Re: Ping--->alt.ascii-art: Stolen Art Re: O man, looky looky

Peter J Ross wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 10:01:45 -0400, Barbara's Cat
> <ca...@XSPAMkookbusters.org> wrote in alt.usenet.kooks:
> 
> > In article <443...@hotmail.com>,
> > � <h0p...@hotmail.com> said:
> >
> >> dave hillstrom wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:04:06 -0400, Barbara's Cat
> >> > <ca...@XSPAMkookbusters.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Mousy Tom "Champion of Perpetual Whining" Bishop squeaked:
> >> > >
> >> > >>   What a fucken pack of losers!!!!
> >> > >                   |
> >> > >  Yeth, they are.  |       Clearly.   Indeed.  Datz rat.
> >> > >        |          |          |          |        |
> >> > >      .....        |        ,'v',        |        |
> >> > >     /     \       |       / _ _ \     sSSSSSs   ___
> >> > >     |() ()|    Got any   /  . .  \   SS;; SSSS /_, \
> >> > >      ) ^ (    gay porn? |   ) (   |  S<   ?SSS oo  >)
> >> > >      \+++/        |      >   !   <    S>  SSS C__/ /
> >> > >       .=.        _,_    _|  : :  |_  ___)(____ UU\(__
> >> > >   .-.-.=.-.-. (^/   \^)( |  : :  | )(   \/    )  /  (\
> >> > >  / (_-: :-_) \ ( @ @ ) | |  : :  | || <   <  ||  |. ||\
> >> > > --------------oOO-.-Ooo'-----------'-------------'-----'--
> >> > >    "Chuckles"  "Mousy"  "Blankverse" "Pandory" "Duckery"
> >> >
> >> > does veronica know of all this fine ascii art?
> >>
> >> Not cool at all.
> >
> > Please, post the name(s) and contact information for
> > those that you say the above is stolen from or they
> > can contact me by e-mailing me at the address shown
> > above (sans XSPAM) or they can ping me on USENET in
> > the groups I normally read (r.a.p and a.a.p.c) and
> > I'll discuss with them whether it is stolen or not.
> 
> Cat, meet Dean Humphries, 

World, meet Peter J. Ross:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pjr.jpg

> Usenet Kook of the Month, October 2003.

Posts from the guy that ran the awards:


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.polyamory/msg/15425421485072d5?dmode=source&hl=en

From: mic...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael D. Phoenix)
Subject: Re: Poly as a Lifestyle
Date: 1996/05/19
Message-ID: <4noab2$7s...@Radon.Stanford.EDU>
X-Deja-AN: 155654038
references: <4n1oob$kc...@news.campus.mci.net>
<199...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
newsgroups: alt.polyamory

In article <199...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

Louise <b.....@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
> str...@ecsu.campus.mci.net (Strumpet) wrote:

>>         I would like to ask questions and build a reasonable
>> scenario of whatit would be like to live with all my partners
>> without bringing the legal authorities down on our heads.

Ugh.  Sometimes I forget how absolutely lucky I am to live in
California.  

I've never understood why any government should feel it has the right
to interfere about *anything* between consenting adults.  Fscking
victimless crimes...*snarl*.

>> 1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are legally
>> married?

>In my own experience, it has been important to me that "their" bedroom is
>now "our" bedroom, meaning that my dressing gown is hanging there, and my
>piles of books are there, and some of my clothes are there, and our bed is
>big enough for all of us to sleep comfortably, even when two out of three
>have miserable colds and don't feel like snuggling.  

Hmmm.  I think for me that it would depend a lot on the nature of the
polyamory being practiced.  For example, if I were in a polyfidelitous
relationship, I'd definitely want to share sleeping space with my
partners (to me, sleeping with a lover is a much more intimate
experience than making love with them--it's about *belonging*).  But
if I were in a non-polyfidelitous poly household, I'd definitely want
my own bedroom so that:
        1) I'd have a place to bring non-household lovers, and
        2) I'd have a place to go when one of my partners brought a
non-household lover.

For me personally, in my ideal world, I see myself living in a
non-polyfidelitous poly household, with somewhere between 4 and 8
people total, where temporary bubbles of polyfidelity occur, at which
point sleeping arrangements tend to coagulate--said sleeping
arrangements separating again when that phase of polyfidelity goes
away.  I might well, for example, want to "move in with" someone(s)
for a month or six while we really enjoyed being particularly close,
but then would want a "room of my own" to retreat to when I or they
decided to "branch out" a bit again.

I almost think I'd be happiest in a house where there were several
extra rooms, and the rooms varied in size from one-person cubby-holes
to five or six-person mass snuggle rooms, and people moved themselves
and their possessions from room to room as a reflection of the
relationships-of-the-moment.

But I think I'll wait to decide for sure until I've found the right 3
to 7 primaries to share my life with.  *impatient sigh*...:-)

>alone, while the children make noise somewhere else.  I do need to have
>access to space like that, but it doesn't need to be "my" space 24/7.

Hmmm.  For me, "personal space" is almost entirely a non-bedroom
issue; I don't think of my bedroom as my personal space, but rather as
the place where I happen to be sleeping right now, and as
"relationship space".

"personal space" is much more of a "den" or "office" sort of thing for
me.

>Both P and I also have dedicated desk-space where we can leave things in a
>mess without feeling responsible to someone else.  It's just occurred to

Hmmm.  There was a time (pre-1-year-old) when I'd have wanted that;
now, my ideal personal space is a place where I can *keep things neat*
without being interfered with by someone else.  :-)

>As for "appearing" proper:  I don't see any reason why legal authorities
>here would care.  

There actually are jurisdictions where bigamy and adultery are still
crimes, frightening though it seems.

>But we have no ex-partners seeking custody of our
>children; it might be an issue in that case.  

I do have an ex-wife, and a daughter with her--and I suspect that I'll
find myself becoming very circumspect about my sexual lifestyle if she
ever makes custody noises in my daughter's direction.

>I'm not yet out to my
>parents, and I'm not sure where they think I sleep; perhaps if they came
>to visit before I was ready to tell them more, I might make up one of the
>spare beds to avoid awkwardness.  

I really am lucky to have the parents I do--I've been out to them
about virtually all aspects of my sexuality ever since I was about
15...:-)

They've always been very supportive of it, although generally quite
uncomprehending ("You mean, you'd actually enjoy having someone *bite*
you during sex?!"  "Yes, mom.  Try it sometime."  :-)

I honestly can't imagine *not* telling my parents who I was sleeping
with and why--I'd always be worrying that they'd figure it out, if I
tried to keep secrets from them.

It is a bit strange, though, having two monamorous parents and trying
to explain to them *why* one would want to be polyamorous, and how it
differs from "free love" or "casual sex".

>Although I expect this to become less of
>an issue for the three of us, as we come out gradually to the people who
>matter in our lives, we'll need to remain respectful of the comfort levels
>of our proto-teenagers.  It might be easier for them, if we provided them
>with "simple" answers to the questions their friends ask.  "Isn't this
>your mum?  Oh, what's she doing here then?  Where does she sleep?"  We're
>still thinking about these things.  

Oof.  When you figure it out, tell me--I'm sure I'll have to start
explaining it to my daughter in another few years.

Somehow, knowing me, I expect I'll just tell my daughter "This is
Daddy's partner, Lisa.  And this is Daddy's partner, Beth.  And this
is Daddy's partner, Tom.  And Beth is Lisa's partner, too, but Tom
isn't--he's Beth's.  And...oh, go ask your mommy."

:-)

Seriously, I think that children should always be given the most
honest answer possible, but framed in their terms.  So, if Deirdre at
age 3 wants to know "Why're Lisa and Beth both living with us, when
most kids have only one mommy?", a reasonable answer might be "Because
everybody's family is different--we've got a family with *so much
love* that we need an extra person to hold it all.  And all three of
us love you very much."

Whereas if Deirdre at age 15 wants to know "Why're you sleeping with
Lisa and Beth?  Can't you just pick one lover, like everybody else?"
I'd probably answer "Well, I, like lots of other people, love more
than one person.  I believe in being honest about it, and in being
loving towards the people I find myself loving, rather than either
lying about it or hiding it from them.  Some people only want to love
one person at a time, so they do.  I want to love both Lisa and Beth,
so I do."

*shrug*  Ask me after it happens, and I'll tell you what I did.

>so "Louise who stays with us sometimes" doesn't seem strange.  After being
>away most of the fall, at Thanksgiving I ran into one of the neighbours at
>a hockey rink.  "Oh, yes, you're the red car," he said, "will you be back
>for Christmas?"  

Wonderful.  :-)

>> 3. Child Rearing. Big issue. For every three partners, there will be
>> four or more ways of raising the kids. I advocate that all adults are
>> equally responsible and when conflicts develop over, say, discipline,
>> then a consensus is reached "In Committee", so to speak. Basic rules
>> can be hammered out ahead of time and posted prominently, but there
>> will always be situational crisis'.

I have to say, this absolutely wouldn't work for me.  My daughter is
*my* daughter, my flesh and blood, linked to me with a bond which I
cannot imagine anything stronger than.

(and no, this isn't some abstract philosophical or cultural position
I'm taking here--it's a totally unexpected and unpredicted
*experience* that I had when I first saw my daughter in the flesh.
And yes, YMMV--but for me, *there is nothing* as powerful as the blood
relationship.  This is my experience.)

I would not ever be comfortable having a non-biological parent being
"equally responsible" for my daughter's raising.  If I had one or more
life partners, I'd be happy to let them share in the parenting of my
daughter--but they would *not* be "equally responsible".

Sorry.  *retracts fangs*.  

>others.  In my experience, my partners' habits of reaching consensus and
>spelling out rules and consequences ahead of time with their children have
>made it much easier for me to participate usefully in parenting
>*before/without* being a "primary parent" with "equal
>responsibility".  

Yes!  Exactly!

I'd be pleased to have life-partner "parenting assistance" in terms of
implementing the decisions I make about my child's rearing--but I'd
never want a partner, life or otherwise, making decisions about how to
raise my child without consulting me.

For example, I will not use corporal punishment on my daughter.  I
tried it--precisely once.  The look of betrayal and loss in her eyes
was not something I am ever willing to see there again.

And I would not allow *ANYONE* in my life to have the kind of
relationship to my daughter which would let them decide that they were
authorized to use corporal punishment on her.

If that makes sense.

>As
>Cat Deville described eloquently in her description of sharing parenting
>of the children in her tribe, when the parents and children have already
>agreed on the rules, it is relatively easy for a secondary parent to
>follow along with the customs and to remind the children of the rules.
>"Whose night is it to set the table?  We'll be eating in 15 minutes"  and
>"Aren't you supposed to be using that outside?" are interactions that
>aren't exerting *my* authority, but are referencing some accepted parental
>standards, so it was easy for me to participate in them early on.  Of

Yep.  Bingo.

But even that level of parenting is something I'd be most comfortable
reserving for life partners--just because I'm dating someone or
sleeping with them doesn't mean I want them reminding my daughter
about my rules and such.

Take care,

Mickey. 



http://groups.google.com/group/alt.polyamory/msg/6223bbee6b28fa3b?dmode=source&hl=en

From: mic...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael D. Phoenix)
Subject: Re: jealousy vs. envy
Date: 1996/05/06
Message-ID: <4mlnse$k6...@Radon.Stanford.EDU>
X-Deja-AN: 153364987
organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
newsgroups: alt.polyamory


To me, there's nothing sadder than (for example) a relationship where
one parter would *love* to try fisting the other, and the other
partner would *love* to be fisted--but both assume that "that's just
too nasty even to ask", so they never do it.









> > You were touching yourself when you clicked "send",
> > weren't you?
> 
> I think he has the "send" button wired to his genitals. Nothing else
> can explain why he uses it so often and so wankishly.
> 
> PJR :-)
> --
>   _  _(o)_(o)_  _       FSM: http://www.venganza.org/
> ._\`:_ F S M _:' \_,    PJR: http://www.insurgent.org/~pjr/
>     / (`---'\ `-.       AUK: http://www.netcabal.com/auk/
>  ,-`  _)    (_,   F_P   God's Own Newsreader: http://www.slrn.org/


-- 
http://www.bedoper.com/snuh

 *********************************************************************
 *     GEORGE BUSH WIPES HIS ASS WITH THE           ____________     *
 *            CONSTITUTION AGAIN!                  /        /   \    *
 *           __       __    __      _             |   WE   | ( ) |   *
 *          |  |     /  \  |  |    | |            |  THE   |\__ /    *
 *          |  |__  | () | |  |__  |_|            |PEOPLE  |         *
 *          |_____|  \__/  |_____| (_)            |________|         *
 *                                                                   *
 *********************************************************************
 *            BTW, George Bush's head looks like a chimp.            *
 *                                                                   *
 *         .-"-.         _________________________________           *
 *       _/.-.-.\_      /                                 \          *
 *      (   o o   )     |  Executive Privilege r0><3r$!!! |          *
 *       |/  "  \|  _-_ \_   _____________________________/          *
 *        \ .0 ./   | /   | /                                        *
 *         \   /   / /    |/                                         *
 *        /`"""`--/ /     /                                          *
 *       /         /                                                 *
 *      / '      ./                                                  *
 *      | \_____/                                                    *
 *                                                                   *
 *********************************************************************
                        WTF is Fred Ziffel?


    -------
   /       \
  /         \  /-----\
 | (@)      | | SnuH  |
 |      (O) | \_  ___/
 |    /     |   ||
 | \ /_     /  //
 \  \____/ /  /
  \       /
   \_____,

Related ASCII art in the Gallery

Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:

[>====]

   ))
 .-#-----.
/_________\
 |[] _ []|
 |  |*|  |

  ,  ,  , , ,
 <(__)> | | |
 | \/ | \_|_/
 \^  ^/   |
 /\--/\  /|
/  \/  \/jgs

     /| __________
O|==|* >__________>
     \|

(    )
|\^^/|
(0::0)
 \\// 
 (oo) 
/ \/ \

(\  _  /)
( \( )/ )
(       )
 `>   <' 
 /     \ 
 `-._.-' 

Make your own ASCII art

Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.