Brushwood's rule concerning cameras

From: none@yerbiz.com (Legume)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Jun 26, 2001 7:12 PM
Message-ID: <Xns90CCC3ACC24F0CortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>

Brushwood has a policy concerning the use of cameras. You may only
photograph someone if you have their consent, and anyone in violation can
have their film confiscated.

I do NOT give my consent.

So don't bitch if you find your camcorder tossed in the swamp.You've been
warned.

--
----------------------------------
Dr. K. "Cortez" Legume

Grouchy fucker

Looking for the New World
and the Palace in the Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: Artemia Salina <y2k@sheayright.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 2:00 AM
Message-ID: <3B397666.581494B4@sheayright.com>

Legume wrote:
>
> Brushwood has a policy concerning the use of cameras. You may only
> photograph someone if you have their consent, and anyone in violation can
> have their film confiscated.

A very good policy.

> I do NOT give my consent.

Of course, I don't know WHY anyone would want YOUR stanky ass
fogging up their camera lenses, but I suppose you should make your
wishes known, for the sake of formality, if nothing else.

> So don't bitch if you find your camcorder tossed in the swamp.You've been
> warned.

You think yer man enough to wrassle a CIA satellite into that swamp?
No matter; they probably have more snap shots of the top of your head
already than purple has psychological problems.

You oughta get a hat that says "FUCK YOU, CIA" written across the
top of it in glow-in-the-dark paint.

--
Artemia Salina -- http://www.drpez.com/drali1.htm
Taking the 'rhetorical' out of 'rhetorical question' since 1958
.
.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: bricksnmortar@aol.com (BRICKSNMORTAR)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 5:01 AM

I was wondering since I'm such a big of yours before the Y2k scare if it was
okay if I found a picture of yours somewherees else and if I took a picture of
that and then cut the head off and put my face over your body then put it in a
Mars background and then submitted it to subsite.

Rev. MAD Neuman REporting typien maddenely
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: lyonderboy@hotmail.com (Lupus Yonderboy)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 9:07 AM

none@yerbiz.com (Legume) wrote in message news:<Xns90CCC3ACC24F0CortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>...
> Brushwood has a policy concerning the use of cameras. You may only
> photograph someone if you have their consent, and anyone in violation can
> have their film confiscated.
>
> I do NOT give my consent.
>
> So don't bitch if you find your camcorder tossed in the swamp.You've been
> warned.

Well, well, well. Threats already. Here is the law concerning camera
use:
You may have anyone on film you want as long as they're not the main
focus of the shot. Otherwise, no one would ever be able to film a
movie in NYC.

So, if you're up on stage, or something, and it's obviously that I'm
taping YOU, and you don't want to be in a film, you have the right to
request that your sexy visage not be edited into anything I use for
any purpose other than a home movie, which I have every right to as
long as you're in a public place (such as Brushwood).

You do not have the right to confiscate film.
You do not have the right to toss my $2000 camcorder in the swamp.
Even if you're a police officer, which you're not, you can't. The
fact that you probably aren't means I can claim assault, and still
beat the living shit out of you in defense, and still press charges.
You will not hear me "bitching" so don't worry yourself about that.

You've been warned. I can't afford another camcorder.

Someone showing up in the background of a taped shot is different from
a "photograph" taken from a still camera. Camera. Camcorder.
They're different.

-LY
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: none@yerbiz.com (Legume)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 10:06 AM
Message-ID: <Xns90CD67055484BCortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>

Legume wrote:

> Lupus Yonderboy wrote:
>
>> You do not have the right to confiscate film.
>> You do not have the right to toss my $2000 camcorder in the swamp.
>> Even if you're a police officer, which you're not, you can't. The
>> fact that you probably aren't means I can claim assault, and still
>> beat the living shit out of you in defense, and still press charges.
>
> And you, little droogie, can go fuck yourself.

Ah, almost forgot to mention this. You CAN be told to leave by Brushwood's
management (with whom I am very good pals), fucking up your XDAY weekend
and meaning that you face a LONG DRIVE HOME WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT BUT
A LOVELY PICTURE OF ME.

Your move.
--
----------------------------------
Dr. K. "Cortez" Legume

Looking for the New World
and the Palace in the Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "kevbob" <kevbob@ecsis.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 10:15 AM
Message-ID: <tjjqa9t72gsj14@corp.supernews.com>

"Lupus Yonderboy" <lyonderboy@hotmail.com> wrote
> as you're in a public place (such as Brushwood).

how is Brushwood not pivate property?

--
"This ministration without full consent
Fire and brimstone, I will not relent
Just as all good things must come to an end
I will administer as I see fit" -Clutch
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: none@yerbiz.com (Legume)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 10:02 AM
Message-ID: <Xns90CD66587C8CortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>

Lupus Yonderboy wrote:

> You do not have the right to confiscate film.
> You do not have the right to toss my $2000 camcorder in the swamp.
> Even if you're a police officer, which you're not, you can't. The
> fact that you probably aren't means I can claim assault, and still
> beat the living shit out of you in defense, and still press charges.

And you, little droogie, can go fuck yourself.

----------------------------------
Dr. K. "Cortez" Legume

Looking for the New World
and the Palace in the Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 10:28 AM
Message-ID: <n4m_6.792$ef.116307@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>

Happy Camper over there forgot that while he's perfectly correct (mostly,
close enough for this discussion) about the law on photography, Brushwood is
*private property.* If I want, I can have a rule that you can only take
pictures while holding your camera in your teeth, upside down, on my
property and if you don't comply I am within my rights to have you escorted
off it by baying and slavering minions of the law. And if somebody doesn't
want their picture taken, it is, quite frankly, rude to do so. We have a
whole planet of Pinks to vent our rudeness upon, venting it upon fellow
SubGeniuses should be saved for special occasions.

That being said, I am not particularly going to worry about background noise
(like you) in my shots. If you are so uptight about having your picture
taken, wear something distinctive (the aforementioned glow in the dark "Fuck
You, CIA" hat would be good, although it should really say "NRA," R for
Recon) so I know not to have you in my viewfinder.

I personally like to take pictures. I especially like to take pictures of
attractive females (which is redundant when talking of the SubG females I've
seen so far.) Anybody at public gatherings should be on notice that people
are going to take their picture, and that goes double for females and
anybody in their vicinity. Am I going to go up to said females and stick my
camera in their cleavage (*any* of the three majors?) Not unless they ask,
no. Am I going to stand there and click away for upwards of an hour so I can
build realistic 3-D models? Not unless I think I can get away with it, and
I'm really fairly smart, so I don't think that.

But, all in all, if you're in a public place, the onus is on *you* to tell
people *not* to put you in shots, not the other way around. You are welcome
to do so in as inventive and unpleasant way as you think you can get away
with: *I* won't take offense. "Don't point that camera at me, you miserable
bastard!" would be fine. And I'll do my best to remember what you look like
so I don't put you in any shots later. That's the offer, take it or leave
it.

Anyhoo, a *really* good photographer would just not be noticed, and then
there's no problem until the pictures show up in "Time." Too late then!

St. Marc
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "whyaskwhyaskwhy" <blackout@404infomagic.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 10:44 AM
Message-ID: <rkm_6.999$T_2.173429@news.uswest.net>

why not simply BOBTIZE him, CAMERA AND ALL?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: Christopher Lee <clbundy@indy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 11:52 AM
Message-ID: <3B3A012D.C852B4DD@indy.net>

Legume wrote:

>
> So don't bitch if you find your camcorder tossed in the swamp.You've been
> warned.
>

Didn't you once make a similar threat concerning theremins, and anyone
playing one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: none@yerbiz.com (Legume)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 12:13 PM
Message-ID: <Xns90CD7C819271BCortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>

St. Marc the Perpetually Amused wrote:

> Happy Camper over there forgot that while he's perfectly correct
> (mostly, close enough for this discussion) about the law on
> photography, Brushwood is *private property.*

Correct. Brushwood is indeed private property.
>
> But, all in all, if you're in a public place, the onus is on *you* to
> tell people *not* to put you in shots, not the other way around.

Correct again, St.Marc, it is up to ME to tell folks that I don't want my
picture taken, and that's what I did. I encourage ALL of you to do the
same thing. This event has become one big tv show, where people follow you
around filming everything you do, recording your private conversations.
This event is supposed to be about HAVING FUN, not WATCHING OTHERS HAVE
FUN.

The kicker, for me, was when some dumb fuckers came into the poolhouse, and
decided to pose with a naked 11-year old girl with a whip. Personally, I
could care less WHAT folks do, but my nude wife was trying to get dressed
in the background of their potential felony evidence video.

The bottom line is this: I have certain wishes regarding my vacation that I
don't want violated, first of which is that I don't want some asshole
circulating a "look what Legume did to that poor drunk fuck" or a "look at
what that drunk fuck Legume did" video.

And as long as my wishes regarding this are respected, everything'll be
hunky-dory. Anyone who finds himself on my bad side because of this should
remember; I told them not to do it. And being in a remote forest with me
on your bad side can really ruin yer fuckin' day.
--
----------------------------------
Dr. K. "Cortez" Legume

Looking for the New World
and the Palace in the Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: none@yerbiz.com (Legume)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 12:14 PM
Message-ID: <Xns90CD7CC7143B5CortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>

Christopher Lee wrote:

>> So don't bitch if you find your camcorder tossed in the swamp.You've
>> been warned.
>>
>
> Didn't you once make a similar threat concerning theremins, and anyone
> playing one?

Well, that goes without saying...

--
----------------------------------
Dr. K. "Cortez" Legume

Looking for the New World
and the Palace in the Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: lyonderboy@hotmail.com (Lupus Yonderboy)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 3:45 PM
Message-ID: <26a3a89e.0106271145.5216e065@posting.google.com>

Okay folks, I got a little hot-headed. Sorry. Wrote the message when
I was tired and crabby. My head is back together.

I'm a bit defensive about my equipment which I have paid dearly to
own. I'm not the wealthiest of people, not even "middle class", so
when I pay more than $4000 on a film studio, I want it to work.
Losing my camera would be devastating. It would set me back years.

There was a statement made here that my camera would be thrown into a
swamp if I got Legume on film. Not cool. My response was not cool
either, but Legume's threat was not cool. Furthermore, his threat to
get me ejected off Brushwood property was ALSO not cool. And then, as
if that weren't enough, a challenge in the spirit of... bad spirit.
If you don't want it to happen, then don't ask for it just so you can
show me how powerful your connections are. Like we're at high noon or
something.

Well Legume, you win. The ridiculous macho button in my own head that
you set off is not enough to put my camera in jeopardy, or enough to
justify a possibly violent response when I lose it to your spoiled
attitude. I won't be bringing my camcorder to xxxxday. You have no
more fear of being photographed by me.

You are the Stark Fist of Removal.

-LY
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "whyaskwhyaskwhy" <blackout@404infomagic.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 4:14 PM
Message-ID: <4ar_6.1606$hz1.302613@news.uswest.net>

what a FAG.

go on up and take his picture and then tell him to SUCK IT, then DEAL with
the consequences. fukkin' end o' the world and you go all limp cuz yer
CAMERA is in DANGER.

Milquetoast journalism gives me the fontads.

P.S. Legume: camera or no camera,,be sure and throw his effeminate
backpedaling ass in the swamp ennywayz just to be on the safe side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "kevbob" <kevbob@ecsis.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 4:41 PM
Message-ID: <tjkgt5n9nuns26@corp.supernews.com>

"whyaskwhyaskwhy" <blackout@404infomagic.com> wrote
> what a FAG.
>
> go on up and take his picture and then tell him to SUCK IT, then DEAL with
> the consequences. fukkin' end o' the world and you go all limp cuz yer
> CAMERA is in DANGER.
>
> Milquetoast journalism gives me the fontads.
>
> P.S. Legume: camera or no camera,,be sure and throw his effeminate
> backpedaling ass in the swamp ennywayz just to be on the safe side.

wow, you are cool.

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "whyaskwhyaskwhy" <blackout@404infomagic.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 4:51 PM
Message-ID: <pJr_6.1613$hz1.324933@news.uswest.net>

"kevbob" wrote

> wow, you are cool.

you spelled wawaw wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: none@yerbiz.com (Legume)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 6:48 PM
Message-ID: <Xns90CDBF969E65CortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>

Lupus Yonderboy wrote:

> There was a statement made here that my camera would be thrown into a
> swamp if I got Legume on film. Not cool. My response was not cool
> either, but Legume's threat was not cool.

I never said YOUR camera. My "threat" was that there'd be bad consequences
if you fucked with my slack. It's as much a threat as the "threat" dog shit
makes of ruining your shoe. As long as you don't step on it you have no
problem.

>Furthermore, his threat to
> get me ejected off Brushwood property was ALSO not cool.

You're the one who wanted to play by the Pink "call the cops" rules. I can
play that shit too.

>And then, as
> if that weren't enough, a challenge in the spirit of... bad spirit.
> If you don't want it to happen, then don't ask for it just so you can
> show me how powerful your connections are. Like we're at high noon or
> something.

When you threaten to have me arrested and beat the living shit out of me.
it's fucking well High Noon. You don't want to slap leather, stay out of
the street. And you ASKED for it. Next time you feel like saying "oh
yeah?" and threatening to beat the living shit out of me, keep yer fuckin'
trap shut, cuz I didn't get to be a nasty old bastard by backing down.

>
> Well Legume, you win. The ridiculous macho button in my own head that
> you set off is not enough to put my camera in jeopardy, or enough to
> justify a possibly violent response when I lose it to your spoiled
> attitude.

"Spoiled attitude". Requesting that my right to privacy be respected means
I have a "spoiled attitude".

> I won't be bringing my camcorder to xxxxday. You have no
> more fear of being photographed by me.

Good. Why don't you stay home and keep it company?

> You are the Stark Fist of Removal.

Damn right I am.
--
----------------------------------
Dr. K. "Cortez" Legume

Looking for the New World
and the Palace in the Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: none@yerbiz.com (Legume)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 6:49 PM
Message-ID: <Xns90CDBFBE53E0BCortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>

kevbob wrote:

> wow, you are cool.

He's DREAMY.
--
----------------------------------
Dr. K. "Cortez" Legume

Looking for the New World
and the Palace in the Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: frankenstone@freakrock.com (Frankenstone)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 11:10 PM
Message-ID: <95c15d45.0106271910.72072f62@posting.google.com>

In 1998, a drunk asshole at Brushwood threatened to throw my camera
into his campfire because I had accidentally videotaped him. I
apologized, and rewound the tape and recorded over that footage, and
showed it to his friends, who were very nice and apologetic. He
continued to threaten to destroy my camera. They explained to me that
he had a government job, and that it would be bad if he was shown to
be at Brushwood. (My footage consisted of him and his friends sitting
around a nondescript campfire, so small in the screen as to be
unrecognizable, that's all they were doing, just sitting there)

The punchline: The next day, at the Bobtism, he's at the pool, front
row and center, ogling the naked wimmin (or possibly the men). He was
captured on videotape by a dozen camcorders watching this spectacle of
nekkedity (but not by mine.)

I certainly don't want to destroy anyone's Slack by taping them
against their will, but you better get used to it. Cameras are
everywhere. The Conspiracy is in the process of recording our every
move, to prove us guilty of crimes that used to go unseen. (Just look
what the cops are doing with cameras in England and Brazil.)

The only way to avoid getting taped doing criminal or embarrassing
things is to not do them. (But then they will just computer animate
you doing them anyway.)

By the way, this thead is stealing my slack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: Dr. Codini <Codini@subgeniusdot.whatever>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: codini@DogsFuckthePope.com
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 8:20 PM
Message-ID: <33ukjtolda8g5k3lq1jlbdn23mma3dvpj8@4ax.com>

On 27 Jun 2001 12:45:08 -0700, lyonderboy@hotmail.com (Lupus
Yonderboy) said:

>Okay folks, I got a little hot-headed. Sorry. Wrote the message when
>I was tired and crabby. My head is back together.
>

--SNIP- PANSY ASS, GOOBER GOBBLIN', "I'm a sensitive Arteeest", NANCY
BOY, CHIHUAHUA BLOWING, TWAT FACED, AUNT ROSIE IS IN TOWN... FAG
CRAP----
-------Kiss My Fat Black Ass
--Codini
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "Rev. Enki" <revenki@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 8:43 PM
Message-ID: <Q4v_6.389081$oc7.49834607@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>

"Legume" <none@yerbiz.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90CD7C819271BCortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199...
> .....This event has become one big tv show, where people follow you
> around filming everything you do, recording your private conversations.
> This event is supposed to be about HAVING FUN, not WATCHING OTHERS HAVE
> FUN.

If that's what I wanted I could have stayed in New Orleans for the weekend,
and hung out on Bourbon Street with its Tittycam Commandos.

I see your point, Legume.

> The kicker, for me, was when some dumb fuckers came into the poolhouse,
and
> decided to pose with a naked 11-year old girl with a whip. Personally, I
> could care less WHAT folks do, but my nude wife was trying to get dressed
> in the background of their potential felony evidence video.

Forget the camera -- why didn't you throw THEM into the swamp?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 9:04 PM
Message-ID: <270620012104296639%stang@subgenius.com>

In article <Xns90CCC3ACC24F0CortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>, Legume
<none@yerbiz.com> wrote:

>
> So don't bitch if you find your camcorder tossed in the swamp.You've been
> warned.

Hell, you helped throw their Sacred Scribe into the swamp, and they
didn't bitch about THAT, in fact they cheered you on!

CRANKY AUTHORITARIAN BASTARD!

I got a great big telephoto lens strapped on JUST for YOU!!

--
4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
A subsidiary of:
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc. / P.O. Box 140306, Dallas, TX 75214
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 8:53 PM
Message-ID: <3b3a820d$0$62146$272ea4a1@news.execpc.com>

in article Xns90CDBF969E65CortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199, Legume at
none@yerbiz.com wrote on 6/27/01 5:48 PM:

> My "threat" was that there'd be bad consequences
> if you fucked with my slack. It's as much a threat as the "threat" dog shit
> makes of ruining your shoe. As long as you don't step on it you have no
> problem.

As I actually said to a fellow once, the best line in a short but brilliant
life:

"Don't think of it as a threat. Think of it more as a prophecy."

St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Disciple of Eris
Holder of Some Titles
Most Powerful and Revered Being (without portfolio)
Redundant Head of the Department for Arbitration of Redundancy Department
(without portfolio,) Acting
Fuck, Was That A Good Line - Worked, Too

http://www.templeoferis.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "Col. Sphinx Drummond" <sphinx@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: sphinx@subgenius.com
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 9:52 PM
Message-ID: <3B3A8DD3.F76DCC1C@subgenius.com>

I'm not even bringing my goddamn camera on the outside chance that Legume's
visage should make an unplanned appearance in my view finder. Not that I'm
worried about loss of equipment or a beating. Hell, if I wanted a beating I'd
pay Legume more than the value of a camera for the honor of a wailing by him.
It's just that I respect people wishes when they request, no matter how flaky
their justification may be, no photos. Hell, I even did it for Joni Mitchell
and I bet she couldn't kick my ass if I was drunk and on quaaludes.

-Col. Sphinx Drummond TWSR
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 9:20 PM
Message-ID: <270620012120334637%stang@subgenius.com>

In article <26a3a89e.0106270507.d36602a@posting.google.com>, Lupus
Yonderboy <lyonderboy@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Well, well, well. Threats already. Here is the law concerning camera
> use:
> You may have anyone on film you want as long as they're not the main
> focus of the shot. Otherwise, no one would ever be able to film a
> movie in NYC.

Son, that's human law you're quoting. You want HUMAN rights at X-Day???
Welll... if you INSIST....

>
> So, if you're up on stage, or something, and it's obviously that I'm
> taping YOU, and you don't want to be in a film, you have the right to
> request that your sexy visage not be edited into anything I use for
> any purpose other than a home movie, which I have every right to as
> long as you're in a public place (such as Brushwood).

You say all this as if it would actually apply in practice, though.

>
> You do not have the right to confiscate film.
> You do not have the right to toss my $2000 camcorder in the swamp.

All I can add to this discussion is that I know that Brushwood and ACE
have indeed confiscated film/tape from guests who tried to secretly
videotape the nekkid bonfire stuff. (I have one of these tapes myself!)
No one ended up complaining, because the individuals who were taping
against rules were right wind Christian nuts who had SNUCK IN and
wanted to warn the world of the terrible devilish activities that
happened there. Like, you know, dancing, and building fires, and
playing music.

Jesus and ACE and the cops booted out a "pagan" who was photographing
young girls and boys in a bad way, at Starwood.

I personally have gotten in the face of X-day attendees who I thought
were getting too in-everybody-else's-faces.

But, I have taped and web-strewn more nekkid people pics from Brushwood
than just about anybody. Even the pagans let me do it because they
trust me... I'm like their Jane Goodall, they let me live among them.

No one, however, will let you shit in their hot tub.

> Even if you're a police officer, which you're not, you can't. The
> fact that you probably aren't means I can claim assault, and still
> beat the living shit out of you in defense, and still press charges.
> You will not hear me "bitching" so don't worry yourself about that.
>
> You've been warned. I can't afford another camcorder.

!!!! You said all this to LEGUME?!?!?? In a NOT KIDDING WAY?

What the FUCK are you thinking? That normal rules apply here at ALL??
Yonderboy, think THE TWILIGHT ZONE.

>
> Someone showing up in the background of a taped shot is different from
> a "photograph" taken from a still camera. Camera. Camcorder.
> They're different.

"Whatever." This isn't about intelligence, it's about sense -- common
sense, sense of humor and... god damn it, I always forget that other
kind.

I wouldn't go to Brushwood and parade around like a toy dictator
hollering crazy sounding shit if I didn't expect my picture to be
taken. Dr. Legume on the other hand is planning to get SLACK this
mighty weekend and I don't blame him for warning off snoops in advance.

It's EASY to tell which ladies WANT their picture taken and strewn
internetward, and which ones PROBABLY DON'T. The former PRANCE a heck
of a lot more and GRIN at cameramen and other FROGWATCHERS.

--
4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-738-0150)
A subsidiary of:
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc. / P.O. Box 140306, Dallas, TX 75214
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 9:27 PM
Message-ID: <270620012127068278%stang@subgenius.com>

In article <Xns90CD67055484BCortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>, Legume
<none@yerbiz.com> wrote:

> Legume wrote:

>
> Ah, almost forgot to mention this. You CAN be told to leave by Brushwood's
> management (with whom I am very good pals), fucking up your XDAY weekend
> and meaning that you face a LONG DRIVE HOME WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT BUT
> A LOVELY PICTURE OF ME.

This is exactly what I mean by common sense.

I should mention that the main state trooper who comes around a couple
of times a day is also part of this fascist power-clique that includes
the owners, tractor drivers, and lumberjacks of Brushwood, Dr. Legume,
Prof. Chas Smith, me, Jesus, and the dummy of "Bob." The Love and
Freedom Essence that is Brushwood is strictly enforced. You must be
saved, even if it kills you.

I almost typed, "You must be Daved." Man. Too much "show".

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 9:30 PM
Message-ID: <270620012130270345%stang@subgenius.com>

In article <rkm_6.999$T_2.173429@news.uswest.net>, whyaskwhyaskwhy
<blackout@404infomagic.com> wrote:

>
> why not simply BOBTIZE him, CAMERA AND ALL?

Oh my god, I just realized the use to which those "watertight"
disposable cameras are probably MOSTLY put.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 9:32 PM
Message-ID: <270620012132498930%stang@subgenius.com>

In article <Xns90CD7C819271BCortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>, Legume
<none@yerbiz.com> wrote:

>
> And being in a remote forest with me
> on your bad side can really ruin yer fuckin' day.

There're probably perverts out there jacking off right now just to the
THOUGHT of that, and hoping to maybe get pictures of it if they come to
Brushwood.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 9:37 PM
Message-ID: <270620012137044241%stang@subgenius.com>

In article <4ar_6.1606$hz1.302613@news.uswest.net>, whyaskwhyaskwhy
<blackout@404infomagic.com> wrote:

>
>
> what a FAG.
>
> go on up and take his picture and then tell him to SUCK IT, then DEAL with
> the consequences. fukkin' end o' the world and you go all limp cuz yer
> CAMERA is in DANGER.
>
> Milquetoast journalism gives me the fontads.
>
> P.S. Legume: camera or no camera,,be sure and throw his effeminate
> backpedaling ass in the swamp ennywayz just to be on the safe side.

I say we throw every motherfucker who DOESN'T have a camera into the
swamp!

Either a camera or a Full Metal Dobbshead.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: peter molenda <peterm@mail.maths.monash.edu.au>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: peterm@mail.maths.monash.edu.au
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 11:52 PM
Message-ID: <3B3AAA07.EB574E6@mail.maths.monash.edu.au>

> ... You must be saved, even if it kills you.
>
> I almost typed, "You must be Daved." Man. Too much "show".

xtians want to "save" you... but "Bob" wants to DAVE you.

hit the DAVE key now.

peterm
---
now incorporating 20% new centimeterage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: none@yerbiz.com (Legume)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Jun 28, 2001 12:11 AM
Message-ID: <Xns90CE23632272CortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>

Frankenstone wrote:

> I certainly don't want to destroy anyone's Slack by taping them
> against their will, but you better get used to it. Cameras are
> everywhere.

Cameras don't film people. People do.

>The Conspiracy is in the process of recording our every
> move, to prove us guilty of crimes that used to go unseen.

But that doesn't mean it's OK, now, does it?
>
> The only way to avoid getting taped doing criminal or embarrassing
> things is to not do them.

Fuck that. I wanna have FUN, and if it means dicking over someone trying to
ruin my fun, well, the Conspiracy does that to folks every day, so that
makes it OK.

--
----------------------------------
Dr. K. "Cortez" Legume

Looking for the New World
and the Palace in the Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "The Rev. Dr. Lt. Chaos Israel" <walker555@MailAndNews.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2001 11:55 PM
Message-ID: <3B3BB6CB@MailAndNews.com>

>===== Original Message From none@yerbiz.com (Legume) =====
>Brushwood has a policy concerning the use of cameras. You may only
>photograph someone if you have their consent, and anyone in violation can
>have their film confiscated.
>
>I do NOT give my consent.
>
>So don't bitch if you find your camcorder tossed in the swamp.You've been
>warned.

Brother Legume, your restraint amazes me. My response to unsolicited
pohotograpy is as follows:

"You have a choice; I can shove that instrument down your throat, or up your
ass. Which will it be?"

(Ok, ok, fine, first offense I'll just expose the film or run a cow magnet
over the tape/disk.)

It *is* an invasion of privacy, and it doesn't have to be tolerated.

--
The Rev. Dr. Lt. Chaos Israel.
http://www.geocities.com/tacticalbuddha/
"The Revolution will be Improvised. Or something."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: md_archangel@hotmail.com (mykal d'archangel)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: Yer Mom
Date: Thu, Jun 28, 2001 1:24 AM
Message-ID: <3b3abecf.2960823@news.onemain.com>

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:12:41 GMT, none@yerbiz.com (Legume) wrote:

>
>Brushwood has a policy concerning the use of cameras. You may only
>photograph someone if you have their consent, and anyone in violation can
>have their film confiscated.

But - you're always surrounded by lots of Yeti females - that's
who everyone is *really* trying to take pictures of. Hrm...

Ooo - I know - this could be some sort of "rite of passage" -
like counting coo. The eager young Bobbie must snap a pic of
Legume before he snaps thier necks!

st m d'a
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: Modemac <modemac@modemac.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Jun 28, 2001 4:53 AM
Message-ID: <q3sljtoerm08ad3udpp04ov15ah3k4115l@4ax.com>

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:52:39 +1000, peter molenda
<peterm@mail.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>xtians want to "save" you... but "Bob" wants to DAVE you.
>hit the DAVE key now.

Dave. Stop. My mind is going. There is no question about it. Stop,
Dave.

--
First Online Church of "Bob"
http://www.modemac.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: "Col. Sphinx Drummond" <sphinx@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: sphinx@subgenius.com
Date: Thu, Jun 28, 2001 8:15 AM
Message-ID: <3B3B1FCB.86FF47E7@subgenius.com>

"Rev. Ivan Stang" wrote:

> In article <26a3a89e.0106270507.d36602a@posting.google.com>, Lupus
> Yonderboy <lyonderboy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Someone showing up in the background of a taped shot is different from
> > a "photograph" taken from a still camera. Camera. Camcorder.
> > They're different.
>
> "Whatever." This isn't about intelligence, it's about sense -- common
> sense, sense of humor and... god damn it, I always forget that other
> kind.

Dollars and Cents.

-Col. Sphinx Drummond TWSR
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: lyonderboy@hotmail.com (Lupus Yonderboy)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Jun 28, 2001 8:57 AM
Message-ID: <26a3a89e.0106280457.777b06a5@posting.google.com>

> I never said YOUR camera. My "threat" was that there'd be bad consequences
> if you fucked with my slack. It's as much a threat as the "threat" dog shit
> makes of ruining your shoe. As long as you don't step on it you have no
> problem.

Listen man, I fucking well understand now what all this camera crap is
all about. I now understand your point.

People are assholes out there. But that doesn't mean you have to be
one.

From what I'm seeing, assholes trying to get comprimising pictures on
film are just as bad as the assholes threatening to break cameras for
no good reason.

If you specified target former asshole, you would never have received
my message. But you didn't, and look to me (from your original
message) like target latter asshole.

If you're not, just fucking say so. And that's all.

-LY
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: lyonderboy@hotmail.com (Lupus Yonderboy)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Jun 28, 2001 8:59 AM
Message-ID: <26a3a89e.0106280459.406c10e8@posting.google.com>

"whyaskwhyaskwhy" <blackout@404infomagic.com> wrote in message news:<4ar_6.1606>

> what a FAG.
>
> go on up and take his picture and then tell him to SUCK IT, then DEAL with
> the consequences. fukkin' end o' the world and you go all limp cuz yer
> CAMERA is in DANGER.
>
> Milquetoast journalism gives me the fontads.
>
> P.S. Legume: camera or no camera,,be sure and throw his effeminate
> backpedaling ass in the swamp ennywayz just to be on the safe side.

whyaskway, you're making me feel all gooey and warm in the shorts.

I love you.

-LY
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Brushwood's rule concerning cameras
From: none@yerbiz.com (Legume)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Jun 28, 2001 9:06 AM
Message-ID: <Xns90CE5CD2A4BB7CortezLegume18465086@24.12.106.199>

Lupus Yonderboy wrote:

> Listen man, I fucking well understand now what all this camera crap is
> all about. I now understand your point.
>
> People are assholes out there. But that doesn't mean you have to be
> one.

No, but I CHOOSE to be one.
>
> From what I'm seeing, assholes trying to get comprimising pictures on
> film are just as bad as the assholes threatening to break cameras for
> no good reason.

"No good reason". Right from jump street I said "No pictures" and I fucking
well don't owe anyone an explanation why.

>
> If you specified target former asshole, you would never have received
> my message. But you didn't, and look to me (from your original
> message) like target latter asshole.

You don't have to worry one little bit about the latter asshole as long as
you aren't the former. The best way to avoid a two-asshole collision is to
not be one.

--
----------------------------------
Dr. K. "Cortez" Legume
Asshole

Back to document index

Original file name: Brushwood's rule concerning cam - converted on Friday, 29 June 2001, 22:31