is there such a thing as 'over-intellectualization'?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

i used to think not. but then i started reading learned post-structuralists discoursing off about girls aloud, and i started thinking: do these people actually like to girls aloud? and then the ilx inside me said 'it doesn't matter'. and i asked 'doesn't it?'

― henry miller, Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

No.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

yes there is but i'm too busy fighting 'dumbing down' to worry about that

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

sTEVEM otm.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, what if Pat Sajak and I became friends! That would be so excellent, I must say. he'd come over and I'd say, "Hey Pat, care for some nachos?" .. Oh, what am I saying? Pat Sajak probably has a million friends .. but then again, maybe he doesn't. It's tough to sometimes always know.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

it depends on how you measure intellect.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't stop this feeling anymooooooore. I've forgotten what I started fighting foooo-oooor!

― Huk-L, Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

basically i'm concerned that k-punk doesn't really love the aloud because he doesn't like 'i'll stand by you' -- in fact he prefers 'jump' -- which is insane.

― henry miller, Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Is there such a thing as 'under-dumbing down'?

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

it depends on how you measure intellect.

or, how do you define what's worthy of intellectual discussion? why assume that Girls Aloud are not?

Jump is a better cover version than I'll Stand By You imo, tho neither are particularly impressive or good examples of what the GA MACHINE can throw up.

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

i would like to start a music forum where ppl can only say stupid things about highbrow, intelligent musics

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

we're halfway there...

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

WUH-HO!

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

or, how do you define what's worthy of intellectual discussion? why assume that Girls Aloud are not?

while i agree with this i've yet to read an intellectual discussion about girls aloud

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Arvo Part sucks ass.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

of course GA are worthy of intellectual discussion, but not one as joy-killing as the blogosphere throws out: ie GA are apparently good for their unpersonness, which is just inaccurate. but not wanting to get bogged down in that specific debate, is there indeed something in the desire among stone roses fans (misplaced as it is in detail) to concentrate on the music?

― henry miller, Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

the stone roses are neither highbrow nor intelligent. move along please.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

that's precisely what i mean: it's easy to mock the weller-oasis-roses tendency of anti-intellectualisation because their music is conservative. however, are they actually wrong to say that over-analysis cuts into pleasure? being 'highbrow and intelligent' means nothing here, in the realm of affect.

― henry miller, Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

i think Girls Aloud and the Stone Roses are equally uninteresting personality-wise, and equally good tunes-wise...cough...

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Stevem OTM.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

i wz just joking. there was some ilm thread like this recently where i posted a humourless response. i may just dig it up and re-post it.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Although I think I prefer The Stone Roses overall; as good as GA are they don't have anything that hits me with the same sense of vague romantic lovelorn mysticalism that The Stone Roses do.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Stevem OTM except for the fact that 'Jump' is actually amazing. The bit where nadine sings @you told me, i'm the only woman for you' is a moment of pure pop rage, and and that is a very rare thing. Plus the main riff is wonderfully buzzy, giving the whole thing an edgy, unfinished feel.

― lukey (Lukey G), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Every great thing I like about The Stone Roses can be found by analyzing their music and arrangements: the sparseness of the "I Wanna Be Adored" arrangement; the guitar timbres; that monster ten-beat drum loop/madly funky bass line combo combined with the wawa guitar in "Fool's Gold"; the melodic inversion that leads from "Waterfall" into "Don't Stop"; etc etc usw.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

grudging otm to stevem, though i haven't listened to the roses since the 90s: and amn't that interested in personalities in music anyway. i used to like teh roses but now i don't like the mystical stuff, and all the baggage obviously. i think i prefer the GA music, but possibly am just a poseur, who knows.

― henry miller, Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

if ppl feel the opposite to me re:musical analysis that's fine and understandable. there are plenty of things i do enjoy that i have no desire to analyse. i don't see why ppl should demand that others stop analysing stuff, though: if you don't enjoy it don't participate. i'm not forcing anyone else to analyse things to the same level.
-- weasel diesel (kilian(dot)murphy24@mail.dcu.ie), December 30th, 2004.

(i shd add that i find that musical analysis enhances and enriches my enjoyment. i like girls aloud and the stone roses quite a bit)

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I love over-intellectualisation! All through university I enjoyed working Britney et al into highbrow essays about feminism, queer theory, Nietzsche &c. I think it can be done in quite a humourless way which does kill off actual enjoyment of the music, but this isn't something which needs to happen.

As a general rule of thumb, I enjoy over-intellectualising the most lowbrow things the most. An intellectual analysis of eg Radiohead would bore me to tears.

I keep thinking of ways to analyse GA. unfortunately the Stone Roses are shit so they just don't cross my mind ever.

― The Lex (The Lex), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Lex you hurt me in your hart.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Seriously, that two-and-a-half bar drum loop on "Fool's Gold" is possibly the most genius use of a loop outside of the fade-out loop on _Things Fall Apart_.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:06 (twenty-one years ago)

the point to heed is that henry used GA as the initial example as opposed to say oooooh the Stone Roses, and as we know such a BRAZEN ROCKIST MENTALITY is a sore point round these parts

The bit where nadine sings @you told me, i'm the only woman for you' is a moment of pure pop rage

how is this really better than the original version tho? perhaps because Nadine has a better 'pop' voice whereas Pointers have better 'soul' voices?

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

stone roses lyrics are less retarded as girls aloud's. not that it's their fault (they didn't write them)

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:08 (twenty-one years ago)

The most genius pop moment on the radio right now is the chorus to "Soldier" when Beyonce, Kelly and Michelle dip into those bonkers harmonies and Michelle's middle line leads the whole thing.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/feature.php?ID=903

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

obviously i totally object to the concepts of 'high' and 'low' culture; i probably should have chosen something 'highbrow' to make my point better: to what end, in many cases, are the analyses worked through? it's as if academic publishing 'needs' a 'derrida-on-godard' or 'barthes-on-knitting' type continual production of kulturkritic.

so yeah shd we be 'over-intellectualizing' teh roses? would it help people enjoy 'em more? perhaps a southall defense could make me like them again.

― henry miller, Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Here's a question: Why does "over-intellectualization" only ever apply to lyrics?

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

The irony of the typical-Roses-fan comment on that article is not lost on me. "yeah dere de best band evah i love all dere lyrics dere so cool". I wept.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Cos none of us know shit about musicology, Dan.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Nice article about the Roses' lyrics...

As for over or under-intellectualization, I couldn't care less.

― KeithW (kmw), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:14 (twenty-one years ago)

that's not true, you can discuss melody, song structure and chord progressions to overly detailed depth too.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

shouldn't this be on ilm?

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Why does "over-intellectualization" only ever apply to lyrics?

exactly, i'm fed up with the way lyrics are seen as the primary critical target in music. people say they hate a track because of the way X singer writes or sings Y lyric. they're lucky if i pay attention to what they're saying half the time, but i'm always picking up on the musical aspects more readily it seems.

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Nick is closer to what I'm getting at, Ken.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

http://home.gwu.edu/~tombot/vhad.jpg

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

well for some reason this discussion is focussed on music, but over-intellectualisation can happen with other things, too. like TV, books, clouds, dildos. etc.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

oh right you mean "Why does "over-intellectualization" only ever apply to lyrics on ilx?"

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:19 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, it could have been about anything. possibly what i wanted to tease out was the use of x-cultural artifact to prove x-poststructuralist theory. enlisting GA or 'i robot' to some cause or other: in other words i don't think there is such a thing as 'over-intellectualisation'. just some odd approaches.

― henry miller, Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)

i think you can 'over-intellectualize' some things, such as potty training and sex.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:22 (twenty-one years ago)

The Lex os OTM. My papers on more "lowbrow" things were much better than my more serious ones.

― tokyo rosemary (rosemary), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I rather like the idea of over-intellectualising a dildo. "The noise made by the Wibble Four setting is delightfully reminscent of the opening chords of Taverner's Kyrie, thus beautifully marrying both the basest and most divine of pleasures."

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

The Lex is OTM. My papers on more "lowbrow" things were much better than my more serious ones.

― tokyo rosemary (rosemary), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:24 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm fed up with the way the plots are seen as the primary critical target in films. people say they hate a film because of the way X director writes or acts Y story. they're lucky if i pay attention to what the film was about half the time, but i'm always picking up on the explosions more readily it seems.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha.

The explosions should be analyzed way more critically.

― KeithW (kmw), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

i think certain threads on ilx have already over analysed sex way way way too much. i wouldn't say intellectualised though.

nothing on potty training yet, though, true.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I go for textual over narrative with both music and film.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

clever boy ken. although i do think that plot is not necessarily paramount to assessing a film's greatness (why should a film excel in all departments other than 'plot' yet be regarded bad? why should a song that excels in all departments other than lyrics be regarded as bad?)

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

looking forward to that one being translated for the rest of you readers...

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

why should a banana that excels in all departments other than ripeness be regarded as bad?

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)

why should a song that excels in all departments other than lyrics be regarded as bad?

Ray Of Light to thread (or maybe Madonna generally)

― The Lex (The Lex), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)

and Matt DC, did you just make those vibrator names up on the spot?

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Madonna can't take credit for Ray Of Light's lyrics. Nor can she for 'American Life', tho she did actually write THOSE.

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree...

Just ignore the lyrics if you don't like them.

Occassionally, there are some daft ones that stand out like a sore thumb though: don't ask Jerry the Nipper to spoil Neil Young's "Helpless" for you.

― KeithW (kmw), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I really want to over-intellectualise this dildo.

― The Lex (The Lex), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:36 (twenty-one years ago)

That's a butt plug, fuckhead.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Butt plugs = subset of dildos.

― The Lex (The Lex), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

What about ths?

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)

i agree that sometimes films and music can be good without having the best ever plots/lyrics etc., but to ignore the element half the time just feels absurd to me.. to me that is like judging a book not by what's written in it but by the font face.. although that isn't really a fair comparison because most books use exactly the same fonts. but sometimes a book can have good illustrations, sure, a comic! a picture book, even! but even then i like to think that there was some meaning to the pictures, a story in the comic strip.

there has to be a balance, see i don't like a song that is spoken out - it needs a melody, otherwise i'd read a book. but i don't like instrumentals either except when there is a clear theme/idea behind the tunes.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

and Matt DC, did you just make those vibrator names up on the spot?
-- Stevem On X (stevem7...), January 6th, 2005 4:34 PM. (blueski)

"on the spot" steve, god.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

what?

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

god.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

god? what god? what are you talking about? i don't get it...

i like and listened to a lot of instrumental music over the years so have had an 'aversion' of sorts to lyrics/vocals in the past (obviously this is not absolute). my perception of music has perhaps been affected as a result wrt the importance of lyrics (what they are/what they mean/what else they could mean/how they're sung etc.) but that balance has shifted a little this decade.

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:53 (twenty-one years ago)

my favourite ilx post on the subject

Why do you analyze everything? (4 matching messages)

Why don't you guys just listen to what you want? I mean I have no problem discussing music but don't ask "Is this band good or not?" because that just shows you don't have any personality or knowledge of music. If someone hates the Beatles but loves Blink 182 does that make them less of a person? I say no, I embrace people who go against the norm.
By the way, I hate anti-trendy 20-somethings who bash things just because they're popular. For some reason they think they're better than other people just because they're to indie bands and still listen to records. That seems like a large majority of the people who post here.

-- Simpson (Simpso...), April 15th, 2002.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 6 January 2005 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Diving almost exclusively into dance music for five years really made me downgrade the importance of lyrics to a song.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 January 2005 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

The other day I had to ask Ally a bunch of questions to make sure I had gotten the gist of "Radio Ga Ga" right. I think I probably have everybody on this forum and ILM beat for not getting this thing where people "sing words"

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 6 January 2005 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

what does he mean by 'amusing changes through the ears?'

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe it's why i never really got into dance music so much. saying all that the tetris theme tune is fantastic (but only because it fits in so well with the game)

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

and tetris is a game with no story. although it does have a survival objective/goal which is what i find important in games.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 17:11 (twenty-one years ago)

i'll probably never though who did that ardkore track sampling Gameboy Tetris (don't even think about suggesting this was Dr Spin)

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 6 January 2005 17:11 (twenty-one years ago)

even with lyrics, it's obv that a distinctive or [synonym-for-'good'] voice can do wonders to even on-paper bad or meh lyrics. so madge is fucked both ways.

― henry miller, Thursday, 6 January 2005 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)

god yeah she's done so badly.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 6 January 2005 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyway my argument against "over-intellectualization" as I see it goes something like this

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000089HD9.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001EMW06.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002JUXB0.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 6 January 2005 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread is about music?? Oh. Wrong place. Never mind.

― Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 6 January 2005 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.homevideos.com/startreks/startrekcovers/startrek-spocksbrain2.jpg

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 6 January 2005 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)

That was over-intellectuallized.

Here is dumbed down.
http://www.ponilla.org/Nimoy/StarTrek/STSpBrain_03_t.jpg

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 6 January 2005 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

There is no such thin* as â€œintellectualization.â€?

― abbnab, Thursday, 6 January 2005 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost to myself:
What makes a joke ... 'funny'?

(This joke borrowed from old roommate- intertextualizing, in my own mind!)

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 6 January 2005 19:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Am I the only person who prefers Love Spreads to Fools Gold? Fools Gold is a pile of bullshit, people. So is Love Spreads but the guitar is much funnier.

― Allyzay Needs Legs More (allyzay), Thursday, 6 January 2005 19:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I had also forgotten about that Radio Ga Ga conversation. I was in the shower!!!

Tom: Hey honey?
Me: Yeah?
Tom: Um...what does he mean, in Radio Ga Ga?
Me: Excuse me?
Tom: Like, what is he talking about?
Me: I don't understand your question, what do you mean, "What is he talking about?"
Tom: I don't know what he's singing about, what do the words mean.
etc etc etc (3 minutes later of "I don't get it, how do you mean?" "Well, you know, what do the lyrics mean?" so on and so forth)
Tom: OK, that's the point of the song where he's talking about how in high school he had only one friend.
Me: THE RADIO IS HIS ONLY FRIEND. HIS FRIEND IS THE RADIO, OK?
Tom: Ohhhh...is it kind of like Video Killed the Radio Star, but in reverse?
Me: No, it's not in reverse! It's practically the same concept, but he still loves the radio anyway, ok?
Tom: Oh! OK. (goes back to brushing his teeth or whatever he was doing)

― Allyzay Needs Legs More (allyzay), Thursday, 6 January 2005 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

The funny thing is that while 95% of song lyrics go right over my head or under my radar or what have you, it took me not even like half a verse before I knew EXACTLY what was going on in "Hungry Like The Wolf."

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 6 January 2005 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Ally with the hilarious example of the Conversation You Don't Need To Have While You're Trying to Complete Some Simple Task Usually Accomplished In Silence And Solitude

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 6 January 2005 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread is pissing me off, and I don't even know why.

― sugarpants (sugarpants), Thursday, 6 January 2005 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

The funny thing is that, unless I'm the only person at home, showering is actually not usually a task that gets completed in silence and solitude at all, for quite a long time now. Things I have been told about, while in the shower, names removed to protect people who appparently like to shout through shower doors:

1) Adam Ant's entire videography
2) How much X paid to get her hair done
3) What X's wife said about Y when they ran into each other at Z bar and you know, X's wife is such a cunt bag anyway, what about B???
4) X was apparently told by some other random shower interloper that X had "huge balls"
5) "Remember how we were watching Field of Dreams the other night? Can we talk about it? I kind of don't think I understood the ending exactly."
6) X hates the shit out of her "deformed" boyfriend Y, who BTW has a really, really tiny penis, can X describe this in excruciating detail while I shave my legs?
7) All anyone needs to know about the benefits of an electric toothbrush
8) Similar benefits to an electric razor (these benefits were later refuted by someone else, IIRC also while showering, and not really in reference to the earlier electric razor discussion, just out of the blue)
9) "Hey! Get the fuck out of there! Water is not free!" (this is my dad)

― Allyzay Needs Legs More (allyzay), Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh and the one and only time I ever showered with this one boyfriend I had, he left his damn glasses on in ths shower and then told me he ALWAYS does that, and explained for like HALF AN HOUR why he'd do this after I said it was stupid, and I just kind of decided to ignore it by never again getting in the shower with him.

― Allyzay Needs Legs More (allyzay), Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Is there such a thing as 'going off topic'?

― Allyzay Needs Legs More (allyzay), Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Only if you over-intellectualise it.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think so. Over-intellectualizing encompasses everything as part of the Meta-Subject.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I think all nine of Ally's shower topics are ripe for over-intellectualisation.

― The Lex (The Lex), Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm just not sure how anyone could "not understand" Field of Dreams, it's not exactly Donnie Darko.

― Allyzay Needs Legs More (allyzay), Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't understand it because I was a bit drunk when I saw it, and it bored the shit out of me, and I kept flicking the channel over to MTV Hits. So I didn't understand... actually, I don't remember what I didn't understand.

― The Lex (The Lex), Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost:
One man's playful post-modern fragment of text is another man's terrifyingly literal Logical Positivist Truth-Evaluatable statement.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:48 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.