Coherence is overvalued and exists by ignoring a multitude of counter examples, excesses, and idiosyncracies. What I appreciate about Derrida is that he makes explicit what other writers try to hide, or are ignorant of. The desire for coherence is the desire to dominate something completely by knowing it completely, and requires violence to what lies outside of what is already explained. The mass accumulation of facts, treatises legitimating methodology, synthesis of information all disguise that there is never enough accumulation, that methodologies are always built on unjustified assumptions, and that there are a multitude of other ways information could have been synthesized. We are obsessed with truth because we are obsessed with our own selves and our own power!
Coherence ignores its own aphoristic energy by ignoring its gaps, by ignoring the jumps and assumptions between the points that it "connects," by creating a form of logic to be followed, when the form itself has no basis.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
sermon illustrations
Last week I went to a certain coffee shop. I was there for a short time because I had to go to a library before it closed, but also because the coffee shop had a song on loop that played over 7 times in a row, and was still playing when I left. I went there again today, thinking that my experience must have been a fluke. The first hour that I was there, they once again played a song on repeat the entire time. I started to get a headache and become angry, could not concentrate on what I was reading. So I went downstairs to ask them to turn it off and found that the stereo was on the staircase, so I started pushing buttons and accidentally turned it off. Then the manager come to see what was going on, and I told him that I was getting a headache from it being on repeat. So he said he'd get a new CD, and I returned to my seat. But when he put a new CD on, he once again left the song on repeat, for the rest of the time I was there (maybe an hour). I only noticed when I went downstairs that the baristas can't hear the music on their floor, which is the only reason they must not have gone crazy by this time.
Last Friday I was walking to the bus station to go to Edinburgh, when I saw someone drop one of his gloves. I pointed it out to him, he said thank you, I went to the bus station. In Edinburgh at a museum, I lost one of my gloves, and found it at the reception because Brent had lost his hat and went there to look for it. Certainly, the two situations are linked to each other. Perhaps on his way to the bus, Brent saw someone drop a hat, and did not tell them? That is the Christian explanation, or at least a nice sermon illustration.
Last Friday I was walking to the bus station to go to Edinburgh, when I saw someone drop one of his gloves. I pointed it out to him, he said thank you, I went to the bus station. In Edinburgh at a museum, I lost one of my gloves, and found it at the reception because Brent had lost his hat and went there to look for it. Certainly, the two situations are linked to each other. Perhaps on his way to the bus, Brent saw someone drop a hat, and did not tell them? That is the Christian explanation, or at least a nice sermon illustration.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
games
Some of my memories about games:
The night before my ankle got chopped in a hiking accident, my brother and Nathan (whose house we were staying at) played darts for quite sometime. I remember laying on the couch the whole time, but I don't remember if I was doing anything or not, or why I didn't play. I know I didn't want to be there (and had just decided the next morning to enjoy myself anyway when we had our accident).
When I was nine I played lots of ping-pong at Happy Home, the children's home my parents were working at. I remember getting better as time went on, but I can't imagine I was very good.
Before we moved to Thailand, my dad used to go to monthly pinochle parties, and it always seemed very intimidating. After years of good times playing with the Franciscuses, I got to go back to the states and play one of those nights. And I actually played very well, I think the old people were impressed. I felt like a hot shot that night.
Down at the beach, my friends always played Phase 10 in the mornings, and I never wanted to play because it took too long. But in the evenings I was happy to play speed scrabble with everyone.
A few times, my school had field trips where we bussed around Thailand for a week. We played lots of cards in the evening and on the trips. I was annoyed that people always wanted to play speed games rather than good games like hearts.
Sophmore year I would spend most of my Friday evenings playing video games by myself. My friends always asked me to watch movies, but I never wanted to watch movies. It was the time of the week that I could finally be by myself. It was good to have that time to myself, but I wish that I'd done more with them.
There have been many many nights that I was out late with my friends Zac and Caleb playing video games at LAN shops. Typically those were good nights. Strangely, though, the night I remember the most distinctly is the last time that I went out with my brother, Luke Wilcox, and Zac Franciscus (I think?) before Luke left for Australia. I remember it being very cold that night on our motorcycles going home.
The night before my ankle got chopped in a hiking accident, my brother and Nathan (whose house we were staying at) played darts for quite sometime. I remember laying on the couch the whole time, but I don't remember if I was doing anything or not, or why I didn't play. I know I didn't want to be there (and had just decided the next morning to enjoy myself anyway when we had our accident).
When I was nine I played lots of ping-pong at Happy Home, the children's home my parents were working at. I remember getting better as time went on, but I can't imagine I was very good.
Before we moved to Thailand, my dad used to go to monthly pinochle parties, and it always seemed very intimidating. After years of good times playing with the Franciscuses, I got to go back to the states and play one of those nights. And I actually played very well, I think the old people were impressed. I felt like a hot shot that night.
Down at the beach, my friends always played Phase 10 in the mornings, and I never wanted to play because it took too long. But in the evenings I was happy to play speed scrabble with everyone.
A few times, my school had field trips where we bussed around Thailand for a week. We played lots of cards in the evening and on the trips. I was annoyed that people always wanted to play speed games rather than good games like hearts.
Sophmore year I would spend most of my Friday evenings playing video games by myself. My friends always asked me to watch movies, but I never wanted to watch movies. It was the time of the week that I could finally be by myself. It was good to have that time to myself, but I wish that I'd done more with them.
There have been many many nights that I was out late with my friends Zac and Caleb playing video games at LAN shops. Typically those were good nights. Strangely, though, the night I remember the most distinctly is the last time that I went out with my brother, Luke Wilcox, and Zac Franciscus (I think?) before Luke left for Australia. I remember it being very cold that night on our motorcycles going home.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
(non)existence
I recently went to a lecture on Darwin by Pietro Corsi. After the lecture, someone asked Corsi a question about Dawkins, and he responded, "Christians love Dawkins: 'God doesn't exist!' he says. 'Yes he does!' they say. They love him!"
This reminds me of the controversies surrounding the Da Vinci Code a few years back, and the industry that surrounded it. Dan Brown's book provided a huge (if temporary) industry for Christian writers and speakers, and that gap is perhaps being filled now by responses to Dawkins et al.
I have been thinking some about the question, Does God exist? And I'm becoming more and more convinced (by myself) that it's not a meaningful question, or that there isn't much difference between answering 'Yes God exists' or 'No God does not exist.' Both answers provide the illusion that something meaningful has been established, but both answers work into the same logic, and provide answers based on the same criteria (generally evidence). The real winner in any debate over the existence of God isnt which ever argument seems to win (existence; no existence). The real winner is the logic and form of knowing that undergirds their arguments, that is reified even by responding to each others arguments as meaningful arguments. I'm not interested in these arguments over the existence of God precisely because I'm not interested in the logic behind them, or with the binary of existence and nonexistence, or convinced that there is a great deal of difference depending on how you answer that question. Along with this question we could ask if Genesis or the gospels are "historically accurate," or whether miracles really happened, or if Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, or if a band sings Christian music, or whether Muslims go to hell, and in all of these cases those are the wrong questions to ask, and summarily any answer (usually an either/or) is the wrong answer. Answering the question without altering the question is assent to the logic behind it.
Another question to be added to this list is the question of right and wrong, and whether specific actions are/were right or wrong. Questions of right and wrong are always anachronistic, in the sense that the situation doesn't matter (I'm not sure if situational ethics are actually very situational). I want my understanding of the past and present to be much more sophisticated than a belief that history can be written as a history of right and wrong (often the Christian view of history). I'm much more interested in talking about utility: cause, effect, function, forces upon a system, including the forces working upon your system that make it impossible for you to agree with me, or me with you.
Most arguments are empty arguments in the sense that people are secretly agreeing with each other by validating the system of knowledge in use by the involved parties. In the cases where systems dont agree, the other party is written off as absurd or crazy. To this degree, when someone's belief changes because of an argument, they're not convinced by the other person, they're convinced by themselves.
This reminds me of the controversies surrounding the Da Vinci Code a few years back, and the industry that surrounded it. Dan Brown's book provided a huge (if temporary) industry for Christian writers and speakers, and that gap is perhaps being filled now by responses to Dawkins et al.
I have been thinking some about the question, Does God exist? And I'm becoming more and more convinced (by myself) that it's not a meaningful question, or that there isn't much difference between answering 'Yes God exists' or 'No God does not exist.' Both answers provide the illusion that something meaningful has been established, but both answers work into the same logic, and provide answers based on the same criteria (generally evidence). The real winner in any debate over the existence of God isnt which ever argument seems to win (existence; no existence). The real winner is the logic and form of knowing that undergirds their arguments, that is reified even by responding to each others arguments as meaningful arguments. I'm not interested in these arguments over the existence of God precisely because I'm not interested in the logic behind them, or with the binary of existence and nonexistence, or convinced that there is a great deal of difference depending on how you answer that question. Along with this question we could ask if Genesis or the gospels are "historically accurate," or whether miracles really happened, or if Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, or if a band sings Christian music, or whether Muslims go to hell, and in all of these cases those are the wrong questions to ask, and summarily any answer (usually an either/or) is the wrong answer. Answering the question without altering the question is assent to the logic behind it.
Another question to be added to this list is the question of right and wrong, and whether specific actions are/were right or wrong. Questions of right and wrong are always anachronistic, in the sense that the situation doesn't matter (I'm not sure if situational ethics are actually very situational). I want my understanding of the past and present to be much more sophisticated than a belief that history can be written as a history of right and wrong (often the Christian view of history). I'm much more interested in talking about utility: cause, effect, function, forces upon a system, including the forces working upon your system that make it impossible for you to agree with me, or me with you.
Most arguments are empty arguments in the sense that people are secretly agreeing with each other by validating the system of knowledge in use by the involved parties. In the cases where systems dont agree, the other party is written off as absurd or crazy. To this degree, when someone's belief changes because of an argument, they're not convinced by the other person, they're convinced by themselves.
Monday, October 26, 2009
interest
My question today is who benefits the most from the belief that the bible is the infallible word of God?
My answer is that the publishing companies benefit the most from the perpetuation of this belief (myth), and have perhaps even more interest in this than your average believer. Why? Because the myth encourages people not just to buy one copy, indiscriminately, but to buy multiple copies to compare to one another (to really discover what is really there). It also creates the paranoia that one doesn't have the "right" translation, that maybe this translation was good when I was fifteen, but now that I'm 22 I need to buy a more "literal" translation, or what I really need is something paraphrased, annotated, expanded. Without the belief that there is a real truth in the text that needs to be translated properly, the industry would never be able to support as many different translations in English as it does. What other text supports this many translations?
Part of the difference is that the bible has been translated into English more than any other work in a foreign language. But while I could name 15 different translations of the bible, I could name a maximum of two translations for any other work (Constance Garnett and Richard Pevear translating Crime and Punishment, for instance). The interesting thing here is that no one knows who translated the translations of the bible. Certainly, they're listed in the credits, but if anyone in my church could name one bible translator except Eugene Peterson, I would be shocked. The benefit of this (to publishers) is that it provides the illusion that something objective is being captured. The translator is hidden because we are supposed to forget that it is a translated work (and because there are usually a lot of translators).
Of course, money is just one type of benefit, and I'm sure there are many people who maintain their own power by perpetuating the myth. But I'm coming to see text as commodity, and more observant to the ways in which the object of the text is advertised and sold. It's unavoidable that text is designed to sell. Once again, lets think of bible versions, of which there is a huge plethora to supply any translation in any shape and format. Each is designed to interest a certain buyer, whether that buyer wants features or the illusion of the text on its own without features or commentary (the stark, leather covered "The Holy Bible" bible is just as designed to appeal, as it simultaneously claims to be avoiding all forms of appeal).
In what house are there so many copies of the same book? Everyone needs a personal copy of the bible.
This is significant to me in some ways because the rise of the printing press coincided with modernity and its conceptions of truth as objective, factual, literal.
My answer is that the publishing companies benefit the most from the perpetuation of this belief (myth), and have perhaps even more interest in this than your average believer. Why? Because the myth encourages people not just to buy one copy, indiscriminately, but to buy multiple copies to compare to one another (to really discover what is really there). It also creates the paranoia that one doesn't have the "right" translation, that maybe this translation was good when I was fifteen, but now that I'm 22 I need to buy a more "literal" translation, or what I really need is something paraphrased, annotated, expanded. Without the belief that there is a real truth in the text that needs to be translated properly, the industry would never be able to support as many different translations in English as it does. What other text supports this many translations?
Part of the difference is that the bible has been translated into English more than any other work in a foreign language. But while I could name 15 different translations of the bible, I could name a maximum of two translations for any other work (Constance Garnett and Richard Pevear translating Crime and Punishment, for instance). The interesting thing here is that no one knows who translated the translations of the bible. Certainly, they're listed in the credits, but if anyone in my church could name one bible translator except Eugene Peterson, I would be shocked. The benefit of this (to publishers) is that it provides the illusion that something objective is being captured. The translator is hidden because we are supposed to forget that it is a translated work (and because there are usually a lot of translators).
Of course, money is just one type of benefit, and I'm sure there are many people who maintain their own power by perpetuating the myth. But I'm coming to see text as commodity, and more observant to the ways in which the object of the text is advertised and sold. It's unavoidable that text is designed to sell. Once again, lets think of bible versions, of which there is a huge plethora to supply any translation in any shape and format. Each is designed to interest a certain buyer, whether that buyer wants features or the illusion of the text on its own without features or commentary (the stark, leather covered "The Holy Bible" bible is just as designed to appeal, as it simultaneously claims to be avoiding all forms of appeal).
In what house are there so many copies of the same book? Everyone needs a personal copy of the bible.
This is significant to me in some ways because the rise of the printing press coincided with modernity and its conceptions of truth as objective, factual, literal.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
tricks
Recent idea of mine: if I ever publish a book, I will also write and try to publish a review of my own book that totally slams it and points out all its weaknesses and urges people not to buy it. As one friend pointed out to me, this means that my critics would have nothing to say!
As far as my biography, I am worried about an absence: my correspondence. I am bad about keeping a clean inbox, but there's still so much I delete, and that others delete. How will my correspondence be preserved? Is it even significant enough for my biography? Is it well written? I suppose I can't win at everything.
I'm interested in the ways in which criticism and interpretation act as narrative. That is, there have been certain cases lately where I have read criticism on a book, then read the book, and been shocked by how little of the book's narrative was contained in the criticism. I've read the book and found a drastically different narrative than what I believed the narrative would be. This happens when I write my own essays, of course, because there's too much too account for. But it's interesting to me that criticism and interpretation is really a creative process that ends in a new narrative, more than it is an explication of "what is there." Of course, this is unaccpetable to anyone trying (for example) to discover truth "what it REALLY says" by interpreting the bible, since any interpretation alters the narrative itself, so they're no longer interpreting the bible but telling the story they want to tell (or feel obliged to tell).
I'm also interested in precision as an excess of information, and editing as a necessary economy of information. At times I feel obliged to explain myself or my thoughts as precisely as possible. Lately, I've been discarding this for the sake of communication, and as paring away excess information, where precision would be too confusing or counter to my purposes in communication. Partly this is in writing, but partly in just talking to people, telling people about my day, etc. Sometimes this means I alter the details of a story: it is confusing and disengaging to say I heard something from a friend who heard it from a friend, rather than saying that I witnessed it myself, or heard it from a friend. When it's actually important, I'll maintain the accuracy of where I received information/narrative, but usually it's not important. But I operate on the assumption that people are always on the point of not listening, or not reading, and feel the need to explain things in a way that is either entertaining or brief.
I also, I assume that no matter how precise I am, people still won't understand, so I might as well exaggerate and/or edit. I don't mean that to be dramatic about myself, but about anyone, everyone.
I've also noticed recently how little I talk about theology on here, whereas that used to be 90% of what I talked about. In part, that's just because I'm not thinking about it much, and in a lot of ways I don't know what use God or Jesus have in my life.
But in other ways I think it's because I don't know yet how to do theology, and that most of what passes for theology isn't theology, it's biblical exegesis (in Leviticus we see this...therefore God is _____ ). I think theology is supposed to be much more creative than that, and perhaps what we should learn from the bible is half what the writers say and half to do what they do, which is invent and create and discover, and to stop acting as if the bible is "truth" or that our own inventions are supposed to be truth and represent truth.
Part of what I'm also feeling is a reluctance to be an exhibitionist about God and "my relationship with him." Why is that something that anyone needs to know about? And how respectful is it to broadcast my thoughts, feelings, stories, opinions of God out to the world? And how arrogant is it to try to figure God out, like a math problem, or a trick?
As far as my biography, I am worried about an absence: my correspondence. I am bad about keeping a clean inbox, but there's still so much I delete, and that others delete. How will my correspondence be preserved? Is it even significant enough for my biography? Is it well written? I suppose I can't win at everything.
I'm interested in the ways in which criticism and interpretation act as narrative. That is, there have been certain cases lately where I have read criticism on a book, then read the book, and been shocked by how little of the book's narrative was contained in the criticism. I've read the book and found a drastically different narrative than what I believed the narrative would be. This happens when I write my own essays, of course, because there's too much too account for. But it's interesting to me that criticism and interpretation is really a creative process that ends in a new narrative, more than it is an explication of "what is there." Of course, this is unaccpetable to anyone trying (for example) to discover truth "what it REALLY says" by interpreting the bible, since any interpretation alters the narrative itself, so they're no longer interpreting the bible but telling the story they want to tell (or feel obliged to tell).
I'm also interested in precision as an excess of information, and editing as a necessary economy of information. At times I feel obliged to explain myself or my thoughts as precisely as possible. Lately, I've been discarding this for the sake of communication, and as paring away excess information, where precision would be too confusing or counter to my purposes in communication. Partly this is in writing, but partly in just talking to people, telling people about my day, etc. Sometimes this means I alter the details of a story: it is confusing and disengaging to say I heard something from a friend who heard it from a friend, rather than saying that I witnessed it myself, or heard it from a friend. When it's actually important, I'll maintain the accuracy of where I received information/narrative, but usually it's not important. But I operate on the assumption that people are always on the point of not listening, or not reading, and feel the need to explain things in a way that is either entertaining or brief.
I also, I assume that no matter how precise I am, people still won't understand, so I might as well exaggerate and/or edit. I don't mean that to be dramatic about myself, but about anyone, everyone.
I've also noticed recently how little I talk about theology on here, whereas that used to be 90% of what I talked about. In part, that's just because I'm not thinking about it much, and in a lot of ways I don't know what use God or Jesus have in my life.
But in other ways I think it's because I don't know yet how to do theology, and that most of what passes for theology isn't theology, it's biblical exegesis (in Leviticus we see this...therefore God is _____ ). I think theology is supposed to be much more creative than that, and perhaps what we should learn from the bible is half what the writers say and half to do what they do, which is invent and create and discover, and to stop acting as if the bible is "truth" or that our own inventions are supposed to be truth and represent truth.
Part of what I'm also feeling is a reluctance to be an exhibitionist about God and "my relationship with him." Why is that something that anyone needs to know about? And how respectful is it to broadcast my thoughts, feelings, stories, opinions of God out to the world? And how arrogant is it to try to figure God out, like a math problem, or a trick?
Monday, October 19, 2009
interview
Here's an interview that I conducted with my brother, Zac Franciscus, and Jaci Wilcox right before they graduated, 7 years ago. I'm not sure how funny it will be to people who didn't grow up with them. Just think of it as fuel for my biographers.
Also, considering I just read Moby Dick and loved it, I thought their comments about the book were funny.
Alex: What's the stupidest thing you've ever said to a teacher?
Zach: Uh
Jaci: Oh boy..Hah, Alex
Zac: Alex is a geek.
Zach: I've never said 'Alex is a geek' to my teacher
Zac: I never said that to my teachers
Jaci: Neither did I
Alex: I'm cutting out the insults
Zach: I don't know, I don't think I've ever said anything mean to my teacher. I think I'm just a bright, shining… [Interrupted by Jaci]
Jaci: I'm a smart person, I don't say anything stupid to my teachers.
Zac: You mean teachers here, or ever?
Alex: Ever.
Zac: Um, I was in 4th grade and my teacher threatened to give me a report on rivers and so I smart-mouthed her and basically just told her I really didn't care. So she let the class vote on how many words it was supposed to be and I ended up writing a 1,000 word paper that night.
Alex: What class do you wish the school could have had?
Jaci: Uhhhhh
Zach: Home Ec.
Zac: [Laughs]
Jaci: Actually I really do wish they did had that one…
Zach: Oh yeah, me too.
Jaci: [Giggles.] [Unprintable]
Zac: He hasn't answered seriously and I'm still thinking. I'm going to hit you. Um.
Alex: Hey, Zac, I hear rumors that on the break you're gonna be teaching Home Ec. classes, is that true?
Zac: No
Alex: I can cut anything out I want.
Zac: Umm
Jaci: Heehee, and add anything that you want.
Zac: I…I wanted…I know I wanted something a little bit ago, just trying to remember what it was.
Jaci: I wish I could have done the woodshop class. I'm pathetic when it comes to practical things like that.
Zach: I would just like anything that would broaden my horizons.
Zac: I think I should hit you. Caleb, do your work.
Zach: Can we have the next question, please?
Alex: Fine.
Zac: Yeah, I abstain.[Giggles]
Alex: What was the best year here at the school?
Jaci: I think this one.
Zach: This coming year.
Zac: Yeah, so far for me, I'll agree with Jaci. Leave Zach out on his lonesome to be an idiot.
Zach: I dunno, having Luke around was good.
Alex: How about the worst year?
Jaci: Uh..Uh..I think the second year I was here.
Alex: Why?
Jaci: 'Cause I hated school.
Zach: I've never had a worst year because I've always loved school and all my teachers.
Zac: I need a knife.
Alex: How have you contributed to the school?
Zach: Being here.
Zac: I brought about the journalism department.
Jaci: I light up the room.
Zac: Only when she wears Christmas lights around her though, that's really funny, that's only when she's drunk. Wait, we're gonna edit this.
Alex: What do you guys think of the uniforms, are you planning to burn them when school's out?
Zac: If my mother wasn't giving them to the rest of my family, I, I would.
Jaci: I like our uniforms, I think they're way better than what some people have. But I would rather not wear them
Zac: I don't think we should talk to Jaci anymore.
Zach: I think uniforms are a very wise decision as they are culturally sensitive. It's good for the community to see us wearing them.
Alex: Alright, here's a serious one. What are you guys planning to go into, your plans for after school?
Zac: A building.
Jaci: I'm gonna do a [Discipleship Training School] and then apply for medical school.
Zac: I'm doing a [Discipleship Training School] then hanging out in Pennsylvania for two months then going into Journalism at Pitt.
Zach: I'm still kind of confused about this whole part.
Alex: What was the worst book you ever read here?
Zach: Moby Dick without a question.
Jaci: Moby Dick.
Zac: If I would have read it, I would most likely agree with them. Um.
Zach: You chose to read it over the Grapes of Wrath.
Zac: I haven't started it yet.
Jaci: Choose the Grapes of Wrath, do not read Moby Dick.
Zach: I agree, by all means.
Zac: [Chuckles] I want to experience the same pains as you so I can relate to you.
Jaci: There is two remotely funny parts in the whole entire book and they wouldn't be funny if you hadn't been reading Moby Dick.
Alex: [To Zac] Worst book, worst book.
Zac: What?
Alex: Worst book.
Zac: We're having a conversation, go away.
Alex: Worst book.
Zac: Um. I really didn't like Brave New World.
Jaci: That was interesting.
Zac: I thought it was pointless and depressing.
Zach: I loved it.
Alex: What kind of animal do you think the school mascot should be?
Jaci: A weasel. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a weasel.
Zac: Mint.
Zach: You. You animal, you.
Zac: [Throaty growl]
Alex: What's the biggest stunt you ever pulled here at school?
Zac: I switched all the locker doors one day. Remember that at our old school it would happen a lot.
Zach: I didn't wear my uniform once.
Alex: Rebel.
Zac: You rebel, you.
Jaci: Uhhh..
Zac: Lock you up now.
Alex: Jaci's another one of those rebels.
Jaci: Yeah, I'm a loser. I didn't do anything.
Zach: However I was a uh, I was uh, at least I knew about it, I could have prevented Kevin from coming in and crashing the middle school party.
Kevin: Can I object?
Zach: No.
Zac: Be quiet, Canadian.
Also, considering I just read Moby Dick and loved it, I thought their comments about the book were funny.
Alex: What's the stupidest thing you've ever said to a teacher?
Zach: Uh
Jaci: Oh boy..Hah, Alex
Zac: Alex is a geek.
Zach: I've never said 'Alex is a geek' to my teacher
Zac: I never said that to my teachers
Jaci: Neither did I
Alex: I'm cutting out the insults
Zach: I don't know, I don't think I've ever said anything mean to my teacher. I think I'm just a bright, shining… [Interrupted by Jaci]
Jaci: I'm a smart person, I don't say anything stupid to my teachers.
Zac: You mean teachers here, or ever?
Alex: Ever.
Zac: Um, I was in 4th grade and my teacher threatened to give me a report on rivers and so I smart-mouthed her and basically just told her I really didn't care. So she let the class vote on how many words it was supposed to be and I ended up writing a 1,000 word paper that night.
Alex: What class do you wish the school could have had?
Jaci: Uhhhhh
Zach: Home Ec.
Zac: [Laughs]
Jaci: Actually I really do wish they did had that one…
Zach: Oh yeah, me too.
Jaci: [Giggles.] [Unprintable]
Zac: He hasn't answered seriously and I'm still thinking. I'm going to hit you. Um.
Alex: Hey, Zac, I hear rumors that on the break you're gonna be teaching Home Ec. classes, is that true?
Zac: No
Alex: I can cut anything out I want.
Zac: Umm
Jaci: Heehee, and add anything that you want.
Zac: I…I wanted…I know I wanted something a little bit ago, just trying to remember what it was.
Jaci: I wish I could have done the woodshop class. I'm pathetic when it comes to practical things like that.
Zach: I would just like anything that would broaden my horizons.
Zac: I think I should hit you. Caleb, do your work.
Zach: Can we have the next question, please?
Alex: Fine.
Zac: Yeah, I abstain.[Giggles]
Alex: What was the best year here at the school?
Jaci: I think this one.
Zach: This coming year.
Zac: Yeah, so far for me, I'll agree with Jaci. Leave Zach out on his lonesome to be an idiot.
Zach: I dunno, having Luke around was good.
Alex: How about the worst year?
Jaci: Uh..Uh..I think the second year I was here.
Alex: Why?
Jaci: 'Cause I hated school.
Zach: I've never had a worst year because I've always loved school and all my teachers.
Zac: I need a knife.
Alex: How have you contributed to the school?
Zach: Being here.
Zac: I brought about the journalism department.
Jaci: I light up the room.
Zac: Only when she wears Christmas lights around her though, that's really funny, that's only when she's drunk. Wait, we're gonna edit this.
Alex: What do you guys think of the uniforms, are you planning to burn them when school's out?
Zac: If my mother wasn't giving them to the rest of my family, I, I would.
Jaci: I like our uniforms, I think they're way better than what some people have. But I would rather not wear them
Zac: I don't think we should talk to Jaci anymore.
Zach: I think uniforms are a very wise decision as they are culturally sensitive. It's good for the community to see us wearing them.
Alex: Alright, here's a serious one. What are you guys planning to go into, your plans for after school?
Zac: A building.
Jaci: I'm gonna do a [Discipleship Training School] and then apply for medical school.
Zac: I'm doing a [Discipleship Training School] then hanging out in Pennsylvania for two months then going into Journalism at Pitt.
Zach: I'm still kind of confused about this whole part.
Alex: What was the worst book you ever read here?
Zach: Moby Dick without a question.
Jaci: Moby Dick.
Zac: If I would have read it, I would most likely agree with them. Um.
Zach: You chose to read it over the Grapes of Wrath.
Zac: I haven't started it yet.
Jaci: Choose the Grapes of Wrath, do not read Moby Dick.
Zach: I agree, by all means.
Zac: [Chuckles] I want to experience the same pains as you so I can relate to you.
Jaci: There is two remotely funny parts in the whole entire book and they wouldn't be funny if you hadn't been reading Moby Dick.
Alex: [To Zac] Worst book, worst book.
Zac: What?
Alex: Worst book.
Zac: We're having a conversation, go away.
Alex: Worst book.
Zac: Um. I really didn't like Brave New World.
Jaci: That was interesting.
Zac: I thought it was pointless and depressing.
Zach: I loved it.
Alex: What kind of animal do you think the school mascot should be?
Jaci: A weasel. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a weasel.
Zac: Mint.
Zach: You. You animal, you.
Zac: [Throaty growl]
Alex: What's the biggest stunt you ever pulled here at school?
Zac: I switched all the locker doors one day. Remember that at our old school it would happen a lot.
Zach: I didn't wear my uniform once.
Alex: Rebel.
Zac: You rebel, you.
Jaci: Uhhh..
Zac: Lock you up now.
Alex: Jaci's another one of those rebels.
Jaci: Yeah, I'm a loser. I didn't do anything.
Zach: However I was a uh, I was uh, at least I knew about it, I could have prevented Kevin from coming in and crashing the middle school party.
Kevin: Can I object?
Zach: No.
Zac: Be quiet, Canadian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)