Gentlemen:

I have a mailbox full of letters from members of UKRA, all of them
incredibly polite and several gracious and witty, for which I think all
these informed and informative correspondents very much. I have checked
their facts in the archive and found them to be true and enlightening.

The consensus is that:

1. "There is no US on UKRA to send Pinkerton anywhere."

2. "Are you crazy? UKRA was ruined by Pinkerton! We were well rid of
him. But we would not be so evil as to wish him on you."

3. "Someone mentioned RAT to Pinkerton. I was a red rag to him that
people enjoy themselves with tubes."

4. "Keith was getting the same **** from Pinkerton and tried to
unsubscribe. You misread him. He called Pinkerton a ****. Check the
archives."

Looks like I made a mistake. There is no collective guilt on UKRA. To
the good guys on UKRA ("those few of us not driven out by Pinkerton") I
apologize.

To the scum on UKRA, rejoicing in schadenfreude at Pinkerton's
disruptions, well, what can one say. I'll just join Keith G in saying,
"Kiss my ass!"

Andre Jute

On 26 Mar 2005 10:23:25 -0800, "
wrote:

Gentlemen:

I have a mailbox full of letters from members of UKRA, all of them
incredibly polite and several gracious and witty, for which I think all
these informed and informative correspondents very much. I have checked
their facts in the archive and found them to be true and enlightening.

The consensus is that:

1. "There is no US on UKRA to send Pinkerton anywhere."

2. "Are you crazy? UKRA was ruined by Pinkerton! We were well rid of
him. But we would not be so evil as to wish him on you."

3. "Someone mentioned RAT to Pinkerton. I was a red rag to him that
people enjoy themselves with tubes."

4. "Keith was getting the same **** from Pinkerton and tried to
unsubscribe. You misread him. He called Pinkerton a ****. Check the
archives."

Looks like I made a mistake. There is no collective guilt on UKRA. To
the good guys on UKRA ("those few of us not driven out by Pinkerton") I
apologize.

To the scum on UKRA, rejoicing in schadenfreude at Pinkerton's
disruptions, well, what can one say. I'll just join Keith G in saying,
"Kiss my ass!"

Andre Jute

Seek help. Now.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In message . com,
" writes
Gentlemen:

I have a mailbox full of letters from members of UKRA, all of them
incredibly polite and several gracious and witty, for which I think all
these informed and informative correspondents very much. I have checked
their facts in the archive and found them to be true and enlightening.

The consensus is that:

1. "There is no US on UKRA to send Pinkerton anywhere."

2. "Are you crazy? UKRA was ruined by Pinkerton! We were well rid of
him. But we would not be so evil as to wish him on you."

3. "Someone mentioned RAT to Pinkerton. I was a red rag to him that
people enjoy themselves with tubes."

4. "Keith was getting the same **** from Pinkerton and tried to
unsubscribe. You misread him. He called Pinkerton a ****. Check the
archives."

Looks like I made a mistake. There is no collective guilt on UKRA. To
the good guys on UKRA ("those few of us not driven out by Pinkerton") I
apologize.

To the scum on UKRA, rejoicing in schadenfreude at Pinkerton's
disruptions, well, what can one say. I'll just join Keith G in saying,
"Kiss my ass!"

Andre Jute


Why? Is your donkey especially attractive?
--
Chris Morriss

And so, after having composed, struck out, rejected, added to, unmade,
and
remade a multitude of names out of his memory and fancy, he decided
upon calling him Rocinante, a name, to his thinking, lofty,
sonorous, and significant of his condition as a hack before he
became what he now was, the first and foremost of all the hacks in the
world.

Having got a name for his horse so much to his taste, he was anxious
to get one for himself, and he was eight days more pondering over this
point, till at last he made up his mind to call himself "Don Quixote,"

On 26 Mar 2005 10:23:25 -0800, "
wrote:

Gentlemen:

I have a mailbox full of letters from members of UKRA, all of them
incredibly polite and several gracious and witty, for which I think all
these informed and informative correspondents very much. I have checked
their facts in the archive and found them to be true and enlightening.

The consensus is that:

1. "There is no US on UKRA to send Pinkerton anywhere."

2. "Are you crazy? UKRA was ruined by Pinkerton! We were well rid of
him. But we would not be so evil as to wish him on you."

3. "Someone mentioned RAT to Pinkerton. I was a red rag to him that
people enjoy themselves with tubes."

4. "Keith was getting the same **** from Pinkerton and tried to
unsubscribe. You misread him. He called Pinkerton a ****. Check the
archives."

Looks like I made a mistake. There is no collective guilt on UKRA. To
the good guys on UKRA ("those few of us not driven out by Pinkerton") I
apologize.

To the scum on UKRA, rejoicing in schadenfreude at Pinkerton's
disruptions, well, what can one say. I'll just join Keith G in saying,
"Kiss my ass!"

Andre Jute

More fanciful fiction from the fearful fruitcake and his merry band of
sockpuppets. Get help Jute, while you still have a choice.........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:

paranoid ravings deleted to save space

Andre Jute



Troll...

People see escapism as voluntary way of getting to the part of your
brain that is most happy, pleased and relaxed, whether through activity
or by not doing anything. The verb escape implies going from somewhere
we don't want to be to somewhere we do. It should be remembered that
what we think we want on the ego-pleasing level is not always what we
want or need on a higher spiritual level, so when we think that we are
achieving escape it may be only an illusion of happiness, albeit one
which serves a purpose at the time. (Evans A, "This Virtual Life" 2003)

wrote in message
ups.com...
Gentlemen:

I have a mailbox full of letters from members of UKRA, all of them
incredibly polite and several gracious and witty, for which I think all
these informed and informative correspondents very much. I have checked
their facts in the archive and found them to be true and enlightening.


You have? Let's have a look at it then.


The consensus is that:

1. "There is no US on UKRA to send Pinkerton anywhere."


Send? This is 'cyberspace' - no-one actually *goes* anywhere so that's
******** for a start....


2. "Are you crazy? UKRA was ruined by Pinkerton! We were well rid of
him. But we would not be so evil as to wish him on you."


Take no notice of the 'nobody creeps' here who have got plenty of
opinions/criticism but not a single, interesting or original thought in
them. Without Pinky (and one or two other nutters) ukra would have dried up
years ago - or have become little more than a helpdesk for the occasional
pilgrim who wants a thousand dollar fix to a problem on hundred dollar kit
for free...



3. "Someone mentioned RAT to Pinkerton. I was a red rag to him that
people enjoy themselves with tubes."


No, I suspect that Pinky was bored and had to 'go' further to get his
'valves vs, ss' fix....;-)


4. "Keith was getting the same **** from Pinkerton and tried to
unsubscribe. You misread him. He called Pinkerton a ****. Check the
archives."


I've called Pinky a **** hundreds of times. He is a ****. He has never
denied it.....



Looks like I made a mistake. There is no collective guilt on UKRA. To
the good guys on UKRA ("those few of us not driven out by Pinkerton") I
apologize.


Sorry Andrew, there is probably more 'collective indifference' to your
opinions in ukra than any amount of 'collective guilt'....



To the scum on UKRA, rejoicing in schadenfreude at Pinkerton's
disruptions, well, what can one say. I'll just join Keith G in saying,
"Kiss my ass!"


OK, two points here - 1) I never said it, or I would have spelled it 'arse'
(this is a UK group) and 2) If anyone does want to kiss my arse, then I'll
need notice if they prefer 'shaved'....


:-)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:52:51 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

4. "Keith was getting the same **** from Pinkerton and tried to
unsubscribe. You misread him. He called Pinkerton a ****. Check the
archives."

I've called Pinky a **** hundreds of times. He is a ****. He has never
denied it.....

Indeed, although I have observed that it takes one to know one! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:52:51 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...

4. "Keith was getting the same **** from Pinkerton and tried to
unsubscribe. You misread him. He called Pinkerton a ****. Check the
archives."

I've called Pinky a **** hundreds of times. He is a ****. He has never
denied it.....

Indeed, although I have observed that it takes one to know one! :-)



I will simply enter a plea of "nolo contendere" here, I think..... :-)

Peer Gynt----
Peer Gynt is another of fiction=92s famous liars. Peer is a born liar, or
perhaps evader of any truth that might prove uncomfortable or
unpleasant - he lies to his mother, even on her deathbed, and spends
much of his life skating through existence seeking pleasure and
personal aggrandisement without putting out much effort. He even leaves
behind the love of his life, Solveig, to avoid any form of commitment.
He is totally superficial, as in his self-satisfied remark: "Metodisk
har jeg intet l=E6rt" - "Methodically I have nothing learnt", a pun which
can be interpreted in 2 ways: "I have never been methodical in
obtaining knowledge" and "I have methodically sought to remain
ignorant", which of course is Ibsen's underlying irony. When Peer
finally returns to Norway a disillusioned old man, it is Solveig - a
romantic deus ex machina - who saves him from total disintegration and
the "melting pot" into which Death puts all those souls who have never
made an attempt to live life fully and properly. In a way he's a bit of
a 19th century yuppie - all grab and no give. (Evans A "This Virtual
Life" 2003)

Sign in Norwegian over a drunk lying in the gutter:
"This is the poet Henrik Ibsen. Please give generously to send him to
Paris."

Andre Jute
*Duke University in the US is famous for studies of parareality

Andy Evans wrote:
Peer Gynt----
Peer Gynt is another of fiction?s famous liars. Peer is a born
liar, or
perhaps evader of any truth that might prove uncomfortable or
unpleasant - he lies to his mother, even on her deathbed, and spends
much of his life skating through existence seeking pleasure and
personal aggrandisement without putting out much effort. He even
leaves
behind the love of his life, Solveig, to avoid any form of
commitment.
He is totally superficial, as in his self-satisfied remark: "Metodisk
har jeg intet l?rt" - "Methodically I have nothing learnt", a pun
which
can be interpreted in 2 ways: "I have never been methodical in
obtaining knowledge" and "I have methodically sought to remain
ignorant", which of course is Ibsen's underlying irony. When Peer
finally returns to Norway a disillusioned old man, it is Solveig - a
romantic deus ex machina - who saves him from total disintegration
and
the "melting pot" into which Death puts all those souls who have
never
made an attempt to live life fully and properly. In a way he's a bit
of
a 19th century yuppie - all grab and no give. (Evans A "This Virtual
Life" 2003)

Storr puts it thus: Man=92s extraordinary success as a species springs
from his discontent, which compels him to use his imagination and thus
spurs men on to further conquests and to ever-increasing mastery of the
environment. Freud introduces a further element with his concept of
wish fulfilment =96 the idea that it is unhappy people that fantasise:
We may lay it down that a happy person never phantasises, only an
unsatisfied one. The motive forces of phantasies are unsatisfied
wishes, and every single phantasy is the fulfilment of a wish, a
correction of an unsatisfying reality. (Creative writers and
daydreaming).

Storr considers Freud=92s view of phantasy as essentially escapist, a
turning away from reality rather than a preliminary to altering reality
in the desired direction, and prefers the view of imagination as a
positive adaptive force. He criticises Freud in that he seems to assume
that the real world can or should be able to provide complete
satisfaction and that ideally it should be possible for the mature
person to abandon phantasy altogether. Freud was too realistic,
hardheaded and pessimistic a man to believe that this ideal could ever
be reached. Nevertheless he did consider that phantasy should become
less and less necessary as the maturing individual approached rational
adaptation to the external world. (Evans A This Virtual Life - 2003)

in article , Andy Evans
at wrote on 3/28/05 1:13 PM:

Peer Gynt----
Peer Gynt is another of fiction�s famous liars. Peer is a born liar, or
perhaps evader of any truth that might prove uncomfortable or
unpleasant - he lies to his mother, even on her deathbed, and spends
much of his life skating through existence seeking pleasure and
personal aggrandisement without putting out much effort. He even leaves
behind the love of his life, Solveig, to avoid any form of commitment.
He is totally superficial, as in his self-satisfied remark: "Metodisk
har jeg intet l�rt" - "Methodically I have nothing learnt", a pun which
can be interpreted in 2 ways: "I have never been methodical in
obtaining knowledge" and "I have methodically sought to remain
ignorant", which of course is Ibsen's underlying irony. When Peer
finally returns to Norway a disillusioned old man, it is Solveig - a
romantic deus ex machina - who saves him from total disintegration and
the "melting pot" into which Death puts all those souls who have never
made an attempt to live life fully and properly. In a way he's a bit of
a 19th century yuppie - all grab and no give. (Evans A "This Virtual
Life" 2003)



The first 12 were amusing. Plonk!!

Nick Fulford points out:
=94 Primarily or on a most fundamental level, I see escapism as an
attempt to isolate and sustain particular beliefs about oneself and the
world. Building layers of psychic plaque to isolate and sustain those
beliefs is escapism, continuing to build layers of illusion upon the
already deluded part of self that we call the ego. The ego consists of
the layers of beliefs and tales that form the identity, the self as a
cohesive form. Strongly defined egos often are not very adaptive, and
may hold to their world view (or aspects thereof) irrespective of all
but the most traumatic of experiences. Depending upon your point of
view this can be seen as saintly faith and tenacity or foolhardy
lunacy.=94