tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post116940198419501858..comments2024-01-20T05:01:49.819-07:00Comments on Agora: "It" Does Not Come EasyLysishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169959948542354242007-01-27T21:52:00.000-07:002007-01-27T21:52:00.000-07:00Rumpole and all:I don’t believe Miller is necessar...Rumpole and all:<BR/><BR/>I don’t believe Miller is necessarily a hypocrite; he is a shrewd businessman intent on maintaining his image in a valley where homosexuality is still considered an abomination. The hypocrites here are those who pay lip service to the support of gays in their struggle for justice, but continue to attend Miller’s theaters, and support his baseball team.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169948836332169002007-01-27T18:47:00.000-07:002007-01-27T18:47:00.000-07:00Anonymy,Is Larry Miller trying to “have his cake a...Anonymy,<BR/><BR/>Is Larry Miller trying to “have his cake and eat it too?” Is he, at best, incredibly inconsistent, and at worst, a major hypocrite?<BR/><BR/>Yes! Sorry for being such a sports geek, but I remember Miller back in the Jazz title runs in 97 and in 98. The Jazz were required to have a home playoff game on a Sunday. Miller refused to go to the arena for the game, and instead stayed home. When word came that the Jazz had won, he jumped in the car and drove to the Delta Center to congratulate his team.<BR/><BR/>It’s my own view, but I don’t think much of Miller for such a show. He was inconsistent and hypocritical. He brought more negative attention to himself by doing what he did rather than just going to the Delta Center for the game.<BR/><BR/>But does hypocrisy take away one’s rights? Just as with the basketball fiasco, Miller has the right to be a hypocrite, and a right to be inconsistent when he picks and chooses what he will or won’t show at his theaters. If the “market” wishes to take “umbrage” with Miller’s business tactics and not support his businesses, so be it. It is another example of a “market correction”, if you will.<BR/><BR/>But it is the market that ought to be the judge and jury on Miller’s actions, not the law.<BR/><BR/>If I may, can I use one more example of this, just to get a reaction from Lysis? In the 80’s BYU had the opportunity to display an exhibit of Rodin’s sculptures. All the pieces, including “The Kiss”, were displayed. The students of BYU deemed that particular piece objectionable, and so it was removed from the display.<BR/><BR/>In my view this student uprising was silly. The negative publicity generated from the decision (for publicity hungry BYU) far outweighed any perceived benefit the University sought to gain by making such a “statement.” Nevertheless, as a private institution, BYU had the right to look foolish, just as Larry Miller does. It’s one of the advantages of private ownership.Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169946333461278562007-01-27T18:05:00.000-07:002007-01-27T18:05:00.000-07:00Anon...It is your contention then that once he ope...Anon...<BR/><BR/>It is your contention then that once he opens a business he DOESNT have the right to show movies in his theatres he personally finds offensive? Or even that he SHOULDNT choose to not show it?<BR/><BR/>Should magazine stands that show the SI Swimsuit Edition also be obligated to carry pornography?<BR/><BR/>I think you have it wrong...I dont think his position is that "I'll protect society"...I think his position was "Not in MY theaters."<BR/><BR/>And of course...the follow up is that people that dont like it dont have to go there. LOTS of other options. Plenty of room for everyoen to speak their mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169943476063151132007-01-27T17:17:00.000-07:002007-01-27T17:17:00.000-07:00I think Mr. Miller has things backwards.Miller has...I think Mr. Miller has things backwards.<BR/><BR/>Miller has built movie houses and has shown films of a variety of ratings -- G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 and MPAA unrated film.<BR/><BR/>I hear, Miller is in the business of making money, and while he cannot show EVERY film, one assumes that as an entrepreneur, "the bottom line" controls choices within MPAA sanctions (as it should) -- I do not know if Miller shows non-rated film.<BR/><BR/>I suggest that Miller is trying to "have his cake and eat it too" when he takes moral umbrage against ONE film for "content" HE PERSONALLY" finds revolting, but has no EQUAL objections, and even profits by, OTHER films he shows that have questionable content above a G rating that OTHERS often find EQUALLY revolting.<BR/><BR/>Now, if he were to open his doors to ONLY G rated film, and advertised the fact, there would be no question to his not showing "Brokeback". However, THAT would never be the case with Mr. Miller -- his movie houses would go broke. <BR/><BR/>When Miller opened his doors for business he bought into MPAA standards and the freedom of choice patrons would ENJOY making choices with THAT information, -- now the public is supposed to turn away from all of that and not even be ALLOWED a choice, because the great public MORAL benefactor (demagogue),FORMER ENTREPRENEUR, thinks that "Brokeback Mountain" is harmful?!?!?!?!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169912960956061232007-01-27T08:49:00.000-07:002007-01-27T08:49:00.000-07:00Dido...welcome!Do you mean do I really think I can...Dido...<BR/><BR/>welcome!<BR/><BR/>Do you mean do I really think I can define art in general, art for me, or art for you?<BR/><BR/>I think I can generally define art. I KNOW I can define what IS or ISN'T art to ME. I wouldn't begin to think to define what art is or isn't for you.<BR/><BR/>Its not really a whole lot different a question from the meaning of 'faith.' There is the general definition of faith, but my personal definition and foundation of faith is unique, as is everyone else's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169875454318459652007-01-26T22:24:00.000-07:002007-01-26T22:24:00.000-07:00Shya!!Shya!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169875333210639562007-01-26T22:22:00.000-07:002007-01-26T22:22:00.000-07:00Do you really think you can define art?Do you really think you can define art?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169869081111692312007-01-26T20:38:00.000-07:002007-01-26T20:38:00.000-07:00Hey!!!Hey!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169867349944389342007-01-26T20:09:00.000-07:002007-01-26T20:09:00.000-07:00Anonymy,I don’t completely disagree with what you ...Anonymy,<BR/><BR/>I don’t completely disagree with what you have written; however, before the “Brokeback” example, and as you have pointed out, I had suggested no methodology to the end of censorship.<BR/><BR/>For the sake of discussion, let’s accepts Webster’s definition as you posted it.<BR/><BR/>According to Webster, then, Mr. Miller is guilty of censorship. But was he wrong? Does not “ownership” give one the right of self-determination? As the owner of a theater, isn’t Mr. Miller’s opinion just as valid as the “owner” of the creative rights to “Brokeback?” Is there such a thing as “appropriate” censorship?<BR/><BR/>Who is right? Better still, is this a question of being right or wrong?<BR/><BR/>I would offer that the preferred methodology for censorship in a free republic lies in the morality of her people. I would suggest to you that in order for a free republic to survive over the long-term, her people must be moral and responsible.<BR/><BR/>The truly dangerous “slippery slope” that we currently face is not, as you have so eloquently pointed to, “Placing some kind of limits on Art.” When considering the current political climate in America, the “decisive SHOVE that inevitably sends civilization DOWN the mountainside . . . into the abyss” will be the graying of moral to immoral, the blurring of enjoyment to exploitation, and the hazing between choice verses destruction.<BR/><BR/>So that there can be no misunderstanding, I offer to you that I don’t believe that this potential “shove” down the mountainside can be legislated. Even if it could, I’m not sure I would want it to be so.<BR/><BR/>However, as standards decline, does the line gray between criticizing an opposing religion, and destroying faith? Is one’s vision blurred in viewing the beauty of a child, and the exploitation of a child? Does it become hazier when differentiating between protecting the unborn, and killing in the name of choice?<BR/><BR/>The religion to which one belongs, or even the lack of participating in religion, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that as a society (not as a government, as defined by Paine), the lines of criticizing verses destroying, beauty verses exploitation, and protecting verses killing are not blurred within the fiber of the people.<BR/><BR/>Lysis,<BR/><BR/>You have stated my position quite eloquently. I would only add that I believe it to be just as important a right for a private citizen to not show what he considers to be tasteless (i.e. Miller and “Brokeback”) as it is a right for the producers of such potential material to market their ideas. As you have said, and as I similarly have proffered above, a discriminating public will make a wise decision.Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169854086852972692007-01-26T16:28:00.000-07:002007-01-26T16:28:00.000-07:00Coincidentally, I watched Kirasowa's "Roshoman" tw...Coincidentally, I watched Kirasowa's "Roshoman" twice last night. Imagery, and O my God the rain, and brilliant setting sun!!!!<BR/><BR/>Also, I would highly recommend Krzysztof's, "The Decalogue".<BR/><BR/>Ten, one-hour long films with Ten Commandment themes -- it is NEVER predictible. <BR/><BR/>A good film is one that haunts about my life and will not let me alone!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169852487492501862007-01-26T16:01:00.000-07:002007-01-26T16:01:00.000-07:00New and reasonable?Nothing is at variance with any...New and reasonable?<BR/><BR/>Nothing is at variance with anything I've posted before -- Certainly Muhammad hasn't come to the mountain nor the mountain to Muhammad -- nor has cantankerousness seemed appropriate in this good discussion!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169848638232261042007-01-26T14:57:00.000-07:002007-01-26T14:57:00.000-07:00I have never seen Ranma 1/2 those were summers tha...I have never seen Ranma 1/2 those were summers that I wasn't there. But Miyazaki's stuff in particular is quite beautiful.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169836017630713512007-01-26T11:26:00.000-07:002007-01-26T11:26:00.000-07:00Dan:I have always been a big fan of Japanese Art a...Dan:<BR/><BR/>I have always been a big fan of Japanese Art and I particularly like Japanese animation. I saw my first Japanese cartoon at the Base theater at the Air Base in Anchorage Alaska when I was a boy. I can still see the young student carrying the buckets of water up the mountain as they grew larger and larger each day. You know I am especially fond of Ranma 1/2. The young folks around our place are, at the moment, very much into what seems to be an American imitation of Japanese animation called Avatar, the Last Air Bender. Have you seen it?<BR/><BR/>To the New and Reasonable Anonymous;<BR/><BR/>Extremely well said. Censorship, like discrimination, is a two edged sword, and like swords, has some excellent applications and can be easily misused. I am also not terribly afraid of intellectual slippery slopes, as I believe that thinking people are capable of discrimination; as in the drawing of reasonable lines.<BR/><BR/>Let’s put it this way. Should I be able to turn off my T.V.? Yes! Should I be able to turn off your? No! On the other hand should you be able to require me to provide you with T.V. that I would not find appropriate for myself? I think not.<BR/><BR/>If I might be so bold as to speak for Rumple, or at least for his position. The frustration comes over one being forced to subsidizing, through one’s tax dollars, products, I will not call them art, which one finds wrong. If these productions can find a market, let them be bought, but I will decry them, point out how harmful they are, even mock them in the Agora, but I would not use the force of law to prevent their production.<BR/><BR/>I am concerned, however, when such products are forced upon me and mine, especially by “professors of Art” who are set on legitimizing such things with relativist deceit. I would not censor such “professors” but I much lament their existence and feel it my duty to decry them whenever possible. <BR/><BR/>And finally, there are acts which are just wrong, and cannot be defended under the protection of free expression afforded by just governments. Claiming that the abuse of children, for example, is acceptable in the name of art is an invitation for just censorship. I think this is a line we are capable of drawing without fear of falling off any roofs. <BR/><BR/>Mindmechanic;<BR/><BR/>As you see, I concure.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169834860571587492007-01-26T11:07:00.000-07:002007-01-26T11:07:00.000-07:00Government encouragement and NOT censorship?I thi...Government encouragement and NOT censorship?<BR/><BR/>I think it wonderfully enlightened when a government invests in education, knowledge and proliferation of information. However, equitable distribution of funding could be a problem -- funding some and not others COULD become an insidious form of censorship!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169831896704802052007-01-26T10:18:00.000-07:002007-01-26T10:18:00.000-07:00Anon...Would you accept as adequate policing the a...Anon...<BR/><BR/>Would you accept as adequate policing the abolishment of public funding for the arts and leave it to private investors and interested participants? <BR/><BR/>I dont want to see art become censored but I do think it should be no different than a mom and pop grocery store. The government should no more fund artists than it should ensure all private business ventures succeed with government funding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169831627053875742007-01-26T10:13:00.000-07:002007-01-26T10:13:00.000-07:00My last sentence should end, ". . . cultivating CE...My last sentence should end, ". . . cultivating CENSORING zealots of our own!!!!<BR/><BR/>I celebrate ALL zealots of enlightenment, freedom, knowledge, and information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169828336646779562007-01-26T09:18:00.000-07:002007-01-26T09:18:00.000-07:00"I want no such policing force!""I have talked abo..."I want no such policing force!"<BR/><BR/>"I have talked about placing limits on art; however I have not suggested how that ought to take place." -Rumpole<BR/>_________________<BR/><BR/>I am not particularly fond of "slippery slope" arguments, but this topic seems to warrant one.<BR/><BR/>Censorship ALWAYS means "suppressing or deleting ANYTHING CONSIDERED objectionable." -Websters<BR/><BR/>The term, CONSIDERED, omits what is for me a crucial element of censorship and that is, considered by WHOM? Censorship necessitates one man (agent) limiting the freedoms of another man (agent) by limiting ACCESS to something the censor HAS accessed and now feels "morally" bound to KEEP from others (sometimes vicariously). The censoring "moral" agent often makes appeal to various kinds of "absolutist standards" to justify the censorship and also on popular notions of God or State or Public Good, -- usually all three.<BR/><BR/>"Placing some kind of limits on Art" is the decisive SHOVE that inevitably sends civilization DOWN the mountainside, ending with a terrible plunge into the ABYSS of ABSOLUTE Church/State control of media that we have seen through history and are seeing today in the absolutist/ultra-conservative/theocratic zealots of the Middle East. <BR/><BR/>We would do well to oppose intellectual tyranny and ignorance with enlightenment, freedom, knowledge and information, rather than cultivating zealots of our own!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169819598688163742007-01-26T06:53:00.000-07:002007-01-26T06:53:00.000-07:00AQL:I have not yet seen Howl's flying castle, but ...AQL:<BR/><BR/>I have not yet seen Howl's flying castle, but want to, I have heard good things.<BR/><BR/>It seemed, however, that you didn't like Spirited Away much (or at least saw it far below Princess Mononoke).<BR/><BR/>I am not sure which of the two I prefer, but both SA, and PM are awesome movies. I look forward to seeing HFC.<BR/><BR/>Off topic, but if you want some great art, you should see Miyazaki's (not sure of spelling) films. They are incredible. But see them with subtitles, dubbing is craptastic.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169817879747463092007-01-26T06:24:00.000-07:002007-01-26T06:24:00.000-07:00I think much of what is going on in our politics t...I think much of what is going on in our politics today resembles a fable that easily applies to the art topic. Of course the story is "The Emperors New Clothes."<BR/><BR/>We have the most buzz for 2 people. I work with many liberal friends and they LOVE the thought of having EITHER Hillary or Barrack Obama as the next president. I know I am just a natural born buzz kill, but I always ask them the same thing and they always give the same answer...I ask 'Why?' Why do you want Hillary Clinton as president? What has she done in her 6 years as a Senator to make you believe she will make a good president? What is her plan for social security? For foreign policy? For the economy? For battling terror? <BR/><BR/>And the answer is of course what you would expect...When it comes to her record...to her actions...nothing.<BR/><BR/>SO...on to Obama...and the response is the same. <BR/><BR/>When the MAIN REASONS that they are being promoted come up, they think that it is a personally rational reason. Hillary would be great because she could be our first woman president. Barrack would be great because he could be our first black president. <BR/><BR/>SO...I always ask the next question...<BR/><BR/>"If it is bigoted and racist to NOT vote for someone just because of their skin color, what is it if you DO vote for someone just because of their skin color?"<BR/><BR/>I know...buzz kill...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169787991835161432007-01-25T22:06:00.000-07:002007-01-25T22:06:00.000-07:00Mindmechanic;Thanks for getting it. It is not jus...Mindmechanic;<BR/><BR/>Thanks for getting it. It is not just the producers of mock-art that discourage me; it is the purveyors, the critics, the relativists who use art as a wedge to drive their agenda into the heart of the masses. And finally, I am concerned with the mob it’s self. I am discouraged with people who are more interested in what the media says about Hillary than what Hillary says.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169778559225564332007-01-25T19:29:00.000-07:002007-01-25T19:29:00.000-07:00OK...I first want to say that i have been impresse...OK...I first want to say that i have been impressed with the ability to express. I dont think we have consensus but we do have discussion and thats AWESOME. <BR/><BR/>Lysis...this has been a great post for me. I learned a lot...especially about Picasso but also about Robert Mapplethorpe. I am no closer to appreciating his work, but I have a deeper understanding of the tragedy that was his life.<BR/><BR/>Ok..now...on to the controversy.<BR/><BR/>Part two of this thread related to the war against terror being engaged in Iraq. Maybe change has to occur, maybe some things are working better or less well than others, but the end result MUST NOT include the careless splatter of cut and run. We have to clearly define the goal and then commit to that goal.<BR/><BR/>Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy recently. I watched news programs with people gushing over her verbal announcement. I couldnt help but feel we (the pundits and I) were listening to two different speeches. They thought she sounded MARVELOUS...I thought she sounded just outright dumb.<BR/><BR/>She stated that she didnt like the direction this president had taken, but then said "I dont know what I would do." Im sorry...come again? Have you NOT been a senator for 6 years? Has Iraq NOT been a front page topic? You dont know what you would do? well...you have certainly cemented yourself then as a top notch candidate.<BR/><BR/>Then...after a series of comments m,eant to riciule our very presence there and the 'wrong minded' decision to increase troops, she lists numerous global concerns including (get this) "Al Qaida desperately trying to destabilize the Iraqi government and establish a foothold in Iraq."<BR/><BR/>But we shouldnt be fighting the war on terror? We shouldnt be committed to WINNING the war on terror? <BR/><BR/>SHe SEES the threat...but fighting it...no...we shouldnt do that. <BR/><BR/>See...THAT is the worthless art. THAT is just splatting paint hoping it will please the customers. <BR/><BR/>Come on Bill Richardson!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169776190409017902007-01-25T18:49:00.000-07:002007-01-25T18:49:00.000-07:00Anonymy,You add much to the conversation. Please ...Anonymy,<BR/><BR/>You add much to the conversation. Please allow me to respond, if I may.<BR/><BR/>You post: “I understand that you want definitions, limits and controls --that you would be willing to authorize a POLICING force of some kind to curb disturbing excesses that SOME find to be ART. That sacrificing freedom of speech because SOME are irresponsible might be necessary to ensure public security -- that for EVERY freedom there are thousands of opportunities for SOME to abuse and corrupt.”<BR/><BR/>I want no such policing force!<BR/><BR/>I have talked about placing limits on art; however, I have not suggested how that ought to take place. I advocate the first amendment. I do not wish to create a climate of fear when one is critical of my beliefs, as members of Islam have done when individuals are critical of Muhammad.<BR/><BR/>You sarcastically point out that “Censorship IS a compelling ideology!”<BR/><BR/>Can we define censorship with an example? Was Larry Miller guilty of censorship when he declined to show “Brokeback?” I would argue that he was not. Did he prevent the authors of the film from plying their trade? No. Did he stop the world from seeing the film? No.<BR/><BR/>And here is the critical point. Did Larry Miller have a responsibility to show the film just because it was out there? I would say, rather emphatically, no!<BR/><BR/>No laws have been passed to prevent the showing of “Brokeback”. If you are among those who disagreed with Mr. Miller’s position, congratulations. Show your displeasure by not supporting him. But I don’t believe he can be accused of censorship. His right to disagree with the premise of the film is just as great as the rights of those who promote the premise of the film. Mr. Miller has no responsibility to show the film just because it is out there.<BR/><BR/>I do not advocate a “police state” when defining the boundaries of art. Those boundaries are defined by good taste. I do take issue, however, with those who suggest that their forays into the arts ought to be funded with my tax dollars, and if they are not, censorship has ruled the day. Is it a republic’s responsibility to financially support those forays just because they are there? Is a republic guilty of censorship if such forays are not supported?<BR/><BR/>I do not seek for purification. I would answer yes, art can also be ugly, terrifying, and revolting. However, I am not a censor, in that I have prevented the medium of presentation, if I exercise my right not to support something just because it is out there.<BR/><BR/>Lysis,<BR/><BR/>You post: “I do believe that a piece of art might well denigrate Christ or Muhammad, America or its flag. It is not the denigration that makes these things art – it is the nature of the thing created.”<BR/><BR/>Well stated.<BR/><BR/>Further, you post: “There is a better way to deal with the lies. Obscenity that pretends to art is best dealt with by decrying it for the fraud it is and leaving the foolish to adore it if they choose. But the truth still remains – their choice does not make it art.”<BR/><BR/>Again, well stated. As I said to the Anonymy, while I have suggest that limits ought to exist in defining art, I never offered how those limits ought to be imposed. You have articulated far more clearly than I ever could have that which I wish to point out.<BR/><BR/>Quiet Listener,<BR/><BR/>Your posts are always insightful. I’m sure your friend has a far greater understanding of art than I do. Perhaps he will add his understanding at some point to those here at the Agora.Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169760531591388632007-01-25T14:28:00.000-07:002007-01-25T14:28:00.000-07:00Anon...thank you! That laugh just set my day back ...Anon...thank you! That laugh just set my day back to right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169759066182820652007-01-25T14:04:00.000-07:002007-01-25T14:04:00.000-07:00rumpole: i agree with you art needs a definition. ...rumpole: i agree with you art needs a definition. however; i must confess that i'm no closer than anyone else in offering a good one. <BR/><BR/>as for my beautiful friend's post, well I will ask him next time i see him. it's a pity i didn't read your post until today since i watched "Howl's Moving Castle" with him last night and we stayed up quite late talking about art and the blog. it's a real pity i can't ever convince him to join our discussion.<BR/><BR/>as for "Howl's Moving Castle." well. it's certainly better than "spirited away" but worse than "princess mononoke." i do believe my friend loves them simply because they are not western. no real bad guy. no real resolution necessarily. they're just stories with characters exhibiting both good and bad qualities, but not inherently evil. they're not all too unlike the stories that lysis tells us from japan up at camp with such unexpected endings as the flying head people story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1169757143118983882007-01-25T13:32:00.000-07:002007-01-25T13:32:00.000-07:00Nah, intent had nothing to do with product -- but,...Nah, intent had nothing to do with product -- but, on second thought it DID have much Piccasso...esque potential as a "boy slashing at wood" sculpture!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com