Wednesday, March 24, 2004
The Evils of the Mandatory Public Domain
The public domain is the body of works that do not fall under copyright law. Here in "free" America, it is filled with works once copyrighted that are stolen from their owners after a period of time by the public in the name of the common good.
Supporters of the public domain cite its importance in promoting the free movement of ideas and the production of new creative works. Because the public domain is perceived at beneficial to society as a whole, it is deemed good and necessary. The main problem with this attitude, and the reason why a mandatory public domain should not be legally enforced, is that it relies on the idea that creations are only the property of their creators by privilege. That is, no one has a natural right to his own work, but is granted that right by those who did not create it. What this amounts to is that creations belong to anyone and everyone but the person who actually created them. This, however, is diametrically opposed to the workings of a free society. No man can claim ownership of another man’s product (or property) unless he acquires it from the producer (or owner) by trade. To do so would be stealing. No benefit to the “public good” can be morally gained at the expense of man’s rights.
In addition, the supposed necessity of a public domain for creative activities should be apparently false in light of recent decades. The public domain has been relatively stagnant over the past few decades as the copyright term gets longer and longer. Works that should have entered the public domain during this time period did not because their terms were extended before they expired. However, there has been no halt in the production of creative works, nor any drastic social consequences resulting from the inability of people to produce unoriginal works.
In a rational, moral society of free trade, it would seem natural that men would want to exchange values for values and participate in the products of other men by paying for their effort. However, men have gotten used to being able to get things that they have not paid for and to demand things that don’t belong to them. They no longer consider whether it is right to loot the producers; they only know that producers are looted and that if the looting stops the looters will be without many of the resources they have come to expect. It follows, then, that the most adamant proponents of a mandatory public domain will be those who do not produce themselves. Since these people do not produce, they have nothing to trade to the producers for their goods. As a result, the only way they can acquire these goods is by stealing, and so they seek moral and legal sanction for theft. Thus the current copyright law is born, under which a copyrighted work falls out of copyright after the death of the creator plus around 70 years.
"But he's dead! He can't get anything from his creation anymore, so why can't we give it to the public??" Because it's not "ours" to give. If a man dies, we are not allowed to go loot his house. So why should we be able to loot his achievements? Copyrighted works, just like any other piece of property, can be left to an heir or sold to a customer.
more later
The public domain is the body of works that do not fall under copyright law. Here in "free" America, it is filled with works once copyrighted that are stolen from their owners after a period of time by the public in the name of the common good.
Supporters of the public domain cite its importance in promoting the free movement of ideas and the production of new creative works. Because the public domain is perceived at beneficial to society as a whole, it is deemed good and necessary. The main problem with this attitude, and the reason why a mandatory public domain should not be legally enforced, is that it relies on the idea that creations are only the property of their creators by privilege. That is, no one has a natural right to his own work, but is granted that right by those who did not create it. What this amounts to is that creations belong to anyone and everyone but the person who actually created them. This, however, is diametrically opposed to the workings of a free society. No man can claim ownership of another man’s product (or property) unless he acquires it from the producer (or owner) by trade. To do so would be stealing. No benefit to the “public good” can be morally gained at the expense of man’s rights.
In addition, the supposed necessity of a public domain for creative activities should be apparently false in light of recent decades. The public domain has been relatively stagnant over the past few decades as the copyright term gets longer and longer. Works that should have entered the public domain during this time period did not because their terms were extended before they expired. However, there has been no halt in the production of creative works, nor any drastic social consequences resulting from the inability of people to produce unoriginal works.
In a rational, moral society of free trade, it would seem natural that men would want to exchange values for values and participate in the products of other men by paying for their effort. However, men have gotten used to being able to get things that they have not paid for and to demand things that don’t belong to them. They no longer consider whether it is right to loot the producers; they only know that producers are looted and that if the looting stops the looters will be without many of the resources they have come to expect. It follows, then, that the most adamant proponents of a mandatory public domain will be those who do not produce themselves. Since these people do not produce, they have nothing to trade to the producers for their goods. As a result, the only way they can acquire these goods is by stealing, and so they seek moral and legal sanction for theft. Thus the current copyright law is born, under which a copyrighted work falls out of copyright after the death of the creator plus around 70 years.
"But he's dead! He can't get anything from his creation anymore, so why can't we give it to the public??" Because it's not "ours" to give. If a man dies, we are not allowed to go loot his house. So why should we be able to loot his achievements? Copyrighted works, just like any other piece of property, can be left to an heir or sold to a customer.
more later
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Thursday, March 18, 2004
tallbladeofgrass: oo, or i could download "sailor moon - breast pump hentai"
tallbladeofgrass: that sounds interesting
Kishikaisei13: iv seen that
tallbladeofgrass: why do they call it breast-pump hentai?
Kishikaisei13: because its got sailor moon laying down with pump things on her breasts
Kishikaisei13: its pretty lame...less than half a minute long, and each breast is literally 3 times larger than the width of her body
Kishikaisei13: i measured
tallbladeofgrass: that sounds interesting
Kishikaisei13: iv seen that
tallbladeofgrass: why do they call it breast-pump hentai?
Kishikaisei13: because its got sailor moon laying down with pump things on her breasts
Kishikaisei13: its pretty lame...less than half a minute long, and each breast is literally 3 times larger than the width of her body
Kishikaisei13: i measured
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Monday, March 15, 2004
Humans can detect genetic differences between others and themselves in the scent of the other people. Generally, the more similar one's genetic code to another person's, the less attracted one will be to him or her. This is evolution's way of preventing incest-related mutations.
So, next time you're on a date with someone you don't like, instead of saying "i'm not attracted to you," say "i'm sorry, your genetic code is just too similar to mine."
So, next time you're on a date with someone you don't like, instead of saying "i'm not attracted to you," say "i'm sorry, your genetic code is just too similar to mine."
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Monday, March 08, 2004
The Evils of Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is stupid and wrong. At best it's a misapplication of truth and at worst it's a horrible campaign of reverse discrimination and neglect of truth. It rests on several ideas: 1) racial discrimination against minorities in choosing people for skill-based positions is wrong. 2) the sins of the father should be visited on the son. 3) the ends justify the means. 4) racial discrimination against the majority in choosing people for skill-based positions is right.
These are all outrages against humanity. It's obvious what these sorts of ideas imply, but none of affirmative action's proponents will admit it. The idea behind affirmative action is that "we" must atone for what "we" did to minorities in the first half of the 20th century. Several things wrong with the aforementioned belief. First of all, "we" did not do anything to minorities in the first half of the 20th century. The people under the discrimination boot before the civil rights movement are not the ones looking for jobs and trying to get into college now. This means that the people who are being punished are the children of past offenders: the sins of the father are being visited on the son. Nobody really thinks it's okay to punish people for things they didn't do, but if we sugar-coat it with a lot of platitudes about "evening the playing field" we can pretend that's not what we're really doing. Second of all, how does reversing the discrimination process atone for past discrimination? Now we discriminate against the majority instead of the minority. To translate this phenomena into a more obviously criminal example, imagine a man arrested for robbery. We'll call his victim John. Imagine that his sentence is not jail or community service, but to "atone for his past misdeeds" by stealing from his family and giving what he steals to John. Alternatively, imagine that the court rules that the property of the thief's children should be seized and given to John. No one would say that this is just. Why not? As countless children are reminded by their parents, "two wrongs don't make a right." The fact that Suzie was mean to you doesn't mean you can hit her. Same thing. It is completely immoral to force our thief to steal from his family, or from anyone, in order to pay back what he has taken from John. It is equally immoral to force our thief's children to pay John's debts. Affirmative action is immoral on equal grounds. It seeks to make up for past wrongs by committing the same wrongs against the descendents of the wrongdoers.
Now affirmative action proponents will cry in indignation, "but we are not discriminating against anyone!" Yes, you are. In making sure you accept a certain number of minority citizens into your school or workplace, you are using race to determine eligibility for a position. Whether racial groups are robbed or rewarded based on their members' race, the ideology is the same. It is the belief that skin color or any equally irrelevant quality is an appropriate basis for--or rejection from--acceptance into skill-based positions. Affirmative action discriminates against the skilled and the qualified in favor of the quota. It rejects achievement over diversity, the earned over the accidental.
"But wait!" they shout, "Affirmative action just levels the playing field!!!" What does that even mean? To the affirmative actionists, it means compensating for a person's lack of apparent qualification for a position by accepting him based on something other than qualifications. This is ludicrous. If you ran a soccer league and one team was better than the other because it was richer and had more training, would you make all the members of the better team wear lead weights in their shoes to "even the playing field"? Of course not. If you were a high school teacher and some of your students did poorly on an exam because they have to have an after-school job to help support their family, would you give them As anyway to "even the playing field"? Of course not. It doesn't matter that one team is better because it is rich or that one student is better at math because he has more time to study. The fact is that one team and one student IS better and should be rewarded on that basis. The fact of the matter is, the poor team does not deserve a trophy just because they didn't have the money to get as good as the other team. Likewise, the busy student does not deserve a high grade--the measure of a person's level of understanding or skill in a subject--for a class he does not understand, regardless of why he does not understand it. Rewarding people who haven't earned those rewards is a disservice to both the recipient and others. It robs those who deserve the reward from what they deserve and it propels the recipient through life with a distorted view of what he has achieved. If the busy student should fail math but passes because his teacher feels sorry for him, he will have that much more trouble in the next class. People should not pass classes unless they have mastered the material enough to pass it, and people should not get into college unless they have demonstrated that they have the skill and the intelligence to deserve to be there. If our primary concern is "evening the playing field" in this sense, there should be no playing field at all. What is the point of competitive arena if all the competitors are the same or if the more skilled competitor is put in a cage and the less skilled armed with a pistol? The fact that I am skilled than you because I was more advantaged than you, financially or otherwise, does not change the fact that I am more skilled. If i have a degree in civil engineering and you dropped out of college before you finished yours because you couldn't afford to go there anymore, people should still hire me to build their bridges because I have the skill to do so.
Let's examine the "evening the playing field" metaphor more closely. Imagine two teams--red and blue--who come to a field to play soccer, and find that it is slanted toward the red team's goal. In a literal sense, "evening the playing field" would mean taking dirt from the high side and putting it on the low side so that the resulting field is level. It would not mean having the two teams switch side for half the game, nor would it mean starting red with 4 goals. If affirmative actionists want to use this metaphor, they should use it correctly. To "even the playing field" entails changing the environment of play so that neither team is at an advantage from current environmental situation. It does not entail compensating for one group's lack of skill. If affirmative action were simply a leveling device, it would not involve forced acceptance of certain groups of people into positions that their skill alone could not get them into. It would merely mean that only relevant factors were taken into account when choosing people to fill a position.
I cannot stress enough the irrelevance of the determining factors of a person's skill level. It does not matter WHY you are unfit for a position. If you are unfit, you should not be hired. Likewise, if you did not pass high school, you should not go to college. You are not ready for the job; you are not ready for the school. It is not an attack on anyone's character to say that he is unqualified. It merely means that he needs to take the necessary steps to become qualified or else look for a position for which he IS qualified. If you did poorly in high school because you went to a school with bad teachers so you didn't learn anything, that doesn't mean that you should now get a free ride to a highly competitive university. It means that you should find a school that you are qualified for, based on your skill level, and acquire more knowledge and skill so that you will now be qualified. The same holds for jobs. The acceptance letter, the job, and the trophy should ALWAYS go to the person most qualified to receive it, no matter why the other competitors are not qualified.
Another philosophy which governs affirmative action but which no affirmative actionist will ever admit is "the ends justify the means." Suppose accepting applicants based on race WAS moral, or even the best thing to do. It would still be immoral for anyone to force any institution to practice that policy. Unprovoked force is never moral. "The common good" and other such nonsense is no justification for force. With regards to public education and government employment, affirmative action is still unacceptable because it is not in any institution's rational self-interest to accept unqualified applicants over qualified applicants to its programs. The ends--that minorities or previously disadvantaged people will be compensated for their disadvantages--does not justify the means--forcing institutions to accept applicants based on race.
We can only achieve actual justice in hiring and school acceptance if these processes become colorblind and if the institutionalization of discrimination ceases. Once the goverment stops telling minorities that they have the right to demand things that they haven't earned, stops rewarding disadvantage over qualification, and stops forcing institutions to follow suit, affirmative action and its evils will cease. People will begin to award jobs out of appreciation rather than guilt. Students will no longer feel that they or their fellow-students have not earned the right to be at the institution of their choice. Teachers will no longer have to condescend to their classes in order to make sure that the lowest common denominator is satisfied. Men will be free.
Affirmative action is stupid and wrong. At best it's a misapplication of truth and at worst it's a horrible campaign of reverse discrimination and neglect of truth. It rests on several ideas: 1) racial discrimination against minorities in choosing people for skill-based positions is wrong. 2) the sins of the father should be visited on the son. 3) the ends justify the means. 4) racial discrimination against the majority in choosing people for skill-based positions is right.
These are all outrages against humanity. It's obvious what these sorts of ideas imply, but none of affirmative action's proponents will admit it. The idea behind affirmative action is that "we" must atone for what "we" did to minorities in the first half of the 20th century. Several things wrong with the aforementioned belief. First of all, "we" did not do anything to minorities in the first half of the 20th century. The people under the discrimination boot before the civil rights movement are not the ones looking for jobs and trying to get into college now. This means that the people who are being punished are the children of past offenders: the sins of the father are being visited on the son. Nobody really thinks it's okay to punish people for things they didn't do, but if we sugar-coat it with a lot of platitudes about "evening the playing field" we can pretend that's not what we're really doing. Second of all, how does reversing the discrimination process atone for past discrimination? Now we discriminate against the majority instead of the minority. To translate this phenomena into a more obviously criminal example, imagine a man arrested for robbery. We'll call his victim John. Imagine that his sentence is not jail or community service, but to "atone for his past misdeeds" by stealing from his family and giving what he steals to John. Alternatively, imagine that the court rules that the property of the thief's children should be seized and given to John. No one would say that this is just. Why not? As countless children are reminded by their parents, "two wrongs don't make a right." The fact that Suzie was mean to you doesn't mean you can hit her. Same thing. It is completely immoral to force our thief to steal from his family, or from anyone, in order to pay back what he has taken from John. It is equally immoral to force our thief's children to pay John's debts. Affirmative action is immoral on equal grounds. It seeks to make up for past wrongs by committing the same wrongs against the descendents of the wrongdoers.
Now affirmative action proponents will cry in indignation, "but we are not discriminating against anyone!" Yes, you are. In making sure you accept a certain number of minority citizens into your school or workplace, you are using race to determine eligibility for a position. Whether racial groups are robbed or rewarded based on their members' race, the ideology is the same. It is the belief that skin color or any equally irrelevant quality is an appropriate basis for--or rejection from--acceptance into skill-based positions. Affirmative action discriminates against the skilled and the qualified in favor of the quota. It rejects achievement over diversity, the earned over the accidental.
"But wait!" they shout, "Affirmative action just levels the playing field!!!" What does that even mean? To the affirmative actionists, it means compensating for a person's lack of apparent qualification for a position by accepting him based on something other than qualifications. This is ludicrous. If you ran a soccer league and one team was better than the other because it was richer and had more training, would you make all the members of the better team wear lead weights in their shoes to "even the playing field"? Of course not. If you were a high school teacher and some of your students did poorly on an exam because they have to have an after-school job to help support their family, would you give them As anyway to "even the playing field"? Of course not. It doesn't matter that one team is better because it is rich or that one student is better at math because he has more time to study. The fact is that one team and one student IS better and should be rewarded on that basis. The fact of the matter is, the poor team does not deserve a trophy just because they didn't have the money to get as good as the other team. Likewise, the busy student does not deserve a high grade--the measure of a person's level of understanding or skill in a subject--for a class he does not understand, regardless of why he does not understand it. Rewarding people who haven't earned those rewards is a disservice to both the recipient and others. It robs those who deserve the reward from what they deserve and it propels the recipient through life with a distorted view of what he has achieved. If the busy student should fail math but passes because his teacher feels sorry for him, he will have that much more trouble in the next class. People should not pass classes unless they have mastered the material enough to pass it, and people should not get into college unless they have demonstrated that they have the skill and the intelligence to deserve to be there. If our primary concern is "evening the playing field" in this sense, there should be no playing field at all. What is the point of competitive arena if all the competitors are the same or if the more skilled competitor is put in a cage and the less skilled armed with a pistol? The fact that I am skilled than you because I was more advantaged than you, financially or otherwise, does not change the fact that I am more skilled. If i have a degree in civil engineering and you dropped out of college before you finished yours because you couldn't afford to go there anymore, people should still hire me to build their bridges because I have the skill to do so.
Let's examine the "evening the playing field" metaphor more closely. Imagine two teams--red and blue--who come to a field to play soccer, and find that it is slanted toward the red team's goal. In a literal sense, "evening the playing field" would mean taking dirt from the high side and putting it on the low side so that the resulting field is level. It would not mean having the two teams switch side for half the game, nor would it mean starting red with 4 goals. If affirmative actionists want to use this metaphor, they should use it correctly. To "even the playing field" entails changing the environment of play so that neither team is at an advantage from current environmental situation. It does not entail compensating for one group's lack of skill. If affirmative action were simply a leveling device, it would not involve forced acceptance of certain groups of people into positions that their skill alone could not get them into. It would merely mean that only relevant factors were taken into account when choosing people to fill a position.
I cannot stress enough the irrelevance of the determining factors of a person's skill level. It does not matter WHY you are unfit for a position. If you are unfit, you should not be hired. Likewise, if you did not pass high school, you should not go to college. You are not ready for the job; you are not ready for the school. It is not an attack on anyone's character to say that he is unqualified. It merely means that he needs to take the necessary steps to become qualified or else look for a position for which he IS qualified. If you did poorly in high school because you went to a school with bad teachers so you didn't learn anything, that doesn't mean that you should now get a free ride to a highly competitive university. It means that you should find a school that you are qualified for, based on your skill level, and acquire more knowledge and skill so that you will now be qualified. The same holds for jobs. The acceptance letter, the job, and the trophy should ALWAYS go to the person most qualified to receive it, no matter why the other competitors are not qualified.
Another philosophy which governs affirmative action but which no affirmative actionist will ever admit is "the ends justify the means." Suppose accepting applicants based on race WAS moral, or even the best thing to do. It would still be immoral for anyone to force any institution to practice that policy. Unprovoked force is never moral. "The common good" and other such nonsense is no justification for force. With regards to public education and government employment, affirmative action is still unacceptable because it is not in any institution's rational self-interest to accept unqualified applicants over qualified applicants to its programs. The ends--that minorities or previously disadvantaged people will be compensated for their disadvantages--does not justify the means--forcing institutions to accept applicants based on race.
We can only achieve actual justice in hiring and school acceptance if these processes become colorblind and if the institutionalization of discrimination ceases. Once the goverment stops telling minorities that they have the right to demand things that they haven't earned, stops rewarding disadvantage over qualification, and stops forcing institutions to follow suit, affirmative action and its evils will cease. People will begin to award jobs out of appreciation rather than guilt. Students will no longer feel that they or their fellow-students have not earned the right to be at the institution of their choice. Teachers will no longer have to condescend to their classes in order to make sure that the lowest common denominator is satisfied. Men will be free.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
"We see it in the appalling dictum of 'Hate the sin, but love the sinner'—which would have us condemn death camps but send Hitler a box of Godiva chocolates."
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/valentinesday2004.shtml
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/valentinesday2004.shtml
horrible quotes from a recent reading assignment:
"to understand and be understood is the most basic human right...it is the right upon which all other human rights ultimately come to depend, and it may be show to have always been central, at least in theory, to the functioning of democratic society."
yeah, i mean, as long as you understand why i'm killing you, it's okay for me to kill you!
"it becomes very difficult to speak of inequality in a purely objective way."
...*sigh*...why do people have such a hard time understanding that justice is not subjective?
"Access will be of little benefit to large portions of the pupulation, unless it is accompanied by equipment and training that allow effective use of that access. what we need the ni s a 'right to access' in the broader sence of a 'right to benefit from access'."
apparently now all people have the RIGHT to training on how to use information technologies. why are people such idiots?
"a small but substantial proportion of internet users have become "internet dropouts' ecause they do not find the information online to be useful or interesting. a similar phenomenon has been observed with certain ethnic and language groups, including African-Americans. Research and policy should be directid to identifying what is considered essential information in various communities, and creating conditions that ensure the wide availability of such information."
or maybe these minority groups should provide their OWN content, which will cause other members of their group to have interesting information to look at. or maybe these people think that the internet just appeared there, rather than being produced by real people who were producing things to serve their own interests. by all means, we should surely force people to create content that will interest groups of our choosing, rather than of theirs.
"to understand and be understood is the most basic human right...it is the right upon which all other human rights ultimately come to depend, and it may be show to have always been central, at least in theory, to the functioning of democratic society."
yeah, i mean, as long as you understand why i'm killing you, it's okay for me to kill you!
"it becomes very difficult to speak of inequality in a purely objective way."
...*sigh*...why do people have such a hard time understanding that justice is not subjective?
"Access will be of little benefit to large portions of the pupulation, unless it is accompanied by equipment and training that allow effective use of that access. what we need the ni s a 'right to access' in the broader sence of a 'right to benefit from access'."
apparently now all people have the RIGHT to training on how to use information technologies. why are people such idiots?
"a small but substantial proportion of internet users have become "internet dropouts' ecause they do not find the information online to be useful or interesting. a similar phenomenon has been observed with certain ethnic and language groups, including African-Americans. Research and policy should be directid to identifying what is considered essential information in various communities, and creating conditions that ensure the wide availability of such information."
or maybe these minority groups should provide their OWN content, which will cause other members of their group to have interesting information to look at. or maybe these people think that the internet just appeared there, rather than being produced by real people who were producing things to serve their own interests. by all means, we should surely force people to create content that will interest groups of our choosing, rather than of theirs.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
and sara's anti-technology aura strikes again! apparently everyone else can read my blog just fine, but on my own computer none of the text shows up except for a few punctuation marks here and there. i can highlight it all, but i can't see it. i guess there's nothing to do now except watch gilmore girls!
Monday, March 01, 2004
more quotes from days of not-so-yore:
tallbladeofgrass (9:27:51 PM): stop being online but not there!
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:38 PM): no
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:39 PM): er
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:41 PM): dammit
Kishikaisei13 (10:56:50 PM): ya know...i think that "boo" is a marker of the very close relationship between horror and sexuality. dracula is basically a character representing uncontained human sexual and erotic desire..."boo" is just one 'b' away from "boob"
Kishikaisei13 (12:09:48 AM): booze...duck hunt....all i need is mistletoe and a sister, and it'd be a regular redneck christmas
tallbladeofgrass (9:27:51 PM): stop being online but not there!
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:38 PM): no
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:39 PM): er
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:41 PM): dammit
Kishikaisei13 (10:56:50 PM): ya know...i think that "boo" is a marker of the very close relationship between horror and sexuality. dracula is basically a character representing uncontained human sexual and erotic desire..."boo" is just one 'b' away from "boob"
Kishikaisei13 (12:09:48 AM): booze...duck hunt....all i need is mistletoe and a sister, and it'd be a regular redneck christmas
Quotes from the days of yore:
Prof Dimuro: So if your interpretation was that Hester is really a man, and you went and found all this evidence to back it up--of course, that wouldn’t be a very good interpretation…although, you know, all that business with Dimmesdale and Chillingworth being roommates and so forth and all the penetration imagery…Anyway…
Prof. Dimuro: Nathaniel Hawthorne was quite the looker. I mean when people met him, they were probably intimidated by his sheer beauty. The elegance, the poise, the HYGIENE!....I don't know where this was going...
LeftHandOfFunk: and legolas still kicks ass
LeftHandOfFunk: sigh...he's so dreamy..
tallbladeofgrass: should i be worried?
LeftHandOfFunk: yes. he's mine. step off, bitch *snap snap*
BruinTrav: i earns me livin' with this body, baby
BruinTrav: nobody gets a free ride
BruinTrav: as soon as i have my surgery i'll have bigger breasts, too
BruinTrav: you know you should just rename your profile "A shrine to Travis DeLong"
tallbladeofgrass: i'm enjoying all the japanese school-girl things going on on this page
tallbladeofgrass: you’re very odd, have i been rubbing off on you?
tallbladeofgrass: i also enjoy the fact that i'm not wearing pants
tallbladeofgrass: but the rest of the people listening to the show are lame, so i win with no pants!
SmthOprtr22: you are a giant maurading breast
*note from ben regarding the above quote*
BobTheKillerGoat: pat ninjaed my marauding breast expression
SmthOprtr22: why won't hte perfect girl fall into my lap?
tallbladeofgrass: oh, so you want a lap dance eh?
SmthOprtr22: i said fall, not grind
tallbladeofgrass: gotta crawl before you can walk
SmthOprtr22: it's totally obvious she doesn't have a penis
LeftHandOfFunk: oh! if they made fish taquitos, i could call them faquitos!
Eclipse33k: hmm, i made a list of all the stuff i have to do
Eclipse33k: it's pretty long, but i put talk online on it, so at least i'm getting something done
LeftHandOfFunk: i have made a decision about ddr on the computer...
LeftHandOfFunk: its like sex....soo good...but really exhausting...they need a ddr equivalent of a cigarette after sex...i need to lose my edge right now...
tallbladeofgrass: you want to have my baby don't you
BobTheKillerGoat: why yes i do
Kurushimi13: and i thought legolas was the latest object of woman fancy?
Kurushimi13: or is that just me and lauren?
tallbladeofgrass (just after suggesting that one must be really smart in order to get the scholarship that I have): damn, i just dropped my donut in my milk
Kurushimi13: for some reason, "eat" doesnt seem to go well with "chicken soup"...
Kurushimi13: yea, well i cant wear pants on my neck
BobTheKillerGoat (9:25:09 PM): i woke up an hour ago hehe
Kurushimi13: okay...wtf?!? how long has 'tomorrow' had only one 'm'?!?!
LeftHandOfFunk: 20 free nickels!! thats like....
LeftHandOfFunk: 20 x 30 cents!!
tallbladeofgrass: um, a nickel is worth 5 cents...
LeftHandOfFunk: yes well....i just happen to be have a very quotable something or other witty comment here, etc, etc
tallbladeofgrass: did that make any sense?
Kurushimi13: hmm...should i assume this white powdery stuff in my cereal isnt mold?
Kurushimi13: it doesnt taste bad or wrong...and iv already eaten almost all of it anyways....
Kurushimi13: ill assume its milk krusties and be done with it
Kurushimi13: hehe...i love being told im pretty ^_^
FixAllQueen: jpw
FixAllQueen: I mean
FixAllQueen: hi
Kurushimi13: after you left, all my roommates were like, "woah" and i was like "woah" and they were like "dude" and i was like "seriously" and then we played magic
JoeShamoe: my roommate's actually going to bed now
JoeShamoe: think i'll join him
Kishikaisei13: i get excited easily and speak w/o thinking...
tallbladeofgrass: i need to alter my dress
tallbladeofgrass: but i'm lazy
tallbladeofgrass: do it for me
SmthOprtr22: hehe, sure i'll alter as long as you promise to wear it when i'm done
Kishikaisei13: me and every other 13 year old girl!
Iulia: The damn library is full of books!
tallbladeofgrass: fi dolla!
dallasfan22izzo: wut?
tallbladeofgrass: house chicken free fo you!
dallasfan22izzo: this is why u shouldn't take drugs
"he's gay."
"what? how do you know?"
"it's called gaydar, my dear."
my mom: "what you really need to do is start DRINKING"
Prof Dimuro: So if your interpretation was that Hester is really a man, and you went and found all this evidence to back it up--of course, that wouldn’t be a very good interpretation…although, you know, all that business with Dimmesdale and Chillingworth being roommates and so forth and all the penetration imagery…Anyway…
Prof. Dimuro: Nathaniel Hawthorne was quite the looker. I mean when people met him, they were probably intimidated by his sheer beauty. The elegance, the poise, the HYGIENE!....I don't know where this was going...
LeftHandOfFunk: and legolas still kicks ass
LeftHandOfFunk: sigh...he's so dreamy..
tallbladeofgrass: should i be worried?
LeftHandOfFunk: yes. he's mine. step off, bitch *snap snap*
BruinTrav: i earns me livin' with this body, baby
BruinTrav: nobody gets a free ride
BruinTrav: as soon as i have my surgery i'll have bigger breasts, too
BruinTrav: you know you should just rename your profile "A shrine to Travis DeLong"
tallbladeofgrass: i'm enjoying all the japanese school-girl things going on on this page
tallbladeofgrass: you’re very odd, have i been rubbing off on you?
tallbladeofgrass: i also enjoy the fact that i'm not wearing pants
tallbladeofgrass: but the rest of the people listening to the show are lame, so i win with no pants!
SmthOprtr22: you are a giant maurading breast
*note from ben regarding the above quote*
BobTheKillerGoat: pat ninjaed my marauding breast expression
SmthOprtr22: why won't hte perfect girl fall into my lap?
tallbladeofgrass: oh, so you want a lap dance eh?
SmthOprtr22: i said fall, not grind
tallbladeofgrass: gotta crawl before you can walk
SmthOprtr22: it's totally obvious she doesn't have a penis
LeftHandOfFunk: oh! if they made fish taquitos, i could call them faquitos!
Eclipse33k: hmm, i made a list of all the stuff i have to do
Eclipse33k: it's pretty long, but i put talk online on it, so at least i'm getting something done
LeftHandOfFunk: i have made a decision about ddr on the computer...
LeftHandOfFunk: its like sex....soo good...but really exhausting...they need a ddr equivalent of a cigarette after sex...i need to lose my edge right now...
tallbladeofgrass: you want to have my baby don't you
BobTheKillerGoat: why yes i do
Kurushimi13: and i thought legolas was the latest object of woman fancy?
Kurushimi13: or is that just me and lauren?
tallbladeofgrass (just after suggesting that one must be really smart in order to get the scholarship that I have): damn, i just dropped my donut in my milk
Kurushimi13: for some reason, "eat" doesnt seem to go well with "chicken soup"...
Kurushimi13: yea, well i cant wear pants on my neck
BobTheKillerGoat (9:25:09 PM): i woke up an hour ago hehe
Kurushimi13: okay...wtf?!? how long has 'tomorrow' had only one 'm'?!?!
LeftHandOfFunk: 20 free nickels!! thats like....
LeftHandOfFunk: 20 x 30 cents!!
tallbladeofgrass: um, a nickel is worth 5 cents...
LeftHandOfFunk: yes well....i just happen to be have a very quotable something or other witty comment here, etc, etc
tallbladeofgrass: did that make any sense?
Kurushimi13: hmm...should i assume this white powdery stuff in my cereal isnt mold?
Kurushimi13: it doesnt taste bad or wrong...and iv already eaten almost all of it anyways....
Kurushimi13: ill assume its milk krusties and be done with it
Kurushimi13: hehe...i love being told im pretty ^_^
FixAllQueen: jpw
FixAllQueen: I mean
FixAllQueen: hi
Kurushimi13: after you left, all my roommates were like, "woah" and i was like "woah" and they were like "dude" and i was like "seriously" and then we played magic
JoeShamoe: my roommate's actually going to bed now
JoeShamoe: think i'll join him
Kishikaisei13: i get excited easily and speak w/o thinking...
tallbladeofgrass: i need to alter my dress
tallbladeofgrass: but i'm lazy
tallbladeofgrass: do it for me
SmthOprtr22: hehe, sure i'll alter as long as you promise to wear it when i'm done
Kishikaisei13: me and every other 13 year old girl!
Iulia: The damn library is full of books!
tallbladeofgrass: fi dolla!
dallasfan22izzo: wut?
tallbladeofgrass: house chicken free fo you!
dallasfan22izzo: this is why u shouldn't take drugs
"he's gay."
"what? how do you know?"
"it's called gaydar, my dear."
my mom: "what you really need to do is start DRINKING"
yet another ill-fated solution to my
"me: haha, that's funny, i'm posting it my profile! *paste*
aim: you have pasted too many characters! a maximum of 10 characters is allowed. you have tried to paste something lengthy and meaningful into your profile. we do not allow it! begone, ye overstuffer of aim profiles!
me: dammit...*paste plaintext*
aim: haha, sucker, you actually thought that would help? merely a ploy of ours to lure you into a false sense of security. delete your entire profile or SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!!!!!!!"
problem.
"me: haha, that's funny, i'm posting it my profile! *paste*
aim: you have pasted too many characters! a maximum of 10 characters is allowed. you have tried to paste something lengthy and meaningful into your profile. we do not allow it! begone, ye overstuffer of aim profiles!
me: dammit...*paste plaintext*
aim: haha, sucker, you actually thought that would help? merely a ploy of ours to lure you into a false sense of security. delete your entire profile or SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!!!!!!!"
problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)