Home | Away

Takin’ care of Borges

It’s here! At long last—the moment I have long promised, and long delayed.  Just look right down there beneath my one lonely BlogAd . . . it’s my all-new blogroll!

Yes, folks, after only one year, I have updated my blogroll.  I am no longer the Worst Blogroll Updater in the World, singlehandedly holding back the dialectical movement of Blogeistesgeschichte. Now you know what I’ve been doing down here in North Carolina with all my free time!  I have the National Humanities Center’s first-ever Blogroll Updating Fellowship, and I have used it wisely.  I can now goof off for the remaining twelve days of March!

(Actually, that last bit is not quite true.  I present my work-in-progress to the NHC’s fellows tomorrow afternoon, and have already had my very first fellow-presentation anxiety dream.  All I will say is that I am reading George Packer’s The Assassins’ Gate and writing a prospectus.)

Now, you’ll recall that when I last updated my blogroll in the spring of 2005, there were only fifteen or twenty blogs on the Internets.  Today there are over thirty million.  So, of course, the blogroll had to get longer, and I spent many many hours checking out many many fine new blogs.  But I didn’t want the blogroll to roll on forever down the right sidebar.  That seemed unseemly.  So Kurt Nelson, blessed be he, suggested that I group the almost-two-hundred blogs into categories, and he would get a hold of some of that “code” that allows the categories to unfurl before your eyes.

This was the moment I’d been dreading for months. Categorizing the blogs! I feared that every step I took would kill a living thing.  What if I classified someone’s blog as anarcho-syndicalist when in fact many of its posts were crypto-Maoist?  What if I designated “Sivacracy” as post-Impressionist when in fact its studied pointillism owes a great deal to Scott McLemee’s experiments with color and line?  And (this last question bedevils all of us literature professors) what was I to do with those damned medievalists?  Especially the ones whose blogs are full of thorns?

Well, after I culled through the old blogroll, fixing broken links and tracking down fugitive blogs that had undergone radical changes of name and/or identity in the course of joining the Blog Protection Program, I decided to place my faith in the best classification system in the world: the Borgesian taxonomy in “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins.”

Which reminds me of something.  About a decade ago, Keith Windschuttle, Australian Professor of Harrumphy in the Department of What’s All This Then, published a particularly stupid book titled The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past.  In it, he not only showed how literary critics and social theorists are murdering our past until it is dead; he also pointed out that although Michel Foucault was inspired by Borges’ taxonomy, and Marshall Sahlins and many other people cite it too, the taxonomy is in fact fictional, having been entirely made up by Jorge Luis Borges!

Gee, d’ye think?  As it happens, Borges (being Borges) has a great deal of fun embedding the taxonomy in a series of attributions and “attributions.” Here’s a taste:

Let us consider the eighth category, the category of stones. Wilkins divides them into common (silica, gravel, schist), modics (marble, amber, coral), precious (pearl, opal), transparent (amethyst, sapphire) and insolubles (chalk, arsenic). Almost as surprising as the eighth, is the ninth category. This one reveals to us that metals can be imperfect (cinnabar, mercury), artificial (bronze, brass), recremental (filings, rust) and natural (gold, tin, copper). Beauty belongs to the sixteenth category; it is a living brood fish, an oblong one.

These ambiguities, redundancies and deficiencies remind us of those which doctor Franz Kuhn attributes to a certain Chinese encyclopaedia entitled Celestial Empire of Benevolent Knowledge. In its remote pages it is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.

The Bibliographic Institute of Brussels exerts chaos too: it has divided the universe into 1000 subdivisions, from which number 262 is the pope; number 282, the Roman Catholic Church; 263, the Day of the Lord; 268 Sunday schools; 298, mormonism; and number 294, brahmanism, buddhism, shintoism and taoism. It doesn’t reject heterogene subdivisions as, for example, 179: “Cruelty towards animals. Animals protection. Duel and suicide seen through moral values. Various vices and disadvantages. Advantages and various qualities.”

Just wait ‘til Windschuttle finds out where Freud got all that Oedipus stuff from!

Have fun with the new blogroll, everyone, and give many thanks and sucking pigs to Kurt.  Anyone who wishes to question his or her classification and seek reassignment may direct a Petition of Appeal to the Emperor.  The Emperor is, however, a very busy man, and may not be able to see you right away.

Posted by on 03/19 at 01:40 PM

  1. . . . it’s my all-new blogroll!

    This used to be a nice little neighborhood joint until they let the riff-raff in.

    Posted by Gavin M.  on  03/19  at  03:34 PM

  2. Riff-raff!  I knew there was a category I’d forgotten. I’ll have to lump them in with the blackguards and ne’er-do-wells for now.

    Posted by Michael  on  03/19  at  03:45 PM

  3. I missed the cut.  No blogroll for me...ONE YEAR!!!

    Posted by DocMara  on  03/19  at  03:45 PM

  4. The new blogroll is identical to Pierre Menard’s.  Yours is superior, nonetheless.

    Posted by Jeremías  on  03/19  at  03:46 PM

  5. Blouson-noirs as well. They should go separately; they don’t get along with the blackguards (or four-flushers).

    Posted by Gavin M.  on  03/19  at  03:49 PM

  6. I wouldn’t be so sure of that, DocMara.  Just check “Fabulous Ones” again.  The Emperor has looked upon you with favor!

    Posted by  on  03/19  at  03:49 PM

  7. Can I go over to Yellowdog and show him my shiny new link?  Can I Puhleeeze???

    Muchos Beaucoup.

    Vraiment…

    Posted by DocMara  on  03/19  at  03:52 PM

  8. Classification would have been easier if you’d stuck with “tame” and “frenzied.”

    Posted by  on  03/19  at  03:59 PM

  9. But what if you’re fabulous and belong to the emperor?  I’m feeling stifled by this phallogocentric panopticist unimodular hegemony.  Stifled!

    Posted by Sean Carroll  on  03/19  at  04:01 PM

  10. MB, I thought, “he can’t be serious. Who would take Borges to task for inventing authorities? Who’s next on the list? Chaucer? Lovecraft? Nabokov? Milorad Pavic?”

    But then I googled the fellow’s name and came up with his horrifying racist apologetic website (no link, thanks) and now I guess I’m convinced.

    Posted by  on  03/19  at  04:15 PM

  11. Let’s put you in charge of the next Carnegie Classification!  They keep tinkering with the names of their classification.  In the past decade a major research university, for example, has gone from being “Research I University” (or “RI") to “Research-Extensive” to “Research Universities (very high research activity).” What name would Michael give the “Research University” class of institutions (and all other “classes” of institutions)?

    Posted by Christian Anderson  on  03/19  at  04:25 PM

  12. But what if you’re fabulous and belong to the emperor?  I’m feeling stifled by this phallogocentric panopticist unimodular hegemony.

    You want a heterotopia, Sean, you’ve got to build it yourself.  Go ahead!  No one’s up there in the panopticon, I assure you.

    Karl—yes, our Professor of Harrumphy has since moved on to much bigger harrumphs, and has created a new intradisciplinary Department of What’s All This Then About The Aborigines.

    What name would Michael give the “Research University” class of institutions (and all other “classes” of institutions)?

    I would call them Arthur.

    Posted by Michael  on  03/19  at  04:44 PM

  13. There’s always someone in the panopticon, isn’t there?

    Posted by  on  03/19  at  04:47 PM

  14. I was wondering why I suddenly felt so fabulous (as in “mythical") this morning.

    Posted by PZ Myers  on  03/19  at  05:42 PM

  15. That’s what they want you to think, Genevieve. 

    Michael, thanks for the link.  I’ll try to use the awesome responsibility both awesomely and responsibly.  Tenure aside, you can play on our new graduate student jungle gym whenever you’re in Southern California.

    Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman  on  03/19  at  05:42 PM

  16. Ahh Michael, you flatter me. I’m a fabulous one!

    Posted by Randy Paul  on  03/19  at  06:34 PM

  17. Thanks, Michael. I had thought that I, like PZ, felt fabulous this morning, but then realized I was in fact in the stable of the emperor. I’m asking my dean for money this week.

    Posted by helmut  on  03/19  at  06:42 PM

  18. Woohoo! I’m tarred drawn with a camelshair brush!  I bow in obeisance, O Emperor!

    Posted by Linkmeister  on  03/19  at  06:58 PM

  19. Thanks for the link, Michael!

    Posted by Jonathan  on  03/19  at  08:38 PM

  20. Thank you for the link! I was wondering why I was emitting pure beams of white light all around my head when I woke up this morning. I thought it was because I’d finally reached the maximum limit for ingesting our cancer-causing tap water in my low-rent neighborhood, but no.

    I read my non-blogger husband (it’s a mixed marriage, clearly!) all the Jamie stories - our oldest son is on the autism spectrum, so it’s nice to read about what other parents of special needs children are up to. Our favorite so far was when you kept Jamie entertained by making him guess Beatles tunes at the baggage carousel at the airport.

    Posted by flea  on  03/19  at  08:59 PM

  21. a new intradisciplinary Department of What’s All This Then About The Aborigines

    The intra- prefix suggests a kind of Disciplinary Gravitational Singularity: apposite, that. Maybe the dear Prof. of Whiteness will vainly try to avoid this oncoming frothy collapse by taking up with the Department of What’s All This Then About Them Zemblans?

    We can only be grateful, though, that’s Prof Huffinpuff is over there and not over here, where he’d be: a) unlistable by your Unnamable Adversary and, b) drawing a check at the Department of Wait I’ve Still More To Say About Chappaquiddick.

    Posted by  on  03/19  at  09:46 PM

  22. Oh yay, I’m an unclassifiable comrade!  I think that’s just about my favorite thing to be.  Thanks Michael!

    Posted by Elayne Riggs  on  03/19  at  11:27 PM

  23. What Elayne said. I strive hard for unclassifiability, and I am pleased. And with the new address too! Truly you are now among the avant garde.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  03/20  at  12:04 AM

  24. Karl - be very very glad he is Over There for you, as having him Over Here with us leads to frustratingly stabbing holes in the newspaper whenever he is quoted, which he is, frequently, as unbelievably we are still debating about what damage was done to the indigenous populations of Australia, and distracting ourselves from the debate about how to try and fix some of the problems that were caused.  The current team captain (aka Prime Minister) is disturbingly similar: refusing to apologise to indigenous people on behalf of the government ten years into his captaincy.

    Also ultra-newspaper stabbing worthy.

    Particularly upsetting when you read the newspaper online.

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  12:07 AM

  25. Thanks Michael!  smile

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  12:21 AM

  26. I feel so gosh-darn *fabulous*! Thanks!  And I’m back to blogging again after my brief hiatus, so the link is timely.

    As for this:
    What name would Michael give the “Research University” class of institutions (and all other “classes” of institutions)?

    I would call them Arthur.

    Yes, but some call it Tim.

    Posted by Dr. Virago  on  03/20  at  01:32 AM

  27. What, no “those that tremble as if they were mad”?

    Mark Pilgrim, until he gave up weblogs for hobbies that don’t involve electricity, used Borges taxo to classify his posts.

    Posted by Bill Humphries  on  03/20  at  02:27 AM

  28. Windshcuttle knew Foucault knew the Chinese taxonomy was fictional. He was criticizing academics such as Marshall Sahlins, who were unaware the it was fictional. As Windshcuttle notes, Sahlins’ cited Foucault and the Chinese taxonomy as actual evidence supporting the notion that objectivity is impossible and that different cultures can never truly understand or explain one another. 

    You should try reading ‘The Killing of History<’, it’s an interesting book.

    Posted by Carter  on  03/20  at  02:38 AM

  29. and I was hoping that “Those That From a Long Way Off Look Like Flies” would be the international section…

    Carter, also ‘interesting’:
    http://larvatusprodeo.net/index.php?s=windschuttle

    Posted by dk.au  on  03/20  at  07:34 AM

  30. A few of the links might have bugs that need fixing.

    At least the link to Boing Boing in “Those That From a Long Way Off Look Like Flies” is broken. Instead of “/http://boingboing.net/” it contains “http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/http://boingboing.net/”.

    It looks like the link to Eschaton and Boing Boing got merged by mistake and there is no link to Eschaton.

    Posted by Disgusted in St. Louis  on  03/20  at  09:27 AM

  31. The Universe (which others call the Blogosphere) is composed of an indefinite, perhaps infinite number of virtual galleries. In the center of each gallery is a Blogroll ...

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  09:38 AM

  32. Thanks, Disgusted!  All fixed.

    Carter, with all due respect, you are quite mistaken.  Windschuttle really does argue that the fictionality of Borges’ example demonstrates that different cultures don’t have the different classification systems “postmodernists” attribute to them.  I read The Killing of History until I had to stop because life is too damn short.

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  10:35 AM

  33. Michael, what an honor to have a place in your vast electronic library, an elegant and commanding space whose future eternity cannot be placed in doubt by reasonable bloggers. We are all imperfect librarians, men and women alike, yet in striving to bridge the distance between the divine and the human, we build up whatever edifice we can to avoid the depression what would otherwise engulf us.

    Posted by Sally  on  03/20  at  10:57 AM

  34. Silly Sahlins!  Here’s passage in which he cites Foucault’s The Order of Things, in which Foucault cites of Borges.  The emphasis is Foucault’s.

    “Returning to the issue under scrutiny here, to say that it would be impossible for Hawaiians to perceive Captain Cook as an actualization of Lono because of the evident empirical differences between him and the god is to mark the end of our native wisdom, not the beginning of theirs.  Better to adopt the attitude of Foucalt when presented by Borges with a zoological classification from a certain Chinese encyclopedia:

    in which it is written that ‘animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.’ In the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated in the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that. (Foucalt 1973:xv)”

    From Marshall Sahlins, How “Natives” Think: About Captain Cook, For Example (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), p. 163.

    Posted by Jeremías  on  03/20  at  11:59 AM

  35. Thanks for adding me to your blogroll.  (That doesn’t sound too MySpace-y, does it?)

    Too bad you’ll only be in NC for a month.  I’m going down April 5 for Full Frame Fest and would have been honored to buy you lunch.

    Posted by Jill  on  03/20  at  12:04 PM

  36. Wow.  Not only am I recognized by the Master, and ensconced in a neighborhood too good for the likes of me, but somebody finally noticed my raillery!  Thanks.

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  12:23 PM

  37. In a nutshell:

    1) Windschuttle implies that Sahlins cites the Borges taxonomy as evidence.

    2) Sahlins does not cite the Borges taxonomy as evidence.

    Windschuttle writes (and for some reason I can’t “blockquote” it):

    “The American ethnographer Marshall Sahlins cites Foucault and the Chinese taxonomy as part of his case against his opponent Gananath Obeyesekere. [… S]ays Sahlins, the the existence of radically different systems of classification like that of the Chinese encyclopedia is evidence that different cultures both perceive the world and order their perceptions in radically different ways. ‘If the classifications of the same sets of organisms by different peoples so vary,’ Sahlins argues, ‘it must mean that objectivity itself is a variable social value.’ “ (Windschuttle 280; Sahlins 158)

    On pages 157-158, however, Sahlins is talking not about the Borgesian Chinese taxonomy, but about several other empirically observed “radically different systems of classification,” including this one uncovered by properly cited anthroplogists: “For the Chewa of Malawi, certain mushrooms are in a class with game animals, as distinct from plants, on the basis of resemblances of the flesh” (Sahlins 157)

    Sahlins does quote Foucault quoting Borges—several pages later, as a conclusion, merely recommending that we adopt Foucault’s attitude towards the Borges taxonomy. See Jeremias’s comment above.

    Given that Sahlins includes a quotation from Foucault in which the Borges taxonomy is referred to as a “fable,” it seems reasonable to conclude that Sahlins knew that the Borges taxonomy is to be categorized under “fabulous.”

    Proposition: It is possible to catch Michael being mistaken. It is not possible to catch him being mistaken because he has not read the text he is discussing.

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  12:36 PM

  38. Thanks, Michael.  I’ll try to continue my unclassifiable fabulosity.

    Posted by corndog  on  03/20  at  01:10 PM

  39. The objection that I would not belong to any category that would have me as a member has strained my intellectuals to the breaking point, and I sit before the Infernal Machine typing “Tyvek, Tyvek, Tyvek” into the little white box. I will continue having this fun until I stop.

    So who’s this Borges file when he’s at home? Sounds like a bit of a wowser.

    Fangs for the link!

    Posted by Neddie Jingo  on  03/20  at  01:49 PM

  40. I owe the discovery of http://www.michaelberube.com to the conjunction of a web-browser and a mirror.

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  02:53 PM

  41. "Better to adopt the attitude of Foucalt when presented by Borges with a zoological classification from a certain Chinese encyclopedia”

    Interesting. That ‘certain’ does suggest Sahlins is aware the encyclopedia is fictional, and is citing it not as evidence but for the sake of pseudo-intellectual preening.

    Posted by Carter  on  03/20  at  03:21 PM

  42. That ‘certain’ does suggest Sahlins is aware the encyclopedia is fictional, and is citing it not as evidence but for the sake of pseudo-intellectual preening.

    That could be.  A more charitable interpretation would be that Sahlins is alluding to the Borges precisely as a literary allusion, and assumes that everyone is aware of the encyclopedia’s fictionality.

    Besides, c’mon, the taxonomy is very silly and very funny.  It strains belief well past the breaking point to think that anyone could cite it as a “factual” taxonomy.  I mean, a category called “et cetera”?  “innumerable”?  “included in the present classification”?  I honestly believe that Windschuttle’s the only one not in on the joke.

    Posted by Michael  on  03/20  at  03:35 PM

  43. It’s astonishing how seldom I am accurately described as fabulous. It takes a dangerous man to have the courage to recognize fabulousness in its many forms.

    Posted by Orange  on  03/20  at  05:23 PM

  44. I would like to make it clear that I am not “in on the joke” or am such a man, contrary to previously published libelous reports which no one will see fit to publish, that might be one to be “in on the joke.”

    Ahem, Harrumph.

    Those of us not “in on the joke” should form a political party or something. Five gentleman (named John and Eric and Michael, among two other names) from Britain proposed such a thing a while back, as I may and do recall.

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  05:35 PM

  45. A grasshopper walks into a bar . . .

    Bartender says “hey buddy, you know we gotta drink named after you now?”

    Grasshopper sez “really? you gotta drink named Steve?”

    I don’t get it.

    If anyone sends me postage and acclaim, I’ll give you a detailed listing of jokes which I don’t get.

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  05:37 PM

  46. Thanks, Michael! I promise to use my fabulousity for good, not evil.

    Also, 8 hits from your site this morning; readership (er, glancership) had doubled!

    Do I sense a Koufax next year for Best Dangeral/ Borgeseral Blogroll?

    Posted by ae  on  03/20  at  05:41 PM

  47. The Best Joke in the Entire World goes as follows:

    Two fish are in an glass object filled with water, rocks, and sand. One turns to the other and says “you man the guns, I’ll drive!”

    That one, I get.

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  05:41 PM

  48. P.S. Read “Professor of Harrumphy in the Department of What’s All This Then” this morning, and I’m still laughing. I think I majored in What’s All This Then.

    Posted by ae  on  03/20  at  05:44 PM

  49. mathpants, I believe that joke fits in taxonomically with Robin Williams’ joke from The Aristocrats:
    A rabbi walks into a bar with a frog on his shoulder.
    Bartender asks, “Where’d you get that?”
    Frog answers, “Brooklyn, there’s hundreds of them up there.”

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  05:48 PM

  50. I know nothing about Borge, Sahlin, or Windschuttle, but in an effort to learn a little more, I came across this description of Windschuttle:
    “Windschuttle, a student radical in the 1960s, one-time self-styled Marxist and radical journalist, has become the standard bearer for a number of deeply reactionary right wing political columnists. He has also received ... considerable promotion in the pages of the Murdoch press.”

    Now where I have I heard that story before?

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  06:34 PM

  51. The “will to taxonomize” of course may be itself repositioned as a specifically hermeneutic species of contextual hegemony, not quite liberated from the ontological “Grundriss” of neo-eleatic enframing, and unwilling to force the admittedly post-structuralist desire-as-commodification discourse common to various quasi-situationalist tactics of shall we say a ‘joissance” of the telos of subterfuge, and the inquiry of the mean of that subterfuge, all the more alarming for the insousiance of the Borgesian critical maneuvers and reconfiguring of the priviledged space of valorization which all too many take as a sign of a rather idealized version of a transcendental “us.”

    Posted by W. Hariomann Cordieulliac  on  03/20  at  07:08 PM

  52. Just so you know.  Those of us in the sucking pigs category are deeply insulted.  Your blog will be tracked back to posts of deep concern to the ministry of torture and the Google oogle. When you least expect it, expect it!

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  07:25 PM

  53. I can’t tell if the following passage from Sahlin’s Waiting for Foucault, Still is an actual want ad, a joke, or just another example of his pseudo-intellectual preening.  In any event, I don’t get it.

    The Poetics of Culture, I

    Anthropologists wanted.  No experience actually necessary.  Make more than most poets.

    Posted by Jeremías  on  03/20  at  08:29 PM

  54. Thanks very much for the link.  Truly, this empire of knowledge is as benevolent as it is celestial.  Long may the Emperor reign!

    Posted by Matt  on  03/20  at  09:12 PM

  55. David Durata,

    two vitally important points in response:
    1) there’s a dingy parking lot in Hot Springs, Arkansas which has a bland sign announcing ARISTOCRAT PARKING. It’s attached to no establishment, far as I can tell. The world ends there in 2013, far as I can tell.

    2) In the best reading of the frog joke, the rabbi, who is clearly using the frog as a ventriliquoist dummy(*), is referring to the French population in Brooklyn.

    (*)frogs don’t speak English, as I thought would have been clear to even the deranged leftists on this blog.

    Posted by  on  03/20  at  09:27 PM

  56. Okay, Michael - you know I adore you, but I am beginning to suspect that you have some sort of sick friendship with the prof who made me read both Horowitz and Windshcuttle.  Well, if nothing else, it was sort of fun (in an angry, why the hell should this be necessary sort of way) to take apart the work of both in consecutive papers.  Still can’t figure out why you keep making me relive that class, though.  What did I ever do to you?

    Posted by  on  03/21  at  05:14 PM

  57. Holy shit!  All my blogroll harrassment finally paid-off!  Prior to this, my one and only blogroll-nagging victory was Digby, with the rest of them surely being mistaken identities.  And while I don’t understand exactly what my category means, I’m certainly honored to be lumped with those other fine folks; a few of whom are also on my blogroll-nag list (I’m very particular about who I want links from).  I guess this should serve as more incentive for me to start my own blogroll.

    Posted by Doctor Biobrain  on  03/22  at  02:35 PM

  58. I guess we’ve been a victim of Taxidermy rather than Taxonomy.

    Thank goodness you got rid of our worthless blog. Personally, I think we were dragging you down with us and now I fully expect you to pull off a five-fer in the Koufaxes for having dropped the dead weight.

    (You’re still gonna come over sometime and visit me before I die, right?)

    Love,

    Hanna

    Posted by Hanna  on  03/22  at  06:05 PM

  59. Hanna!  I’m so sorry! 

    You and your fabulous blog are right back there under fabulous ones where you belong.

    Posted by  on  03/23  at  12:18 PM

  60. Can we now describe this blog as the single point through which all other blogs can be seen?

    Posted by  on  03/24  at  12:37 AM

  61. I’m shocked and not a little disappointed to see that I am not included in your revised blogroll (which to my untrained limey ear sounds too much like bog roll).  I’ll have you know I was voted fifth most influential political (sometimes) blog based in Cardiff, 2005.

    Posted by Simstim  on  03/28  at  07:10 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Dead Again: The Sequel, Part II

Previous entry: Madness II

<< Back to main