|
Post by Little Miss Odd on May 24, 2006 0:14:32 GMT -5
You'd rather I went back into hiding? So I guess regaling y'all with horror tales of my overly friendly roommate and her thing for pouncing on people in bed is a no? and she thinks Terrance is amusing. Poor girl.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on May 24, 2006 0:33:50 GMT -5
Bah, you're only here until you are whisked away.
|
|
|
Post by Blues on May 24, 2006 2:13:20 GMT -5
You'd rather I went back into hiding? So I guess regaling y'all with horror tales of my overly friendly roommate and her thing for pouncing on people in bed is a no? and she thinks Terrance is amusing. Poor girl. you mean enlightened. or however you spell that.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 25, 2006 20:38:13 GMT -5
Light isn't necessarily a ray either, Nick darling. It can behave as one though. I suppose it depends on what level of physics you wish to stop at. The idea of light and its behavior has been debated for eons, and the more we have to examine and explore, the mor revisions we have to make. Particle, ray, wave, quanta.... don't be so tightlaced. I'll take your word for it. My point was more that Light had 'physical' properties while darkness is merely its absence. My reasoning behind the other thing was again that physics was refferenced, and combining real physics with surrealist thought is like combining Legos with Megablocks: they'll stick together but the link is awkward and forced. In my opinion, the piece would flow better without the refference to physics.
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on May 25, 2006 22:51:31 GMT -5
In my opinion OH GOD I'M BEING EATED BY DOLFINS!!!
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 26, 2006 0:46:33 GMT -5
Who me? = P
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on May 27, 2006 17:17:22 GMT -5
Multiple misspelled clones of you, yes.
|
|