Paul Addis was so F'n right.

topic posted Wed, September 5, 2007 - 11:22 AM by  justin
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Not saying he deserves adoration, nor do I think that he was on a quest for it.
But he was right, dammit.
I was a VIRGIN burner this year after over 10 years of waiting to go... partly because of lack of money, and partly because I feared the event had already become too commercialized and bastardized to warrant the effort and expenditure.
Well this year I finally went, and I loved and hated it at the same time.
I WILL go again, and continue to love and hate it for what it is and has become - simultaneously worthwhile and pointless, a mix of those who "get it" and those who never will.
This event still holds value for mankind even as its very purpose and organizational structure continue to decay and foul.
I'm not going to get into an argument with those who criticize Paul's actions and think he should be locked up, raped, beaten, etc.
I've seen what these types have to say, and they're not the kind of people who I'd waste my time debating with.
Maybe this truly RADICAL expression will help snap a few head-nodders out of the complacent, conformist daze that clouds their vision.
But from the reactions I'm seeing, it's clear that the purpose, logic, and message behind this "heinous" prank will slide right off the minds of the majority without making so much as a dent in their carefully manufactured reality.
And this comes as no surprise.
Thank you, Paul.
posted by:
justin
San Diego
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Wed, September 5, 2007 - 11:38 AM
    I can't condone what he did. I don't think it's cool to burn someone else's art, especially when someone might die in the process. (Yes, I know he said that precautions were taken, but I simply don't believe that this is possible without completely clearing the area, which was not in his power to do.) Say what you will about radical self-expression, and it's not as though he were flying airplanes into buildings, but I'm simply not buying that this was an act of heroism.

    Granted, I was fascinated. The man knows how to start a conversation.
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 12:02 PM
      Did Addis make sure that there wasn't anyone in the tent sleeping or passed out before he torched the man?

      Did he have a look-out to make sure someone didn't enter it and pass out while he was climbing up?

      If the answer is no to either of those questions... then they should throw the book at him for potentially disfiguring or even killing someone.

      Yea.. we take risks at BM... but we are taking calculated risks.. and someone starting a fire (with an object that was designed to burn like the devil) and when proper percautions have not been taken of, then his dangerous actions are not one of those risks that we signed on for.

      Looks like he wanted to make a name for himself.

      I have a name for him: asshole.

      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 12:58 PM
        I couldn't agree more.

        I have ZERO respect for a selfish, self serving little prick such as the fuckwad in question.

        Don't like What BM has become? I got news for you. Its called PERPETUAL CHANGE. Nothing stays the same including BM.

        Go start a brand new event where you can do it own selfish way......just stay the the fuck away from me.
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Thu, September 6, 2007 - 12:20 AM
        Rob, I talked to many of the people who were in the temple when the fire was started, and not one single person told about anyone trying to get them to leave, or any other action that would remove them from danger. I simply don't believe that there was anyone but Addis involved.
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Wed, September 5, 2007 - 1:03 PM
    I have ZERO respect for a selfish, self serving little prick such as the fuckwad in question.

    Don't like What BM has become? I got news for you. Its called PERPETUAL CHANGE. Nothing stays the same including BM.

    Go start a brand new event where you can do it own selfish way......just stay the the fuck away from me.

    FUCK YOU paul
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Thu, September 6, 2007 - 11:21 AM
      "Go start a brand new event where you can do it own selfish way......just stay the the fuck away from me. "

      The start your own event line is one of biggest pieces of bullshit anybody can spew out their asses. The event is supposed to be shaped by the community year round. If that is the case the one of the ways to shape the event is to discuss it here and figure out how and why your going to bring change. If you don't like that or you have drank so much of L. Ron Harveys Kool-Aid that anything negative said about the event hurts your little feelings then tough shit.
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Wed, September 5, 2007 - 2:24 PM
    I don't agree with what he did, it was dangerous and wrong. What really sits wrong with me, though, isn't that he did it, it's what he did afterwards. Apparently, his first words on the ground were "don't hurt me".

    (if this is incorrect, please inform me, but all reports I've heard were that's what he said)

    If you give a big old fuck you to 50,000 people, your first words down are don't hurt me? When did we start playing by your rules? I'm a nonviolent person in general, but you can't expect mercy at a moment like that. If you're willing to fuck with people, and accept the fact you might be fucked with afterwards, then I may disagree with you but I can accept you're making a point.

    He's an attention mongering coward, and it's already really old that a few people are so titillated by him being naughty.
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Wed, September 5, 2007 - 2:45 PM
    I'm not calling for him to be punished beyond what's legal. It's arson and NOT just burning something early that was going to be burned anyway because:

    There was no safety perimeter in place
    There were still participants and valuable equipment in the the area he set fire.
    Firefighters had to come out.

    It was dangerous and costly and he should pay retribution.
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 2:47 PM
      Eh. I said it before, I'll say it again.

      Couple o' things:

      I personally think people are getting too attached to the burning of the man each year. I understand the iconology of it, but to me it's actually kinda boring. I love the wonderful folks in the conclave, and who doesn't like a big fire? But still every year it's the same old thing. It is kind of neat to see something unexpected happen amid the planned chaos out there.

      That being said...

      1. There's a reason he's been called "Bi-Polar Paul" for years within the community, and it ain't because he's considered a brilliant activist artist who shits gold bricks. When he was caught, he declared that he couldn't be hurt by any of this because he was security at John Law's wedding and marched across the Golden Gate Bridge, that Danger Ranger was his attorney and some other drivel
      about the christian church. This isn't a visionary, this is a guy who is a leather bustier short of a fire spinner.

      2. He flat-out endangered the people who were in the pavillion directly underneath when he set it on fire. Period. He saw them there, and he lit the man on fire anyway. To me, that negates any "trying to save the event or enlighten the people" crap he chooses to spew.

      3. He didn't build it, he didn't design it, he didn't raise it: that means he don't get to burn it. As the back of the Rebirth Crew shirts say: "We decide when the man burns. - DPW"

      4. There have been contingency plans in place for quite a while just in case someone burned the man early, because people have been threatening to do so for years. So here's a question: is it anarchy if it was planned for?

      If I wanted someone to enlighten me, I'd start going to church. If I wanted someone else to decide whether or not my life should be in danger while chilling, I'd go hang out in Compton wearing nothing but pasties made of red and blue bandanas. And if someone tries to tell me what my experience should be, what my journey through BM is/was/will be, then I'll happily put my boot up their ass... even if they're being funny while they're doing it.

      Mockingbird
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 2:58 PM
        All I can say you got a sync it with a grain of salt

        Don't you get the irony

        The burning Man men got burned
        • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

          Wed, September 5, 2007 - 3:42 PM
          Stephen, you said it. The reason it's funny is that it was the man. Irony, people!

          It just makes it funnier that so many are mad about it! You can't charge someone for arson for burning something early. That would make it even funnier.

          They might be able to charge him with Reckless Endangerment, maybe. But you would have to get witnesses to attest that they were in danger.
          • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

            Wed, September 5, 2007 - 4:41 PM
            >>It just makes it funnier that so many are mad about it! You can't charge someone for arson for burning something early. That would make it even funnier. <<

            If you go to any city's fireworks display on July 3 and set it on fire, I guarantee you will be charged with arson.
          • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

            Thu, September 6, 2007 - 10:04 AM
            I was trying to read through this whole thread before I chimed in, but I guess I'm failing here...

            Danger Angel's comment was "The reason it's funny is that it was the man. Irony, people!"

            Have you, Danger Angel, or all of the other snarky geniuses in this "Tribe" realize the difference between "irony" and "reality"?? Irony is something where you can casually sit back and toss spit-balls and/or fireballs into a conversation, just to see what kind of effect it has. It's fun, it's recreational, it's mostly harmless.

            However, confusing irony with real life is potentially dangerous, and often destructive. The questions I've got for you Danger Angel, are:
            1) were you even at Burning Man this year, or are you just casually tossing spitballs at a situation you just know about second- or third-hand.
            2) did you get a chance to hang out in the space under the man as it was intended to be-- i.e., before it was selfishly destroyed?

            Of all my playa experiences this year, the one that is taking on the brightest glow for me is the hour I spent with my virgin friend under the man, talking, singing and laughing/loving the moment with other people-- about 2 hours before the fire. It was a beautiful, connected, connecting place. They had essentially set the space up as nothing more than just a giant fire circle at night and shady place by day-- where you could sit on benches encircling the man-base and talk with people, or just hang around under a giant shade structure and talk and connect with people. Or wander around and talk to the people who had-- literally-- spent the last YEAR creating the technology and/or exhibits that were on display under there. They weren't commercial, and they weren't even necessarily all that "professional" looking. They were simply the gift of people who cared enough about the theme to respond to it and create information and experience for other people to share. It was beautiful.

            Yet, because of this act of monumental selfishness and stupidity, here's what happened:
            1) the people who had spent so much of their resources-- time, energy, money, employment, passion, etc-- had their art destroyed, too. They had to move their exhibits out, they were not even allowed back into the space until late in the week to (re)set-up, and when they got back in it was jury-rigged and disorganized. Contributing to not only their dis-jointedness, but the disjointedness of the whole experience. Instead of talking about their great ideas, the conversation moved on to the who-what-why-when-where of a single dumb-fuck.
            2) The great, vaunted, evil, BMOrg was distracted from many of the things they had intended to do-- complete setting up the photovoltaic array that was supposed to power the man-base, for example.

            This stupid, selfish act changed the plans and priorities of many, many people who were suddenly shifted from "done, and now I get to enjoy the fruits of my labors" to "OK, problem-solving time again." It's to the immense credit of the capability and committment of an amazing group of people that they were able to salvage their experience and contribute to the salvaging of a group experience for other people-- the Festival (remember the festival??), instead of just saying "fuck this person and fuck this place, I'm outta here."

            Many of these people, by the way, are masters of irony. Get them to sit down and relax, hand them a beer, and an hour later you will leave with your ribs and cheekbones hurting from laughter. But they understand that irony is icing on the cake-- but first you have to build the cake. You have to contribute and participate. It is not enough-- in fact it is NOTHING to sit back and criticize, snark, or burn something that you had no role in creating, or in fact you wish to destroy.

            If Paul Addis was so upset with how things have been going with Burning Man, he could have done many things-- he could have gone to Bali for vacation, for godssake. Instead he chose someone else's party to destroy as a way to get the attention he needs, without ANY care for anything, especially anything that he babbled about.

            The legal definition of arson varies in different states and countries, but in simple terms it can be defined as the act of intentionally burning property. And the fire art that he burned prematurely, and the things under it, were NOT his property. Plain and simple. Sounds like arson to me.

            And Reckless Endangerement, definitely. And, by the way, I don't think that they will have any problem getting witnesses to attest that they and/or their property were endangered by this stupid monkey.

            And, while it's not a legal definition, consider the dangers of Reckless Irony. True, it's just words, and we're all really good with words. Individually, on a person-to-person basis, it's also true that "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me." But words can be thoughtless and provoke acts of stupidity. And while it may be others that commit those acts, we should all consider how our words may contribute to the process, and if it always needs to be about how "funny" we can be.

            Peace out-- thanks for listening
            Respectfully,
            Chris
            • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

              Fri, September 7, 2007 - 12:29 AM
              Chris, I laughed. It was funny. I'm not the only one who laughed. Lots of people thought it was funny (almost everyone I know). This wasn't a tragedy. It was freaking hi-larious.

              You are telling me I shouldn't have laughed? That I was confused for laughing? Wow, that's... really arrogant.

              It wasn't any more dangerous than any other burn on the playa ever was, even planned ones.
              1)Have you ever planned a burn? 2) Worked security for a burn? 3) Stood by while thousands of people endanger their lives by running into the newly fallen man, which is filled with unexploded fireworks while you are helpless to do anything? No. So you're just throwing spitballs into this conversation about danger. Until you've stood between 10,000 screaming idiots and their vector for a helicopter ride, I suggest you back down.

              Was I there? Fuck no. You couldn't pay me enough to work for BM again (granted, they never really paid me, back then I got an air conditioned room at Bruno's and all the diner food I could eat, gas money and all the BM branded clothing I could ever want - at least I didn't come out of it in debt like some people who left) and I certainly would never give BM LLC $300 for attending their event. Why am I here then, debating something that I wasn't a part of, refuse to go to and can hardly contain my contempt for? BM is annoying, it steals the creativity out of the city for art only white people see, eats resources and then has the appalling gall to call itself green. Because it treats it's workers like crap. Because I like John Law better. Because the only person I trust in the org is Harley, everyone else that I thought I liked became sleazy and dishonorable. Because it's fun to walk into Jonestown and tell the People's Temple that they are in a state of cognitive dissonance (thanks ET! Nice one!). Because BURNING THE MAN EARLY IS FUNNY. I laughed. I am not confused about what's irony and what's real life.

              And yes, it's too bad things were destroyed that shouldn't have been. It's the playa. Ever have a dust storm ruin a $10 million land speed car? Things happen. People are crazy at BM, the shit burns down and then it's either rebuilt, or chucked. I used to love it when they burned the message board. Now you need a permit to burn something during the event. Read Vinay's post on the Environmental Terrorism thread. He's got a great take on the pavillion and what happened after the pre-burn. I think he might be the most insightful person on this tribe and he was there.

              STOP THROWING STUFF IN THE PORTA POTTIES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. That is real life. That's what you should be writing about Chris. Someone was injured and the event will be screwed if Johnny on the Spot quits. THAT IS REALITY. You want REAL LIFE???? Paul Addis didn't hurt anyone and the people who throw baby wipes in the john did. Grow up.
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 8:10 PM
        oooh mockingbird I think I love you...or maybe it was just the pasties in compton meme...

        my thing is this...
        for a self proclaimed revolutionary - PA sure picked a freaking LAME adversary.

        damn the BORG!
        (HAHAHHAHAHA)
        (HA!)

        Paul - you want attention?
        You want to get REAL?
        You want to enlighten?
        You want to take on something WORTH taking on ---

        self immolate yourself on the whitehouse lawn to protest this fucking war.


        your act was
        adolescence,
        poopy pants -
        fuck you daddy caliber revolt.

        BOOOOOOOOORING.
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Wed, September 5, 2007 - 3:08 PM
    Let's break down the main points being brought up by those in the "fuck you paul" camp.

    1. Setting fire to the man early was UNSAFE and could have resulted in death or injury to innocent bystanders.
    2. Paul acted out of selfishness for his own gain.
    3. It wasn't his artwork to burn.
    4. Paul is a self-[whatever] piece of [whatever] who thinks he is somehow above others

    Out of these, #1 is definitely the most compelling and emotion-stirring, so let's take a look at that one first. Yes, there was definitely some possibility that someone could have been hurt or killed. It was not a safe course of action. He claims to have taken extensive precautions to ensure that nobody was in the area. We can argue about whether he's telling the truth but none of us will really know for sure, unless we were there witnessing exactly what went down. He claims that making sure nobody was hurt was his #1 priority, and really that makes sense. Of course he had a ground crew making sure that nobody was underneath the man at the critical moment.

    Burningman is a DANGEROUS, DEADLY event. If you had been standing, or even sleeping, under the man at the moment it was lit on fire, would you have really been in any more danger than the hundreds of people crowded close around the unshielded tesla coil and flamethrowing sculptures at the oil rig? Or on TOP of the oil rig deck? How easily could THAT thing have been accidentally set aflame while full of people if something went wrong down below? How about these often-shoddily-constructed multi level art cars piled with far more people than they could even support? How about simply driving for hundreds of miles on the freeway with a vehicle laden with way too much weight and bulk to safely handle or avoid a potential accident? Of everywhere that you could have been in BRC during that lunar eclipse, beneath the man was probably the SAFEST place because unlike everywhere else, there actually was someone actively looking out for your safety, and trying to get you the hell out of there and over to the far fence.

    If I truly thought that Paul had recklessly endangered the lives of others in order to make his statement, then I might agree that the risks outweighed the purpose. So far I am very unconvinced and all I see is a bunch of the typical safety-nazi, think-of-the-children, round every corner and bumper-pad the world sort of mentality. And even I, as a clueless first timer virgin, know damn well that that is in complete contradiction to the spirit of burning man. More importantly (because who really cares what anyone says BM is SUPPOSED to be), the safety-first mentality is a disgustingly cowardly way to live and is always used by the socially conservative as a bludgeon for the enacting of overly restrictive, reductionist laws and policies at every level of our modern western society. This is why we have laws that "protect us from ourselves" by ruining our lives should we dare to step off the path of greatest safety. And even with an overabundance of well-intentioned safety limits thwarting our natural tendency to explore past boundaries, all this safety we're rewarded with is still just an illusion.

    On to #2. Paul did this our of selfishness, so he could become famous/popular/wealthy/whatever. This idea is flawed at the core and a bit of simple logic will get you out of this wet paper bag of an idea. If you've read his interviews it's abundantly clear that this is a man who values freedom - a value MOST of us can relate to, especially those of us who have had our freedom fucked with. He decided to sacrifice his own freedom just to provoke others into a bit of introspective thought about what burning man means and why we all put so much into making it happen. That is quite the opposite of selfishness.

    #3: This, to me, is the least compelling argument of all. As many have said, if he'd just randomly gone and torched some poor artist's work, yeah that would have been a real dick move. But he didn't. In fact at this point, I would have a hard time making a case that the man should even be considered a work of "art". If anything, by burning it early he resurrected its artistic significance.

    #4: You're probably right, and I agree. My initial reaction to his interviews and smug-looking mugshot was "Man, what a douche... this guy is seriously up his own ass. But you know what, he's still fucking right."
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 3:44 PM
      I was right outside the pavilion when he lit the man. Up until maybe 3 minutes tops before he torched it I was under the pavilion on a bench watching the eclipse, in fact the only reason i got up was that the moon had moved and the tarps were blocking the way. I was not sitting in a place where I would be concerned that flames would have fallen, but, I did not see anyone looking around before the man was lit to make sure no one was under there. Of course, I must admit that I was not looking for such a thing, I was watching the eclipse, much like everyone else I imagine. My point is that I do not entirely buy the story of making sure that no one was there, I also do not belive he intended to hurt anyone. The way the pavilion and Man were constructed it took a while for anything flaming to fall.

      I have mixed feeling about the whole thing personally. I was glad to see something unplanned, glad to be a close witness of the early burn, and glad to see some bit of anarchy return to BM. However it was: unsafe, not his to burn, there were things underneath the man that should not have been burned, and most importantly (in my eyes) the amount of extra work that it caused for the people who sacrificed so much of their time at the burn to rebuild the man for us.

      I would like to personally thank the rebuild crew for their time and effort. I wanted to jump in myself, but since I am not handy with that kind of thing I figured I would just be in the way.
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 4:19 PM
        > #3: This, to me, is the least compelling argument of all. As many have said, if he'd just randomly gone and torched some poor artist's work,
        > yeah that would have been a real dick move. But he didn't. In fact at this point, I would have a hard time making a case that the man should
        > even be considered a work of "art". If anything, by burning it early he resurrected its artistic significance.

        So you should be allowed to burn things that don't belong to you if they're not "art?"

        Suppose he had randomly torched some poor artists' work, but on inspection we all decided that it wasn't "art" because it didn't have significance to us?

        If it's not yours and you haven't been invited to set it on fire, don't. If you do, expect consequences. I really don't think that should be a hard principle for people to respect. In terms of limiting creativity, it's not exactly the Hayes Code.

        But this whole thing does bring up an interesting question/contradiction.

        On the one hand, we want a free, unplanned, anarchistic Burning Man where "anything can happen."

        On the other hand, don't put moop in the porta potties.

        On the one hand, we celebrate the spirit of the radical anarchist who injects chaos into the event.

        On the other hand, don't oggle the naked people who walk by you.

        It seems like we're a bit schizophrenic here...that we don't really want "anything" to happen so much as certain kinds of things. For we at once say we want "anything" to happen and yet we say we want Burning Man to live up to its "original spirit." So one of the anythings that shouldn't happen is for the spirit of the event to change, even though it's a hundred times bigger. How very Goedel.

        Of course there are good reasons not to oggle people. You should respect their dignity and not push unwanted sexual attention on them. But if whistling and making crude comments at people is your "art" and your "radical, anarchistic, anything-can-happen" contribution, is it then okay? To be encouraged?

        Of course you shouldn't disrupt the porta potties, otherwise the playa will become an open sewer. But if turning Burning Man into Stinking Man is your artistic statement (and it would be a little funny), should that not be celebrated?

        And what about the ban on money? Suppose I want to set up a currency exchange and general store as my art? Should there be a *gasp* RULE against that? Oh, right, there is.

        There's a fundamental contradiction between embracing anarchy and implementing a specific set of values (respect, leave no trace, no advertising, etc.) Everything that happens is about balancing the one value against the other.

        And anytime you embrace one, you'll get people claiming you're betraying the other. You cannot win. Suppose my "art" is to leave the biggest trace I can? To gouge a giant hole in the playa? To pollute it with oil? Would that be...ART? No? Says who?

        So, I say this: next year the rule is anyone can burn the Man at any time and no one will make any effort to stop you. Agreed all?

        If not, then on what basis do we excuse this year's early burn? If so, explain how that kind of thing can be sustainable with 40,000+ people.


        Anarchists don't buy carbon credits.
        • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

          Wed, September 5, 2007 - 8:17 PM
          Who ever claimed BM was an 'anarchist' event? Anarchists are a tiny sliver of the global community and radical inclusion admits -- republicans even to the event...

          I think of bm as a civic space where all these tendencies and arguments play out - and are reality tested....
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 5:02 PM
      Justin, lemme break it down for ya:

      -There were plenty of people in plain site within the pavillion when it was lit. The two rangers who were on shift there saw him shimmy up the line while they were talking to some of the so-called non existent people. So do I believe his schtick about there being a "ground crew" to make sure no one was hurt? Hell no, because if there were then it wouldn't have taken 80+ half dressed rangers pulled from their camps in the middle of their sleepy time to get people out from underneath the fire. I think he's just back pedaling like crazy in a lame attempt to save his own ass now that he realizes his prank actually qualifies as a federal crime, and is desperately hoping the judge goes easy on him if he can convince someone that he really did care about the safety of the folks he almost burned alive.

      -Yes, you actually are in more danger directly under a large unstable bonfire that is designed to fall then you are on the sidelines watching a controlled Tesla demonstration. It's called "Physics", look it up. There actually is a reason rangers work on burn night to keep people back from the fire, and it ain't because we enjoy using our vacation time repeatedly asking drunk people to sit down so the people behind them can see.

      -This guy didn't do this because he values freedom, he did it because he likes attention and is on the fruity side of the loops. Hmm, where have I heard the argument that people hating freedom was the reason they were against us... oh yeah, the Iraq war. Isn't that why they're against us bombing their country?

      Basically, I don't care if someone wants to walk around all week with their ass on fire playing the kazoo and alternately screaming about everyone being imperialist pigs. In fact, I'd probably stop to watch and applaud. I do in fact think it's funny that the man burned early, and i think the hoopla resulting from it is hilarious. But when the fire transfers from their ass to my art, that becomes a serious problem for me.

      But hey, everyone's different.
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 6:01 PM
      " He decided to sacrifice his own freedom just to provoke others into a bit of introspective thought about what burning man means and why we all put so much into making it happen."

      Then why is he pleading not guilty? If he is standing up for principle, he should come right out and say "Hell yes I burned the man, I'm guilty" and accept whatever his sentance is.
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 7:16 PM
        " He decided to sacrifice his own freedom just to provoke others into a bit of introspective thought about what burning man means and why we all put so much into making it happen." <<<

        HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh god, I just snorted rice through my nose.

        Not to say I didnt love the fact the man burned Monday, but no.... he most likely did it for the attention... and he is certainly getting it now.
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 8:20 PM
        I resent being preached to by an adolescent fucktard off his meds about 'freedom'.... as I have been to jail protesting realities like police brutality and such... I really don't need to hear it from I'm guessing -- a priveledged white boy.
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 8:13 PM
      "He claims to have taken extensive precautions to ensure that nobody was in the area. We can argue about whether he's telling the truth but none of us will really know for sure, unless we were there witnessing exactly what went down."

      bullshit. we can know. talk to campmates and other witnesses as the federales will do... my bet is the picture will becoem clearer and -speculation only here-- it will reveal a man off his meds in a manic panic...and a colloasal bullshit artist.
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Wed, September 5, 2007 - 4:39 PM
    >>>He decided to sacrifice his own freedom just to provoke others into a bit of introspective thought about what burning man means and why we all put so much into making it happen. That is quite the opposite of selfishness. <<<

    Wow, he's Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ all rolled in one.
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 5:16 PM
      >>He decided to sacrifice his own freedom just to provoke others into a bit of introspective thought about what burning man means and why we all put so much into making it happen. That is quite the opposite of selfishness. <<<

      really I never knew someone with a lighter could be so clever... TO the original poster
      -If you did not create art out on the playa this year
      -volunteer
      -only went out to burning man to party, get laid...
      according to Paul you are the new generation of swine on the playa read his letter
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 5:36 PM
        Paul is right... I think he might be, I guess, I mean I read his interviews and he seems batshit crazy... I tried to make a few things out that seems like a reason but couldn't figure it out... I suppose if burning other's art is ok, I guess rape, theft and fucking children on the playa can't be too far behind? So in that context, he's FREEEEEE to do whatever, whenever to whomever... it's a bullshit arguement.

        It's my 10th year and I said it before, I don't need this out of work actor from SF to tell me what my BM experience is supposed to be. I had one of my best years this year.

        I'm not happy about people coming out to the event who don't "get it" and most probably the even may one day be overrun by such folk but it isn't close to being yet... it's still a good vibe out there and a good strong sense of community, so I'm enjoying it while I can...

        In the end, Paul's burning the man early actually made it worse. It made it worse because now every freak'n news outlet int he world has picked up the story of Burning Man, made more people want to come, more people interested in the event... ironically, Paul has made worse the very thing he was supposedly trying to stop...

        dj
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Wed, September 5, 2007 - 5:28 PM
    if it wont change anyone's mind, then WHAT WAS THE POINT?

    i get so tired of self-proclaimed activists doing things that have NO EFFECT, and then continuing to claim the moral high ground.

    If you know it isnt going to make a difference, why do it? Why not do something that might have an effect?

    I think the answer is that despite the impressive rhetoric, addis' stunt was naught but an ego trip...

    and an uncreative one at that...burn the man early, wow, real original

    i sympathize with much of addis' complaint about burning man, but his method was just completely lame

    and as far as those who "get it" and those who dont:

    to me, if you "get it" then you get that *burning the man* after a week of partying, learning, crying, freaking out, sweating, shivering, drinking, sexing, looking at art, experiencing yourself in community, etc etc etc...
    the burn is very healing, powerful, etc, BECAUSE the city and the Man have been absorbing all that energy for a week, and so have you

    burning the man on day two does NOT have the same effect...in fact, it completely DESTROYS any hope of the HEALING power of this unique ritual

    therefore, it seems to me, to be candid if i may, that you and addis dont "get it", and it seems apparent that addis is very self-centered

    i am very glad they got the man back up there so that my year of preparation and expectation wasnt ruined by addis' egotistical arson/vandalism, which is all it was



    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 5:36 PM
      as an experienced risk taker, hardcore antiwar activist, therapist, artist, and 5 year burner, elt me say

      i like safety first

      cause guess what? Burning man is NO FUN if you are dead, or in the medic tent. Trust me on this.

      It's not about protecting "ourselves from ourselves" as you say justin

      it's about protecting me from selfish, unconscious dingbats with flamethrowers, fast cars, drunk, etc, while i'm trying to have a good time

      the rules at burning man are pretty minimal...if you cant handle it, go start your own event, where everyone burns whatever they want whenever they want

      call it "burning addis" or something
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 5:36 PM
      Well said.
      • performance art

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 5:54 PM
        performance art ALWAYS involves breaking boundaries, getting out of the box, being unorthodox, doing what is unexpected, taboo, verboten...
        performance art always pisses people off, takes risks...
        performance art is rarely popular

        HOWEVER

        that doesnt mean that ANY ACT which involves breaking boundaries, getting out of the box, being unorthodox, doing what is unexpected, taboo, verboten, etc, is necessarily performance, art, or performance art...certainly, it doesnt mean it's valuable, and even if it could claim to be "art", it can still be deemed BAD ART (ie: uncreative, contributing to, rather than relieving suffering, reflecting delusion instead of truth, failing to communicate its intent clearly, failing to inspire, being boring, etc.)

        therefore, just because addis has a point of view and did something risky and provoked discussion DOES NOT mean it was art, and certainly doesnt mean it was good art

        all this could also be said of radical activism, which always pushes boundaries, etc

        but the la riots were not activism

        and paul addis burning the man was not art

        or, at least it wasnt very good art

      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 5:56 PM
        > I'm not happy about people coming out to the event who don't "get it"

        If you're surrounded by people who don't get something, maybe it's not they who have the problem.

        Part of being in a living, evolving, dynamic system is that it will almost always be dominated by individuals who "don't get it," because "it" is changing. "It" emerges from the sustainable consensus of the group. Ideas that can't be sustained or don't have broad enough consensus die, others flourish. When "it" is no longer viable, "it" must change or die.

        I have a hard time understanding the idea that Burning Man is one and only one thing and must always stay that thing and anyone who doesn't get that has a CLOSED mind.

        I've never understood the fear of change among people who are so dedicated to building something that will endure.

        Not all change will be welcome or positive, but stagnation will certainly kill anything living.
        • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

          Wed, September 5, 2007 - 7:12 PM
          just a question here...if you were a virgin this year how can you say you don't like what bman has become?

          i agree with self-expression and it's a wonderful part of bman. but bman is also about kindness and respect for others. it is about community. it is not totally about selfish expression and disregarding others.

          the man is important to 40,000 some odd people. by choosing to be so self-indulgent is not only wreckless but completely disrespectful of your fellow burners and there feelings about what the man means to them. bman is responsible hedonism.

          it made me sad to think that a burner thought it was ok to completely disregard the rest of his community and their feelings not only about the art of the man but about what it means to them and how the ritualistic buring of it effects them.

          it was way beyond inconsiderate and dangerous. it was the exact opposite of a burner.
          • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

            Wed, September 5, 2007 - 7:34 PM
            Mango wrote:
            "it was way beyond inconsiderate and dangerous. it was the exact opposite of a burner."

            No - it's the exact opposite of the Rainbow Family. Wrong festival.

            Rev. Al (LA Cacophony) filled one of those oversized inflatable crayons will oxy acetalyne, and as it exploded into a flaming mass scattering people everywhere, while wiping a piece of flaming plastic from under his eye, Boggmann asked him, "Why did you do that?" and Rev Al replied "I read the directions and it didn't say not to!"

            THAT IS BURNING MAN.

            Saying Paul Addis is the exact opposite of a burner is blatantly ridiculous. Who exactly are burners? Since the festival started as a CACOPHONY SOCIETY EVENT - then I would say the people run the gamut from hippie pranksters to pyro gearheads. That includes manic performance artists with spy fantasies. Paul Addis is a burner - he went to freaking BM and did his thing. Maybe to some of you his art was dangerous, derivative and unkind, but he expressed himself and someone else came in and fixed what he broke. It wouldn't be the first time (for expressions with less impact).

            What you should be up in arms about is the fact that PEOPLE KEEP THROWING STUFF IN THE PORTA POTTIES!!!!
            That is what is really ENDANGERING THE FUTURE OF YOUR EVENT.
            Dumbass burners. If you can't get a porta potty company to haul away YOUR bodily waste, there will be no festival.
            Fuck Paul Addis and his contribution - IT'S YOUR CONTRIBUTION OF BABY WIPES THAT'S FUCKING UP BURNING MAN FOR EVERYONE ELSE. I swear. This tribe is so ridiculous.
            • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

              Wed, September 5, 2007 - 7:51 PM
              As I see it, the arson on Monday was very much like clogging the porta potties, except that it got a bit more attention. The spirit (if you can call it that) was essentially the same. In both cases, to quote Danger Angel, "someone else came in and fixed what he broke."
              • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

                Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:25 PM
                Sorry Dr. P - torching the man is a conscious, public act, throwing baby wipes is an unconscious, private act.

                The former is not endangering the festival or people's lives. The latter is. The former could be seen as a political statement, in the spirit of the event, or an attention getting stunt. The latter could not be any of those.

                Pop quiz!

                Q. Which act got someone injured?

                A) Torching the man early

                or

                B) Throwing Baby Wipes in the Porta Potty

                HOW MANY OF YOU THREW STUFF IN THE PORTA POTTY WHICH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE???
                Duh. You're all Paul Addis, but worse because you can't admit it.
                • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

                  Thu, September 6, 2007 - 8:45 AM
                  [impossible to thread this properly]

                  DA: "Sorry Dr. P - torching the man is a conscious, public act, throwing baby wipes is an unconscious, private act."

                  As I see it, both acts have public consequences, both acts are deliberate, neither act is really conscious. It's true that the arson gets more immediate attention, but both acts are adolescent "fuck you" messages to the community at large.

                  At least, that's how it came across to me. As a "performance" piece the arson gets a thumbs down.
              • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

                Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:28 PM
                If there was no man, he'd probably have eventually gone after the porta-potties because they were ruining the spirit of Burning Man ... and the same people would be calling him a hero.

                A joke, for the PA Yahoo Nation King followers.. a JOKE.
            • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

              Wed, September 5, 2007 - 8:02 PM
              "No - it's the exact opposite of the Rainbow Family."
              ok, that got a giggle out of me.

              btw, i thought this clip seemed ironically relevant to this thread:
              www.youtube.com/watch

              to continue an earlier thought: Is the man of 2007 really a work of art, or just another corporate logo? I mean, it's trademarked isn't it? What do you think would be the outcome if someone were to set up a giant neon-adorned wooden edifice of the WalMart logo in the middle of the playa, towering over a display of corporate advertisements and computers which collection information about people? Would it last till tuesday? Not saying it's the same thing, just inviting you to take a look at the situation from a different perspective.
            • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

              Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:44 PM
              "Fuck Paul Addis and his contribution - IT'S YOUR CONTRIBUTION OF BABY WIPES THAT'S FUCKING UP BURNING MAN FOR EVERYONE ELSE. I swear. This tribe is so ridiculous. "

              You do have a MASSIVE......point.
              • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

                Wed, September 5, 2007 - 10:04 PM
                Thank you Orlando.

                Sorry for the caps, it's just seems so obvious. All this shrieking about safety and how one person was such an asshole, but when it comes down to it the community is being cursed at by the workers for being unable to follow the rules and endangering (in a real way) their lives.

                Pointing finger is the favorite gesture of the masses - Paul Addis is not the problem. Get real. The trash, the shit, the massive waste of resources. It's just so delusional.
            • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

              Fri, September 7, 2007 - 4:12 AM
              Danger Angel- (now that's irony).

              "Rev. Al (LA Cacophony) filled one of those oversized inflatable crayons will oxy acetalyne, and as it exploded into a flaming mass scattering people everywhere, while wiping a piece of flaming plastic from under his eye, Boggmann asked him, "Why did you do that?" and Rev Al replied "I read the directions and it didn't say not to!"-"

              wow- so basically you're saying BM is an event about people with No common sense-
              hmmm.

              well- you really sold that one short.
              (oh shit- that's right, you're not allowed to sell things.)

              so, perhaps you might reconsider trying to sell this audience on the "freaking hi-larious"ness of PAs pyro-gyro and baby wipes in the toilet.
              there's certainly something to be said for not taking the whole thing too seriously, though you seem to be out of touch with the end result of what you are advocating-

              "Maybe to some of you his art was dangerous, derivative and unkind, but he expressed himself and someone else came in and fixed what he broke."

              great. so, now others are expressing themselves and basically, you are ignoring (even battling) with their "expressions" (being that they did not appreciate the early burn), and persisting with some self-created innate value of Paul's behavior that you have deemed worthy (by even calling it art). not to mention- who wants to go around fixing what others break (much better uses of time and energy).
              it's quite ironic and hippocritical to step on one's expression for the sake of another's; for, while you are calling for the acceptance of the expression of one person, you are stepping all over the expression of (many) others. so, what are you really for? cause it doesn't seem to jive, and you are beginning to sound just as delirious as Paul.
              i guess part of what i get- and maybe i just don't get "IT" either (i'm not even sure i want to "get it" at this point)- is:

              If it makes you laugh and fits into your slide show of random, no common sense, anarchist, expressions, then it must be alright...
              until it's something that YOU care about (unless you proclaim to care about nothing); which is the bottom line here-
              a lot of people care about this occurrence for many different reasons- but it seems your need/ right to laugh comes before the need/ feelings/ efforts/ care and safety of others. this is where one's liberty and freedom begins to cross the lines of another's liberty and freedom. you sound almost more self centered than Paul. there seems to be a lot of similarities here.
              in fact, the deeper truth here is that you applaud the lunacy of this stunt because you have your own grudges with the organization and certain people in it. you can make up whatever reasons you like. in fact, that part is easy- it's hindsight. i could give you ten reasons why it was cool, funny, and inspiring, and i could give you ten reasons why it was selfish, adolescent, and dangerous. so what. we can go on for eternity with reasons and debate who's reasons are better- blah blah blah-
              how about some authenticity and connection? i think the human race already has the blame, ego, individual, separatist thing down- unimpressive. wanna try something new?- how about finding a way to relate to each other and understand each other's point of view and... feelings (oh my gosh- i said that word that frightens so many men- maybe they won't notice).
              whether it's art, leave no trace, no commerce, or creative expression- the common denominator seems to be connection? connecting with each other (part of the reason for art)- otherwise we'd each be having a solo hoopla out in some piece of dessert, but what use is any of this without others to share it with?

              anywho- i think i'd rather give any more of my attention to the DPW that did fix what PA broke for the benefit and enjoyment of thousands of others- they- in the truest sense are the heroes and ones to applaud- and deserve their own post of thank yous and gratitude-

              sat nam and blissings to all-

              - T
        • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

          Wed, September 5, 2007 - 8:26 PM
          hey Mr Jason P

          I wrestle with what you are saying....I guess my thinking is there are certain elements which makes it a great event/culture...and yes it is evolving as we all evolve -- but the thing can become so dilute as to become meaningless, wasteful... dare I say decadent...NOW don't get me wrong- I got nuthin against decadence in the normal sense -- but it is possible to become so decayed and rotten that little good comes form it...that it stops being that nurishing transformative thing that attracts people in the first place...

          I am feeling after this year - the center cannot hold....

          I want to be wrong.
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right. - WRONG

    Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:07 PM
    Ultimately, he's a jerk and not just for the reasons all have mentioned. But primarily, he was a DESTROYER and not a CREATOR and I think that being a CREATOR is very much what B-Man is all about. Creation of art, community, beauty, and thought.

    If he could have come up with some clever, creative way to express his unhappiness, that would be a whole different thing.

    Destroying is the easiest thing anyone can do. It takes no real effort or thought on the scale of creation. You can destroy in a minute what it takes years to create.

    It's often the most dumb, stupid way to deal with things and usually falls to the more infantile minds.
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right. - WRONG

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:24 PM
      "I personally think people are getting too attached to the burning of the man each year. I understand the iconology of it, but to me it's actually kinda boring. I love the wonderful folks in the conclave, and who doesn't like a big fire? But still every year it's the same old thing. It is kind of neat to see something unexpected happen amid the planned chaos out there."

      Whats so wrong about having ONE event at BM where EVERYONE gets together after the long week? Is there ANY faith in that gathering? Yeah yeah yeah everyone wants to be a rebel....but I always thought of the man burning as the moment where the whole city comes together and says "we did it!"

      I like how at Bman everyone has their own thoughts and feelings about this, and we all are entitled to rock whatever boat we want. but getting too attached to the man burning? How about, people are becoming so fucking jaded that they can embrace ceremony anymore? Everyone.....who cares if its yahoos, old burners, ravers, hippies, rich folk, WHOEVER.....we all get together at the end of the week to celebrate and band together as one. What is SO wrong with that??? Is that really BORING? Im getting tired of everyone calling it disney land......have some faith in a ceremony!!
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right. - WRONG

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:47 PM
        ceremony at that scale -- seems to lack coherence of ritual meaning...
        I know for damn sure a good 50% there are not 'communing' with me in any meaningful fashion...I would like to feel different - but it's clearly too large a group for that...

        i skipped the burn on saturday to stay in my camp and serve drinks and connect to the other souls who weren't feelin it.
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right. - WRONG

      Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:31 PM
      Reverend Dusty wrote:

      "I think that being a CREATOR is very much what B-Man is all about"

      Yeah. That's why they call it BURNING man. And all the art gets destroyed. Uh-huh. Sure.

      Maybe you should check out a book called Creator, Protector, Destroyer by John Picken. It's about Kashmir Shaivism, but the main gist is that you are all those things. Without destruction, there is no creation.
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right. - WRONG

        Wed, September 5, 2007 - 11:17 PM
        Danger Angel, you are missing the point. I know Shiva. And Paul ain't Shiva. But you have to go deeper than to just blindly equate some moron's destructive tendencies with the creation-destruction-creation cycle. (and this could become a rather lengthy tangential discussion in and of itself.)

        Paul didn't create. If he really wanted to make an important, powerful statement, he should have created and then destroyed some important, moving, powerful work of art. That would have impact. Instead, he just performed a mindless stunt. Any moron could have done it.
        • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right. - WRONG

          Wed, September 5, 2007 - 11:28 PM
          "Any moron could have done it."

          I can't find the link to where I read it, but the way he scaled up to the man, light the fuse, and get off of there, not just "any moron" could have done it. It required planning, a sober mind, and physical acumen to accomplish what he did. It's not like there was a simple ladder right up to the man's foot or something.

          You have your opinion rev, but the point is that people are talking more about this than the oil derrick that blew 1000 feet into the air, which is exactly what you are referring to by creating and destroying some "powerful work of art."
        • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right. - WRONG

          Wed, September 5, 2007 - 11:36 PM
          Reverend - I didn't equate Paul with Shiva - please read the freaking post!

          I was disputing the fact that BURNING man is all about creation. Duh.

          And the book I referenced isn't about SHIVA it's about SHAIVISM.

          Wipe the playa dust outta your eyes.
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Wed, September 5, 2007 - 9:54 PM
    Wow. Makes my head spin, reading all of this. Great posts with some sniping here and there. Okay, disclaimer: this was my first burn. I promise, no pronouncements about "what BM has become" because I like what it is and like what I have read about its past. I was involved in building an art installation on the playa this year, and was there from Aug. 25 to Sep. 2.

    Burning the man is a funny idea. Funny enough to have been a gleam in the eye of many burners for a long time. It's just those real-life human consequences that complicate the joke. He burned the man early. Don't know that I would call it art, but it was a bold prank that has really struck a chord.

    So many opinions. My opinion is: I'm glad he didn't hurt himself. I'm glad no one else was hurt. And I am sorry he put himself in a bad legal situation. Setting fire to someone's structure without their permission on federal land is federal arson, and he could go to prison. That seems like a very expensive price tag for a funny idea.

    I'm sorry he's in trouble, but I'm not surprised or outraged by that, anymore than I am outraged that he burnt the man early. Cause and effect. Clear, clear. He torched it, some of us had a laugh, and he is paying a heavy price that could have been MUCH heavier.
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Thu, September 6, 2007 - 12:37 AM
    Onew thing missed in this discussion, is the fact that the actions Addis tried to accomplish would have deprived other burners of the right to participate in the burn. If he had suceeded, and the man wasn't able to be rebuilt, close to 30,000 people would have been deprived of thier right to go to the burn.

    I talked to many folks that night, and not a single one stated that anyone tried to remove them from danger. The Fire fighters stated he used homemade Napalm to start the fire. If he had dropped flaming napalm on persons below, the whole thing would have had a much different end. For the folks who say, but no one was hurt, would you change your attitude if someone was hurt? Is that the only difference?
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Thu, September 6, 2007 - 1:11 AM
      Sorry, but how exactly is going to the burn equate to participating in the burn? I stood there and watched the burn, I watched a 20+ minute floor show of fire dancers, but I sure didn't feel like I was participating in any of it. Well, unless I was partisipating as a spectator. I really haven't felt much like a participant in since the days when we pulled the sculpture up by hand. On the other hand, if I was the person lighting the man on fire...
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Thu, September 6, 2007 - 9:55 PM
      > thier right to go to the burn.

      Surely there are other rights more deserving of being staunchly defended these days.

      Not that I agree that there is ANY such "right" bestowed upon the purchaser of a BM ticket...
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Thu, September 6, 2007 - 10:19 AM
    Paul Addis was a criminal and will most likely go to jail for several years for his actions. As for those who "get it" Justin, you don't.
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Thu, September 6, 2007 - 11:31 AM
      > Paul Addis was a criminal and will most likely go to jail for several years for his actions.

      Well, I hope not. Suspended sentence maybe.

      The impact of a crime is not an element in determining guilt, but it does apply to sentencing and, at the end of the day, nothing happened here to warrant anyone losing years of their freedom.
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Thu, September 6, 2007 - 12:32 PM
        >at the end of the day, nothing happened here to warrant anyone losing years of their freedom. <

        He committed arson on federal land and endagered lives among other things, these are felonies and typically carry high penalties. He also destroyed 10 of thousands of dollars worth of equipment (some of it my friends). Lots there to warrante losing his freedom, this is a dangerous person willing to put other's lives at risk and have totall disrespect for others; 3-5 years to be served is what I suspect he will face.
  • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

    Thu, September 6, 2007 - 9:32 PM
    skylar: so not only are you willing to self-righteously judge paul addis, you are willing to do the same for me just because I wrote some things that you didn't agree with? I'm just stirring up some talk, no need to attack me directly for my unpopular thoughts...
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Thu, September 6, 2007 - 9:45 PM
      "Rev. Al (LA Cacophony) filled one of those oversized inflatable crayons will oxy acetalyne, and as it exploded into a flaming mass scattering people everywhere, while wiping a piece of flaming plastic from under his eye, Boggmann asked him, "Why did you do that?" and Rev Al replied "I read the directions and it didn't say not to!"

      This made me laugh,I remember back in 94 I think,and I believe Boggman was involved,we were filling balloons with hydrogen,attaching a fuse and letting them go,which was all well and good,until we filled two at once,attached a fuse between them,then had them burst into a flaming fireball in our faces....needless to say,we stopped the experiment right there,no one was hurt,and we had some fun..but then again,although we were taking a risk at injury,we had only ourselves to harm,or blame,or what have you,but that was a Burning Man Moment for me.
      • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

        Thu, September 6, 2007 - 10:10 PM
        Mr.Antagonism:
        > that was a Burning Man Moment for me.

        I remember a guy managed to get ahold of some professional pyrotechnics in 1995. They are designed to be launched out of a tube and explode a couple of hundred feet up in the sky.

        He asked around for a launch tube, but all we could find was a big soup can. "Good enough", we decided.

        He set off the first one and it flipped end over end reaching a maximum altitude of about 30 feet before it exploded right in the middle of our camp - BOOM!!

        I think one tent caught slightly on fire, but we put it out. Then we set off the 2nd firework.

        That was fucking good fun.
    • Re: Paul Addis was so F'n right.

      Fri, September 7, 2007 - 5:48 AM
      justin your a scream, you come out here and claim that the majority who don't believe paul addis did the right thing just won't see it because of our carefully manufactured reality and then you think I am being self-rightous because I call a criminal act a criminal act and the endangerment of others and the descruction of property worthy of jail time. Like I said, if you don't see his behaviors as one that should not be tolerated then you just don't get it.
  • Unsu...
     

    paul addis is a douchebag

    Fri, September 7, 2007 - 1:05 AM
    i don't think he deserves jail, a more personal punishment should be devised. let the man base crew think it up, it was their art he destroyed after all.

    i do not think anyone should send him anything nice, that would be a waste. pay his legal fees? that would be silly. i saw his vid on laughingsquid, and i really think this guy is seriously schizophrenic. as far as i'm concerned, he tried to steal my burn away, and i feel rather protective about that. sorry, but i do.
    • Re: paul addis is a douchebag

      Fri, September 7, 2007 - 1:44 AM


      Reading these flames is very funny yet quite sad. Who'd expect such a LYNCH-MOB mentality among "free-thinking radicals"? What's becoming more clear, is the fine line btwn. many Burners & those who choose to spend a vacation on an Ocean Liner w/ their entire itinerary mapped out by JULIE; Cruise Director.

      You're the kinda' AMERICANS that make so many people (incl. Me) SICK to their stomachs!!!





      • Re: paul addis is a douchebag

        Fri, September 7, 2007 - 1:55 AM

        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        =======================================


        >> You're the kinda' AMERICANS that make so many people (incl. Me) SICK to their stomachs!!!


        That statement is based on your inability to be objective, realistic & civil (whiney Lynch-Mob mentality).
        If you could only "hear" yourselves!

        I truly believe the aftermath of this (pre-burn) event will result in a significant polarization among Burners;
        Many Burners I've heard from were not at all phazed (negatively) by Paul Addis' action(s) before-during-after your lil' getaway.

        Go figure ;-)