The Locking of the Avril Thread

I don't know, I'm just sore 'cause I felt like that Calum thread was almost harmless fun, he was taking his ribbing fairly well (except for his predictable "oh my mood is dark now that the question of vivisection has been raised) (note to Calum: I'm vegetarian and dig deep into my pockets when it's time to fight animal cruelty, so don't assume that I don't care, 'cause I do, it's just that your manner makes people wish ill on animals, which is counterproductive) and it was almost healthy, y'know - I dunno, it seemed pretty random. I know that mods are allowed to random and that's cool. It's just that that thread seemed like a fair bit of fun.

Aw, just teasin', sir. :-)

It's just that that thread seemed like a fair bit of fun.

In part this is why Dan and Tombot will be hashing out the standards more thoroughly here soon, partially so that way there's flexibility to deal with situations like this while at the same time making it clear what the basics are for posters and mods alike. However, in this case Andrew chose to lock it -- not something he does very often -- and as he is the machine maintainer and Server God both I defer to his judgment. If anything I would have locked it after the first post.

I wouldn't even have bothered reading that C-Man thread, except that I saw this thread so of course I then HAD to read the other one. Seemed OK to me. J0hn I think you're dead wrong about Avril - she's cute!

http://www.thehorrorpost.com/frontpage.htm click on calum corner.

FUCK YOU Darn1elle -- Dan and I have dibs on that.

Well, obviously, every new-country person is sub-Shania because Shania is a goddess. Avril is cute.

RJG Andrew is not a dickhead, can we not name-call pls

QED I am kinda slow

I idly note that it is his strategy to seem like this at times.

COUSIN LARRY!!!!!!!

http://www.bronsonpinchot.20m.com/images/psgrp_bl.jpg

right the H.M.S. Avril Thread is like a luxury liner only Captain Waddell is insane and is steering it toward a terrible vortex which will transport everybody to a Stone Roses concert and everybody on board is, like, me, an' shit, and so we all really hate the Stone Roses except for "Fool's Gold" which is obviously genius, but we know from the closed-circuit that they already done played that one and sure an' nobody wants to hear anything else by those guys so we're all storming the captain's cabin, and we can hear the second-tier britpop bands blaring through his boombox and it's makin' us crazy, but somehow we get in, but the shit-waves from the bad music cause the gears to gum shut and now we're gonna see the Stone Roses whether we like it or not, omg The Locking of the Avril Thread coming this summer to a wall in a hangar someplace during an acidhouse rave near you

http://content.clearchannel.com/Photos/male_celebrities/joe_pantoliano_HBO.jpg

http://nf.wh3rd.net/files/ilx/avrilsnl1.jpg http://nf.wh3rd.net/files/ilx/avrilsnl2.jpg
http://nf.wh3rd.net/files/ilx/avrilsnl3.jpg http://nf.wh3rd.net/files/ilx/avrilsnl4.jpg

Elaborate.

(xxpost)

But the new "I'm not giving it up, no way" song is almost perfect.

*chokes*

(xxpost)

I meant the thing in the dress. Why's it holding a guitar?

yes but that was the point of "carrie", right?? it is only at the end of the movie when she is soaked in sweet, sweet blood, doing her wet t-shirt bit and fucking shit up telekinetically that she finally becomes sexy and womanly in opposition to her neuterizing mother and insecur-izing classmates.

milo's picture makes her look awful but i like the pink print metallica shirt.

http://www.katieholmespictures.com/pictures/caps/mpoa/kh_5.jpg

leee can't see them because they're cached on his computer.

http://www.katieholmespictures.com/images/video/film/poadvd/kh_61.JPG
http://www.katieholmespictures.com/pictures/caps/mpoa/kh_5.jpg

This thread has been rocked by a moderator.

there is a party called "liberal democrats". they don't do much though.

Milo, would _Pieces of April_ be less twee if the Mag. Fields soundtrack were replaced by Neurosis or Deicide?

http://www.avril.cn/images/avril-lavigne-9.jpg http://www.olmstedpublicworks.com/parks/park%20graphics/oxbowpics/raccoon.jpg

A) ILX is obsessed with me (especially the hstencil guy who is sooo desperate to rip me a new asshole he inadvertedly ripped a friend of mine's one in the process and THEN started on me only after he saw his fault. Fucking moron).

B) Avril Lavigne is well hot. Love these lips!

hstencil: get a life dude. I'm flattered that you want to spend so much time on me, but it's only taking up valuable time that you could be spending doing something far more worthwhile for this world... and yourself.

WAX ON, WAX OFF!

(P.S. If you drop me an email I'll send you some more pics. I'm happy to oblige).

xpost

PAINT THE FENCE!

Calum Robert Waddell is fair game? Oh good.

Calum to be fair I don't think you get to complain about people who've made their point already and who continue to go on & on & on & on & on & on & on long after everybody'd gotten the point & moved on

"beautiful insightful avril thread!
what a pity andrew nf rendered it dead
all those thoughts and opinions forevermore stopped
when the devil of wh3rd rendered it locked

In the summer of the year two thousand and four
when young calum's threads had become such a bore...

(etc etc for something like 100 verses)

probably not quite, but still pretty damned harrowing. to my dismay, not the best date movie.

Except when someone takes advantage of that to assume it is an indulgence on the mods part and therefore open to abuse.

http://jacketmagazine.com/11/px/seven-poussin.jpg

The Locking of the Avril Thread

or would it be bosch?

We’re building fires that will burn until morning
The smell of books and hot stone surround us
Tough is the leather that strapped to my skin
Strong are the bonds that we make
We feel the steam as it rises around us
Up from the soil that is cracking it’s back
Tough is the leather that strapped to my skin
Strong are the bonds that sing
Work till you’re musclebound all night long
Work till you’re musclebound all night long
Gotta work till you’re musclebound all night long
Gotta work till you’re musclebound all night long

(aka, any given day in a mod's life)

I just want to chime in that I agree with this. It makes no sense to lock a thread just because of who starts it rather than because there's any offensive content in it.

stupid threads include ones started because the author didn't use the search function first (tho fair enough if they state they did but found nothing tho another poster may know of a previous thread)

they also include threads that are repetition in premise e.g. most of calum's threads. nodody else really does that, that's why they get so much attention when discussing this issue. they make a few people laugh (but for the fifth/tenth/fiftieth time tho?) but seem to irritate more. if anything most people are indifferent and ignore them and that's fair enough too. there appears to be no 'solution' to this 'problem'. but surely everyone would agree that making the same not-that-funny-in-the-first-place joke over and over again on a much loved and valued message board is bad form? the 'tone' of them seems 'disrespectful' as well as half-baked opinions are spouted without real foundation. not that this is offensive, just kinda annoying really.

i don't mind the copycat threads so much altho i guess that joke wears pretty thin pretty quick too.

More proof that lockism is the new rockism -- authentication is to lockism what authenticity is to rockism!

I don't care who starts a thread! If it's interesting, it has a right to live. It should only be aborted if it contains something really scary. The thread I linked had nothing wrong with it whatsoever. I agree with J0hn -- positive re-inforcement is the only solution. What's wrong with someone trying to show they're a good citizen? Even if it's a ruse, if it's taken at face value it may well settle into a permanent attitude. As for 'tiring', the tiring thing is surely running around trying to lock any and every thread by a particular poster. At the moment all anyone is proving is that Calum is right when he says 'ILX is obsessed with me'. He must be loving it.

Do you think this is perhaps getting into territory too arbitrary to justify 'punitive' moderator action? Like the thread Momus linked - it was totally harmless. If someone else had started it it would not have been locked, I don't think. I would have probably ignored it as much as I ignore every other thread about Britpop stars I've never heard but I don't see why it's worse than many other threads. And the REM vs Charlatans thread - that's a straight musical question (unless there's some joke about the Charlatans I'm missing out on - I've never heard them). These are no more 'ridiculous' than lots of (possibly better-written) threads that go on anyway (dave q's Microstoria vs Nazareth; my Doobie Brothers vs Chemical Brothers; Mark R's Alva Noto vs Aldo Nova).

I find that lately I agree with Momus a lot more than I used to. Perhaps it is because I am getting older and abandoning my once idealistic ways.

You know they say if you aren't anti-Momus when you're young then you've got no soul, and if you haven't become part of Momus by the time you're old then you've got no brain.

shit i'm agreeing with momus here..

if we ban all cman stuff apart from the ones that have interesting potential (few and far between i know), then we're going to have interesting threads, and calum will be pissed off knowing that he's done something constructive, and will probably leave in tears to stuff his face with food to make it even bigger. everybody's happy.

wow we can turn calum into a clockwork orange

But certainly the Vs thread was fine. And Norm is welcome to review for my column.

When, based on months upon months of idiocy, there is little reason to believe it. Very, very little. And when he does try and be 'serious' he does so only to set people up and make them believe he's somehow better. For myself, and only for myself I'll emphasize, I find that boring.

I'm not even Calum's 2nd biggest fan, but stopping all threads he creates just because he created them isn't really fair, and I don't think it's productive.

Recently I replied to a thread started by what seemed to be a random Googler asking a bunch of sex-related questions. None of my replies were serious, some were intended to be funny and others were just kinda mean. At least one other ilx0r objected saying that even a thread started by a random Googler could turn into a reasonable discussion if people just answered the question seriously instead of dogpiling on the person who started it because they write in AOLese (lol!!!1) or have shitty grammar.

While I disagree that humor (even lowbrow and childish humor) shouldn't be an option for replying to any thread, I do agree with the point that just about any thread can morph into a serious (or at least worthwhile) discussion even if it doesn't start as one or doesn't look promising from the outset.

pot meet kettle, calum!!

I'll see if I can find anything interesting to say about "Aguirre" after I've watched it. Word rates as applicable from previous writing work I assume?

1. A lot of bridges with shadowy arches, stalagtites, etc.
2. A history of oppression by the English, resulting in intense resentment of authority figures.

P.S. Like I said, I don't have much of a problem with Ned. I'm sure he's a perfectly decent guy *OVER A BEER*

But I'd like to think that while I'm not a perfect person by any means, and that there's plenty of stupid things I've done and plenty of things I still have to work on improving, that hopefully I've shown enough of whatever my good side is to enough of you -- on-line, in person, whatever -- that you can understand that I find the patronizing idiocy of this abusive, obnoxious little fuckup, his shifting stances, his claims it's ALL a joke, his pathetic attempts to butter up just after he's been spewing, his clinging to high-minded statements to justify his behavior here to be beneath contempt.

Yeah, there's something 'good' there in him. But I'll be damned if it ever actually shows. And I'm not interested in playing his game in order to see what appears. I haven't maintained every friendship I could and that eats at me sometimes. But at least I know I didn't start each friendship with an attitude best summed up as "Hey, can I piss in your mouth some more? Oh you don't like that? FUCK YOU FOR NOT GETTING MY JOKE HA HA HA HA I'm so much better than you!"

P.S. Like I said, I don't have much of a problem with Ned Calum. I'm sure he's a perfectly decent guy *OVER A BEER LANDMINE*

what's white and looks good on c-man?

WHO WILL RID US OF THIS SCOURGE?

WHERE, OH WHERE CAN AN INNOCENT ILXor GO TO TALK WITH OTHERS? WILL THIS THREAD DROUGHT NEVER END?

But what if that's exactly what you were doing? What if you were contributing to the likelihood that he'll play one game rather than another, and a worse one at that?

P.S. I'd be a fair and respectable moderator.

-- C-Man

Okay I have to admit that this is really funny.

at the end of the movie it's gonna turn out Momus is Calum's dad and Momus has known it all along but Calum didn't because his mom is Trevor Brown's wife* and she & the M agreed to never again speak of that blissful, heated exchange at the Queensferry Museum on that fateful afternoon all those years ago

*yes I know there are problems with this but just let me run with it k thx bye

Calum does! He thinks of them every day! If it weren't for Calum nobody would write anything about them at all

Suddenly all humble and quiet and nice. I wonder why? I wonder who will fall for it?

will these remain unanswered?

Sundar -- thank you. I'm not expecting everyone to have a complete knowledge of all the kinds of threads he starts or posts he makes but if you combine that with what I still think is my accurate take on his personality, then I'd like to think it's a bit clearer.

I'm now almost a Vice staffer, I'll be helping them set up a Tokyo office over the summer! We're trying to turn Japanese kids on to Pat Buchanan, it's great!

Indeed. Upthread I said that locking all Calum threads isn't fair and isn't productive, and I do think that, but when the time comes for the Final Confrontation I'll still lace up my boots in Ned's camp.

Nah. Instead I think we should reduce something to an overly simplistic binary and then argue about its two poles even though they've left out a great deal of the original pre-binary-reduction concept.

That will not be difficult considering the Japanese isolationist tendency.

xpost Dan I seriously considered making that comment, but I decided that there's no place for humor in such a serious discussion.

'I once heard a horrible, horrible man (my biological dad) say, "An Irishman is just a nigger turned inside out." Though that quote is wrong for a plethora of reasons, it can be effectively used to describe punks, who are essentially frat boys turned inside out.'

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v11n5/htdocs/frats.php

(still an enjoyable movie)

B-B-But the author used the word "plethora!"

I learned a new emoticon from this thread. It's a success!

is that the "bored" or "generally blase" or "ennui" emoticon?

I enjoyed Pieces of April....i give it this emoticon : )

It's funny because the loathing is recognisable. It's a voice and a sentiment we know. We loathe our own kin with a special vehemence.

As it stands, though, I don't find that line funny at all. This really shouldn't be a surprise as the only thing I've ever read in Vice that I thought was funny was the "Don't" where they captioned a picture of an anorexic girl walking down the street with comments along the lines of "JESUS CHRIST! PUT DOWN THE BURGER, FATTY!!!"

Anyway, you still haven't addressed the point that calling someone an Irishman is not the same thing as calling someone a nigger and how neither of those is like calling someone a punk or a frat boy.

Often the "my parent (or grandparent or whatever) is a rascist and listen to this stupid thing they said" comment intended as humor is another poor attempt at "I totally see where you're coming from even though I'm white."

I've actually been guilty of this myself a couple times, and I always felt completely shit about it later on account of I probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place since it's neither anecdotally funny nor particularly useful. (I mean when would that info be useful other than a situation like "as my non-white significant-other-about-to-meet-my-rascist-family, I just want to give you this warning?")

(Note that my folks aren't rascist at all, but I do have other relatives who are to varying degrees in in varying states of denial.)

big multiple xpost

On behalf of the WASP Nativists, Orthodox Jews, Dominicans, Haitians and Puerto Ricans, I'd like to extend a big New York FUCK YOU.

I'm sorry, you can't all be bottom of the heap. Form a queue!

This is probably true, actually.

Also, J0hn so OTM that I'm doing a little dance in my seat and coming up with the melody to a new song I'm going to call "J0hn OTFM."

hstencil in not understanding a damn thing about European demographics, history or class issues non-shocker.

The Scottish minister with responsibility for the fire service has resigned following reports that he described firefighters as "fascist bastards".

Robert Durward, a Lanarkshire businessman, has joined forces with Mark Adams - a former Downing Street civil servant once accused of leaking Cabinet papers to undermine Tony Blair’s government - to launch the right-wing New Party, with plans to field candidates in the next Scottish parliamentary elections.

Until now, the pair have been reluctant to go into detail about the party’s policies, and doubts have been cast on whether the party exists as anything other than a publicity campaign to draw attention to Mr Durward’s lengthy list of pet hates.

Yesterday Mr Durward, who has spoken out against environmentalists and "witchhunts" against drink drivers, and once suggested allowing the army to run schools and hospitals, finally came out into the open to defend his involvement and to counter claims of fascism.

"I’m certainly not a dictator, I’ve no intentions of being a dictator," he said.

"My staff think this is hilarious, by the way. I’ve been getting a certain type of salute when I appear every morning, but it is certainly a bit hurtful to be called a fascist. That is the last thing I am."

Efforts are being made to prevent a leading member of the far-right Belgian party Vlaams Blok visiting the Scottish parliament.

MSPs say they are horrified that Dominiek Lootens-Stael, the party's leader on the Brussels regional parliament and a member of the Flemish parliament, will be in a Flemish delegation making a four-day visit to Holyrood next month.

Anger as Scottish presiding officer approves visit by far-right Belgian MP

Vlaams Blok (Flemish Bloc), which has been likened to the British National party, was barred from visiting the Welsh assembly last week by its presiding officer, Dafydd Elis Thomas.

But the Holyrood presiding officer, George Reid, has approved the visit, against the advice of the Foreign Office, which warned Holyrood about the party's background.

Yesterday, the Scottish Labour party and the Scottish National party demanded that Mr Reid veto the trip.

"Extremists are abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of Scots," Shona Robison, the SNP social justice spokeswoman, said.

She added: "I believe their views to be racist and they must not be given a shred of legitimacy."

Hague noted the dramatic increase in cultural organisations such as St. Andrews Societies and Caledonian Groups, which celebrate Highland Games, Burns Nights, bagpipes, clan genealogy and tartan. In 1969, 20 groups across the US organised Highland Games. Now there are 200 such groups.

In part, these activities are harmless, if not to everyone's taste. At the same time Dr. Hague brought out the distinct militarism, the celebration of a muscular backwardness--drinking and throwing trees--and the distinctly all-white character of most of the proceedings.

They also reflect the search for an identity that apparently has nothing to do with contemporary, socially polarised America. One man interviewed at a Caledonian event told Dr. Hague, "I think the clans have nothing to do with how people usually sort themselves, e.g., by class, race, sexuality, or whatever."

Of the promotion of a wider "Celtic identity", Hague says, "An added level of this spectacle is that much of it perceives a wider Celtic relationship between Scotland, Ireland and Wales, all conjoined in an anti-English bloc. Thus, in the construction of Scottishness understood in the United States, Celtic imagery and cultural commodities are to the fore. This is seen in the associations made between Scotland and Ireland in 'Celtic festivals' across the United States and in the Hollywood film, Braveheart.

"What is appealing about asserting a strong Celtic Scottishness within this imagination of Scotland? They [the Celts] are the original primordial folk and it is their culture and community that are embedded in Scotland. Deeply and spiritually immersed in, and at one with, the physical territory of Scotland, the purity of the Celts is understood by many in the Scottish American community to have been corrupted by Anglicisation."

This interest is not confined to the traditionally right-wing Caledonian Societies. Southern secessionists and outright fascist groups have both adopted a version of Scottish history as their own, and celebrate Celtic culture.

Contemporary Southern secessionist Dr. Michael Hill, leader of the racist League of the South, said in 1997, "Our Anglo-Celtic Southern culture and its history, heroes, songs, symbols, and banners are under attack and their defence could serve as an immediate rallying point. But we should go beyond that to the task of educating our people about their ties ... the names and deeds of William Wallace, Andrew de Moray, Robert Bruce.... Sir James (the Black) Douglas, James Graham of Montrose among scores of others should become commonplace." All these are from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries of the feudal era in Scotland.

The connection between the Southern right and Scotland has a historic progeny. The Ku Klux Klan is said to have been formed by emigrant Scots cavalry officers within the Confederate Army in 1860. Its oaths were imported from the Society of the Horseman's Word in North East Scotland, and the burning cross was used as a call to arms by Scottish clans in the fourteenth century. The Confederate flag bears a distinct resemblance to the Scots Saltire.

The sinister and openly fascistic Christian Identity is viewed as one of the more influential fascist networks in America. It has circulated 50,000 copies of the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath championing Scottish independence. Christian Identity view all "Celtic" races including Scots, Irish, Welsh, regional English, as descendants of the 10 tribes of Israel, with the Scots being the "purest". Jewish people by contrast are described as descendants of the devil.

The Scotsman newspaper interviewed Thomas Leyden, a former white supremacist, who told of a visit to an Aryan Nation's compound in Oregon where haggis and bagpipes were as praised as Hitler's brownshirts and the Ku Klux Klan. Leyden told the Scotsman, "There is an image they like to cultivate of tough, hardy people in the Highlands who fight a London government which cares nothing for its culture or its people."

On March 20 last year, the US Senate passed a resolution inaugurating an annual Tartan Day every April 6. This is to "recognize the outstanding achievements and contributions made by Scottish Americans to the United States". Tartan Day emerged after several years of campaigning by the Scottish Coalition of business and heritage groups. Though it won Democratic backing, the Republican right, most notably party leaders Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich, heavily promoted the Tartan Day resolution. Lott had moved the resolution for three years running before it was finally passed.

The resolution bizarrely claims the Declaration of Arbroath as the inspiration of the US Declaration of Independence. It goes on, "This resolution honors the major role that Scottish Americans played in the founding of this Nation, such as the fact that almost half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were of Scottish descent, the Governors in 9 of the original 13 states were of Scottish ancestry, Scottish Americans successfully shaped this country in its formative years and guided this Nation through its most troubled times."

Linking the Arbroath declaration of the late Middle Ages with the Declaration of Independence--a document inspired by the progressive ideas of the Enlightenment--is at best highly dubious. But it encapsulates the right wing's preoccupation with Scotland. As Hague explains, "Scottish identity in the USA is substantially more than just romantic nonsense. Scottishness in the USA is constructed within a specific political rhetoric.... Tartan Day reasserts the authentic, original America, using as a route to this an assertion of Scottish ethnicity and Scottish tradition.... Today's society, by contrast, is perceived to be amoral and superficial, whereas the 'ancient' Scottish and especially Celtic traditions are understood as authentic and spiritual.

"This Scotland is strongly imagined in terms of being white, militaristic and family oriented. Such opinions tally with the US political right, and hence it is no surprise when Republican and right-wing conservative leaders sponsor Tartan Day."

The Scottish National Party raises support and maintains an office in the US, and its recruiting leaflets are circulated at Celtic fairs and events. Hague warned them: "Scottishness in the USA is tied up in a politics much further to the right than the SNP advocate for Scotland. Perhaps this could come back to haunt Scotland, especially as the feeling is that American Scots should have more say in Scottish affairs."

It is apparent that sections of the US far right, including those presently assailing Clinton, find a mythical version of Scottish history useful for their present political purposes. This fabricated Scotland closely echoes contemporary rhetoric. This nation of "Bravehearts" has no social classes, only Scots. It devotes itself to defending "ancient freedoms"--that are thankfully bound up with land, property and religion--against a foreign threat, both external and internal.

This is not a recent invention. In addition to portraying Scotland as classless, Scottish nationalism has always had a pronounced right-wing element. The origins of the SNP itself lie partly in the National Party, one of whose 1930s pamphlet declared, "Class antagonism is a thing quite foreign to the Scottish spirit. It was unknown here until it was imported from England.... In Scotland there is no such inherent feeling of a separation between classes."

In 1937, at a time of considerable anti-Catholic hysteria directed against Irish workers in Scotland, the SNP warned of a "Green Terror" caused by Irish immigration, and called for the Scottish people to be given the "key to the racial destiny of their country" or face a race war.

Today, the SNP present themselves as a left-wing party of "civic nationalism". They dismissed Hague's warning, albeit rather nervously, and attacked him in the Scottish press. Both the SNP and the Labour government welcomed Tartan Day as a means to win more US investment in Scotland. Nevertheless, the ease with which the extreme right in America has assimilated Scottish nationalism and its historical icons contradicts the view advanced by the SNP and others such as the Scottish Socialist Party that Scottish nationalism is inherently progressive. It should, as Hague cautions, give pause for thought regarding the true political character of the current resurgence of nationalism.

And where is the anti-Semitism in Vice?

Mel Gibson + Romero

SS: It’s the universality of youth subculture. With magazines being read internationally and so many tv shows and movies going international, the trendsetting kids in France, Germany, the UK or fucking New York are wearing the same jeans and listening to the same music. I would say that people in London and Manchester are more excited [about Vice] than people in New York and L.A. The response here is insane, but there it’s fanatical, with 1000 copies or whatever the hell we seeded it with. We’ve been called the best magazine in the world by four of the best magazines in England. Coming from Montreal was like coming from Reykjavik to some people. Like, "How can they talk about hiphop, the frozen troglodytes?" I don’t know if it’s the foreign thing or just the renaissance in New York, but you can open up any English magazine and see, like, a picture of the coffee guy over on the corner.

GM: Yeah, they’re really impressed by Williamsburg. You’re like, "You mean the big dorm? The fucking flipflop capital of the world?"

Don’t you get hostile being in this neighborhood every day?

GM: Well, at least they’re not fucking niggers or Puerto Ricans. At least they’re white

Far from groundbreaking, the mag is just the latest in a tired tradition that stretches back through the early-'90s hatezine Answer Me!, the '80s underground of Amok Press, Loompanics, and Forced Exposure, all the way to Hustler and Screw. Vice also trails in the slimy wake of the British magazine Loaded, whose unrepentantly reprobate machismo (slogan: "For men who should know better") reached our shores via Maxim and FHM.

xpost: Update: most people on ILX have now shifted their views on Vice. Many read it and find it amusing.

Update: you're either delusional or you're kidding yourself. Most people who decry racism hate Vice with a passion.

Produce your Nixonian "Silent Majority," please.

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v10n10/htdocs/free.php

Hint: You need to read the texts, not just Google.

I love how my California patois comes out when I get all aggro

And seriously, eat a bag of dicks for this. Have you read the other texts?

oh jesus

Gavin says:

'You want to hear people talk about niggers, try hanging around with black people. They are harsh. You want to hear anti-Semitism, go hang around with some Jews. You should hear Suroosh talk about fucking Pakis. It’s ear-burning. I’d argue that racists like the KKK don’t really have anything to say about niggers and fags because they don’t know any. They don’t go, "I am so sick of fucking drag queens. They are so self-indulgent. Fashion this, fashion that. Can’t you talk about politics for one second, you fucking transsexual?" They don’t know. We’re in the thick of it.'

This theme, who is entitled to say what about whom, is one Vice keeps coming back to. It's also what Sarah's article is about.

xpost

jaymc - no, I was thought Elvis was Tony and Tony was Elvis, see?

My question isn't why you're working with Vice, really. It isn't that you have a persona you maintain. It's just that you thrive off peoples' rage and anger so easily and so readily, and I wonder why. If you're like Calum in that respect -- well, enjoy. For my part, I think it's a sad waste of your own time and energy.

Why?

'Hitler had a point i think. Viceland NYC jew trucker hat beard sandle white trash black cock loving ethnic fags.'

Can somebody come up with one instance of this from the magazine or something I've written, please?

Well you know, I hate to say it, but I felt pretty insulted upthread with some of your comments about me. I really did. Coming from C-Man, whatever. Coming from you, that's disappointing.

Hmm.

Here in America we have a term for such people: "teenagers"

It doesn't. Accusing me of doing things 'to make the ratings soar,' however obliquely phrased on your part? That offends.

I mean we shouldn't be focusing on the offensive shit, because it's clearly just for effect. We should be focusing on the fact that these transparent shock tactics are trying to mask the fact that this magazine says nothing at all. Those who work for it clearly don't care about anything, they seem to exist in this helpless self-loathing vacuum. Within the swirling bullshit the "we don't really mean it, let's just hint at how we really are in this quick sentence" moments feel more forced than their button-pushing.

Vice is what you get when you hire a bunch of writers with no worldview, no hope for life, nothing to say except a way of saying it (and a one-note way at that).

Vice can exist all it wants, it can say what it wants, but it's really just ironic indie asshole humor and sleazy polaroids of tranny hookers brought together with shitty zine-level essays and useless music reviews. The word that keeps coming to mind is "banal" and I've probably said it a few times on this posting already, I'm not gonna check. I'll say it again: it's banal crap. But if you're gonna fight for something "offensive", might as well fight for Billy Milano, at least the guy gets worked up about things.

This makes no sense to me, and I'm a songwriter.

If for some reason, some commercial success is required to qualify as a songwriter in this context, I'd be really interested to hear what J0hn thinks of this comment.

I'm not flinging hate around here either. I am honestly confused by the statement, just as Ned appears to be a little upthread when he asks why "you can't say that" is not an option.

big big xpost and I think J0hn may have already replied where I said I'd be interested to hear his opinion.

I have no doubt of it! I've met you four times and you're incredibly polite. I like to think I am as well -- and guess what, sometimes I'm not. Sometimes I screw up spectacularly. Sometimes it takes others to point it out to me where I might want to rethink...

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v11n4/htdocs/who.php

Fuck you, Mr. Situational Tact, my headphones cost $100 and were part of the only way I could make money at the time. Stealing from the unemployed = huge fucking dud.

Why, in fact, do you not live up to your own wish, and de-escalate rather than escalate?

Why are the rules different for you?

xpost: Yes, white folks can say that "the important this is whether you're a do or a don't," because there's no-one to tell them "don't." But the people that we (and you're implied here whether you like it or not) have assaulted, enslaved, marginalized, and murdered for most of Western civ's history might argue, convincingly I'd like to add, that to them it seems rather more important whether you're black or white than how you fall on this or that philosophical parlor-distinction.

Sort of like the fans of the Washington Redskins to whom the team name means nothing, and why should they care that it makes a lot of Native Americans feel like shit to hear it on ESPN all the time?

So why are the number defending Vice, especially as it "defines the sensibility... of people in their 20s," so small here?

I'm still wondering why "you can't say that" is not an option for a songwriter.

'You can't say that' is not an option for a songwriter because... IT JUST IS, OKAY? Ask J0hn.

'Time, he flexes like a whore, falls wanking to the floor...'

Don't tell me 'You can't say that'!

Anyway, it's interesting to see people arguing over whether an obscure print mag defines a generation. Be sure that no currently living generation is defined by any magazine, or anything in print, for that matter.

There's no shame in wanting to pass for an urban kid. I'm not a rockist, I'm a Glam Rockist. It's okay if it's all a drag act. Artifice is allowed.

I guarantee the amount of people in their 20's in NYC who know that Vice exists is maybe 10%.

Number of ILX posters who are "people in their 20s in influential metropolitan areas" > Number of ILX posters who are Momus
So why are the number defending Vice, especially as it "defines the sensibility... of people in their 20s," so small here?

its the same 6 or 7 people that are so upset about vice. im sure if you polled ALL ILXORS most wouldnt care. like me.

Wanting to pass for someone who has "negotiated racial pluralism 'at street level' all their lives" is pretty shameful in this context.

there were 39,895,640 Americans 20-30 on 1 July 2003.

(x-post)

then ~0.125% of 20 to 30 year olds could be vice readers. like a little more than 1 in a thousand

J0hn addressed the original question by saying that nobody's saying "can't."

i.e. it isn't "can't" say, it's "oughtn't," and it's a whole different deal! ... So don't argue that there's anybody saying "you can't say that." There is no such person, no such censor.

I agree with J0hn, and in the context I wanted to know why it appears that you defend a songwriter's duty to not be bound by "You oughtn't say that" in the same breath as you defend his or her duty to not see "You can't say that" as an option.

It's times like these when, in spite of your unusual ability to stay unruffled and relatively civil during disagreements, it becomes clear that you're not particularly accepting of other's views nor willing to explain those views of yours they may find puzzling.

less than 2 in 10,000.

GET IN MY SPACE SHUTTLE BITCHES

much more interesting than vice too

Haha, they have? I am so behind the times, I still find it a juvenile piece of filth written by people who are scared so shitless by people that aren't like them that they have to put a magazine out mocking everything that's not them. I suppose I am not reading the subtext properly.

I don't want to put words in J0hn's mouth, but I suspect he's not quite as cavalier* about "saying the unsayable" as you seem to be, but then I'm not nearly as familiar with your work as I am with his.

* Note that I mean "cavalier" more as "nonchalant" than "arrogant," but I think it's a good word in this case because of both potential readings.

(holy xpost Batman... it's like I can't be at work, form a coherent thought and post it and keep up with the thread all at the same time!)

and wasn't the reign of terror just so cute?

momus you have a formidable intelligence. do you think perhaps you should apply it to the world as it exists before you've wasted too many decades?

sorry to "bait" you, but i keep coming up with counterarguments to your prodigious nonsense and then lack the energy and interest to post them, seeing as how you so rarely respond to such things in an honest manner anyhow. i probably should just be silent on the matter.

Before I get to this - I'm not "keeping quiet," just keeping busy! Now. If you really believed "oughtn't" and "can't" were the same voice, you wouldn't have reacted as you did to the bit about telling someone whose mother is recently dead that you fucked her fat dead cunt. You CAN do that! No man can deny you your right to do it! "Oughtn't" IS different, and you know it or you'd never bother being polite. (And please: don't even suggest that it's becaue politeness "works." If you were interested in what "works," you wouldn't be an artist.) Oughtn't refers to whether we feel we should be decent to one another. Can't refers to oppression, authority, all that stuff you like to IMAGINE you hear in "oughtn't" and which you PRETEND people are implying, because it's always easier to argue from the point of the persecuted. But there isn't any persecution, censorship, or threat of interference! Just people saying that things they've read made them feel angry, not in a "this challenges my preconceptions!" way but in a "this is hurtful to people I love!" way. One ought to avoid being hurtful, I think, unless one has a point that desperately needs getting across: and I know that you agree with me on this question. Vice is not challenging nor daring; it's just hurtful. That's everybody's complaint, I think.

Poets in the Soviet Union: Here they kill you for it.
Poets in the West: You're lucky. Here they ignore it.

And the thread comes full circle back to Calum!

"Why, in fact, do you not live up to your own wish, and de-escalate rather than escalate? Why are the rules different for you?"

push up against the rules of polite argument (without going too far) more than anything Momus has said to Ned or Stencil here. I am not saying "BAD Ned", I am saying that Ned's not-overly-rude questions are based on a false assertion.

But I know you don't feel that; you just resort to the radical position when you feel cornered. I know that you feel for the disenfranchized, and the marginalized, and the Other - you've said so so many times! And you feel that people oughtn't marginalize or disenfranchise! So please. Argue from your honest position, not from this de Sadean "all must be permitted, nay encouraged, else There Is No Freedom!" pose.
x-post note that you feel we "oughtn't" censor trolls! or even call them trolls!

And the thread comes around and steps on my emotional toes by making what seems like a well-timed comment about my male pattern baldness!

(Though I have to say I don't often say "Losing some hair-ious" sadly. I don't really think about it one way or the other often.)

This is so far outside of my realm of experience that I can only ask Momus if he's EVER been on Usenet (and I'm sure the answer is yes so asking is a futile act).

Dan: I'm not really a Usenet sorta guy. The word 'trolls' (like the word 'hipsters') is something I would only use on ILX, they're not in my vocabulary otherwise.

(oh, and this makes it obvious that I haven't read the entire thread but oh well, im a busy lady)

-- VengaDan Perry (djperr...) (webmail), June 18th, 2004 3:32 PM. (Dan Perry) (later) (link)

i take it this isn't a page from the history of the north african campaign...

Jealous Ned

*Jealous* of C-man? Please, try again. There's nothing to be jealous of there.

push up against the rules of polite argument (without going too far) more than anything Momus has said to Ned or Stencil here

I should note that Momus brought up the specific image of 'deescelation' first. If he argues for that and proceeds to almost immediately go *against* his -- I'm sure well-intended -- advice, then I'm a bit curious, and in this case, I *will* ask.

Dan: The Meows thing I just read (some FAQ somewhere) was a little too 'sheep and goats' for my liking. 'They're not entirely worthless' says some Moderator, 'they do fight spam and make some acceptable posts'. There's a line between moderating and judging someone as a person. And what's disturbed me most on this thread has been Ned saying 'It's no one individual instance, it's my decision that this is a bad person'.

I actually agree with you about the vindictiveness shown towards Calum; I would much prefer to wait to lock his threads until something kicks off (whether it's instigated by him or someone else; I had been punititively locking his threads when people showed up and started being dicks on them, mostly in an attempt to get people to look at how THEY were contributing to the problem, but then I remembered that attempting to get the average person to be introspective is about as likely as trying to get a cat to shoot chocolate milk out of its ass).

You are missing something that Sundar happened to note a long time back -- namely that in between those two phrases is the important 'it's because of this *cumulative* collection of instances which can be traced over time, and that in turn etc.' Sundar didn't fully agree with my decision still but has made more of an allowance than you have for that cumulative activity being demonstrable and having an effect. I most certainly did not think of gunning for Calum the first minute he started posting.

As Dan has just noted, there are different opinions among the moderators on how to address this, and it is precisely because of this difference that I'd like the policies considered and addressed more consistently -- and like I've said, it's in Dan's and Tom's hands and ultimately I am more than willing to abide by what they decide. But I value Dan's opinion more than yours on the matter, Momus, not because he is a fellow mod but because he has much more and better experience dealing with this kind of thing than you say you have, or are willing to admit to, or are willing to try out doing yourself.

Ta

P.S. No one is ever really anti-censorship. Otherwise we'd have animal pron and kiddie stuff on sale and we don't want that. nor do many of us want bullfighting/ fox hunting etc (oh how we laughed when the Tory government who approved two private members bills to outlaw such "threats" to our society as uncut videotapes of "Driller Killer" complained about a ban on foxhunting being an attack on personal freedom). I'm certainly not anti-censorship. No one is.

http://www.lally69.blogger.com.br/25.eminem.jpg

After a barrage of insults and grandstanding and general obnoxiousness on his part, yes. And personal attacks. VERY personal attacks, and not against me, he didn't really start those until late last year.

May I remind folks that at one point we did have the board set up as best we could so that for a good number of users we wouldn't and didn't have to see his messages? And how so very very enjoyable that silence was. Unfortunately it couldn't be maintained but even though he didn't cotton onto that for months, he DID NOT GO AWAY -- even though he was effectively and thoroughly ignored by the best means possible at the time.

Well that's easily explained Ned... It wasn't until late last year that you joined the ranks of those people who refused to meet him over a beer.

I guess you're right. When Calum posts to other threads than his own, it's mostly threads like this which are about him. We're stroking his ego much more than he deserves, especially considering how long this all has been going on.

I'm not going to post anything to any Calum-related debate anymore, perhaps everyone else should try the same.

(x-post)

Until the newer board members join in...and wonder what's going on...and more arguments break out...and those with longer memories say one thing or another and there's more debate...

Right after I finish photoshopping his head onto this picture of a penis.

If I may, please refer to John's quite lovely metaphor up above regarding broken windows and wanting to break arms. Which I find far more applicable to this situation than a stack of Milton quotes.

Really, what was there to debate about this person, EVER? I suppose it's near impossible to lock someone out of the site completely (is it?), but locking/deleting/ignoring their obvious threads is a no-brainer. Me thinks some of you have too much time on your hands and no idea of what to do with it....

When he did ever offer to repair a broken one?

Really, what was there to debate about this person, EVER?

Ask Momus, he seems to adore the little darling.

Like Jsoulja says, there is NO debate here about the person. That much is apparent. Do I need to restate my point up above again about what grates?

That might not be important to him in this discourse. I don't claim Nick to be a close friend or even a friend as such, that would be a ridiculous assertion -- we are acquaintances who have had a few meetings along the way. But even a slight acknowledging from him that we're all not positioning ourselves as objects of figurative rhetoric on the board would be nice. I'm not asking him to change his ways, oddly enough, but it'd be something if he realized that it'd pretty damned strange to expect us all to change to his.

They're not mutually exclusive at all, and the fact that Momus replies to your Do I need to restate my point up above again about what grates? with his comment about Berners Lee designing the web to control what people say just seems to me to be a refusal on his part to admit that he understands what you're talking about. Hence, he's acting like a wall.

(Momus, I do believe you to be an intelligent fellow, so I take for granted that you do hear what Ned's saying. I don't think I'm putting you behind any walls as a result of my opinion.)

A) Read my threads
B) Post on them

I don't see why on every thread I put up you come in with some smarmy comment. I find it confusing and really quite sad. Don't you have any girls to speak to?

But some people on this board aren't. I don't think that "the antics of the Scotsman in question are completely harmless", because they have in the past, made the board into a place where I didn't want to be, and I really don't think I'm the most thinned-skinned type here, nor that I'm alone in this. Calum has been behaving himself lately, but to view trolling as an act that doesn't lastingly and negatively alter the medium itself is kinda ludicrous.

If he were a judge I do think that would be wise of him.

However I do think you've (perhaps inadvertently) gotten his goat by appearing not to empathize with his feelings (whether or not you agree with his position).

(I do think this is your normal posting/debating style, though, and I'll admit to being frustrated with it myself at times, but I wouldn't suggest that you don't have a right to continue in your preferred manner. There are also plenty of folks here who I find far more frustrating than I do you.)

-- Nudie Nigel (nige...), June 10th, 2004.

http://groups.msn.com/antiavrillavigneclub/idontlikeher.msnw?Page=1

There's even mock ups with a bloody Avril hanging from a noose! (As well as the ass-cleave pic I tried to post before). Vicious.

This thread has been entertaining me all day, and I feel I'd be out of line if I didn't say thanks before I left it to likely fade away over the weekend.

But, I mean - hey, keep this thread rocking. It is very entertaining. It's near 600 posts on moi and I think that says it all really. I'm the backbone of this damn forum.

xpost Momus did you just call "Vice" little asymmetrical blighters? Rock on dude!

xpost Momus I like "tiny tot trolls" best, you couldn't half get some great mechandising oportunities out of that

i more than enjoy watching momus and darnielle spar. really's it's the best part of ILx

Night Waves has a bit of a bumper show featuring with James Baldwin, Lenny Bruce and the Marquis de Sade. Point yer RealPlayer here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/speech/ram/nightwaves_thu.ram

Radio 3: I'm just telling you it's good stuff. Go about 9 mins in and they're talking about 'fear of the word' in America.

this *is* great stuff tho Momus, thanks (I am also suffering of the Too Much Free Time syndrome - waiting fer a friend from Australia to log on. She'll only be able to in an hour and a half, which is 3:30 here. Oy.)

There's a definite analogy in this - which I'm not gonna waste my time spelling out - because Ned and co. already know they're in the right, and that if they want to moderate a really retarded-ass discussion it's clearly their perogative. And I'm speaking as one of the 'new ILXors' (albeit I've been new and frequently-posting since February) who posted on the stupid Avril board that incited this whole thing. And I posted a dumbass photo of an encephaletic baby in response to the big-head Calum assaults, which I'm currently regretting because it's giving fuel to the personal-attacks fire. It was intended it in a silly and un-harmful way and (while I agree with Momus in principle) I'm really amazed at the strange Vice-Mag de/off-ensiveness motif which has spawned from it. To ref. Jon Willims, it's got 50,000 readers. And I'm willing to bet that at least half of those are folks who want it around (a) either to offend their parents (b) as window decoration (c) in the same way I like to listen to Laura Ingram. Don't be a bunch of. J.K.s about this.

all right then, carry on.

How wrong this is!

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Momus "I've never held any position of responsibility in my life."

You THINK so?

-- C-Man

Hmmmmm, let me see...then

IF
Calum = Vice Magazine
THEN
Momus = Aja

it's becoming so clear now.

I did try to note that -- to little effect.

Quite. Now why Nick thinks we *wanted* a pet monster is his own blind spot here...

You have made him yourselves

Guess what? You're one of us! You don't stand above the fray! If "ilx created Calum," YOU created Calum! Your whole spiel above reminds me of undergrads in crit-theory classes who think that "there is nothing outside the text" is only for people who haven't been let in on the secret: that is, "there is nothing outside the text" for all those silly little people who aren't as clever as us. Sheesh.

http://www.mystery-hill.com/images/monster.jpg

calum, at cannes.

I like this one best.

633 new answers about me! RAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWRRRRR!

I think what I see in this thread, people getting at momus w/r/t "vice magazine" is this sense of dissapointment. People think he's smart, and they're kind of let down by the fact that he props this magazine, which people think is poor and repellent. I can see the point, I must admit. I mean if writing for "vice" makes you happy, Momus, and if you get paid, then that's great, but I remember when I discovered your site, being really thrilled by the content of the essays I found there. Compared with, say "mms vs prml scrm" or that one about gatekeepers, the stuff I read on "vice"s site seems kind of lame and empty.

When I flatshared in the early nineties, one of my flatmates had a copy of "answer me", which was on a pile of similar mags in the bathroom. It was printed on cheap newsprint IIRC, and the industrialist wound up (ahem) using it one day, when we ran out of andrex or whatever. It became like this running joke in our flat, this copy of "answer me" that got thinner and thinner, till there was just the glossy cover left. Because I'm yer typical working class trying to better himself l@ym0r, and possibly because of autistic behavioural tendencies, the idea always disgusted me, so I'd always check, and nip round to the corner shop if we'd ran out.

I have one issue of a magazine called "Crow" from the nineties, issue 6 I think. It appeared to have been written by a consortium of queens and goth nihilists, they'd cover John Waters, Camper van Beethoven, shit like that. It was really good, really funny, w/lots of reviews and essays. I never found another copy. Whatever happened to that?

The people who write 250-word "articles" for Vice Mag could conceivably be paid by the magazine, but this can only be in an abstract, technical sense. "Thanks, Mr. M. for the story. Since we're a legitimate periodical with a keen sense of our burgeoning market, we can afford to pay you for your insights. Please accept this check for $7.25 with our compliments." Clearly, income derived from writing for this publication contributes to nobody's standard of living.

Well see, Calum's attacks are not exactly verbal, are they?
Since we all like analogies here, imagine yourself walking down the street in your neighborhood and you see a man holding up a sign with something daft like "if kylie showed up at your house at 3am asking you to give a ride to the prime minister, would you?" written on it, and you start conversing with the sign-holder. The sign-holder turns out to be a major asshole and makes personal attacks on you. You walk away. The next day, that asshole is there again, with another sign. You start talking to him again. He threatens you. You walk away. Next day. You see him holding another sign. You start talking to him. WHY?

But you know, I've been a member of many different forums/chat rooms/net communities over the past few years, and I've never seen a single occasion where the "let's just ignore him and go away" approach worked. People ALWAYS end up responding to trolls, and the only way these situations are ever resolved is a) if the troll leaves, b)if the troll becomes "tamed" or c) if the troll is somehow banned. People just can't resist the temptation of interacting with trolls...we could talk a lot about the psychology of this (and it really is like that in every single occasion I've witnessed, which sort of destroys Calum's "haha, you're all obsessed with me" pose; he's eminently replaceable), but since (IMO) interaction is, realistically speaking, inevitable, those who become offensive during it shouldn't be regarded as harmless.

"A Calum In Harlem"

any "damage" he is capable of is restricted to that thread and those people who choose to interact with him.

This thread sort of shows that this isn't the case, coz those who interact with him then get mad and it flows over into other parts of the forum. Which isn't his fault, granted, but whaddyagonnado.

The "street" analogy is maybe not so wise, because even tho it's a public forum ILX is also a community based on certain views & attitudes, I think, so it's more like he's sitting around with his sign in some big house that we all own (or haha, a garden, as mark s used to refer to it).

i'd much rather have a beer with mr. momus. in a pinch.

BEER? You're trying to make me think like you, aren't you?

The "initiation ceremonies" exist; you've gone through some of them, so have I, so has Calum. They're not something concious, they just happen, they're inevitable.

And I don't like personal attacks happening at any place I frequent, real life or online. There's a difference between not being nice when you have some sort of point to make and throwing up insults at random. Really Momus, you of all people should know that "being nice" isn't something ILX places much value on, I mean, look at the amount of nastyness regularly happening here (and that goes doubly for ILM)

1. Nothing is inherently more authentic than anything else.
2. However, some people want to emphasize the 'real' aspect of a thing, and others want to emphasize the 'fake' aspect.
3. The people who emphasize the 'real' aspects are often convergers, the people who emphasize the 'fake' are divergers. Because 'keeping it real' is about imposing a restricted code ('to thine own self be true', 'stay in touch with your roots', etc) whereas 'keeping it fake' is about breaking free of restrictions ('become whoever you want to be', 'find new facets', 'copy people you admire' etc).
4. Some, looking at a virtual community, stress the 'community' part of it. Others stress the 'virtual' part of it. The 'community' stressers end up saying that there is basically no difference between real life and the online space. The 'virtual' stressers see a big difference.
5. By seeing an online community as basically no different from real life, we throw away the freedoms of virtuality, all its unique properties. For instance, it's amazing that in a virtual community I can say something rude to the very testy hstencil and not get punched. (Then again, perhaps hstencil is only free to be testy because he is in a virtual space, not a bar.)
6. One problem the people who think that 'URL = IRL', at least metaphorically, is that when you press them on the metaphor, it's always a different one. The 'real life' which the URL is 'like' is sometimes a private club, sometimes someone's house, sometimes the nation state, sometimes a crowded theatre, etc.
7. What this reveals is that etiquette, context and the physical body are all much more intimately connected than we sometimes think. Why use real world, bodily etiquette in a virtual world space where bodies are not present? Why impose real world laws in a virtual world where conditions are very different? Where you can effectively walk through walls, fly through the air, pretend to be whoever you want, mask yourself, etc? Why fear the freedoms of the virtual world, which include the freedom to be rude and the freedom to be fake?

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), June 20th, 2004.

Ned wakes up and checks ILx. Fucking typical. [[big winky, Ned]]

-- Matos W.K. (michaelangelomato...), June 20th, 2004.

Yay!

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), June 20th, 2004.

I am at the tail end of a bender, came into the office to grab my laptop, couldn't resist checking email again, and voila. ulp.

-- Matos W.K. (michaelangelomato...), June 20th, 2004.

Yeah, I was about to wonder which end of the 'must check ILX before I sleep/after I wake' course you were on.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), June 20th, 2004.

Calum's lame taunts about my time and so forth are based upon ignorance. *That* is patently obvious to me as well, as well as to others, and I suspect to you to some extent or another.

Lock the back door
Lock the Calum threads
Lock the front door
Leave