Posted on 08/19/2007 6:54:27 PM PDT by TFFKAMM
Inside the Alamo Square apartment of Larry Harvey, the co-founder and impresario of Burning Man, there is a wooden statuette of Ganesh, the Hindu deity known for his patronage of arts and science.
The expensive artifact was part of a splurge Harvey allowed himself three years ago, when he finally was able to redecorate his rental apartment and turn it from the paper-infested swamp he'd lived in for the past 22 years to the elegant bachelor pad it is today, adorned with Far Eastern decor and inhabited by a man who, by his own definition, has done well for himself.
Harvey, 59, politely declined to share how much he paid for the item. "If I tell you," Harvey said, "they'll think me rich."
Appearing rich has become a problem for Harvey and his 21-year-old counterculture arts festival. This Labor Day weekend, Burning Man is expected to generate $10 million in revenue from 45,000 ticket-buying customers, each of whom will pay $195 to $280 for entrance to a patch of Nevada desert called Black Rock City. And Harvey's ex-partner is suing him for either a cut of the festival's worth or an agreement to turn over the Burning Man trademark "to the public domain." In art circles and around the blogosphere, Burners are asking: Is this famously anti-monetary event getting ruined by too much cash?
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
They charged 200 bucks a pop to attend the damned event... and thus they became the bourgeoisie that they hated. Cool. Or should I say Hot? (As in the Hell they say they don’t believe in?)
What is the purpose of a chunk of granite or a dinosaur or poison ivy? You’re asking silly questions.
You failed to answer the question.
Maybe some year you’ll get the point that your method can’t answer such questions.
What empirical standard are you using to base them as silly?
Sols’ method can’t show what is silly either.
What non-empirical standard are you using to base them as not-silly?
You’ve put the cart before the horse. First we have to be able to establish a concept of silliness before we can talk about it.
psssst, can you help?
They didn’t want to become “rich” per se, they just wanted to separate the roaming bums from the cool kids figuring that those with cash would present less problems.
That they may relieve my curiosity.
Now, what's your empirical basis?
Atheists aren't rational :-)
And what is the purpose of it?
To know Jesus, the creator of both. To back his claims as creator, he performed numerous miracles, rose from the dead, and made numerous prophecies about his own death and resurrection. Of his 12 disciples, who were in the position to KNOW if his claims were true or not, 11 died professing it's veracity, and the last on died in exile. BTW, the "sect" of Christianity grew in the very city where he was crucified and resurrected, adhered to by people who would KNOW if the whole thing was a sham. The historical evidence is compelling, in that there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than all other pre-1000 AD texts COMBINED, withe earliest manuscripts dating to within 25 years of the original.
In summary, Christianity hinges on the Resurrection of Jesus.
The Party considers you a comrade until it is determined that you no longer serve the agenda of the party (even if it is because the agenda has changed).
After which you are cast out and reviled in a revisionist take on historical events. It wasn’t just Stalin rubbing out (literally from photos) politically incorrect individuals. Elia Kazan was shunned the rest of his life by the Party faithful (even by those like Nick Nolte who weren’t in Hollywood back when he testified as to the Communist infiltration into studio production).
When you are no longer “cool” you’ve sold out to The Man.
LOL, bro’!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.