If there were a Church of Cracky would you attend? Would you donate?
Anonymous
If you were an uninspired, boring, narcissistic little shit, would you ever give up posting your repetitive, derivative, infantile, pseudo-religious shit on boards like this one? Would you ever accept that Bounceme vanished up its own arsehole because this "Church" crap is sterile and uninteresting to anybody except you and maybe one other sad, vain psycho?
>>1363 She is holy. I'm sorry you haven't seen that yet.
Anonymous
>>1373 Weirdly - or maybe not so weirdly - I seem to detect a close affinity between the narcissism and the autism of the Crackyfag and the narcissism and the autism that I have had to deal with all these years in that fellow decided non-Crackyfag, RavRav. Admittedly, hers got ten times worse when Kimi plucked her out of the Crackyfag milieu and raised her to the Olympian heights - the "yawning heights" to use the cunning phrase of the Russian satirist Zinoviev (not that it was his phrase; I don't even know what his phrase was, since I don't speak Russian; come back to me, you evil destructive little bitch, teach me things, I miss you even though I want to throttle you) - of Shoreditch hipsterdom. We actually had fairly frequent and extended Skype conversations during the weeks when she was "US executive producer" for her hipster housemate's toweringly average "animated science-fiction comedy" and I became very familiar from those conversations with this very same autistic "commiseration" with those who "just could not see" what she had convinced herself she saw in this puerile little artefact. The Crackyfag's dumb insistence that "She is holy" fits pretty much exactly the same psychological pattern as Stephanie's dumb insistence - couched in some sort of hippy-dippy-Mahayana-neo-capitalist-cum-neo-libertarian jargon that she's picked up and substituted for her former Valley-Girl-speak in the past year or so - that Jason Lee Weight and her other hipster besties are "creators" and "geniuses" and "artists" and.....most gob-smackingly counter-intuitive statement of all....."hard-working"!!! I think Freud classified such cases as cases of the introjection, by a fragile and desperately famelic ego on the point of sinking and drowning in the increasingly bitter sea of this world, of an "ego ideal" which appears to said drowning, struggling ego as something apt to reinforce and rescue it and set it back on its own path to narcissistic self-aggrandizement. Ah, "amour propre
Anonymous
"amour propre"......If only I had devoted more time and energy when I was still surrounded by the bracing intellectual air of the Latin Quarter, instead of to buying shoes for Kimi, to the study of the great pre-Revolutionary French "philosophes": Rochefoucauld, Chamfort, Vauvenargues.......It is the key, perhaps, to everything, this "amour propre" which loves so much to wear the mask of love for another, for something "higher", but is always rooted recognizably, in the end, in the place "where all the ladders start": the foul rag-and-bone shop of the craving, starving, bullying, grabbing individual ego.
Anonymous
>>1374 >>1375 TL;DR: Give me attention, please. I'm lonely.
Anonymous
>>1374Do even you know what you're talking about? How in Cracky's name is elevating another being to the extent of worship a form of narcissism? And what would it have to do with a completely different form of narcissism that someone unrelated exhibited? What the fuck is neocapitalism? Do you know what a phychological pattern is? Are you high?
Anonymous
>>1377 I presume that the question "Do you even know what you are talking about?" was a rhetorical question not intended to elicit any reply, and indeed presupposing the answer (given by the questioner to the questioner and to an audience of roughly the same level of ignorance and unintelligence) "no, you don't". Unfortunately for you, though, I do. Whether "in Cracky's name" or outside of it, "elevating another being to the extent of worship" IS a widely recognized and thoroughly studied form of narcissism. You would know this if you were sufficiently well-educated as to be conversant with even the basic standard texts of the scientific psychology of the past 150 years. But as you clearly don't possess this level of education, let me direct you to the Wikipedia article on Freud's conception of the ego and the ego-ideal, which I alluded to explicitly above: In Freud's "On Narcissism: an Introduction" [1914], among other innovations - 'most important of all perhaps - it introduces the concepts of the "ego ideal" and of the self-observing agency related to it, which were the basis of what was ultimately to be described as the "super-ego" in The Ego and the Id (1923b)'.[5] Freud considered that the ego ideal was the heir to the narcissism of childhood: the 'ideal ego is now the target of the self-love which was enjoyed in childhood by the actual ego...is the substitute for the lost narcissism of his childhood'.[6]
The decade that followed would see the concept playing an ever more important and fruitful part in his thinking. In "Mourning and Melancholia"[1917], Freud stressed how 'one part of the ego sets itself over against the other, judges it critically, and, as it were, takes it as its object'.[7] A few years later, in "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego"[1921], he examined further how 'some such agency develops in our ego which may cut itself off from the rest of the ego and come into conflict with it. We have called it the "ego ideal"...heir to the ori
Oh, well, as was to be expected, Ely's favoured posting system is one which, as it turns out, is designed to make reasoned exposition and argument almost impossible and reduce discourse here to the familiar "yu poo pedo lololol I no listnin..." But you get the picture. Here is the link if you want to read the whole article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_ideal You will see, if you do read it and assuming that you can read, that the pseudo-questions that you splutter out as if you were enunciating ridiculous absurdities and logical contradictions have in fact been discussed and answered, in pretty much the way that I answer them above, by some of the best and most incisive minds of the last century. I really have nothing against the founding of new religions. But I do believe that those who undertake to found them should be at least basically conversant with the culture of the age in which they live. Those who are not - and you plainly count among these latter - should stick to playing video-games and masturbating quietly in their bedrooms over photos of children.
Anonymous
Clap, clap. Bravo, Alex! Thank you for stating obvious facts. It always was obvious Crackyfags were egoists that use Olivia as a slightly pre-painted canvas. While you are here waiting for your chance that girls need your money, you have to admit you're as masochistic as "us". You could pay a prostitute, god damn, you're in Berlin, aren't you? There are even ones that do handicapped guys. BUT you are weak and a pedo. "We" are just weak and not as sadistic as you who enjoys fights. "We" are too weak to be realistic and to accept Olivia's rejection. I bet some of "us" work on it, I do, but I AM WEAK, so I return to these places.
Anonymous
>>1380 My most-often-repeated objection to you is not so much that you are "weak" as that you are liars. The two are closely connected, of course, since it takes a sort of courage to look truth in the face and to speak it out about others and about oneself. But I think you'll find that what generally sets me off most clearly from the ten or twenty other people who use this site - well, apart from such extremely obvious factors as age and level of education - is the fact that I don't lie...about myself or about others. There are a whole bunch of lies in your post, for example, although I have to admit the "lying" aspect gets sort of buried and obscured under all the illogic that arises, I suppose, just from stupidity. I can't pay a prostitute "because I am weak and a pedo"? Basically, I suppose, that is to be classified as just random dim-witted nonsense, since who on earth is more LIKELY to pay a prostitute than a "weak pedo"? I assure you, it takes absolutely no courage to hand over money to someone in a back room somewhere and I suppose that even today, if not in Europe then elsewhere, handing over money in back rooms that way is exactly the way to get one's hands on a child for sex. So that doesn't really make much sense, does it? But it's OK, it gave you a chance to get the standard idiot's slander in: "Alex is a pedo" - which is what I mean by all of you being liars. The sum total of the "evidence" for my pedophilia is my frank and entirely honest remark here a few months ago that I found a 15-year-old actress playing a fantasy child in a magical world of dragons kind of sexy. I won't point out again how mendacious and hypocritical it was for a pack of perverts who have been drooling over a 15-year-old for seven years to start screeching and speechifying about THAT. The fact is that I haven't used prostitutes for about 20 years because I felt very clearly that, if there is one place in the world one WON'T find anything resembling the actual experience of sex,
Anonymous
it is on the bed of a prostitute. I have had hopes, sometimes, of finding something that more closely resembled that real experience with girls - all girls well beyond puberty, let me emphasize, and mostly well into their 20s and fully able to make their own sexual decisions - from the Crackyverse. It has all been entirely disembodied and cerebral / verbal, of course, but I HAVE had moments of shared sexual intensity with RavRav, Camel, Dolly, and Lia, regardless of how vehemently one or other or all of these young women will deny that. You are, as I say, all of you practiced and incorrigible liars. And that is why it has been a matter always only of "moments" - and will never be a matter of more, sadly.
Anonymous
I'm not a liar. :(
Anonymous
>>1381 >fetish: sexting with female Crackyfags >trying to destroy Cracky boards >???
Anonymous
>>1384 Since your infantile "temple" is dead and you probably have nowhere else to go now but here, let me make a charitable attempt to snap you out of your narcissistic delusions that the world revolves around you....oh sorry, I mean around CRACKY! YOU see these young women I mentioned as "female Crackyfags" and YOU consider that that defines them as regards any aspect of their persons that could interest anyone ("anyone" being equal, in your narcissistic little universe, to "you"). I, however, being sane, relatively normal and not especially narcissistic, don't see them as essentially "female Crackyfags" at all. RavRav I see as a girl whom both Jeff and I, separately, happened to bump into on Stickam when she was still a scrawny little North Californian tomboy and who, after a couple of years hanging around on the fringes of the Cracky thing, experienced her defining moments as an East London hipster who, much like her friend Kimi, wouldn't piss on a Crackyfag if s/he were on fire. Dolly I see as an MFC cam-whore who afforded a slightly stronger frisson of sexual pleasure than any other random cam-whore would have because I had known her personally, in a way, for several years, which meant that she was genuinely sexually excited, as opposed to just faking it like all the others, when she was fisting herself on cam for me. Lia I see as a local girl who is certaiinly up for a bit of prostitution - albeit probably of the non-penetrative variety - if the price is right. And Camel I see as an awesomely smart and gut-churningly beautiful young Toronto student who, utterly anomalously, ended up hanging out with you shower of freaks and misfits as a consequence of some ugly sexual misdemeanour many years ago, presumably. None of these young women's past or current interest in Cracky means anything at all to me, so your talk about a "fetish for sexting with female Crackyfags" is 100% YOUR narcissistic projection - as indeed is the idea that I want to "destroy Cracky boards
Anonymous
>>1385 I'm beggining to wonder if you understand what "narcissism" is. I've seen you using it the same way "liberals" throw the word "homophobes" and "racist" to everyone who doesn't agree with them.
>>1392 Oh really? You're "beginning to wonder" about that, are you? Yes, I've come across this habit you people of have of "beginning to wonder" about matters of easily checkable fact before. I remember Camel and Science - someone who couldn't even manage to finish a degree at a second-rate university and someone who is wasting her excellent mind studying some awful dire shit about return on capital and methods of incresing annual turnover - "beginning to wonder" about whether the word "fascist" was being used with comprehension and intelligence by someone - me - who holds a PH D from the most eminent school of political and social science in the world. Like you, they were too lazy to check the meaning of the term for themselves and too arrogant, vain and smugly self-satisfied to listen when it was explained to them viva voce. They preferred to squat there in their own intellectual farts smugly "wondering" whether anyone had the right to try to teach important personages like THEM anything at all. I've given you links to an article which in turn contains links to standard texts by the man who actually COINED the term "narcissism". I don't really see what more I can do to make you cease your "wondering" and bring you some peace of mind - as well as some overdue humility - in this matter. But you don't want peace of mind and you certainly don't want humility, do you? You just want to go on swaggering ignorantly around boards like these farting out smug, stupid little "argument-winners" like "cool story bro", "tl;dr" and "I wonder, I really do wonder, if you know what you are talking about at all" and running away when it comes to actually TESTING and DECIDING that question.
Anonymous
>>1394 There's this little ambiguity about your understanding of sanity here. I always thought you were diagnosed with something, trying to hide it since too proud to be "sick". You sure let yourself getting provoked easily and with pleasure. And yeah, I'm all about the "BUT YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE" game because I don't need your truth brawling, I do know well enough where the exit is.
Anonymous
>>1395 This is really too fucking easy is. It's getting boring. Typical Crackyfag "retort" and pretence of rational argument without even the tiniest trace of actual argumentational substance. "There's this little ambiguity about your understanding of sanity here...." Oh, sounds interesting......Is he going to actually make a POINT? Is he going to actually ENGAGE with something I said? Oh dear, seems not. All he had up his sleeve was "I always THOUGHT you were diagnosed with something...." So more "thinking" and "wondering" and guessing and wild slanderous random desperate inventions by Crackyfags who are getting the absolute shit kicked out of them in rational argument. If you're "not about truth brawling", son - which I can only interpret as some risible post-modern/semi-illiterate way of saying "I don't give a fuck about the truth" - then why begin your post with some substanceless waffle about "ambiguities in my understanding" of things?
Anonymous
>>1396 So you rather complain about how things are said than what is said. You are ignoring the content just as well. People who come here aren't related to sanity or normality. So don't act like you have sane traits of sexuality or other human relationships. Scum will be scum. Welcome scum, make yourself at home. We're all scum here.
Anonymous
>>1378 you are an idiot. Every word out of the mouth of Freud has been debunked and the fact that you think him coining a word has anything to do with its actual meaning proves just how little you know. I'm sure your rant on the same subject has no irony in your eyes.
Anonymous
I'd like to make a contribution fitting to the level of discourse in this thread.
