summerbronze

Yup, it was classic.

;) Awhile ago in the lyrics thread, I brought up the recurrent clown and circus-related references. I had actually said that if I could ask one question, it would be regarding the significance of this imagery: http://www.nearfantastica.com/bored/index....opic=3227&st=30 I've totally missed my chance. Typical.

I just enjoy the fact that I can now refer to him as Bobby. ;)

I suggest buying the Canadian version for $15 or whatever it costs, and saving your gift certificate for another book. Unless you only plan on ever buying the one book. In that case, sorry, I've got nuthin.

I reached a fine line. Everyone has their breaking point. I must say it's refreshing not to feel obligated to search for an excuse just to be able to continue looking at something or someone a certain way. The dark side is unfortunately the most realistic side.

It may have been their intention, but I think many will respond to this with disdain. The impression one could get is that by leaving comments wide open, and stating "I'm tired of the beginning of the end. Let's get to the good bit", they are intending to provoke idiocy and misuse of the comments privelege as an excuse to give up any interpersonal involvement with the public and fans. I'm having a difficult time interpreting it any other way to be honest. I feel like I can see right through the guise of "giving everyone another chance" and all I see is "We don't feel like being involved anymore so we dare you all to say stupid things so that we can later have a great excuse to blame the failure of the blogs on you and not us." If anyone can give me a more optimistic interpretation I'd be grateful because I didn't want to develop such a negative view of recent actions.

It could be argued that in this case any harm adds up to more harm than good. Personally I question whether that's true, but I think that's how Matt viewed it, based on his comments on dissociating from amnesty publicly.

Shhhhhh no one wants to hear about mortality. It's like porn. Everyone knows it's rampant in society but it's considered rude to talk about it.

I don't think it's about the actual credibility of the complaint. While JM's suggested motive of dissociating from AI is certainly plausible, there is another one. It's also possible he felt if even one person objected to his public assocation with AI, regardless of their reasons for thinking so, than for the sake of the association he should no longer be publicly connected to them.

If you want to contribute anything to a war, getting troops out of the harbor is a bit of a necessity. 'Member when a ship left Halifax harbor, then because it was a piece-of-shit-ship, it had an electrical malfunction and caught fire, and then, again due to being a piece-of-shit-ship, the fire hoses wouldn't work and it had to come back with it's tail between it's impotent legs? Like you NYBWIE, regardless of vitality of the army, I would hope reasons would still exist for not partaking in the war.

He did say "mostly"...

Initial Comment: First response: Second response: So where again in the first two comments is this sentiment that I missed due to my superiority complex?

I asked that question too! Apparently you press alt+024 or something along those lines.

So what you're saying is, you didn't really want to know any details about JM, and you wanted to badmouth him all the same because your infinitely superior mind powers tell you he is ignorant, and reading the "rest of the forum" would just be a waste of your time. How 'bout this: if you have an instant distaste for someone, don't read his posts, but keep your miraculous revelations about his character, based on reading one thread, to yourself.

Click on his username and you can view all his previous posts. Any more information you want to know about him, you should probably not get from anyone who doesn't know him personally. Edit: Who's this fluxuation fuck anyways...

Please and thankyou do not speak on behalf of me. Unless you assume I have less than half a brain, which is fine by me if that means I'm not included in those you speak on behalf of.

Because if what I said was not sarcastic, that would be bad because...?

There is no mblog. Just the 4 more years collage. ;)

Aside from the difficulty of choosing just 5 songs, I am still in shock that sort of a protest song wasn't really chosen by anyone, I've gone so long assuming everyone else loved it as much as I did.

Do you think it's the actual religion itself, or the members of said religion that make you react that way? Generally the major components of various religions are harmless, but the people - often religious leaders - through their actions cause others to attribute negativity (and worse) to the religion rather than the individual(s).

I can't wait for the always-humourous "remix" You've prolly all seen this one, but just in case... http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvid...eoftheunion.htm

;) Indeed.

Cheers to you as well, troy. I think there's definitely a danger associated with politicians or religious leaders adding fuel to the fire. If you have a person who believes very strongly in certain religious dogmas - and these beliefs make them behave negatively towards others - than a person of influence citing these same beliefs reinforces the negative behavior. To link to a topic of another thread, if you have someone who is prejudiced against homosexuals because they think their religion disapproves of it, and then they hear the pope condemn it, they are simply encouraged to be even more intolerant. Perhaps it's a vicious cycle?

No. It most certainly does not. I, like you, believe that church and state should be as separate as possible - religious rhetoric does not belong in the realm of politics and government. I'm just questioning where the impetus lies - are politicians mainly using religion because people want to hear it? Or does politicians' use of religion lead to changes in people's beliefs.

I have that sick/scared feeling in my stomach when I think about it, 'cuz just like with the whole blog business, there will always be at least one fuckface who thinks disrespectful behavior demonstrates coolness and is fun. Unfortunately an acoustic show (if I could attend a show with just Matt + guitar I would die happy) would attract obscene amounts of these individuals, who would ruin it for all. Matt would march off stage after telling off everyone after only like 1/4 of a song. Sorry for being pessimistic.