It seems to me that people can talk academic theory till they’re blue in the face…but in the long run, the ones who ignore it and crash ahead on their own do the best work over all.
Please discuss. First use of the word “meme” in its original sense merits careful scrutiny.
Dark Matter 
January 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
thanks!!!!
i read that “bass” as in, like, the fish, and just laughed my ass off.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
thanks!!!!
i read that “bass” as in, like, the fish, and just laughed my ass off.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
thanks!!!!
i read that “bass” as in, like, the fish, and just laughed my ass off.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
thanks!!!!
i read that “bass” as in, like, the fish, and just laughed my ass off.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
thanks!!!!
i read that “bass” as in, like, the fish, and just laughed my ass off.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
thanks!!!!
i read that “bass” as in, like, the fish, and just laughed my ass off.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
thanks!!!!
i read that “bass” as in, like, the fish, and just laughed my ass off.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
thanks!!!!
i read that “bass” as in, like, the fish, and just laughed my ass off.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
Do I sense a SnarkyLitCrit lj community being born?
And of the many, my main beef with House of Leaves is this:
My main beef has several parts:
a) Johnny Truant? With a name like that, couldn’t he have at least put a bass in the guy’s hand or something?
b) He was, what? An apprentice tattooer in LA? For an apprentice tattoo artist, that guy got amazing, astounding amounts of ass. Did he even have a car?
c) A tattoo artist named Johnny Truant who gets amazing amounts of ass and then solves mysteries? I haven’t seen personal wish fulfillment like that in an art form since Kevin Smith wrote himself as a comic book writer who looks like Ben Affleck dating a lesbian in that stupid fucking movie they made me watch that time.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
Do I sense a SnarkyLitCrit lj community being born?
And of the many, my main beef with House of Leaves is this:
My main beef has several parts:
a) Johnny Truant? With a name like that, couldn’t he have at least put a bass in the guy’s hand or something?
b) He was, what? An apprentice tattooer in LA? For an apprentice tattoo artist, that guy got amazing, astounding amounts of ass. Did he even have a car?
c) A tattoo artist named Johnny Truant who gets amazing amounts of ass and then solves mysteries? I haven’t seen personal wish fulfillment like that in an art form since Kevin Smith wrote himself as a comic book writer who looks like Ben Affleck dating a lesbian in that stupid fucking movie they made me watch that time.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
Do I sense a SnarkyLitCrit lj community being born?
And of the many, my main beef with House of Leaves is this:
My main beef has several parts:
a) Johnny Truant? With a name like that, couldn’t he have at least put a bass in the guy’s hand or something?
b) He was, what? An apprentice tattooer in LA? For an apprentice tattoo artist, that guy got amazing, astounding amounts of ass. Did he even have a car?
c) A tattoo artist named Johnny Truant who gets amazing amounts of ass and then solves mysteries? I haven’t seen personal wish fulfillment like that in an art form since Kevin Smith wrote himself as a comic book writer who looks like Ben Affleck dating a lesbian in that stupid fucking movie they made me watch that time.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
Do I sense a SnarkyLitCrit lj community being born?
And of the many, my main beef with House of Leaves is this:
My main beef has several parts:
a) Johnny Truant? With a name like that, couldn’t he have at least put a bass in the guy’s hand or something?
b) He was, what? An apprentice tattooer in LA? For an apprentice tattoo artist, that guy got amazing, astounding amounts of ass. Did he even have a car?
c) A tattoo artist named Johnny Truant who gets amazing amounts of ass and then solves mysteries? I haven’t seen personal wish fulfillment like that in an art form since Kevin Smith wrote himself as a comic book writer who looks like Ben Affleck dating a lesbian in that stupid fucking movie they made me watch that time.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
Do I sense a SnarkyLitCrit lj community being born?
And of the many, my main beef with House of Leaves is this:
My main beef has several parts:
a) Johnny Truant? With a name like that, couldn’t he have at least put a bass in the guy’s hand or something?
b) He was, what? An apprentice tattooer in LA? For an apprentice tattoo artist, that guy got amazing, astounding amounts of ass. Did he even have a car?
c) A tattoo artist named Johnny Truant who gets amazing amounts of ass and then solves mysteries? I haven’t seen personal wish fulfillment like that in an art form since Kevin Smith wrote himself as a comic book writer who looks like Ben Affleck dating a lesbian in that stupid fucking movie they made me watch that time.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
Do I sense a SnarkyLitCrit lj community being born?
And of the many, my main beef with House of Leaves is this:
My main beef has several parts:
a) Johnny Truant? With a name like that, couldn’t he have at least put a bass in the guy’s hand or something?
b) He was, what? An apprentice tattooer in LA? For an apprentice tattoo artist, that guy got amazing, astounding amounts of ass. Did he even have a car?
c) A tattoo artist named Johnny Truant who gets amazing amounts of ass and then solves mysteries? I haven’t seen personal wish fulfillment like that in an art form since Kevin Smith wrote himself as a comic book writer who looks like Ben Affleck dating a lesbian in that stupid fucking movie they made me watch that time.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
Do I sense a SnarkyLitCrit lj community being born?
And of the many, my main beef with House of Leaves is this:
My main beef has several parts:
a) Johnny Truant? With a name like that, couldn’t he have at least put a bass in the guy’s hand or something?
b) He was, what? An apprentice tattooer in LA? For an apprentice tattoo artist, that guy got amazing, astounding amounts of ass. Did he even have a car?
c) A tattoo artist named Johnny Truant who gets amazing amounts of ass and then solves mysteries? I haven’t seen personal wish fulfillment like that in an art form since Kevin Smith wrote himself as a comic book writer who looks like Ben Affleck dating a lesbian in that stupid fucking movie they made me watch that time.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
Do I sense a SnarkyLitCrit lj community being born?
And of the many, my main beef with House of Leaves is this:
My main beef has several parts:
a) Johnny Truant? With a name like that, couldn’t he have at least put a bass in the guy’s hand or something?
b) He was, what? An apprentice tattooer in LA? For an apprentice tattoo artist, that guy got amazing, astounding amounts of ass. Did he even have a car?
c) A tattoo artist named Johnny Truant who gets amazing amounts of ass and then solves mysteries? I haven’t seen personal wish fulfillment like that in an art form since Kevin Smith wrote himself as a comic book writer who looks like Ben Affleck dating a lesbian in that stupid fucking movie they made me watch that time.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
i give House of Leaves some credit for taking it as far as it did, but i hate Eggers, and it’s fully personal.
i used to be part of an online group called CLASSIC, MY ASS that poked holes in books that we’re supposed to revere. i wish it were still up. i’d invite you to join!
January 17th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
i give House of Leaves some credit for taking it as far as it did, but i hate Eggers, and it’s fully personal.
i used to be part of an online group called CLASSIC, MY ASS that poked holes in books that we’re supposed to revere. i wish it were still up. i’d invite you to join!
January 17th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
i give House of Leaves some credit for taking it as far as it did, but i hate Eggers, and it’s fully personal.
i used to be part of an online group called CLASSIC, MY ASS that poked holes in books that we’re supposed to revere. i wish it were still up. i’d invite you to join!
January 17th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
i give House of Leaves some credit for taking it as far as it did, but i hate Eggers, and it’s fully personal.
i used to be part of an online group called CLASSIC, MY ASS that poked holes in books that we’re supposed to revere. i wish it were still up. i’d invite you to join!
January 17th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
i give House of Leaves some credit for taking it as far as it did, but i hate Eggers, and it’s fully personal.
i used to be part of an online group called CLASSIC, MY ASS that poked holes in books that we’re supposed to revere. i wish it were still up. i’d invite you to join!
January 17th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
i give House of Leaves some credit for taking it as far as it did, but i hate Eggers, and it’s fully personal.
i used to be part of an online group called CLASSIC, MY ASS that poked holes in books that we’re supposed to revere. i wish it were still up. i’d invite you to join!
January 17th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
i give House of Leaves some credit for taking it as far as it did, but i hate Eggers, and it’s fully personal.
i used to be part of an online group called CLASSIC, MY ASS that poked holes in books that we’re supposed to revere. i wish it were still up. i’d invite you to join!
January 17th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
i give House of Leaves some credit for taking it as far as it did, but i hate Eggers, and it’s fully personal.
i used to be part of an online group called CLASSIC, MY ASS that poked holes in books that we’re supposed to revere. i wish it were still up. i’d invite you to join!
January 17th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
I was just thinking about Dave Eggers and McSweeney’s today and whether or not he’s full of shite. I’m still leaning towards full of shite. And don’t get me started about ‘House of Leaves.’ Or Augusten Burroughs. Memoir, my ass.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
I was just thinking about Dave Eggers and McSweeney’s today and whether or not he’s full of shite. I’m still leaning towards full of shite. And don’t get me started about ‘House of Leaves.’ Or Augusten Burroughs. Memoir, my ass.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
I was just thinking about Dave Eggers and McSweeney’s today and whether or not he’s full of shite. I’m still leaning towards full of shite. And don’t get me started about ‘House of Leaves.’ Or Augusten Burroughs. Memoir, my ass.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
I was just thinking about Dave Eggers and McSweeney’s today and whether or not he’s full of shite. I’m still leaning towards full of shite. And don’t get me started about ‘House of Leaves.’ Or Augusten Burroughs. Memoir, my ass.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
I was just thinking about Dave Eggers and McSweeney’s today and whether or not he’s full of shite. I’m still leaning towards full of shite. And don’t get me started about ‘House of Leaves.’ Or Augusten Burroughs. Memoir, my ass.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
I was just thinking about Dave Eggers and McSweeney’s today and whether or not he’s full of shite. I’m still leaning towards full of shite. And don’t get me started about ‘House of Leaves.’ Or Augusten Burroughs. Memoir, my ass.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
I was just thinking about Dave Eggers and McSweeney’s today and whether or not he’s full of shite. I’m still leaning towards full of shite. And don’t get me started about ‘House of Leaves.’ Or Augusten Burroughs. Memoir, my ass.
January 17th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Re: take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
I was just thinking about Dave Eggers and McSweeney’s today and whether or not he’s full of shite. I’m still leaning towards full of shite. And don’t get me started about ‘House of Leaves.’ Or Augusten Burroughs. Memoir, my ass.
January 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
theory is a way for people who don’t inherently “get it” to quantify and qualitate something that’s happening. any obsessive guide to being “cool” or “hip” or “stylish” exemplifies that: was James Dean reading Vice Magazine with the hopes of learning what to do and what not to do? no. academic (or any art really) theory is largely the same thing, imho.
it also provides a context in which critics can create something on their own. critics who are incapable of any construction or any kind (i’m talking to YOU simon cowell) should be shot. in the long run, to me, i care less about the mechanics behind something. my BF has a master’s and everything he reads is predicated on what the writer is doing behind the scenes, how he insidiously makes X or Y happen. i hate a book that requires dissection before it can be read or enjoyed. it’s similar to the in-jokery of mcsweeney’s, too, and though i’m the first to admit i’m a snarky hipster*, it smacks of a certain dishonesty, smoke and mirrors, etc. it’s like writing about the beating around, and not about the bush. THE BUSH IS THE THING, people. UGH
*please do not hate me for this glib phrasing.
January 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
theory is a way for people who don’t inherently “get it” to quantify and qualitate something that’s happening. any obsessive guide to being “cool” or “hip” or “stylish” exemplifies that: was James Dean reading Vice Magazine with the hopes of learning what to do and what not to do? no. academic (or any art really) theory is largely the same thing, imho.
it also provides a context in which critics can create something on their own. critics who are incapable of any construction or any kind (i’m talking to YOU simon cowell) should be shot. in the long run, to me, i care less about the mechanics behind something. my BF has a master’s and everything he reads is predicated on what the writer is doing behind the scenes, how he insidiously makes X or Y happen. i hate a book that requires dissection before it can be read or enjoyed. it’s similar to the in-jokery of mcsweeney’s, too, and though i’m the first to admit i’m a snarky hipster*, it smacks of a certain dishonesty, smoke and mirrors, etc. it’s like writing about the beating around, and not about the bush. THE BUSH IS THE THING, people. UGH
*please do not hate me for this glib phrasing.
January 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
theory is a way for people who don’t inherently “get it” to quantify and qualitate something that’s happening. any obsessive guide to being “cool” or “hip” or “stylish” exemplifies that: was James Dean reading Vice Magazine with the hopes of learning what to do and what not to do? no. academic (or any art really) theory is largely the same thing, imho.
it also provides a context in which critics can create something on their own. critics who are incapable of any construction or any kind (i’m talking to YOU simon cowell) should be shot. in the long run, to me, i care less about the mechanics behind something. my BF has a master’s and everything he reads is predicated on what the writer is doing behind the scenes, how he insidiously makes X or Y happen. i hate a book that requires dissection before it can be read or enjoyed. it’s similar to the in-jokery of mcsweeney’s, too, and though i’m the first to admit i’m a snarky hipster*, it smacks of a certain dishonesty, smoke and mirrors, etc. it’s like writing about the beating around, and not about the bush. THE BUSH IS THE THING, people. UGH
*please do not hate me for this glib phrasing.
January 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
theory is a way for people who don’t inherently “get it” to quantify and qualitate something that’s happening. any obsessive guide to being “cool” or “hip” or “stylish” exemplifies that: was James Dean reading Vice Magazine with the hopes of learning what to do and what not to do? no. academic (or any art really) theory is largely the same thing, imho.
it also provides a context in which critics can create something on their own. critics who are incapable of any construction or any kind (i’m talking to YOU simon cowell) should be shot. in the long run, to me, i care less about the mechanics behind something. my BF has a master’s and everything he reads is predicated on what the writer is doing behind the scenes, how he insidiously makes X or Y happen. i hate a book that requires dissection before it can be read or enjoyed. it’s similar to the in-jokery of mcsweeney’s, too, and though i’m the first to admit i’m a snarky hipster*, it smacks of a certain dishonesty, smoke and mirrors, etc. it’s like writing about the beating around, and not about the bush. THE BUSH IS THE THING, people. UGH
*please do not hate me for this glib phrasing.
January 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
theory is a way for people who don’t inherently “get it” to quantify and qualitate something that’s happening. any obsessive guide to being “cool” or “hip” or “stylish” exemplifies that: was James Dean reading Vice Magazine with the hopes of learning what to do and what not to do? no. academic (or any art really) theory is largely the same thing, imho.
it also provides a context in which critics can create something on their own. critics who are incapable of any construction or any kind (i’m talking to YOU simon cowell) should be shot. in the long run, to me, i care less about the mechanics behind something. my BF has a master’s and everything he reads is predicated on what the writer is doing behind the scenes, how he insidiously makes X or Y happen. i hate a book that requires dissection before it can be read or enjoyed. it’s similar to the in-jokery of mcsweeney’s, too, and though i’m the first to admit i’m a snarky hipster*, it smacks of a certain dishonesty, smoke and mirrors, etc. it’s like writing about the beating around, and not about the bush. THE BUSH IS THE THING, people. UGH
*please do not hate me for this glib phrasing.
January 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
theory is a way for people who don’t inherently “get it” to quantify and qualitate something that’s happening. any obsessive guide to being “cool” or “hip” or “stylish” exemplifies that: was James Dean reading Vice Magazine with the hopes of learning what to do and what not to do? no. academic (or any art really) theory is largely the same thing, imho.
it also provides a context in which critics can create something on their own. critics who are incapable of any construction or any kind (i’m talking to YOU simon cowell) should be shot. in the long run, to me, i care less about the mechanics behind something. my BF has a master’s and everything he reads is predicated on what the writer is doing behind the scenes, how he insidiously makes X or Y happen. i hate a book that requires dissection before it can be read or enjoyed. it’s similar to the in-jokery of mcsweeney’s, too, and though i’m the first to admit i’m a snarky hipster*, it smacks of a certain dishonesty, smoke and mirrors, etc. it’s like writing about the beating around, and not about the bush. THE BUSH IS THE THING, people. UGH
*please do not hate me for this glib phrasing.
January 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
theory is a way for people who don’t inherently “get it” to quantify and qualitate something that’s happening. any obsessive guide to being “cool” or “hip” or “stylish” exemplifies that: was James Dean reading Vice Magazine with the hopes of learning what to do and what not to do? no. academic (or any art really) theory is largely the same thing, imho.
it also provides a context in which critics can create something on their own. critics who are incapable of any construction or any kind (i’m talking to YOU simon cowell) should be shot. in the long run, to me, i care less about the mechanics behind something. my BF has a master’s and everything he reads is predicated on what the writer is doing behind the scenes, how he insidiously makes X or Y happen. i hate a book that requires dissection before it can be read or enjoyed. it’s similar to the in-jokery of mcsweeney’s, too, and though i’m the first to admit i’m a snarky hipster*, it smacks of a certain dishonesty, smoke and mirrors, etc. it’s like writing about the beating around, and not about the bush. THE BUSH IS THE THING, people. UGH
*please do not hate me for this glib phrasing.
January 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
take with salt; 95% true overall; not well thought-out
theory is a way for people who don’t inherently “get it” to quantify and qualitate something that’s happening. any obsessive guide to being “cool” or “hip” or “stylish” exemplifies that: was James Dean reading Vice Magazine with the hopes of learning what to do and what not to do? no. academic (or any art really) theory is largely the same thing, imho.
it also provides a context in which critics can create something on their own. critics who are incapable of any construction or any kind (i’m talking to YOU simon cowell) should be shot. in the long run, to me, i care less about the mechanics behind something. my BF has a master’s and everything he reads is predicated on what the writer is doing behind the scenes, how he insidiously makes X or Y happen. i hate a book that requires dissection before it can be read or enjoyed. it’s similar to the in-jokery of mcsweeney’s, too, and though i’m the first to admit i’m a snarky hipster*, it smacks of a certain dishonesty, smoke and mirrors, etc. it’s like writing about the beating around, and not about the bush. THE BUSH IS THE THING, people. UGH
*please do not hate me for this glib phrasing.
January 17th, 2005 at 4:39 am
to quote joey shithead
“talk minus action equals zero.”
he may have been quoting someone else I don’t know. Its easy to get wrapped up in idealism and ideas and not notice that nothing is getting done.
January 17th, 2005 at 4:39 am
to quote joey shithead
“talk minus action equals zero.”
he may have been quoting someone else I don’t know. Its easy to get wrapped up in idealism and ideas and not notice that nothing is getting done.
January 17th, 2005 at 4:39 am
to quote joey shithead
“talk minus action equals zero.”
he may have been quoting someone else I don’t know. Its easy to get wrapped up in idealism and ideas and not notice that nothing is getting done.
January 17th, 2005 at 4:39 am
to quote joey shithead
“talk minus action equals zero.”
he may have been quoting someone else I don’t know. Its easy to get wrapped up in idealism and ideas and not notice that nothing is getting done.
January 17th, 2005 at 4:39 am
to quote joey shithead
“talk minus action equals zero.”
he may have been quoting someone else I don’t know. Its easy to get wrapped up in idealism and ideas and not notice that nothing is getting done.
January 17th, 2005 at 4:39 am
to quote joey shithead
“talk minus action equals zero.”
he may have been quoting someone else I don’t know. Its easy to get wrapped up in idealism and ideas and not notice that nothing is getting done.
January 17th, 2005 at 4:39 am
to quote joey shithead
“talk minus action equals zero.”
he may have been quoting someone else I don’t know. Its easy to get wrapped up in idealism and ideas and not notice that nothing is getting done.
January 17th, 2005 at 4:39 am
to quote joey shithead
“talk minus action equals zero.”
he may have been quoting someone else I don’t know. Its easy to get wrapped up in idealism and ideas and not notice that nothing is getting done.
January 17th, 2005 at 1:01 am
True
“It seems to me that people can talk academic theory till they’re blue in the face…but in the long run, the ones who ignore it and crash ahead on their own do the best work over all.”
Anytime to need a refresher course in the validity of this statement, visit your local University.
Note: This post doesn’t contain the definition of meme; but, if you look closely enough, you’ll see the clear resemblance to a Feudal City-State.
January 17th, 2005 at 1:01 am
True
“It seems to me that people can talk academic theory till they’re blue in the face…but in the long run, the ones who ignore it and crash ahead on their own do the best work over all.”
Anytime to need a refresher course in the validity of this statement, visit your local University.
Note: This post doesn’t contain the definition of meme; but, if you look closely enough, you’ll see the clear resemblance to a Feudal City-State.
January 17th, 2005 at 1:01 am
True
“It seems to me that people can talk academic theory till they’re blue in the face…but in the long run, the ones who ignore it and crash ahead on their own do the best work over all.”
Anytime to need a refresher course in the validity of this statement, visit your local University.
Note: This post doesn’t contain the definition of meme; but, if you look closely enough, you’ll see the clear resemblance to a Feudal City-State.
January 17th, 2005 at 1:01 am
True
“It seems to me that people can talk academic theory till they’re blue in the face…but in the long run, the ones who ignore it and crash ahead on their own do the best work over all.”
Anytime to need a refresher course in the validity of this statement, visit your local University.
Note: This post doesn’t contain the definition of meme; but, if you look closely enough, you’ll see the clear resemblance to a Feudal City-State.
January 17th, 2005 at 1:01 am
True
“It seems to me that people can talk academic theory till they’re blue in the face…but in the long run, the ones who ignore it and crash ahead on their own do the best work over all.”
Anytime to need a refresher course in the validity of this statement, visit your local University.
Note: This post doesn’t contain the definition of meme; but, if you look closely enough, you’ll see the clear resemblance to a Feudal City-State.
January 17th, 2005 at 1:01 am
True
“It seems to me that people can talk academic theory till they’re blue in the face…but in the long run, the ones who ignore it and crash ahead on their own do the best work over all.”
Anytime to need a refresher course in the validity of this statement, visit your local University.
Note: This post doesn’t contain the definition of meme; but, if you look closely enough, you’ll see the clear resemblance to a Feudal City-State.
January 17th, 2005 at 1:01 am
True
“It seems to me that people can talk academic theory till they’re blue in the face…but in the long run, the ones who ignore it and crash ahead on their own do the best work over all.”
Anytime to need a refresher course in the validity of this statement, visit your local University.
Note: This post doesn’t contain the definition of meme; but, if you look closely enough, you’ll see the clear resemblance to a Feudal City-State.
January 17th, 2005 at 1:01 am
True
“It seems to me that people can talk academic theory till they’re blue in the face…but in the long run, the ones who ignore it and crash ahead on their own do the best work over all.”
Anytime to need a refresher course in the validity of this statement, visit your local University.
Note: This post doesn’t contain the definition of meme; but, if you look closely enough, you’ll see the clear resemblance to a Feudal City-State.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
*throws bad academic theory at you*
I don’t think ‘bad’ was an adjective used to describe it, but that’s pretty much what I meant, except I didn’t extend it to process, rather just thought. Good point.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
*throws bad academic theory at you*
I don’t think ‘bad’ was an adjective used to describe it, but that’s pretty much what I meant, except I didn’t extend it to process, rather just thought. Good point.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
*throws bad academic theory at you*
I don’t think ‘bad’ was an adjective used to describe it, but that’s pretty much what I meant, except I didn’t extend it to process, rather just thought. Good point.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
*throws bad academic theory at you*
I don’t think ‘bad’ was an adjective used to describe it, but that’s pretty much what I meant, except I didn’t extend it to process, rather just thought. Good point.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
*throws bad academic theory at you*
I don’t think ‘bad’ was an adjective used to describe it, but that’s pretty much what I meant, except I didn’t extend it to process, rather just thought. Good point.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
*throws bad academic theory at you*
I don’t think ‘bad’ was an adjective used to describe it, but that’s pretty much what I meant, except I didn’t extend it to process, rather just thought. Good point.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
*throws bad academic theory at you*
I don’t think ‘bad’ was an adjective used to describe it, but that’s pretty much what I meant, except I didn’t extend it to process, rather just thought. Good point.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
*throws bad academic theory at you*
I don’t think ‘bad’ was an adjective used to describe it, but that’s pretty much what I meant, except I didn’t extend it to process, rather just thought. Good point.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
praise whatever for the infectious meme of the mini skirt
January 16th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
praise whatever for the infectious meme of the mini skirt
January 16th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
praise whatever for the infectious meme of the mini skirt
January 16th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
praise whatever for the infectious meme of the mini skirt
January 16th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
praise whatever for the infectious meme of the mini skirt
January 16th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
praise whatever for the infectious meme of the mini skirt
January 16th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
praise whatever for the infectious meme of the mini skirt
January 16th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
praise whatever for the infectious meme of the mini skirt
January 16th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
I’m confused by this whole “academic theory” thing…
Education should teach two things, 1 processing, and 2 stuff.
processing is how to think, a basic understanding of logical syllagisms and fallacies, critical reading and thought, the incredibly useful but often over looked five paragraph essay, etc.
stuff, is stuff. school should pour knowledge into your head.
working as a professional, i hate getting college kids who i need to immediately re-educate. I see this as happening because number 1 simply doesn’t happen, and the kids don’t have the tools to deal with all the stuff from number 2. or number 2 only happened enough to support the number 1’s that they were taught by self referenceing professors.
that last bit is the bad sort of “academic” theory that i think is getting thrown about here…
January 16th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
I’m confused by this whole “academic theory” thing…
Education should teach two things, 1 processing, and 2 stuff.
processing is how to think, a basic understanding of logical syllagisms and fallacies, critical reading and thought, the incredibly useful but often over looked five paragraph essay, etc.
stuff, is stuff. school should pour knowledge into your head.
working as a professional, i hate getting college kids who i need to immediately re-educate. I see this as happening because number 1 simply doesn’t happen, and the kids don’t have the tools to deal with all the stuff from number 2. or number 2 only happened enough to support the number 1’s that they were taught by self referenceing professors.
that last bit is the bad sort of “academic” theory that i think is getting thrown about here…
January 16th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
I’m confused by this whole “academic theory” thing…
Education should teach two things, 1 processing, and 2 stuff.
processing is how to think, a basic understanding of logical syllagisms and fallacies, critical reading and thought, the incredibly useful but often over looked five paragraph essay, etc.
stuff, is stuff. school should pour knowledge into your head.
working as a professional, i hate getting college kids who i need to immediately re-educate. I see this as happening because number 1 simply doesn’t happen, and the kids don’t have the tools to deal with all the stuff from number 2. or number 2 only happened enough to support the number 1’s that they were taught by self referenceing professors.
that last bit is the bad sort of “academic” theory that i think is getting thrown about here…
January 16th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
I’m confused by this whole “academic theory” thing…
Education should teach two things, 1 processing, and 2 stuff.
processing is how to think, a basic understanding of logical syllagisms and fallacies, critical reading and thought, the incredibly useful but often over looked five paragraph essay, etc.
stuff, is stuff. school should pour knowledge into your head.
working as a professional, i hate getting college kids who i need to immediately re-educate. I see this as happening because number 1 simply doesn’t happen, and the kids don’t have the tools to deal with all the stuff from number 2. or number 2 only happened enough to support the number 1’s that they were taught by self referenceing professors.
that last bit is the bad sort of “academic” theory that i think is getting thrown about here…
January 16th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
I’m confused by this whole “academic theory” thing…
Education should teach two things, 1 processing, and 2 stuff.
processing is how to think, a basic understanding of logical syllagisms and fallacies, critical reading and thought, the incredibly useful but often over looked five paragraph essay, etc.
stuff, is stuff. school should pour knowledge into your head.
working as a professional, i hate getting college kids who i need to immediately re-educate. I see this as happening because number 1 simply doesn’t happen, and the kids don’t have the tools to deal with all the stuff from number 2. or number 2 only happened enough to support the number 1’s that they were taught by self referenceing professors.
that last bit is the bad sort of “academic” theory that i think is getting thrown about here…
January 16th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
I’m confused by this whole “academic theory” thing…
Education should teach two things, 1 processing, and 2 stuff.
processing is how to think, a basic understanding of logical syllagisms and fallacies, critical reading and thought, the incredibly useful but often over looked five paragraph essay, etc.
stuff, is stuff. school should pour knowledge into your head.
working as a professional, i hate getting college kids who i need to immediately re-educate. I see this as happening because number 1 simply doesn’t happen, and the kids don’t have the tools to deal with all the stuff from number 2. or number 2 only happened enough to support the number 1’s that they were taught by self referenceing professors.
that last bit is the bad sort of “academic” theory that i think is getting thrown about here…
January 16th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
I’m confused by this whole “academic theory” thing…
Education should teach two things, 1 processing, and 2 stuff.
processing is how to think, a basic understanding of logical syllagisms and fallacies, critical reading and thought, the incredibly useful but often over looked five paragraph essay, etc.
stuff, is stuff. school should pour knowledge into your head.
working as a professional, i hate getting college kids who i need to immediately re-educate. I see this as happening because number 1 simply doesn’t happen, and the kids don’t have the tools to deal with all the stuff from number 2. or number 2 only happened enough to support the number 1’s that they were taught by self referenceing professors.
that last bit is the bad sort of “academic” theory that i think is getting thrown about here…
January 16th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
I’m confused by this whole “academic theory” thing…
Education should teach two things, 1 processing, and 2 stuff.
processing is how to think, a basic understanding of logical syllagisms and fallacies, critical reading and thought, the incredibly useful but often over looked five paragraph essay, etc.
stuff, is stuff. school should pour knowledge into your head.
working as a professional, i hate getting college kids who i need to immediately re-educate. I see this as happening because number 1 simply doesn’t happen, and the kids don’t have the tools to deal with all the stuff from number 2. or number 2 only happened enough to support the number 1’s that they were taught by self referenceing professors.
that last bit is the bad sort of “academic” theory that i think is getting thrown about here…
January 16th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I guess I’ll just have a conversation with myself, since I can’t stop thinking about your post. I think that academic theory is potentially, like many things, a good thing. It is how we make advances with our thought process, a documentation and discourse (or in my case chattering to myself) on how we challenge, adhere, view the world around us as history becomes our springboard for our progeny (or in my case, someone else’s) to step into the future. However, like anything else, it depends how it is used. If academic theory is a tool to analyze and try to understand then it seems like it’s very useful. If it’s used to try to belittle the people around us, attempt to appear more educated or ‘better’ in some bizarre way, then it’s useless. Often, it seems, people who use it in this way are only reciting textbook denotations, rather than really contemplating what it means, and so it becomes reverb rather than thought, and often people can’t keep up with their own arguments when it is this rather than truly trying their hand at cognizance. Therefore it ends up being those who ‘crash ahead in their own way’ who truly have used the information around them to perceive, I think. Hehe…i’m done now. No more blathering.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I guess I’ll just have a conversation with myself, since I can’t stop thinking about your post. I think that academic theory is potentially, like many things, a good thing. It is how we make advances with our thought process, a documentation and discourse (or in my case chattering to myself) on how we challenge, adhere, view the world around us as history becomes our springboard for our progeny (or in my case, someone else’s) to step into the future. However, like anything else, it depends how it is used. If academic theory is a tool to analyze and try to understand then it seems like it’s very useful. If it’s used to try to belittle the people around us, attempt to appear more educated or ‘better’ in some bizarre way, then it’s useless. Often, it seems, people who use it in this way are only reciting textbook denotations, rather than really contemplating what it means, and so it becomes reverb rather than thought, and often people can’t keep up with their own arguments when it is this rather than truly trying their hand at cognizance. Therefore it ends up being those who ‘crash ahead in their own way’ who truly have used the information around them to perceive, I think. Hehe…i’m done now. No more blathering.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I guess I’ll just have a conversation with myself, since I can’t stop thinking about your post. I think that academic theory is potentially, like many things, a good thing. It is how we make advances with our thought process, a documentation and discourse (or in my case chattering to myself) on how we challenge, adhere, view the world around us as history becomes our springboard for our progeny (or in my case, someone else’s) to step into the future. However, like anything else, it depends how it is used. If academic theory is a tool to analyze and try to understand then it seems like it’s very useful. If it’s used to try to belittle the people around us, attempt to appear more educated or ‘better’ in some bizarre way, then it’s useless. Often, it seems, people who use it in this way are only reciting textbook denotations, rather than really contemplating what it means, and so it becomes reverb rather than thought, and often people can’t keep up with their own arguments when it is this rather than truly trying their hand at cognizance. Therefore it ends up being those who ‘crash ahead in their own way’ who truly have used the information around them to perceive, I think. Hehe…i’m done now. No more blathering.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I guess I’ll just have a conversation with myself, since I can’t stop thinking about your post. I think that academic theory is potentially, like many things, a good thing. It is how we make advances with our thought process, a documentation and discourse (or in my case chattering to myself) on how we challenge, adhere, view the world around us as history becomes our springboard for our progeny (or in my case, someone else’s) to step into the future. However, like anything else, it depends how it is used. If academic theory is a tool to analyze and try to understand then it seems like it’s very useful. If it’s used to try to belittle the people around us, attempt to appear more educated or ‘better’ in some bizarre way, then it’s useless. Often, it seems, people who use it in this way are only reciting textbook denotations, rather than really contemplating what it means, and so it becomes reverb rather than thought, and often people can’t keep up with their own arguments when it is this rather than truly trying their hand at cognizance. Therefore it ends up being those who ‘crash ahead in their own way’ who truly have used the information around them to perceive, I think. Hehe…i’m done now. No more blathering.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I guess I’ll just have a conversation with myself, since I can’t stop thinking about your post. I think that academic theory is potentially, like many things, a good thing. It is how we make advances with our thought process, a documentation and discourse (or in my case chattering to myself) on how we challenge, adhere, view the world around us as history becomes our springboard for our progeny (or in my case, someone else’s) to step into the future. However, like anything else, it depends how it is used. If academic theory is a tool to analyze and try to understand then it seems like it’s very useful. If it’s used to try to belittle the people around us, attempt to appear more educated or ‘better’ in some bizarre way, then it’s useless. Often, it seems, people who use it in this way are only reciting textbook denotations, rather than really contemplating what it means, and so it becomes reverb rather than thought, and often people can’t keep up with their own arguments when it is this rather than truly trying their hand at cognizance. Therefore it ends up being those who ‘crash ahead in their own way’ who truly have used the information around them to perceive, I think. Hehe…i’m done now. No more blathering.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I guess I’ll just have a conversation with myself, since I can’t stop thinking about your post. I think that academic theory is potentially, like many things, a good thing. It is how we make advances with our thought process, a documentation and discourse (or in my case chattering to myself) on how we challenge, adhere, view the world around us as history becomes our springboard for our progeny (or in my case, someone else’s) to step into the future. However, like anything else, it depends how it is used. If academic theory is a tool to analyze and try to understand then it seems like it’s very useful. If it’s used to try to belittle the people around us, attempt to appear more educated or ‘better’ in some bizarre way, then it’s useless. Often, it seems, people who use it in this way are only reciting textbook denotations, rather than really contemplating what it means, and so it becomes reverb rather than thought, and often people can’t keep up with their own arguments when it is this rather than truly trying their hand at cognizance. Therefore it ends up being those who ‘crash ahead in their own way’ who truly have used the information around them to perceive, I think. Hehe…i’m done now. No more blathering.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I guess I’ll just have a conversation with myself, since I can’t stop thinking about your post. I think that academic theory is potentially, like many things, a good thing. It is how we make advances with our thought process, a documentation and discourse (or in my case chattering to myself) on how we challenge, adhere, view the world around us as history becomes our springboard for our progeny (or in my case, someone else’s) to step into the future. However, like anything else, it depends how it is used. If academic theory is a tool to analyze and try to understand then it seems like it’s very useful. If it’s used to try to belittle the people around us, attempt to appear more educated or ‘better’ in some bizarre way, then it’s useless. Often, it seems, people who use it in this way are only reciting textbook denotations, rather than really contemplating what it means, and so it becomes reverb rather than thought, and often people can’t keep up with their own arguments when it is this rather than truly trying their hand at cognizance. Therefore it ends up being those who ‘crash ahead in their own way’ who truly have used the information around them to perceive, I think. Hehe…i’m done now. No more blathering.
January 16th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I guess I’ll just have a conversation with myself, since I can’t stop thinking about your post. I think that academic theory is potentially, like many things, a good thing. It is how we make advances with our thought process, a documentation and discourse (or in my case chattering to myself) on how we challenge, adhere, view the world around us as history becomes our springboard for our progeny (or in my case, someone else’s) to step into the future. However, like anything else, it depends how it is used. If academic theory is a tool to analyze and try to understand then it seems like it’s very useful. If it’s used to try to belittle the people around us, attempt to appear more educated or ‘better’ in some bizarre way, then it’s useless. Often, it seems, people who use it in this way are only reciting textbook denotations, rather than really contemplating what it means, and so it becomes reverb rather than thought, and often people can’t keep up with their own arguments when it is this rather than truly trying their hand at cognizance. Therefore it ends up being those who ‘crash ahead in their own way’ who truly have used the information around them to perceive, I think. Hehe…i’m done now. No more blathering.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
heh heh heh. close enough.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
heh heh heh. close enough.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
heh heh heh. close enough.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
heh heh heh. close enough.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
heh heh heh. close enough.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
heh heh heh. close enough.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
heh heh heh. close enough.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
heh heh heh. close enough.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
illiminating = illuminating
and wow, if that wasn’t academic…but i think that it is the academic theory of crashing ahead.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
illiminating = illuminating
and wow, if that wasn’t academic…but i think that it is the academic theory of crashing ahead.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
illiminating = illuminating
and wow, if that wasn’t academic…but i think that it is the academic theory of crashing ahead.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
illiminating = illuminating
and wow, if that wasn’t academic…but i think that it is the academic theory of crashing ahead.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
illiminating = illuminating
and wow, if that wasn’t academic…but i think that it is the academic theory of crashing ahead.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
illiminating = illuminating
and wow, if that wasn’t academic…but i think that it is the academic theory of crashing ahead.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
illiminating = illuminating
and wow, if that wasn’t academic…but i think that it is the academic theory of crashing ahead.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
illiminating = illuminating
and wow, if that wasn’t academic…but i think that it is the academic theory of crashing ahead.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Well, if memes in the basic definition are things or ideas rather, that humans share between one another, starting with basic ideas such as fire is a useful tool with which to cook, but burns if you touch it, and yet some ideas are discarded as unimportant or unnecessary, then it extends from there to traverse more obfuscated, more objective rather than subjective ideas, such as the idea of ‘meme.’ Meaning certain ideas will be something that people will discuss and choose to think about, make choices about in their daily lives, will choose what to consider important and worthwhile information, pass along, in which case, it then might follow that the ideas that generally have the most import, even if they seem to be incorrect, wrong, illogical, will be the ideas that carry on through generations, as a mind tool to work with, extend and build upon, making it better by illiminating the problematic portions and gradually discarding them. I have no idea if this is what you meant.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Well, if memes in the basic definition are things or ideas rather, that humans share between one another, starting with basic ideas such as fire is a useful tool with which to cook, but burns if you touch it, and yet some ideas are discarded as unimportant or unnecessary, then it extends from there to traverse more obfuscated, more objective rather than subjective ideas, such as the idea of ‘meme.’ Meaning certain ideas will be something that people will discuss and choose to think about, make choices about in their daily lives, will choose what to consider important and worthwhile information, pass along, in which case, it then might follow that the ideas that generally have the most import, even if they seem to be incorrect, wrong, illogical, will be the ideas that carry on through generations, as a mind tool to work with, extend and build upon, making it better by illiminating the problematic portions and gradually discarding them. I have no idea if this is what you meant.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Well, if memes in the basic definition are things or ideas rather, that humans share between one another, starting with basic ideas such as fire is a useful tool with which to cook, but burns if you touch it, and yet some ideas are discarded as unimportant or unnecessary, then it extends from there to traverse more obfuscated, more objective rather than subjective ideas, such as the idea of ‘meme.’ Meaning certain ideas will be something that people will discuss and choose to think about, make choices about in their daily lives, will choose what to consider important and worthwhile information, pass along, in which case, it then might follow that the ideas that generally have the most import, even if they seem to be incorrect, wrong, illogical, will be the ideas that carry on through generations, as a mind tool to work with, extend and build upon, making it better by illiminating the problematic portions and gradually discarding them. I have no idea if this is what you meant.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Well, if memes in the basic definition are things or ideas rather, that humans share between one another, starting with basic ideas such as fire is a useful tool with which to cook, but burns if you touch it, and yet some ideas are discarded as unimportant or unnecessary, then it extends from there to traverse more obfuscated, more objective rather than subjective ideas, such as the idea of ‘meme.’ Meaning certain ideas will be something that people will discuss and choose to think about, make choices about in their daily lives, will choose what to consider important and worthwhile information, pass along, in which case, it then might follow that the ideas that generally have the most import, even if they seem to be incorrect, wrong, illogical, will be the ideas that carry on through generations, as a mind tool to work with, extend and build upon, making it better by illiminating the problematic portions and gradually discarding them. I have no idea if this is what you meant.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Well, if memes in the basic definition are things or ideas rather, that humans share between one another, starting with basic ideas such as fire is a useful tool with which to cook, but burns if you touch it, and yet some ideas are discarded as unimportant or unnecessary, then it extends from there to traverse more obfuscated, more objective rather than subjective ideas, such as the idea of ‘meme.’ Meaning certain ideas will be something that people will discuss and choose to think about, make choices about in their daily lives, will choose what to consider important and worthwhile information, pass along, in which case, it then might follow that the ideas that generally have the most import, even if they seem to be incorrect, wrong, illogical, will be the ideas that carry on through generations, as a mind tool to work with, extend and build upon, making it better by illiminating the problematic portions and gradually discarding them. I have no idea if this is what you meant.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Well, if memes in the basic definition are things or ideas rather, that humans share between one another, starting with basic ideas such as fire is a useful tool with which to cook, but burns if you touch it, and yet some ideas are discarded as unimportant or unnecessary, then it extends from there to traverse more obfuscated, more objective rather than subjective ideas, such as the idea of ‘meme.’ Meaning certain ideas will be something that people will discuss and choose to think about, make choices about in their daily lives, will choose what to consider important and worthwhile information, pass along, in which case, it then might follow that the ideas that generally have the most import, even if they seem to be incorrect, wrong, illogical, will be the ideas that carry on through generations, as a mind tool to work with, extend and build upon, making it better by illiminating the problematic portions and gradually discarding them. I have no idea if this is what you meant.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Well, if memes in the basic definition are things or ideas rather, that humans share between one another, starting with basic ideas such as fire is a useful tool with which to cook, but burns if you touch it, and yet some ideas are discarded as unimportant or unnecessary, then it extends from there to traverse more obfuscated, more objective rather than subjective ideas, such as the idea of ‘meme.’ Meaning certain ideas will be something that people will discuss and choose to think about, make choices about in their daily lives, will choose what to consider important and worthwhile information, pass along, in which case, it then might follow that the ideas that generally have the most import, even if they seem to be incorrect, wrong, illogical, will be the ideas that carry on through generations, as a mind tool to work with, extend and build upon, making it better by illiminating the problematic portions and gradually discarding them. I have no idea if this is what you meant.
January 16th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Well, if memes in the basic definition are things or ideas rather, that humans share between one another, starting with basic ideas such as fire is a useful tool with which to cook, but burns if you touch it, and yet some ideas are discarded as unimportant or unnecessary, then it extends from there to traverse more obfuscated, more objective rather than subjective ideas, such as the idea of ‘meme.’ Meaning certain ideas will be something that people will discuss and choose to think about, make choices about in their daily lives, will choose what to consider important and worthwhile information, pass along, in which case, it then might follow that the ideas that generally have the most import, even if they seem to be incorrect, wrong, illogical, will be the ideas that carry on through generations, as a mind tool to work with, extend and build upon, making it better by illiminating the problematic portions and gradually discarding them. I have no idea if this is what you meant.