December 12, 2004


I was just thinking last night that, after the kontamination of the k-punk comments box and the hyper-quick descent into ad hominem stupidity of Dissensus, Hyperstition was a site where you could guarantee quality discussion without being hassled by foaming resentocrats.

Sadly, I have been proved wrong by what has happened in the comments thread to the 'Surfascism' post.

The oedipod using the nic 'mark k-p' was of course not this neurobot. I have re-edited the comments to indicate this.

I would say that this raises interesting questions about the nature of intellectual property and online identity, but it doesn't really. The name 'mark k-p' no more designates a biographical individual than 'coca cola' does. It has all the features of a brand name, even if it would be crass to give Kapital all the credit for innovating this impersonalising semiotic technique. But it's no more interesting or subversive to have some fuming, badly written hatred attributed to mark k-p than it is to open up a can of coca cola and find it crawling with maggots.

The resentotroll has laid a trap that it would be easy for what the body typing this will, for ease of reference, call 'me'. The 'real' mark k-p is supposed to be up in arms about the 'stealing of his (online) identity', which in the mind of the resentocrat, would be evidence for his neurotic-subjectivizing conviction that ultimately, really, come on, admit it, everything is personal, it's all about baboonery and personal feuds, oedipal struggles between men = pathetic antler-rubbing homosocial bonding.

But it really isn't. Like Sutter Cane, 'I' don't write anything. Mark k-punk is not a biographical individual. It is precisely a name for a writing practice. In other words, Mark k-p does not write, but is written.

I hope that it is evident that the forces writing Mark k-p would not have been instrumental in the production of the resentment-soaked stalker bile produced in the comments box there.

That neurotic oedipalist seems to use 4 IPs:

Banning IPs is a bit of a futile art in my experience. I'll do it in this case, but what usually happens with underground man onanist haytaz is that their resentment gives them infinite patience to find another way of interposing their jabbing phallus where it is not wanted (i.e. everywhere).

But what do we know about this individual? (Sphaleotas, I'm expecting a file on my desk tomorrow with photos, the contents of his rubbish bin etc. Get to it!) He's obviously read k-punk long enough to build up enough knowledge to produce a heavy-handed if - to be fair - largely accurate satire of the Cold Rationalist position and enough slavering Rupert Pupkin-type obsessive hatred to be motivated to post on it. He's obviously aware of Warwick history, which, while hardly secret, would require either first hand knowledge or some level of research. I mean, he knows enough about Nick to be aware that at some time - but surely well over a decade ago now - his name would have been associated with Nietzsche and Bataille. He knows that Nick was my supervisor (I guess he could have picked this up from Simon's interview)... Hmmmm....

Really, this is no more interesting than having a broadcast interrupted by a Pooteresque Nobody --- an interruption of impersonalizing semiotic trade by a committed peronalist ----

And of course, the 'real' mark k-p can spell 'lambast'.

Posted by mark k-p at December 12, 2004 11:24 AM




Mark - interesting and depressing
As you know, this kind of impersonation activity really disgusts me - it's a kind of perverse inversion of the positive potentialities of the medium (Oedipus goes virtual - "and if you haven't got enough Oedipus already, heh! we can easily provide some more"). Sickening. Hope there's some way of SERIOUSLY discomforting the a@#hole who did this

Note my post above on related topic

Posted by: nick at December 12, 2004 01:06 PM



Hi Mark K-P, that seems to have really got your back up; understandably so, but let's move on, and make productive connections where we can.

I think it is to be expected from time to time to have to confront assaults of various kinds. The question is how. First, I wouldn't allow the blog to be a vent. Perhaps, try mirror tactics, or 'dark and dirty'. I would avoid fuelling it though.

Posted by: tachi at December 12, 2004 02:37 PM



Tachi - "dark and dirty" sounds promising - know anyone with the technical capabilities to wreak appropriate revenge?

Posted by: nick at December 12, 2004 04:21 PM



Mark - think Luke got off lightly not being treated as a troll.

Posted by: nick at December 12, 2004 04:23 PM



>>> Tachi - "dark and dirty" sounds promising - know anyone with the technical capabilities to wreak appropriate revenge?

I know someone who is an extremely capable hacker ... but let's wait ;) ... we just talked about victimology and lex talionis ;) ... plus, check your email for the new mail

Posted by: Reza at December 12, 2004 05:24 PM



The addresses correspond to BT dial-up accounts; some of the more recent abuse in the k-punk comment boxes also had BT IPs.

Posted by: Sphaleotas at December 12, 2004 06:56 PM



Ok, I think it's time for a full and unreserved apology. I really never intended to get people's backs up quite THAT much. Although the aggressive, utterly odious personi I adopted (Axiomatik, Adam55 et al.) obviously suggest the contrary, I in fact have a great deal of respect for all of you at the CCRU, and this ill-thought out attempt at intervention (which really spiralled out of control -- I really never thought for a minute that anyone would really think that Mark has written that awful email)was really only intended to raise a few issues that I thought get treated all too-lightly. My tactics, admittedly, were inexcusable -- but really, I must reiterate, I never for a moment thought that anyone would BELIEVE that Mark wrote that comment, and let's be honest, that was the real concern (rather than my pathetic ad hominem attacks, which should be beneath notice).

But look, regardless, I admit to having gone too far, can quite understand while you'd have me burnt at the stake for this, and I expect no 'forgiveness'. But I also have little doubt that some of you have the technological know-how to send a nasty virus to my computer (or something similar), and I am really worried about this as I am really desperately poor and my life's work is saved there (I'm very bad at backing things up).

So, I beg you, please do not set your dogs upon me! You win, I'll disappear. I truly wish you luck with all that you do, and perhaps one day I'll find a better way of articulating my objections (which are perhaps not all quite as fuck-witted as you suggest)- and, who knows, maybe even some productive dialogue may come of it - at least for me, since I have no doubt that I have a great deal to learn from you.

Again, I'm truly, sincerely sorry, and will not waste your time again.

(P.S. I can't resist noting that the OED has 'lambaste'; 'Nietzche' was one of many typos ...)

Posted by: Troll at December 13, 2004 01:27 AM



lol ... Sorry is this another joke? My head is still foaming with paranoia so I’m still doubtful if YOU have written this or not (and you can understand it). But just a brief answer, if you are the one, thanks for letting us know. Don’t worry no one sends a head hunter after you (ok attention the hyperstition crew, PLEASE stop any ‘dark and dirty operation). People, may call me a pathetic pacifist (or consider this as a horrible humanistic gesture) but I think forgiveness is the only option in such situations (revenge goes nowhere). I personally accept the apology. You can just change your avatar and participate in discussions (if you have trouble with the ip I can fix it later). No one will banish anyone from this place unless in the case of a danger threatening the blog, its writers and commentators.

Posted by: Reza at December 13, 2004 02:02 AM



Yes, I really am the turd/troll/asshole etc. (keep them coming, they're well deserved). Your mercifulness is greatly appreciated, Reza, but I wonder if the others (Nick in particular) are prepared to let it go - I really had no idea that you had all been discussing these things until I found all these new threads on the Main page at 1.15am, and then frankly felt pretty terrible (still do) that I'd clearly irritated people (people whom I actually respect, even if I - obviously - have very serious intellectual differences with them) to such an extent that they were baying for my blood and calling for some kind of techno-revenge. If I'd known that I'd even taken up people's time to such an extent (i.e. all these discussion threads) I'd feel pretty awful about it - believe it or not, I wasn't out (merely) to try and ridicule anyone (though, obviously, that was part of it, but surely that's water off a duck's back to Mark ), nor did I think any of it through - it was literally a way of simply staving off boredom on a Sunday and entertaining/distracting myself. There are some serious issues I tried to raise (however inappropriately), there, for sure, but I was basically just pissing about (anonymity can be a perverse thrill, I find - in society at large one is always - and I think justly - held responsible for all that one says; moroever, I often find it hard to believe that there's really a 'real person' there behind those avatars who may take offense - it's much easier [and more cowardly] to attck someone if you can't see their face - or they yours), but I never dramed that anyone would take such umbrage at insults from an anonymous prick such that they would be baying for revenge ("Hope there's some way of SERIOUSLY discomforting the a@#hole who did this")!

Of course I realise that what I am being really criticized for in the most part is that I (supposedly) pretended to be Mark - but really, once again, it never crossed my mind that anyone would *believe* it was really him - the parody was supposed to be obvious for what it was, nor did I spend more than five minutes composing it; so I was more than a little surprised when Nick responded the way he did, and then ran with it.

Anyway, I hope these apologies and pathetic, grovelling (but sincere) comments help to diffuse all the bad feeling (let's face it: hatred) a little. I'll troll off to my cave now ... and stay there!

Posted by: Contrite Troll at December 13, 2004 03:18 AM



Hope you understand why Nick is so angry (and he has the right to be very angry) ... he has already been harassed by the same kind of ‘harmless satire’ (or the so-called funny hoax) many times; but I’m sure Nick will accept the apology even if it takes time.

Trolling off to your cave is not a good solution; you can participate here too.

Posted by: Reza at December 13, 2004 04:08 AM



Troll, I can't believe you didn't intend to deliberately deceive us into thinking it was Mark. Why, otherwise, would you have signed off with his moniker?

Anyhow, I think I have even less respect for you for your wimpering, self-flatulating response, than for your impersonating tactics. The post in quasi-London-cum-black-US-ghetto slang was kind of funny, but this pathetic self-whipping is sad beyond belief.

You can air differences in a serious way if you care to. If you really have intellectual interest in the ideas produced on the site, and even concerns or differences, then hone your communication skills accordingly.

Posted by: Tachi at December 13, 2004 04:35 AM



Hey Troll, OK, I'm in for the group hug ;)
- in contrast to Tachi, I fully appreciate your abject whimpering self-flagellation
Guess we have to call off the ninja-hacker digital extermination brigade

Posted by: nick at December 13, 2004 04:49 AM



"Abject whimpering self-flagellation": oops, yes, this - rather than 'self-flatulence' (whatever that is, farting on oneself, perhaps) - is what I was refering to. Anyhow, good to see we have quickly moved on from the brink of dark and dirty to light and huggy. Back to productive synthesis now?

Posted by: Tachi at December 13, 2004 05:52 AM



Disagreement is fine and to be welcomed. It's not as if there is consensus on issues amongst the three of us.

But what was the substantive content of yr objection? Nothing...

Interesting, too, that the position being attributed to 'me' really was largely a summary of what Ginzburg said. I added v little. (The refs to Israel/ radical enlightenment were just about all I added).

Posted by: mark k-p at December 13, 2004 07:07 AM



"But what was the substantive content of yr objection? Nothing..." (mark k-p)

Well, I guess that's the end of that then, eh?

There are a trillion things which swarm to mind that I could say about this whole incident (and another trillion in response to Mark's, Nick's and Reza's most recent comments/discussions), but I really can't see Mark and I getting on at all, so I think it's only right for me to do the honourable thing and return the floor and the microphone to him and let him have free reign, as is his wont. [I've just deleted several long paragraphs of 'substantive objections', thinking better of getting engaged in what would doubtless turn out to be an interminable scrap in which no grounds would be gained on either side, no mutual understanding would be reached (and apologies for being so old-fashioned and out-of-tune with current intellectual fashions to think that is sometimes *desirable*] and which, frankly, no-one has time for.]

Although Mark flatters himself that I must be some kind of obsessive stalker who avidly reads everything he bothers posting on the internet (which seems to be more or less every thought which ever pops into his head - or fingertips) and must be fueled by some kind of bitter resentment(about *what* I'm supposed to be resentful, I am literally clueless), in actual fact I have not spent more than half an hour reading his 'k-punk' blog and my 'real motivation' has rather a lot more to do with the fact that ...

... alright, I'm cutting this short - it is pointless and I genuinely do really despise the whole ad hominem / puerile name-calling (though I think Mark has surpassed himself in this regard in his most comments on 'the troll' above and elsewhere on the site), and since we all have better things to do, I'll bid you all fair thee well.

Very best wishes for all that you do, collectively or otherwise ...

Posted by: Contrite Troll at December 13, 2004 08:07 AM



Sorry: 'fair thee well' should've been 'fare thee well' (I know how particular Mark gets about spelling)

Love and kisses Mark,

Your Very Own Resentocratic Stalker-Troll xxx

Posted by: Contrite Troll at December 13, 2004 08:22 AM



your'e weirding me out.

Posted by: tachi at December 13, 2004 09:36 AM



>I never for a moment thought that anyone would BELIEVE that
>Mark wrote that comment

>the parody was supposed to be obvious for what it was,

I guess when someone has already become an absurdly shrill, harrying, delusionally selfconfident quasi-messianic parody of themselves, it can be hard to tell - even for fellow hyperstitionalists.

He also can't spell 'personalist'.

Posted by: Terry Pratchett's Darkside at December 13, 2004 11:20 AM



Are you lot just playing along with this guy, or can you really not spot when somebody is mercilessly taking the piss out of you?

Posted by: johneffay at December 13, 2004 11:20 AM



Terry -- yes, you're absolutely spot-on. Clearly, that's why the whole thing was so deeply embarrassing for Nick and humiliating for Mark -- thus all the vituperation against the wicked 'troll'. The real problem, of course, was not at all that someone had (heaven forfend!) impersonated Mark, nor that the 'trolls' had infiltrated the exalted spaces of Hyperstition, but that both Nick and Reza were evidently prepared to believe that Mark was capable of such an outburst, automatically censuring him for his impertinent, adolescent, megalomaniacal tantrum, thereby publically betraying the fact that they are quite as aware of Mark's seriously delusional sense of self-importance as the rest of us. Deeply embarrassing all round, really -- which is why we then witnessed the represion (deletion) of the most telling of 'the troll's' comments, followed by the rather savage baying-for-blood scene which ensued: the wicked troll who so effortlessly exposed us in this way must be identified and hunted down and made an example of ("Hope there's some way of SERIOUSLY discomforting the a@#hole who did this...know anyone with the technical capabilities to wreak appropriate revenge?") ...

I have little doubt that this comment will be deleted also.

Posted by: The Undiluted/Deleted Truth at December 13, 2004 02:54 PM



Yes, yes, I can't spell 'repression' either ...

Posted by: Repression at December 13, 2004 02:56 PM



The Undiluted/Deleted Truth,

>>> I have little doubt that this comment will be deleted also.

Unfortunately, you clicked the wrong button ... no comment has been deleted here; Mark merely renamed those comments from Mark K-punk to Troll; if you are waiting to be repressed (deleted) by the Hyperstition crew; you should wait for too long ;) ... btw, a nice trick for pushing us to delete your comment but sadly, it is an old trick.

Posted by: Reza at December 13, 2004 04:12 PM



coming into this with no idea of the personal animosities and fatuities involved -- reza, your policy is incomprehensible. in what sense does leaving his comments there hurt or rebound upon him? why would he want them deleted?

Posted by: henrymiller at December 13, 2004 04:15 PM



Yawn [= 99]

Posted by: nick at December 13, 2004 04:53 PM



>>> in what sense does leaving his comments there hurt or rebound upon him? why would he want them deleted?

I don't want to keep them as an offensive tactic against the troll (i'm not interested in offense) ... my reasons: [1] comment purge is futile [2] there are some people who crave for comments purge (not the troll himself) on this blog and then exploiting the scenario for further trolling (honestly, i've already exprienced it). Anyway, i think this thread is getting boring so i'm not eager for talking about 'trollism' anymore. Sorry.

Posted by: Reza at December 13, 2004 05:21 PM



mmmm, strange. I know that i want to try and join in discussions - but in truth my only motivation is to converse with undercurrent - who i used to be friends with. Not wanting to go into the personal, i'd just like to say (as it seems that even non-illuminati have been encouraged to contribute to the blogsite)that i have only recently been exploring these and other blogs linked to r's urbanomic site (yes at times i do feel like a quasi-stalking - what was the word he used to use? - 'obsequious'? friend - not-wanted-anymore)and this has been one of the first blogs that i feel unintimidated enough to make an entrance.

i know that a long time ago i was left behind intellectually when undercurrent started at Warwick but always wanted at some point to keep in contact through some shared sense of aesthetic or sense of humour maybe. That said, i fully understand that people move on. But, and here is the point, i am one of those who has not made what i could of myself (laziness or maybe an inherited sense of self-pessemism ?). The occasional contact with those friends that have and do dare to stretch their potential - i find exhilarating and extremely inspiring. A few of the members of the medieaval baebes i count among these.
I am totally lost in most of what is said and therefore really shouldn't even be here. But here is a blog where an outsider (be kind in your interpretation of that term) has joined in - k-p. And i understand why and how resentment can manifest seeing these blogs.Though I in no way condone these trolls!
i guess though that vocab is interesting in that when one truly understands a subject - either through study or social upbringing - something the 'plain english' movement would have a fit reading, is, after all, just a conversation to those particpating.
Well i hope i haven't embarrassed myself. Hi to R.M. if your reading. And good luck.

p.s. if you ever bring up Bataille or Gainsbourg - give me a heads-up.

Posted by: michael murray at January 19, 2005 07:41 PM



hi michael - didn't realise I was being stalked.
interesting to hear from someone 'outside' that hypersition is less intimidating than other blogs, I had sort of feared that the opposite might be true, but outsiders joining in without feeling embarassed is a positive-feedback process.
Not sure what your point on the K-P wars is though, do you mean k-p is an outsider, or that outsiders are welcome at k-p's blog (neither of which are true ..)
As for Bataille well, for a start in a former life nick had a hand in writing the best book "on" Bataille in the known universe, but I'm not sure of his position on serge.

Posted by: u/c at January 20, 2005 01:42 PM



hi u/c. sorry for the confusion. when i typed 'k-p' i was referring to the great pretender - not the original. Meaning the troll as one of the 'outsider' 'resentniks'. so, in summary - allowed to participate - outsiders YES. trolls and resentniks NO.

Posted by: michael murray at January 20, 2005 02:17 PM



Post a comment:

Remember personal info?