>It’s not conspiracy, it’s just incompetency.
Incompentence predominates as a cause of bad results with Bush. But he also has had bad policies. The combination of bad policies pursued with gross incompetence has made me fear for my country. I remember the Cuban missle crisis, the Viet Nam war. I wasn't worried then. Now, I'm worried.
"Especially in Italy, which until very recently was a
puppet regime, and still is highly servile to the empire."
Puppet Regime? Puppet of whom exactly and servile to which empire? You can say what you want about Berlusconi or Prodi but to use this kind of terminology in relation to Italy (or France or Germany for that matter) is superficial and far fetched to say the least. What exactly do you think qualifies Italy as a puppet regime and which Italian policies do you think demonstrate Italy is servile to THE empire (whatever that means). You can't be serious hrant, I'm not beeing patriotic here (god knows I was deliriously happy to see Berlusconi's back) but I hadn't heard this sort of discourse (puppet regime, servile to the empire) for a long time. As far as I'm concerned it sounds as melodramatic as a Mexican (or a Brazilian) soap opera!
Bush: Don't blame the puppet. They can always make new ones.
Lore, I'm concerned most of all with reality, not formal accuracy. Maybe I used "puppet regime" in an extreme way. But to me it's as factual as facts get that Italy is heading in the same direction as the rest of Europe (and doing so faster than average) the same place Canada has been for a while: a province of the empire.
I don't know if it's clear, but I am a citizen of the USA, and I know there are people involved in political struggle here. My remark was specifically about hrant and not the type group at all. He just seems so passionate and negative about America, and doesn't seem to find solutions within this system, such as you may, that I thought his energy would be more useful elsewhere, or at least that he shouldn't continue contributing to a system he detests so much. Besides, I think he can take it.
So, you liked my cover and you disliked my cover? Then I did my job.
>"What’s lost, unfortunately, is the difference between Che, the person, and Nike/iPod, the corporations."
My point is that, at this point, there is no difference, and I was trying to educate people about that fact, those who may not know. Cuba, is a Capitalist country. The currency is the Dollar, profit is key, they have all sorts of corrupt deals with European countries. Say, Italy runs a paper company in Cuba, pays the government $20,000 a year per worker, and the government pays the worker $200. My cousin is an accountant and has to hide these things from the employees at the factory. So, when you talk about abusive labor tactics, Nike, Che, and I-pod are all in the same boat. And, like Hrant, I'm trying to get people to open their minds. It may have come out of the blue for some because the design community is not aware of this stuff, Che is just an idolized pretty icon, but I thought my additions would jar some people into asking some questions.
The other thing around here, which may come out in things I say, is that I see a very elitist attitude as type being the only solution to everything. Things such as drawing a person is just wrong, etc. etc. I am an illustrator, and an art director. I use pictures, drawings, and type. Such absolutism about type being of higher intellectual and spiritual value bugs me, so I may make fun of it once in a while. I find a long discussion about what font is used in e-mail funny. No disrespect, it's just funny to me in the grand scheme. And if you don't see the inherent comedy in that then you've been looking at type for too long, laugh at yourselves once in a while.
>I’m concerned most of all with reality, not formal accuracy.
Cuba, is a Capitalist country. The currency is the Dollar, profit is key,
Ok, that's interesting. I see the Che image as more reflective of the man, Che Guavara, than you do, Edel! I honestly don't equate Che Guavara, who died in 1967 with the Cuba of today. My guess is that most U.S.-Americans (referring to us born and bred 'mericans) see the image as an historical artifact (like similar images of Santino, Marti or Abe Lincolnfor that matter). Are you saying Cubans see Che as iconic of today's Cuba? That's a very different read.
The other thing around here, which may come out in things I say, is that I see a very elitist attitude as type being the only solution to everything.
I haven't seen that here. I love type and the intricacies of type and love having a place to get together with other people who like type, too. But most of us here are extremely aware that we are a small part of a greater whole and, in general, a part that gets overlooked rather than overpromoted. There are no stars here. Even Matthew Carter, one of the view typographers whose name is known outside the field of typography, is an unpretentious and friendly fellow, as far as I've seen.
Now Tiffany, on the other hand.... (joke)
nahhhh....don't overestimate the influence of "the empire" in Europe.
Edel, the clue to the focus of the forums is in the url, however, I have to agree with you about the thread you picked out.
Che seems to be a demonised pretty icon to some as well, I don't think the design community is any less aware than any other generic group, in fact many designers I know are politically aware and/or active.
….don’t overestimate the influence of “the empire” in Europe.
You probably know as well as I that we – the Europeans – are dependant on the American dream. If they – the Americans – started to question that concept and started a revolution the world economy would sky dive and the old world with it. Vanity is OK, it's what brings us great design and art, but don't rock the boat, will ya.
Edel: To make assumptions is human, to learn from incorrect ones divine.
Lore, Fredo is right on. And if you choose to misbehave, you will end up sanctioned, over-thrown, bombed, whatever it takes to get you back in line. That's what a superpower does; and that's why things were better when we had two of them.
Nations don't speak with one mind and never have. Hell, Families rarely speak with one mind--ever seen a family argument? Most murders in the U.S. are commited on and by family members. How can you expect the globe to dance to the tune of one "empire"? This is just too simplistic and in search of an artificial catagorization of convenience.
Empires are themselves the ones that expect (or least work
towards, which is the real problem) such things, not me.
Europeans and Americans do not share a common view of the world. I don’t think we even share the same culture and I am inclined to think that Europeans don’t see the world divided between good and evil, or friends and enemies (although you can’t generalize about Europeans). Generally speaking I think Europeans don’t tend to unilateralism or favour policies of coercion in international affairs. They are more inclined to work through international institutions, are less skeptical about international law than Americans and respond to threats in different ways. In fact, unlike hrant, I see the ideological differences between Europe and the States just growing. And this is by no means a recent development (although the end of the cold war or Bosnia or Kossovo could probably be a good starting point). Sorry hrant but you are overestimating the influence of the US in Europe and I think it’s safe to say that we are so not heading in the same direction and I hope I am not just flattering myself when I say that. Of course, you can label everyone "the West", it'll save you time.
How can you expect the globe to dance to the tune of one “empire”?
Like Newt Gingrich and Janet Reno dirty-dancing while a troop of trained chimpanzees in tutus did The Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies around them? Something like that is what I'd expect. But I have been known to be wrong.
"is vanity that bring us great design and art"
Sorry, I was just over at the "create your own south park character" thread. I take it all back, you guys are a riot!
"Are you saying Cubans see Che as iconic of today’s Cuba? That’s a very different read."
Yes, Cuba is Che and Che is Cuba, that's the way Cubans see it. In the U.S., or the world, Che has a whole rebel/saviour aura about him. For Cubans he still stands for the Revolution, Communism, and the country all in one, he's the brand. I can't comment on politics in Ireland, the Middle East or China with much authority but I feel with Cuba, Miami, or New York, places I've lived in, I can. About the superiority of type to other media, you can look back through here and see a lot on the subject. I'll probably hang out for a while and start saying the same things about the healing effects of type in due time! I actually do think photography is not real, all fantasy, and that's why I like it, but it's best when it really messes with the head.
Hrant, check out my friend's site, www.jasonfulford.com, could change your mind on photo?
>That’s what a superpower does; and that’s why things were better when we had two of them.
Capitalism won, the struggle is over. China and India, the two largest countries are joining in. Why did it win, because it's the one system that takes human nature into account. Greed, jealousy, ambition are all human. Communism tries to tamp it down and these human traits just sneak through. I saw it in Cuba, it's human nature. Sure, kindness and love are part of human nature too, but what drives many people are other things. If you are a designer, and sell your goods, fonts, whatever, you, are a capitalist. If you do not fully give your money to a state and want to make a profit, you are a capitalist.
Lore: Give me your pov on Kosovo. I thought America did a good thing there. As Europeans watched slaughter of innocents occur in their backyard and talked and talked about it, the U.S. got NATO together and did an honorable thing. I could be wrong, not in Europe, so I'd like to know if my perception is not correct.
The little people always think what they've seen in their own lifetimes is what
counts. How easily they ignore that monarchy worked for thousands of years,
and how easily they believe the TV when it tells them that voting works.
The 20th century, the American century, the century of democracy, was the worst in human history. They ignore that. They blindly plough forward, following orders without even realizing it. At least the previous generations knew they were being taken for a ride.
Edel, there's an essential difference between capitalism and materialism. Humans are -partly- materialistic, of course. But China for example is not a capitalist system. Capitalism makes materialism the central force of a system, reducing everything to currency, formalizing the bribing of politicians, etc. And in doing so it demotes things like culture, pride in which is huge for the Chinese for example (no matter where they live). Which is not to say that China is purely communist. It should go without saying that no system is pure anyway. Edel, honestly, you're sounding half your age.
>"Edel, honestly, you’re sounding half your age."
God, thanks! I've always wanted to be seventeen again!
I have respect for you, I will not say what you're sounding like. It's been nice knowing all of you. Good bye.
Nice chatting with you.
How easily they ignore that monarchy worked for thousands of years...
Monarchies, republics and parliamentary democracies have all proven themselves capable of starting major international conflicts. The big difference between them is that monarchies tend to also produce regular civil wars of succession. On the plus side, without the English wars of succession we would be missing about half of Shakespeare's oeuvre, but 'the little people' tended to get killed in rather large numbers.
Yeah, nothing like the 20th century.
And at least in the olden days people didn't vote to kill each other.
“is vanity that bring us great design and art”
On occasion I say Yes. Vanity, poor judgment, absolutely no clue whatsoever is what make people dive into things they would otherwise avoid.
Inexperience only can lead a man into temptation to try cutting a font of type. Had I known the pitfalls of this undertaking I would have stopped even before I began.
— Sem Hartz, on The Emergo Type
We've had major great power conflicts between states on average every fifty years for the past 250 years. It hasn't made any difference at all whether the states involved were monarchies, republics, parliamentary democracies or dictatorships. They have all been involved in the same global competitions for power, resources, territory and influence. The number of people killed in these conflicts, especially in the 20th century, increased because the technologies for killing have improved.
In the same period of time, though, England has not had a single civil war, despite the fact that almost its entire previous history had consisted of regular periods of dynastic, regional and class warfare. What changed in the late 17th century was the role of the monarchy, which became circumscribed by law and most of its powers devolved to parliament.
I sympathise, Hrant, that you live in a country with a particularly debased and corrupt pseudo-democracy, designed by 18th century oligarchs to maintain power in the hands of their class, but this romantic idea you have of monarchy is very naive. It certainly isn't any kind of solution. Monarchies are systems of familial wealth gathering established by violence and maintained by a mixture of mythology (the 'divine right of kings') and repression. It may be frustrating that protesting the actions of your government seems to have so little effect, but it beats having your tongue cut out.
John, here's a current illustration of a typical absolute monarchy, the Nepalese King.
From the 'Wikipedia article':
"In 2001, after his nephew Dipendra purportedly staged a murder suicide, killing most of the royal family, including King Birendra (Dipendra's father, and Gyanendra's brother), Gyanendra became king again.The royal massacre has remained a controversial subject. The official investigation report mentions that Dipendra was drunk and was not able to control himself and yet it claims that within less than half an hour he carried four weapons and fired indiscriminately. Moreover, Dipendra was right handed and the entry wound that killed him was found on his left temple. This has led to speculation as to whether Dipendra was wholly responsible for the killings.
Given these circumstances, some Nepalese have lost the faith they had in the monarch as an incarnation of a god."
I would add that according to a Nepalese, many in the country suspect that the current king himself staged the killing of his brother and family, doing the Hamlet story more thoroughly.
In any event, the new king dissolved parliament and tried to rule since 2001 as an absolute monarch, as Hrant would have it. There was increasing civil war, and in April the King finally gave in to pressure from the rebels, including the 'Maoists', and the international community, including the US and India. Five days ago, the King was stripped of all power by the parliament.
Almost everyone would say that the replacement of the King by a more democratic government, representing the will of the people and ending the civil war was a positive development. And that pressure from India and the US was a good thing.
But not, it would seem, Hrant, who continues with his crackpot reactionary politics in the face of massive historical evidence to the contrary, and the current fact that most of the poorest countries on earth have had some kind of absolute ruler--including Cuba.
Hrant has been repeatedly challenged by a number of people to explain how you can have a good process to change rulers, or remove bad rulers without violence other than by a democractic process. And he doesn't answer but changes the subject to foreign wars (which absolute rulers are equally good or bad at starting), or starts insulting the challenger.
As soon as you ask Hrant to get off wooly generalities like 'the empire', and get specific, he never answers. Now he claims that he focuses on 'reality' as opposed to 'formal accuracy'. In other words, no matter what evidence you give, he has given himself permission to ignore it.
Because Hrant is so intelligent and articulate, I thought, like Edel, that there was some point in discussing politics with with him. But now he has made clear that in principle he will dismiss any facts that don't fit with his version of 'reality'. So I no longer see the point.
In another thread, a while back, I not only explained how a monarchic system could best work, I even detailed how best to transition to it from this farce of a system we're plagued by now. Among other things, my scheme prevents familial succession. Civial war? Coups-d'etat? Who said any system can be perfect? But more than the least bloody (this is not a farm after all, I hope) I for one am looking for the least unfair system.
You can posture and post-rationalize all you want, the fact on the ground is that democracy is simply not working - it's making things worse. "Massive historical ecidence" my finial. Democracy has been made into a hitman for capitalism, a tool for tyrants, which is the only thing it can really ever be, considering human nature. Many of you here blame Bush for our problems (and nevermind that you were previously spewing that "don't blame" hogwash). Ask yourselves why he might be the biggest proponent of democracy in history (remembering that he's not some sort of visionary). It's not Bush talking, it's rampant capitalism, which benefits by democracy's power to replace nationalism with consumerism.
The bottom line is that people are trained to build houses, make pizza, fly airplanes, and not to help decide matters of state. When you ask them to, all you're doing is leveraging their vanity and their lust for material goods to make them better peons.
uh oh...the little people are back and there's one that doesn't look very happy at all.
Concerning the on-topic aspect of this thread:
In the end it looks like Edel (who is still reading - again, no mind reading involved) wanted to convey his particular view that Cuba is in fact a capitalistic system. One basis he leverages is the aggregate of views and perceptions of his particular community, including that Che = Cuba. But "CA" stands for "Communication Arts", not "Cuban Americans". Exiled Caribbean bourgeoisie not exactly being the main target of CA magazine, I think that the most common interpretation of his illustration would in fact be somewhat opposed to his goal, namely that capitalism goes as far as co-opting anti-capitalistic people and symbols to sell more stuff.
Ergo: this effort is art, not good design - not good communication.
We're back to the topic- the graphic left me cold.
As long as people cannot calmly discuss things then no matter what the power structure is or who is in power the human race is in for more of the same. But I already knew that.
The pen wields the sword…
Hrant I just found here (second page) what you evidently refer to as "explaining how a monarchy could best work."
You ask, "How do we get a least-unfair system, that's efficient, and not corrupt?"
And you answer, "There really is only one answer: one person with authority, intelligence and a good heart. No single person can be perfect, but more than one cook causes grief."
Your prescription for getting that person in: Voting!!! Whoa, what happened to the anti-democrat?
As for 'how a monarchy could best work' the only thing you say is "The monarch is of course free to implement a parliament, get advisors, or anything he/she wants." Your main point seems to be that checks and balances are foolish and the single ruler must be free to "do anything he/she wants."
As to getting rid of the monarch, "You do it the old fashioned way. Physically depose him." Then you assure us that "it will be swift and overt."
So how do we know that autocracy, without checks and balances, is economically and morally better, against historical evidence? Your assurance without a single real historical example. How do we know that wars of succession will not happen, unlike happened repeatedly in the past? Your assurance, with not a single historical example or argument.
Come up with some real examples, and be willing to learn from 'formal accuracy' about the facts. That's a precondition of genuine dialogue, rather than parallel monologue polemics.
I suspect that type designer ( or a illo-cover designer) is in a position to speak with only just so much authority on politics/history/government. Including me.
That said; my view is that no matter the system it can be benign (or not) but that contrary to Hrant's assertion it was not democracy but rather *industry* that allowed both a huge increase in populations ( via mechanised farming, longer food storage and transportation, and medicine) and a huge increase in our ability to kill via Machine guns, Bombs and Aircraft in the 20th century. I see nothing in a 'golden past' that suggests that monarchy was better in terms of the frequency of wars. The difference is population size + killing power.
On the other hand I agree with Hrant to this extent: The US (like every other nation in history) is content only with governments ( democratic or otherwise ) who meet it's capitalistic/economic demands. Calling for democracy is as often as not a way to call for a regime we can better negotiate with. Democracies inconvinient to us often get invened in.
Bemoaning the desire for consumer goods is easy for us. And no doubt the carrot that a 'system' or society can wield via consumer goods is very strong. But to me it isn't the power of these goods to shape politics that matters so much as the imapct of these goods on the environment that matters. Political ideology be damned; it seems to me that ecological sustainability is the real goal to worry about.
But what do I know? Not nearly enough. That much I am sure of.
I checked back because I had a suspicion there is really only one little person here. I was right. Thanks everybody for standing tall, it just takes too much of my time to reply to personal insults. I am too busy eating pizza, watching football, and making money so I can pay taxes for my government to kill for me.
If my work is art, it communicates, if it makes you feel cold, then it communicates, if it says that "capitalism goes as far as co-opting anti-capitalistic people and symbols to sell more stuff", it communicates. Maybe it's not clear, I have problems with all of it, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and Monarchism. I just chuckle that there are still people out there saying "long live the queen"! Take the cotton out of your ears and listen to what I have been trying to say, that all of these systems are, in the end, the same thing. And typography is literally the tool for all of them.
Back to work
William, it's simply that a last act of voting seems
like the least unfair way of getting rid of voting.
It's a transition, a form of detox if you will.
But there's no real point arguing with you.
I just wish you were as passionate about type.
Eben, I'm not suggesting monarchy has generally been implemented properly in the past (although I don't think it was worse than what we have now). But I do think it has been done properly on occasion (like in Jordan) and most of all that: it can be done properly; and that it's simply the least unfair system (when done right).
The reason it's hard to accept that democracy sucks isn't some mythical formal Proof, it's that it's hard to admit that one's teachers were wrong. I feel lucky that I've had many conflicting teachers, that I'm an ideological mongrel.
Case in point: When he bothers to discuss type, William regularly refers to his uncle Lieberman. Who is that guy? Had anybody here heard of him before he brought him up? So he's published a book. So has Saddaam. When we were talking about the definition of "sort", he insisted it meant only alphabetic ones, because that's what his uncle said; this in spite of the dozens and dozens of type books everybody else has read that make no such distinction. I mean, there's nothing wrong with William, he's just human, and believes people he's emotionally attached to. It's just that when all these people come form the same fold, you'll naturally have trouble accepting concepts outside of that fold. You really have to throw yourself at people you disagree with, sort of sophistically assimilate their stance, love them, hate them, love your own, hate your own, to hope to become truly wise.
> But what do I know? Not nearly enough. That much I am sure of.
Good. I feel the same way.
This precludes meddling in affairs of state.
What would you think of a pizza cook coming
to Typophile and telling us how best to kern,
just because his mother told him he could be
anything he dreamed of, in an instant? Don't
get me started with this culture of telling
peons "anything is possible if you dream it",
"this is the land of opportunity", etc. Jeezus.
> If my work is art, it communicates
If your work mainly communicates something close to the opposite
of what you intended, then you did a poor job as a communicator.
You want a critique of your work? Pay attention to the concensus
among people who spend enough time in a passionate, technical
but poorly-paying field, because they are the thinkers.
As opposed to the chatters.
> Thanks everybody for standing tall
What in blazes are you coping about.
(Something else you've learned from US television: demonization.)
We almost came together on the Kings of Jordan, I really admire them. Then you brought it down hill again with the "peons". And the "chat", which you've mentioned close to 10 times already. I am new to this, and interested, and you should welcome me. I originally called it a "chat" room because I don't know any better. Is this a "discussion" group, a "room for the chosen", a "club". Tell me what it is rather than make fun of me for not being the technically savviest kid in the room.
But, since you have problems with some of my critique of typography, I don't think you'd like me here anyways. Well, this is not a monarchy for the chosen such as yourself, it's a democracy sir, and I'll continue stay here among the thinkers, in the land of opportunity, trying to learn what I can so I can make my dreams come true.
William, it’s simply that a last act of voting seems like the least unfair way of getting rid of voting.
In GK Chesterton's wonderful satire The Napolean of Notting Hill, the ruler is chosen randomly from among the population, because the civil service has determined that the result is the same as voting.
OK, now I can stop with the "chat" jibes. :->
But I don't have a problem with you saying that typography is not everything, or the best thing about communication; I also don't have a problem when you say that type design is not a huge factor in society. But really, neither is design as a whole. Artists and graphic designers have this thing for thinking they can change the world, with their manifestos and and flowery conference openings. They can't. And your cover doesn't really have more effect than the typography inside, overall. Illustration, photography, etc. work their magic in the conscious realm, while things like text fonts, and text itself, do so mostly in the subconscious. So we're really in the same boat in terms of power... and at least type designers know they're powerless! :-/
Lastly: there's no way I would like you to leave.
In fact I'd go as far as saying: please stay.
>hhp-"You want a critique of your work? Pay attention to the >concensus among people who spend enough time in a passionate, >technical but poorly-paying field, because they are the thinkers.
The consensus is in your head. There is no freakin' "consensus" that, as you think, my work sucks. But, of course, they are all peons. Here you go:
I love it. Subtlety is pleasant when you get it, but for most people who are on the go, ya gotta hit ‘em over the head.
I enjoy it. The Che symbolizing the used-to-be radical sixties folks now greying boomers with SUVs their iPods and sneakers :-) It is just plain fun, enjoy!
It isn’t about what Che really was, it was about the perception 60s youth had of him as a rebel. The youth of the 60s also misunderstood Eastern religions and philosophies as well but knew how to chant Om as they toked up. As a member of 60s youth, I was as guilty as the rest in my misconceptions at the time.
The only reason I don’t roll my eyes completely at the CA cover is the similarity of the Che image’s common appearance and the Apple iPod ad campaign.
I think they are be purposefully redundant. In other words I read it as a statement about how over-materialistic we are today. So much so that even something which can stand for something more than simple marketing is now being reduced to another tool to market to the masses.
i liked it, i think, because it wasn’t about che at all but rather a juxtaposition of mostly meaningless symbols — though symbols that people continually adopt as an expression of their values.
the cool thing is that it inspired a discussion like this, which would indicate that it was a success on some level.
Without having read the article, the image suggests shifting trends in the use of graphic design, exposing an ideological clash between Cuba’s political past and their impending future in the global marketplace. It’s not about a Cuban relationship to Apple, or Nike per se, but the effects of consumerism as a whole on the present design culture. Using multiple corporate elements helps convey this meaning (if you accept that Apple and Nike represent consumerism as a whole). I dont think I would’ve made that connection as swiftly had it been just an image of Che without the other symbols
I think showing the Nike swoosh AND the earbuds hints at consumer excess as well as the perceived “need” to be trendy.
the swoosh, the iconic earbuds & che are all now ubiquitous parts of pop culture no matter when where or why they came from to begin with. Don’t like it? - too bad & too late. So really, they are a kind of pop trifecta. The superimposition of two white marks over che gives the impression of complete pop saturation - or corruption - depending on where you stand. Anything less would fail to beat us senseless.
I suppose the length of discussion* and readers of the dialogue validate the design to a degree.
"Some animals are more equall than other animals"
"Who has the counch?"
Man, all I have to say is I like a king and you hand over the keys, thanks, you almost made me cry.... almost.
I didn't say there was as concensus that your work sucks. But don't pick
and choose just the good stuff. That's a US news broadcast, not reality.
Nobleman one and all.
>"But really, neither is design as a whole. Artists and graphic >designers have this thing for thinking they can change the world, >with their manifestos and and flowery conference openings. They >can’t. And your cover doesn’t really have more effect than the >typography inside, overall.
yes, agreed 100%. Maybe when I critiqued type it came off as me thinking art or design is better. It's not, We're all just decorating.
We can't make a big "difference". And my beef is with those, and there may be a few in the "favorite music" thread, that wear the i-pods, design the logos, and go on about the struggle against the man. People which I have met many times. Again, it is not meant at everybody here people. Just some that enjoy the fruits of a system yet constantly bash it.
All more qualified to run the US more than
anybody who will ever actually be elected.
> We’re all just decorating.
No, that's not the term I'd use. Try to make a text typeface (one that
other people would pay for and use) then you might see something else.
> some that enjoy the fruits of a system yet constantly bash it.
And then there's those who enjoy the fruits ofother countries yet constantly bomb them.
By your words I thought you meant there was a consensus that it was bad so I was trying to show otherwise. Everyone, hear ye, hear ye, there's plenty of stuff about how sucky it is too!
But, really, I'm done with it, so keep talking about politics in general or, whoever is in charge of this "chat", end the thread. No more about the image. And please tell me what I should call this place.
> No more about the image.
Nobody gets to decide that. There are no keys. There are moderators, but they
don't freeze threads with no good reason. And your productivity-impacting urge
to keep checking back here is not a good reason. I did warn you about our Mondays.
I guess I should've elaborated about the rest of the week... month... year.
This is not a digital illustration - learn to relinquish the control.
By all means, knock yourself out, It's just embarassing to talk about it for me after two hundred and something posts.
And, for clarity, just one more, it wasn't digital, got the old hands all nice and dirty (shocking!), I don't work "digitally", I relinquish control every day.