Walking through the city centre today, Andrew said, "If we lived in a sane country, stores with signs that said 'Image is everything' would be fire-bombed as soon as they appeared." Or something like that. I smiled a bit.
He continued. "I can't think of anything less important than image." I nodded.
A moment later, he said, "Except herpes."
He continued. "I can't think of anything less important than image." I nodded.
A moment later, he said, "Except herpes."
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 11:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 11:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 11:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 12:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 06:09 pm (UTC)But when I read this comment to him, he got all confused (as well as excited) and decided he had to read my post right then, because he didn't get what you were talking about. But after glancing at it he did; I could tell because he clapped sarcastically.
And the sad thing is, even I got it then, so he didn't have to explain it to me, because he's just gone on a rant about how much he hates the guy a day or two ago.
Far, far too much of his geekiness is wearing off on me ...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 10:54 pm (UTC)But yes I am. Even Moore, Gaiman and Sim's issues of Spawn couldn't redeem that character...
But McFarlane is a veritable Kirby next to Rob Liefeld...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 03:07 pm (UTC)Would you infer him to mean that there is not anything less important than image, aside from herpes, or that he did not, at that moment, feel like image was less important than everything except herpes? I would take objection to the former, on logical basis; the latter is un-offending, but is quite weak, as assertions go.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 06:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-26 06:04 am (UTC)Well, I at least hope he doesn't think that they are right because they are his opinions. It is one thing to believe that everything one thinks is right; it is quite something else to believe that things are right because one thinks them.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-26 06:07 am (UTC)I have later lamented using the word like in that post; it is a little too colloquial, would you not say?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 09:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 11:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-25 11:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-26 01:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-26 05:07 am (UTC)I'm something of an anti-image snob too; when I was younger I made a point of telling my relatives what not to get me if they insisted on buying me clothes for Christmas, because they'd want to get me Calvin Klein and Nike and all that, but not only did I feel bad about them spending the money needlessly, I didn't want to be seen in such things!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-26 05:18 am (UTC)i'm actually probably rather shallow about appearance in the opposite way to the "norm". if someone obviously takes care on how they look then i tend to dismiss them as shallow which really isn't very fair on them at all. hair particularly annoys me. there is no justification for spending more than five minutes on your hair each day if you are a man and anyone who looks like they have spent anything into double figures on it is likely to incur my wrath
but then i am easily irked about such things