Oh, Carol. There is something I must for my own personal reasons straighten out here. Not so that you will think better of me, or different of me, but simply because what you think you "saw" was both a verbal and emotional illusion, much like visual illusions of Escher (sp)
And how could he ever dream we would so love his lizards? Think of it. Amazing.
Anyway, I think it was very dear for you to post to me on G-hunk's behalf, explaining his feelings and explaining mine to me.
You see, the life I lead precludes this group discussion of things with each other, and it is something that rarely seems necessary, and here I digress but would like to explain it because I think it is very, very
important. And here, speaking to you, I speak to G-hunk, who
cannot face the "haunted closeness" of e-mail, when ALL of this
is completely unique experience we are all having by typing words
of a small screen in our comfy little houses, our small apartments,
our R.V.'s, probably, our large spreading mansions, So that comments astounded me. It was so.....weird. I mean, is that weird, or what. Like words you type out of Maine to a metal box are less
threatening on the screen to someone who sits in Florida than those you type on a box on a thread in a tiny little nubbin of the web called the SI, wherein only 5 of the 30,000 and growing, I suppose, people type anyway? It's nuts. I'm sorry, G-hunk, but it was really off the wall when you think about it.
And do you really speak to me, or do you just play to audiences?
And I am a prop? These things are important to know, and I don't often find myself with people who are not more and more connected to the same source for this exact reason. The thinking is just foreign to me, and the peace and utter logic of the Kingdom is so perfect we don't ever have to have group discussions about anything hardly ever except a deeper understanding of our Operator's Manual, as that is where the guarantee and warranty is spelled out.
Now. I get to my point. This whole matter going on before your eyes was interpreted simply that I was upset with G-hunk because he
would not make a public conversion on a post, and that's what I was trying to do, and was mad he wouldn't, and therefore left the thread in sort of mildly "upset" condition.
Not. There are a couple of people I know who might read these conversations and wonder what I was doing here, and what these posts to G-hunk were about. If they wonder, I can be certain my Lord doth also, to use the King James I love.
(G-hunk knows all this, of course.) And I'm sure he had no such notions that my post was out of a small fit that he would not convert upon demand.
And as I recall, I don't remember demanding it, do you?
More specifically, probably I didn't like being part, and party to, a public statement that someone would prefer to be a small greenish legume to associating with the Creator. That seems as foolish and unwise a statement for him to make as for me to type in capital letters how I challenge the minnions of darkness to come against me. In so doing, I step outside the rules which protect me from them in the first place. In so doing he takes his chances. But I was very taken
aback by such an assault on the Lord's character, I guess. It
surprised me, and it simply seemed time to leave. It is just that simple. It just was very, very simple, and G-hunk knew i, I'm sure, and was not at all feeling that I was upset that he would not fall to his knees in type.
Having said that about that and having said too much about
everything it seems, let's get back to Mike Myers.
Personally, I could not stand his small boy in the bathtub thing.
It was painful, not funny. I certainly hope this was not from his
own experiences with life, but perhaps. Anyway the Sprokets thing
was one character which put me in near convulsions. The other of
which you speak is the satire on some Jewish woman who has a talk show on cable in NY late nights, as I remember reading about it. Mike does her well, but says that she is almost exactly like his sister, I think, and that's where he got the "like butter". Mike doesn't seem Jewish at all, more like a crazy Irishman, so I don't know. But there's a big similarity there, and always has been. But that woman thing he does is very funny, and "Discuss, discuss " is really something you do have to see. Madonna did the only thing in her life I could stand when she worked with him in that skit, talking like him, and doing the NY thing, and she was actually hysterical.
You know the paralyzed laughter point you rarely reach in life?
John Malcovich was on and there was another cable talk show they were satirizing, and he came on as a talk show guest because he was a famous potter, or something, and played the ultimate zonked out west coast, drugged out, neo-hippy artist, and he was speaking about his work with clay, and I almost lost consciousness. I just remember that it was so funny it seemed an unreal experience. It was, of course, all non-speak and undiscipherable metaphor, and the things that work so well with satire. ( As of course does Jim and Tammy and other mutations of the real thing. It certainly goes both ways. On our side I am savage. On your side I just see the strange humor in it all.)
I must go. I hope Shalom checks in today as I would be curious
about what he thinks of all this.
(My posts all splay for some reason after I type them. It must be in the html, but why. I'm in 95, that should be perfect for this, but something happens. Does anyone know?) |
