Nova Gazing | Emily McKelvey’s oil portraits especially impressed Art Box at the Ars Ex Machina exhibit.
Find It...
This week, Mandy and Jill visit the second University of Alberta graduation exhibit of the year: Ars Ex Machina, which showcases the hard work of the 2009 BFA grads at FAB Gallery.
Jill: It’s hard to believe it’s the end of April again. Every year around this time, the U of A’s fine arts grads are sent into a mad panic, finishing paintings and editioning prints, fine-tuning sculptures and erasing stray pencil marks from drawings. The graduation show is a translation of four years of sleepless nights, tears, artistic epiphanies, and afternoon pints, summarized into a two-week showcase in the University’s FAB Gallery.
Mandy: Ah, indeed. The fine arts exhibition had a very different vibe from the design grad show, which I guess is pretty typical. I thought that, for the most part, the work was formally resolved — though, as in most years, there is a really obvious separation between the abstract and figurative works.
Jill: This year’s class also included a great deal more painting than the previous year, which was dominated slightly more by printmaking. And yes, there were a great many abstract works, which is fairly common with grad exhibitions at the U of A. But what do you mean by a “separation” between the abstract and figurative works, Mandy?
Mandy: I just meant that as I went through the show, it was kind of like, “Okay, this person does abstract painting, this person does figurative, this one is more about the conceptual,” and so on. There were only a couple of exceptions, where the artist seemed to be trying to reconcile the two ways of thinking.
Jill: Right. I think this is fairly normal, though; at the U of A, for whatever reason, painters tend to be encouraged to explore abstraction more often than figurative work. Whether this is a product of the school’s prevailing esthetic (or that of the professor), or if it’s simply a way to teach students how to use paint as a material before attempting anything other than abstraction, I’m not entirely sure. Regardless, I think you’re right: there is definitely a separation in that respect.
Mandy: There was also a lot of really large work — or at least, the majority of the work on display was pretty big. I wonder why? Some of the paintings I was really excited by were the small, almost study-like images by Jessica Kowalchuk. The paintings, which repeat the same subject (a large piece of farm equipment) over and over, were arranged together as a cluster, but you could still feel the time and consideration each individual work received. I loved them. But of course, she had one great big massive painting in the show as well.
Jill: I ran into that predicament when I was at the university too, where I felt like I had to make these huge, impressive, epic works. I think it’s something you either embrace, or you get over pretty quick after you graduate. After all, school isn’t exactly about making the work you want to make, so much as it’s about making the work that you need to be making in order to make the work you want to make in the future. If that makes any sense. In any case, I think there are a lot of good beginnings here. Emily McKelvey’s group of five small oil portraits impressed me, in particular.
Mandy: Ha! What an amazing sentence you just created there, Jill. Yeah, McKelvey’s Nova series was really strong — it’s one of the examples I had in mind of work that’s designed to be experienced in both a formal and a conceptual context. What did you think of the sculpture in the show?
Jill: Well, as usual, there wasn’t very much of it. I’m not a sculpture expert, either, but Thalia Ip’s steel works seemed a lot more narrative than the ones we normally see coming out of the university, due to their horizontal format, which mirrors the layout of a musical score.
Mandy: I was pretty down with the wax sculpture “My Knees” by Chaelan Sevier; it was surprisingly beautiful to me. It’s this milky white object placed fairly low, so that you’re looking down at it from above. Then you notice that it’s two knees pressed together, severed abruptly.
Jill: Mhm. In fact, I think I was pretty down with most of this exhibit. It’s fairly obvious that this grad class is a tight-knit group, sharing ideas, esthetics, and experiences. What a way to mark the beginning of the real world!
Ars Ex Machina runs at FAB Gallery at the University of Alberta until May 9.
Comments: 49
Anonymous wrote:
Jill: This year's show had 7 prints and 12 paintings. Last years show had 13 prints and 10 paintings. I am a good art critic. I saw abstract art too, but don't understand why it is different from figurative work. Eep!
Mandy: This picture is abstract. This other one is figurative. This other one is conceptual. Look! I am an art critic! I wish people made art that was BOTH... 50% abstract, 50% figurative, and 50% conceptual. You know, both ways of thinking. Urp.
Jill. BINGO! I have vague impressions about being an art student, but rather than inform myself to any greater degree, I'll just irresponsible pull conjecture out of my ass. Why, oh why, are people encouraged to paint abstractly when they go to art school? Surely, it has nothing to do with the obvious fact that most people have little experience making abstract pictures before art school, and art school might naturally be a good place to begin such experimentation. Sometimes I like to pretend that people have never made figurative art before going to art school. Newsflash, folks: I'm not entirely sure. Regardless, it is true that 'abstract' and 'figurative' are different. Humph.
Mandy: There was big stuff! Huh? Small stuff is nice sometimes, and can take a long time, too, but people sometimes make big stuff. Narf!
Jill: I want to use the word "predicament", but I don't really know what it means! I though I had to make big things when I was in school. I don't know why I thought that! Maybe it was some vestigial ambition that I have since rid myself of. Who can say? Glurg.
Mandy. Wow! You are a awesome writer, just like me! Watch this: "designed to be experienced in both a formal and a conceptual context." What does that even mean? Who knows? Experienced in a conceptual context? Experienced in a formal context? What is a "context"? The place where the work is shown? The mindset of the viewer? The reality of the work itself? I don't know, but luckily, my readers don't know either! Blurg!
Jill. Full disclosure: I am not, nor have I ever been, an expert in sculpture. I know, I know, you're all shocked. Sorry. That being said, I find blah blah blah to be more narrative than most stuff that I know nothing about. The reason is, because it is horizontal, and musical notation is horizontal, from left to right, until you get to the end of the page, and then you go down a line and start back at the left, just like most sculptures that have come out of the University since the 70s. Argh.
Mandy: Word to yo mama, holmes. I'm jiggy with that wax sculpture. Harrumph.
Jill. Mhm. I'm down with all y'all shit, niggaz! And I think to myself, what a wonderful world. Blah.
on Apr 30th, 2009 at 7:19am Report Abuse
PaulMatwychuk wrote:
I can't help but notice, though, Anonymous, that you declined to identify yourself by name, which seems like a cowardly thing to do on a comment as personally directed as this one. Whatever you think Jill and Mandy's faults may be — and I think it's worth emphasizing that the point of their column is to speak to readers outside the insular Edmonton art community and talk about art exhibits in accessible, conversational language — at least they have the courage to attach their own names to what they write.
But if you feel that what they do falls short of the kind of arts coverage you'd like to see in SEE Magazine, Anonymous, I'd be happy to talk to you about joining our team of arts writers. If you can write about art in a way that you think will illuminate our readers (who you seem to think are idiots anyway), I'd love to add you to the mix. My e-mail address is pmatwychuk@see.greatwest.ca, and the phone number at SEE is 430-9003.
Thanks for reading!
on Apr 30th, 2009 at 10:12am Report Abuse
mespezel wrote:
on May 1st, 2009 at 1:51pm Report Abuse
adamwb wrote:
on May 3rd, 2009 at 12:29pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Is that the standard response from a SEE editor to all anonymous comments here, or just the ones critical of the SEE product? Pretty fucking lame, dude. Gutless, even. Kinda like your stated assumption that I think your readers are all "idiots". Where did that come from? See, this is the problem with SEE... it's not just the inaccuracies, its the lack of ethics shown when dealing with simple disagreements. Seriously, if anyone at your paper graduated from J-school (which seems very unlikely) they should hang their heads in shame, or better yet, quit while they still have any integrity worth mentioning.
Oh yeah... Thanks for the job offer (joining your "team of arts writers"!), but don't worry about me: focus on the job you and your current team are actually doing.
on May 12th, 2009 at 9:47am Report Abuse
PaulMatwychuk wrote:
The "you think our readers are idiots" impression came from the line where you had Mandy say our readers don't understand art terminology. Or was the point of that line that you think *Mandy* thinks our readers are idiots? It's a little unclear.
And for heaven's sake, what's "unethical" about a SEE editor responding to a reader comment on the SEE website? Should I not respond to any of them? All of them? Should I not disagree with critical comments? Or should I have just sat here at my desk and hung my head in shame for a few hours?
Anyway, let me just say once again that your comments are greatly appreciated, if not the anonymous way in which you submitted them. I've absorbed them, Jill and Mandy have absorbed them, and SEE will, as ever, endeavour to do better in the future. Thanks for reading!
on May 12th, 2009 at 3:38pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Oh, and, I guess I should thank you (?) for not deleting my comments, even though you don't like the fact that your website allows (actually, encourages) anonymous comments. Come on Paul, you're not really this retarded, are you?
Or, perhaps you are. You write, "The 'you think our readers are idiots' impression came from the line where you had Mandy say our readers don't understand art terminology."
In other words, YOU think that if a reader doesn't understand art terminology, they are an idiot. I, on the other hand, can think of many reasons why someone might not understand something, aside from their being 'idiots'. For example, maybe your readers have not gone to art school. Or, maybe your readers, like your writers, HAVE gone to art school, but have been duped by bad teachers...
What I pointed out as being unethical was your decision, not to simply respond to my critique, but to try to turn it around to make it about me and my 'cowardice', to try to characterize me as if I think your READERS are idiots (I'm a READER, you jackass!). Fuck's sake.
The "conversational" way this column is written is a fucking lame affectation. I see, at least this week, you managed to edit out their "Mhm"s and "um"s, thank god.
Seriously, the way you let these ladies fill their column inches with gurgling noises and co-dependent affirmation, it seems clear it is YOU who thinks your readers must be idiots, and that is what makes readers like me make fun of writers (and editors) like you.
on May 14th, 2009 at 8:53am Report Abuse
adamwb wrote:
The best part is where you accuse Paul of making ad-hominem attacks and then immediately proceed to call him a retard. Way to go.
on May 14th, 2009 at 11:06pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
on May 18th, 2009 at 9:51pm Report Abuse
adamwb wrote:
1. good.
2. a compelling argument.
Unfortunately, this is not the case.
on May 19th, 2009 at 10:02pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Although, considering you somehow managed to turn "you're not really this retarded" into "immediately proceed to call him a retard", I suspect books with pictures, not words, are a bit closer to your level of comprehension.
Retard.
on May 21st, 2009 at 2:42pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
It's a tough job, but, as everyone knows, that's what a good journalist does to anonymous sources, right?
on May 21st, 2009 at 2:45pm Report Abuse
adamwb wrote:
Totally my bad.
on May 21st, 2009 at 3:07pm Report Abuse
sharoesp wrote:
on May 22nd, 2009 at 2:26am Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
But, seriously: You'd better look out, sharoesp, because I don't think that's your real name, and the editors around here sure don't take kindly to "cowards" like you who don't have the guts to sign their REAL name to all their internet comments.
Like, geez, man, come on.. don't you know the unwritten rules against anonymous commenting?
on May 23rd, 2009 at 7:41am Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Food for thought, perhaps?
on May 23rd, 2009 at 7:48am Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
See, what it actually refers to is the attempt to discredit a person's argument by, not discussing the argument itself, but rather, by questioning the other person's unrelated personal characteristics.
For example, I laid out a satirical critique of the art box column.
Paul, in defence of SEE, pointed out that, although my critique is funny... and then left the critique entirely, to say that he thinks I might be a scaredy-cat.
Of course, I might INDEED BE A COWARD! But, so what? I could be the Guinness Book of Records Worlds Greatest Coward... What does that have to do with the critique of the Art Box? Nothing, of course. The critique stands, untouched, even IF I get startled by loud noises easily..
THAT is what 'ad hominem' means.
On the other hand, if I characterize Paul's lack of understanding about acceptability of anonymous commentary in the age of the Internet as "limited in development of progress" or "retarded" (they mean the same thing, you see), then that IS NOT an ad hominem attack.
Do you see the difference now? Or, would you all like to stick with the "you're a coward!" line of defence?
I suppose those are your only two possible responses, at this point.
on May 23rd, 2009 at 8:09am Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
I personally enjoy your commentary. It’s entertaining and when you’re not having a tantrum you argue (and critique) quite well.
As for the two ladies that write the Art box, I’m not too worried about their feelings of 'annoyance'. Afterall, they signed up for public scrutiny when they decided to write as critics for a public weekly. Like they say, if you can’t handle the heat then get out of the kitchen.
As for this ‘sharoesp’ character, I wouldn’t worry about her either. She attempts to denounce you through thru the very same methods she accuses you of. I honestly found her personal attack on you more offensive then anything you’ve previously wrote. Does she know you personally? How can she so boldly state: “Pity the poor bloke and don't waste any more time or energy on such a pathetic writer wanna-be.” That’s harsh, man.
~ Ann
on May 23rd, 2009 at 12:31pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
on May 23rd, 2009 at 12:38pm Report Abuse
adamwb wrote:
Yeah, I just checked.
I guess you'd rather be convinced that he came right out of the gate to attack you and that nobody likes you and that everybody is too stupid to realize that you are the smartest person ever. It must be tough.
on May 23rd, 2009 at 6:19pm Report Abuse
adamwb wrote:
on May 23rd, 2009 at 6:22pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Which part of what I wrote did you find "tantrum" like, exactly?
Do you think it might come across differently if you imagine it being read in a calm voice? Try it... Read it aloud, like you area pleasant person in a commercial selling something, and see if it comes across as bad tempered (as opposed to, say, merely annoyed).
I honestly don't know why anyone would seem to imagine (or maybe just pretend), or think, I'm ANGRY! Having a TANTRUM? Oh my goodness, this is all such life-and-death stuff, hey? Geez, the whole thread here started as (what I and Paul agree is) a pretty funny spoof of the shitty-shitty Art Box writing. But, rather than talk about that, all y'all want to talk about is Mr. Anonymous Coward. Incredible...
In case you're still confused, I find this all Hi-lar-i-ous! I'm having fun: why aren't you?
(p.s. This question is not rhetorical. Think about it.)
on May 24th, 2009 at 8:17am Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Adam, on the other hand, writes, well, the stuff he writes, and proudly signs his name to it all.
So, Congratulations, Adam, on evidently having WAY more balls than brains. Your prize is located in my dick. Feel free to suck it out at your leisure.
on May 24th, 2009 at 8:27am Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
Hmm… “which part of what I wrote did you find “tantrum” like, exactly?” Well, since we’re all into looking up definitions in the dictionary (as per your request My Big Daddy) then one of www.dictionary.com’s definitions for a tantrum is “burst of ill-humor; an affected air.” And yes, I know that dictionary.com is not the best of references, but honestly I am too hung-over and lazy to care right now. So by going with their definition honey, you totally qualify as someone who demonstrates an affected air and is prone to ill-humor. Didn’t you just tell Adam he could suck your dick?
Which I totally think he should take you up on. I mean think about it!! With My Big Daddy’s (aka Mr. Anonymous Coward) amazing intelligence and Adam’s braveness, you two could create the most advance specimen of homo-sapiens to ever grace this earth. And no doubt, they would inevitably RULE THE WORLD. It’d be like Darwinism but plotted. True, you’d have to get over the whole thing about needing female bits to reproduce, but surely your super intelligence could solve this minor problem.
Fun times, indeed!
on May 24th, 2009 at 2:03pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Well, you're commenting under "Ann", so I'm going to call you 'Ann'. Does that give you a hint? I'm trying to be kind, here.
"Hmm… “which part of what I wrote did you find “tantrum” like, exactly?” Well... Didn’t you just tell Adam he could suck your dick? "
Indeed I did. But, of course, that was after your "tantrum" remark, so I don't think that was it. Again, I'll happily, patiently restate the question:
Which part of what I wrote did you find "tantrum" like, exactly?
(hint: you won't find it at dictionary.com)
I like your last idea, but unfortunately I doubt Adam will be able to conceive my child orally, what with all the spermicide he no doubt has ingested over the years.
Wheeeeeeee! Yes, fun times...
on May 24th, 2009 at 2:16pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
You must have your reasons for remaining Anonymous. It really makes no difference to me.
You could've handled Paul's assumption of cowardice in a more calm manner yet you proceeded to call him a jackass. And who knows, maybe Paul is a Jackass?! I highly doubt it tho'. His responses remain professional (excluding the the coward thing, of course). However, if you still think I have further riddle solving to do then it will just have to wait. Thinking is not my friend right now... Damn hang-over!
Or maybe you really just want me to say that you have not actually had any tantrums. And that's cool too. It's a matter of perspective and interpretation, I think. What one person may believe to be ill-humor may seem perfectly good-natured to another.
on May 24th, 2009 at 2:46pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
A reason for remaining Anonymous? No, not really. This comment form doesn't give you the opportunity to change your name once you've registered, so I'm basically stuck with Anonymous. Of course, why would that matter? Nobody has suggested a reason why I WOULDN'T remain Anonymous, have they? "Ann" is just as anonymous as "Anonymous" after all (Paul , I hope you're following this).
"You could've handled Paul's assumption of cowardice in a more calm manner yet you proceeded to call him a jackass."
Well, Ann, you might want to keep in mind that I'm sitting at a computer, typing. I'm quite calm, although terribly amused... believe me. Typing the word 'jackass' without personally getting riled up is pretty easy, for me anyway.
My "Jackass" comment, you seem to not have noticed, was in response to Paul's apparent confusion over the fact that I am a reader, so obviously my comments are not calling SEE's READER's idiots, or whatever it was he was pretending my critique was about. You see that, don't you Ann? This isn't rocket-science here, folks.
Oh, right... the hang over. Have a nap, take a shit, and come back to this when thinking is your friend again.
I won't repeat the question. If you don't want to provide any evidence of what you refer to as my "tantrum", that's fine... you can just leave the baseless allegation hanging there, or you can think again, and retract it. Why would it matter to ME which one you do? It's your statement, Ann. you can stand behind it, or not. It's entirely up to you.
If that's not good natured, I don't know what is.
on May 24th, 2009 at 3:02pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
Alrighty. Nap taken. Work finished for the day. Bright-eyed & bushy-tailed as ever and ready to conquer you (all in good fun, of course).
Still tho’, did you really have to mention the ‘take a shit’ part?! I’d really appreciate it if you left my anus and its functions out of this.
“My "Jackass" comment, you seem to not have noticed, was in response to Paul's apparent confusion over the fact that I am a reader, so obviously my comments are not calling SEE's READER's idiots, or whatever it was he was pretending my critique was about. You see that, don't you Ann? This isn't rocket-science here, folks.”
Granted, you did call Paul a 'Jackass' while stating that you were a reader as well. Regardless of whether or not you say this is directly linked to the ‘cowardice’ comment, you still called him a ‘Jackass’. Wouldn’t this still fall under the categorization of ‘tantrum-like’ if this ‘Jackass’ calling was done in ill-humor? You say this is not so, and if you say so, I am given no choice but to believe you. Why wouldn’t I? It’s no biggie. I interpreted your motivations for calling Paul a ‘Jackass’ wrong, as you say, and now I stand corrected.
“I won't repeat the question.” But seriously, why so stern? You make it sound as if you are my unforgiving teacher and I am your ever clumsy student. Which would be fine with me, but only if you would allow me to give you a really cool code name like ’Yoda’ and you could call me ’Luke’. No. No. Wait. You could call me: ‘Darth’. The dark side has so much more appeal anyhow.
And then you could be all like: “Wrong again, my insolent young Darth. Your misconceptions have once again led you astray. Let me guide you to the path of the one and only right way.”
And then I, no doubt, would be all like: “Cool. I so dig this shit. Your mighty brain-power is soooo bad-ass Yoda!”
P.S. Please don’t hurt me with your mighty brain-power.
Until the next time (and with the utmost respect), I bid you a good night Mr. Anonymous.
on May 24th, 2009 at 10:35pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
on May 25th, 2009 at 8:20am Report Abuse
CaptainObvious wrote:
Or, perhaps you are. You write,
"Pretty fucking lame, dude. Gutless, even. Kinda like your stated assumption that I think your readers are all "idiots". Where did that come from? See, this is the problem with SEE... it's not just the inaccuracies, its the lack of ethics shown when dealing with simple disagreements. Seriously, if anyone at your paper graduated from J-school (which seems very unlikely) they should hang their heads in shame, or better yet, quit while they still have any integrity worth mentioning."
"See, what it actually refers to is the attempt to discredit a person's argument by, not discussing the argument itself, but rather, by questioning the other person's unrelated personal characteristics. "
You've called him lame, gutless, unethical and then move on to suggesting that he (and everyone else at SEE) couldn't have possibly attended Journalism School. What part of this is not an ad-hominem argument? Which of the two threads of debate were these related to? Definitely not the question of whether you're a coward or not and even more importantly they don't help your points about the article in question. The comments are pretty obviously targetted at discrediting Paul by questioning his unrelated personal characteristics.
on May 25th, 2009 at 2:25pm Report Abuse
CaptainObvious wrote:
Or, perhaps you are. You write,
"I honestly don't know why anyone would seem to imagine (or maybe just pretend), or think, I'm ANGRY! Having a TANTRUM? Oh my goodness, this is all such life-and-death stuff, hey?"
"Which part of what I wrote did you find "tantrum" like, exactly?
(hint: you won't find it at dictionary.com)"
A tantrum is: "A tantrum is an emotional outburst of ill humor" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantrum Oh! Sorry. That doesn't come from dictionary.com, which is obviously the only authority on the subject.
I, for one, think you came across as an adolescent brat in the midst of an "emotional outburst of ill humor". Considering that we weren't sitting over your shoulder while you wrote this, there is no way for us to know if you were angry or not, emotional or not, or if you intended for us to think that you were throwing a tantrum or not. All we have to base any conclusions on are the words you chose, and their organization into sentences and paragraphs. We can't see your foolish smirk, we can't hear your voice.
Next time, maybe you'll keep the name calling and swearing to a minimum - so that we can see through these tantrum like traits to your core, ad-hominem, arguments
Ps. Keep up writing the satire - it's the funny stuff. The rest of this stuff is about as amusing as Paris Hilton.
on May 25th, 2009 at 2:28pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
on May 25th, 2009 at 3:25pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Too funny. Keep it up, guys.
on May 25th, 2009 at 3:28pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
This is very telling...
on May 25th, 2009 at 3:30pm Report Abuse
sharoesp wrote:
Anonymous seems to set the parameters of the comments he writes as being a superior being, I must state that many of the other commenter’s have fallen into his little game and encourage him in his hateful tirades. He has used Anonymous as the title he is writing under, so therefore is not a persona, but simply an unknown. His argument that he has been personally attacked is therefore, invalid. I have no qualms about using a ‘user name’; See magazine has my real and correct name if they need to contact me for any reason. I agree with the comment that this writer comes off sounding like a spoiled adolescent and is having fun belittling others. There is a name for that and it is called bullying. Spreading hate is illegal in this country and yes there is a place for censorship, to prevent the dissemination of hateful attitudes and information. It is said that mimicry is the most sincere form of flattery and Anonymous mimics or as he puts it ‘satires’ the articles, but this person’s comments are far from flattery, he is having fun at other people’s expense. It appears if someone disagrees with him, he uses some form of mimicry, or other abusive affectation to demean that person. Illustrations of just this kind of material are seen as Anonymous targets groups and cultures like the mentally challenged, Germans and Blacks.
I would like to point out to ‘Ann,’ that my comment to Anonymous was a rebuke; it was supposed to be HARSH! Just a comment for your benefit in the future, if you wish people to take you seriously you really shouldn’t go telling them you are feeble minded and that thinking is not your friend, that is obvious by that single statement alone. I really do hope you get help with your drinking problem and maybe your drunken sensibilities would not be offended by comments that are not directed at you.
Anonymous claims that the editor is unethical, but he in fact is either an unethical liar or a very poor journalist as he claims See does not pay their writers, and I know for a fact that they do. I would like to say to the editor that I do object to the sexual comments that are allowed to stay on the comment page as young children have access to these comments and the ones anonymous has written are inappropriate for under aged people. I would like to commend you for sticking up for Mandy and Jill and hope that they are only on hiatus and haven’t stopped writing the article because of Anonymous’ harassment.
In conclusion, I believe the comment area was originally meant so people could comment on the art, exhibitions, the opinions or any other relevant thing. The fact that Anonymous has decided to play immature games and demean others abilities is an abuse of this privilege. He also alluded to the fact that some of the comments come from people who read the Bible, as if that is a bad thing. Perhaps if Anonymous would read some of it, he may figure out what ethics and human kindness mean, besides it is a great piece of literature.
on May 30th, 2009 at 8:44pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
on May 31st, 2009 at 1:20pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:24pm Report Abuse
CaptainObvious wrote:
on May 31st, 2009 at 3:12pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
Hey there, Captain Obvious.
How you doin'?
on May 31st, 2009 at 3:54pm Report Abuse
CaptainObvious wrote:
Gotta love springtime - and gotta love that sharoesp stood up for the column.
With that - I'm leaving this thread to those who are on topic. In otherwords - not me.
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:38pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
And yes, Sharoesp deserves props for sticking up for what she believes in.
on Jun 1st, 2009 at 8:42pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Like, when she compares Mandy and Jill's writing to Mark Twain's. The differences between them are ultimately arbitrary, really. What defines the work of both Twain and the Artbox, of course, is the conversational styling. Basically, they're exactly equal.
Props, indeed, sharoesp. Big ups, even, as the mentally challenged German blacks say.
on Jun 2nd, 2009 at 7:40am Report Abuse
M.Simoens wrote:
> I would like to say to the editor that I do object to
> the sexual comments that are allowed to stay on the
> comment page as young children have access to these
> comments and the ones anonymous has written are
> inappropriate for under aged people.
I'd just like to point out that there is a "report abuse" link.
Would replacing swears/offensive remarks with asterisks suffice, sharoesp?
M.
on Jun 2nd, 2009 at 10:34am Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
You're wrong about mentally-challenged German blacks using slanguage like big ups, though. Those words are more likely to be spewed by easily offended feeble-minded drunks such as myself.
Flabbergasted as I am, I would like to leave this one alone. Cool? Thanks.
on Jun 2nd, 2009 at 2:02pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Also, my apologies to anyone who missed the sarcasm, dripping so transparently from my last comment. I'll try to be more obvious in the future.
on Jun 2nd, 2009 at 7:48pm Report Abuse
Serius wrote:
on Jun 3rd, 2009 at 12:51pm Report Abuse
Serius wrote:
on Jun 3rd, 2009 at 12:52pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
I hope my own obviousness was as obvious as I obviously intended it to be.
Oops. That was redundant.
I gotta stop putting Baileys in my coffee.
For the benefit of Sharoesp, I’ll provide a proper English translation of ‘gotta’ for those who aren’t fluent in MCGB and/or EOFMD dialect: Gotta (Got to) = Have to.
In conlusion, I would just like to say to that I’m sorry I wasn’t worried about maintaining a pretentious persona. I will, in the future, try to be dishonest. Afterall, one must not be human.
Sheesh, I was trying my very best to leave it be. But the Spawn of Satan brings out my inner Lucifer-like qualities. Damn him to hell!! Oh wait, he already resides there.
Let's leave it be now. Ok, Anonymous?
on Jun 3rd, 2009 at 2:54pm Report Abuse
heimer wrote:
You get the same MLS listing in the same local MLS for a one-time low Flat Fee instead of 6%.
If you sell your home without a buyer’s agent involved, there is zero commission.
More exposure on hundreds of national MLS websites. Many 6% Realtors limit the exposure to public websites to increase their chances of getting the entire 6% commission.
<a href="http://mls.fastrealestate.net">mls</a>
on Jun 8th, 2009 at 11:01pm Report Abuse
Post comment: (Login or Register)