Sadly, Not As Smart as Bérubé

In the spirit of Bay-Rue-Bay Day, I had originally planned on writing a lengthy essay on the role of ecopostfemimarxistdeconstructionist theory found in the greater works of Derrida and Foucault. But since that would have required actually reading Derrida and Foucault, I decided to take my usual cheap shots at right-wing crazies instead. Enjoy!

Via Agape Press, we see that there’s a big controversy brewin’ down in Alabama:

Several voices are raising objections to a bill in the Alabama legislature, HB 58, which would require local school districts choosing to offer a Bible literacy elective in grades 9 through 12 to use a new, untested textbook that many critics view as controversial.The bill sponsored by Alabama House Majority Leader Ken Guin and House Speaker Seth Hammett would allow schools to offer a course based on the book The Bible and Its Influence, which is published by the Virginia-based Bible Literacy Project (BLP). However, Dr. Dennis Cuddy, who has taught in public schools at the university level and served as a senior associate with the U.S. Department of Education, believes the book contains blatant errors and misleading information.

You mean it teaches children that the world was created 6,000 years ago? That women can bear children without ever having had sex? That humanity was based on incest?

“For example,” Cuddy notes, “one of the passages says most Christians and Jews do not read Genesis as a literal account of God’s creation of the world.

Buuuuut… that’s true. Most Christians and Jews do read Genesis as a metaphorical account of how the world began. It’s only the really crazy ones like Donald Wildmon who think otherwise.

“Then it goes on to ask students to look up some ‘other’ examples of ancient literature and mythology of the origins of the world. So a student looking at that could get the impression that Genesis is a myth.”

My God! Y’mean children might be skeptical that God really punished people for eating an apple at the behest of a talking snake? I simply can’t imagine.

The former Education Department official has concerns not only about the textbook, but also about the group that published it and points out that about one half of the Bible Literacy Project’s advisory board subscribe to the communitarian idea of balancing individual rights against the interests of society. In fact, he notes, some BLP members have signed a communitarian platform that refers to gun rights advocates as “individual gunslingers” and calls for domestic disarmament.

And if God ever made an Eleventh Commandment, it’d read “Thou shalt be packed, stacked and ready to whack.”


And for those of you who can’t get enough wingnuttery, here’s a bonus story:

Romney’s Emergency Contraception Flip-Flop Dismays Massachusetts ActivistBy Mary Rettig
December 12, 2005

A conservative activist in Massachusetts says he is very disappointed by Governor Mitt Romney’s decision on the state’s emergency contraception law. The new law, which takes effect this week, will require all hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

Man, what kind of insensitive prick provides emergency contraception to rape victims? That’s the most low-down, cruel and…

Actually, wait a minute. On second thought, providing emergency contraception to rape victims sounds like a really good idea. What’s this winger complaining about?

Romney had originally stated that Catholic hospitals and other private hospitals could be exempt from the emergency contraception law. However, last week he announced that no hospital, whether religious or private, would be exempt.

Seems sensible to me. If these assholes really want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, providing emergency contraception to rape victims would be a good place to start.

Some kinds of emergency contraception may work by preventing implantation of an embryo in the uterus after fertilization has occurred, a process many pro-life individuals regard as tantamount to a medical abortion.

Yeah, screw the woman who just got raped! Has anyone asked the embryo how it feels?

Romney had planned to support a conscience clause to allow religious and private hospitals to refuse to give out emergency contraception drugs. But after a commentary criticizing his stance appeared in the Boston Globe newspaper, the Massachusetts governor did an about-face and declared that all medical facilities across the state must comply with the new law.

Once again, good for him. Women who have been raped should have complete access to emergency contraception. End of story.

Brian Camenker of the pro-family group Article 8 Alliance says Romney has been markedly inconsistent in his pro-life stance. “He started out pro-life, and then he became pro-choice when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate,” the activist says. “When he ran for governor, he said he was the most pro-choice candidate there was in the state; and then, when he starts making speeches in South Carolina, suddenly he’s changed his mind — he’s pro-life. And now this.”

Another flip-floppy Massachusetts politician. It must be something in our water.

Romney knew very well that he did not have the votes to keep the emergency contraception bill from passing, Camenker contends, but he says the governor still vetoed the legislation as a means of political posturing and is now simply pandering to pro-abortion forces.

I’m sure rape victims from all over Massachusetts would have applauded such a noble gesture.

“I haven’t heard of a big, huge problem of rape victims not getting abortion drugs or whatever in Massachusetts,” the Article 8 spokesman notes.

And because he’s never heard of it, that means it’s not a problem.



Comments: 45


But Romney promised Taxachussetts freedom from Womb Baby-American slaughters Global! He’s no better than Osama!


God, don’t read that ecopostfemimarxistdeconstructionist shit. It will rot your brain. If you want Marxism, read Marx. If you want ecology, read Aldo Leopold. If you want feminism, read bell hooks. If you want deconstructionist thought, try using your head to hammer in picture hooks – it would be more productive.

LA Confidential Pantload

Why does Romney hate Snowflake-Americans?


try using your head to hammer in picture hooks – it would be more productive.

oh, Jillian, is that really something to say to someone who reads Kaye Grogan and the Swankster all day?

I finally finished Of Grammatology over Thanksgiving break; frankly I don’t get what the whole rhubarb is about.

I think that Kaye is much more incomprehensible than Derrida, and at least I learned something by reading about deconstruction.


I have consistently found Kaye Grogan to be more comprehensible than either Derrida or Lyotard. More noxious, but still more comprehensible.

Deconstructionist thought is in large part a case of emperor’s new clothes.

Although I suppose ol’ Jacques is still more accessible than the Swankster.

Theophrastus Bombastus von Hoehenheim den Sidste

Grogan, indeed: Save the Choad!

Speed, now there is an exposition.


“…and points out that about one half of the Bible Literacy Project’s advisory board subscribe to the communitarian idea of balancing individual rights against the interests of society….”

The bastards!
What kind of horrible world do these freaks envision, where individuals may not pollute the community well for profit, children must be taught so-called “facts” in elective classes, and rape victims must be offered emergency medications by hospitals!
Truly, liberals are vile people.


Deconstructionist thought is in large part a case of emperor’s new clothes.

Indeed it is, and that’s the entire point. (But I don’t think that’s the point you are making.)

Derrida, once you get past his frustratingly obtuse style, has a method to the madness and is definitely in the mainstream of philosophical enquiry, and I’ve yet to see a really credible refutation of what he proposes.

Maybe that’s why I said he was more comprehensible than Kaye, because I can look at what he says and relate it in some way to the world I’m living in. Usually Kaye leaves me with the feeling that she’s living in some parallel universe that’s slightly off.

(I’ll confess that I never wrote “But what the fuck does this mean?” in all caps in the margins of a Kaye Grogan article.)


Well, I can only speak for the two universities I’ve attended: UNLV (not known for its philosophy department) and Rutgers (well known for its philosophy department), and Derrida is held in fairly high levels of contempt at both in philosophy.

I’ve actually been at faculty parties for the UNLV philosophy department where drunken professors interpreted Derrida to showtunes, and then berated anyone who took him seriously.

I don’t think he actually proposes anything at all – at least, not anything that isn’t better explained by drunken showtunes. But that’s why I do history now.


drunken professors interpreted Derrida to showtunes, and then berated anyone who took him seriously

Sounds like a pretty airtight argument to me. When the philosophers sing, usually the game is over.

Just one question about deconstructionists and philosophers who despise deconstructionists: what’s the difference?


Philosophers throw better parties.


Well, see, this here is why you need that deconstruction after all. “What’s the difference” is supposed to be a rhetorical question, right? And nobody answers a rhetorical question; we all know that “what’s the difference” really means “there is no difference.” But what happens when the literal and rhetorical senses of the sentence have opposite meanings, one asking you to specify a difference and one suggesting that the difference makes no difference at all?

See, language really is a many splendored thing. That’s why your philosophers can’t stand Derrida. He really loves things like this that only make trouble.

Sort of like people switching websites for a day.


right, thank you michael. (if that is your real name…)
I wasn’t sure whether (or how) to answer that or not.

I was going to ask if Jillian’s philosophy faculty were Straussians or NAS members, because they sound like jerks, but that is probably more than a little unfair.

I’m in comparative literature, focusing on Italian literature, and in those classes we’ve had a bunch of Derrida and other poststructuralist approaches. But this semester I took Old English, a field notoriously resistant to Theory, and the silliness and laziness of some of my colleagues’ summary rejection of entire schools of thought, especially ones that have some merit when you pare away all the bullshit, has been pissing me off.

It frustrates me that some less than rigorous applications of their thinking have given some philosophers a bad name, and more so when it helps wingnuts to denounce ‘the left’ as irrational relativists.


Philosophers still throw better parties.

And does the fact that I answered a rhetorical question mean that I’m nobody? Because I think that would hurt my feelings. And nobody wants their feelings hurt.


Some kinds of emergency contraception may work by preventing implantation of an embryo in the uterus after fertilization has occurred, a process many pro-life individuals regard as tantamount to a medical abortion.

Ah. Some kinds may do that? But gynocologists say that they don’t. And then there’s the whole problem of pregnancy not beginning until implantation. And abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. So how, one wonders, can you terminate a pregnancy that hasn’t started yet?

Oh, well, no need to let medicine and sense stand in the way of picking on rape victims.


It was actually hysterically funny, Ianua. But that was nothing compared to what they did to the one poor epiphenominalist on staff. That doesn’t bear repeating in mixed company. Alas, I cannot work up much in the way of sympathy for an epiphenominalist, no matter how abused he may be.

Philosophy, like most academic disciplines, requires a bit of a thick skin. But in the end, discord is how knowledge progresses, so I’m happy to take a fair set of jabs as well as throw some myself. It’s usually more or less well natured. It’s one of the reasons I’m glad to be in history now, though – the worst I have to put up with are small numbers of queer theorists who argue endlessly over whether gay people magically popped into existence on July 17, 1896 or April 3, 1928, all while waving their well dogeared copies of Foucault around in good “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” fashion. And they’re pretty easy to ignore.

To be fair to critical theory, I’ve been sort of intrigued by the little bits of and about Habermas I’ve read, but I can’t quite seem to get what he means by his different uses of veracity, truth, and rightness. I haven’t really had the time to dig into it, though – too much schoolwork to do. But I’m open to suggestions for further reading in that field if anyone’s got ’em.


Ooh, as Sgt. Schultz would say, phil-o-so-phy! Deconstructionist philosophy is extremely relevant and has direct real-world applications. It has kept many academics in the social sciences employed gazing at their navels for the last couple of decades, where they can do little harm to anybody. God forbid they spend time studying and criticizing real social problems; that’s for the Philistines.

This has been brought to you by a bitter old-school Marxian social scientist.


What the fuck? I go away for a few hours, and a perfectly good post about wingnuts in Bibleland and Taxachusetts devolves into a discussion of deconstruction, Derrida and Foucault? I mean… WHAT THE FUCK?

By the way, the reason the Bible people hate the whole individual rights balanced against society’s interests thing is because it’s communitarian, and as far as they are concerned, that’s the same as communist. Because they sound very very similar.

Now, to get back to my main point: What the fuck???


And does the fact that I answered a rhetorical question mean that I’m nobody? Because I think that would hurt my feelings. And nobody wants their feelings hurt.

Well, damn, if Nobody wants their feelings hurt, we should get on the case and start hurtin’ Nobody’s feelings 24/7. But not yours, Jillian. You are somebody!

Besides, nobody, somebody — what’s the difference?


Hi Dan Someone!

An excellent point! Philosophers have long concerned themselves with “What the fuck???” The ancient greek masters asked, “What the fuck is going on?”. Classical economics focused on “Fuck you!”, while Marxist social theory moved into the realm of “They’re fucking us!” Postmodernism addresses the question “Who gives a fuck?” while deconstructionists say, “Watch me fuck myself!”

And those wingnuts in Bibleland, boy, are they wacky!


Ooh, now I have a major crush on Major Woody – Marxists RAWK!

Sorry, Dan, it’s my fault. I have a hard time resisting the temptation to take (mostly goodhearted)digs at the lit crit enamored elements of the left, because I’m pretty much on board with the good major’s assessment of that particular leftist persuasion – it plays well in academia, but does little out here in the endless fields of Sucky Jobistan where the vast majority of us live and suffer. And not only does nobody want to be made fun of, but nobody wants to suffer in a sucky job. Which can only lead to one conclusion – nobody must need therapy.

But I’m not nobody; I’m somebody. Michael Berube himself observed that I’m somebody – which I’ll be putting on my resume, I’ll have you know – and this can only mean one thing: somebody has sympathy for nobody. And that’s a bad thing. Or a good thing. Or whatever.

Oh, hell – I’m just bitter at the Frankfurt school for subverting a whole generation of potentially good Marxists. Somebody get me a drink. Get us both drinks, and we’ll sing the Marseillaise together.


Jillian, after that comment, who doesn’t have a crush on Major Woody?

And look at it this way, at least you guys understand what’s being said here. I’m a nematode watching humans in Carnaval costumes and cosmonaut helmets play concert piano.


Sidhe, are you ready to extend an olive branch to good old Dr. BLT? If a band named “War” can put out a song called “Why Can’t We Be Friends?” surely you and I can officially declare a truce. This could be your Tuesday for tolerance.


Speaking of deconstructionism….What do you get when you cross a deconstructionist with a mafioso?


An offer you can’t understand.


Pace yourself, Doc.
I’ve only got a few thousand sheets of origami paper to see us through till the new order gets in.


Just to get this thread back on topic (yeah, right):

Those items of threaded hardware in picture #2 look suspiciously like wing bolts to me, rather than wingnuts.

You know that’s just the sort of mis-reporting and distortion that your ideological opponents are itching to jump all over, so let’s try to be more accurate in the future, mm-kay?


It would be rather rude of me to ignore your comment, Sidhe, like a certain someone has been ignoring my comments. I’m going to make it very easy for you and I to become friends. But the ball is now in your court, Sidhe. At the risk of appearing ubiquitous, redundant, and obnoxious, I’m going to post the same olive branch I posted at the other site:

Good morning Sidhe! Yes, Tolerant Tuesday has come and gone, and you have not responded to my initial offer. But I have just as much love and forebearance in my heart as I did yesterday, and so, I’m proclaiming this Welcome Wednesday!
Welcome, Sidhe! It’s never to late for you and I to patch up our differences and become friends. Consider this new Christmas song of mine a second olive branch that I am extending out to you:

We Need Love
(Underneath our Christmas Tree)
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2005


I’d advise you to ditch this weird alliteration thing you’re on before Friday.


Like I said, Sidhe, the ball is now in your court. You don’t have to wait until Friendship Friday to accept the olive branch I have extended to you.


Think about it, Sidhe. If you would welcome me under your left wing this “Welcome Wednesday” like I have welcomed you under my right wing, we could expand our collective wingspan, and we could be like the internet version of my rock ‘n’ “role” model, Bono, and Jesse Helms. These are two individuals who couldn’t have more disparate world views, yet they found common ground– something called fighting AIDS in Africa, that they can work on together, HARMONIOUSLY. Now do you know what I mean by my alma “motto,” “WHY CAN’T EVERYBODY JUST GET A SONG?”


You know what, Doc, it’s a big old world.
And sometimes, for whatever reason, people just don’t like us sometimes.

Most of the time, we can just sort of get on with our lives.

In your case, I don’t like you. There’s a whole bunch of reasons for that, far more than are at all worth the time I’ve spent thinking about you, but to be honest, I just don’t.
I find you to be manipulative, intolerant, patronizing, disingenuous, smug, annoying, simple-minded, and not a little crass.
Now, that’d be enough on its own, but you also strike me as an apologist for an administration that wishes to torture people, bomb people, lie to people, impoverish people, and just generally screw people over, and then go around suggesting it’s their own damned fault for being lazy or evil.

You for some reason seem to think that what they’re doing is in any way open for reasoned debate. That’s fine. A lot of people do think that way.

I think our species will be dead in the next couple decades largely as a result of what your president has done and continues to do, and I’m just not that interested in debating it or making common cause with people who apologize for it.
And frankly, I kind of resent the way you co-opt perfectly good music to his agenda.

The biggest reason I don’t really like you, though, is that you don’t seem to like me.
This whole Extend An Olive Branch thing seems like another manipulation, just a shaming tactic to see if I’ll let you keep pushing my buttons.

Well, this isn’t a dating service, and it’s not marriage counselling, and we’re not stuck together on a life raft, and I’m not interested in being your buddy. I’ve got, you know, friends and stuff, and if I ever need any more, I know how to find them.
There’s six billion people on the planet, at least for a while longer, and I’m certain you can find some of them who actually *want* to like you.

If not, I’d advise you to look into an imaginary friend. They don’t seem to hold it against you that you regard them–with all due respect of course–as baby killing terrorist-coddling immoral heathen queers who make Jesus sad.



No offense, but both Bono and Helms had something, more or less, to bring to the table in their common cause.
PR and legislative power, specifically.

I’ve got exactly as big a soapbox as you, so even assuming we found something we agreed on, why bother?
The amount of time we spend trying to get past the fact that neither of us likes each other would be better spent in aid of whatever cause we’d be trying to help.

That’s kinda the thing.
I’m gonna try harder to ignore you, and I’m gonna spemd less time responding to you and invest that time in folding peace cranes for organizations and people who need a little hope in their lives.
People, I near blush to mention, who all too often need hope because of the policies of your pal the president.

Go find something to do with your time, Doc.
I’m through with this.


So, Sidhe, I guess that would mean Thamaturgic Thursday is out of the question?

BTW, sorry to drag the rest of you into this saga.

Sidhe, you seem intent on being extremely judgmental towards me and you seem intent on putting a pejorative spin on everything I say and do. Would you, even for a moment consider that all of those disparaging characteristics that you’ve assigned to me are merely perceptions—perceptions that may or may not prove to be true if you were to get to know me better?

Perceptions must never be mistaken for hard fact, or for reality. When they are mistaken for fact, this mistake becomes a germinated seed for prejudice, political divisiveness and hatred.

Did it ever occur to you that I kid around with you because I actually find you to be a likable person? Well, coming to think of it, that may be a bit of a stretch. Let me put it this way: The difference between how you feel about me, and how I feel about you is this: You dislike me, and I am merely tempted to dislike you—tempted because of your predilection for prejudice against me.

If you insist on defining yourself as my enemy, then I will try my best to follow Christ’s commandment to love my enemies. Jesus said that I should forgive you 70 times 7. I’ve never been that good at math, Sidhe, but I do own a calculator, and, if you go beyond whatever that number is, don’t expect me to be my usual friendly self!


It would be rather rude of me to ignore your comment, Sidhe, like a certain someone has been ignoring my comments.
Posted by: Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger | December 14, 2005 01:48 PM

Let me just presume that I speak for everyone here, BLT, when I say that we would under no circumstances consider it rude for you to ignore someone’s comments on any subject. Try commenting for a few days without pushing your own blog; I might actually read some more of your posts if I didn’t think you were just here to troll for hits.


And you can’t read, apparently. Every single thing I said there was presented as my *perception*.
Doc, move on.
I don’t want to be your pal. No means no and all that.
I promise not to kick you in the teeth if you fall into the gutter. If I ever see you drowning, I’ll see what I can do about rescuing you. You’re even entirely free to marry my sister if she’ll have you and your wife.
I genuinely don’t give a damn.
What the hell is so codependent about you that you need to take it beyond that?

Are you like this with every person you come into contact with during the day? It must suck to be your paperboy, knowing that every time you go to collect you face The Doc’s Overwhelming Charm Offensive. Does it really upset you that much that people refuse to succumb to your sparkling personality?

Your inability to read my comments, let alone understand them, leads me to believe that any discussion we might have on any point on which we disagree, and they are legion, would simply end with you ignoring anything I said because it’s only my opinion and me slamming my head against a wall.

If it makes you feel any better, pretend I don’t like you because you’re conservative, or a mental health professional, or male, or you’re a raving capitalist, or your momma dresses you funny, or any other damned thing that lets you think I’m unreasonable.

I don’t have to be pals with everybody I meet. I don’t invite door to door salesmen in for tea, and I don’t give the Dianetics guys my phone number. What do you want?
I don’t like ferrets or lima beans, either.

Look at it this way. I’m completely and totally non-BLT-oriented, and believe me I mean that in an entirely platonic fashion.
Insofar as you’re not interested in french kissing guys, I’m not interested in being your chum.

If that makes me BLTphobic, I’ll cope.
Move on, Doc.


Sidhe, I don’t think we should be subjecting other “Sadly, no!” visitors to this ongoing personal feud between us.
So I suggest we start cooling off the rhetoric.

It looks like your perception of me has shifted. With the new label of “co-dependent” that you’ve assigned to me, you’ve gone from a “perjorative” to a “pathological” spin on everything Dr. BLT.

You are obviously poisoned by the cyanide of cynicism. In your mind, nobody could possibly want to be a friend to you, unless they were sick, or twisted, or trying to manipulate you in some sinister way—especially not a right-winger like myself. That prospect is obviously too threatening for you and has the potential to shatter your world. Oh, and BTW, I’m not gay either, but neither am I homophobic, and neither do I believe I stand on morally higher ground than gays simply because I am a heterosexual. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: As human beings, we’re all aboard the same ship labeled “Sinners in need of a Savior.” The life jackets are handed out on a first-come-first-serve basis, and everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the same access to those life jackets.

I can see that friendship from me is the last thing you are wanting, so I’ll be happy to crawl back under my bridge. Speaking of bridges, how about if you go on building walls, and I’ll keep building bridges, and we’ll see who ends up crossing the most territory in the end.


With the new “co-dependent” label you’ve assigned to me, Sidhe, you’ve gone from a “pejorative” to a “pathological” spin on everything Dr. BLT.

Perhaps you’ve been poisoned by the cyanide of cynicism. In your mind, nobody (especially not a right-winger) could actually genuinely offer friendship to you unless they were gay, co-dependent, manipulative, or sinister in their intentions. That must be a very lonely place to live in, Sidhe, even more lonely than living under a bridge.

Speaking of bridges, I will crawl back under my bridge if you prefer. Speaking of bridges, I will keep on attempting to them, while you can feel free to burn them, and put up walls in their place. We’ll see who ends up crossing more territory in the end.


Correction on last paragraph above: Should read “…attempting to build them…”


It looks like your perception of me has shifted.

I’m sorry, did I give that impression? I think you’re an asshole *as well as* codependent.

In your mind, nobody could possibly want to be a friend to you, unless they were sick, or twisted, or trying to manipulate you in some sinister way

No. Not “nobody”. You.

There’s a giant difference. If anything, my rhetoric and my continuing attempt to clarify myself to someone who isn’t even listening is a positive reaction *against* you personally.
Call me suspicious, but I have this feeling that if I let you in any way get the impression I think you’re anything other than what I’ve already said, none of which you appear to have even considered let alone attempted to respond to, I will discover someday that I’ve been “collected” as an example of how, if you just keep at ’em, even left wingers will come around and be persuaded by you that you’re right, etc.
Not interested.

You don’t begin to qualify as a “feud”, believe me. And this doesn’t begin to qualify as overheated rhetoric. And I doubt that the ears of Sadly, No! readers are so delicate as to be offended by my use of the word “asshole” in a thread they’ve all given up on long ago. They know how to, you know, change the channel, click on “back”, close the book, all that other culture war stuff sensible people do when confronted by something they find offensive or annoying.

And you know, if anyone’s still reading this, it’s because they’re absolutely hysterical with laughter that I keep bothering to reply to you long after it’s clear I want nothing to do with you.

So, Doc, you can now officially be the last damned guy reading this thread. Have fun.


Call me any name in the book Sadhe, but just remember, you’re the sucker fish that’s taking the bait, hook, line and sinker, every time. God seems to be on my side when others visciously attack me with virulent, vitriotic utterances; seek to impugn my character; and seek to portray me as anything other than the loving (if admittedly imperfect), moderate right-winger with a song in his heart; they always end up discrediting themselves by stooping to new lows in their character assasination attempts.

I can’t say that you’ve only been up to evil. I do want to thank you for complimenting me on my music in a prior blog entry, however. I believe your bittersweet accusation was something like I was “co-opting perfectly good music for political purposes.” That is actually the nicest thing anybody has told me about my music at this site. So, you see, I have looked for something positive in you, but you, on the other hand, don’t want to see anything good in me. You would have to alter your whole world view if you did. No more black and white; good and bad; left wing superheroes and right-wing bigots. You would end up suffering from a bad case of ambiguity intolerance. I don’t want to put you through such a crisis of identity and ideology, so I’ll go back under the bridge, let you build your walls, and go on building my bridges.


Me! Me! I’m last! Ha ha ha ha ha!


Sidhr, I beg you–stop feeding him! It’s like how in “The Blob,” either version, it starts out as a little snot-glob… then it feeds. And grows. And pretty soon, it’s big as houses. So, for the sake of everyone… don’t do it!


“Sidhe.” Geeze, I’m an idiot sometimes. Sorry.


It’s too late, Marq, he’s already made a monster out of me (pun intended).


(comments are closed)