As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Let's have tea at my [Chat]eau

13468931

Posts

  • Options
    TamTam Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    MKR wrote: »
    Tam wrote: »
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    From now on music is not as valid an art form because you can't hold it in your hands.

    but Tripwire music is the highest art form there is

    :winky:

    what

    Tam on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Tam wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Tam wrote: »
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    From now on music is not as valid an art form because you can't hold it in your hands.

    but Tripwire music is the highest art form there is

    :winky:

    what

    music

    high

    MKR on
  • Options
    rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    The man didn't get his own joke.

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
  • Options
    TamTam Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    MKR wrote: »
    Tam wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Tam wrote: »
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    From now on music is not as valid an art form because you can't hold it in your hands.

    but Tripwire music is the highest art form there is

    :winky:

    what

    music

    high

    oh ok

    drugs

    edit: that wasn't my joke at all

    Tam on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    To me the accessibility of the art is a big deal. What is the value if only the handful of people who can afford to travel to it can really get it?

    MKR on
  • Options
    TamTam Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    guys that is why music is the most highest art

    it is the most abstract and also the most accessible and most compelling

    Tam on
  • Options
    .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    cakemikz wrote: »
    Music is another fine example. And some of this has changed because so much of what we hear today is overproduced and prerecorded then blasted through speakers at concerts. But listening to a recording, and listening to someone actually playing an instrument are two very different things.

    I dunno, I think that's confusing the argument. I brought up music because you were implying tangibility reveals an advantage in quality over the alternative. The post quoted is more describing art as an experience, which digital art can certainly provide.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're communicating is simply that you like there being one of something; a unique experience that nobody else gets to have.

    That's fine but I don't see how it makes the physical painting, by concept or experience or skill, innately superior to the digital one. That's all I contest. Obviously it wins in the "existing physically" department, but I wouldn't base my respect of artists and their works on that one criterion.

    .Tripwire. on
    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • Options
    NappuccinoNappuccino Surveyor of Things and Stuff Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    MKR wrote: »
    To me the accessibility of the art is a big deal. What is the value if only the handful of people who can afford to travel to it can really get it?

    But if everyone has it, doesn't that also mean the value is lost?

    Its like, the episode of Futurama where everyone on earth gets 300 dollars- The dollar store increases the price to 300 dollars an item. Everyone has the extra money and as such, the value of that that 300 dollars has dropped in the eyes of the people it is important to.

    Yes, i just used a cartoon to illustrate a point.

    Nappuccino on
    Like to write? Want to get e-published? Give us a look-see at http://wednesdaynightwrites.com/
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    There's also the possibility you just can't really grow a bear like other guys.

    Not even BEAR vaginas can defeat me!
    cakemikz wrote: »
    And then I rub actual cake on myself.
    Loomdun wrote: »
    thats why you have chest helmets
  • Options
    srsizzysrsizzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Seeing music live doesn't do anything for me that listening to music in a full Dolby or THX theater couldn't do. Most the time I close my eyes when listening to live music I especially enjoy, unless it's like a band I like, and then I only like being there because it's exciting to see someone up close who is really cool and famous and makes good music.

    [edit] Point being, speakers and headphones don't give the full acoustic/stereophonic experience.

    srsizzy on
    BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    To me the accessibility of the art is a big deal. What is the value if only the handful of people who can afford to travel to it can really get it?

    But if everyone has it, doesn't that also mean the value is lost?

    Why would it?

    MKR on
  • Options
    srsizzysrsizzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    To me the accessibility of the art is a big deal. What is the value if only the handful of people who can afford to travel to it can really get it?

    But if everyone has it, doesn't that also mean the value is lost?
    Yeah, if you live in a world where things have value, in which case you might as well say monetary value, and I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain how an aesthetic form can't have a monetary value that isn't simply a subjective value dependent on the individual declaring the value.

    srsizzy on
    BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
  • Options
    NappuccinoNappuccino Surveyor of Things and Stuff Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    MKR wrote: »
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    To me the accessibility of the art is a big deal. What is the value if only the handful of people who can afford to travel to it can really get it?

    But if everyone has it, doesn't that also mean the value is lost?

    Why would it?

    If everyone has the same thing, (or the potential to) it becomes common place and then, forgotten. It just isn't valued if everyone can have it.


    edit: I'm not talking about value in only its monetary form. I'm talking about the intrinsic value.

    Nappuccino on
    Like to write? Want to get e-published? Give us a look-see at http://wednesdaynightwrites.com/
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    There's also the possibility you just can't really grow a bear like other guys.

    Not even BEAR vaginas can defeat me!
    cakemikz wrote: »
    And then I rub actual cake on myself.
    Loomdun wrote: »
    thats why you have chest helmets
  • Options
    the_monarch23the_monarch23 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    srsizzy wrote: »
    Grr bad professors (randomly giving tons of notes to learn for a final in two days). Grr banks (holding all my money from a check deposited a week ago). Grr airlines (increasing plane ticket prices so much when the flight is soon). Grr finals and papers.

    GRR, miright?!

    I complain a lot.

    Goddam, yes! I am so freaking ready for this stupid semester to be over it's not even funny. A further rant: why is it that when I am in a class I already have an amateur working knowledge of (see HTML: Website design) I do all the work, and tdo it in a timely manner, then dick around as the semester goes on and end up pushing barely a C into our final project. I am by no means an html wiz, but our book is like HTML for dummies for christ sake and because of my arrogance, I may have to retake a freshman level course to finish my junior year.... I am an idiot.

    /end rant
    Dave

    the_monarch23 on
    "Gott in himmel! Fritz, vee haff named our car after ein lady-garten."
    ~Jeremy Clarkson
  • Options
    ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    srsizzy wrote: »
    Seeing music live doesn't do anything for me that listening to music in a full Dolby or THX theater couldn't do. Most the time I close my eyes when listening to live music I especially enjoy, unless it's like a band I like, and then I only like being there because it's exciting to see someone up close who is really cool and famous and makes good music.

    I think it definitely depends on the music and the person, obviously. But in my opinion live music has an energy that just can't be captured by Vinyl or cds. I mean I love the hell out of my CDs and they can change my mood or attitude easily by listening to them (not to mention me getting really into it). But, the energy isn't the same for me. To see someone perform live and actually see them put so much passion into their music is incredible to me.

    Speaking of which I'm seeing Grieves tonight (if you check out that link, listen to the song "Irreversible"). Kid is talented as all hell.

    Prospicience on
  • Options
    MagicToasterMagicToaster JapanRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    How much would it cost to fly from China to Japan? I wonder if it's expensive...

    MagicToaster on
  • Options
    rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    cakemikz wrote: »
    Music is another fine example. And some of this has changed because so much of what we hear today is overproduced and prerecorded then blasted through speakers at concerts. But listening to a recording, and listening to someone actually playing an instrument are two very different things.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're communicating is simply that you like there being one of something; a unique experience that nobody else gets to have.

    You are wrong. What I am trying to communicate is that there is a difference between looking at something on a computer screen, or that has been printed out, then getting your face 3 inches from the original and seeing exactly how it was executed. To look at that brushstroke and know that it was exactly what the artist saw and decided to leave. Save for paintings that have aged poorly, you get to see the exact colors they chose, and how they put them down.

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
  • Options
    NappuccinoNappuccino Surveyor of Things and Stuff Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    srsizzy wrote: »
    Seeing music live doesn't do anything for me that listening to music in a full Dolby or THX theater couldn't do. Most the time I close my eyes when listening to live music I especially enjoy, unless it's like a band I like, and then I only like being there because it's exciting to see someone up close who is really cool and famous and makes good music.

    I think it definitely depends on the music and the person, obviously. But in my opinion live music has an energy that just can't be captured by Vinyl or cds. I mean I love the hell out of my CDs and they can change my mood or attitude easily by listening to them (not to mention me getting really into it). But, the energy isn't the same for me. To see someone perform live and actually see them put so much passion into their music is incredible to me.

    I think the problem with this, and why some people likely don't understand is that many bands today absolutely suck live. They are so over rehearsed that the beauty of a live performance gets lost. But, with a good live band, even their recordings of liver performances are miles beyond the originals and that STILL doesn't compare to actually being there to experiance it as it happens. Its just such a shame that a lot of modern bands/artists don't put on a good live show :(

    Nappuccino on
    Like to write? Want to get e-published? Give us a look-see at http://wednesdaynightwrites.com/
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    There's also the possibility you just can't really grow a bear like other guys.

    Not even BEAR vaginas can defeat me!
    cakemikz wrote: »
    And then I rub actual cake on myself.
    Loomdun wrote: »
    thats why you have chest helmets
  • Options
    rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I think it has to do a lot with your personality. I am a rather slow moving and patient person...so I find looking at traditional paintings a lot more appealing because they give me more to dive into and study. So much of digital work is pulling at your texture brush...throwing down a texture layer...using the color dodge tool or whatever...it takes a lot of the thought and control out of painting. It creates very nice results. But there is no guarantee that the artist themselves even noticed what they did with half of the subtleties in a painting. There is something discouraging about that.

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
  • Options
    ShiboeShiboe Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    cakemikz wrote: »
    Music is another fine example. And some of this has changed because so much of what we hear today is overproduced and prerecorded then blasted through speakers at concerts. But listening to a recording, and listening to someone actually playing an instrument are two very different things.

    I dunno, I think that's confusing the argument. I brought up music because you were implying tangibility reveals an advantage in quality over the alternative. The post quoted is more describing art as an experience, which digital art can certainly provide.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're communicating is simply that you like there being one of something; a unique experience that nobody else gets to have.

    That's fine but I don't see how it makes the physical painting, by concept or experience or skill, innately superior to the digital one. That's all I contest. Obviously it wins in the "existing physically" department, but I wouldn't base my respect of artists and their works on that one criterion.

    For me at least, and I only speak for myself, it's a lot of what was brought up earlier, the argument of product versus method. It's not that the traditional, by filling some physical space, is garnered more respect from me (though real texture is cool), but knowledge of the process in a traditional piece. There are so many tricks and shortcuts in digital, and having seen what some artists do to get certain effects, it loses it's appeal. A traditional piece still holds that mystique in my eyes, even if there are tricks and such, it just feels a more legitimate display of the artist's talent.

    Now I never said digital art isn't art, or anything like that. Just that all things equal, I have more respect for a traditional piece over one created digitally. Knowledge of something being digital brings up all these questions of legitimacy and the artist's process.

    I hope that's clear enough, as I don't want to sound like an idiot twice over. I guess if one puts all importance on the finished product, then it doesn't matter between digital or not, but then, tracing and such come into play, and I just can't get behind that. To me, process is important, maybe overly so, but that's where I'm at.

    Shiboe on
  • Options
    GrennGrenn Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    Its just such a shame that a lot of modern bands/artists don't put on a good live show :(

    Don't worry, Jesus Lizard have just reformed.

    Grenn on
  • Options
    ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    I think the problem with this, and why some people likely don't understand is that many bands today absolutely suck live. They are so over rehearsed that the beauty of a live performance gets lost. But, with a good live band, even their recordings of liver performances are miles beyond the originals and that STILL doesn't compare to actually being there to experiance it as it happens. Its just such a shame that a lot of modern bands/artists don't put on a good live show :(

    Very true.
    For instance: I have only seen one bad concert in the last 7 years. That concert was none other than Counting Crows (don't ask). Seeing that concert really makes me wonder how the hell some bands get by. Oh and most mainstream hip hop concerts... good god don't get me started (shows what how some good producing can make horrible people sound good).

    Prospicience on
  • Options
    .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    cakemikz wrote: »
    You are wrong. What I am trying to communicate is that there is a difference between looking at something on a computer screen, or that has been printed out, then getting your face 3 inches from the original and seeing exactly how it was executed. To look at that brushstroke and know that it was exactly what the artist saw and decided to leave. Save for paintings that have aged poorly, you get to see the exact colors they chose, and how they put them down.

    I do that with digital paintings too! High-res .PSDs are great to look at, it's almost like getting an original of the piece. And Shiboe, some of those paintings could be traced!

    Anyways cool, let's talk about abortions now.

    I think that shooting babies as soon as they are born is barbaric and atrocious, and I'm shocked that any of you would consider arguing in favor of it. Discuss.

    .Tripwire. on
    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • Options
    ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It depends on what you're shooting the babies with:

    a. Heroin?
    b. Nerf guns?
    c. Real guns?
    d. Ketchup and Mustard (you know, those squirty bottles? you know the ones...)?

    Prospicience on
  • Options
    the_monarch23the_monarch23 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    cakemikz wrote: »
    You are wrong. What I am trying to communicate is that there is a difference between looking at something on a computer screen, or that has been printed out, then getting your face 3 inches from the original and seeing exactly how it was executed. To look at that brushstroke and know that it was exactly what the artist saw and decided to leave. Save for paintings that have aged poorly, you get to see the exact colors they chose, and how they put them down.

    I do that with digital paintings too! High-res .PSDs are great to look at, it's almost like getting an original of the piece. And Shiboe, some of those paintings could be traced!

    Anyways cool, let's talk about abortions now.

    I think that shooting babies as soon as they are born is barbaric and atrocious, and I'm shocked that any of you would consider arguing in favor of it. Discuss.

    Give the baby a gun too and then your options for choosing sides would be Pro-Life, Pro-Choice or Quick Draw. :)

    the_monarch23 on
    "Gott in himmel! Fritz, vee haff named our car after ein lady-garten."
    ~Jeremy Clarkson
  • Options
    NappuccinoNappuccino Surveyor of Things and Stuff Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    @grenn: I haven't heard of them, but I'm off to check them out :)

    @Prospicience: I think that things like ProTools can ruin a band if they aren't careful. I mean, voice manipulation and dubbing in parts that "we'll just learn later" spell disaster for bands. Not to mention others play music they didn't even write/record for their own record! (Hinder for example)

    I've gotten to the point where I just stick with minimalist, "we're only doing 1 take of this" type bands. Atleast I know they'll actually sound like themselves once they play on a stage


    Just for the hell of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsjLZmdKQvU

    Nappuccino on
    Like to write? Want to get e-published? Give us a look-see at http://wednesdaynightwrites.com/
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    There's also the possibility you just can't really grow a bear like other guys.

    Not even BEAR vaginas can defeat me!
    cakemikz wrote: »
    And then I rub actual cake on myself.
    Loomdun wrote: »
    thats why you have chest helmets
  • Options
    srsizzysrsizzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    cakemikz wrote: »
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    cakemikz wrote: »
    Music is another fine example. And some of this has changed because so much of what we hear today is overproduced and prerecorded then blasted through speakers at concerts. But listening to a recording, and listening to someone actually playing an instrument are two very different things.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're communicating is simply that you like there being one of something; a unique experience that nobody else gets to have.

    You are wrong. What I am trying to communicate is that there is a difference between looking at something on a computer screen, or that has been printed out, then getting your face 3 inches from the original and seeing exactly how it was executed. To look at that brushstroke and know that it was exactly what the artist saw and decided to leave. Save for paintings that have aged poorly, you get to see the exact colors they chose, and how they put them down.
    See, I don't get this. It makes me think I'm not a very good artist, but then there's millions of people that love to look at paintings up close who know nothing about art. I write all of them off as ignorant to the artistic process and just marveled by the work. I walked through like three museums in Spain, and I cared so little about the painting being there. I tried. I really, really tried to look closely and think "Okay, this is special, this is a painting." And then tried to look at the brush strokes and think about them, but all I thought was "That's neat. I wish I could do it." But nothing else happened. It isn't like the difference between masturbation and real sex. There's nothing significantly different.

    Is it some sort of magical feeling that just fills you? Is it a conscious appreciation? It sounds totally irrational to me. Maybe this is a reason I'll do better in film. I'm much more about the instantaneous nature of images than lasting permanence or something. I can stare at good art on a computer screen just as well as in a room that I went way out of my way to walk into. The only problems I ever have are with resolution and image size.

    srsizzy on
    BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
  • Options
    SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I dunno, all I can say is that I finally found some art in the philosophy building of my school that's actually pretty good, and being able to actually see the brush strokes, where paint accumulated due to a lot of time spent on a spot or where the artist was just flying along, is pretty neat.

    I think it probably helps if you've read the bit on the Van Gogh machine in the Dune series.

    Surfpossum on
  • Options
    Angel_of_BaconAngel_of_Bacon Moderator mod
    edited December 2008
    Tam wrote: »
    I think Bacon would have some salient points for this argument, but he dun vanished.

    Don't drag me into this minefield, next thing you know people will be debating whether that upstart Monet is producing 'real art', and I'll end up spilling laudanum all over my ascot in the ensuing ruckus.

    Angel_of_Bacon on
  • Options
    Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    Its just such a shame that a lot of modern bands who aren't i'm from Barcelona/Gogol Bordello don't put on a good live show :(

    Jake! on
  • Options
    ShiboeShiboe Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    laudanum ascot ruckus.

    I like pie.

    Shiboe on
  • Options
    Angel_of_BaconAngel_of_Bacon Moderator mod
    edited December 2008
    Shiboe wrote: »
    Laudanum Ascot Ruckus

    Now that sounds like a band that would put on a good live show.

    Angel_of_Bacon on
  • Options
    rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    srsizzy wrote: »
    Is it some sort of magical feeling that just fills you? Is it a conscious appreciation? It sounds totally irrational to me. Maybe this is a reason I'll do better in film. I'm much more about the instantaneous nature of images than lasting permanence or something. I can stare at good art on a computer screen just as well as in a room that I went way out of my way to walk into. The only problems I ever have are with resolution and image size.

    Trust me, I didn't either for a very long time. But once you are knee deep in trying to paint you really want to acquaint yourself with what the guys who are great at it have done. There is a lot of subtlety that just doesn't come across in photos. For instance, I have two Fechin books. They have largely the same paintings, though one is much more extensive. But the reproductions of the paintings are entirely different.

    The issue comes down to value relationships, and what they make us see. That being, something that looks right...even when it is not. This is a huge issue with photography as well (for the same reasons obviously). You will never take a photo that emulates the exact colors that you see. First of all, we all see color slightly differently. And a camera sees it a lot differently than we do. But if you are looking at an original painting, you know none of the information got lost in translation. You can understand the choices they made a bit better. Because not all painting is about how light or dark something is...sometimes it is about using color to change forms, or temperature. Things that don't always come out correctly in photos.

    Of course, you still have to deal with the issue of seeing color a little differently than the artist...but that is rarely as big a difference, except in those poor two-cone colorblind people.,

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    To me the accessibility of the art is a big deal. What is the value if only the handful of people who can afford to travel to it can really get it?

    But if everyone has it, doesn't that also mean the value is lost?

    Why would it?

    If everyone has the same thing, (or the potential to) it becomes common place and then, forgotten. It just isn't valued if everyone can have it.


    edit: I'm not talking about value in only its monetary form. I'm talking about the intrinsic value.

    What intrinsic value? That is horribly vague. Do you mean cultural value?

    edit: Can value even be objective?

    MKR on
  • Options
    MagicToasterMagicToaster JapanRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Who wants pizza?

    MagicToaster on
  • Options
    desperaterobotsdesperaterobots perth, ausRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I would like pizza.

    The most beautiful, original pizza in the world. Or pepperoni, I don't know.

    desperaterobots on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    All the people who value scarcity can get one of the most unique slices, while everyone else gets the ones that look like all the others.

    MKR on
  • Options
    ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    MKR wrote: »
    All the people who value scarcity can get one of the most unique slices, while everyone else gets the ones that look like all the others.

    Speaking of unique slices, I would also like some pizza. There's this place that has really original pizzas (in my opinion) and one of them is BBQ chicken pizza. Say what you will, it is absolutely delicious.

    Prospicience on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    That sounds delicious.

    MKR on
  • Options
    desperaterobotsdesperaterobots perth, ausRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    That's... pretty much a standard pizza topping, no? I mean. That's pretty much what I get if I ever have dominos.

    desperaterobots on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Not around here.

    MKR on
This discussion has been closed.