|
Post by jeff on Mar 4, 2006 17:06:40 GMT -5
now hold on - - jemo.net is often updated. the layout has been changed several times. in fact, this last look is largely james' fault... please *beeyatch* at him if you like.
party on! j
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 11, 2006 17:17:35 GMT -5
All I did was forward the website of a certain Icelandic band whose layout Jeff ripped off. This was in response to Jeff's statement that he wanted the new jemo.net to be "white."
Please direct all complaints to Michael Beauclerc.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Mar 12, 2006 14:56:58 GMT -5
none of the above is true. except most of it. which is also false. that may or may not be true. in which case, the answer is moot.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 12, 2006 15:56:17 GMT -5
I neither agree nor disagree with the preceding statements.
Considerately.
|
|
lilfunky1
Hamsterboy
For the girl who has everything...
Posts: 226
|
Post by lilfunky1 on Mar 14, 2006 11:07:57 GMT -5
y'all are dorks. totally.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 16, 2006 20:34:02 GMT -5
What your statement fails to account for is the manner in which the word, "dorks" is part of a system, or "system" that is subsumed by a post-post-modern scheme of recontextualization (Harkins, 2004) - done, of course, in light of the most salient insights of recent semiological investigations and, moreover, with full knowledge that the text, or "text," can ultimately have aspirations no higher than that of simulacra (if not simulacra of simulacra [of simulacra?]!). Furthermore, the text has no connection to that which is outside the text, which is a necessary condition for representation- while recognizing the fact that claims of direct representation are outmoded components of the authoritarian, patriarchal system of control which is disguised as an objective ontology, but is based on deeply flawed metaphysical assertions and must give way to post-colonial accounts that allow for the flourishing of identity, independent of representational claims and discard supposed direct representation so that signs may be posited independently of any unfounded -or perhaps even well-founded -metaphysical positions while being free from patriarchal, hierarchical coding, thus (ceteris paribus) establishing a berth for new ways of thinking that may ultimately cohere into a more symmetrical, accurate and comprehensive ontology following chaos models or perhaps culminate in the establishment of a collective "body without organs" existing on a macro scale or following the less organized pattern of the rhizome, if we accept the account of Deleuze and Guatarri on such matters, which is not to argue that such accounts are to be imposed, only to suggest certain prima facie possibilities for the growth of expression and, by extension, socio-political realities once the yolk of direct representation and the broader ontological scheme and social institutions represented by therein is cast off. Thus, when you call us "dorks," you are in fact traversing a set of differences, termed by Derrida with the neologism, "différence," which itself is free-floating and fluid. In such a context, in which langue and parole are unhinged (Dantowitz, 1973), the very problem of applying the term "dorks" (which is itself nothing more than a congealing of neutral phonemes) becomes apparent: that we are, in fact, not "dorks," but "geeks."
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Mar 17, 2006 3:14:13 GMT -5
you see what happens? you see what happens when you f**k a stranger in the ass?
|
|
lilfunky1
Hamsterboy
For the girl who has everything...
Posts: 226
|
Post by lilfunky1 on Mar 17, 2006 14:37:24 GMT -5
you're not geeks. geeks are smart that we are, in fact, not "dorks," but "geeks."
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 17, 2006 15:12:57 GMT -5
you're not geeks. geeks are smart that we are, in fact, not "dorks," but "geeks." Angela, may I remind you that Jemo is characterized by its refusal of metanarratives (Beauclerc, 2006). Thus, the conflation of Jemo's icons, indexes, and symbols (simply, its "signifiers") into an integrated syntagma naturally poses fundamental hermeneutical problems in mounting a coherent analysis of Jemo historiography. The problem is further compounded by Jemo's ambivalence toward its own system of representation (Bourgeois? Post-colonial? Marxist-Humanist?) Such a position necessarily poses its own para(meta?)-narrative questions, questions involving teleology and cosmogony. Namely: 1. What is Jemo? 2. Was Jemo always Jemo (Cosmogonic issues. see also: will Jemo always be Jemo?) 3. Where is Jemo going (i.e. What is Jemo's teleology?) 4. Finally, what is the nature of Jemo's relation (if any) to October: A Celebration of U2?
|
|
lilfunky1
Hamsterboy
For the girl who has everything...
Posts: 226
|
Post by lilfunky1 on Mar 17, 2006 16:19:45 GMT -5
i didn't say i was smrt either
|
|
lilfunky1
Hamsterboy
For the girl who has everything...
Posts: 226
|
Post by lilfunky1 on Mar 20, 2006 10:40:58 GMT -5
oh jemo-unoffical got updated. i stole the rest of the lyrics off jemo.net then added links for soundclips in the music section. but it's really just links to the mp3's i ripped off live shows, or to the myspace currently. and i updated the news with the upcoming shows for may.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 20, 2006 15:40:25 GMT -5
oh jemo-unoffical got updated. i stole the rest of the lyrics off jemo.net then added links for soundclips in the music section. but it's really just links to the mp3's i ripped off live shows, or to the myspace currently. and i updated the news with the upcoming shows for may. I wonder what Michel Foucault would say about all of that.
|
|
lilfunky1
Hamsterboy
For the girl who has everything...
Posts: 226
|
Post by lilfunky1 on Mar 21, 2006 13:40:10 GMT -5
who?
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Mar 23, 2006 3:35:12 GMT -5
doesn't he play drums in jemo?
|
|
lilfunky1
Hamsterboy
For the girl who has everything...
Posts: 226
|
Post by lilfunky1 on Mar 23, 2006 10:35:25 GMT -5
doesn't he play drums in jemo? Isn't that Michael Beauclerc?
|
|