By Challi
This week's cover of Zoo Weekly features forgotten Sydney 2000 singing starlet Nikki Webster in racy lingerie and promises more pictures of her like that in the magazine.
Now right now you're either thinking "Giggidy giggidy giggidy" or "eww" or "I don't care" or "How the hell did I end up on this website?" or all of the above but I was just thinking "Why not? She's 19 and she's got a nice body, more power to her", but I'm still not buying the magazine. I know it's cheap but I'd only be getting it for Nikki and I don't want to even get it for that. I learnt my lesson from her first shoot in a Zoo weekly magazine that I actually bought. It said "Look what's happened to Nikki Webster" and it featured her in a two piece. I bought it, conveniently I was in Queensland at the time so nobody I knew, except my cousin, knows that I bought it, but now you do. Dammit!
Anyway, I was kind of excited to see her but when I looked at the pictures I was kind of disappointed. I'm sure Patrick won't appreciate me posting smut on the blog, we're way too refined for that, so just search nikki+webster+zoo in Google and you can see what I mean. She doesn't smile in the majority of her photos!
I know the oogling of her body is degrading and demeaning to both her and I, but she doesn't need to remind us of it! She has a look of disgust on her face like I just walked in on her while she was getting changed. Now excuse me while I talk in second person. Just pretend you're Nikki for a moment.
How about a little smile, girl? You're getting paid to wear barely anything and look pretty, not make us feel bad about ourself! That look of disgust is really discouraging and a real turn-off anyway, especially because you show your buckteeth when you do it, I hope you don't stare at your boyfriend in that way when he's pleasuring himself to your pictures.
Ok, you aren't Nikki Webster anymore, not that you ever were.
If it wasn't for the pictures semi-naked women, Zoo magazine would not be worth buying at all. It's just a whole lot of poorly pieced together articles with a section full of jpegs that are all available from the freaking internet anyway. So I want to get what I paid for: Scantily clad women looking pretty and looking like they enjoy it, and I don't feel dirty because they've still almost got clothes on.
and before you try to connect this with what I do during the night with the door closed, I say this:
Shut up, you do it too, just not as frequently.
-C
Friday, September 29, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
the twenty dollar challenge:
By Challi
I needed some kind of inspiration for me to make an interesting post, and some of the best inspiration I can always get from work, and that's what I did today: I went to work. Yahoo for me!
Today in the till I noticed a twenty dollar note unlike any other, it had a protest on it! Check it out!
Now if you can't read neo-greenie high horse it says "TRUST JOHNNY HOWARD. ? (Squiggly mark) No No No (Squiggly mark) ." and even if you can read it, that's still what it says.
Did you get the ever so subtle message? Howard has the word "war" in his name so they've highlighted it to refer to his connections with a war! It's like since his last name has "war" in it, he is destined to participate in a war! *poke* Geddit? *poke poke*
Clearly this twenty dollar must of been scribbled on by some self-righteous hippie whilst the election between Mark Latham and John Howard took place and people were still bitchy about the 2003 "invasion" of "Iraq" by "The Coalition" and wanted "Mark Latham" to be "elected" in the 2004 "federal election" because they "reckon" he could "stop it" (Ok, I'll stop with the quotation marks). It was also scribbled on during a time when that phrase would of still been considered clever.
Nowadays, your average Australian citizen cares a little less about the war in Iraq because we're all focusing on some war between Israel and Lebanon, and we've even stopped focusing on that because it's footy finals season. So this twenty dollar note represents a moment in time when a whole lot of whiny Aussies decided that they don't like the war because people die in it, and we all stepped up and let John Howard know that we don't like him anymore because he sent troops out to kill and get killed. It's a piece of history, basically, so I might keep it for a bit until I lack money and actually need to spend it and then some other unfortunate sod will be stuck with a twenty dollar note that has a slightly outdated protest scribbled on it. Or it's still valid, I don't know how hippies think.
But wow, what a great way to protest. Sure it's illegal, sure people will be embarrassed to use it now, but at least people will read your message and you will be heard by the masses due to the power of consumerism and money circulation. Besides, nobody wants to chuck a twenty dollar note away, do they?
Think about it
-C
I needed some kind of inspiration for me to make an interesting post, and some of the best inspiration I can always get from work, and that's what I did today: I went to work. Yahoo for me!
Today in the till I noticed a twenty dollar note unlike any other, it had a protest on it! Check it out!
Now if you can't read neo-greenie high horse it says "TRUST JOHNNY HOWARD. ? (Squiggly mark) No No No (Squiggly mark) ." and even if you can read it, that's still what it says.
Did you get the ever so subtle message? Howard has the word "war" in his name so they've highlighted it to refer to his connections with a war! It's like since his last name has "war" in it, he is destined to participate in a war! *poke* Geddit? *poke poke*
Clearly this twenty dollar must of been scribbled on by some self-righteous hippie whilst the election between Mark Latham and John Howard took place and people were still bitchy about the 2003 "invasion" of "Iraq" by "The Coalition" and wanted "Mark Latham" to be "elected" in the 2004 "federal election" because they "reckon" he could "stop it" (Ok, I'll stop with the quotation marks). It was also scribbled on during a time when that phrase would of still been considered clever.
Nowadays, your average Australian citizen cares a little less about the war in Iraq because we're all focusing on some war between Israel and Lebanon, and we've even stopped focusing on that because it's footy finals season. So this twenty dollar note represents a moment in time when a whole lot of whiny Aussies decided that they don't like the war because people die in it, and we all stepped up and let John Howard know that we don't like him anymore because he sent troops out to kill and get killed. It's a piece of history, basically, so I might keep it for a bit until I lack money and actually need to spend it and then some other unfortunate sod will be stuck with a twenty dollar note that has a slightly outdated protest scribbled on it. Or it's still valid, I don't know how hippies think.
But wow, what a great way to protest. Sure it's illegal, sure people will be embarrassed to use it now, but at least people will read your message and you will be heard by the masses due to the power of consumerism and money circulation. Besides, nobody wants to chuck a twenty dollar note away, do they?
Think about it
-C
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
urgent memo: help Flinders on Wikipedia!
By PJK
Ok gang, this is serious. I just looked up the article for Flinders University on Wikipedia and it's woefully inadequate. Take a look for yourselves. It's nothing more than some dull background followed by a few dot points. The section labelled "student life" has nothing under it!! Literally nothing!!
Now I know it's the mid-semester break and you're all probably hung over from like ten nights of consecutive drinking-binges, but even that fact itself is a story that needs to be told! Think: all it takes is one sentence each and we've already written a paragraph. It doesn't have to be good, it doesn't even need to be true. It just needs to be done. Tell your friends! Get the word out! If not for me, then for the Flinders mascot! (invent a Flinders mascot and upload a photo of it)
Do it! Do it now!
Ok gang, this is serious. I just looked up the article for Flinders University on Wikipedia and it's woefully inadequate. Take a look for yourselves. It's nothing more than some dull background followed by a few dot points. The section labelled "student life" has nothing under it!! Literally nothing!!
Now I know it's the mid-semester break and you're all probably hung over from like ten nights of consecutive drinking-binges, but even that fact itself is a story that needs to be told! Think: all it takes is one sentence each and we've already written a paragraph. It doesn't have to be good, it doesn't even need to be true. It just needs to be done. Tell your friends! Get the word out! If not for me, then for the Flinders mascot! (invent a Flinders mascot and upload a photo of it)
Do it! Do it now!
Saturday, September 23, 2006
the tank from the black lagoon...
By PJK
Ahhh man. Here's a story that'll put a smile on the face of any self-respecting male. In a heartwarming case of every-little-boy's-dream-come-true, Estonian hobbyists uncover a Soviet T34 tank (circa 1944) buried in a peat bog. Lucky bastards!!
Naturally there are pics:
Holy crap that's beautiful...
Ahhh man. Here's a story that'll put a smile on the face of any self-respecting male. In a heartwarming case of every-little-boy's-dream-come-true, Estonian hobbyists uncover a Soviet T34 tank (circa 1944) buried in a peat bog. Lucky bastards!!
Naturally there are pics:
Holy crap that's beautiful...Don't be confused by the German insignia; it's a trophy tank, taken by the Germans and purposely abandoned. Just as well, otherwise it'd be scrap metal by now. Seems the peat managed to preserve it pretty well though:
Altogether, 116 shells were found on board. Remarkably, the tank was in good condition, with no rust, and all systems (except the engine) in working condition.And yes, they did get it working using a substituted engine. I am so fucking jealous. I want a tank ride damnit!!
Monday, September 18, 2006
reactions to the pope's comments.
By PJK
Just some quick thoughts RE: the Pope's comments. Now, obviously the comments were bound to spur controversy, and if the the Pope didn't think people would overreact, or was hoping for that effect, he's an idiot, plain and simple (yes, I am allowed to call the Pope an idiot if I want, and remember that what I just said was a conditional statement). HOWEVER, there is no reason why anyone should arrive at the conclusion, as one commenter on our Cbox remarked, that "the Pope doesn't like Muslim people".
First of all, the Pope was QUOTING. He made perfectly clear that the quote was not a reflection of his own view, so unfortunately for all you rabid anti-Papal nutjobs, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt here. And if you look at the comment in context, it's a valid point. The Pope was speaking on the subject of "faith and reason", specifically, suggesting that anyone who spreads faith through violence shows a lack of reason. I agree. And it is a historical fact that the religion of Islam, at the command of its own prophet, did at one time spread the Islamic faith by the sword, killing many innocent people in the name of Allah. Let's not sugar-coat history here people. Christians did the same thing, so did Hindus and Buddhists and probably at some point even Jews. The fact that he focused on Islam was probably a bad move, but so what? Why do we allow one religion's sensitivity to blanket any criticism of its radical elements? Particularly something that happened over 600 years ago? Any religion should be open to criticism. Yet the hysteria mounts, and even in this enlightened age, we see people firebombed for drawing cartoons of Muhammed (for example). How can anyone who believes in free speech defend that? Political correctness, if taken seriously (and that is a whole other discussion entirely), should not accept double-standards.
Just some quick thoughts RE: the Pope's comments. Now, obviously the comments were bound to spur controversy, and if the the Pope didn't think people would overreact, or was hoping for that effect, he's an idiot, plain and simple (yes, I am allowed to call the Pope an idiot if I want, and remember that what I just said was a conditional statement). HOWEVER, there is no reason why anyone should arrive at the conclusion, as one commenter on our Cbox remarked, that "the Pope doesn't like Muslim people".
First of all, the Pope was QUOTING. He made perfectly clear that the quote was not a reflection of his own view, so unfortunately for all you rabid anti-Papal nutjobs, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt here. And if you look at the comment in context, it's a valid point. The Pope was speaking on the subject of "faith and reason", specifically, suggesting that anyone who spreads faith through violence shows a lack of reason. I agree. And it is a historical fact that the religion of Islam, at the command of its own prophet, did at one time spread the Islamic faith by the sword, killing many innocent people in the name of Allah. Let's not sugar-coat history here people. Christians did the same thing, so did Hindus and Buddhists and probably at some point even Jews. The fact that he focused on Islam was probably a bad move, but so what? Why do we allow one religion's sensitivity to blanket any criticism of its radical elements? Particularly something that happened over 600 years ago? Any religion should be open to criticism. Yet the hysteria mounts, and even in this enlightened age, we see people firebombed for drawing cartoons of Muhammed (for example). How can anyone who believes in free speech defend that? Political correctness, if taken seriously (and that is a whole other discussion entirely), should not accept double-standards.
if you can't stand the heat...
By Challi
Let me just start this little rant by saying this, and even if you don't let me I'm going to do it anyway, you can't stop me:
Jamie Oliver is an crap chef who clearly doesn't know what he's doing at all and touches and eats way too much of what he's supposed to be preparing. He is also disorganised and annoying. If he was ever on Iron Chef, Hiroyuki Sakai would pwn him to the ground in a metaphor that is not to be taken literally. To clarify...
Now Jamie's Kitchen Australia is equally as stupid as the idiot it is named after, if not less. Why? Jamie Oliver is trying to make a restaurant that is supposed to be able to compete with the other top restaurants in Melbourne. You'd think that in order to do that he'd want to hire some competent people who have completed some form of education and know at least something about cooking, right? Wrong. Jamie Oliver had specifically ordered his selection team to choose a bunch of former druggies, criminals and some clinically depressed people and shun the intellectuals and uni graduates away.
and in the upcoming episode, we'll apparently learn that there are going to be some troubles and conflicts. Of course there is going to be some fucking problems, you hired druggies and ex-cons to take care of your restaurant! It's not exactly going to be a walk in the park. I know Jamie Oliver is trying to give these lowlives a "second chance" but this is a place of business, not the fucking Salvos! Half of them will abandon the restaurant and go back to hooker duties and the druggies will probably have a case of the munchies and eat half the food they're supposed to be preparing, kind of like what Jamie does. The whole restaurant will be a wreck but Jamie will be out of the country long before that happens, because he's just that kind of douche.
Probably shouldn't of opened the restaurant in Melbourne either, that's a bad way to get the windows broken.
and another thing, Jamie Oliver is hiring people with lower or similar competency to him and got rid of the intellectuals. Maoism much?
To clarify...
Now you political geeks can argue with me all you like about what it means to be a Maoist or what Mao Tse Tung did, and then you'd be bewildered as how I could make such a stupid comparison, but I think we can all agree that Jamie Oliver is a nutface.
and if Jamie Oliver really did try to kill everyone smarter than him, there goes the Southern Hemisphere.
Don't worry, I'm sure Patrick will come up with a more meaningful post when he comes around
So bye for now
-C
Let me just start this little rant by saying this, and even if you don't let me I'm going to do it anyway, you can't stop me:
Jamie Oliver is an crap chef who clearly doesn't know what he's doing at all and touches and eats way too much of what he's supposed to be preparing. He is also disorganised and annoying. If he was ever on Iron Chef, Hiroyuki Sakai would pwn him to the ground in a metaphor that is not to be taken literally. To clarify...
Now Jamie's Kitchen Australia is equally as stupid as the idiot it is named after, if not less. Why? Jamie Oliver is trying to make a restaurant that is supposed to be able to compete with the other top restaurants in Melbourne. You'd think that in order to do that he'd want to hire some competent people who have completed some form of education and know at least something about cooking, right? Wrong. Jamie Oliver had specifically ordered his selection team to choose a bunch of former druggies, criminals and some clinically depressed people and shun the intellectuals and uni graduates away.
and in the upcoming episode, we'll apparently learn that there are going to be some troubles and conflicts. Of course there is going to be some fucking problems, you hired druggies and ex-cons to take care of your restaurant! It's not exactly going to be a walk in the park. I know Jamie Oliver is trying to give these lowlives a "second chance" but this is a place of business, not the fucking Salvos! Half of them will abandon the restaurant and go back to hooker duties and the druggies will probably have a case of the munchies and eat half the food they're supposed to be preparing, kind of like what Jamie does. The whole restaurant will be a wreck but Jamie will be out of the country long before that happens, because he's just that kind of douche.
Probably shouldn't of opened the restaurant in Melbourne either, that's a bad way to get the windows broken.
and another thing, Jamie Oliver is hiring people with lower or similar competency to him and got rid of the intellectuals. Maoism much?
To clarify...
Now you political geeks can argue with me all you like about what it means to be a Maoist or what Mao Tse Tung did, and then you'd be bewildered as how I could make such a stupid comparison, but I think we can all agree that Jamie Oliver is a nutface.
and if Jamie Oliver really did try to kill everyone smarter than him, there goes the Southern Hemisphere.
Don't worry, I'm sure Patrick will come up with a more meaningful post when he comes around
So bye for now
-C
Saturday, September 16, 2006
what if stupid songwriters were one of us?
By Challi
There had been an old song from 1995 (Gosh, almost ancient) playing on the radio the other day (the other day being 4 weeks ago) that's been kind of bugging me a lot because it sticks in your head, and I admit to downloading it once before, but the lyrics are so bland and don't make sense at all. It wouldn't usually bother me but the guy who wrote the lyrics (Eric Bazilian, btw, not like you care) was clearly trying to be all philosophical but instead wrote a song that is incredibly ignorant and has demeaned us as humans.
The song I'm referring to is "One of us" by Joan Osborne. Ring a bell yet? It undeservedly won a Grammy for song of the year in 1996 probably just because it mentions God in it 20 times. The lyrics to the chorus ought to refresh your memory.
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?
Yeah that's right. That song.
Now if God was one of us, he'd be just that, one of us. He'd just be some stranger that we wouldn't look at twice because he's just some uninteresting guy we don't know. That's pretty much what the chorus is saying anyway, but let's take a look at some of the other lyrics.
If God had a name what would it be?
And would you call it to his face?
I'm sure his name would still be God, or possibly Godfrey, but I wouldn't call it to his face because I don't know who the fuck he is, because he'd just be some stranger on the bus.
If you were faced with Him in all His glory
What would you ask if you had just one question?
If he was just some slob like one of us, he would not be in "all his glory", because he wouldn't have a whole lot of glory anyway. The only question I'd need to ask him would be something like "Could you please move out of the way so I could get out of the bus?"
If God had a face what would it look like?
And would you want to see if, seeing meant
That you would have to believe in things like heaven
And in Jesus and the saints, and all the prophets?
but it wouldn't. He's supposed to be a human now in your little hypothetical, so I'd be able to see him anyway unless he is hiding behind something. I would not have to believe in any spiritual being in order for a normal human to be visible to me. Geez.
Back up to heaven all alone
"Back" up to heaven? If God was truly one of us, he would of been born on Earth. And yeah, "maybe" go back up to heaven when he dies.
No, nobody calling on the phone
No, just tryin' to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
'Cept for the Pope maybe in Rome
What the fuck? We slobs don't get phone calls from the freaking Pope! and if we did, we wouldn't exactly be on his speed dial. If God was just some slob like one of us, he wouldn't get calls from the Pope. I mean c'mon, what would make him so special? I doubt God even gets phone calls from the Pope in reality. What a stupid thing to say.
So the bottom line is this: If God was one of us, nobody who didn't know who he is would give a shit who he is. Not even the Pope. It's like the guy who wrote the song is completely out of touch of how a normal human is like and thinks that we're all invisible and are friends with the Pope. We really aren't.
and that's the bottom line because Challi said so.
-C
There had been an old song from 1995 (Gosh, almost ancient) playing on the radio the other day (the other day being 4 weeks ago) that's been kind of bugging me a lot because it sticks in your head, and I admit to downloading it once before, but the lyrics are so bland and don't make sense at all. It wouldn't usually bother me but the guy who wrote the lyrics (Eric Bazilian, btw, not like you care) was clearly trying to be all philosophical but instead wrote a song that is incredibly ignorant and has demeaned us as humans.
The song I'm referring to is "One of us" by Joan Osborne. Ring a bell yet? It undeservedly won a Grammy for song of the year in 1996 probably just because it mentions God in it 20 times. The lyrics to the chorus ought to refresh your memory.
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?
Yeah that's right. That song.
Now if God was one of us, he'd be just that, one of us. He'd just be some stranger that we wouldn't look at twice because he's just some uninteresting guy we don't know. That's pretty much what the chorus is saying anyway, but let's take a look at some of the other lyrics.
If God had a name what would it be?
And would you call it to his face?
I'm sure his name would still be God, or possibly Godfrey, but I wouldn't call it to his face because I don't know who the fuck he is, because he'd just be some stranger on the bus.
If you were faced with Him in all His glory
What would you ask if you had just one question?
If he was just some slob like one of us, he would not be in "all his glory", because he wouldn't have a whole lot of glory anyway. The only question I'd need to ask him would be something like "Could you please move out of the way so I could get out of the bus?"
If God had a face what would it look like?
And would you want to see if, seeing meant
That you would have to believe in things like heaven
And in Jesus and the saints, and all the prophets?
but it wouldn't. He's supposed to be a human now in your little hypothetical, so I'd be able to see him anyway unless he is hiding behind something. I would not have to believe in any spiritual being in order for a normal human to be visible to me. Geez.
Back up to heaven all alone
"Back" up to heaven? If God was truly one of us, he would of been born on Earth. And yeah, "maybe" go back up to heaven when he dies.
No, nobody calling on the phone
No, just tryin' to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
'Cept for the Pope maybe in Rome
What the fuck? We slobs don't get phone calls from the freaking Pope! and if we did, we wouldn't exactly be on his speed dial. If God was just some slob like one of us, he wouldn't get calls from the Pope. I mean c'mon, what would make him so special? I doubt God even gets phone calls from the Pope in reality. What a stupid thing to say.
So the bottom line is this: If God was one of us, nobody who didn't know who he is would give a shit who he is. Not even the Pope. It's like the guy who wrote the song is completely out of touch of how a normal human is like and thinks that we're all invisible and are friends with the Pope. We really aren't.
and that's the bottom line because Challi said so.
-C
kung fu action swords!
By PJK
HEY!! I'm LOUD!!
Did you read the text in capitals louder in your head? You should've, it was intentional. It represents me shouting at you. LISTEN TO ME!! Are you? Excellent.
Rarely do I frequent the cinema as my major source of amusement. If my brow were any higher, it'd be levetating above my head. But I did see Fearless recently — it's a movie — and of course one of the great things about martial arts films is the insane martial arts they do! People get smashed, grabbed, knee-ed, kicked in the shins and so forth. All that is awesome, and sometimes they even use deadly weapons when fighting. But that's not actually what I love most about martial arts epics. My favourite thing ever is just the whole visual motifs in these films, the aesthetics if you will. The sets, the costumes, the landscapes. This is where asian cinema excels.
Talking about movies critically in this way is not my vain attempt at being avant-garde. I don't even know what that means. For I, dear readers, am a student of Screen Studies, and this is all part of my plot to destroy Hollywood! ... I kid. Except not about the Screen Studies part. I am actually doing it (so is Challi, my co-conspirator for this weblog). It's one of several arts subjects I'm taking this semester, along with History and Philosophy (I'm starting Law next semester). But now I'm straying from the topic and we can't have that. Back to film. So what you find with Screen Studies is, surprise surprise, there are a lot of very pretentious people doing it (including moi of course). Unlike them however, I'm not that much of a movie snob. Mainly because I haven't seen nearly as many movies as most screen students. I hate the same crap they hate, but when it comes to naming directors, I find myself at ClueFactor Zero™.
For this reason, Screen Studies has been my least successful subject, grades-wise, this semester. I'm trying to better that though, because I really do enjoy my weekly dose of screen. The lectures are fun and the screenings are a good chance to see some classic films with an appreciative audience. It's also fun to do some "homework" on your own — I've been renting films from the directors/genres/eras we're studying to try and get a better grasp of the subject and I'm already starting to feel the snobbery begin to bulge like rippling biceps of pretention! It's fascinating, and contrary to what I thought, it's not actually ruining my experience of going to movies (quite the opposite in fact).
So back to Fearless. Though it is a joy of a film to watch (got that one from Margaret and David, yoink), it didn't have the same depth as say, House of the Flying Daggers. I think one thing we can all agree on however: it would totally suck to own a restaurant or teahouse in a martial arts movie. You just know what's going to happen! Why did I buy those vases, oh why?!
HEY!! I'm LOUD!!
Did you read the text in capitals louder in your head? You should've, it was intentional. It represents me shouting at you. LISTEN TO ME!! Are you? Excellent.
Rarely do I frequent the cinema as my major source of amusement. If my brow were any higher, it'd be levetating above my head. But I did see Fearless recently — it's a movie — and of course one of the great things about martial arts films is the insane martial arts they do! People get smashed, grabbed, knee-ed, kicked in the shins and so forth. All that is awesome, and sometimes they even use deadly weapons when fighting. But that's not actually what I love most about martial arts epics. My favourite thing ever is just the whole visual motifs in these films, the aesthetics if you will. The sets, the costumes, the landscapes. This is where asian cinema excels.
Talking about movies critically in this way is not my vain attempt at being avant-garde. I don't even know what that means. For I, dear readers, am a student of Screen Studies, and this is all part of my plot to destroy Hollywood! ... I kid. Except not about the Screen Studies part. I am actually doing it (so is Challi, my co-conspirator for this weblog). It's one of several arts subjects I'm taking this semester, along with History and Philosophy (I'm starting Law next semester). But now I'm straying from the topic and we can't have that. Back to film. So what you find with Screen Studies is, surprise surprise, there are a lot of very pretentious people doing it (including moi of course). Unlike them however, I'm not that much of a movie snob. Mainly because I haven't seen nearly as many movies as most screen students. I hate the same crap they hate, but when it comes to naming directors, I find myself at ClueFactor Zero™.
For this reason, Screen Studies has been my least successful subject, grades-wise, this semester. I'm trying to better that though, because I really do enjoy my weekly dose of screen. The lectures are fun and the screenings are a good chance to see some classic films with an appreciative audience. It's also fun to do some "homework" on your own — I've been renting films from the directors/genres/eras we're studying to try and get a better grasp of the subject and I'm already starting to feel the snobbery begin to bulge like rippling biceps of pretention! It's fascinating, and contrary to what I thought, it's not actually ruining my experience of going to movies (quite the opposite in fact).
So back to Fearless. Though it is a joy of a film to watch (got that one from Margaret and David, yoink), it didn't have the same depth as say, House of the Flying Daggers. I think one thing we can all agree on however: it would totally suck to own a restaurant or teahouse in a martial arts movie. You just know what's going to happen! Why did I buy those vases, oh why?!
Friday, September 15, 2006
cheers to you, mrs. robinson.
By Challi
Hello, my name is Michael Challis, co-contributor to the blog, you killed my father, prepare to die.
If you don't know me by now, congratulations. You're one of the lucky ones. Unfortunately you'll have to find out about me and watch me fuel my ego while this blog is still around and I'm still on it. I used to have a blog of my own but then I realised that in order to have a proper blog I would have to update it at least once a year, which I failed to do. So I'll just let Patrick keep the blog alive and I shall use this blog on the occasion that I feel a rant coming on and need to dispose of it here so I don't stain my clothes. Like now:
As a job, I work at my parent's pet stuff and pet food store down in rural Adelaide Hills. As such, we get many a customer, most of whom lack teeth and reek of pot. Whenever we finish a transaction with a customer, these monstrous entities always feel they should exchange gratitude for it. That's fine, if they just said "Thanks" but unfortunately for me, the flavour of the last few years has been "Cheers". Nobody ever says thanks anymore, they just say "Cheers", like I just clinked a glass of rancid wine with theirs, which I haven't.
Why has "Cheers" officially replaced "Thanks" in Australian culture? Were we just looking for something different to say, or were we just trying to allude to that stupid sitcom? Saying "Cheers" doesn't even make sense in a situation where you'd normally say thanks anyhow. "Cheers" implies celebration, and buying something from our shop, which they do every freaking day, isn't exactly a cause for a celebration. That is unless you're a really lonely person who gets really excited every time you go to shop because that's the only way you can make human contact anymore.
If that is the case, then that's not exactly a cause for a celebration, but crank out the booze anyway.
-C
Hello, my name is Michael Challis, co-contributor to the blog, you killed my father, prepare to die.
If you don't know me by now, congratulations. You're one of the lucky ones. Unfortunately you'll have to find out about me and watch me fuel my ego while this blog is still around and I'm still on it. I used to have a blog of my own but then I realised that in order to have a proper blog I would have to update it at least once a year, which I failed to do. So I'll just let Patrick keep the blog alive and I shall use this blog on the occasion that I feel a rant coming on and need to dispose of it here so I don't stain my clothes. Like now:
As a job, I work at my parent's pet stuff and pet food store down in rural Adelaide Hills. As such, we get many a customer, most of whom lack teeth and reek of pot. Whenever we finish a transaction with a customer, these monstrous entities always feel they should exchange gratitude for it. That's fine, if they just said "Thanks" but unfortunately for me, the flavour of the last few years has been "Cheers". Nobody ever says thanks anymore, they just say "Cheers", like I just clinked a glass of rancid wine with theirs, which I haven't.
Why has "Cheers" officially replaced "Thanks" in Australian culture? Were we just looking for something different to say, or were we just trying to allude to that stupid sitcom? Saying "Cheers" doesn't even make sense in a situation where you'd normally say thanks anyhow. "Cheers" implies celebration, and buying something from our shop, which they do every freaking day, isn't exactly a cause for a celebration. That is unless you're a really lonely person who gets really excited every time you go to shop because that's the only way you can make human contact anymore.
If that is the case, then that's not exactly a cause for a celebration, but crank out the booze anyway.
-C
Thursday, September 07, 2006
connect the dots to find the treasure.
By PJK
Text text text text shadalah bing! — Welcome.
Alright, that takes care of the intro. You know who I am, you know what a blog is for, let's not fool around any.
I presume my readers are all aware that I'm back in Australia? I am. It's currently week... dunno, stopped keeping track of the weeks... at my new academic home, Flinders University™. And to think I need only cross several tectonic plate-lines from my house to get there! It's great. Remind me to write more about student life in later posts. Besides the novelty of being at uni though (which I admit is rapidly fading) I seriously can't believe just how fast everything is now back to normal. The first six months of this year are now like a blip in my mind! I'm dissapointed, but I can't say I didn't predict that. Anyway, things aren't all gloomy. Naturally I've caught up with many of my friends and lesser beings since getting back (plenty of Merc alumni at Flinders of course), and yeah... right now I'm just taking life as it comes, trying to find true hapiness etc. in this puzzle that is our existence. Kewl! (note to readers: this is not a novel spelling of cool, please avoid.)
When in future I think of specific things to discuss, they will become posts. My only useful thought just now was, hey, I should stop procrastinating and make that new blog I was meaning to make! And I did. Yay me! Freep.
Text text text text shadalah bing! — Welcome.
Alright, that takes care of the intro. You know who I am, you know what a blog is for, let's not fool around any.
I presume my readers are all aware that I'm back in Australia? I am. It's currently week... dunno, stopped keeping track of the weeks... at my new academic home, Flinders University™. And to think I need only cross several tectonic plate-lines from my house to get there! It's great. Remind me to write more about student life in later posts. Besides the novelty of being at uni though (which I admit is rapidly fading) I seriously can't believe just how fast everything is now back to normal. The first six months of this year are now like a blip in my mind! I'm dissapointed, but I can't say I didn't predict that. Anyway, things aren't all gloomy. Naturally I've caught up with many of my friends and lesser beings since getting back (plenty of Merc alumni at Flinders of course), and yeah... right now I'm just taking life as it comes, trying to find true hapiness etc. in this puzzle that is our existence. Kewl! (note to readers: this is not a novel spelling of cool, please avoid.)
When in future I think of specific things to discuss, they will become posts. My only useful thought just now was, hey, I should stop procrastinating and make that new blog I was meaning to make! And I did. Yay me! Freep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
