Discussion:
Betty's 14 Days of Christmas
(too old to reply)
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 01:16:46 UTC
Permalink
I doubt we will ever agree on the borrowing of Cyndi Lauper songs, but I understand that your method is acceptable... ironically, more acceptable in a modern context.
I didn't borrow Lauper's song, you moron. I used her song as a symbol of everything the poem was attacking. I swear you've got to be the stupidest person I've ever had the misfortune to come across.
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 01:18:34 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:56:27 AM UTC-7, Cujo DeSuckpuppet cries...
You are a liar. My interpolations of Milne and Reb Benjamin Hoff were not 'stealing', but fair transformative tributes...
You stuck "kosher" in front of Piglet's name, and changed a couple of the words to Hebrew. That's hardly "transformative" usage.
Chafetz Chayim haYehu'di
2018-05-27 02:14:42 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 6:18:35 PM UTC-7, PaedoBarney is even barred from Incontinental Inn...
On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 4:24:16 PM UTC-4, Chafetz Chayim haYehu'di wrote: You are a liar. My interpolations of Milne and Reb Benjamin Hoff were not 'stealing', but fair transformative tributes...
PaedoBarney is a relentless, psychotic liar....and he doesn't know copyright, legal fair usage vis-a-vis 'transformative' usage. Why? Because PaedoBarney's Youtube postings are gothicrap, stolen from the estates of others without compensation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STEPHAN PICKERING / חפץ ח"ם בן אברהם
Torah אלילה Yehu'di Apikores / Philologia Kabbalistica Speculativa Researcher
לחיות זמן רב ולשגשג...לעולם לא עוד
THE KABBALAH FRACTALS PROJECT
לעולם לא אשכח

IN PROGRESS: Shabtai Zisel benAvraham v'Rachel Riva:
davening in the musematic dark
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 03:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chafetz Chayim haYehu'di
On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 6:18:35 PM UTC-7, PaedoBarney is even barred from Incontinental Inn...
On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 4:24:16 PM UTC-4, Chafetz Chayim haYehu'di wrote: You are a liar. My interpolations of Milne and Reb Benjamin Hoff were not 'stealing', but fair transformative tributes...
PaedoBarney is a relentless, psychotic liar....and he doesn't know copyright, legal fair usage vis-a-vis 'transformative' usage. Why? Because PaedoBarney's Youtube postings are gothicrap, stolen from the estates of others without compensation.
Pooh was robbed.
Cujo DeSockpuppet
2018-05-27 01:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
I doubt we will ever agree on the borrowing of Cyndi Lauper songs,
but I understand that your method is acceptable... ironically, more
acceptable in a modern context.
I didn't borrow Lauper's song, you moron. I used her song as a symbol
of everything the poem was attacking. I swear you've got to be the
stupidest person I've ever had the misfortune to come across.
You don't get out much. Usenet has some world class idiots but I will
concede that Dreckweasel is exceptionally dense and could hold his own in
the Idiot Derby.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Few things suppress female sexuality more than a flaccid dick and a guy
talking like Mickey Mouse while wearing panties on his head." - Phoenix
describing Ed "Pantyhead" Wollmann in one sentence.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 03:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Whatever your intention, the Cyndi Lauper song made your poem seem cheesy.
m***@gmail.com
2018-05-27 03:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Whatever your intention, the Cyndi Lauper song made your poem seem cheesy.
Or vice-versa. You really don't get it, do you?
drive-by
2018-05-27 03:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Whatever your intention, the Cyndi Lauper song made your poem seem cheesy.
Or vice-versa. You really don't get it, do you?
no..the man cannot comprehend....now if you want to talk cheesy...Fuck Stop woman has cheese to spare....and black pimp......
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 07:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Whatever your intention, the Cyndi Lauper song made your poem seem cheesy.
Or vice-versa.
Not really.

You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.

:)
m***@gmail.com
2018-05-27 07:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Whatever your intention, the Cyndi Lauper song made your poem seem cheesy.
Or vice-versa.
Not really.
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
No, you freakin' moron, it's not even remotely Dadaist. Guess again.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 08:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.

:)
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 08:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because your grasp of the English language is only half a notch above Pick's.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 08:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps f creatve thought that I have.

Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.

"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."

Yes, transformative... and obviously Dadaist:

Mona Lisa = your poem

Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song

Or... vice versa.

Don't agree?

I don't care.

:)
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 15:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps f creatve thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct). However that is not what my video is doing.
As per usual, you take your half-understood conception of a word/concept/term and (mis)apply it to "fit" the argument. What you fail to understand is that anyone familiar with said word/concept/term will immediately recognize both your error and the cynical transparency of your ploy.
Post by Will Dockery
Mona Lisa = your poem
Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song
Or... vice versa.
Don't agree?
I don't care.
No, Will, I don't agree.

My video isn't about the Cyndi Lauper song, nor is the song its primary focus, whereas the Mona Lisa, and its desecration, is Duchamp's. The primary focus of my video is my poem. The contrapuntal message of the song is used in ironic juxtaposition to the poem, as are the images.

This concept is similar in theory to that of montage, as the juxtaposition of poem and song/imagery create a *third* level of interpretation that exists in none of the individual components. In this case, it shows the underlying sickness of the hedonistic pop youth culture wherein a woman (Casey Anthony) will murder her daughter in order to return to the party scene (like Lauper's girls, she just wanted to have fun).

I use a similar technique in O TEMPORA! O MUSAE!, which (with the exception of one brief section which contrasts traditional art form) is an attack on the modern art featured in it. The attractive presentation of the art, along with the lightweight jazz orchestration, contrasts with the content of the poem, thus setting up a counter-critique of the speaker's inability to appreciate the art on its own terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rLX0A_LEHE
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 15:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in one perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct). However that is not what my video is doing.
Not exactly, but nothing has to be EXACT, that's where your arguments always come from, you stick to "by the book", you lack the ability to make creative leaps.
Post by Michael Pendragon
As per usual, you take your
conception of a word/concept/term and (mis)apply it to "fit"
I make creative associations, and if you were not so bitterly opposed to me, you'd get my points.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Mona Lisa = your poem
Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song
Or... vice versa.
Don't agree?
I don't care.
No, Will, I don't agree.
My video isn't about the Cyndi Lauper song, nor is the song its primary focus, whereas the Mona Lisa, and its desecration, is Duchamp's
The Cyndi Lauper song is so famous that it overpowers your poem, it becomes the main, in some ways perhaps the only, memorable thing about the video.

I know the song may not be so well known to you, but to me and many others, it is just about as well known as the Mona Lisa.

Your poem is a moustache on the music, in many ways... I know you ca see what I mean, you just don't want to.

We can argue this for a month or so, but my interpretation is a good one, you could admit that and let's move ahead.
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 15:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in one perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct). However that is not what my video is doing.
Not exactly, but nothing has to be EXACT, that's where your arguments always come from, you stick to "by the book", you lack the ability to make creative leaps.
Not at all, you dolt.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
As per usual, you take your
conception of a word/concept/term and (mis)apply it to "fit"
I make creative associations, and if you were not so bitterly opposed to me, you'd get my points.
You draw incorrect conclusions from your faulty understanding of the concept being discussed. That's not creativity, it's ignorance: blind, willfully obstinate ignorance.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Mona Lisa = your poem
Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song
Or... vice versa.
Don't agree?
I don't care.
No, Will, I don't agree.
My video isn't about the Cyndi Lauper song, nor is the song its primary focus, whereas the Mona Lisa, and its desecration, is Duchamp's
The Cyndi Lauper song is so famous that it overpowers your poem, it becomes the main, in some ways perhaps the only, memorable thing about the video.
It only overpowers the poem for you because you are unable to comprehend what the poem and video are saying. You're like some oversized toddler shaking his head in time to the music without having the faintest idea what the song is about.
Post by Will Dockery
I know the song may not be so well known to you, but to me and many others, it is just about as well known as the Mona Lisa.
The song is quite well known to me. I was a teenager when it came out.
Post by Will Dockery
Your poem is a moustache on the music, in many ways... I know you ca see what I mean, you just don't want to.
I see where you're coming from quite clearly. You don't understand the poem or the video. You do understand the song (or, at least, its chorus), and shift the focus to the one element that you (more or less) comprehend.
Post by Will Dockery
We can argue this for a month or so, but my interpretation is a good one, you could admit that and let's move ahead.
Your "interpretation" only bears witness to your witlessness. But go ahead and argue for a month -- further you manage to stuff your foot down your throat, the funnier the spectacle you create.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 15:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in one perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct). However that is not what my video is doing.
Not exactly, but nothing has to be EXACT, that's where your arguments always come from, you stick to "by the book", you lack the ability to make creative leaps.
Not at all
Your reactions here show otherwise.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
As per usual, you take your
conception of a word/concept/term and (mis)apply it to "fit"
I make creative associations, and if you were not so bitterly opposed to me, you'd get my points.
You draw incorrect conclusions from your faulty understanding of the concept being discussed. That's not creativity, it's ignorance: blind, willfully obstinate ignorance.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Mona Lisa = your poem
Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song
Or... vice versa.
Don't agree?
I don't care.
No, Will, I don't agree.
My video isn't about the Cyndi Lauper song, nor is the song its primary focus, whereas the Mona Lisa, and its desecration, is Duchamp's
The Cyndi Lauper song is so famous that it overpowers your poem, it becomes the main, in some ways perhaps the only, memorable thing about the video.
It only overpowers the poem for you because you are unable to comprehend what the poem and video are saying
I say using such a famous song for your poem and images was a mistake.

It overpowers your weaker material and message.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
I know the song may not be so well known to you, but to me and many others, it is just about as well known as the Mona Lisa.
The song is quite well known to me. I was a teenager when it came out.
The song overpowers your work, it is too well known not to make just about every one think...

"Cyndi Lauper's song..."

Then they think... "Why?"
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Your poem is a moustache on the music, in many ways... I know you can see what I mean, you just don't want to.
I see where you're coming from quite clearly. You don't understand the poem or the video
I did, and do understand your video.

IF I block out the annoying Cyndi Lauper music blaring away in the background.

That music is just too well known to use, it overpowers your weaker material.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
We can argue this for a month or so, but my interpretation is a good one, you could admit that and let's move ahead.
Your "interpretation"
Was a simple thing, since I know my modern art and poetry history... transformative usage was explored heavily by the Dada, Surrealist and other artists of those movement.
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 16:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in one perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct). However that is not what my video is doing.
Not exactly, but nothing has to be EXACT, that's where your arguments always come from, you stick to "by the book", you lack the ability to make creative leaps.
Not at all
Your reactions here show otherwise.
How so, Will?

Your statement (such as it is) says absolutely nothing.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
As per usual, you take your
conception of a word/concept/term and (mis)apply it to "fit"
I make creative associations, and if you were not so bitterly opposed to me, you'd get my points.
You draw incorrect conclusions from your faulty understanding of the concept being discussed. That's not creativity, it's ignorance: blind, willfully obstinate ignorance.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Mona Lisa = your poem
Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song
Or... vice versa.
Don't agree?
I don't care.
No, Will, I don't agree.
My video isn't about the Cyndi Lauper song, nor is the song its primary focus, whereas the Mona Lisa, and its desecration, is Duchamp's
The Cyndi Lauper song is so famous that it overpowers your poem, it becomes the main, in some ways perhaps the only, memorable thing about the video.
It only overpowers the poem for you because you are unable to comprehend what the poem and video are saying
I say using such a famous song for your poem and images was a mistake.
It overpowers your weaker material and message.
And you can say it till you're blue in the face. But it only overpowers the message because you're too stupid to understand what the message is.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
I know the song may not be so well known to you, but to me and many others, it is just about as well known as the Mona Lisa.
The song is quite well known to me. I was a teenager when it came out.
The song overpowers your work, it is too well known not to make just about every one think...
"Cyndi Lauper's song..."
Then they think... "Why?"
Those who understand the message don't need to think "why." And, as previously noted, the message isn't exactly a subtle one.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Your poem is a moustache on the music, in many ways... I know you can see what I mean, you just don't want to.
I see where you're coming from quite clearly. You don't understand the poem or the video
I did, and do understand your video.
IF I block out the annoying Cyndi Lauper music blaring away in the background.
That music is just too well known to use, it overpowers your weaker material.
You don't, Will. I've asked you a dozen times to explain transformative usage and how it relates my having included Lauper's song in my video.

Your inability to do so has been embarrassingly (for you) apparent.
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
We can argue this for a month or so, but my interpretation is a good one, you could admit that and let's move ahead.
Your "interpretation"
Was a simple thing, since I know my modern art and poetry history... transformative usage was explored heavily by the Dada, Surrealist and other artists of those movement.
You are taking one specific use of a term that you only partially understand and attempting to apply that specific partial understanding across the boards. That's why your argument will always fail.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 16:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Your statement
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative thought that I have.

Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in one perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.

"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."

Yes, transformative... and obviously Dadaist:

Mona Lisa = your poem

Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song

Or... vice versa.

Don't agree?

I don't care.

And, as predicted, you don't agree, and simply try to shout me down over it... no surprises here.
Will Dockery
2018-05-28 03:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
You are taking one specific use of a term
If it works, then it works.

Save your whining, it does work.

:)
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 17:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.

Like it or not, that is what happened.
m***@gmail.com
2018-05-27 17:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a "second-hander," and you've been desperately trying to IKYABWAI me on it ever since.

Similarly, when you'd asked if I was a Cyndi Lauper fan, I replied that I wasn't, but that I'd listen to her music over yours any day. You've been trying to IKYABWAI me on that one ever since, as well.

As always, you forget that all the posts that appear in this group have been archived, and fool yourself into believing that no one is going to remember or look up what was originally said.

You were, are, and remain, an uneducated bum with only a modicum of talent who overcompensates for his illiteracy with an inflated sense of self-worth. You're also a con man, a sociopath, and a narcissistic cyberbully who cannot hear the derisive laughter over his drunken shouts of "Zorro!"
drive-by
2018-05-27 17:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a "second-hander," and you've been desperately trying to IKYABWAI me on it ever since.
Similarly, when you'd asked if I was a Cyndi Lauper fan, I replied that I wasn't, but that I'd listen to her music over yours any day. You've been trying to IKYABWAI me on that one ever since, as well.
As always, you forget that all the posts that appear in this group have been archived, and fool yourself into believing that no one is going to remember or look up what was originally said.
You were, are, and remain, an uneducated bum with only a modicum of talent who overcompensates for his illiteracy with an inflated sense of self-worth. You're also a con man, a sociopath, and a narcissistic cyberbully who cannot hear the derisive laughter over his drunken shouts of "Zorro!"
Summed up...next case...
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 18:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by drive-by
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Summed up...next case...
For once we agree, Jimmy.

:)
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 17:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a "second-hander,"

And I pointed out that you constantly use second-hander techniques in your
various works, notably your use of the Cyndi Lauper song blaring in the
background, which drown out your mundane doggerel poem, and your montage of
ready-mades in the visual.
m***@gmail.com
2018-05-27 17:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a "second-hander,"
And I pointed out that you constantly use second-hander techniques in your
various works, notably your use of the Cyndi Lauper song blaring in the
background, which drown out your mundane doggerel poem, and your montage of
ready-mades in the visual.
That's right, Will. I called you a "second-hander" and said that I preferred Lauper's music over yours; and you've been childishly attempting to pull a Pee-wee on my ever since.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 18:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a
"second-hander,"
And I pointed out that you constantly use second-hander techniques in your
various works, notably your use of the Cyndi Lauper song blaring in the
background, which drown out your mundane doggerel poem, and your montage of
ready-mades in the visual.
That's right, Will. I called you a "second-hander"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet I've shown you use second-hander methods much more often than I do.
m***@gmail.com
2018-05-27 19:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant
you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or
something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a
"second-hander,"
And I pointed out that you constantly use second-hander techniques in your
various works, notably your use of the Cyndi Lauper song blaring in the
background, which drown out your mundane doggerel poem, and your montage of
ready-mades in the visual.
That's right, Will. I called you a "second-hander"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet I've shown you use second-hander methods much more often than I do.
No, Will, you haven't.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 20:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant
you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or
something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a "second-hander,"
And I pointed out that you constantly use second-hander techniques in your
various works, notably your use of the Cyndi Lauper song blaring in the
background, which drown out your mundane doggerel poem, and your montage of
ready-mades in the visual.
That's right, Will. I called you a "second-hander"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet I've shown you use second-hander methods much more often than I do.
No, Will, you haven't.
I wouldn't expect you to admit it, of course.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 18:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a
"second-hander,"
And I pointed out that you constantly use second-hander techniques in your
various works, notably your use of the Cyndi Lauper song blaring in the
background, which drown out your mundane doggerel poem, and your montage of
ready-mades in the visual.
I preferred Lauper's music over yours
You're also a Pat Boone and Tiny Tim fan... so what?

:)
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 19:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant
you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or
something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a
"second-hander,"
And I pointed out that you constantly use second-hander techniques in your
various works, notably your use of the Cyndi Lauper song blaring in the
background, which drown out your mundane doggerel poem, and your montage of
ready-mades in the visual.
I preferred Lauper's music over yours
You're also a Pat Boone and Tiny Tim fan... so what?
You tell me. You're the one who's bothered by it.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 20:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant
you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or
something.
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a "second-hander,"
And I pointed out that you constantly use second-hander techniques in your
various works, notably your use of the Cyndi Lauper song blaring in the
background, which drown out your mundane doggerel poem, and your montage of
ready-mades in the visual.
I preferred Lauper's music over yours
You're also a Pat Boone and Tiny Tim fan... so what?
You tell me. You're the one who's bothered by it.
None of it bothers me, art is subjective, as you know.
Will Dockery
2018-05-28 03:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant
you
that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or
something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative
thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in ne
perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache
and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more
specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking
mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be
art
and
transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q.
the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and
beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Yes, that is what Duchamp did (the Wikipedia article is correct).
And by you blaring that famous song in the background as you recite mundane
doggerel, backed by second handed photo slideshow, the effect you create
relates to the moustache on the Mona Lisa icon.
Like it or not, that is what happened.
Actually, what happened is that I'd originally called you a
"second-hander,"
And I pointed out that you constantly use second-hander techniques in your
various works, notably your use of the Cyndi Lauper song blaring in the
background, which drown out your mundane doggerel poem, and your montage of
ready-mades in the visual.
I preferred Lauper's music over yours
You're also a Pat Boone and Tiny Tim fan... so what?
You tell me. You're the one who's bothered by it.
Nothing about it "bothers" me... I do find it silly and amusing, though.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 15:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative thought that I have.

Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in one perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.

"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."

Yes, transformative... and obviously Dadaist:

Mona Lisa = your poem

Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song

Or... vice versa.

Don't agree?

I don't care.

(Full quote, typos corrected)
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 15:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in one perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Mona Lisa = your poem
Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song
Or... vice versa.
Don't agree?
I don't care.
(Full quote, typos corrected)
Fixing typos doesn't correct the rampant ignorance of your argument.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 15:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in one perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Mona Lisa = your poem
Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song
Or... vice versa.
Don't agree?
I don't care.
(Full quote, typos corrected)
Fixing typos doesn't correct
This keyboard is sticking on certain letters... I really hate that, but at least I can correct my mistakes later.
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 15:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Will Dockery
You took two original works and threw them together, I grant you that's transformative, modern, even... as in Dadaist or something.
it's not even remotely Dadaist
You just don't understand my meaning, as you so often don't.
That's because
Because you simply don't have the capacity to make the leaps of creative thought that I have.
Your reciting poetry on top of the Cyndi Lauper song was, in one perspective, like when the master of Dada Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
"the work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically a rectified ready-made.[1] The readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them [...] In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé ("found object") is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title..."
Mona Lisa = your poem
Moustache and beard = Cyndi Lauper song
Or... vice versa.
Don't agree?
I don't care.
(Full quote, typos corrected)
Fixing typos doesn't correct
This keyboard is sticking on certain letters... I really hate that, but at least I can correct my mistakes later.
If only you were willing to correct your bigger mistakes as easily.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 16:02:51 UTC
Permalink
What you perceive as mistakes are often not mistakes at all.

My interpretation is solid, you just can't allow yourself to see it, Pendragon.

Which is understandable, after all, you have "winning" on your mind .

👍
Michael Pendragon
2018-05-27 16:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
What you perceive as mistakes are often not mistakes at all.
My interpretation is solid, you just can't allow yourself to see it, Pendragon.
Which is understandable, after all, you have "winning" on your mind .
Your mistakes are glaringly obvious.

You are just stubbornly determined to remain pig-ignorant. You were born a fool and will die an even bigger one.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 16:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
You are just stubbornly determined
When I know I'm in the right, of course I am.

:)
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 16:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
You were born a fool
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, my narrow minded
friend.

:)
drive-by
2018-05-27 16:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
You were born a fool
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, my narrow minded
friend.
:)
no no no....Fred has the narrow mind...you have no mind left....Fake Jew? Dead man walking.
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 17:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, my narrow minded
friend.
:)
no no no....Fred has
Fred?

Your senility is showing, sorry...
drive-by
2018-05-27 17:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, my narrow minded
friend.
:)
no no no....Fred has
Fred?
Your senility is showing, sorry...
Fred Gwynne...you are about as dumb as a mother fucker...
Will Dockery
2018-05-27 17:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by drive-by
Fred Gwynne...
about as dumb
You're right, that was a pretty dumb, off the wall comparison.

You, otoh, bear an uncanny resemblance to Woody Harrelson.
Post by drive-by
as a mother fucker...
You are one?

Not my business what you and your mother do, Jimmy... ever hear of TMI?

Heh...
George J. Dance
2019-07-11 00:20:35 UTC
Permalink
lafcadio had a white hat
george told us
[I'd put one on Mt. Fuji
to keep the mountain cool]
WTF? Cythera's haiku (the poem of hers that she falsely claimed that I plagiarized) was set in winter. Why would the mountain need a hat to keep "cool" in winter???
Michael Pendragon
2019-07-11 01:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
lafcadio had a white hat
george told us
[I'd put one on Mt. Fuji
to keep the mountain cool]
WTF? Cythera's haiku (the poem of hers that she falsely claimed that I plagiarized) was set in winter. Why would the mountain need a hat to keep "cool" in winter???
Why do you steal so much, Dunce?
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-11 04:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
lafcadio had a white hat
george told us
[I'd put one on Mt. Fuji
to keep the mountain cool]
WTF? Cythera's haiku (the poem of hers that she falsely claimed that I plagiarized) was set in winter. Why would the mountain need a hat to keep "cool" in winter???
This Cythera chick seems like another airhead....
George J. Dance
2019-07-11 23:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
lafcadio had a white hat
george told us
[I'd put one on Mt. Fuji
to keep the mountain cool]
WTF? Cythera's haiku (the poem of hers that she falsely claimed that I plagiarized) was set in winter. Why would the mountain need a hat to keep "cool" in winter???
This Cythera chick seems like another airhead....
Very much that gang's mini-ME, with the exception that Cythera wrote poetry.
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-12 03:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
lafcadio had a white hat
george told us
[I'd put one on Mt. Fuji
to keep the mountain cool]
WTF? Cythera's haiku (the poem of hers that she falsely claimed that I plagiarized) was set in winter. Why would the mountain need a hat to keep "cool" in winter???
This Cythera chick seems like another airhead....
Very much that gang's mini-ME, with the exception that Cythera wrote poetry.
It would be difficult to top the i8gnorance "ME" has....
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-14 02:27:22 UTC
Permalink
I do get your point though GD

Will Dockery
2019-07-11 21:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
lafcadio had a white hat
george told us
[I'd put one on Mt. Fuji
to keep the mountain cool]
WTF? Cythera's haiku (the poem of hers that she falsely claimed that I plagiarized) was set in winter. Why would the mountain need a hat to keep "cool" in winter???
Ah yes, the "Mt. Fuji" poems started up around this time, and many of us wrote our takes on that topic.
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-13 01:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
lafcadio had a white hat
george told us
[I'd put one on Mt. Fuji
to keep the mountain cool]
WTF? Cythera's haiku (the poem of hers that she falsely claimed that I plagiarized) was set in winter. Why would the mountain need a hat to keep "cool" in winter???
This Cythera chick seems like another airhead....
Very much that gang's mini-ME, with the exception that Cythera wrote poetry.
It would be difficult to top the i8gnorance "ME" has....
Loading...