Rev Roger Heresy #4: Rejecting Malaclypse the Younger.

[Prince Tao Jones]

DISCORDianism. The adherence to, and spreading of, DISCORD. Tear the filthy thing down. Smash it, and drive the survivors into the wasteland...and it doesn't really matter what "it" is. We are the adherents of OPPOSITION. We oppose for the sake of opposition itself. We don't take sides, we don't play favorites, and it's a wonder that we are a "we" at all.

Are you saying you believe in chaos for chaos' sake.

You're free to, I find it awful,  but you're not only on a principia forum, which is in direct contradiction to that, but you're the only one to have their own forum topic.

Or did you come here intentionally to fuck up this forum?

Beware, O ye of little faith, for the things I am about to say will piss thee off to no fucking end.  

Let me start off by stating that Malaclypse the Younger is, and always has been a fraud.  That's right.  Bogus.  Phoney.  His real name is Kerry Thornley, and he did NOT "walk into the ocean" thirty years ago.  He is alive and well, and living in Cleveland, Ohio.

Second, his book, Principia Discordia is gibberish.  Utter rot.  It has two or three good jokes in it, and one (1) good idea.  It's basically an acid rant that reads like the end of a Robert Anton Wilson novel...which is to say, it's garbage.  The one good idea, of course, being that you should think for yourself.  Obviously, some backsliders like to quote it and/or insist that people act according to its "teachings" if they want to be a "true" Discordian.

Obviously bullshit.

In fact, this false prophet and his teachings have led countless Discordians astray.  They have been led to believe that, to be a discordian, one must act as if one was tripping, even when NOT under the influence of psychadelic drugs.  It has led people to believe that Eris is some demented aspect of Bacchus, where we all focus on having a good time.  Poetry, games, inebriation, etc.

Sorry, wrong Gawd.

Eris is the goddess of DISCORD.  Take a minute, and look that word up.  I'll wait.

Back now?  Good, we'll continue.

DISCORDianism.  The adherence to, and spreading of, DISCORD.  Tear the filthy thing down.  Smash it, and drive the survivors into the wasteland...and it doesn't really matter what "it" is.  We are the adherents of OPPOSITION.  We oppose for the sake of opposition itself.  We don't take sides, we don't play favorites, and it's a wonder that we are a "we" at all.

We are the proxies of entropy, not a fucking coffee house poetry club.  We back the wrong horse, in the sheer hope of clogging up the guts of the machine, and it really makes no difference if the "machine" is malevolent or benign...Because, to us, NO organization is "benign".

You simply aren't going to gain the favor of the goddess by playing "three word game".  She'd rather see you shoving chewing gum in the coin slots of the subway entrance stiles, or simply playing "let's you and him fight".

The higher up in an organization that you can cause chaos, the more Eris will shower you with her blessings.  Avoid being caught (so you can do it again), and she'll even take them out of the big, heavy can first.

So spare me the quotes and the anecdotes from Principia.  Forget that old fraud, Malaclypse, because Eris already has.  

Or kill me.

This Is The Kind of Shit We Have To Put Up With Department

[Colonel Failure]

Colonel, fair post

.

Right back atcha.

Although, I'm not defending philosophy because a book says so.

Noted, and I didn't mean to imply that that was the sum total of your commentary, either.

1. This whole thing began because people were leaving the forum, and complaining that it was dead. Instead of just heading out, gave my 2 cents why every time EVT and I read it we're bored to tears, and after a couple of weeks forget to check it all together...

...Seemed people were more interested in bad puns, and pointless chat than people jaking and mindfucking.

Which seemed odd since were called a "Zen version of the Merry Pranksters"

A valid concern, and not at all what I take issue with.  

Me mean? All pointe/ taking the piss out/ commentary has been defensive as far as I can see.

You'll have to quote otherwise.

Just an example:

Aha!

Talk about..................'Extremists'

tao is not extremist, only honest and speaks his mind after he has thought for himself. thats not
extremist but consequent.

Don't waste your breath, they aren't capable of understanding above a 11 year old reading level.

EVT's comment was a defense, but was not defensive. Your post was simply an unnecessary insult. Now, I am NOT implying that your comment was unprovoked, merely that it goes back to my original statement, "Antagonism breeds antagonism." The clearly implied subtext to Demonica's comment was:

"pot: /msg kettle you black".

She says you're an extremist, you say she has the mind of a child, and back and forth and around we go, getting nothing accomplished. Continuing:

I disagree, there's lots of people in the world that enjoy argument for argument's sake, (contrarians) because they enjoy argument, because they enjoy pissing people off, because they have small dicks, because they're on an internet chat board, and don't have any friends and can give themselves the allusion of being an authority in some cyber fantasy world because in the real world, they're affraid of their own shadow, or a million other sociopathic reasons.

There's nothing wrong with having an argument. I like arguments. But an argument is an intelligent, rational, and most importantly, respectful, discussion between people who have differing views on a subject. When an argument degenerates into name-calling and finger-pointing, it's not an argument, it's a fight.

I'm not singling you out here (though I suppose it may seem that way) for responsibility. My point is that responsibility is irrelavent to this issue. Doesn't matter who started it, that's a game children play with assigning blame and avoiding culpability. What matters is that somebody (preferably everybody) realizes that it's gone too far and everybody needs to count to ten, realize that we're all on the same side here, and stop slinging mud.

Bullshit. Anybody who is so impressionable that they log on here, read the principia, read the Right Rev's Ranting, and immediately get the 'wrong' idea about Discordianism (as if there could be such a thing) isn't a Discordian and wasn't ever going to be one - they're a cabbage who wondered into the wrong corner of the web and got stuck like a deer in our headlights.  

Strongly disagree.

If I came here when that post was fresh and read it, I'd think this place was full of a bunch of nonsense spewing geeks, and never would have stayed, and never would have met EVT.

I'd hope to meet other cool open minded people while comming here in the future. I'd love it if this board got big and we could organize some pretty creative international jakes.

Well...

And Rog's sermon is half a joke.... You know that, right?

You do know that I'm nearly always half joking right?

I think you and Rog both grok Discordianism, and I'm not sure I believe you when you say Rog's sermon would have kept you off the board. If you know enough to take everything with a few grains of salt, then you know enough not to take him totally seriously and dismiss the entire thing because of one post. Somebody who doesn't know enough to take everything with that grain of salt, and does take it all seriously, isn't a Discordian in the first place. I guess my point is that an archetypical discordian (again, as if there was such a thing) is simply not as 'impressionable' as you seem to suggest in your original post.

And I'm all for the international jakery. Just my drug-addled mind can't think of anything cool for that...

Finally,

Thinking for yourself is one sign of enlightenment, yet the village idiot that thinks his shoes talk to him thinks for himself too. It's not the only sign of enlightenment.

You'll get no argument from me on that one.

[chaosgraves:agentoferis]

Colonel, fair post

.

Right back atcha.

Although, I'm not defending philosophy because a book says so.

Noted, and I didn't mean to imply that that was the sum total of your commentary, either.

1. This whole thing began because people were leaving the forum, and complaining that it was dead. Instead of just heading out, gave my 2 cents why every time EVT and I read it we're bored to tears, and after a couple of weeks forget to check it all together...

...Seemed people were more interested in bad puns, and pointless chat than people jaking and mindfucking.

Which seemed odd since were called a "Zen version of the Merry Pranksters"

A valid concern, and not at all what I take issue with.  

Me mean? All pointe/ taking the piss out/ commentary has been defensive as far as I can see.

You'll have to quote otherwise.

Just an example:

Aha!

Talk about..................'Extremists'

tao is not extremist, only honest and speaks his mind after he has thought for himself. thats not
extremist but consequent.

Don't waste your breath, they aren't capable of understanding above a 11 year old reading level.

EVT's comment was a defense, but was not defensive. Your post was simply an unnecessary insult. Now, I am NOT implying that your comment was unprovoked, merely that it goes back to my original statement, "Antagonism breeds antagonism." The clearly implied subtext to Demonica's comment was:

"pot: /msg kettle you black".

She says you're an extremist, you say she has the mind of a child, and back and forth and around we go, getting nothing accomplished. Continuing:

I disagree, there's lots of people in the world that enjoy argument for argument's sake, (contrarians) because they enjoy argument, because they enjoy pissing people off, because they have small dicks, because they're on an internet chat board, and don't have any friends and can give themselves the allusion of being an authority in some cyber fantasy world because in the real world, they're affraid of their own shadow, or a million other sociopathic reasons.

There's nothing wrong with having an argument. I like arguments. But an argument is an intelligent, rational, and most importantly, respectful, discussion between people who have differing views on a subject. When an argument degenerates into name-calling and finger-pointing, it's not an argument, it's a fight.

I'm not singling you out here (though I suppose it may seem that way) for responsibility. My point is that responsibility is irrelavent to this issue. Doesn't matter who started it, that's a game children play with assigning blame and avoiding culpability. What matters is that somebody (preferably everybody) realizes that it's gone too far and everybody needs to count to ten, realize that we're all on the same side here, and stop slinging mud.

Bullshit. Anybody who is so impressionable that they log on here, read the principia, read the Right Rev's Ranting, and immediately get the 'wrong' idea about Discordianism (as if there could be such a thing) isn't a Discordian and wasn't ever going to be one - they're a cabbage who wondered into the wrong corner of the web and got stuck like a deer in our headlights.  

Strongly disagree.

If I came here when that post was fresh and read it, I'd think this place was full of a bunch of nonsense spewing geeks, and never would have stayed, and never would have met EVT.

I'd hope to meet other cool open minded people while comming here in the future. I'd love it if this board got big and we could organize some pretty creative international jakes.

Well...

And Rog's sermon is half a joke.... You know that, right?

You do know that I'm nearly always half joking right?

I think you and Rog both grok Discordianism, and I'm not sure I believe you when you say Rog's sermon would have kept you off the board. If you know enough to take everything with a few grains of salt, then you know enough not to take him totally seriously and dismiss the entire thing because of one post. Somebody who doesn't know enough to take everything with that grain of salt, and does take it all seriously, isn't a Discordian in the first place. I guess my point is that an archetypical discordian (again, as if there was such a thing) is simply not as 'impressionable' as you seem to suggest in your original post.

And I'm all for the international jakery. Just my drug-addled mind can't think of anything cool for that...

Finally,

Thinking for yourself is one sign of enlightenment, yet the village idiot that thinks his shoes talk to him thinks for himself too. It's not the only sign of enlightenment.

You'll get no argument from me on that one.

I hope you don't get the arguement that If you don't quote the whole thing you are doing "spin" and lost the whole context of his arguement that i got.

[Horab Fibslager]

i disagree with your entire article based on the fact that malaclypse is not infact kerry thornely but one mr. greg hill.
i further disagree on the basis that i argue for the wrong side wrongly because nothign is funnier than when i win the wrong arguments wrongly.

further, fuck my baby's momma, gimme that nut(in teh eternal words of the late ez e)

[chaosgraves:agentoferis]

i disagree with your entire article based on the fact that malaclypse is not infact kerry thornely but one mr. greg hill.
i further disagree on the basis that i argue for the wrong side wrongly because nothign is funnier than when i win the wrong arguments wrongly.

further, fuck my baby's momma, gimme that nut(in teh eternal words of the late ez e)

you rock... look at this Tao .. look at this... he qouted a singer from N.W.A.


straight outta compton.

[Demonica, Oracle of Doom]

{{{{{{{{{{{{{GROUP HUG}}}}}}}}}}}}}}


Lets just all kiss and make up  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Let me start off by stating that Malaclypse the Younger is ... alive and well, and living in Cleveland, Ohio.

Second, his book, Principia Discordia is gibberish.  Utter rot.

Okay. (Mr. Thornley is dead and well cold by now, just BTW.) I'm still a happy rule-following weekend Discordian wannabe stuck in the pages of the Principia who still has problems eating hot dog buns because I don't know any better.

Sure, I could fake the rhetoric and even convince myself to walk the talk so I could get with the 'in' crowd.

Fact is, I'm just some kid raised by New Age dusk-squeezers who deeply desires to hug a tree, be nice to everyone and curl up with a tasty drink somewhere where the nasty monsters won't get him.

I don't think I had a point.

Mr Thornley is quite well, actually.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thanks for the confession, yet the big question is why do you post on a forum that is based on what you consider gibberish?

I was criticized and personally attacked for saying the posts here reflect heretical opinions, and you 3 have all admited you think the principia is a bunch of crap.

So, as others have mentioned the spiritual aspect, sticking gum in the subway gates, I being part gnostic part prankster, find that destructive chaos, and yielding nothing but bad karma.

The big contradiction is that you say you want people to think for themselves, yet you attack anyone who doesn't think like you regardless of if what the?? say is true or not.

1.  Because I feel like it.

2.  Poor guy.  And it IS a pile of crap.

3.  I'll try not to lose any sleep over it.

4.  You were expecting consistency?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Roger is trying to simultaneously tell us to think for ourselves, and command us to abide by his definition of Discordianism.

Funny shit, actually.

*Whacks with stick*

Thus, are ye enlightened.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And Rog's sermon is half a joke.... You know that, right?

Bullshit. Anybody who is so impressionable that they log on here, read the principia, read the Right Rev's Ranting, and immediately get the 'wrong' idea about Discordianism (as if there could be such a thing) isn't a Discordian and wasn't ever going to be one - they're a cabbage who wondered into the wrong corner of the web and got stuck like a deer in our headlights.

1.  But WHICH half?

2.  And thus, our rightful prey.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Roger is trying to simultaneously tell us to think for ourselves, and command us to abide by his definition of Discordianism.

Funny shit, actually.

Exactly! That's the very reason it's funny.

Gah! I have been trolled.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

[1. This whole thing began because people were leaving the forum, and complaining that it was dead. Instead of just heading out, gave my 2 cents why every time EVT and I read it we're bored to tears, and after a couple of weeks forget to check it all together.

but I do think he really believes in chaos for chaos' sake or at least that how it comes across,

I don't think these people should be banned from the forum, yet If no one challenges them, then the cool folks are all going to migrate away, and I don't want that.

1.  Well, your love letter posts really help in that regard.  

2.  Got it in one.

3.  The "cool folks"?  Okay, you're a pinkboy.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Are you saying you believe in chaos for chaos' sake.

You're free to, I find it awful,  but you're not only on a principia forum, which is in direct contradiction to that, but you're the only one to have their own forum topic.

Or did you come here intentionally to fuck up this forum?

1.  Yes.  Actually, it's even WORSE than that.

2.  Hey, don't blame me...the mods built me this padded cell to protect society.  Wasn't MY idea.

3.  I'll never tell.  You think BEING a "discordian" automatically grants you protection from other discordians, somehow?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I guess my point is that an archetypical discordian (again, as if there was such a thing) is simply not as 'impressionable' as you seem to suggest in your original post.

But who will protect the little darlings from bad ol' Rev Roger?  

[Bella]

Don't look at me. I'm apparently as incorrigible as you are.