|
|
|
|
|
| |
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 10/31/2007 6:24:45 PM | All theory is simulated theory, there is nothing that has not been shadowed by the sly hand of the simulacrum. People can attack me, as I am not as strong as my heroes, but it compforts me to know, and it really does, that my heroes, Jean Baudrillard, Jaques Derrida, Jaques Lacan, would make everyone on here, including me, sound like the true unknowing beings that they are. Give me your smartest thinker here and I shall usher him into Dr. Jaques Lacans office, already he would have been dismantled, grasping at straws, and Baudrillard, well, forget it, he would have made everything on here, including my work and essays seems like kindergarden poems. I am merely the mirror of this pretension that spreads itself across the globe from stodgy coffee houses to the university's where professors turn eager minds into machines, in a sense I am pleading the case of Socrates, in that a seer said once, that there was no one wiser than socrates, and socrates knew all that meant was others all thought that they knew but didnt know, but he knew that he didn't know, therefore making him the wisest. hence the quote " This one thing I know, and that is that I know nothing at all. "
But pretensions and split egos and unrestrained Id's and hypersexual superego's will never admit a thing. I have shown you, all of you, only yourself. This is quite uncomfortable I know, and the best recourse is to try and dismiss or dismantel this person, but it won't disprove the will's blind thrashing pursuit towards philosophical ignorance.
And so I shall refer to the master's who know only all to well the games that are being played here, Lacan reaches for a smoke and realizes he doesn't even have to say a word, Baudrillard cannot resist, and Derrida has already deconstructed you all down to the embryonic stage of your pure mirror self. That impossible self re-imposed, and thoroughly simulated. | |
|
| |
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/1/2007 7:10:34 AM | Through a surplus of the spectacle, what is original in mans thought. Society, has usurped individual identity's and turned them into relay stations playing the staticy messages of 2 a.m. What does philosophy seek to recover, as even the sale of books, a quite expensive commodity exhange, is now a part of this spectacle. A philosophers appeareance on television or in an documentary, as in Derrida, the documentary Jaques Derrida agreed to do, though quite hesitantly, and durning the film, he constantly pointed out the contradiction of having to say these things on film, on commodity media blank sheet.
It is quite funny to see how these current far left marxist philosophers like Slavoj Zizek who is still one of my favorites nonetheless, has books out on the market that run well past the price range of a hundred dollars. All taking part of this society of the spectacle. Now isn't this bad faith on their part? And opposed to their marxist Lacanian ideology? Certainly, but I wouldn't say that they should give their books out for free, though I would really respect a philosopher then.
Entrapment is set on all sides of the barrel so to speak. Bad in-house operators on the platform of their own agendas, as I often think, if the true Lacanian marxist revolution happened that these philosophers so dreamed of, what would they have left to write about? I think that they should perhaps be a little more honest about the enjoyment of their citiques of damaged society, I wouldn't say that this apply to all current philosophers, in fact I know that it doesnt, but with Zizek I think it does.
And of course none of this applies to Debard, who really did want the revolution.
Is philosophy now part of this this complicit hostage taking, self idealized critique, is there an ear? Is there a voice?
Show them the commodity and they will fetishisize it. Including philosophy. | |
|
NateC
|
Joined: 4/10/2006
Msg: 30 | |
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/1/2007 10:04:51 AM | You want to put that into point form? Providing you have points to make, of course ;)
Unfortunately, you seem to have much to say, but communicate very little.
May be time to come back down to earth with the little people; the reason why so much "philosophy" doesn't get widely accepted is because it's seemingly inaccessible by joe average because the fools who preach their sermon do so - and seemingly deliberately - with language that is convoluted and, at times, even contrived because they feel that by making themselves look verbally superior that they could or would become morally superior - and ultimately is the greatest act of self-defeat.
I'm an atheist, but I have to admire men like Christ and Muhammed; because they would - not could, but would speak to the level of the layman, their systems and ideals were able to spread and be accepted by everyone.
The existentialists, marxists, socialists, rand...ians - the bullshit merchants of the 21st century as far as I'm concerned - because they have this disgusting air of superiority, their message is even more lost and perverted than that of any given religion.
The point - stop being exclusive and elitist, speak more plainly, people won't look at you as a complete and total fool :P
Just thought I'd throw that bone to ya as a friendly gesture, and I even made sure it was long-winded :P | |
|
Hoop
|
Joined: 5/1/2006
Msg: 31 | |
| |
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/1/2007 2:48:53 PM | Thank you hoop.
If one person understands what I am doing here, than that is enough. All anybody can ever hope to do is reach one person. Anything else is pure selfishness.
As to you nateck whatever, let me enlighten you a little. The problem with this society is everybody is too damn lazy to pick up a book, many books in fact, thousands of books actually, do you really think I had anyone to teach me what to do or to help me learn the things I know, because I didn't, I'm a high school drop out with a G.E.D. I've never been to college and I wouldn't go near one if my life depended on it.
You see I'm not speaking a language that is high class sophisticated blah blah, I read my as*s off, I read theorist's and then I read the theory of theorist's who were deconstructing theory itself and Hegel and Heidegger until the point that I could understand them. Those who read little suffer much because they find much verbage to be foreign to them. I was never taught how to interpret other philosopher's, you see I didn't spend 10 years of my life getting molested by professors and their treason to philosophy and dead action and water weight words and essays with no soul or sexuality, nothing but confined indentity, hypocritical western capitialist institutions of dis-learning. I speak a language that will tear complaceny out of digital corners, remove myth and give man back the revolution. I admire those who sacrificed their sanity and their time for me, I admire those, like Debard, who took a bullet in the heart that was meant for a generation of sold out commodified empty vessels wrapped up in american flags and the spirit of " What can I get out of this? " ME ME ME.
Mr. this and mrs.s that. I want more. I need more. I don't care what Schopenhauer said,
he probably just needed to get laid. Im being sarcastic because I definantly do care what Schopenhaur said. Karl Mark didn't want Hitler and Castro and all these social perverts, he wanted the liberation of mankind, and let us not forget the WOMEN of the marxist and anarchists society in the 1800's long before feminisim who walked around with dynamite up their dresses, what have you done nantek, downloaded 500 more useless songs into your I-Pod. Or maybe your just waiting for someone to recognize your genius, your everyday common joe genius, Im a common joe, or Jane really, for that matter, hell, im even jack and jill and the secret cyanide pill.
Why dont you crawl back into whatever spectacle you just stumbled out of and tell me what you find? I really want to know? I want know if you can get past the mirror stage of your own process jerked off ego.
Come on speak your dead language to me, you silly little hypocrit.
Say more, say something original, astound me, knock my skirt up over my head with the wind of your pathetic anaylsis. I bake the bread of the revolution and wait for your reply. | |
|
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/1/2007 3:00:03 PM | Necro,
that guy has a point. its called literary masterbation and its very telling of ones character. i know your type. you feel very superior talking in a convaluted way. you pick your terms typically. you probably re-read your posts over and over because it is self-edifying to you.
alot of your post, especially in other threads always come down to the same vocab blabbidy blab. then you knock others who dont care or share your theories.
its great you expand your knowledge. i wish you would do it even more.
BUT, the one who needs to say something original is YOU.
in short, quit talking out of your ass and astound US. | |
|
| |
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/1/2007 6:34:42 PM | Rememberance of the past may give rise to sexual insights. Memory recalls the terror and the hope that passed, from ego to crisis of the remembered thing re-inforced.
Ether girl, nottoofishy, thanks for stopping by and leaving me a post, It's always much appreciated.
untill next time, remember the words of the wise old man of the mountains Hassan I Sabbah " Nothing is true, everything is permitted. " As my friend Ally said to me once, " oh, well thats convienent ".
There will be time for us all to share what we need to share, and say what it is we need to say, hmmm, smile,
ether, you don't really know me at all. But I suppose you've met alot of people like that in your life. My advice is, just hang out with punk rock chicks like I do. Ether, my advise to you is, go pick up a Kate Millet book, cut the pages into four corners, ala william burroughs, re-arrange the text, and tadah, it's psychoanalysis.
And since I dont want to be accused of intellectual snobbery again, ( but I also didn't want to insult your intelligence as a woman ) let me just explain who Kate Millet is, because if I am not very precise, well, ( boring ), she's one of the most well respected important writers of the feminists movement, has a book, called sexual politics, so that's what I mean needs a cut up to reach psychoanalysis. | |
|
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/1/2007 7:57:35 PM | Necro,
enough with the verbal diahrrea already.
i was not accusing you of intellectual snobbery. just snobbery.
i dont wish to read about feminism. heard enough from that clit club in university. yeah....and sorry for having a classical education too. lol.
you dont know a thing about psychoanalysis. you made that clear in your response.
i dont know you at all, this is true, but my statements appear accurate to me. your last post certainly rises to the occasion. | |
|
NateC
|
Joined: 4/10/2006
Msg: 37 | |
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/1/2007 8:37:33 PM | Thank you for your extremely inaccurate psychoanalysis necro, it show how little sincerity and integrity you have. I'll admit, I'm aiming to get a reaction out of you - but let me tell you something - I've done a lot of reading, too; my literary level is probably higher than yours, actually - whether you want to believe it or not.
It's really easy to flaunt what you have when you have it; but I try not to. On an intellectual level, it alienates people.
I can certainly appreciate what you're trying to do but there's an irony here - and its an irony of any new-age philosophy that speaks down to people like existentialism, etc. - You preach of individuality, and yet you behave like a clique.
So which is it?
Individuality and acceptance of people that don't follow your way (which is an important part of individuality; embracing that of others), or cattish attitudes claiming to be individualistic but behaving like a gaggle of high school brats who believe they're part of some minute exclusive order and only those that believe what you believe or think how you think are welcome?
Regarding Marxism vs. Socialism...Marx was a fool. Communism as he sees it cannot work; it would require that human genetic code be rewritten. Do not bring marxism into a philosophical debate because there's little substance to his beliefs; Lenin learned that the hard way. Marx's belief of how humanity would cycle toward Communism was also so off-kilter it's frightening. Sure, humanity goes in cycles - between enlightenment and decay; we mature technologically, but psychologically...no.
Now, while aspects of Marx's theory - which would be called socialism - can work - and has proven to do so, taken as whole? Hell no.
Anyway, necro, I think ya need to do a little growing up before you try to further enlighten the unthinking masses; your approach is both disjointed and arrogant and you think it's necessary to speak like you're above everyone.
Newsflash: You're not. | |
|
| |
Hoop
|
Joined: 5/1/2006
Msg: 39 | |
| |
| |
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/2/2007 10:09:38 PM | Yet there is a myth that supports our modern age, in all of its individualism and in all of its identity-related tenets of surety: the myth of the self, the undivided, the unique, the paradigm, the one, the whole, the only, the original…
And what shall we call that?
The endless roll of duct tape with which the home handyperson wraps up the cracks and splits and striations and separations that form between what they like to think they are and what they have actually managed to become in their lives – all fixed up now, thank you, but totally helpless and inert and bound by the impotence of their own efforts to hold it all together..?
The bottomless trough of mortar, toweled into the breaks between a future that never arrives and a present that never leaves, a promise of things to come which dangles from the stick of unrealized potential just in front – always just in front – of the ongoing reality of who one still is in that hardening of who one still is as the mortar of stability sets into a concrete objectivity what one will always have been..?
A universal condom, one size fits all and protects everyone through an impenetrable elasticity forever keeping the inside there, just there even when it rushes toward an outside which does not exist..?
Because nothing now reaches an outside of our modern age: there is no outside, there is no beyond, there is only an ever expanding marginalization which makes a place inside for everything – which incorporates everything into itself and allows for no outside to ever form. The cracks, the breaks, the striations are what make it work: can you ever “be yourself” without there being two of you?
Yes, that’s me being myself – just there! Ah… and who was that watching you be yourself? Well they can’t both be you, can they? So what were you watching? Yourself being yourself? What is that stretching between you and yourself (besides credulity)?
How did you get outside of yourself? Or were you just always inside something else which gives to you a hollow shell into which to pour yourself – along with everyone else, just as everyone else does, as the “one” that makes ‘every’ economical (one size fits all)?
Would you instead try to be many, try to be multiple, try to be all of the striations and separations and breaks and cracks and differences which precede the unique and the original; which give the whole and the undivided meaning; which is the reality of the encompassing marginalization that thrives upon our modern myth of the self?
Well, how else could you ever be other than you are? | |
|
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/3/2007 3:55:45 PM | John, thanks for your post, really brilliant stuff.
Hoop, thanks for the support.
" The great also make mistakes, and some of them make so many you are almost tempted to think they were'nt great at all. "
- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
" The rules of grammar are mere human statutes, which is why when he speaks out of the possessed the Devil himself speaks bad latin. "
- Georg Christoph Lectenberg
There are those that understand only what the tiniest of mouths can say, and those who have to hear it so large they must see the words as they pass over there very own heads. Mis-diagnosed data claims the puppet show who are compfortable dreaming from their cribs. I am speaking to you now, a voice no ontology or metaphysics can describe. Though we are waiting for the Marxian spark, what did Proudhon eat on the eve of his death, as he struggled with the idea that anarchists should never be violent, in his gasp of last breath, did he say, to hell with it boys, pick up your stones. I'm sizing them out and their minds are not so great. I too have been analyzed ever since I learned you can't carry your rape around with you forever. There are greater ideas than the processed ones that hover at the edge of digital bankrupcy, when the focus is cleared, I know exactly what needs to be said, hang on, there is a slow voice, and it is beggining to dream.
Hegel, there is no master, there is every master who thinks he is, but I wont be negated, I won't be universal, I wont be " One Dimensional " like Marcuse cries out to the states. You retrieve something, but it is not what you thought. I am always fighting.
Standing on the edge. Aren't you? | |
|
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/3/2007 4:27:12 PM | Even I, an avowed skeptic, have to admit that the two immediately-above posters are capable of elegant and beautiful metaphor. But I continue to view most of the OP's posts in this forum as poetry rather than discourse for, or with, the majority of us who might be poetically-challenged.
Some of us might wish for precision of thought and a lucid (or at least decipherable) style of transmission. Many of the phrases that have been posted here are thought-provoking and outrageous; although often, perhaps, not in a way that might have been intended by the poster.
I feel that the OP's posts are primarily artistic rather than philosophical, combining her considerable (if seemingly targeted) reading with a strange use of the language and filtered through a unique sensibility. I welcome "art" in any area of my life, although I dislike art masquerading as profundity.
| |
|
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/3/2007 5:08:01 PM | NotTooFishy, I realize you have given me a compliment, so thank you. but as to this being poetry masquerading as something else, well, you see, you really show that you don't much about the philosohy of the past 100 years on into our new century. Philosophers were alway poetic and metaphorical and in many cases very good prose stylists, If you want you can go and read Schopenhauer and then come back and tell me if you feel the same. The 1960's on brought some of the most poetic philosophy out there, Simone De Beavoir had no problem using words etheir, I am not trying be elitist or start an argument, but I really think NotTooFishy that you should really read some more and different philosophy before you make these kinds of blanketed statements. I am doing philosophical work, though it might not be the kind you like or as pragmatic or straight foward as you want it to be, I have found two really cool people on here who are familair with what I am talking about and enjoying this, That is my audience. there is my discussion.
Look, I realize I have provoked alot of controversy on this thread, alot of that is my fault for not being more open minded. I hope that you all wont make the same mistake. I really don't want to have words with anyone anymore, I just want to bring up my ideas and enjoy whats on here, as you have been able to tell, I have also stopped posting on other people threads, mainly because I want to mind my own business and move foward.
Look, we all think diffrently on here, but we don't have to act like children, this contradicts our very ideas, and I am just as guilty as you are. But in good spirits why don't we all gow up a little. Please.
Nottoofishy, I respect you and your opinions, but quite frankly I'm not going to defend myself anymore. Because if you don't know how poetic and literary philosophy, is, then you really dont know philosophy. I mean enough is enough. Don't feel threatened by something that has a different style and therefore makes it hard for you to understand, all philosophy is like that. | |
|
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/3/2007 5:21:19 PM | If such things could be expressed through clear, concise logical statements of fact and contingent propositions of systematic protocol, then, I think that this would have already happened. Some things are expressed in this way; but, they are not the things of which we are speaking here.
So, what are we speaking of; and, why are we speaking of them in this way which we have chosen?
Well… apparently we humans are endowed with something that we have taken to calling consciousness; moreover, this consciousness we seem to innately possess seems to be capable of an awareness of itself. Thus, we often might ask in philosophy: what is this self-consciousness, and what can we do with it?
A general consensus has arisen that, over and above its other characteristics, this self- consciousness of which we speak is capable of changing itself into that which it desires to be. Now, this is a very odd thing, when you think about it: there isn’t anything else we know of that can do this. However, far from being completely unique in our experience… this is in fact the essence of our experience and so the very, very wonderful nature of that which we call consciousness (and its immediate derivation, self-consciousness) can be lost to us – and so, for us - with a painful ease more tragic than mortality itself.
It isn’t something that can so much be taken from us as it is a thing which we can simply lose, through a forgetting of what it is that we possess. It is something that we can give away over and over, throw away in an instant at every moment, and abandon in favor of a mere simulation of its power and glory and grandeur.
It never goes away, though and it is never exhausted because it is something that we must make ourselves each and every moment. That takes an effort; that is a work unto itself: and it is so very easy to allow others to make that effort and to accept their production of what we can be in lieu of our own efforts to become what we would will ourselves to be.
In the end analysis, it does all come down to various neural pathways through which energy dissipates as it aligns itself with the laws of thermodynamics. We can demarcate those pathways ourselves; or we can let others do it for us; or we can take what others have done and modify that for our own use. And in this we do find what freedom we can achieve as sentient creatures; but we also find that the laws of thermodynamics, along with the rest of the real, encompass us and our self-consciousness: so we can make those energy pathways direct and short and defined and efficient and, as a result, fleeting in their expression; or we can make them robust and variant and multiplicitous, and so make them persistent and extended. In this respect, there is a compelling necessity toward a more textured form of expression than simple protocol statements provide: which is not at all to say a less rigorous form of expression, or a more symbolical and metaphoric form of expression. Indeed, just what it is that we could best deploy in this endeavor to be what we would make of ourselves is not in itself a fixed and final determinant; and so the imperative toward a multiplicitous approach is again confirmed as a basic necessity inherent to the matter at hand. | |
|
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/3/2007 7:32:43 PM | Necro Vine, I'm sorry if you view my last post as some kind of bashing. Perhaps you view me as someone with an education devoid of philosophy (or devoid of any education at all). In fact, as a professional artist with a cadre of friends and acquaintances also involved intimately with the arts, philosophy has been at least an occasional topic of discussion in my life for over 30 years.
You are indeed correct that my intent was to compliment you, for yours is an astounding voice here. You have a rare talent with language, even if much of what I've experienced is more your stream-of-consciousness than conventional intercourse (and difficult to follow according to standard rules of spelling, punctuation, and syntax).
I also have contrived to express my dissatisfaction with the convoluted and unnecessarily strident and/or combative and/or impenetrable nature of your musings. I don't shy away from the difficult in life or discourse, but I do have a limit to my patience when I think someone is purposely being baffling. Your extreme creativity, however, is unassailable.
Now, contrast a lot of what has been posted in this thread so far with what TaiChiJohn eloquently observes immediately above:
<div class='quote'> If such things could be expressed through clear, concise logical statements of fact and contingent propositions of systematic protocol, then, I think that this would have already happened. Some things are expressed in this way; but, they are not the things of which we are speaking here.
In my opinion, such a statement explains perfectly why there is any vituperation, sarcasm, or expressions of frustration on this thread. I think that the statement "[it] would already have happened" is something of a cop-out, in the sense that no outline{s} of pre-knowledge or manner of discourse are intimated as necessary to discussion of the topic, nor will anyone convince me that every possible interpretation (in whatever style) has been expressed here. In fact, such disclaimers would be inappropriate in this venue, as PoF isn't generally known for intellectual rigor (my apologies to FrogO_Oeyes and a couple of others who try really hard to prove this point wrong) or artistic precociousness; and the general tone of the thread might possibly serve to prevent valuable contributors from appearing. I, for one, am used to a more linear approach to problem-solving, but am willing to entertain trains of thought that are outside of my experience (as long as I think I know what the actual subject encompasses).
Nevertheless, I have considerable respect for Necro and others with whom I (think I) disagree, and I'm delighted that this thread has something now within it that isn't making my BS meter scream. All it took was a different voice expressing an idea that I could grasp (and to which I could respond).
I hope I'm making sense to anyone that has a vested interest so far in this thread. And, yes, I'm guilty of poking fun at the OP; but I also find her thoughts worthy of contemplation (whether or not I might understand what those thoughts, and their intent, might be). | |
|
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:08:10 PM | There was indeed a tendency in some schools of philosophy to try and reduce philosophic thought into a series of logical statements, and to govern the "truth value" of these statements through the application of formal rules of logic. I am thinking here primarily of the Anglo-American schools that rose to prominence in the early to mid 1900's (Bertrand Russell comes to mind). So, when I said 'if it were possible, it would have already been done' I was thinking of those efforts.
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, in "What is pHilosophY?" (English translation 1994), put forward the idea that philosophy is all about the construction and application of concepts; and that this is in contrast to the sciences, which employ "functives" as the base composite elements for describing how things work in the way that they do.
Concepts are characteristically heterogeneous in nature; and, they are governed by rules of both internal and external consistency. There is only way to understand what a concept is: find out what went into its construction, and trace how it accordingly interacts with that which it occurs alongside.
What is almost invariably a long, torturous, and convoluted path ensues... | |
|
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/10/2007 10:38:35 AM | I am going to have a little fun with some analylitical thoughts of Carl Jung.
The process of eating, ( in the oral infantile sexuality ) nutritional orgasm, so to speak, by the act of suckling with the food, brings us further into the realm of rubbing and burrowing with ones fingers, those phallic instruments, connected to ancient rites, where rubbing was the process of producing fire as pure libido, sexual element, phallus fingers invent the incestuos flame, in historical archetypes, here, because Jung always deals with archetypes and symbols. Is the nutritional sexual stage of eating the incest of ones parents? Jung doesn't say that. So I will. The biblical tale of three men thrown into the fire and emerging unscathed, is in fact the sexual trinity, pure coitus, orgasm from ancient hysteria, this phallic fire causes us much distress. Even in biblical allegory.
All of this to make a fun hypothetical point. The act of smoking. We return to the rubbing stage as our fingers roll the ball of the lighter to produce a flame, this fire is merely igniting our fathers penis. Hence the urge to always smoke after sex, and be finished off by our fathers, their phallic tobacco essence in the grip of our oral domain, the infantile sexual flame lights his penis, as we smoke it to it's edge, and breathe in his smoke as come, and here do we swallow or spit? Quite frankly, both. Bringing his seed within to the nutritional core of the infantile and spitting back out into the hemisphere.
All of this could also be reconciled with the cannibalisim of the mother, but that is an enirely different train of thought.
Our dementia to own our fathers sperm, as metaphor for phallic inter-dependance, is a slavish operation. One must be on the patch or devoted to staying far away from the historical sexual archetypal flame of the pure libido.
(Note: ) This is just poking fun at some of the actual ideas of Carl Jung's anayltical and philosophical investigation, and should in no way be taken serious as part of my actual views, I am merely demonstrating the many outrageous areas we can move into through psychoanalysis. | |
|
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/10/2007 11:48:21 AM | Necro Vine, fascinating thread you have going here! I am a regular lurker and have found it stimulating.
However, I am not sure I agree with your Jungian analysis of my smoking habit *smile. Quite interesting psychoanalysis tho! If you remove the father figure element tho, that was quite erotic and describes the oral and tactile sensation many of us do experience from smoking *smile. Of course that would defeat your whole point of delving into my subconscious *smile. | |
|
Hoop
|
Joined: 5/1/2006
Msg: 50 | |
| The impossible self re-imposed ( simulation Theory )
Posted: 11/11/2007 10:20:24 AM | Dad is 70.
I shared this with him. He did not find it amusing when I intimated that immediately after reading this, I could not take a drag without smiling and thinking of him.
Welcome back Necro! | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
