dubsola wrote:I too enjoy reading his writing, perhaps he has never heard the phrase 'brevity is wit', however, it cannot be denied that I chuckle at each and every paragraph, as they not only are chock full of elegant turns of phrase, but undeniably dripping with verbal diarrhea. I kid, I kid! williamager, please continue to write - you are awesome. Your analysis of veneer was both enjoyable to read and entirely correct. I would have probably phrased it thus: 'Fuck veneer', but that's just me.
I have heard "brevity is the soul of wit", but we must keep in mind that it was said by Polonius, who might not be the best character to comment on verbosity. I'm actually rather sceptical of all the advice he gave: Hamlet was probably true to himself, but it did not follow as the night the day that he was not false to Polonius; the same may be said for Laertes to Hamlet.
I am capable of writing more concisely, as the computer gives me great freedom to pare down a text to a (hopefully) much more powerful and much shorter argument, but doing so would vastly increase the amount of time I would require for each post.
Regarding Requiem for a dream: I had to turn it off about 20 minutes in, feeling very ill, and I feel no desire to try again. Something about the use of camera made me far too queasy to continue watching.
I've never actually seen the film at all, though this hasn't hindered me from babbling at length about the subject here.
Clerria wrote:Ah yes sorry. I live in Austin : P I know far too many lesbians and gay people, who could care less if I use gay to refer to the "lame" definition of the word. So for those of you who get offended,... in a sense, I don't care. : ) I'm not an asshole, I just have a good (read: off) sense of humor.
I answered what I thought was the more pertinent question.
How can one know too many people? One can know so many as to be unable to remember them all, but is that undesirable? On the matter of the word "gay", I believe it has been tarnished by having too many unrelated definitions. You could equally well have meant that Zen is a joyous word. I'm rather irked by the fact that a group of people have stolen the word away from its original definition in a way such that it can scarcely be used now. It wasn't very considerate of them.
TigerX wrote:I was terribly daunted when I joined here less than a week ago, I've come from my university forum where the community was tiny and I knew most people in a real world basis already...and I was sort of a resident smarty pants...here I'm regularly reminded of how utterly average my intellect actually is, which is a welcome and humbling experience...although, that said, someone somewhere equated IQ with nerdiness which bothered me a tad, one can be exceptionally bright and know next to nothing about the world of science, surely?...but that's beside the point...there's a slight comfort in the vague sense of anonymity to be found here, I think, and there's always the option to create more personal relationships with people if some common ground can be found.
IQ and nerdiness are certainly not equivalent. Nerdiness itself is a rather ill-defined term, and there are likely as many different opinions on its meaning as people who use the word. In my view, the trait has more to do with personality than knowledge, and doesn't necessarily require an involvement with the world of science, unless one uses 'science' in the very broadest of senses. It could be said that being nerdy generally suggests a higher IQ, but the reverse is certainly not true. However, I dislike IQ in general, feeling that it attempts to crush the multifaceted and complex concept of intelligence into a single numerical measure that treats the diverse as identical, and that it tries to distil the mind, a object of such beauty and wonder, into a single number, wholly bereft of the life of the original.
DAVINA wrote:And the Poe subject runs parallel...Some people (see: musicians, painters, etc) take drugs because they have so much to say and it can't come out any other way. It's in their head, yes, they don't need drugs to THINK it, they need drugs to EXPRESS it. And the biggest question everyone asks is 'Why am I here?' Everyone wants to leave their mark on history, and if you have to smoke pot to write the song that gets you remembered after you're gone, isn't that the point? You can argue that taking drugs is cheating at this process, that it's entirely possible to write a song without getting stoned, and that I'm high right now. But Poe's work IS mo' betta when he was ripped. Dave Matthews DOES write more interesting songs when he is high. And personally, as an artist, I enjoy looking at or hearing my work much better when I did it under the influence. Maybe it's not 'good' but that all depends on what a person wants to accomplish in their own life. Drugs become 'bad' when they cut off your desire to accomplish anything. But if they help you accomplish your dreams, how is that bad?
It can be bad because one cannot always have a full understanding of the consequences of such actions. I'm not convinced that Poe would have chosen the life he lead in order to be a great writer, as drugs made him miserable for much of his life, and he died in a most wretched state. When I started sleeping less, it was with understanding of the immediate consequences, but I could not have known how those would effect other matters, and thus create further, far different consequences. Luckily, sleep deprivation is not overly addictive; but with heroin, one could easily choose with what one believes is full knowledge, and then later find to one's horror that very different results ensued. But we should perhaps put this topic to rest, for it would not be considerate for us to turn the Confessional Thread into the Consequences of Drug Use Thread.
And finally, since I've posted so much nonsense to this thread without having actually included any confessions, I will make one now:
Confession: I've never posted in any intro thread on this forum.