April 2002
Subject: Our Lady
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:51:30 +0100
From: Nélio de Freitas sousa <nelio001@clix.pt>
To: <almalopez@earthlink.net>
Hello,
I think the painting is wonderful. I have cut a page from a local newspaper
featuring the picture and posted it on a wall in my house.
Actually, I am looking for a proper print or poster of this piece of art.
Can you help me getting it telling me where can I find it?
I like it specially for its humanity and making the divine and unaccessible
become accessible and human. The link between the religious and the human
makes it daring and challenges the common thought, the establishment and the
conservative thought.
Best luck.
Hope to hear from you,
Yours,
Nelio de Sousa
Subject:Re: AztlanNet: Mystic Musings
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:32:27 EDT
From: Sedeno7@aol.com
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
Alfredo, I think your self-portrait is a very
important expression. I hope you are doing more. I've asked before,
I'm curious, what is the size of your images?
Your comment on Alma Lopez's "our lady" is a realization of what
I have been saying since last April when I subscribed here: The work
does not do what Alma says it does, i.e. interpret Guadalupe. It
"interprets" or perceives something else, probably even La
Tongolele. Tell me more about la tongolele.
Alma's work, to me, is rather inneffectual in itself; what I fiound dangerous
is the claim that the artist makes of it, and propped by the Museum
of New Mexico, that it is her interpretation of an venerated image
and Persona, This claim is an intellectual fraud I do not
accept as true, and hundreds, I'd venture, probably millions of Mexicans
and New Mexicans do not accept either.
Just as your use of the sun aureole similar
to the one in the Guadalupe image does not automatically signify that your
portrait is an interpretation of the image it refers too, neither does Alma's
appropriation of it. Yet she is claiming it does. Yours is a portrait
of what you say it is; hers is a portrait of Raquel Salinas. She and
others wish to defend her illusion that it is more than that. I see
her print as more of a decoy serving a political agenda.
During the development of my analysis of "our
lady", I found A Course in Miracles to be consistent with the spiritual
feeling conveyed by the Image of Guadalupe and message. Alfredo,
in your reading of ACIM , you have probably come across the Course's
description of the Holy Spirit. Please know that in my personal "spiritual
trip", I relate to Guadalupe as if she is the Holy Spirit as understood
by the Course.
As to the "judeo-christian" stuff, keep in mind the Course's analysis:
it's about God vs. the ego, not the God vs. Devil bit.
Artistically, I have pursued at least three
investigations of portraiture in drawing, painting, and sculptural relief
studies of the face in the Image. To copy Her majestic and serene gaze
has been a challenge to my skills. It's not easy to even get close to
those qualities expressed in the original. Perhaps
that is why I have felt so strongly about the audacious, delusional, and cheap
claim of Alma Lopez's that
plastering a photo from another portrait is a worthwhile and credible artistic
interpretation". As Maria Felix stated about the song
Juan Gabriel wrote to her titled "Maria de todas las Marias": "si'
te compares con la Virgen, siempre sales perdiendo".
"ours is not attack but defend the truth". Sorry when I don't
put it into practice. -PRS
Subject: Re: AztlanNet: Mystic Musings
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael sedano <mvsedano@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
at last, the heart of the pedo:
--- Sedeno7@aol.com wrote:***> Alma's work,
to me, is rather inneffectual in> itself;***
finally, a statement about art. finally a clear
critical posture. the standard of measure will be "effectual"
the subject to be examined is the art in itself, ie, as an object with a life
of its own.
unfortunately, the usual suspects romero lines up make for curious evidence
of the art "in itself". señor, yoo hoo?, if you know the
name of the model, and you believe a bandwagon of millions of some irate demograph
militates the art's efftance, ie, it's ability to express itself, 'in itself.'
millions of folks is hardly the art "in itself". if you know the
woman's name (but not the name of the angelita sconce?) you're external to
the work "in itself."
romero, i don't give one hoot for your political stance all wrapped up in
true believerdom. that's personal and i wish i didn't know it. but art has
value beyond the limits of my tolerance and your rage.
thank you for a cogent expression. now will you please move on? so you don't
like the piece. per you, that's out of some cultural political issues and
all this research and memory, not "in itself" which is your self-professed
standard. cada mundo a son goüt. i like the piece in itself and appreciate
the artist's use of historical, cultural, technological materials. plus, the
piece sure got a response from you, which makes it (in your case, potently)
effective.
mvs
...-
...-
...-
the reader smiled knowingly and clicked 'delete'
Subject: I am impressed!
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:44:15 +1000
From: "T & M Ridgeway" <therematt@bigpond.com>
To: <almalopez@earthlink.net>
This stuff is totally unseen in Australia, I
was thinking maybe an exhibition down under would be great. I like it. It
is bright, colourful, and shows a mood of humbleness, and a desire to be joyful.
It is attractive as well.
If you would like to have a tour of these artworks in Australia, please let
me know so I can come and have a look. A book might be nice, A big glossy
one. It doesn't even have to have alot of images in it.
Keep it up!
Well done
Matty Boy!
Subject: AztlanNet: communication future past
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael sedano <mvsedano@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
I come here to talk to you, do interesting stuff
like art and ideas, not read some writing I might find in the course of my
day, or wouldn't want to see at all if I knew what it was about.
I remember some stuff published back in 1972 about the the communication industry
in a post industrial US.
Already a billions dollars industry, the "information industry"
would explode through new technologies like cable tv and satellite electronics--
PCs and the internet hadn't made a dent yet in futurist's thinking-- creating
an overwhelming flood of informatiion. Every asshole with an opinion would
enjoy freedom of the press.
I absolutely support a position that we share an open forum for communication.
Postiing does not constitute communicating. A post must address an audience.
Speakers create an audience using the rational and emotional materials appropriate
to and held in common among speaker and audience. Look at Alma's piece, how
it takes on a life of its own to find disparate audiences who then use the
piece for their own ends.
What a successful artistic accomplishment.
People need to regulate themselves, not post shit just because they can. This
goes back to "respect" and carnalismo. As Justice Oliver Wnedell
Holmes wrote, holmes, "You do not have the freedom to fart in a crowded
theatre."
Alejo, for another, posts all these Sacramento Bee reports that he sees from
his legislative chair and recognizes value in their facts. They're pretty
boring if you're apolitical; I find them interesting, valuable, and appropriate,
though I read both Timeses and will get the info there.
Those thhirty-years past futurists predicted that society would need information
handlers, people who would consume vast amounts of information only to pass
along the vital data to otherwise info overwhelmed communities. We would strengthen
ourselves with knowledge. I see irony that instead of broadening our information
resources, these posters-whole narrow information access and opportunity to
the single article selected by them. That strikes me as wrong.
If a poster believes value exists for this reader in some article, I urge
the poster to distill the points of interest and value for a community and
provide a link to the entire piece so I can take it in its original context,
if I wish.
mvs
c/s
...-
...-
...-
Subject: propaganda future past (was communication
future past)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:55:47 EDT
From: Sedeno7@aol.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
CC: cycocat3@juno.com, almalopez@earthlink.net, Alfredo@deBatuc.com, magu4u@hotmail.com,
elbulldog69@hotmail.com, happyhermit@earthlink.net
To illustrate a point he makes per his subject,
mvsedano@yahoo.com (michael sedano) wrote:
Look at Alma's piece, how it takes on a life of its own to find disparate
audiences who then use the piece for their own ends. What a successful artistic
accomplishment.
To illustrate
a point I have communicated about for about a year now, I urge viewers: Take
a look at Alma's piece "Our Lady" and also take a look at the original
image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Putting aside the formal elements like
design motifs, forms, and colors which link the two, look at the content communicated
by both works. Can you see a similarity in content between the
two, such as in attitude expressed by the figures by their poses? My
point is that one cannot. There are many viewers of these two works
who contest the similarity in content, the "life of its own" as
per mvs' breakthrough artspeak, between the two.
Yet the title, "Our Lady",
of Alma's piece, and her and the Museum of New Mexico's position, argue that
there is a similarity in content, that Alma's is an interpretation of the
original. Maybe in form, but not in content. I find that her title
is but propaganda attached to the work in itself, propaganda I do not accept.
Alfredo de Batuc, a respected artist who
subscribes to this forum, stated that Alma's "Our Lady" reminded
him of La Tongolele, a pseudo-Mexican burlesque dancer. I see more of
a female version of rock star Prince dressed up for the Academy Awards. I
perceive from the attitude communicated by the poses of the models Raquelas,
photographed by Alma, the message: "Do Not Touch".
This message in the content of "Our
Lady" is consistent with all the propaganda put out by Alma on her website
and in the media during the whole course of the "pedo" called
CyberArte by the Museum of New Mexico. But from the content
of the original image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, I see a mother whom I can
touch, and a Mother who touches me. And millions of viewers will testify to
the truth of this perception, and have done for centuries.
Michael Sedano's and Alma Lopez's artspeak
does not impress me. Alma Lopez does not "accomplish" in the
work what is implied by her title. Su Señorita no es Nuestra
Señora.
-Pedro Romero Sedeño mfa
Subject: website
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:13:30 -0400
From: "Trudy Selig" <gmcs@en.com>
To: <almalopez@earthlink.net>
MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL! That is why we do the 1st Saturday Holy Mass and Rosary in reparation for the sins, sacrileges, and offenses committed against God's Holy Mother.
Subject:AztlanNet: No Subject
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 02:59:32 EDT
From: puromando@aol.com
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: aztlannet@yahoogroups.com
Pedro sedeño wrote: <To illustrate
a point he makes per his subject,
mvsedano@yahoo.com (michael sedano) wrote:
< Look at Alma's piece, how it takes on a life of its own to find disparate
audiences who then use the piece for their own ends. What a successful artistic
accomplishment.
Pedro sedeño wrote: < To illustrate
a point I have communicated about for about a year now, I urge viewers: Take
a look at Alma's piece "Our Lady" and also take a look at the original
image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Putting aside the formal elements like design
motifs, forms, and colors which link the two, look at the content communicated
by both works. Can you see a
similarity in content between the two, such as in attitude expressed by the
figures by
their poses? My point is that one cannot. There are many viewers of these
two works who contest the similarity in content, the "life of its own"
as per
mvs' breakthrough artspeak, between the two.
=======
What one cannot see what one cannot see. Alma
may see some similar essential meaning in the both, we don't know.
==========
Pedro sedeño wrote: < Yet the title,
"Our Lady", of Alma's piece, and her and the Museum of New Mexico's
position, argue that there is a similarity in content, that Alma's is an interpretation
of the original. Maybe in form, but not in content. I find that her title
is but propaganda attached to
the work in itself, propaganda I do not accept.
==========
To me, the original art work done by God, as
you and millions of people may believe is also my preference over Alma's.
Many isms are made popular and acceptable through propaganda and for us to
evaluate, accept or reject them.
==============
Pedro sedeño wrote: <
Alfredo de Batuc, a respected artist who subscribes to this forum, stated
that Alma's "Our Lady" reminded him of La Tongolele, a pseudo-Mexican
burlesque dancer. I see more of a female version of rock star Prince dressed
up for the Academy Awards. I perceive from the attitude communicated by the
poses of the models Raquelas, photographed by Alma, the message: "Do
Not Touch".
==========
Yes, a very subjective observation that is not
shared by every one.
============
Pedro sedeño wrote: < This message
in the content of "Our Lady" is consistent with all the propaganda
put out by Alma on her website and in the media during the whole course of
the "pedo" called CyberArte by the Museum of New Mexico. But from
the content of the original image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, I see a mother
whom I can touch, and a Mother who touches me. And millions of viewers will
testify to the truth of this perception, and have done for centuries. Michael
Sedano's and Alma Lopez's artspeak does not impress me. Alma Lopez does not
"accomplish" in the work what is implied by her title. Su Señorita
no es Nuestra Señora. Pedro Romero Sedeño mfa
============
Pedro, you and all those millions of people
are entitled to those perceptions as true and sacred, as my wife and many
of my family members. I respect that. But as an artist that you are, I would
think that you would abhor restrictions imposed on any other artist to express
themselves as they wish.
mando
PS. Here is a small sketch I'm working on, of a mother and Child inspired by God's own original version of" La Virgen De Guadalupe."
Subject: Our Lady plus more
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:19:07 -0700
From: "Kennedy, Peggy Lee" <PKennedy@lmu.edu>
To: "'almalopez@earthlink.net'" <almalopez@earthlink.net>
CC: "Gonzalez, Deena" <DGonzalez@lmu.edu>
Dear Alma Lopez,
I am a staff person and a student here at Loyola
Marymount University. My undergraduate minor is Women's Studies and I am now
taking my final two classes for this minor - one being "Chicana and Third
World Feminism" with Prof. Deena Gonzalez.
So... I attended your presentation here at LMU "Stabbed, Tagged, and
Harassed" 13-Mar-02 with the Director of the Women's Studies Department.
I wanted to let you know some of my thoughts and I am sorry it has taken me
so long to get to this. Also I am thankful for the "Our Lady" postcard
you gave me. I have it on my bookshelf here at work.
I am excited about the combination of women's issues and digital media used
in your art. I think it is important for women to be able to express themselves
and connect globally. You do this using art, technology, and the World Wide
Web. Bravo!
I see your art specifically addressing the need for some real female identification
within Catholicism. Being a feminist and coming from a Catholic back-ground,
this works for me. I like how your "Our Lady" has her hands on her
hips or waist and looks me in the eyes. She is strong and brown - as opposed
to being delicate and fair. I can relate to the woman who has her hands on
her hips and is looking me in the eyes. She has something to say. She stands
for something. She has a sense of self. Thank you for Her.
I have been reading your website a little and I was very touched by the one
Mural done with the Esperanza Project at the Plaza Community Clinic at 648
Indiana Street in East Los Angeles. The obstacles faced by these women with
children are special to me, because I know the hell that some of these women
must crawl out of to live. I loved the project, those angels, and what was
written. Thank you so much for that. It is beautiful.
Kind Regards,
Peggy Lee Kennedy
Subject: AztlanNet: classic toon tuning
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:12:34 EDT
From: Sedeno7@aol.com
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
Puromando,
like I said, your attempts to characterize
my critique as "intimidation" by one 'who would censor if they could"
is utterly childish B.S., self-righteous and delusional. I
reject as untrue your stupid inference, and send it back to your camp with
Traveisa, Alma Lopez and mvsedano. .
And to think your charges come in defense of a cartoonist's appropriation
of someone else's artwork, rallying him on in this jr.high level "artistic"
exercise. I pity any students who come to you seeking any knowledge
about what it takes to produce great art.
Please know that I consider "unimaginative" and "mediocre"
a wise use of terms to describe this subject. Don't forget "cliche".
An old lady throwing the finger - a "powerful
message"? Yeah, right, mando. There's probably alot of first-graders
that probably agree with you on that one. Them and mvsedano.
As to your wariness about "wrap up
in a religious mantle", you sure seem to have gobbled up Alma Lopez's
sophistry about her political poster wrapped up in Guadalupe-packaging.
As I pointed out, this "classic toon"
discussion is not about art, it's about propaganda that serves your pseudo-progressive-Chicano
agenda. Allow me to state that, for me personally, it's unacceptable,
and its absurdity shouldn't even merit a response. Your absurd and vicious
censor branding does, however. Take it back, mando, or "it's
off to the principal's office you go!". -PRS
Subject: AztlanNet: Classic toon
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:18:01 EDT
From: puromando@aol.com
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: aztlannet@yahoogroups.com
And still Pedro answers; <An old lady throwing the finger - a "powerful message"? Yeah, right, mando. There's probably alot of first-graders that probably agree with you that one. Them and mvsedano.
============
That MIDDLE FINGER really gets to you, huh,
Sedeño? And to think, you've got two of them to keep reminding you
of their nasty power. Some have died because of that middle diget. But Holy
is the human that never used it in anger.
Mando
=========
And_sedeño continues: <As to your wariness about "wrap up in
a religious mantle", you sure seem to have gobbled up Alma Lopez's sophistry
about her political poster wrapped up in Guadalupe-packaging.
==========
Wrong again Herr Pedro, What I wrote about Alma's "Lupe" was; I
like it, but I thought it needed maturity. What I thought about your critique
was that it was full of contemptible religious bias that went on and on for
weeks,and still going. Specially when simply one of your two digits would
have sufficed.
mando
===========
And still pedro continues: < As I pointed out, this "classic toon" discussion is not about art, it's about propaganda that serves your pseudo-progressive-Chicano agenda.
===========
wrong again Pedrito, To me it is all about art.
To you, Pedro, it is all about religious propaganda, every time you get a
chance quote from the Bible, no. Besides, Pedro you show little inkling of
knowing my position the Chicano agenda which you label as pseudo-progressive.
mando
continuing the saga, Perdo wrote: <Allow
me to state that, for me personally, it's unacceptable, and its absurdity
shouldn't even merit a response.
==============
Soooo, Be my guest pedro. Try someone else.
mando
==========
And STILL,pedro goes on: < Your absurd and
vicious censor-branding does, however. Take it back, mando, or "it's
off to the principal's office you go!". -PRS
============
Sorry Pedro, not till you mend your ways. I
did go to your !st grade Principal's office, but Big G was there. God said:
"Tell that so and so to stop mixing art and religion so much or HE will
REALLY know the power of this middle finger." Pedro,I think God really
meant it!
mando
Subject: AztlanNet: Re: Classic toon
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 15:33:05 -0000
From: "mvsedano" <mvsedano@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
Put away your sword and shield and study war
less for a while.
Focus instead on the unspoken aesthetic that drives the controversy over one
cartoon.
"Is it Art?" takes its answer from what appear to be divergent perspectives.
Romero's, standing all alone it seems, offers the view that commercialism
controls quality. Romero's initial dismissal of the piece seems to me to come
out of money issues. That's not an altogether useless perspective.
The other side, people who see art and magic in any creation, seems to hold
that Art expresses one's heart and soul, una alma that guides one to create,
draw, shoot, sculpt, write about a subject matter.
All that's theory.
Consider the piece, "of itself." Unfortunately, we know too much
about the portrait; some pinto feeling all bad about his shitty cell tries
to capture a moment of purity so he creates his abuelita's face using a pencil
and single weight stroke. Then C/S takes this "primitive's" work,
amends it to express their own idea, twenty years later it becomes the flashpoint
for pedo about art.
"Is it Chicano Art?" involves another value that derives from one's
self-image and identification within the broader community of raza.
Romero unmasks here using separatist words, "your chicanismo" and
"propaganda", leading me to wonder what kind of aesthetic are we
involved with here. que les parece?
--- In AztlanNet@y..., puromando@a... wrote:
> And still Pedro answers;
m
Subject: AztlanNet: classic tune tuning
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 12:45:03 EDT
From: Sedeno7@aol.com
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
Mvsedano, in response to your latest address
to your AztlanNet clique of "art lovers", I see it as just
more cunning lingo to serve the camp of those who, because I do not agree
with the propaganda, slander me with the innuendo that I wish to be a censor.
Like I said, your sophistry does not impress me.
mvs, your
interpretation of "Romero's view" is totally bogus. Please
attach your musings about commercialism, money, etc. to distort someone else's
views, better yet, spend the time and take an art class.
ok, we are talking about someone's
drawing which a subscriber posts after he tags the drawing with his own "art".
Could you please explain for the class what you mean by the "single
weight stroke" used to produce the drawing, oh illustrious art Windbag?
You so full of it, mvs.
Your glaringly empty analysis is
akin to your expressed "like" of Alma Lopez's piece in your Mystaken
Musings posting, because of "all the historical, cultural, and
political" whatever she put in the piece. More wind. "Of
itself", what history? The only history I see there is what
she regurgitates of Guadalupe. Culture? Apart from what
she raids from Guadalupanos, very little. But I guess the opened nipple
ring on the angeliat with bazooms could be considered a reference to lesbian
culture.
Political?, now mvs has a point. The politics
of Catholic-bashing in the piece is what mvs and others, including the Museum
of NM, "like" and rally about here, just as in the tagged pinto
drawing, where the hand clutching the rosary now throws the finger. Have
your politics, then, but your transparent artspeak doesn't make it any more
than the pseudo-progressive "Chicanismo" it really is.
Subject: visited your site and loved it
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:39:46 -0700
From: maritza <maritza@cats.ucsc.edu>
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
dear alma lopez,
we met at the party in santa cruz after the
woc film festival.
just wanted to tell you how much i appreciated your web site.
i am going to pass it on to a friend who is teaching chicano studies at university
of puerto rico.
congratulations on what you have done and are doing,
maritza
--
Only love.
Only the holder the flag fits into,
and wind. No flag.
-- Rumi
Maritza Giovanna Stanchich
Doctoral Candidate
Literature Department
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA
Subject: Great reaction!
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:42:40 -0700
From: Maria Ochoa <mariaochoa@earthlink.net>
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
Estimada Alma ---
This spring I am teaching "Latinas in the
U.S." at CSU Hayward.
One of the lectures is about how Chicana visual artists have refigured and
reclaimed the Virgen de Guadalupe. Naturally, there are many wonderful images
that I share with the students. However, your web site, with the summarization
of your travails of last year, is the story that resonates most strongly for
them. Your coraje throughout this ordeal impresses them. They find your image
as strong and as compelling, as they find in the way in which you hold your
self. Hasta la Victoria, Mujer!
Peace, María Ochoa
Subject: AztlanNet: Mando's toon tuning
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:52:26 EDT
From: Sedeno7@aol.com
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
As Mando still articulately fingers it out in
this "deep" forum about art and ideas, he, in lock-step Aztla-fashion,
parrots the "I like Alma's Loopie" blurp, but adds he thinks it
needed "maturity".
Herr Mando, as you scratch your head searching for more volumes of admiration
with your precious fickle-finger-of hate award, please know that
about "maturity", I think you are talking about something you know
nothing about.
We can "agree to disagree" about the contemporary power and propaganda-value
of the middle-digit visual cliche, but does that mean next time I disagree
with your sense of "artistic" maturity I will again be branded by
you to be a would-be censor?
Mando writes: "God said: "Tell that so and so to stop mixing
art and religion so much or....."
Mando, I am a free son of God, just like you or Alma Lopez. Neither
your primitive theo-fiction you call "Big G" nor your fascistic
censor-branding will make me "stop" mixing anything, comprendes,
mendes? I will challenge your "likes" of Alma's mix
of Photoshop and anti-Catholic politics all I want, even if it means expressing
my religious conviction, not "contemptible bias" as you so characterize
it. I am expressing my right of religious freedom. and BTW,
my source is not the Bible, Catholic or otherwise, in which are found primitive
and contradictory concepts of God you seem to subscribe to. .
Mando, out of respect for your art and your personal appeal to me for a "friendly"
critique, I responded with a thoughtful posting addressing materials and techniques,
formal art stuff, without any references to religion. .
But as to content, your recent dialogue
shows me that about great art and/or modern theology, Mando is talking about
something he knows little about. But keep on, it's a free forum, right?
Subject: AztlanNet: mando's toon tuning
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:29:45 EDT
From: puromando@aol.com
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: aztlannet@yahoogroups.com
Preacher man, sedeño wrote:
<Mando, I am a free son of God, just like
you or Alma Lopez. Neither your primitive theo-fiction
you call "Big G" nor your fascistic censor-branding will make me
"stop" mixing anything, comprendes, mendes? I will challenge your
"likes" of Alma's mix of Photoshop and anti-Catholic-politics all
I want, even if it means expressing my religious conviction, not "contemptible
bias" as you so characterize it.
==============
Did we not evolve from the monkey?
Babble on my raving friend, babble on
Froth and rage are becoming on you
As of now, deleting you will be a delight
Using my MIDDLE (you know what) ;-)
Go preach to some one else, not me
mando