Subject: Re: WHY COMPUTER MUSIC SUCKS_Bob Ostertag
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) (iriXx@iriXx.org)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 00:37:26 EDT
Kevin Austin wrote:
> The article is a reflection on the state / condition of the writers'
> (sic) mind.
> It could be that the glass is half empty, or it could be half full, or
> it could be "Who needs this g*dd*m useless m*thrf*n glass of water
> The glass of water hasn't changed.
the glass of *insert alcoholic substance and not water* is not big
enough. in which case you're right, who needs the
"&£%&"$ *$&^"£*$^£* *^*£^$*&^"£*$^*^£*"^$)*^£"*)^$*) glass anyway.
if you've watched The Matrix: There is no glass.
> How many psychoanalysts does it take to change a glass of water?
one, but only if it wants to change.
> How many fathers does it take to change a smelly baby?
one parent. father or mother. doesnt matter. of course both could do it
and cuddle nice clean baby after. that is, hoping baby doesnt take
advantage of fresh nappy like some do.... ;)
best to you too kevin.
> At 09:51 -0400 2005/10/04, Morgan Sutherland wrote:
>> Popular music is not computer music? What constitutes computer music?
>> All digital? No recording?
-- 99% of aliens prefer Earth --Eminem
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:12 EST