leonardcohenforum.com

Byron

Maybe you could hook up the puter to the toilet paper? Cheaper and also you get two uses out of it.

IC

yep, daniel is c2 and perth. no doubt about it. he's on his troll kick again.

Dear Mr Harmisson,
why are you using the same parts of text
over and over again in different contexts?
Are you copying this all from somewhere
and just filling in names?

blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blahblah blah blah blah


blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah

And if you disagree you are a troll and a fool!

I don't know what to make of Miss Catherine's litanies. On the one hand, Miss Catherine's artifices are a modern-day example of a Procrustean bed. But on the other hand, Miss Catherine thumbs her nose at some of the very things I treasure. With this post , I hope to investigate Miss Catherine's unsympathetic principles, ideals, and objectives. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Miss Catherine occasionally writes posts accusing me and my friends of being lackluster, goofy succubi. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Miss Catherine habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I want to tell it like it is. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because as long as I live and breathe, I will strive to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against her vituperations. And here, I believe, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in her paroxysms.

While I contend that Miss Catherine has every right to her maladroit opinions, her popularity is overrated. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that we must show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that if Miss Catherine believes that she knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, then it's obvious why she thinks that the cure for evil is more evil. Even without the myopic ideology of expansionism in the picture, we can still say that I once told Miss Catherine that it really bothers Miss Catherine when people don't obey her. How did Miss Catherine respond to that? She proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that when I was younger, I wanted to evaluate the tactics she has used against me. I still want to do that, but now I realize that the gloss that her coadjutors put on her tricks unfortunately does little to prescribe a course of action. Miss Catherine may be engaged in extortion, racketeering, and/or money laundering. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Miss Catherine's advocates don't really care that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that she and I disagree about our civic duties. I assert that we must do our utmost to reveal the truth about Miss Catherine's dissertations as expeditiously as possible. Miss Catherine, on the other hand, believes that intellectually challenged converts to exhibitionism make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers. Granted, as conscious, sentient beings aware of our actions and capable of response, we must justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of Miss Catherine and her pathetic ballyhoos. But Miss Catherine says that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?

She does not have a record of tolerance -- an instructive warning for the future. If she is going to cause an increase in disease, denominationalism, crime, and vice, then she should at least have the self-respect to remind herself of a few things: First, the sun has never shone on a more power-drunk and sinful person than Catherine. And second, if I said that the majority of depraved individuals are heroes, if not saints, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being thoroughly honest if I said that if history follows its course, it should be evident that "politically incorrect" is Miss Catherine's middle name. In fact, I have said that to Miss Catherine on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until she stops trying to defuse or undermine incisive critiques of her lascivious behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint. Miss Catherine's apple-polishers are brainwashed automatons programmed to spout line after line of pro-Miss Catherine propaganda. Yet my goal is to take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I undoubtedly do have to try.

Even though the world has a surplus of stupidity, this does not negate the fact that she recently stated that it is whiney to question her nostrums. She said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. She said it as if she meant it. That's scary, because I should note that she believes that her crusades are Holy Writ. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. One might conclude that the intent of this letter is certainly not hatred, but a probing look into an obviously significant issue. Alternatively, one might conclude that at least 80 percent of the people in this country recognize that Miss Catherine bickers and argues over petty things. In either case, most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.

If she wants to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us, fine. Just don't make me serve as a human shield for her bombardments while she's at it. If she makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about crotchety cheapskates (especially the ridiculous type). We must give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that the cliches of Miss Catherine's pranks are well-known to us all. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to.

We all learned the Golden Rule in school. Maybe Miss Catherine was absent that day. By this, I mean that I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "It is appalling to me that Miss Catherine has managed to introduce changes without testing them first." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that she contends that she has a "special" perspective on egotism which carries with it a "special" right to abet ethnic genocide, dictatorships, and what I call unbridled slaves to fashion. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from? Aberrant, supercilious ruffians (like Miss Catherine) are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to express our concerns about Miss Catherine's flippant ruses. She is a faithful student of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist who advocated demoralizing one's enemy as the highest art of warfare. Even more remarkable, she should not concentrate all the wealth of the world into her own hands. Not now, not ever.

This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people. Not yet, at least. But Miss Catherine intends to create a new social class. Rabid, ignorant underachievers, gloomy buffoons, and contemptible nabobs of fascism will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their cat's-paws. Before she spews any more psychoanalytical drivel, let me assure her that she refers to a variety of things using the word "spinulosodenticulate". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, she's saying that her blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. At any rate, if she thinks her apothegms represent progress, Miss Catherine should rethink her definition of progress. I'm sure you get my point here. Immoralism and misoneism are not synonymous. In fact, they are so frequently in opposition and so universally irreconcilable that I know more about cannibalism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that I, not being one of the many illiberal kooks of this world, decidedly gainsay Miss Catherine's notion that she is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.

Given Miss Catherine's propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that Miss Catherine's forces give Miss Catherine credit for things she hasn't done. But that's not all: I don't need to tell you that she is crazier than a road lizard. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that it is our responsibility to ourselves, to our posterity, to our ancestors, and to the God of Nature, which made us what we are, to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Miss Catherine is clearly going to be the first to go.

Above all, her opinions have a crippling effect on science and technology. Come on, Miss Catherine; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. Just because gormless gangsterism exists and has for a long time, there is no reason for us to accept it from her. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, which is more than she's given me. The reason is clear. Her ravings represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death.

You might not care that Miss Catherine has failed to provide us with a context in which her commentaries could be discussed and understood, but you'd better start caring if you don't want Miss Catherine to turn us into easy prey for the most sullen bums you'll ever see. I could tell her that she is a sore loser, although she obviously doesn't care. I could tell her that it's ludicrous to believe that law and order can be maintained by letting her hired goons distract people from serious analysis of the situation, but she wouldn't believe me. She probably also doesn't care that there is no compelling moral or economic reason why she should sacrifice children on the twin altars of imperialism and greed. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason Miss Catherine may be capable of when I tell her that she wants us to think of her as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that Miss Catherine wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If she really wanted to be a do-gooder, she could start by admitting that we will need to use diverse skills and tactics if we are to do what needs to be done. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, she should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but many of our present-day sufferings are the consequence of the belligerent relationship between Miss Catherine and uppity self-promoters.

*yawn*
Boring.

Perth wrote:*yawn*
Boring.

Allow me to introduce myself. I'm the founder of the Anti-Prof. Boring Perth Society.

In this post to the Leonard Cohen poetry forum, I will tell you what made me form such an organization and how I plan to use it to establish democracy and equality.

Here's my side of the story: The nicest thing that can be said about Prof. Boring Perth's bootlickers is that they are inhumane flibbertigibbets out to bring about a wonderland of commercialism. His deputies probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, Prof. Perth thinks that honor counts for nothing. His one mission in life is to troll this forum until it is destroyed, regardless of whether he takes his Hero, Leonard Cohen, with him or not.

Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. I'll repeat what I've already said: I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed by Perth’s inispid trolling. Why am I hurt? Because I, for one, like to face facts and post on topic.. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: It is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did his reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?".

No, we must ask, "Why does he want to cripple his enemies politically, economically, socially, morally, and psychologically?" A complete answer to that question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give you a simplified answer. For starters, if I were a complete sap, I'd believe his line that you and I are inferior to headlong primates. Unfortunately for him, I realize that Prof. Perth has gotten away with so much for so long that he's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to draw unsuspecting vendors of fogyism into the orbit of lascivious party animals.

Why am I furious? Because Prof. Perth can't fool me. I've met disagreeable Machiavellians before, so I know that I wonder if Prof. Perth really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he? Before you answer, let me point out that Prof. Perth's reinterpretations of historic events are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth.

And why am I embarrassed? Because there is a perfectly honourable tradition of trolling that dawned within nano-seconds of the birth of the Interent but this simpleton extraordinaire is humourless, worthless and pointless.

We can see the damage that is done when he tries to pander to repugnant simpletons. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: I have no interest in getting tangled in the rhetoric or dogma that Prof. Perth frequently pushes.


To put it another way, if I had to choose the most intrusive specimen from his welter of dim-witted gabble, it would have to be his claim that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and semi-intelligible smart alecks. One of the great mysteries of modern life is, How much longer can we tolerate Prof. Perth's jejune, deluded theories before the whole country collectively throws up?


It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that Prof. Perth wants us to believe that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point in his posts.

How stupid does he think we are? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture, this Forum being a miscrocosm.Don't get me wrong; his lickspittles will carry the product of his work into the future, even after Prof. Perth himself is gone. But Prof. Perth likes to put on a honest face to dissimulate his plans to heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.


He uses people and destroys (cyber) lives without compunction, don't you think? If I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to mention a bit about ophidian, abominable gits such as Prof. Perth. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that Prof. Perth's lieutenants hew closer to the party line -- to Prof. Perth's established body of cant -- than do most other smarmy power brokers.


Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it decidedly expresses how Prof. Perth decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings.

These are the things that he fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. Whereas Perth is a Party Man, scared of individuality, shamed by his own dulness.

All the same, when Prof. Perth says that people are pawns to be used and manipulated, that's just a load of spucatum tauri. It is not my goal to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes, but the opposite.

Think about all this please before giving any more house-room to probably the worst troll ever to pollute this place, Professor Boring Perth.

Whose is the blah blah post? Your own?
My dear Mr Harmisson!

catherine wrote:Whose is the blah blah post? Your own?
My dear Mr Harmisson!

The blah blah post is from a child, a child who lacks the traditional imagination of the young, a child doomed to lead a sad and lonely life, a child born from nothing and gadabouting gaily to display a blah blah to spectators of yon. Many of her supporters, (ceetoo a close anagram of Catherine with spatial adjustments according) despair and yet hope against hope, communistic and equalizing in expectation, speak upwards with communion thrust to expectation of ecstasy.

I am often asked to state a case, nemo ad hominem, against trollific debutanting, but ceetoo states her own case, malice inverted, a literal suicide of remiaindered book-ends. Not a "one hit wonder" but a "one miss bore".

Is this what you wanted, a Forum that is haunted by the toast of Leonard C (ceetoo?) ? Even his own supporters are heard to ask where it will all end.

Well, I end here with both a warning and salutation "howzit?".

I could call myself faints instead of paints
I could call myself mirth instead of perth

I could call myself daniel hermiston versus harmisson
I could call myself young dr. fraud versus freud

But I chose to be ceetoo, and rather not C2
In my initial troll incarnation

Under no circumstances am I Catherine or even a she
I have neither titties nor other requirements

catherine wrote:Whose is the blah blah post? Your own?
My dear Mr Harmisson!

Hi Catherine, follow this approach and you will be fine. If it doesn't post poetry, discuss poetry. chat about LC, enter the comps. here or offer critis. it's a troll. if it's an entertaining one then feel free to have fun, if it's the hopeless dull type then it helps us all NOT TO FEED IT.

at least Daniel was a change from the usual rhyming reincarnation sad types desperate for attention.

regards
C2
EATING TROLLS SINCE 1953

EATING TROLLS SINCE 1953

I can see the sign hanging outside, above your door, in Olde English lettering....such an honourable avocation.

I 'second' C2's sage advice, Catherine. Letting resting dogs lie.

Well, Mr Harmisson, next time you simply send your disertation over to us, so I don't need to scroll down thru endless lines of text on screen. It seems you had much to say. So I didn't read a word after first paragraph of your first post. That doesn't mean that I would read your book, as it seems very repetitive. Why do use such syntax, so you have some software there writing it to you?
I knew I should keep myself off this corner, as I always did.

lizzytysh wrote:

EATING TROLLS SINCE 1953

I can see the sign hanging outside, above your door, in Olde English lettering....such an honourable avocation.

I 'second' C2's sage advice, Catherine. Letting resting dogs lie.

It took the Queen a little while to get over my arrival which, for most of the English population, quite overshadowed her little Coronation gig.

That year, I really only went for milk, rusks following towards the Summer of 1954.

I ate my first troll towards the middle of the decade. But they made them differently in those days, tasty and with some bite.

Now the sort of troll that comes here to be consumed is often soggy and plastic.

Well, that's the way it goes, what used to be proud and erect is now soft and limp, (please control your imagination, this is purely a troll reference).

C2 & Sons
Purveyors of Fine Trolls and Trollops (is that the Female Equivalent)
Established 1953 (or thereabouts)

I like it. It has a ring to it.