[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> free software = free sex

["porculus" <porculus@wanadoo.fr>]

> When programmers see that software production is
> dramatically improved in a shared, non-competitive,
> free environment, wouldn't it be natural for them to
> apply what they've learned from coding to what they
> practice in their everyday lives -- including their sex
> lives? And the logical extension of free and
> open-source software in the realm of sex would
> certainly include publicly shared sex at a sex party,
> for instance, alternative ways of building
> relationships (such as queer sexuality) and
> non-monogamy (or, to put it another way,
> non-proprietary sexual affection)....

really I ask me what could be the meaning of 'shared sex' in your unfuckable
text, you know how metaphysical is all notion of bullshit instinct and
specialy sex one, and how you just could speak about manifestation of it,
i.e. otherwise 'somebody' (a human partner) or 'something' at least so if
you speak about "sexmaterial" (how I love this word) as it exist at the
early web or almost it's the unquestionable one of the net, I understand
what you speak about but in your text niet ! I understand non hard one
material and even no material at all, or a kind of nothingmaterial concept
god enough for idiot shared pulsion of frogyintellectual.
It is This material you could shared for nothingsex here in your text. But
if you speak about msg as "hello here Nathalie let's meet to night at my
home for shared sex" if it exist a sexual material in it it's just in your
promise for them, and just for standing them up for more perverse yours may
be, but all taste is in the nature anyway and everybody find her pleasure
where she find it and everybody take his pleasure when he can.
Anyway.. an usan guy, I don't remember his fucking name but I believe he was
in the Microsoft trial as procurer or as doorman, or may be he was just a
guy I discuss with in a bar or the reverse so may be it's just me..anyway a
freemarketer analyst (btw there I see it couldn't be me cause i am just a
conned freemarketer) a freemarketeranalyst I said who has tried to make "a
sexual economie theorie" said that the women who have more value for the men
are the easy women (in word by word from french, I would say just women with
whom I have some reasonable chance) but as the others think as me they think
they have reasonable chance too (this swines) so in order that every body
could keep their reasonable chance (otherwise she would not be reasonable
anymore) the reasonable girls have to share themselves a lot (or something
very next) ..so according to this USan guy, the supersexbombstars have
absolutely no value for me cause they are absolutiely not reasonable, of
course exept in making shared distant sexmaterial on the web and well it
would be funny to shared it my self in making it as my desktop during I play
with shared game on my computer when I eat my rillette gherkin sandwich I
love at noon that I ever want to shared with her, even only one gherkin
cause she is not reasonable and cause may be it's her well shared ass but
its my own and my unsharable sandwich. there is at this time my marginal
theorie of an always conned freemarketer




_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold