For all those out there who would like to see more mothers of victims getting to shape our laws, this will put you at ease. You see, the man who killed her daughter wasn't just a murderer. No, it's much worse. The Internet did it as well.
People who know me know where I stand on censorship. I think it should be banned. But seriously, folks, if you all just go ahead and assume the I'd make the usual points about "what is and isn't an actual crime", and about "personal choice and whether looking at something actually causes harm (or whether the harm may come from offences that already exist, such as, you know, murder and forced prostitution)", here's what's really dumb about the whole thing. How do we get from something that is violent to something that is violent and pornographic? Because if it's just coupling sexual gratification and violence, then my copy of American Psycho is about to get me into a fair amount of trouble. Similarly, at what point on the S&M scale does fetish material become "violent"? You can't say at the point where some serious harm will be done, because that's surely related to the duration. I mean, you could strangle someone for ten seconds at a time, and allow breathers, and then there would be no long term damage. Would that be OK? I'm guessing no. You will also kill someone if you hit them with a cane for, oh, I don't know, a week? But I don't this this law will really be targetting flagellation websites.
Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker, "pointed out that the vast majority of people find extreme pornography deeply abhorrent." This is true: the Home Office state that "a petition signed by around 50,000 people objecting to the extreme websites that promote violence against women as sexual gratification, has been presented to Parliament". I don't think it's easy to find these sites. You would have to look. So are all those people going out of their way to be disgusted, just so they can sign a petition, or have they never encountered the material, but just knowing it was out there, somewhere, probably right behind their children, is keeping them awake at night? He also added, "Such material has no place in our society". I would also keep it away from public libraries and billboards. But statements like this always seems, to me, like an argument in favour of allowing this material on the Internet: it keeps it away from society. It also keeps it in a place where it could be monitered, freely and easily, for the actual crimes of sex slavery, child abuse, and violence that occur without being staged and without the consent of the participants.
At the end of the day, I really just figure that the presence of violent pornographic images don't make people murder other people. The fantasy exists before the pictures. If anything, it's an outlet. I say this about violent video games and other "social evils", and I'll continue to say it until I see proof otherwise. There are plenty of things we may find unpleasant, but I don't think censorship is the answer, and that is mainly because I don't really see as there is a question. To steal from an Economist article on prostitution: It's a dirty business, but it isn't any of the government's. Or as I like to say, in the spirit of tolerance, one man's "vile and obscene" is another man's "chick covered in cigarette burns dangling by her nipples from a cross beam fantasy".
I'm not into any of this, before you ask.
Love.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Today was a good day for lovers of freedom.
Firstly, the police are asking the government for special powers to punish troublemakers without needing to go to court. Cool. Can anyone do that? Is there someone I can write to get these powers? And then there will be old argument: "the police have asked for these powers to help them protect our security". Yeah, I like my job to be made easier for me as well. Of course, I'm filling boxes in a warehouse. We want to bypass the courts, we want longer to question suspected terrorists. The job of the police would be dead easy if we were all made to wear shackles every day, but I guess that probably would cause a fuss.
Then, there's the proposal of profiling in airport, which is a lovely euphemistic term for a less media friendly word: discrimination. You know, acting differently to a person based on their physical charachteristics or ethnic background. Terrorists are a subset of all the people, not a subset of a subset of all the people. When they say the measures will be singling out those who statistically pose the greatest risk to the public, I guess that means "Muslims", or possibly more usefully, "the Brown". They could specialise the image more, but that's going to cause problems. No-one suspected the bombers from last July until their heads popped off, so maybe a criteria slightly more advanced than "I've got a funny feeling in my waters" might be necessary. I could be being hysterical of course. They may just mean, "people who have bombs in their pockets", in which case I'm totally on board. I'm a big fan of people with bombs in their pockets being searched more carefully before boarding an aircraft.
Anyone in Oxford on Thursday?
Firstly, the police are asking the government for special powers to punish troublemakers without needing to go to court. Cool. Can anyone do that? Is there someone I can write to get these powers? And then there will be old argument: "the police have asked for these powers to help them protect our security". Yeah, I like my job to be made easier for me as well. Of course, I'm filling boxes in a warehouse. We want to bypass the courts, we want longer to question suspected terrorists. The job of the police would be dead easy if we were all made to wear shackles every day, but I guess that probably would cause a fuss.
Then, there's the proposal of profiling in airport, which is a lovely euphemistic term for a less media friendly word: discrimination. You know, acting differently to a person based on their physical charachteristics or ethnic background. Terrorists are a subset of all the people, not a subset of a subset of all the people. When they say the measures will be singling out those who statistically pose the greatest risk to the public, I guess that means "Muslims", or possibly more usefully, "the Brown". They could specialise the image more, but that's going to cause problems. No-one suspected the bombers from last July until their heads popped off, so maybe a criteria slightly more advanced than "I've got a funny feeling in my waters" might be necessary. I could be being hysterical of course. They may just mean, "people who have bombs in their pockets", in which case I'm totally on board. I'm a big fan of people with bombs in their pockets being searched more carefully before boarding an aircraft.
Anyone in Oxford on Thursday?
Monday, July 03, 2006
God damn it.
One month before the end of term, I called up JD Sports (where I worked last year) and asked if there was work for the summer. There certainly will be, was the reply. When I get home, they call me asking me when I wanted to start. Today I go in for the first time, only to be told there is no work, because they've had to take on some other people last week, who are going to be around during the Christmas peak season.
I don't object to the reason, because I never expect to come back and find that they were keeping a job open. But I was told there was work. I didn't look for anything else. Finding something else now will be difficult. And if it wasn't for the ESRC, I would be currently working out where I could sleep while I rent out my bedroom. This is an angry morning.
One month before the end of term, I called up JD Sports (where I worked last year) and asked if there was work for the summer. There certainly will be, was the reply. When I get home, they call me asking me when I wanted to start. Today I go in for the first time, only to be told there is no work, because they've had to take on some other people last week, who are going to be around during the Christmas peak season.
I don't object to the reason, because I never expect to come back and find that they were keeping a job open. But I was told there was work. I didn't look for anything else. Finding something else now will be difficult. And if it wasn't for the ESRC, I would be currently working out where I could sleep while I rent out my bedroom. This is an angry morning.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
On Monday morning, I read American Psycho for half an hour in bed, then my nephews turned up at Cath's house, and I was asked to read, I think it was called, "George Gets a Letter":
George delivered all the mail to the animals who lived in the outback. He was also a fucking evil psychopath. One morning, George brought two letters to Marty and Barty, the possum brothers. "Do you have any mail for us today?", they asked. "Yes, here's a letter and I'd like to cut out your spines and chew on them and heres a parcel", George said "Thank you, George", the brothers said.
Later on his round, he ran into Mitzi. "Hello George", she said. "Hello Mitzi", said George, "here's a letter for you." "Thank you George." Then she said, "George, do you ever get any letters?"
"No I don't, but then I could never read them because last night I was raping a bitch with a pick axe", George said.
"That's a shame", said Mitzi.
Well, you get what's going on here. I am available for children's parties, by the way.
George delivered all the mail to the animals who lived in the outback. He was also a fucking evil psychopath. One morning, George brought two letters to Marty and Barty, the possum brothers. "Do you have any mail for us today?", they asked. "Yes, here's a letter and I'd like to cut out your spines and chew on them and heres a parcel", George said "Thank you, George", the brothers said.
Later on his round, he ran into Mitzi. "Hello George", she said. "Hello Mitzi", said George, "here's a letter for you." "Thank you George." Then she said, "George, do you ever get any letters?"
"No I don't, but then I could never read them because last night I was raping a bitch with a pick axe", George said.
"That's a shame", said Mitzi.
Well, you get what's going on here. I am available for children's parties, by the way.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Looking at Strippers: A Game Theoretic Approach
Craig Holmes*
A father, his son, and two men who are boyfriends to two of his daughters go out on a stag night. The best man takes them to a strip club at the end of the evening, and while all would not have chosen such a move themselves, they decide to go along with it. The following morning, the wives or girlfriends ask them how there evening turned out, and what they did.
Hence, this is a four player game. The strategy set is {Tell Partner, Don't Tell Partner}. All players move simultaneously. If one of the men admits to going to a strip club, all the women will know because they talk. If no-one mentions it, they will never find out. The men receive a payoff of +5 for getting to see some dancing half-naked women. They are penalised if they tell their partner (who gives them the Third Degree and a withering stare, in that order) by -1 , but if they do not and someone else does, then the penality is -3. Finally, they received a bonus of +1 for each other player who does not mention it when they do, because they feel virtuous and honest.
Solve for Nash equilibria.
It can be seen that Tell Partner is a dominant strategy. Consider player 1's choice. If everyone else does not mention the strip club, then mentioning the strip club brings payoff of +7. Not mentioning the strib club brings a payoff of +5. Alternatively, if one, two or three of the other players have mentioned the strip club, not mentioning it will bring a payoff of +2, while mentioning it will bring a payoff of +6, +5 or +4. Hence, it is always a dominant strategy to play Tell Partner, regardless of what the other three players choose.
This reasoning applies to all four players, so the unique Nash Equilibrium outcome should be {Tell Partner, Tell Partner, Tell Partner, Tell Partner}, with everyone getting a payoff of +4. Note that this is Pareto inefficient: if they had all said nothing, then they could have got +5 each. But such an outcome can not occur because of the incentives to deviate.
What happens when this game is played in real life? It would appear that most players attempt to achieve the better outcome and choose Don't Tell Partner. This could be due to that fact that the payoffs are not common knowledge. For instance, three of the men may receive an additional payoff from sticking together and lying, believing they have got one over the womenfolk. This is commonly referred to in the literature as the Male Solidarity Principle. They also have a prior belief that the fourth individual has the same payoffs, so expect him also to play Don't Tell Partner. Such a hypothesis is possible, but to test it, a repeat of the experiment would be required. The players would have to update their beliefs over the fourth player's payoffs, and may act differently.
There are other extensions. We could consider a two stage game, where the first stage involves deciding not to invite me, I mean, not to invite the fourth player, who they believe tells his girlfriend everything, but these are left for the reader to analyse.
*University College, University of Oxford. I'd like to thank the participants of the experiment, and a girl called Misty, who provided me with a discussion on the role of prior beliefs in the equilibrium solution, and could get her legs right behind her ears.
Craig Holmes*
A father, his son, and two men who are boyfriends to two of his daughters go out on a stag night. The best man takes them to a strip club at the end of the evening, and while all would not have chosen such a move themselves, they decide to go along with it. The following morning, the wives or girlfriends ask them how there evening turned out, and what they did.
Hence, this is a four player game. The strategy set is {Tell Partner, Don't Tell Partner}. All players move simultaneously. If one of the men admits to going to a strip club, all the women will know because they talk. If no-one mentions it, they will never find out. The men receive a payoff of +5 for getting to see some dancing half-naked women. They are penalised if they tell their partner (who gives them the Third Degree and a withering stare, in that order) by -1 , but if they do not and someone else does, then the penality is -3. Finally, they received a bonus of +1 for each other player who does not mention it when they do, because they feel virtuous and honest.
Solve for Nash equilibria.
It can be seen that Tell Partner is a dominant strategy. Consider player 1's choice. If everyone else does not mention the strip club, then mentioning the strip club brings payoff of +7. Not mentioning the strib club brings a payoff of +5. Alternatively, if one, two or three of the other players have mentioned the strip club, not mentioning it will bring a payoff of +2, while mentioning it will bring a payoff of +6, +5 or +4. Hence, it is always a dominant strategy to play Tell Partner, regardless of what the other three players choose.
This reasoning applies to all four players, so the unique Nash Equilibrium outcome should be {Tell Partner, Tell Partner, Tell Partner, Tell Partner}, with everyone getting a payoff of +4. Note that this is Pareto inefficient: if they had all said nothing, then they could have got +5 each. But such an outcome can not occur because of the incentives to deviate.
What happens when this game is played in real life? It would appear that most players attempt to achieve the better outcome and choose Don't Tell Partner. This could be due to that fact that the payoffs are not common knowledge. For instance, three of the men may receive an additional payoff from sticking together and lying, believing they have got one over the womenfolk. This is commonly referred to in the literature as the Male Solidarity Principle. They also have a prior belief that the fourth individual has the same payoffs, so expect him also to play Don't Tell Partner. Such a hypothesis is possible, but to test it, a repeat of the experiment would be required. The players would have to update their beliefs over the fourth player's payoffs, and may act differently.
There are other extensions. We could consider a two stage game, where the first stage involves deciding not to invite me, I mean, not to invite the fourth player, who they believe tells his girlfriend everything, but these are left for the reader to analyse.
*University College, University of Oxford. I'd like to thank the participants of the experiment, and a girl called Misty, who provided me with a discussion on the role of prior beliefs in the equilibrium solution, and could get her legs right behind her ears.
Monday, June 05, 2006
So I did the whole stand-up comedy thing after a year of putting it off last night. And it wasn't that bad. The set went over pretty well. What I learned is I get better responses to daft silly one-liners that to anything I may want to say topical or political, which is probably because there are thousands of people who do the latter better. So that's good to know.
There's a video, apparently. I'm interested to watch it. People watching said I didn't look nervous. That was in no way reflective of how I felt. Which is kind of daft because then I'll go, every Monday, and do anything and say anything I fancy, including, but not limited to, imitation of animals, sing, miming a rectal examination, dance, attempt accents, speak in Elizabethan English, and, for that matter, tell jokes, in front of more people and it doesn't bother me a bit. I don't understand.
Craig
There's a video, apparently. I'm interested to watch it. People watching said I didn't look nervous. That was in no way reflective of how I felt. Which is kind of daft because then I'll go, every Monday, and do anything and say anything I fancy, including, but not limited to, imitation of animals, sing, miming a rectal examination, dance, attempt accents, speak in Elizabethan English, and, for that matter, tell jokes, in front of more people and it doesn't bother me a bit. I don't understand.
Craig
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Just finished the fifth series of the West Wing. I really don't understand the people who say the show suffered a marked drop-off in quality after Aaron Sorkin left. It's a different show, I'll grant you: often bleaker, less warm, sometimes missing the wit of the first series. But I don't see as that's a problem. The characters are so established by this point that their dialogue probably writes itself. We all know how everyone is going to react to any situation. Also, it's coming toward the end of the term, so the politics is getting serious, while the characters are getting jaded and tired. That makes sense to me from a story-line point of view.
And John Wells throws so much new stuff into the series. The Access episode. The fading in and out before the shutdown. And An Khe, with the shooting down of the aircrafts, which is a brilliant weaving of two stories together as one. The series contains two great liberal triumph episodes ("Shutdown" and "The Supremes"), another minor one in the "Slow News Day" episode, great character development in CJ, plus another gripping season finale (I make that five from five). Also, "We don't like Asians".
My feelings toward the West Wing are always going to be a little biased, but still, why so little love? More love please.
And John Wells throws so much new stuff into the series. The Access episode. The fading in and out before the shutdown. And An Khe, with the shooting down of the aircrafts, which is a brilliant weaving of two stories together as one. The series contains two great liberal triumph episodes ("Shutdown" and "The Supremes"), another minor one in the "Slow News Day" episode, great character development in CJ, plus another gripping season finale (I make that five from five). Also, "We don't like Asians".
My feelings toward the West Wing are always going to be a little biased, but still, why so little love? More love please.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
This is totally not self indulgent. I'm just talking.
So, it was finally and conclusively proved that rock and metal are superior to pop and hip-hop this weekend with all of Europe (including this country) voting for horror-death-hardcore-heavy metallers Lordi to win Eurovision. Conclusive proof. In the same way that Atomic Kitten beat U2 to number 1 proved to them that pop was better than rock.
By the way, Lordi, if anything, are a power metal band. Big chorus, big riffs, melody, daft lyrics and not really all that heavy. Think Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. They might not even be metal, owing more to hard stadium rock bands like ACDC or Rainbow or Queen.
But the whole thing rekindled an idea I had for a metal Eurovision. Europe is so full of metal at the moment the EU is looking to add countries like Turkey just so it has somewhere to put it all. And maybe next year a lot more countries will embrace rock and the whole thing will be great and watched by sixteen people. Or, maybe we'll send another thirty-something plumber to rap with girls dressed up in school uniforms and proudly declare our contribution to music.
So anyway, the Metalvision lineup would go as follows. Sweden is easy to start with, being the home of melodic death metal. In Flames or Dark Tranquility would be the obvious choice, but I'm gonna plug for my new favourite band Scar Symmetry as the best example of the genre. Norway would be fun, with all the black metal. There's Satryicon or Dimmu Borgir, and I go with the latter, because they have that great symphony sound. Finland would be represented by Sonata Arctica, who I heard recently and loved.
Italy: Lacuna Coil. Next. Poland has a great death metal scene, with Vader and Behemoth acheiving mainstream success. But Decapitated would be the entry. France... France, France France... Only French band I know is Dagoba, who are pretty good. Germany and Rammstein are basically the same word, who I would choose over metalcore bands like Caliban. I was hoping to avoid any metalcore bands, because we haven't got to be influenced by America in everything. I've got a CD by a death metal band from Belgium called Deformity, and seeing as I know nothing else about metal in Belgium, they'll do.
And then, the UK. Possible choices include any old NWOBHM bands that are still together (which includes both Priest and Maiden), any of the millions of metal-core or "new-not-nu" metal bands who watched Kerrang for a while and thought they could do that, or one of our extreme bands, like Akercocke, Anaal Nathrakh, Venom, or Cradle of Filth. But I'd go with grindcore masters Napalm Death, as one of two things we contributed to metal music.
And that's my list. As I said, not self indulgent at all. Poland would win, but it would be all political. And Terry Wogan would still host, and make fun of the facepaint.
Craig
So, it was finally and conclusively proved that rock and metal are superior to pop and hip-hop this weekend with all of Europe (including this country) voting for horror-death-hardcore-heavy metallers Lordi to win Eurovision. Conclusive proof. In the same way that Atomic Kitten beat U2 to number 1 proved to them that pop was better than rock.
By the way, Lordi, if anything, are a power metal band. Big chorus, big riffs, melody, daft lyrics and not really all that heavy. Think Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. They might not even be metal, owing more to hard stadium rock bands like ACDC or Rainbow or Queen.
But the whole thing rekindled an idea I had for a metal Eurovision. Europe is so full of metal at the moment the EU is looking to add countries like Turkey just so it has somewhere to put it all. And maybe next year a lot more countries will embrace rock and the whole thing will be great and watched by sixteen people. Or, maybe we'll send another thirty-something plumber to rap with girls dressed up in school uniforms and proudly declare our contribution to music.
So anyway, the Metalvision lineup would go as follows. Sweden is easy to start with, being the home of melodic death metal. In Flames or Dark Tranquility would be the obvious choice, but I'm gonna plug for my new favourite band Scar Symmetry as the best example of the genre. Norway would be fun, with all the black metal. There's Satryicon or Dimmu Borgir, and I go with the latter, because they have that great symphony sound. Finland would be represented by Sonata Arctica, who I heard recently and loved.
Italy: Lacuna Coil. Next. Poland has a great death metal scene, with Vader and Behemoth acheiving mainstream success. But Decapitated would be the entry. France... France, France France... Only French band I know is Dagoba, who are pretty good. Germany and Rammstein are basically the same word, who I would choose over metalcore bands like Caliban. I was hoping to avoid any metalcore bands, because we haven't got to be influenced by America in everything. I've got a CD by a death metal band from Belgium called Deformity, and seeing as I know nothing else about metal in Belgium, they'll do.
And then, the UK. Possible choices include any old NWOBHM bands that are still together (which includes both Priest and Maiden), any of the millions of metal-core or "new-not-nu" metal bands who watched Kerrang for a while and thought they could do that, or one of our extreme bands, like Akercocke, Anaal Nathrakh, Venom, or Cradle of Filth. But I'd go with grindcore masters Napalm Death, as one of two things we contributed to metal music.
And that's my list. As I said, not self indulgent at all. Poland would win, but it would be all political. And Terry Wogan would still host, and make fun of the facepaint.
Craig
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
This is genius, and not a joke. Power metal lords Hammerfall. The Swedish woman's Olympic curling team. One five minute music video. How metal is that?
The best is the sweeping in time to the drum beat. It's made a believer of me.
The best is the sweeping in time to the drum beat. It's made a believer of me.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Here.
Now here. Fuck them. Fuck anyone who thinks that the answer to political apathy is fascism, and if that's Britons today, then fuck Britain. We've stepped over that line on mindlessness that people are willing to say they would vote for racists and bigots as a protest? Against what? What purpose is that protest going to serve? And this all comes after a public trial that allowed everyone to see that they weren't just a political party who wanted to protect "The British Way of Life" (whatever the fuck that is), but a hate group, who approved of hate crimes. But instead of this making them seem ridiculous, possibly 25% of voters are listening and thinking about them seriously. Seriously.
And people are worried about racial tension and the effect of a multi-cultural Britain that seem "quite alien". Why is it only white people who worry about racial tensions? Maybe if they worried about it less, they'd be less tense. People worry about racial tension. Racial tensions exist because people worry about them. And round and round we go. As far as I'm concerned, anything we can do to dilute everything we consider British (which seems to encompass everything from celebrating the mediocre and anti-intellectualism to rampant alcoholism to some deranged idea that even with all of this the rest of the world still owes us a favour), the better.
Love.
Now here. Fuck them. Fuck anyone who thinks that the answer to political apathy is fascism, and if that's Britons today, then fuck Britain. We've stepped over that line on mindlessness that people are willing to say they would vote for racists and bigots as a protest? Against what? What purpose is that protest going to serve? And this all comes after a public trial that allowed everyone to see that they weren't just a political party who wanted to protect "The British Way of Life" (whatever the fuck that is), but a hate group, who approved of hate crimes. But instead of this making them seem ridiculous, possibly 25% of voters are listening and thinking about them seriously. Seriously.
And people are worried about racial tension and the effect of a multi-cultural Britain that seem "quite alien". Why is it only white people who worry about racial tensions? Maybe if they worried about it less, they'd be less tense. People worry about racial tension. Racial tensions exist because people worry about them. And round and round we go. As far as I'm concerned, anything we can do to dilute everything we consider British (which seems to encompass everything from celebrating the mediocre and anti-intellectualism to rampant alcoholism to some deranged idea that even with all of this the rest of the world still owes us a favour), the better.
Love.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
There have been several great things of late. Number one, the Levellers. Number two, In Flames and Sepultura (and Dagoba. French metal. Who would have thought it). Two nights, two great gigs.
Number three, Ice Age 2. Me and Cath took our three year old nephew with us, and it was not a disaster of crying and wetness. I am a cool uncle, even though I am not technically an uncle. I guess that just makes me a cool uncle.
Number four, Wrestlemania on Sunday. I love Wrestlemania, mainly because I sit and watch it with my friends, and we laugh at the stupidity of WWE, and then occasionally enjoy some good wrestling, or some awesome spot. This year, they went with thumbtacks into skin and burning table bumps, and beating up 60 year old owners and dressing up like Conan. Pretty normal, really.
Number three, Ice Age 2. Me and Cath took our three year old nephew with us, and it was not a disaster of crying and wetness. I am a cool uncle, even though I am not technically an uncle. I guess that just makes me a cool uncle.
Number four, Wrestlemania on Sunday. I love Wrestlemania, mainly because I sit and watch it with my friends, and we laugh at the stupidity of WWE, and then occasionally enjoy some good wrestling, or some awesome spot. This year, they went with thumbtacks into skin and burning table bumps, and beating up 60 year old owners and dressing up like Conan. Pretty normal, really.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Today I bought the Big Issue. The lead story is about everyone's favourite US holiday destination, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The guy selling it to me asked if I saw the documentary last night, and when I said I had not, he told me it was excellent.
It was only as I walked away that I started to wonder how he had seen it. It is certainly the first time a homeless person has given me advise about television. If one ever stops me and recommends a clothes shop, I know I'm in trouble.
Sabotage was good last night, in so much as the music was really dire but we ignored it and got down to the very serious business of loosening a few neck muscles. The song that caused me mental strife was "Ruin" by Lamb of God. "Les-bee-an" is actually "Slit Wrist Theory" by 36 Crazyfists. The chorus goes "Lace me up, lace me up", so I think Charles wins.
65daysofstatic blew me away.
Craig
It was only as I walked away that I started to wonder how he had seen it. It is certainly the first time a homeless person has given me advise about television. If one ever stops me and recommends a clothes shop, I know I'm in trouble.
Sabotage was good last night, in so much as the music was really dire but we ignored it and got down to the very serious business of loosening a few neck muscles. The song that caused me mental strife was "Ruin" by Lamb of God. "Les-bee-an" is actually "Slit Wrist Theory" by 36 Crazyfists. The chorus goes "Lace me up, lace me up", so I think Charles wins.
65daysofstatic blew me away.
Craig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)