From Wikki: "Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity." Yep, I think thats art. But just because 'what is art' has been asked for centuries who am I to declare anything art/not art. (and personally, I dont find any of the photos unpleasant)
A more accurate definition from a reputable source (the OED):
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
Unfortunately, not everything intended as art is art, not every product of human effort is art.
These photographs are an example of someone talentless who is trying to shock people - shock for its own sake. It doesn't hold up because this person does not have anything to say.
leviathud said... who am I to declare anything art/not art
This kind of thinking is a real problem these days. It's kind of like democracy run amok - people have the incorrect idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid when it's not. It's the idea Wikipedia is founded on (that and a dislike of experts - those dang fools who spend a lifetime learning about a subject). Sadly, although all people - politically and legally - are supposed to be created equal, in other ways they are definitely not equal.
"Unfortunately, not everything intended as art is art, not every product of human effort is art."
I'm bothered by this kind of thinking. I believe that any expression of creativity is art. Whether or not it's good art may be up to personal opinion, but still art nonetheless. I also believe that art doesn't have to be anything other than what the artist wants it to be.
I agree with Jes. Of course you do. You're both wrong, though, of course. I live in the real world. What is the colour of the sky in your dream world? People are not equal, sorry, and not everything meant to be art is art. That's just the way it goes. It's not pretty, it's not nice, but that's unfortunately reality. Reality isn't necessarily any of those things. By the way, there's no Santa Claus either.
But there once was. Contrary to popular belief Santa Claus is not a fictional character.
Contrary to your personal belief, no, there never was. Saint Nicholas is not equivalent to Santa Claus, who is as much a product of Coca Cola as anything else, or for that matter to any of the other names originally derived from Saint Nicholas - Sinterklaas (from Sint Nicolaas (Saint Nicholas)), Kris Kringle (mispronunciation of Christkindl or Christkindel). Or Father Christmas.
Joe Dick, do you have any kind of reasoning behind what you're saying? Not to sound like I'm attacking your idea, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. To me, that attitude just gets in the way of real creativity, and I can't see any basis for it in the first place anyway. To use these pictures as an example, to you they may seem talentless and pointless, but they'll mean something to somebody somewhere. Do you think the cavemen who first painted on walls or beat on drums had any care about what is or isn't art?
Art is not equal to beauty, but we can all agree that both are in the eye of the beholder. It depends on the person, especially when you have to decide whether it is GOOD art.
Also, art does not necessarily require special talent. When a child makes a touchingly clumsy drawing, it IS art in itself. And most interesting to child psychologists, I can assure you.
Similarly, the "art" of some praised adults appears most childish in style, which may be directly related to the mind or vision of said adult. Think of the Smurfs or Mickey Mouse... Or Picasso at times.
Please do remember when "this is not art" was said about cinema, jazz, photography, rock'n'roll, cartoons, comic books, science-fiction, heavy metal, rap, videogames... All were once decreed "complete garbage". I genuinely fail to see the art in some stuff that nevertheless sells for millions. So what? Good for those who love it, and I won't beat myself over their tastes, there are more interesting things to do with my life.
As for personal belief, be it right or wrong, it is very real in itself, and shapes the world. For example the various religions, and the traditions that became embedded in them along the way. Santa Claus wasn't created by Coca-Cola: their publicists merely came up with his red costume as we know it today. He's a textbook case of a historical figure (bishop Saint Nicholas) seized by folk-lore and greatly shaped by time, but originally a very real person. One could as well claim that Jesus of Nazareth as the Christians wiew him is a myth, since (as a documentary I saw two days ago so aptly pointed) there's still no hard historical or archaeological evidence that he was ever put in a tomb and risen from the dead. The person undisputedly existed 2000 years ago, but how close was he to the character portrayed today? It's a matter of personal belief. Is religion a Truth or a raw scam of old wives' tales? Like art, it depends entirely on whom you ask...
For the Muslims, Jesus (whom they Call Issa Son of Mariam) did exist, was conceived from a virgin by God's Holy Spirit, was a Prophet ("greater than Muhammad himself"), and although he wasn't any part of God, he definitely wasn't executed on a cross of infamy, "that wasn't him up there". For the Jews, Jesus existed too, was probably a rabbi (and a great one), but was definitely not the Messiah they're still awaiting. The new religion didn't even emerge *as such* until some non-jews started joining in. So, do tell me: how can one ever separate the historical and very real person (nobody denies he existed) with the myth, since at least one of these versions has to be incorrect? Answer: you simply cannot. (You're welcome to try!) Only personal belief will ever win the decision. This is why people whose beliefs change will convert.
What's with that deer? Is it dead or something? I don't really "get" it.
"Do you think the cavemen who first painted on walls or beat on drums had any care about what is or isn't art?"
Can you be positive they didn't? They had a far lesser social culture, but essentially, in nature, these Homo sapiens were exactly like you and I in body and mind. Only their education was different. I'm convinced they were very likely to have a sense of art, be it conscious or not. Remember, the Ancient Greeks came up with some truly amazing mathematics and philosophy, and they too were people just like us, only in a different culture. Imagine: they INVENTED a huge lot of the bases of modern knowledge. Nobody helped them. So, cavemen feeling art as something specific? Entirely possible.
"Art is not equal to beauty, but we can all agree that both are in the eye of the beholder. It depends on the person, especially when you have to decide whether it is GOOD art."
See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
You make some good points, but actually what I was specifically talking about on the cavemen example was the very first people who would've done those things. Assuming pondering something like that doesn't make me a total dork. Hey, someone had to come up with the idea of beating on drums.
One could as well claim that Jesus of Nazareth as the Christians wiew him is a myth. Spell check = view.
There will come a day when all disbelief about the Lord Jesus will cease. For every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
"He's a textbook case of a historical figure (bishop Saint Nicholas) seized by folk-lore and greatly shaped by time, but originally a very real person."
The folklore about the character we now know as Santa is hundreds of years older than bishop Saint Nicholas. The original "Santa" was a pagan character associated in symbol with a goat. Greeks' pan is a variation of this. As is Puck from Britain.
The church distorted this, just like they have done with almost everything of pagan nature, and came up with the Saint Nicholas connection. The English word, "Santa", does, of course, come from the word saint. But for example here in Scandinavia we still don't have a Christian word for the character. Instead children refer to him as the Yule Bock.
"One could as well claim that Jesus of Nazareth as the Christians view him is a myth."
It is most certainly a myth. Yes, there really was a Jesus of Nazareth. But his alleged story, as told today, has very little to do with the man that existed. This is easy to prove, too. For example through the fact that nearly the same story was already told of Mithra 600 B.C.
The lies of the Christian church are a bit like those of our friend George Walter Bush. Scratching the surface even just a little immediately reveals that almost nothing of it is true. At the same time you can't understand how people keep falling for it.
Jes said... "Assuming pondering something like that doesn't make me a total dork."
Hmm, I dunno... Is it legal for a non-dork, non-geek to ponder on the artistic sense of prehistoric hominids? ;-) I don't see jocks doing it.
"Hey, someone had to come up with the idea of beating on drums."
Better than beating on your women, that's for sure. But ya can't drag a drum by the hair. :-(
reality check said... "people are equal. it's humans like you that disturb the world"
Hey, this does prove that all people aren't equally disturbing to the world. ;-) People are born equal in rights and duties, regardless of race, creed, origin, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. I think we can safely agree that not all are equally gifted in talent, or in taste. "Equal, not identical." But everybody's equally free to have an opinion of their own on what they consider artistic, because this opinion is all that really matters with something totally subjective.
TTL said... "The original "Santa" was a pagan character associated in symbol with a goat."
I thought we agreed to make no further mention of that unfortunate business regarding Aberforth Dumbledore!
"The lies of the Christian church are a bit like those of our friend George Walter Bush."
Hey, you're artistically free to call him your friend. ;-) Dubya, and many of his zealot gurus, deliberately quote half of the truth (or of the Gospel, at any rate), forgetting that doing so is the worst kind of lies. For instance, they forgot a very essential saying: "He who lives by the sword, shall perish by the sword." And they merrily wield one which name is not Excalibur, but Damocles. Their sword vs the islamist scimitar. I wonder who shall be victorious? Oh, yes, that'll be Hate of course. In the end, the Casino always makes a profit...
The more respect I have for J., the less I can have for those who lie, cheat and steal in his name. At least Eddie Guerrero was straighforward about his actions! The Church invented so many additions to the original teaching, that one has to wonder what can still be trusted. Celibacy of priests? Decreed in the 13th century. Priesthood forbidden to women? Never read about it in the Book. Confession? Ditto. Stoning the homos and folks who work on weekends? What happened to "Thou shalt not kill?" Are all Commandments elastic at will?
I'll trust nothing outside the original texts, and even those are not 100% reliable: "I have gone over three different translations of the poem, and am struck by how much a translation can alter our interpretation. Am reminded that most holy scriptures come to us in translation, resulting in a diversity of views." The words of a pro... Lucky for me, I understand arabic, which is very close to hebrew and aramaic in vocabulary, style and literal expressions. Very. (Arabic, aramaic... it's no coincidence that the names sound very similar. Did you know that in arabic, "hebrew" is only one permutation of letters away from "arabic"? 3BRY, 3RBY. Ask any linguist.) Helps catch many subtle nuances and various possible interpretations. Probably more reliable than even the early Greek translations.
"does anyone else see the circularity of this?"
Well, my navel is circular. Um, was that relevant? "God created the world and saw that this was good." Writing your own reviews is THE oldest trick in the Book. And I'll stand by the word "trick", because that whole Genesis fable has more holes in it than a Moulin Rouge lace undergarment. Starting with the Creator allegedly describing His own cosmology... in a clumsy essay barely deserving an F minus! "Are you SURE you did this 'Universe' project yourself? Looks like something out of a childish Babylonian myth... - Why, Teacher, I don't know what ever gave you that idea." (Innocent look, puppy eyes, doing the eyelashes trick.)
This flat Earth crayon-drawn story was imagined by mere men, who had never read Eratosthenes. And such a poor start inspires little confidence in the scribes and the numerous additions they must've made "in perfect good faith". (To give them the benefit of doubt!)
In the 20th Century alone, a great many groups published their own version of the Bible and Gospel. Presenting it as the genuine one, of course. A broad open portal to all kinds of forgeries, mystifications and cultish scams. Only a fool could take ANY given version without a healthy dose of critic sense. "Many will come after me to mislead you", Jesus aptly warned. False gospels were notoriously found as early as the first century, for (Saint) Pete's sake! A Church that would cover up massive pedophilia affairs is unlikely to hesitate in, um, "adjusting" the Truth a little bit for, uh, "the greater good".
History itself is one vast masquerade, so you can easily imagine what people will have made in two thousand cumulated years of having massive interests relying on what sort of religion the credulous masses were taught.
I can't trust notoriously corrupted mortals. And I can't adopt the simplistic attitude of atheists, either. Just because an idea is endorsed by a jerk, doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea in itself!!! Pious believers may feel antagonized if I look down on Creationnists, or like to watch beautiful female bodies, or even indulge in my innate sexual instincts at times, but I have to try and follow my sense and heart. A thick jungle has grown in two milleniae, blocking out the sky, and yet somewhere beyond the vines I know the sun is shining. I'll only find it by moving on, not by walking in circles or hiding in my tent forever.
26 comments:
Art does not have to be pleasant but female nudity is still beautiful
That's not art.
From Wikki:
"Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity." Yep, I think thats art. But just because 'what is art' has been asked for centuries who am I to declare anything art/not art. (and personally, I dont find any of the photos unpleasant)
A more accurate definition from a reputable source (the OED):
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
Unfortunately, not everything intended as art is art, not every product of human effort is art.
These photographs are an example of someone talentless who is trying to shock people - shock for its own sake. It doesn't hold up because this person does not have anything to say.
leviathud said...
who am I to declare anything art/not art
This kind of thinking is a real problem these days. It's kind of like democracy run amok - people have the incorrect idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid when it's not. It's the idea Wikipedia is founded on (that and a dislike of experts - those dang fools who spend a lifetime learning about a subject). Sadly, although all people - politically and legally - are supposed to be created equal, in other ways they are definitely not equal.
"Unfortunately, not everything intended as art is art, not every product of human effort is art."
I'm bothered by this kind of thinking. I believe that any expression of creativity is art. Whether or not it's good art may be up to personal opinion, but still art nonetheless. I also believe that art doesn't have to be anything other than what the artist wants it to be.
I agree with Jes.
I agree with Jes.
Of course you do. You're both wrong, though, of course. I live in the real world. What is the colour of the sky in your dream world? People are not equal, sorry, and not everything meant to be art is art. That's just the way it goes. It's not pretty, it's not nice, but that's unfortunately reality. Reality isn't necessarily any of those things. By the way, there's no Santa Claus either.
"By the way, there's no Santa Claus either."
But there once was. Contrary to popular belief Santa Claus is not a fictional character.
But there once was. Contrary to popular belief Santa Claus is not a fictional character.
Contrary to your personal belief, no, there never was. Saint Nicholas is not equivalent to Santa Claus, who is as much a product of Coca Cola as anything else, or for that matter to any of the other names originally derived from Saint Nicholas - Sinterklaas (from Sint Nicolaas (Saint Nicholas)),
Kris Kringle (mispronunciation of Christkindl or Christkindel). Or Father Christmas.
'Nuff said!
Joe Dick, do you have any kind of reasoning behind what you're saying? Not to sound like I'm attacking your idea, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. To me, that attitude just gets in the way of real creativity, and I can't see any basis for it in the first place anyway. To use these pictures as an example, to you they may seem talentless and pointless, but they'll mean something to somebody somewhere. Do you think the cavemen who first painted on walls or beat on drums had any care about what is or isn't art?
Certainly there is reasoning behind it, but all I can do is lead the horse to water.
Lol, well don't expect me to take you seriously if all you're gonna do is name-calling.
I think I'll just stick with what I find at DOMAI. :)
Steve concluded: "I think I'll just stick with what I find at DOMAI. :)"
Hey, don't be so selective. These pics are meaty! :-)
Wow, talk about an antagonistic discussion!
Art is not equal to beauty, but we can all agree that both are in the eye of the beholder. It depends on the person, especially when you have to decide whether it is GOOD art.
Also, art does not necessarily require special talent. When a child makes a touchingly clumsy drawing, it IS art in itself. And most interesting to child psychologists, I can assure you.
Similarly, the "art" of some praised adults appears most childish in style, which may be directly related to the mind or vision of said adult. Think of the Smurfs or Mickey Mouse... Or Picasso at times.
Please do remember when "this is not art" was said about cinema, jazz, photography, rock'n'roll, cartoons, comic books, science-fiction, heavy metal, rap, videogames... All were once decreed "complete garbage". I genuinely fail to see the art in some stuff that nevertheless sells for millions. So what? Good for those who love it, and I won't beat myself over their tastes, there are more interesting things to do with my life.
As for personal belief, be it right or wrong, it is very real in itself, and shapes the world. For example the various religions, and the traditions that became embedded in them along the way. Santa Claus wasn't created by Coca-Cola: their publicists merely came up with his red costume as we know it today. He's a textbook case of a historical figure (bishop Saint Nicholas) seized by folk-lore and greatly shaped by time, but originally a very real person. One could as well claim that Jesus of Nazareth as the Christians wiew him is a myth, since (as a documentary I saw two days ago so aptly pointed) there's still no hard historical or archaeological evidence that he was ever put in a tomb and risen from the dead. The person undisputedly existed 2000 years ago, but how close was he to the character portrayed today? It's a matter of personal belief. Is religion a Truth or a raw scam of old wives' tales? Like art, it depends entirely on whom you ask...
For the Muslims, Jesus (whom they Call Issa Son of Mariam) did exist, was conceived from a virgin by God's Holy Spirit, was a Prophet ("greater than Muhammad himself"), and although he wasn't any part of God, he definitely wasn't executed on a cross of infamy, "that wasn't him up there".
For the Jews, Jesus existed too, was probably a rabbi (and a great one), but was definitely not the Messiah they're still awaiting.
The new religion didn't even emerge *as such* until some non-jews started joining in.
So, do tell me: how can one ever separate the historical and very real person (nobody denies he existed) with the myth, since at least one of these versions has to be incorrect? Answer: you simply cannot. (You're welcome to try!) Only personal belief will ever win the decision. This is why people whose beliefs change will convert.
What's with that deer? Is it dead or something? I don't really "get" it.
"Do you think the cavemen who first painted on walls or beat on drums had any care about what is or isn't art?"
Can you be positive they didn't? They had a far lesser social culture, but essentially, in nature, these Homo sapiens were exactly like you and I in body and mind. Only their education was different. I'm convinced they were very likely to have a sense of art, be it conscious or not. Remember, the Ancient Greeks came up with some truly amazing mathematics and philosophy, and they too were people just like us, only in a different culture. Imagine: they INVENTED a huge lot of the bases of modern knowledge. Nobody helped them. So, cavemen feeling art as something specific? Entirely possible.
"Art is not equal to beauty, but we can all agree that both are in the eye of the beholder. It depends on the person, especially when you have to decide whether it is GOOD art."
See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
You make some good points, but actually what I was specifically talking about on the cavemen example was the very first people who would've done those things. Assuming pondering something like that doesn't make me a total dork. Hey, someone had to come up with the idea of beating on drums.
People are not equal, sorry, and not everything meant to be art is art.
you're dead wrong dick. people are equal. it's humans like you that disturb the world by your bias comments. don't borrow an argument either please.
Jes said... Well don't expect me to take you seriously if all you're gonna do is name-calling.
some people get off on that don't they? they must feel very insecure. pathetic. very pathetic.
One could as well claim that Jesus of Nazareth as the Christians wiew him is a myth. Spell check = view.
There will come a day when all disbelief about the Lord Jesus will cease. For every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
"He's a textbook case of a historical figure (bishop Saint Nicholas) seized by folk-lore and greatly shaped by time, but originally a very real person."
The folklore about the character we now know as Santa is hundreds of years older than bishop Saint Nicholas. The original "Santa" was a pagan character associated in symbol with a goat. Greeks' pan is a variation of this. As is Puck from Britain.
The church distorted this, just like they have done with almost everything of pagan nature, and came up with the Saint Nicholas connection. The English word, "Santa", does, of course, come from the word saint. But for example here in Scandinavia we still don't have a Christian word for the character. Instead children refer to him as the Yule Bock.
"One could as well claim that Jesus of Nazareth as the Christians view him is a myth."
It is most certainly a myth. Yes, there really was a Jesus of Nazareth. But his alleged story, as told today, has very little to do with the man that existed. This is easy to prove, too. For example through the fact that nearly the same story was already told of Mithra 600 B.C.
The lies of the Christian church are a bit like those of our friend George Walter Bush. Scratching the surface even just a little immediately reveals that almost nothing of it is true. At the same time you can't understand how people keep falling for it.
Gorgeous stuff. :)
Oh, and about the idea of quoting the Bible to prove the veracity of the Bible: does anyone else see the circularity of this?
Jes said...
"Assuming pondering something like that doesn't make me a total dork."
Hmm, I dunno... Is it legal for a non-dork, non-geek to ponder on the artistic sense of prehistoric hominids? ;-)
I don't see jocks doing it.
"Hey, someone had to come up with the idea of beating on drums."
Better than beating on your women, that's for sure. But ya can't drag a drum by the hair. :-(
reality check said...
"people are equal. it's humans like you that disturb the world"
Hey, this does prove that all people aren't equally disturbing to the world. ;-)
People are born equal in rights and duties, regardless of race, creed, origin, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. I think we can safely agree that not all are equally gifted in talent, or in taste. "Equal, not identical."
But everybody's equally free to have an opinion of their own on what they consider artistic, because this opinion is all that really matters with something totally subjective.
TTL said...
"The original "Santa" was a pagan character associated in symbol with a goat."
I thought we agreed to make no further mention of that unfortunate business regarding Aberforth Dumbledore!
"The lies of the Christian church are a bit like those of our friend George Walter Bush."
Hey, you're artistically free to call him your friend. ;-)
Dubya, and many of his zealot gurus, deliberately quote half of the truth (or of the Gospel, at any rate), forgetting that doing so is the worst kind of lies. For instance, they forgot a very essential saying: "He who lives by the sword, shall perish by the sword." And they merrily wield one which name is not Excalibur, but Damocles. Their sword vs the islamist scimitar. I wonder who shall be victorious? Oh, yes, that'll be Hate of course. In the end, the Casino always makes a profit...
The more respect I have for J., the less I can have for those who lie, cheat and steal in his name. At least Eddie Guerrero was straighforward about his actions!
The Church invented so many additions to the original teaching, that one has to wonder what can still be trusted. Celibacy of priests? Decreed in the 13th century. Priesthood forbidden to women? Never read about it in the Book. Confession? Ditto. Stoning the homos and folks who work on weekends? What happened to "Thou shalt not kill?" Are all Commandments elastic at will?
I'll trust nothing outside the original texts, and even those are not 100% reliable: "I have gone over three different translations of the poem, and am struck by how much a translation can alter our interpretation. Am reminded that most holy scriptures come to us in translation, resulting in a diversity of views." The words of a pro...
Lucky for me, I understand arabic, which is very close to hebrew and aramaic in vocabulary, style and literal expressions. Very. (Arabic, aramaic... it's no coincidence that the names sound very similar. Did you know that in arabic, "hebrew" is only one permutation of letters away from "arabic"? 3BRY, 3RBY. Ask any linguist.) Helps catch many subtle nuances and various possible interpretations. Probably more reliable than even the early Greek translations.
"does anyone else see the circularity of this?"
Well, my navel is circular. Um, was that relevant?
"God created the world and saw that this was good." Writing your own reviews is THE oldest trick in the Book.
And I'll stand by the word "trick", because that whole Genesis fable has more holes in it than a Moulin Rouge lace undergarment. Starting with the Creator allegedly describing His own cosmology... in a clumsy essay barely deserving an F minus!
"Are you SURE you did this 'Universe' project yourself? Looks like something out of a childish Babylonian myth...
- Why, Teacher, I don't know what ever gave you that idea." (Innocent look, puppy eyes, doing the eyelashes trick.)
This flat Earth crayon-drawn story was imagined by mere men, who had never read Eratosthenes.
And such a poor start inspires little confidence in the scribes and the numerous additions they must've made "in perfect good faith". (To give them the benefit of doubt!)
In the 20th Century alone, a great many groups published their own version of the Bible and Gospel. Presenting it as the genuine one, of course. A broad open portal to all kinds of forgeries, mystifications and cultish scams. Only a fool could take ANY given version without a healthy dose of critic sense. "Many will come after me to mislead you", Jesus aptly warned. False gospels were notoriously found as early as the first century, for (Saint) Pete's sake! A Church that would cover up massive pedophilia affairs is unlikely to hesitate in, um, "adjusting" the Truth a little bit for, uh, "the greater good".
History itself is one vast masquerade, so you can easily imagine what people will have made in two thousand cumulated years of having massive interests relying on what sort of religion the credulous masses were taught.
I can't trust notoriously corrupted mortals. And I can't adopt the simplistic attitude of atheists, either. Just because an idea is endorsed by a jerk, doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea in itself!!! Pious believers may feel antagonized if I look down on Creationnists, or like to watch beautiful female bodies, or even indulge in my innate sexual instincts at times, but I have to try and follow my sense and heart. A thick jungle has grown in two milleniae, blocking out the sky, and yet somewhere beyond the vines I know the sun is shining. I'll only find it by moving on, not by walking in circles or hiding in my tent forever.
Millennia is already the plural of millennium. Therefore there is no need to pluralize it further into m millenniae.
:)
Thank you for your attention to minutiae.
Point taken.
But somehow, after what I said I expected to receive some more severe criticismae. :-)
Could it be that there's no countering my arguments? Modesty forbids! May Loki preserve us!
If I've reached perfection, what else is there to live for? :`(
Oh. Right. There's Domai. :-)))
Post a Comment