In which I go off on a seriously random tangent
So, I don't get people. I mean, I can understand other people most of the time … if I got a large check every time I think something about another person, then tell myself, "No, that's ridiculous, you can't possibly be right, don't be so fucking arrogant," only to have my initial hunch confirmed, I'd be living very nicely now. But I don't get them most of the time. Or, translated to Colbert-speak, while my head may understand, my gut doesn't.
I've never ever ever felt even slightly in-sync with the great masses of humanity, and thanks to a couple of Science Daily articles I read today, I'm even more convinced than ever that I never will. From a couple of studies of "creative" people comes the not at all shocking news that such people are more likely to be nuts, and nutty-but-not-insane people exhibit brain activity patterns that may explain why they tend to be more creative than the average. (And yes, that does sound like I'm talking in circles, but it was two different studies after all.)
First up is a study from 2003 (Yeah, so it's not new. It's new to me.) suggesting that creative people can't MAKE THE VOICES SHUT UP … oh, wait, sorry. That's crazy people. Creative people however seem to have a big trait in common with psychotic people: Both groups have trouble filtering seemingly irrelevant input out of their conscious mind, leaving them with a whole lot more random shit rattling around in their heads. Or, in the words of the Science Daily writers:
…the brains of creative people appear to be more open to incoming stimuli from the surrounding environment. Other people's brains might shut out this same information through a process called "latent inhibition" – defined as an animal's unconscious capacity to ignore stimuli that experience has shown are irrelevant to its needs. Through psychological testing, the researchers showed that creative individuals are much more likely to have low levels of latent inhibition.
The headline puts it somewhat more eyecatchingly: Biological Basis For Creativity Linked To Mental Illness
Some other people did a nice study about weirdos and their brain activity patterns, and discovered that Odd Behavior And Creativity May Go Hand-in-Hand. Now, that is not, on its face, all that shocking. But they actually mapped out increased right-side activity in the brain in schizotypal personalities, as compared to 'normal' or fully schizophrenic folks, which suggests that such people have a better ability to utilize the differing capacities of both sides of their brains when approaching a problem … makes them more "creative" thinkers, one might say.
One must ask then, what in the fuck is a "schizotypal" personality? Put simply: someone who's fucking strange, but not completely nuts. Or in the words of the Science Daily writer, "people characterized by odd behavior and language but who are not psychotic or schizophrenic." According to the Psychiatrists' Bible (the DSM IV), Schizotypal Personality Disorder is a, "pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with, and reduced capacity for, close relationships as well as by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts," and then goes on to list 9 symptoms, of which you must have 5 for a diagnosis.
Now, I'm operating on the assumption that a "schizotypal personality" is not quite the same as someone with Schizotypal Personality Disorder, so we'll gloss over than angle a bit and just say that "creative" people are given to being very odd, not being able to ignore things they might be better off ignoring, and they tend to be social rejects (c'mon, anyone who was decidedly "weird" in school knows this to be true). Whether the chicken came before the egg or not, it must all be interconnected, no?
"Christ, what's her fucking POINT here," you're probably wondering. Well, my original point totally violated my "never write anything really personal on a public website, because you sound like a fucking pathetic emo twat" rule, no matter how vaguely I worded it, so in lieu of a proper conclusion, I leave you with a remix of the creative/schizo/loner's ultimate "love song":
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
At the risk of perpetuating another Internet meme, "yeah, me too."
I've always called it "the curse of consciousness," or being constantly, almost painfully aware of everything, seemingly at all times. Of course, alcohol is a good way to make the brain shut down for a period of time … a much needed respite.
21st November 2008 at 9:05 pm | permalink |@Becca: To quote Homer Simpson, "Sweet liquor eases the pain." hehehe
Hence the proliferation of drunkenness, drug addiction and general misbehavior among "creative" types … I wonder what an art history textbook or literature class syllabus would look like if Xanax had been invented a couple hundred years earlier?
21st November 2008 at 9:23 pm | permalink |@ alpha: "I wonder what an art history textbook or literature class syllabus would look like if Xanax had been invented a couple hundred years earlier?"
From Bizarro parallel universe: "Chapter 2, Managing your meds – Finding coherence admidst the cacophony of intellectual stimulus."
21st November 2008 at 9:36 pm | permalink |i find that there are few times when my mind actually slows down. oddly enough, all of them involve fire… and no, i'm not a pyromaniac. i looked up the definition of pyromania, and i don't have the desire to cause massive damage and loss of life via fire to be a pyromaniac. i guess you could say i'm more of a pyrophiliac… but that doesn't quite fit either…
21st November 2008 at 11:31 pm | permalink |When you’re awake and present, you live, when you’re thinking forward and back you don't
22nd November 2008 at 2:32 pm | permalink |Other people's brains might shut out this same information through a process called "latent inhibition"
Oh yeah – latent inhibition = fucking cowardice – they ain't got the bollocks (sorry for the masculine reference) to be different.
There are just too many people out there who won't stick their necks out in any way whatsoever – "latent inhibition", "social cowardice" or just "boring fucks" call it what you want – it ain't good.
"I leave you with a remix of the creative/schizo/loner's ultimate "love song" "
And what happened to Joy Division -Love Will Tear Us Apart – as the loners ultimate love song???
I haven't been given to being weird at all – take a look at http://www.mymohican.com – but you have a point about creative people being a little more wierd. All I can say is embrace it and be what you are not what they want you to be.
I like you for the fact that you have the balls (again forgive the masculine reference) to say what you think and call a spade a spade (no racism intended). Do not under any circumstances let yourself be dragged down by the quagmire of mediocrity.
You need to be taken for a days shopping in Camden next time you visit the UK – It'll help
22nd November 2008 at 5:23 pm | permalink |http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=29oFKU5ZuTk
22nd November 2008 at 5:35 pm | permalink |And as an afterthought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=skyzWf-qIa0
22nd November 2008 at 5:52 pm | permalink |@bill: That's one of those things I try to remind myself of frequently.
@ian: Conformism v. Individuality is not quite the same issue, in my mind. I've met people who do their fucking best to be normal, unremarkable people, who (apparently) have the lack of latent inhibition problem. It's more like not being able to tune out background noise than not having the balls to be yourself.
Actually, that's a perfect example. I've met a few people (myself and my ex's son, for two) who can walk into a room and instantly tell if a CRT TV or computer monitor has been left on, even if the screen is black (like when you shut the VCR off, but leave the TV on). Or, if someone turns the radio down in the car to say something, and forgets to turn it back up, so you can almost but not quite make out what's playing, I HAVE to either turn it back up or turn it off, or it drives me fucking bonkers, and they just don't notice.
The only time I can drown anything out is when I'm really really absorbed in something I'm doing … and then I drown pretty much EVERYTHING out, to the point where my cellphone ringing next to me makes me jump out of my skin.
And it's more than that, of course. It's noticing little things about the way other people act … a slight change in tone of voice, or a slight difference in their IM writing style, and they totally deny it if you say something, but you just absolutely can't "un-notice" it, when other people can just say, "Oh, I must have been tired/stoned/not paying attention," and brush it off.
Really, anyone with that kind of personality who's comfortable being a weirdo should thank their fucking lucky stars, because people who *want* to be normal but don't shut out all the shit normal people do are some of the most miserable human beings on the planet.
22nd November 2008 at 7:19 pm | permalink |By the way, you're my fuckin' hero!
22nd November 2008 at 9:48 pm | permalink |Hmmm – okay I was drinking last night
However – I maintain that part of the issue with hypersensitivity is that it will make you introverted and you have to consciously overcome this.
"because people who *want* to be normal but don't shut out all the shit normal people do are some of the most miserable human beings on the planet."
Interesting that you highlight the word want in relation to normal – IMHO it just show lack of ambition, what does a person who wants to be normal and then achieves it do next?
Other hypersensitivity symptoms – walking into a room and understanding the social dynamics within a couple of minutes, being unhappy talking to people on the phone because you can't see them and being uncomfortable touching people.
You need to put another T-Shirt design on the site "Proud to be a Loner"
The only reason being a creative/schizo/loner is generally considered bad is that the dead-head normals are scared of anything that doesn't conform to their emotional value system and the creative/schizo/loner is an easy target (after all you have to remember that the vast majority of dead-head normals are devout cowards and bullies – a lot of their thinking is – if it wasn't x that the group were picking on it might be me.)
(Okay some it might be that some people just can't cope with the schizo/paranoia symptoms and randomly get their revenge in first
)
23rd November 2008 at 4:21 am | permalink |I had to look up those 9 symptoms of the schizotypal personality disorder as I hadn't seen them before
1. Ideas of reference (excluding delusions of reference)
3. Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions
6. Inappropriate or constricted affect
8. Lack of close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
2. Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or "sixth sense"; in children and adolescents, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)
5. Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation
9. Social anxiety that tends to be associated with paranoid fears rather than negative judgments about self
4. Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)
7. Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar
Now like most of the psychiatry stuff most of it bollocks – how they managed to make those 9 symptoms I really don't know.
As you can see I have reordered them – the first three (1,3,6) are the three real symptoms, the others are just secondary effects.
8 is just a blatantly ovbious consequnce of 6
2, 5 and 9 are just ways that people dealt with 1 and 3 when they don't understand what is happening. Ideas of reference are very scary – and paranoia and social anxiety are very obvious consequences of being scared by having ideas of reference. The clairvoyance, telepathy etc are a way of trying to rationalise ideas of reference.
4 and 7 are again ways of dealing with 1. This time instead of being scared by the ideas of reference the person accepts the ideas of reference as being normal and tries to modify their own behaviour, conversation etc to fit in with 'the normal world + their ideas of reference'.
23rd November 2008 at 4:45 am | permalink |@ Ian: Funny thing – I wanted to start by writing, "I'm one of those creative types," but then realized that is a subjective, external assessment. I'm whatever the hell I want to be, but it's only a valid point of view if it is corroborated by someone else. But I am creative, in my own special way. I'm fairly good at finding creative ways to solve complex, abstract problems.
The desire to be normal? It's a natural result of living a life in an environment where social interaction, friendship, family, and close ties in general are highly valued, yet being forced by circumstance (exceeding creativity, abnormally high IQ) into a completely different existence outside of that of our peers. Inappropriate behaviors, or constrained effect can ultimately be overcome through mental scripting of social interaction. But some things cannot be overcome, such as the hyperconsciousness and obsessive-like manner in which subjects of interest are approached.
The desire to be "normal" is what allows us to make a living, engage in a profession, and build our life. But at bottom, as human beings, we are wired to crave some interaction with others. And the dearth of it that comes from our history makes each interaction much more than it may be. And thus, we crave more.
Yes, I'm mostly a loner. And most times I enjoy it. I would even go so far as to say that "normal" people should experience a little more of it than they do. But …
23rd November 2008 at 7:31 am | permalink |This latent inhibition is a survival mechanism from way back. If you have to worry about being eaten by that big mean predator stopping to rearrange some pretty flowers will get you killed. It has nothing to do with conformity versus individualism really.
I wonder today about some of these ritalin kids. It's the same idea really…
23rd November 2008 at 9:27 am | permalink |*whew* Lots of stuff, and I have to get ready to run off to the hospital … will get back to everything (including email) sometime later …
[added]OK, hospital visit was put off … so, back to all this …
23rd November 2008 at 9:37 am | permalink |Science Daily doesn't have writers, they simply republish news releases from Universities.
I read in Out of Control (http://tinyurl.com/6kefzz) that the way the brain functions is that we do have many voices (everyone not just the weirdos) talking at the same time and that to make sense of it all the brain creates a persona/avatar which is the Self, the I. Because the brain is a distributed computing system networked together and not a single machine. That's just the gist of it, it gets much more complicated than that but you get the point.
23rd November 2008 at 3:18 pm | permalink |@becca
"I'm whatever the hell I want to be, but it's only a valid point of view if it is corroborated by someone else."
Why does it need to be corroborated by somebody else?
This is quite an interesting question in many ways, as you can only change yourself – this will have a secondary effect of potentially changing other people's perceptions of you, but these changes are not guaranteed.
I do agree about the desire to be "normal" in relation to allowing you to perform task necessary to survival, but outside of this a desire to be normal starts to become a problem that will inhibit you from achieiving your potential.
@Larry
I'm not sure that your example was good here, yes I could agree that the latent inhibition was possibly a survival mechanism developed way back, but I would suggest that it was more the filtering out of stimuli that were irrelevant in order to be able to be able to act faster on the remaining relevant stimuli.
On the other hand it lowers the ability to adapt to new situations, which is not a survival mechanism and may actually be a contra-survival trait.
23rd November 2008 at 4:12 pm | permalink |@DAVE ID
Please elaborate, you have given a brief of an idea that may be interesting to pursue.
23rd November 2008 at 4:23 pm | permalink |@IAN, think of it as collective thinking or hive mind. The ant by itself has a live memory of a few hours. But when in the colony, the hive mind has a live memory that last months. Comes in pretty handy for remembering the location of food sources.
The brain works the same. Many parts each managing different systems like foremen of different factory sections. One handles motor functions, the other deals with speech. They must all coalesce and work together like a distributed computer network. If they don't have a core, they are just working part. The human being would have every foreman manifesting itself all the time, much like those with multiple personalities. Therefore an avatar emerges from this chaos to bring a form of focus and centrality to the system.
Its much better explained in the book, I'm just spouting from memory here.
23rd November 2008 at 5:14 pm | permalink |@ Ian: "Why does it need to be corroborated by somebody else?"
Because, in some respects, it must be.
I could say, "I'm a doctor," and it would mean diddly squat unless someone else, say the dean of a medical school, were able to say, "Yup, she's a doctor." An extreme example, but illustrative of the point. If I say that I'm "creative," how would that be quantified/justified?
I'm not saying that I'm completely subject to external definitions and that my own assessment is irrelevant. I was simply trying to articulate the point that my own assertion of my creativity is more than just my point of view.
As for whether my desire to be "normal" inhibits me reaching my potential, I would wholly disagree. The short version is that I believe it is necessary to go through the rigor of "normal" in order to truly realize the potential of one's creativity. It's the Nietzschean ideal of the evolution from the Dionysian to the Apollonian, and then finally back to the Dionysian—the creative will, tempered by the rigors of rudiment.
23rd November 2008 at 6:41 pm | permalink |@bill: "By the way, you're my fuckin' hero!" LOL. Thanks.
Now I just need to figure out what my secret superhero powers are, and I can start designing a costume. hehehe
@ian: "I maintain that part of the issue with hypersensitivity is that it will make you introverted and you have to consciously overcome this."
Well, I linked to a book in the comments on my next post that addresses the issue of introversion quite well. What I would really love to see is a study that takes the data from the creative/latent inhibition study, and adds the dimension of which of the creative/uninhibited people are also introverts. Brain scan studies have shown that introverts actually have a different dominant neurochemical pathway than extroverts. I can't help but wonder if they're linked.
"…what does a person who wants to be normal and then achieves it do next?"
See that's just the thing. Someone who wants to be normal (unless they're a teenager … I think all normal teenagers are insecure about it) pretty much by definition isn't and can't be.
"…walking into a room … talking to people on the phone … being uncomfortable touching people."
Check, check and check. I can learn to be comfortable touching particular individuals, but not many and not quickly. Never really thought about why I don't like talking on the phone much, but that's kind of the same thing: Some people I am, most people I'm not.
"Proud to be a Loner"
I really ought to set up a shirt thing of my own…
There's a thought.
"…the vast majority of dead-head normals are devout cowards and bullies…"
Well, humans evolved essentially as pack animals, and for the most part we essentially still are. Looking at wolf packs and the like explains a lot of unthinking human behavior. Pack animals are constantly looking for "approval" from those higher in the pack, except the few who try to actively challenge their dominance … and "lone wolves" are pretty much never lone wolves by choice: They've been ejected from the pack after losing a dominance fight or pissing off their 'superiors' in one way or another.
Of course humans are more complex, but there are a lot of parallels … with elephants too. When humans kill off the majority of the adults in an elephant herd, the young elephants form gangs of "juvenile delinquents" and start wreaking utter havoc. Lack of consistent adult guidance leaves them utterly unable to cope with life in "elephant appropriate" ways.
(Okay some it might be that some people just can't cope with the schizo/paranoia symptoms and randomly get their revenge in first
)
@ian: "I had to look up those 9 symptoms of the schizotypal personality disorder as I hadn't seen them before … the first three (1,3,6) are the three real symptoms, the others are just secondary effects."
I left the details out on that one, because the actual personality disorder isn't what the study was referring to, in my understanding. But your point is well taken. I would argue that the reason the "secondary effects" are included in the diagnosis is because those are also the primary outward manifestations, that would lead someone to end up in psychiatric care in the first place … someone else might experience the same three underlying causes, but be able to keep them subdued enough not to "progress" to the secondary behaviors, in which case they wouldn't be considered "ill" enough to be diagnosed with the disorder.
That's the whole problem with personality disorders as diagnoses (and they are controversial within the psychiatric/psychological profession): The outward manifestations are just symptomatic behaviors brought about by the root problems, so can you really call it a clinical disorder when the outward expression is not necessarily universal and predictable? I'd say the diagnosis still has relevance and utility though, simply because when things do get bad enough to interfere with someone's ability to function effectively (which is an unspoken component of being "diagnoseable"), it gives a useful starting point to knowing what you're dealing with.
@Becca: "I'm fairly good at finding creative ways to solve complex, abstract problems."
That was one of the central points of the schizotypal/creative study: Because both schizotypal personality types and people recognized as "creative" individuals utilize both sides of their brain during problem solving tasks to a greater extent than "normal" or fully "insane" people, they tend to be better at finding novel solutions to difficult tasks.
"…constrained effect can ultimately be overcome through mental scripting of social interaction."
I would disagree with that. You can certainly learn "social skills," but being "gun shy" of emotional openness due to personal history, and being genuinely introverted or just emotionally reserved I would put firmly in the category of fundamental personality traits. I've watched a few people grow from infancy to young adulthood, and there are definite fundamental personalities there from the start.
"…the dearth of [human interaction] that comes from our history makes each interaction much more than it may be. And thus, we crave more."
*blink*blink*blink*
*facepalm*
@Larry: "I wonder today about some of these ritalin kids. It's the same idea really…"
Yeah, I wonder a hell of a lot about them too. I have NEVER liked the idea of using psychiatric medication on someone who's brain is still in the most active developmental stages.
@DAVE ID: "…we do have many voices (everyone not just the weirdos) talking at the same time and that to make sense of it all the brain creates a persona/avatar which is the Self, the I."
@ian: "On the other hand [latent inhibition] lowers the ability to adapt to new situations, which is not a survival mechanism and may actually be a contra-survival trait."
Hence, I would argue, the existence/persistence of a minority of people who can step in and figure new shit out more easily, when everyone else is having a "what the fuck" moment. Think of the role of the shaman in tribal societies: What is that but an elevation of an individual with an unusual way of perceiving life? And what is the shaman's tribal role? The go-to guy during "what the fuck" situations. Between the exalted creative weirdo, and consulting the elders (who have more life experience), the rest of the (relatively small) tribe could go right ahead and be efficient in common situations to the benefit of all.
"Weirdos" of the creative/problem solving type don't need to be a majority, or even a sizeable minority, in a small tribe/pack culture. And we did spend the vast majority of our species history in exactly that kind of society.
@Becca: "…I believe it is necessary to go through the rigor of "normal" in order to truly realize the potential of one's creativity."
23rd November 2008 at 8:44 pm | permalink |Hm. So, my Mom having very little respect for "normal" herself, and always encouraging me to be my own person and follow my own interests is (as I suspected) partly reponsible in that view for my hopeless impracticality and utter lack of driving ambition today? LOL
@becca
"It's the Nietzschean ideal of the evolution from the Dionysian to the Apollonian, and then finally back to the Dionysian—the creative will, tempered by the rigors of rudiment."
Well put – I would describe it as having put a watchdog process in place that has high enough priority to take control if things get out of hand.
@alpha
The latent inhibition thing in relation to shaman is interesting. I would suggest that latent inhibition is stronger in some groups than others, for instance the aboriginal people of Australia – walkabout is part of their culture and could be to do with a low latent inhibition episode in a persons life.
Also interestingly aboriginal people have high levels of alcoholism, very similar to native americans and inuits. Could it be that the alcohol is a drug that actually increases 'latent inhibition' and these people become addicted to it as it lowers the levels of superfluous stimuli to a level where they are comfortable. (note you need to understand the difference between 'latent inhibition' and what we normally term 'inhibitions' here).
24th November 2008 at 2:01 am | permalink |@ab:
"I HAVE to either turn it back up or turn it off, or it drives me fucking bonkers, and they just don't notice"
*twitch* Ditto.
"…walking into a room … talking to people on the phone … being uncomfortable touching people." "Never really thought about why I don't like talking on the phone much"
When you walk into a room and work out the social order, you do it by looking more than listening. You see what people are doing, how they're standing in relation to one another, their general body language, which is overall a much more significant indicator than voice alone. When you're talking to someone on the phone, you can't properly understand them (being unable to see their body language etc). That plus the fact that you are unable to employ body language, which constitutes a huge amount (for me at least) of what you're trying to say and how.
There may also be issues with the whole voice in the ear thing being overly 'intimate', in relation to the liking to keep most people at distance.
Not that I've ever thought about it or anything >.>
@ian:
24th November 2008 at 1:54 pm | permalink |Indigenous alcoholism probably has a lot more to do with the whole "Europeans coming and destroying our fucking culture" thing. I'm less familiar with Native American history/social order than Australian Aboriginal – given the whole being Australian thing – but when christians showed up in Australia and started 'saving the savages' they destroyed a culture and religious framework that had supported an entire continent of people for 40000+ years. Think about the kind of impact that loss of religion has on the devout nowadays (the anecdotes of people leaving the church having lost touch with god or whatever) – feelings of loss, despair, pointlessness, and then imagine that happening all at once to an entire population. Now imagine that population's now all-but-destroyed belief structure was as (or more) all encompassing as a 'how to live' guide as Judaism, with rules for pretty much everything. Then give them alcohol. Is there any surprise lots of people get drunk?
Yeesh, just realized I quoted this, and forgot to actually respond to it. lol
@DAVE ID: "…we do have many voices (everyone not just the weirdos) talking at the same time and that to make sense of it all the brain creates a persona/avatar which is the Self, the I."
I don't know that I would call each of the brain's separate processes "voices" in that sense. I would think of it more like a single multi-processor computer rather than a distributed computing network, because while there is some (rather remarkable) ability for different parts of the brain to compensate for damaged areas, none of the "sub-processing centers" involved are a full, stand-alone unit.
@ian: I would definitely agree that alcohol increases latent inhibition (at least it does in me … perhaps that explains why it's my primary drug of choice? lol). But as for entire cultures having differing levels of latent inhibition re. walkabout, I would think that's more of a life transition ritual sort of thing … Western culture is notably lacking strong traditions for children "coming of age", or any other major life changes (childbirth, middle age, etc.), and while I know very very little about the walkabout tradition specifically, I would suspect it's more in that realm.
And when you look at the traditional intoxicants in the cultures you mention, all the ones I know of are of the sort to increase latent inhibition, not decrease it. I also know that with Native Americans and alcohol, there is a difference in stomach enzymes as compared to Europeans: People of European ancestry start breaking down alcohol while it's in their stomach, while Native Americans don't … so they actually get a much stronger effect from the same amount. Don't know about Aborigines on that count … but I'm inclined to agree with grimbles on the "of course they drink, white people destroyed their culture" angle.
So, I'd say the rampant alcoholism thing (at least in North America) is a combination of biology and depression/hopelessness. You also see a lot more "falling down drunk" alcoholism among poor white people than in the middle and upper classes, and natives are generally also economically disenfranchised, with even fewer cultural support systems intact/available to help them.
24th November 2008 at 2:42 pm | permalink |@grimbles: Y'know, now that I think about it, I think a big part of the phone thing for me is that the other person can't see me … I have enough trouble being misunderstood without any extra barriers to communication. heh
24th November 2008 at 2:44 pm | permalink |"That plus the fact that you are unable to employ body language, which constitutes a huge amount (for me at least) of what you're trying to say and how."
=p
25th November 2008 at 6:21 pm | permalink |@grimbles: Uh. Yeah. Like that.
25th November 2008 at 6:47 pm | permalink |