Ableton Forum

H20nly - stay on target... stay on target...

The Vortex has so much power

it does suck hard.

much like nebulae's mom under Tiesto's decks. you don't want to watch but you can't help yourself.

so is DrPussy now a part of that clique he was bangin on about ?


Sorry, it's hard to keep up with these dramatic developments.

elxicano wrote:
You may have your reasons for wanting to resort to something more harsh, but seriously play devils advocate for a moment, and consider the likelihood it would solve anything in our current economic position.

I

I'm not sure where you're getting that I want anything related to violence. I certainly never said anything about wanting violence. I was merely pointing out that he who has the big guns is the one who makes the law. It was true for the European settlers, and it's still true for our government today. Yeah, totally puzzled as to where you read me saying I want to "resort to something more harsh." That's part of the problem with prejudices (whatever they're aimed at), they always seem to stem from very reactionary tendencies; tendencies to jump to conclusions.

H20nly wrote:my point??

**ship headed for planet Mor lands in Michigan. Cockpit opens. You are standing in your yard astonished. An alien lifeform emerges and declares you and your neighbors - Morons!**

Is this how you and your neighbors want to be remembered in Alien history?

They were called Indians because Columbus' off course arse thought he was in India. As we know... he was wrong. The name stuck but just because our forefathers/early settlers were jackenheimers doesn't make it okay for us to carry on the tradition. Besides you were shooting yourself in the foot with that one. You have to see that. You'd rip someone to pieces for a mistake like that.
I know this and so do you.

You junkyard dog you!

I understand about the "Native American" slip, which is all that it was. A hurried slip at work and not some Illuminati, Freudian secret society conspiracy slip either. Point is, do not most Native American Indians refer to themselves as "Indians" despite where the term originated? OK, so lets take the term "America" What makes the term "American" any more reverent than "Indian" when both are just words?

Also, H2, I do not attack people for detail mistakes, however, I might correct them once in a while and people correct me too. No big deal. I attack people when I am attacked first. That's the only time I attack other posters directly. If I say something sucks, that's just my opinion like anyone else's. It's not an attack on anyone else directly. So what.

I am fascinated by the taboo nature of this subject. When did all this change? I see looking in the ever correct (NOT!) wiki.answers.com that "Indians" apparently only refers to people's of the Americas and not Eskimos, Aleuts, and Inuits???? What the hell sets them apart?

Now, I fully admit that I'm a junkyard mutt as you put it. They haven't been able to come up with a name for my type, and frankly, I could care less. That type of pride is bullshit in my mind since we are first and for most who we are intellectually as individuals and nothing more or less despite what we are called by our peers.

This sort of thing to me smacks more of an arrogant political correctness than it does any form of real truth. In fact. Native American is a down right confusing terminology to begin with. Why not just boldly proclaim an individual "Indian" to be the name of the tribe from which his blood is originally native? This would make the person a native Indian of that individual's American tribe, and not possibly someone from South America when they are actually from the lush northern most regions of the dental floss country in Montana.

Wherein this great logic, one finds a very easy solution, choose to be a LEGAL MOTHER FUCKIN' CITIZEN of where ever you are so we can all be done with the pseudo importance of that which is racial based identification verbosities. Thank you very much.

b0unc3 wrote:so is DrPussy now a part of that clique he was bangin on about ?


Sorry, it's hard to keep up with these dramatic developments.

stringtapper wrote:

elxicano wrote:
You may have your reasons for wanting to resort to something more harsh, but seriously play devils advocate for a moment, and consider the likelihood it would solve anything in our current economic position.

I

I'm not sure where you're getting that I want anything related to violence. I certainly never said anything about wanting violence. I was merely pointing out that he who has the big guns is the one who makes the law. It was true for the European settlers, and it's still true for our government today. Yeah, totally puzzled as to where you read me saying I want to "resort to something more harsh." That's part of the problem with prejudices (whatever they're aimed at), they always seem to stem from very reactionary tendencies; tendencies to jump to conclusions.

Yeah, I would be puzzled how a comment containing, "Violence will solve somebody's problems in the end... The cop right now has the weaponry needed to make some things I would like to do enforceably illegal." could be misconstrued???

Really, chill man. I have no idea what prejudices you presume I have of you. You wrote, I interpreted based on what you wrote. If I interpreted incorrectly, accusing me of prejudice is really not necessary. A simple "you misunderstood" would suffice.

This last statement of yours... Just a thought here, but in light of a conversation built on misunderstandings, could this sum up any of your reactionary posts (including the one quoted), or did you not see the irony of the post, or by chance is that the point of your final statement? I'll point out so there's no confusion... this is not a rhetorical question. I'm sincerely asking since you're not as clear a writer as you presume to be and I'd like some clarification before formulating my own conclusions in interpretation.

Here's that final sentence again....

"That's part of the problem with prejudices (whatever they're aimed at), they always seem to stem from very reactionary tendencies; tendencies to jump to conclusions.

elxicano wrote:

stringtapper wrote:

elxicano wrote:
You may have your reasons for wanting to resort to something more harsh, but seriously play devils advocate for a moment, and consider the likelihood it would solve anything in our current economic position.

I

I'm not sure where you're getting that I want anything related to violence. I certainly never said anything about wanting violence. I was merely pointing out that he who has the big guns is the one who makes the law. It was true for the European settlers, and it's still true for our government today. Yeah, totally puzzled as to where you read me saying I want to "resort to something more harsh." That's part of the problem with prejudices (whatever they're aimed at), they always seem to stem from very reactionary tendencies; tendencies to jump to conclusions.

Yeah, I would be puzzled how a comment containing, "Violence will solve somebody's problems in the end... The cop right now has the weaponry needed to make some things I would like to do enforceably illegal." could be misconstrued???

Really, chill man. I have no idea what prejudices you presume I have of you. You wrote, I interpreted based on what you wrote. If I interpreted incorrectly, accusing me of prejudice is really not necessary. A simple "you misunderstood" would suffice.

This last statement of yours... Just a thought here, but in light of a conversation built on misunderstandings, could this sum up any of your reactionary posts (including the one quoted), or did you not see the irony of the post, or by chance is that the point of your final statement? I'll point out so there's no confusion... this is not a rhetorical question. I'm sincerely asking since you're not as clear a writer as you presume to be and I'd like some clarification before formulating my own conclusions in interpretation.

Here's that final sentence again....

"That's part of the problem with prejudices (whatever they're aimed at), they always seem to stem from very reactionary tendencies; tendencies to jump to conclusions.

The point of that statement is directed exactly at the kind of sentiment you posed in your statement here:

"Yeah, I would be puzzled how a comment containing, "Violence will solve somebody's problems in the end... The cop right now has the weaponry needed to make some things I would like to do enforceably illegal." could be misconstrued???"

Simply put, it was misconstrued. Plus I actually had already explained what I meant in my answer to you here:

"I was merely pointing out that he who has the big guns is the one who makes the law. It was true for the European settlers, and it's still true for our government today."

This was in response to your facetious statement that "it wasn't illegal because the Europeans weren't here yet." I am saying that violence solved the colonists' "problem" of the natives. Certainly you concur, correct? I mean you believe that this land was taken from the natives by force? By violence? Right? All I was doing was stating that that violence worked and continues to work in the current laws and how they are enforced. I can't break laws I might like to without some kind of violence coming down on me (incarceration, perhaps death if I choose to fight back etc.).

So in admitting that you don't see how my comments could be misconstrued you are revealing a prejudice in some way. You were expecting that I meant something that I did not, and it guided your interpretation of what I said. Bear in mind that I'm using the term "prejudice" in its strictest definition. Some prejudices can be good in fact (e.g. don't jump over the tiger's fence at the zoo, because you've learned to prejudge tigers as being wild animals that will may kill you). And as I said prejudices often stem from reactionary tendencies, even the good ones (e.g. I put my hand on the stove and it was hot and I had a reaction [pain], so later I carry that reactionary response to not touch a stove, but that doesn't mean that every stove I encounter will be hot).

Summing up, I want to be able to break the law and have those who support illegal immigrants support me as well. You say "illegal" means nothing because in your mind the colonists taking the land from the natives was "illegal." I'm saying that in the real world and in how history actually plays out, that what is "illegal" is determined by the one who has the power. So the power that enabled the Europeans to determine that what they were doing was not illegal, is the same power that today let's "the man" determine what is illegal. So the overall point to that is to say that it's futile to discuss what should or should not be considered illegal because it will always be determined by the power factor.

All I'm saying about illegal immigration is that if it's going to be illegal then why the hell are we not going to enforce it, when I can break another law and it will get enforced? Enforce them all, or forget them all and let anything go; undocumented border crossing, theft, polygamy, cannibalism, whatever. Let it all be fair game.

elxicano wrote:

stringtapper wrote:

elxicano wrote:
You may have your reasons for wanting to resort to something more harsh, but seriously play devils advocate for a moment, and consider the likelihood it would solve anything in our current economic position.

I

I'm not sure where you're getting that I want anything related to violence. I certainly never said anything about wanting violence. I was merely pointing out that he who has the big guns is the one who makes the law. It was true for the European settlers, and it's still true for our government today. Yeah, totally puzzled as to where you read me saying I want to "resort to something more harsh." That's part of the problem with prejudices (whatever they're aimed at), they always seem to stem from very reactionary tendencies; tendencies to jump to conclusions.

Yeah, I would be puzzled how a comment containing, "Violence will solve somebody's problems in the end... The cop right now has the weaponry needed to make some things I would like to do enforceably illegal." could be misconstrued???

Really, chill man. I have no idea what prejudices you presume I have of you. You wrote, I interpreted based on what you wrote. If I interpreted incorrectly, accusing me of prejudice is really not necessary. A simple "you misunderstood" would suffice.

This last statement of yours... Just a thought here, but in light of a conversation built on misunderstandings, could this sum up any of your reactionary posts (including the one quoted), or did you not see the irony of the post, or by chance is that the point of your final statement? I'll point out so there's no confusion... this is not a rhetorical question. I'm sincerely asking since you're not as clear a writer as you presume to be and I'd like some clarification before formulating my own conclusions in interpretation.

Here's that final sentence again....

"That's part of the problem with prejudices (whatever they're aimed at), they always seem to stem from very reactionary tendencies; tendencies to jump to conclusions.

elxicano
Look friend, I know what you are attempting to do here. It's a game of trying to cover yourself. Context is not a floating constant whereby you can devise rules as you go. You must maintain context in order to discuss anything successfully. Otherwise nice little word salads like the one above don't mean much other than an eloquent verbal meal that should have cost half as much.

Lets back up shall we? How about you repeat the highly reactionary and completely unsubstantiated nonsense that you started with several posts back. You know the one. The one where you basically claimed that the United States was one was founded on the white man's raping and pillaging. The one where we are all either (a) descended from "illegal Immigrants" or are "illegal Immigrants"

I call bullshit, and for you, until you admit your flaws as such, there is NO escape.

Stringtapper merely attempted to elucidate the social mechanics of authoritative evil in a generous attempt to illuminate the falsehood of that which is responsible for your exceptionally sideways ill perspective concerning the origin of the USA.

Try and PLEASE keep your replies in a basic context. Conversations and intelligent debate don't exist compartmentalized in momentary fragments according to your choosing. They have an inception and everything from then until the present must be addressed with a comprehensive linear perspective.

Now, I'm going to see Judas Priest, Good Night.

nobody start a native american jokes thread. it will only make this worse. 31?

heh, he calls me a troll and accuses elexicano of having a penchant for word-salad ?

*golf clap*

Everytime I've been to the forum lately I mean to take a quick peak at what's new, what's hot, iPhone app developments, etc etc.

But here's this thread and it sucks me in everytime and I can't help reading it and before you know it I'm out of time and haven't discovered any new music/Ableton coolness.

Fuck!

How can I keep biting my tongue on responding in this forum when there are posts with pictures dropping my jaw to the floor sabotaging my best efforts?

Who we are screams so loudly that people usually don't hear a word we have to say anyways.

However, respect must go out to those who speak up in defense of those unable to defend themselves. Those who think that the word "retard" is not offensive really should consider offering some time as a volunteer in one of the community programs that can be found in every town and city that advocate for the intellectually disabled.