Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:01 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1204 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 49  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 10:56 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Aotearoa NZ
polydigm wrote:
FOWL wrote:
I find it funny people consider fascism to be "the far right". How could socialism ever be considered right wing!? But I guess the left right paradigm doesn't make any sense to begin with.

It's actually quite straight forward. Socialists ideally believe in some kind of equality for all citizens and it is that idea which is labelled left wing. The right wing is designated for those who believe in having the majority of the population subserviant to a ruling class. The nazis in Germany in the 1930s may have called themselves socialists but they did not believe in equality for all and that's what made them right wing.


how dare a group of socialists attempt to impress some kinda equality on all citizens :roll:

i feel that only the biggest corporations should dictate the terms !

..

_________________
image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5907
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
FOWL wrote:
The whole left right thing is basically just a muddy mess and there is no clear interpretation of what either means because there are millions of issues and they all arbitrarily seem to fall into a left or right category.

There's nothing arbitrary about it all. When you look at the colour grey as being a mix of white and black there's nothing arbitrary about the roles played by the elements of black and white.

FOWL wrote:
I tend to think of left right as a purely economic issue in it's most basic sense, the left meaning pool the wealth, and the right meaning, keep the wealth in private hands away from governments.

That's another way of saying the same thing I said and shows that you do understand what these two elements are and that they aren't arbitrary.

FOWL wrote:
Basically we've never seen either!

Analysing a situation by finding what appear to be fundamental poles at work is not necessarily about seeing one of the two poles coming to dominate exclusively. Looking at the interaction between electrons and protons in an atom involves realising that polar type relationships are fundamental to reality. Now I know that sociology is way less clear than Physics but there really isn't anything unclear about what is meant by left and right in politics. It is clear though that they are often misapplied.

FOWL wrote:
We've always been in some degree of a hellish quagmire of tyrannical socialism.

Before I answer that, who is "We" and what do you mean by "tyrannical socialism".

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5907
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
stride wrote:
polydigm wrote:
FOWL wrote:
I find it funny people consider fascism to be "the far right". How could socialism ever be considered right wing!? But I guess the left right paradigm doesn't make any sense to begin with.

It's actually quite straight forward. Socialists ideally believe in some kind of equality for all citizens and it is that idea which is labelled left wing. The right wing is designated for those who believe in having the majority of the population subserviant to a ruling class. The nazis in Germany in the 1930s may have called themselves socialists but they did not believe in equality for all and that's what made them right wing.


how dare a group of socialists attempt to impress some kinda equality on all citizens :roll:

i feel that only the biggest corporations should dictate the terms !

..

    :mrgreen:

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 2394
Location: Just N. of Boston, MA, USA
FOWL wrote:
The whole left right thing is basically just a muddy mess and there is no clear interpretation of what either means because there are millions of issues and they all arbitrarily seem to fall into a left or right category.

There's nothing arbitrary about it all. When you look at the colour grey as being a mix of white and black there's nothing arbitrary about the roles played by the elements of black and white.

FOWL wrote:
I tend to think of left right as a purely economic issue in it's most basic sense, the left meaning pool the wealth, and the right meaning, keep the wealth in private hands away from governments.

That's another way of saying the same thing I said and shows that you do understand what these two elements are and that they aren't arbitrary.

FOWL wrote:
Basically we've never seen either!

Analysing a situation by finding what appear to be fundamental poles at work is not necessarily about seeing one of the two poles coming to dominate exclusively. Looking at the interaction between electrons and protons in an atom involves realising that polar type relationships are fundamental to reality. Now I know that sociology is way less clear than Physics but there really isn't anything unclear about what is meant by left and right in politics. It is clear though that they are often misapplied.

FOWL wrote:
We've always been in some degree of a hellish quagmire of tyrannical socialism.

polydigm wrote:
Before I answer that, who is "We" and what do you mean by "tyrannical socialism".
polydigm wrote:
Analysing a situation by finding what appear to be fundamental poles at work is not necessarily about seeing one of the two poles coming to dominate exclusively. Looking at the interaction between electrons and protons in an atom involves realising that polar type relationships are fundamental to reality. Now I know that sociology is way less clear than Physics but there really isn't anything unclear about what is meant by left and right in politics. It is clear though that they are often misapplied.
Poly, I don't know what kind -- if there is such a thing or it's just your attempt at inventing it -- of thing you are trying to propose as a metaphysical analogy in that one paragraph but it is the first and only thing I've ever seen you post that is stupid. Nothing else, just stupid.

--Bat

_________________
Image<------PhotoArtWerk by debutante_daisy http://www.facebook.com/BatchainTheMovie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5907
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
Bat, in your post the quote ended up a bit messed up and it looks at the start like you're answering FOWL with exactly my words.

Also, you quoted the whole shooting match so it's not immediately clear which paragraph you're talking about, but I guess it's the last one.

Batchain1001 wrote:
polydigm wrote:
Analysing a situation by finding what appear to be fundamental poles at work is not necessarily about seeing one of the two poles coming to dominate exclusively. Looking at the interaction between electrons and protons in an atom involves realising that polar type relationships are fundamental to reality. Now I know that sociology is way less clear than Physics but there really isn't anything unclear about what is meant by left and right in politics. It is clear though that they are often misapplied.

Poly, I don't know what kind -- if there is such a thing or it's just your attempt at inventing it -- of thing you are trying to propose as a metaphysical analogy in that one paragraph but it is the first and only thing I've ever seen you post that is stupid. Nothing else, just stupid.


What I'm talking about there, and it was off the cuff - I'm not pretending it's particularly eloquent, is generally called dialectics and it's an idea that's appeared in many guises dating back at least to the Ancient Greeks and Plato and was also discussed by Hegel and Marx among others. The interplay between opposites. Would you care to expand on why you think what I've said is stupid?

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 2394
Location: Just N. of Boston, MA, USA
polydigm wrote:
Bat, in your post the quote ended up a bit messed up and it looks at the start like you're answering FOWL with exactly my words.

Also, you quoted the whole shooting match so it's not immediately clear which paragraph you're talking about, but I guess it's the last one.

Batchain1001 wrote:
polydigm wrote:
Analysing a situation by finding what appear to be fundamental poles at work is not necessarily about seeing one of the two poles coming to dominate exclusively. Looking at the interaction between electrons and protons in an atom involves realising that polar type relationships are fundamental to reality. Now I know that sociology is way less clear than Physics but there really isn't anything unclear about what is meant by left and right in politics. It is clear though that they are often misapplied.

Poly, I don't know what kind -- if there is such a thing or it's just your attempt at inventing it -- of thing you are trying to propose as a metaphysical analogy in that one paragraph but it is the first and only thing I've ever seen you post that is stupid. Nothing else, just stupid.


What I'm talking about there, and it was off the cuff - I'm not pretending it's particularly eloquent, is generally called dialectics and it's an idea that's appeared in many guises dating back at least to the Ancient Greeks and Plato and was also discussed by Hegel and Marx among others. The interplay between opposites. Would you care to expand on why you think what I've said is stupid?
Granted, the multiple quotation is a mess, so, to clarify this I'll now include which paragraph as I should have:The paragraph directly above my comment. (Specifically, "Dialectics" has it's origin in the Greek phrase, "Dialekte Tekhne" ["(The) art of conversation", i.e., contradictions made apparent by two opposing speakers] found in Plato's Symposium and many centuries later used in a much different, extended sense by G.W.F. Hegel ("thesis, antithesis, synthesis" used to describe "the historical process") and in a very different description of "the historical process" Karl Marx ("Dialectical Materialism").

You made an absurd jump from particle physics the sloppy gibberish of modern socio-political references of "left" and "right" as if they described something as well-established and factual as the behavior of protons, neutrons and electrons. That's not simply comparing *apples and oranges*, it's more like comparing *goldfish and bicycles*.

There, I think I've cleared up any confusion.

--Bat

_________________
Image<------PhotoArtWerk by debutante_daisy http://www.facebook.com/BatchainTheMovie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5907
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
Batchain1001 wrote:
polydigm wrote:
Bat, in your post the quote ended up a bit messed up and it looks at the start like you're answering FOWL with exactly my words.

Also, you quoted the whole shooting match so it's not immediately clear which paragraph you're talking about, but I guess it's the last one.

Batchain1001 wrote:
polydigm wrote:
Analysing a situation by finding what appear to be fundamental poles at work is not necessarily about seeing one of the two poles coming to dominate exclusively. Looking at the interaction between electrons and protons in an atom involves realising that polar type relationships are fundamental to reality. Now I know that sociology is way less clear than Physics but there really isn't anything unclear about what is meant by left and right in politics. It is clear though that they are often misapplied.

Poly, I don't know what kind -- if there is such a thing or it's just your attempt at inventing it -- of thing you are trying to propose as a metaphysical analogy in that one paragraph but it is the first and only thing I've ever seen you post that is stupid. Nothing else, just stupid.


What I'm talking about there, and it was off the cuff - I'm not pretending it's particularly eloquent, is generally called dialectics and it's an idea that's appeared in many guises dating back at least to the Ancient Greeks and Plato and was also discussed by Hegel and Marx among others. The interplay between opposites. Would you care to expand on why you think what I've said is stupid?
Granted, the multiple quotation is a mess, so, to clarify this I'll now include which paragraph as I should have:The paragraph directly above my comment. (Specifically, "Dialectics" has it's origin in the Greek phrase, "Dialekte Tekhne" ["(The) art of conversation", i.e., contradictions made apparent by two opposing speakers] found in Plato's Symposium and many centuries later used in a much different, extended sense by G.W.F. Hegel ("thesis, antithesis, synthesis" used to describe "the historical process") and in a very different description of "the historical process" Karl Marx ("Dialectical Materialism").

You made an absurd jump from particle physics the sloppy gibberish of modern socio-political references of "left" and "right" as if they described something as well-established and factual as the behavior of protons, neutrons and electrons. That's not simply comparing *apples and oranges*, it's more like comparing *goldfish and bicycles*.

There, I think I've cleared up any confusion.

--Bat

It was purely mentioned as a very simple example of a polar opposition that is mutually exclusive. You have to admit that the left/right opposition between the extremes of total social ownership and total private ownership is also a simple example of a mutually exclusive opposition. I wasn't claiming that understanding an atom would help you understand society. I did say, to be fair, "Now I know that sociology is way less clear than Physics".

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 2394
Location: Just N. of Boston, MA, USA
polydigm wrote:
Batchain1001 wrote:
polydigm wrote:
Bat, in your post the quote ended up a bit messed up and it looks at the start like you're answering FOWL with exactly my words.

Also, you quoted the whole shooting match so it's not immediately clear which paragraph you're talking about, but I guess it's the last one.

Batchain1001 wrote:
polydigm wrote:
Analysing a situation by finding what appear to be fundamental poles at work is not necessarily about seeing one of the two poles coming to dominate exclusively. Looking at the interaction between electrons and protons in an atom involves realising that polar type relationships are fundamental to reality. Now I know that sociology is way less clear than Physics but there really isn't anything unclear about what is meant by left and right in politics. It is clear though that they are often misapplied.

Poly, I don't know what kind -- if there is such a thing or it's just your attempt at inventing it -- of thing you are trying to propose as a metaphysical analogy in that one paragraph but it is the first and only thing I've ever seen you post that is stupid. Nothing else, just stupid.


What I'm talking about there, and it was off the cuff - I'm not pretending it's particularly eloquent, is generally called dialectics and it's an idea that's appeared in many guises dating back at least to the Ancient Greeks and Plato and was also discussed by Hegel and Marx among others. The interplay between opposites. Would you care to expand on why you think what I've said is stupid?
Granted, the multiple quotation is a mess, so, to clarify this I'll now include which paragraph as I should have:The paragraph directly above my comment. (Specifically, "Dialectics" has it's origin in the Greek phrase, "Dialekte Tekhne" ["(The) art of conversation", i.e., contradictions made apparent by two opposing speakers] found in Plato's Symposium and many centuries later used in a much different, extended sense by G.W.F. Hegel ("thesis, antithesis, synthesis" used to describe "the historical process") and in a very different description of "the historical process" Karl Marx ("Dialectical Materialism").

You made an absurd jump from particle physics the sloppy gibberish of modern socio-political references of "left" and "right" as if they described something as well-established and factual as the behavior of protons, neutrons and electrons. That's not simply comparing *apples and oranges*, it's more like comparing *goldfish and bicycles*.

There, I think I've cleared up any confusion.

--Bat

It was purely mentioned as a very simple example of a polar opposition that is mutually exclusive. You have to admit that the left/right opposition between the extremes of total social ownership and total private ownership is also a simple example of a mutually exclusive opposition. I wasn't claiming that understanding an atom would help you understand society. I did say, to be fair, "Now I know that sociology is way less clear than Physics".
Oh, yes, you did say sociology is way less clear than physics (Although I personally wonder about that!) but I've always had trouble with socialism (the nationalization of ownership, allegedly administered on behalf of the public) and total private ownership. They begin to resemble each other more and more as ownership is held by fewer and fewer. Doesn't the now-collapsed "Global Communist Threat" resemble the Capitalist's ultimate dream? Ownership of many nations with an aggressive aspiration to own all nations with political power held by a very few? And a so-called "Free-Market Capitalism" becoming a "Global Economy" of fewer and fewer "international corporations" in possession of all ownership and all political power held, once again, by a very few?
The names they're known by are very different but aren't they, in practice, entirely identical?

--Bat

_________________
Image<------PhotoArtWerk by debutante_daisy http://www.facebook.com/BatchainTheMovie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:48 pm
Posts: 7
A Thousand Splendid Suns. what an amazing book.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:03 pm
Posts: 6098
Location: Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
Image

_________________
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5907
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
Batchain1001 wrote:
polydigm wrote:
...You have to admit that the left/right opposition between the extremes of total social ownership and total private ownership is ... a simple example of a mutually exclusive opposition ...
... I've always had trouble with socialism (the nationalization of ownership, allegedly administered on behalf of the public) and total private ownership. They begin to resemble each other more and more as ownership is held by fewer and fewer. Doesn't the now-collapsed "Global Communist Threat" resemble the Capitalist's ultimate dream? Ownership of many nations with an aggressive aspiration to own all nations with political power held by a very few? And a so-called "Free-Market Capitalism" becoming a "Global Economy" of fewer and fewer "international corporations" in possession of all ownership and all political power held, once again, by a very few?
The names they're known by are very different but aren't they, in practice, entirely identical?

If you're saying that the version of Socialism in the Soviet Union was not much better than the Capitalism of the West then I agree. But, just because the disempowerment of the majority of people in the former Soviet Union might be indistinguishable from that in the West, doesn't mean Socialism is indistinguishable from Capitalism. It just means that what was happening in the Soviet Union was a very flawed and limited attempt at Socialism and the human race in general is still a long way from getting it's collective act together.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:19 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Texas Motel
On Writing by Samuel R. Delany.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 2243
I think I'm going to read 'Malone Dies' by Samuel Beckett. I'm not sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 2394
Location: Just N. of Boston, MA, USA
polydigm wrote:
Batchain1001 wrote:
polydigm wrote:
...You have to admit that the left/right opposition between the extremes of total social ownership and total private ownership is ... a simple example of a mutually exclusive opposition ...
... I've always had trouble with socialism (the nationalization of ownership, allegedly administered on behalf of the public) and total private ownership. They begin to resemble each other more and more as ownership is held by fewer and fewer. Doesn't the now-collapsed "Global Communist Threat" resemble the Capitalist's ultimate dream? Ownership of many nations with an aggressive aspiration to own all nations with political power held by a very few? And a so-called "Free-Market Capitalism" becoming a "Global Economy" of fewer and fewer "international corporations" in possession of all ownership and all political power held, once again, by a very few?
The names they're known by are very different but aren't they, in practice, entirely identical?

If you're saying that the version of Socialism in the Soviet Union was not much better than the Capitalism of the West then I agree. But, just because the disempowerment of the majority of people in the former Soviet Union might be indistinguishable from that in the West, doesn't mean Socialism is indistinguishable from Capitalism. It just means that what was happening in the Soviet Union was a very flawed and limited attempt at Socialism and the human race in general is still a long way from getting it's collective act together.
As I see it the historical norm is tumult, war and ignorance accompanied by a very small ruling class while there are only very brief, ephemeral oases of moderation gapping that norm and we're now witnessing how rapidly our own brief respite from the norm can pass.
Not something I find very agreeable at all.

--Bat

_________________
Image<------PhotoArtWerk by debutante_daisy http://www.facebook.com/BatchainTheMovie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 6993
Location: exile
FeralCats wrote:
I think I'm going to read 'Malone Dies' by Samuel Beckett. I'm not sure.


oh, you should. it's an uplifting, feel-good read... 8)

_________________
"bit of nostalgia for the old folks."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:43 am
Posts: 538
Location: Oslo, Norway
Image

Hilarious and interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:54 am
Posts: 4295
Location: En-Ger-Land
Oooh peerdiem, Im liking the look of that book....heh.

I'm currently reading a book about Evacuees during the Second World War, which is really interesting. What those poor kids had to go through, they must have been terrified. When you compare those kids and how strong they had to be with the way some kids behave nowadays, it really makes you think.

_________________
"Listen to that noise! It's like Barry White eating wasps."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:16 pm
Posts: 1037
Location: Various woods
FeralCats wrote:
I think I'm going to read 'Malone Dies' by Samuel Beckett. I'm not sure.


Make sure you've read 'Molloy' first, tho.

_________________
www.freewebs.com/simonking - an unacknowledged literary prodigy
simonking1.blogspot.com - an angry recluse's written outpourings


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 2243
pigs03 wrote:
FeralCats wrote:
I think I'm going to read 'Malone Dies' by Samuel Beckett. I'm not sure.


Make sure you've read 'Molloy' first, tho.


I did. It didn't thrill me as much as I thought it would. I'm liking 'Malone' much more so far..though I think after this it'll be another 3-4 months before I try 'The Unnameable'.

(Also, is there a particular reason I should have read Molloy first? I read that Beckett particularly said that he didn't want the three considered a trilogy.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 6993
Location: exile
FeralCats wrote:
(Also, is there a particular reason I should have read Molloy first? I read that Beckett particularly said that he didn't want the three considered a trilogy.)


it doesn't matter what order you read them in.

beckett's writings were always timeless.

_________________
"bit of nostalgia for the old folks."


Last edited by Lumpy Gravy on Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 8:35 am
Posts: 1068
Location: Sweden
Image

_________________
There WILL come a time when everybody in the world they will be free to sing and dance and love : )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 10:46 pm
Posts: 1017
Location: Loire valley, France
Quote:

EDIT: Also, right now I'm reading 'Gargantua and Pantagruel' by Francois Rabelais. Great book, completley filthy, filthy stuff. Masterpiece. I reccomend it to anyone, I wish I could read it in French. Was this really written in the 1500's?


Yes, indeed. Talk about timeless books !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
South of No North - Bukowski


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:54 am
Posts: 4295
Location: En-Ger-Land
M'boy bought this for me...aint he sweet. 8)

Image

"Compendium of popular misconceptions, misunderstandings and common mistakes culled from the hit BBC show, QI. Published to coincide with the fourth series broadcast in September 2006. If, like Alan Davies, you still think that Henry VIII had six wives, the earth has only one moon, that George Washington was the first president of the USA, that Bangkok is the capital of Thailand, that the largest living thing is a blue whale, that Alexander Graeme Bell invented the telephone, that whisky and bagpipes come from Scotland or that Mount Everest is the world's tallest mountain, then there are at least 200 reasons why this is the book for you."

_________________
"Listen to that noise! It's like Barry White eating wasps."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 14768
I"m "reading" (okay, listening to the audio book) of Walt Disney:Triumph of the American Imagination. Interesting so far (13 hours in and it's up to Pinocchio).

_________________
One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1204 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 49  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group