").

If that's the model, it's certainly one of the passages from the New Testament that provides the richest soil for speculation, imagination and creativity, precisely identifying, as it does, the two very different kinds of "absurdity" that the mystery of kenosis seemed to be to two major cultures of the Hellenic era.

But you don't seem to be making much of it, so maybe it just was some shit flung together at random cos it sounded good.

>>24
The point was the pic, rather than her exact age, but ok.

I suppose you consider yourself courageous for posting it, and once you've sunk to that level, there's no reason not to go the whole hog, right?

You're really full of yourself...

This troll is on such a high, imagine him crashing now...

It's going to be ugly...

>>25
No, it's shit flung together at random cos it's how babelfish works.

As usual, you over analyze everything, no wonder you're always wrong.

But answer this: what good can possibly come from anything you posted in this thread?

>>26
Oh. I see. "The point was the pic, not the age", so really there's no difference that makes a difference in this case between an unspecified "15-year-old girl" - who, although unspecified, still nonetheless somehow evokes in the mind visions of some frail breastless virgin sleeping in the lap of her still-youthful mother - and a 22-year-old who, in times of financial difficulty, makes a living fucking herself in the ass for strangers on MFC.

If I didn't know already that you people, besides being vicious cunts, completely lack all sense of humour, I'd point out the astonishing resemblance between your logic here and the logic applied in some episodes of the brilliant British satire show, "Brass Eye".

Like the sketch where Chris Morris sets out to find out how many 20-year-olds are taking drugs by surveying a sample of ten young people of that age. No 20-year-olds are available at the time so he uses 50 4-year-olds instead, because, after all, "the age is not the point".

>>28
The good that comes of it is it's funny.

Carry on with your turgid gospelry if you wish, I'm not stopping you.

A few people may be getting a giggle, though, out of my running rings around malevolent, stupid liars like the guy who somehow thought he was going to play the "pedophile card" by turning a 22-year-old cam-whore into a "15-year-old girl".

Such people are made to be laughed at.

>>30
I think they're all too busy laughing at you

>>29
The age matters, just not so much hers...

>>30

>The good that comes of it is it's funny.

So the good that comes of it is that you are amusing yourself at our expense?

That's what I call being a vicious cunt, with a seriously lacking sense of humor(not necessarily the same as lacking a sense of humor).

How could you ever have imagined you'd be welcomed with anything else than rabbid hostility?

>>30
malevolent is coming here to tell us how contemptible you think we are over and over again

Big words for a guy who literally got his ass handed (back) to him on the Internet.

All the words in the world aren't going to make up for the fact that you are, in fact, a retard who wasn't smart enough NOT to post his hairy ass on the internet; an act that even the lowly mudshark usually can manage to accomplish.

>>35
HEY
my ass aint that hairy

Seriously, Reynolds, you only came here to stir shit...

Like we really should believe you give a flying fuck about the King James Bible or Boticelli...

It was either that or anything else would have been on the front page, and everybody knows it.

Oddly enough I made the comment, not Alex. You don't have to be Alex to care about art.

>>38
Fuck off Alex.

>>38
seriously, a crackyfag that objects to adding red noses and cat ears to classical paintings?

what sort of crackyfag is that?

>>35
Another good joke that was made a few times on "Brass Eye" was about how the word "literally" tends to be constantly egregiously misused by idiots who think that using it at all just HAS to make them sound like some great public orator.

It is actually completely impossible for anyone's ass to be handed back to them "literally" on the Internet because "literally" means "in actual physical fact" - as opposed to "metaphorically", or just "by way of speaking" - and "the Internet" is not a space that can actually accommodate any physical object. That's why it's the Internet.

Given that you are yourself too stupid to get your head around such basic verbal distinctions, I suppose there really isn't any point in going on to try to explain such weighty matters as the nature of "stupidity" itself to you.

Suffice to say, then, that my posting - as one, incidentally, of a probable total of about 15,000 posts on the Internet in the past few years - a naked photo of myself on .71 was not a question of "not knowing better".

The "secret" to it is just the very simple one that I really don't give a shit. I have nothing to hide from anyone nor anything very much to lose, so all the back-watching and back-stabbing that goes on in the sad little world that you people have made for yourselves is nothing but a source of bemused puzzlement for me.

Alex comes here to insult people that wont be able to physically punch his lights out when he does

that's why he always talk of cowardice and not giving a shit

he, in fact, does very much give a shit

it's all he has left

It's a little annoying that he or anyone can just interrupt a thread where someone might be trying to establish a theme.

But on a free image board, nothing to be done about that.

>>40

Do whatever you want to paintings, just not Botticelli.

>>44
Ok, I'll bite...

Why Caravaggio, for example, but not Botticelli?

>>42
So, the appropriate and "righteous" response to my saying to someone: "I think it's rather silly and tasteless of you to deface and vandalize very beautiful paintings just to show how much you like some girl you saw on 4chan", or my saying to someone: "Telling everybody that I sent a naked photo of myself to an insinuatedly non-complicit '15-year-old girl' when you know very well that the girl was 22 and was entirely complicit in such matters makes you a vicious liar" is for both these people to "punch my lights out"?

Quite aside from the fact that I'm one of the people who LEAST hides behind the shield of anonymity on these boards - i.e. you're welcome to try your luck if you feel you really MUST - you and I clearly have rather different understandings of "how to win an argument".

Yours is the understanding prevalent among idiot thugs who can only make their viewpoint prevail by beating the representative of the opposing viewpoint unconscious.

>>41
Yes, you got your ass handed to you, instead of just being brutally bested at something as the expression normally implies.
That was literally YOUR ASS, which was handed to you over tcp/ip.
It's called "humour", which you pride yourself on, but factually lack sorely. It usually requires "abstraction" a faculty of real intellect, which you do not posses in any discernable measures, your attempts of plastering over it by being wordy notwithstanding.
People don't dislike you because you're smart. They dislike you because you're shallow and pretend to be deep.
You're a simpleton, a poor deluded idiot with delusions of being an intellectual. Raffling through as many words on stage as possible without comprehension or insight and then complaining when it rains tomatoes afterwards.

>>46
I'm pretty sure most people, not just thugs, would have the impulse to punch you out if you called them vicious cunts to their faces, but hey, what do I know...

You act as the equivalent of a bully on the internet precisely because nobody can do a thing about it, contrary to the real world.

Spin it as much as you want, that's the bottom line.

>>46
that's the thing isnt it?

you're here "to win arguments"?

pwners and baiters indeed...

Alex is here because after being rejected by his peers, his love and just about everybody he ever met, he has to convince himself that all those people he once esteemed are now beyond contempt.

The easy way to get the reassurance fix needed for that is to go to websites populated by people he does consider beyond contempt and be as obnoxious as he can, so he can put some bitter-sweet vindication balm on his real life scars.

I pity him.

>>50 I don't understand why he is so insulting about Cracky and Crackyfags now, given that he was co-moderator at CH for so long? Why was he interested in all this in the first place, and how did that interest turn to a crusade to attack this board here?

>>48
Well, the people I call "vicious cunts" ARE generally vicious cunts, sorry.

I don't go around callng someone a "vicious cunt" who's done nothing but vandalized a Botticelli or confused "literally" with "metaphorically". I call them "a vandal" or "not very well educated", as is appropriate.

But I think it's likewise only appropriate to actually use the term "vicious cunt" to describe a guy who makes a post on the Internet about someone's sexual relations with a girl and knowingly states her to be seven years younger than she is so as to gain the unfair advantage of presenting someone he hates as a pedophile.

The problem here is that - all the blather about "the non-self of Anonymous" notwithstanding - the Crackyverse is full of people who are staggeringly vain and self-regarding and become as deeply, bitterly and furiously wounded and angry at being called "tasteless" or "insufficiently educated" as they would - justifiably - at being called a malevolent lying cunt.

>>51

>>51
No. I was never interested in Cracky.

That, I'll admit, is a very weak point in my wall of justification for being here (or there).

One of the several teenage girls whom Jeff murdered as "dry-runs" for Cracky was my sister, and I happened to be hiding in the laundry basket with my father, eating several pairs of the filthy bitch's elaborately soiled panties, as he committed the act.

I used this to blackmail him into making me co-moderator of Crackyhouse, because I had nothing else in my life.

>>51
Alex is Jeff, obviously

>>49
this

>>52
NO
ONE
CARES

FUCK
OFF
ALEX

does that even register with you ? Noone, including yourself, is interested in your life or what you have to tell. You're not wanted here and that's not likely to change. Even your sockpuppet posters usually turn against you, and that's just you talking to yourself.
We (and that's not "a silent majority) dislike you, you dislike you, and that's about the only thing that's in unison here and all that's ever discussed with you "How much we dislike Alex, including Alex".
Unfortunately this board isn't about you, so there's nothing, NOTHING, left to discuss.
Go make your own board. Hell, make it a blog, "Alex' virtual pit of selfloathing and pity" and venture off to find a readership.
Just post a link here so any forlorn soul interested can find it and be off on your merry way,

>>52
So, answer this, honestly this time, apart from your own amusement (nobody else is laughing, and you know it), what good could ever come out of all of what you posted here today?

>>58

The whole "flame-war" could have settled into a friendly discussion at many, many points. Once or twice, it almost has.

I certainly respond to vicious liars like the guy with the imaginary 15-year-old in a way that does NOT invite or allow "dialogue", but nobody will seriously claim that guys like that want dialogue anyway.

But my remarks on the painting business and the gospel business could have been the beginning of a robust, yes, but still respectful discussion about such things, if anybody had cared to mount a reasoned defence of what you're doing.

No one did, though, really. It's about as difficult having a discussion with you as it is with many Muslims. Even a well-meaning, constructive criticism of the Koran is immediately interpreted as a blasphemous attack, so discussion just never gets started.

>>59

>Clumsily vandalizing, via Photoshop, the artistic patrimony of the ages is a large part of the "Cracky culture" these risible idiots make such a po-faced, pompous to-do about.

No, it never was going to, you made sure of it. This was never going to be anything else than a flamewar, on the first pretext you found.

>>59
a defense implies an attack

>>59

>But my remarks on the painting business and the gospel business could have been the beginning of a robust, yes, but still respectful discussion about such things.

I see. So how about the ass-business then ? Would you care to clarify robustly about you posting your naked ass on the Internet and how such behaviour is morally superior to, say, not posting your posterior online, with all due respectfulness of course ?

> if anybody had cared to mount a reasoned defence of what you're doing.

Yes, a reasoned defense of what you're doing would be appreciated, especially pertaining to the public posting of your cheeks and having had the privilege of paying a girl of undisclosed age to be able to do so. It would be a most interesting read on how to establish morally and intellectually upstanding behaviour in a post-modern online world.

>>62
You seem to be getting rather disproportionately excited about the "ass" business. (By the way, the - putting it mildly - modest proportions of my genitalia seem to be giving rise to some misunderstanding here. It's true that no penis will be visible to those of you not equipped with some form of powerful magnifying device. Nevertheless, the photo WAS a FRONTAL photograph).

Or, in other words, my action was "post-modern" at least in the sense that one major problem with modernity and its "grand narratives" was that the 19th Century eminence grises tended to take themselves rather too seriously.

>>63

>my action was "post-modern" at least in the sense that one major problem with modernity and its "grand narratives" was that the 19th Century eminence grises tended to take themselves rather too seriously.

good to know you're not just a sad old horny man posting nudes to young girls online, because, you know, the less educated people might fail to see the genius behind your action and mistake it as such.

Alex, you know perfectly well there never will be any discussion here for you.

Any and all your posts will always have to cut through the tremendous amount of bullshit you've already thrown about, and I doubt even the nicest thing you could ever say about Cracky would do it, which you never even tried.

No, by everybody's admission, including your own, every one of your posts will start a flamewar.

You can blame our stupidity all you want, but you are the one initiating all those flamewars, and knowingly.

Which makes you nothing more than a troll.

DAT'S MAH PECKER RIGHT THUR

I AM TEH ARTS

>>64
Um...if I'd wanted to post my nudes "to young girls online" I think you'll agree I could have chosen several more suitable sites than .71.

Crackyhouse USED to have a few regular girl visitors, I know, including at least two of quite spectacular attractiveness.

Does this place have ANY?

>>63
taking yourself seriously would be, you know, to object to drawing cat ears on classic paintings or writing mock gospels for any other reason than having fun with it...

>>68
Maybe that DOES bring us a little closer to the fundamental difference between me and most of the people in this "community".

There's a difference, you know, between taking ONESELF seriously and taking seriously things that have proven their seriousness and deservingness of reverence down centuries and millenia.

You lot hold your own petty SELVES - including your faddish adulation of a 15-year-old girl off the Internet - to be infinitely worthy of respect and reverence, to the point of feeling justified in "punching out the lights" of anyone who suggests you might not be the cleverest, coolest people in the world. But everything else in the world is just shit to you, for you to scrawl over and leave your "tags" on.

With me, things are pretty much the opposite way round. I don't consider myself to deserve very much reverence or respect at all, and am generally much happier to take myself as an object of mockery than I am to take others, if only because the material lies nearer to hand. But if I've been fortunate and "privileged" in anything it's in having had instilled in me a certain respect and appreciation for things that embody those better and best aspects of humanity that most of us catch, at best, very fleeting glimpses of. I.e. there are certain things that I would feel revolted at the idea of leaving my trivial little "tags" on, or of creating parodies and travesties of on the basis of a vulgar, superficial familiarity.

>>69
"to the fundamental difference between me and most of the people in this "community"."

It's actually that most people in this community aren't a tremendous douche, unlike you. Didn't read the rest of what you wrote, but it's more douchery, no doubt.

have a nice day.

>>69
I would punch your lights out not because of what you say, but of how you say it. You go out of your way to be offensive, you cant blame people for having this very normal and human impulse. No wonder you live as a exile and a recluse.

Your sense of humor consist of mocking others or yourself. You dismiss as ridiculous whatever you disagree with in the most derogatory terms you can find(that is the only creative aspect I've ever witnessed you display), and you disagree with everything here, giving you no reason to be nice to anyone except for vaguely hinting that there maybe somebody here worthy enough of your intelligence, which is more of an excuse to come back and mostly an occasion to say your interlocutor is not that person.

For all the respect and appreciation for things that embody those better and best aspects of humanity you profess to possess, you have never shown any of those aspects here. You are certainly the most unkind and least compassionate person I've ever met online. Let's not talk about the respect you have for yourself or others, which you just freely admit you dont have...

In fact, you are proving to be the villain rather than the victim.

Your imput, for whatever reason is disruptive, and you know it is. Once it clearly has turned to a full blown flamewar, you keep fuelling it. I claim that you are here because that's how you like it. You say you hate it, but you come back for more.

You actions speaks louder than all the words you drown them with...

You are nothing but a vulgar troll.

>>69

>leaving my trivial little "tags"

you done that already...

...when you showed us your "balls"

>>59

>But my remarks on the painting business and the gospel business could have been the beginning of a robust, yes, but still respectful discussion about such things, if anybody had cared to mount a reasoned defence of what you're doing.

If by robust you meant dismissive and by respectfull you meant derogatory, then yes, how obtuse of us to not want to engage with someone who has already his mind made up that we are islamofascist dogs who want to deface all that he hold dear, such as Botticelli and the King James Bible...

I mean, come on, the first word was "clumsily". Not only were we defacing the artistic patrimony of the ages but we were doing it clumsily. Not only were we idiots, but risible ones, and pompous too. If that is what you call well-meaning and constructive criticism, no wonder you cant talk religion with Muslims, or Crackyfags for that matter...

No good was going to come of it, and you knew it. There is no good that will ever come of you posting here, unless your amusement at the expense of others can be considered good. I somehow doubt that a couple of thousand years worth of human culture have shown the rest of humanity that it has.