The Logic Off Topic list

At 4:57 AM +0000 8/25/01, soreyenus@... wrote:
>--- In logic-ot@y..., Dennis Gunn <mightyjohn@t...> wrote:
>  It is far far more "uplifting" to me to hear
>>  somebody simply say what is really on their mind even if it's ugly
>>  rather than trying to convince the world that they are nicest most
>>  enlightened person in it and that everything would be peaches and
>>  cream if everyone else was just like them.
>>
>>  Thank you for warning away from your art.
>>
>>  For the sins of sanctimony and censure I sentence you to spend
>>  eternity on the phone with doctor Laura and Rush Limbaugh.
>>  --
>>
>>
>ha ha Dennis! Or is it mightyjohn? Don't worry...maybe you already do
>know my Art, but just don't know it's me!!!!

Do I?  You tell *me*.

>I'm not as sanctimonious as you,

Oh certainly not.  And your daddy can't beat up mine too.

>and my pleasure is not derived in
>trying to convince anyone of anything.

That's too bad because if you are not getting any pleasure from your 
efforts then I fear they are *totally* in vain.

>But aren't you doing the very
>same thing trying to convince all of us my post was wrong?

Ah no.  I can't recall lecturing anyone about what the purpose of art 
was (personally I don't believe it has any *single* purpose but 
rather has *many*) or condemning anyone for choosing to associate 
themselves with anyone else (after all Jesus use to hang out with 
whores and thieves).

>It was simply voicing my concern about Emagic to the Emagic user
>group, just the way you voiced your concern, albeit entirely
>mistaken, about my post.

If I get the gist you were censuring e-magic for associating their 
product with an artist whose work you feel to be vulgar and 
worthless.   And further basically proclaimed that the purpose of art 
in general (and yours in particular) is to uplift man.   Where am I 
mistaken?  Also I can less recall voicing concern than amusement.

>Somewhere, in the fuzz of your brain, you
>missed that I actually was speaking my mind. It did end with a
>question, right?
>
>Got a problem with that? Who cares!!!

Uplifting prose if there ever was.

>You can't even capture the main point from my post, which has nothing
>to do with how enlightened I may or may not be.

All I know is what you actually said if the point you were trying to 
make was something else that's not my fault.

>...but with the
>central purpose, to my mind, of reminding a company, from their
>customer, that I do care whom they choose to represent the product,
>their company. Think back a few decades, or were you still in
>diapers? Companies used to spend agonizing days, weeks, months
>choosing public representatives...because they were genuninely
>concerned about the impact to their reputation, moreso than the
>numbers generated (though it was a factor as well)

Hmmm sounds like a rather rose tinted take on things.  Are you 
telling me that back in the good old days companies were more 
concerned with presenting a wholesome image than selling their 
product?

Do you remember Anita "come to the Florida Sunshine Tree" Briant.

>Some of us humans haven't gone the way of mainstream; immediate,
>hedonistic desires instantly fulfilled and every lusty hole plugged.
>Some of us do still have principles, and understand that Art has a
>greater impact than people want to believe, and that it truly can
>touch and become the timeless...
>
>HA HA!

Thank you for appending the laughter yourself and saving me the trouble.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html