Friday, December 18, 2009
Boxes Aren't All That Interesting Unless You Turn Them Into Rocket Ships.
Today I just realized that I am generally not that much interested in the truth, but I am interested in philosophy. People wonder: How can a person interested in philosophy not be interested in truth? Because there is no such thing as "truth". Propositions are certainly true, partially true, or false. "Truth claims" are either true or false, but there is a distinction between "truth" and "things that are true". By this I am simply admitting that there are limits to human knowledge. We all agree that we can't know everything, at least I think we all agree with that. So the obvious question is, if we can't know everything, how can we know that what we know we know. My good friend Josh would tell me that no one believes you can know everything with 100% certainty, but that there are degrees of probability of a truth claim's being true, depending on a few categorical tests. But even if we can know 99% of everything how could we know that the knowledge of that 1% we don't know wouldn't revolutionize all that we know. It gets stupid, and trust me. It could get stupider. That's why I am not that much interested in truth. I mean that I am not too interested in whether an unclear truth claim can be demonstrated in be in fact true. Truthfully, I am not sure what this even means. It's not that I don't think that truth exists. I just don't think it can be easily contained within a system.As long as one realized that a box is not the toy, and that multiple boxes can contain the toy, I can be a part of interesting conversation. What I am essentially saying is that I am not much interested in boxes as I am in toys.
Observations
With a blog as broad as mine, there's a million things to talk about. And I just can't bring myself to hone in the subject matter. So, today's observations: I saw a man almost fall off of the sidewalk directly on to my friends van while we were in it. I thought; If that would've happened, it wouldn't have been the first time in history would it? I have never heard of such a thing, but it seems like something that should happen more than it gets reported.
The second observation was the face of a dude I saw who was waiting for his leashed dog to stop pooping so they could move one down the sidewalk. The face is universal, but can only appear in this specific situation. Call it the "I have no job, but my girlfriend does and she is at work so I am dog sitting and standing outside in 15 degree weather in front of everyone looking up at the sky praying for the pooping to stop" look.
The second observation was the face of a dude I saw who was waiting for his leashed dog to stop pooping so they could move one down the sidewalk. The face is universal, but can only appear in this specific situation. Call it the "I have no job, but my girlfriend does and she is at work so I am dog sitting and standing outside in 15 degree weather in front of everyone looking up at the sky praying for the pooping to stop" look.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
what if?
What if everyone I knew read this at the same time, what would they think? If I compiled all of their thoughts and turned into one word, I am sure that that one word would be... afro.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Post 101
This is my monumental 101st post ever, so I thought that I would just talk about the time I went to a Philadelphia Eagles football game in Philadelphia, when they were playing the Cleveland Browns, my team, who was starting, former National Championship loser, Ken Dorsey, who got sacked 7 times and picked off 4, in a Browns 40-13 loss to the Eagles. I was wearing my Browns hat somewhat glad they were losing enduring the berating taunts of my Philly friends, and the two facing of my so called friend Dennis, who, although a fan of the Eagles hated divisional rivals, the New York Giants, was rooting for Brian Westbrook because Westbrook was on his Fantasy Football team, but I think he was just rooting for them because he was afraid that not doing so meant death,and perhaps he was right, for we were in the family section, and some drunk lady was carried away by 10 men, most of them Philadelphia Police, it took at least 20 minutes to get her out of the stadium, and it was good entertainment during a game which the only other entertaining part was the introductions, where Philly fans yelled "sucks" after every Browns player was announced. Eagles fans are the worst. In fact Philly fans are the worst. It's unbelievable. Happy 101st.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Weathering the Conversation
Randy Travis has a song with a line that goes like this:
"I'm gonna love you forever"
"Forever and ever amen"
"As long as old men sit and talk about the weather"
"As long as old women sit and talk about old men"
In my estimation, the women have a much more interesting topic of conversation. Unfortunately for men if we don't have a gun or a ball in our hand, we are forced to talk about the weather. But while on one hand, this seems a rather dry conversation, the phenomenon that produces this sort of meaningless talk, is wet with potentially interesting conversation topics. We end up talking about a shared experience. It's the first thing that we men want to talk about. Without waiting to analyze the conversation's potential interest factor, we blurt out a comment about the weather knowing that that's one thing the other participant has experienced. You have to give it to us males, all of us terrified by intimacy, with comments like, "Nice day today, huh?", we are trying to connect with people, and not just our toys. By the way, its real cold today.
"I'm gonna love you forever"
"Forever and ever amen"
"As long as old men sit and talk about the weather"
"As long as old women sit and talk about old men"
In my estimation, the women have a much more interesting topic of conversation. Unfortunately for men if we don't have a gun or a ball in our hand, we are forced to talk about the weather. But while on one hand, this seems a rather dry conversation, the phenomenon that produces this sort of meaningless talk, is wet with potentially interesting conversation topics. We end up talking about a shared experience. It's the first thing that we men want to talk about. Without waiting to analyze the conversation's potential interest factor, we blurt out a comment about the weather knowing that that's one thing the other participant has experienced. You have to give it to us males, all of us terrified by intimacy, with comments like, "Nice day today, huh?", we are trying to connect with people, and not just our toys. By the way, its real cold today.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Something I Like More Than Coffee
Coffee on a snow day in my PJ's reading with Rachel, with a partly sunny sky, listening to whatever I am in the mood for, maybe smoking a pipe, depends on how cold it is, while Leon watches on. Leon is the name of Rachel's Christmas Tree. Rachel is my girlfriend.
Coffee
As they say, I am a coffee snob. However,I take slight offense at the term snob. If by "snob" they mean that I look down on other people for drinking crappy coffee, then I am not a snob. If by snob, they mean that I enjoy great coffee and they're irrationally intimidated by that fact, then yes I am a snob. Some people are picky about certain things. I think that being a connoisseur of something makes life a little more interesting. There's nothing wrong with that. I do apologize for being a bit cheeky about it, up to this point. I hope I didn't offend anybody. Like I said I was being sorta funny, but I always tend to appreciate people who appreciate finer things. I suppose that it can come off as snobbish, but I think that most people who enjoy certain things, such as coffee, do not intend to give that impression. For most people the motivation is just to be into something nice. I don't hate Folgers. I do not hope it fails as a business. I hope it succeeds as a business. But its not good coffee. It's just not. If you think it is, okay. I can admit that taste in coffee is somewhat subjective, though not completely. Dirt never tastes good. That's objective.
But here's what I am asking. I am asking for the right to opine about what I think is good and bad coffee. And I ask that I not be accused of thinking I'm better than those who drink lesser coffees. How could I think that in this situation? I give you the courtesy to opine about whatever thing you want to as well. I give you the courtesy of letting you openly share your opinion. Let me share mine. After all, its just coffee.
But here's what I am asking. I am asking for the right to opine about what I think is good and bad coffee. And I ask that I not be accused of thinking I'm better than those who drink lesser coffees. How could I think that in this situation? I give you the courtesy to opine about whatever thing you want to as well. I give you the courtesy of letting you openly share your opinion. Let me share mine. After all, its just coffee.
Friday, December 4, 2009
On the Bus on the Road
So I got on the bus today, and as I am putting my money in the machinamathing, I hear this meek voice from behind. "Hey Pasta". (That's "pastor". Someone was not calling me "pasta". The lady had an accent)I recognized my friend instantly even though she had only attended Steamtown Church twice. I couldn't remember her name at the time, but I remember her. She is the "tambourine lady". She distracted me from concentrating on finding a place to sit, and instead of immediately finding a seat, I stopped, for just a second to greet her, and in that second the bus driver accelerated. So did I, and straight towards the back of the bus with my back facing the back, and my backpack flailing. Nobody laughed out loud. Humorously, I made a slow trek back to a seat at the front of the bus with the "tambourine lady" seated directly across from me. She had a million questions. And she uttered them at rapid fire, seemingly without a breath, and before I got to answer them, another passenger was ready to get on the bus who really needed help. We'll call him "Joe", the tambourine lady "TL". Joe has a hard time walking and is debilitated by some sort of muscular disease. I moved from my front row seat and he sat down. TL helped him with his fare. The "conversation" I was entertaining with TL picked up right where it left off, and then "Joe", interrupted as if there were no conversation, as if he was initiating the conversation.
"Are there any churches on "Luzerne Sreet"? I don't know exactly what TL thought that she heard him say but she replied
"You're looking for a Mormon Church"?
My thoughts at this question were full of stereotypes and thus more inside laughter since it was quite clear, at least to me, that my African-American friend Joe was not looking for that kind of church, nor did he say anything resembling the word "mormon". In fact he was visibly confused by the question. He politely responded.
"No, any church on Luzerne Street."
"Oh, I tought you said "latter day saints" (instead of "Luzerne Street")
"No, Luzerne Street"
"Oh, well isn' dis jus' divine appointment. 'Dis man here is a pasta". Joe turned to me and said,
"Oh what kind of church is it?"
"Non-denominational" I said.
"Non-denominational" Joe repeated.
TL said, "It's at the hotel across from the Dunkin Donuts downtown."
"Oh, I just moved here" said Joe
"Oh, well have Pasta here give you da number. Dere church runs a van route. Dey'll pick you up. 10 o'clock. Sunday morning."
Joe looked at me happily, "Yeah?"
I wasn't sure we did have a van route so I said, "Well, you live in West Side right?"
"Yeah" he said. "Right where I got on".
"Well, that's right on my way."
We exchanged numbers and I told him to call me Sunday, to pick him up for church, and TL cried.
"I was going to get on da 12:35 bus, but something told me to get on da 12:55, and now I know why. Her voice lowered and she said, "Divine appointment".
Then Joe said, "Yeah me too! Something told me to get on this bus" and TL cried.
"God is so good to us" she said to herself and everybody else.
"Amen" said Joe.
I said nothing. By now it was time for me to get off. We exchanged cordial goodbyes. I told Joe to call me. TL said, "God bless you pasta". I said thanks and exited with the following thoughts.
I wondered what the bus driver was thinking the whole time as he remained completely silent. I wondered if he thought I was too young to be a pastor or if he wondered why a pastor was riding the bus. I wondered if he thought the lady was crazy. I wondered if he enjoyed listening to the conversation, if his heart was warmed or if he thought it was a joke. I wondered if he thought the conversation was silly, or sad, or if it caused him to be angry, or stricken with grief.
I was glad to meet Joe but I didn't think to much about him.
I thought about how TL was so touched by this happening. And then I thought about how impressed I was by this happening. It's a good story, right? But why? Because it has irony, and coincidence. It has a plot which is plausible, but rare and unlikely. But is this all that makes a story good? How much of a good story has to do with how the story is told? I think it has a lot to do with it, although the raw material of irony is necessary for any good story, whether its there or supplied. I also believe that good storytellers have an ability to pick out from thin air an irony and run with it. And the best writers can take something that has no inherent dramatic quality,and infuse it with that dramatic quality, that ironic element that makes it worth listening to.
But I also thought about how a cynical person would interpret our little situation on the bus. That person might not consider it anything at all. It might not enter his mind that this happening is worth a retelling, whereas I believe that good storytellers see stories everywhere.
I then related this thought to religion. For surely the agnostic would not be nearly as affected by the situation as TL? He might discern the irony of the situation, in which a pastor gets on a bus at the same time that as a disabled young man looking for a church, but it would certainly seem impossible to him that it was divine appointment. What then would it be to him, a coincidence? I'm sure that it would, and a not too amazing coincidence either, since the agnostic man would already place no value on church or spirituality. He might ask the reasonable question: "What are the chances that a pastor would get on the bus at the same time as another man looking for a church, and that they would talk about it?" I don't know? And the thing is that there probably is a mathematical way to figure out what the odds are. And my bet would be that most of the happenings that happen to us throughout our day, have astronomical odds of happening, even though most of them we are not blown away by. Most of them we do not call "divine appointments". TL considered today's happening a divine appointment because it related to something very dear to her, and was indeed a rare kind of occurrence in her personal life. But she actually had no good reason to think that it was a divine appointment. But the more appalling truth is that in making the statement she is either right or she is wrong. For either every occurrence is a divine appointment and therefore all events are equally impressive, or no occurrences are divine appointments, and that point many of them can be measured according to the likelihood of the happening, although it is extremely doubtful that every happening as a calculable probability. I believe in the first of those two, for various reasons, that have come up and will come up in the succeeding posts. And I am trying to get to place in my life where this brand of fatalism that I've adopted makes me a God-fearer and not a cynic. That is I want to perpetually amazed, like TL at God's providential way of working in history, or never amazed. The true skeptic, the agnostic, cannot accept my brand of fatalism, for it would force him to be amazed at the providence of God in the Holocaust, or the personal tragedies that have appeared in his life. I would be willing to admit that my brand of fatalism appears to accept a God who actually rather sadistic, no who possesses the worst form of sadism, that is divine. But I might also add that divine providence, by virtue that it is divine, is not calculable, and therefore, not to be interpreted, only accepted.
But if I actually look at the world this way, wouldn't I be in a safer place, both spiritually, and intellectually if I were an agnostic? Yes. But it wouldn't be more reasonable. For to be an agnostic I must be open to the possibility that none of the happenings of the world have an original initiator. I must essentially deny "cause and effect". Without "cause and effect", how can I explain anything, especially as a skeptic, or a scientist? A person who denies cause and effect is not an agnostic, but neither are they a historical Christian. A person who denies cause and effect must simply believe that he or she is nothing, that all things are actually no-thing. He must essentially deny reality as we know it. I think it's better to admit that you're confused. And so am I? Unless of course, you tell me a story. Then I can make sense of situation.
But you say: "What if it's not true?"
What? The situation? How could a situation not be true unless it didn't happen?
"What if the way you interpreted it was untrue?"
How do I know that?
Maybe it will help to tell you how I interpreted it. I interpreted it as a story worth telling. I am trying to get to the place in my life, where I see the raw material of God's genius providence in everything, enough, that it's all worth telling. How is this an untrue interpretation? Does it belong in the true/untrue category at all? Or does it belong in some other category? I contend that it does. I also contend that the fundamentalists inability to see an epistemological category that's not propositional is the reason why they can't understand the emerging generation. But trust me, I wholeheartedly believe in the Apostles Creed. I believe it the same way that all evangelicals do, and I would use all the words the same way that all evangelicals would. The difference between my worldview and the worldview of my evangelical brethren? I can admit and articulate my confusion, and go on believing what I believe, since confusion about how the system works together, doesn't change what I think about the system's conclusions. It's like I'm going to Philadelphia and I'm on I-81, and the entire time I am wondering if taking 476 would've been easier, and I'm spending my entire trip doing calculations, and probability problems, factoring in stops, and traffic, ne'er trusting Google. But eventually I arrive at Philadelphia. And you took 476 because that's what Google told you. And you don't make calculations, you get there one half hour before me. I'm not saying all roads lead to God. I'm saying, just because the road's different, doesn't mean the destinations different. If I tell you, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, fully God and fully man, that God is the creator of everything, that He exist in three persons, distinct and co-equal in power and essence. That Jesus died to pay the penalty for my sins, and rose again." Can you care about the road that led me to that knowledge?
Jesus did say that He is THE way THE truth and THE life. I suppose that what I would say to that. Jesus is the way I have found to the Father. I guess I'm not talking about that road, but the road I took to Jesus. For me I just believed. I still do.
"Are there any churches on "Luzerne Sreet"? I don't know exactly what TL thought that she heard him say but she replied
"You're looking for a Mormon Church"?
My thoughts at this question were full of stereotypes and thus more inside laughter since it was quite clear, at least to me, that my African-American friend Joe was not looking for that kind of church, nor did he say anything resembling the word "mormon". In fact he was visibly confused by the question. He politely responded.
"No, any church on Luzerne Street."
"Oh, I tought you said "latter day saints" (instead of "Luzerne Street")
"No, Luzerne Street"
"Oh, well isn' dis jus' divine appointment. 'Dis man here is a pasta". Joe turned to me and said,
"Oh what kind of church is it?"
"Non-denominational" I said.
"Non-denominational" Joe repeated.
TL said, "It's at the hotel across from the Dunkin Donuts downtown."
"Oh, I just moved here" said Joe
"Oh, well have Pasta here give you da number. Dere church runs a van route. Dey'll pick you up. 10 o'clock. Sunday morning."
Joe looked at me happily, "Yeah?"
I wasn't sure we did have a van route so I said, "Well, you live in West Side right?"
"Yeah" he said. "Right where I got on".
"Well, that's right on my way."
We exchanged numbers and I told him to call me Sunday, to pick him up for church, and TL cried.
"I was going to get on da 12:35 bus, but something told me to get on da 12:55, and now I know why. Her voice lowered and she said, "Divine appointment".
Then Joe said, "Yeah me too! Something told me to get on this bus" and TL cried.
"God is so good to us" she said to herself and everybody else.
"Amen" said Joe.
I said nothing. By now it was time for me to get off. We exchanged cordial goodbyes. I told Joe to call me. TL said, "God bless you pasta". I said thanks and exited with the following thoughts.
I wondered what the bus driver was thinking the whole time as he remained completely silent. I wondered if he thought I was too young to be a pastor or if he wondered why a pastor was riding the bus. I wondered if he thought the lady was crazy. I wondered if he enjoyed listening to the conversation, if his heart was warmed or if he thought it was a joke. I wondered if he thought the conversation was silly, or sad, or if it caused him to be angry, or stricken with grief.
I was glad to meet Joe but I didn't think to much about him.
I thought about how TL was so touched by this happening. And then I thought about how impressed I was by this happening. It's a good story, right? But why? Because it has irony, and coincidence. It has a plot which is plausible, but rare and unlikely. But is this all that makes a story good? How much of a good story has to do with how the story is told? I think it has a lot to do with it, although the raw material of irony is necessary for any good story, whether its there or supplied. I also believe that good storytellers have an ability to pick out from thin air an irony and run with it. And the best writers can take something that has no inherent dramatic quality,and infuse it with that dramatic quality, that ironic element that makes it worth listening to.
But I also thought about how a cynical person would interpret our little situation on the bus. That person might not consider it anything at all. It might not enter his mind that this happening is worth a retelling, whereas I believe that good storytellers see stories everywhere.
I then related this thought to religion. For surely the agnostic would not be nearly as affected by the situation as TL? He might discern the irony of the situation, in which a pastor gets on a bus at the same time that as a disabled young man looking for a church, but it would certainly seem impossible to him that it was divine appointment. What then would it be to him, a coincidence? I'm sure that it would, and a not too amazing coincidence either, since the agnostic man would already place no value on church or spirituality. He might ask the reasonable question: "What are the chances that a pastor would get on the bus at the same time as another man looking for a church, and that they would talk about it?" I don't know? And the thing is that there probably is a mathematical way to figure out what the odds are. And my bet would be that most of the happenings that happen to us throughout our day, have astronomical odds of happening, even though most of them we are not blown away by. Most of them we do not call "divine appointments". TL considered today's happening a divine appointment because it related to something very dear to her, and was indeed a rare kind of occurrence in her personal life. But she actually had no good reason to think that it was a divine appointment. But the more appalling truth is that in making the statement she is either right or she is wrong. For either every occurrence is a divine appointment and therefore all events are equally impressive, or no occurrences are divine appointments, and that point many of them can be measured according to the likelihood of the happening, although it is extremely doubtful that every happening as a calculable probability. I believe in the first of those two, for various reasons, that have come up and will come up in the succeeding posts. And I am trying to get to place in my life where this brand of fatalism that I've adopted makes me a God-fearer and not a cynic. That is I want to perpetually amazed, like TL at God's providential way of working in history, or never amazed. The true skeptic, the agnostic, cannot accept my brand of fatalism, for it would force him to be amazed at the providence of God in the Holocaust, or the personal tragedies that have appeared in his life. I would be willing to admit that my brand of fatalism appears to accept a God who actually rather sadistic, no who possesses the worst form of sadism, that is divine. But I might also add that divine providence, by virtue that it is divine, is not calculable, and therefore, not to be interpreted, only accepted.
But if I actually look at the world this way, wouldn't I be in a safer place, both spiritually, and intellectually if I were an agnostic? Yes. But it wouldn't be more reasonable. For to be an agnostic I must be open to the possibility that none of the happenings of the world have an original initiator. I must essentially deny "cause and effect". Without "cause and effect", how can I explain anything, especially as a skeptic, or a scientist? A person who denies cause and effect is not an agnostic, but neither are they a historical Christian. A person who denies cause and effect must simply believe that he or she is nothing, that all things are actually no-thing. He must essentially deny reality as we know it. I think it's better to admit that you're confused. And so am I? Unless of course, you tell me a story. Then I can make sense of situation.
But you say: "What if it's not true?"
What? The situation? How could a situation not be true unless it didn't happen?
"What if the way you interpreted it was untrue?"
How do I know that?
Maybe it will help to tell you how I interpreted it. I interpreted it as a story worth telling. I am trying to get to the place in my life, where I see the raw material of God's genius providence in everything, enough, that it's all worth telling. How is this an untrue interpretation? Does it belong in the true/untrue category at all? Or does it belong in some other category? I contend that it does. I also contend that the fundamentalists inability to see an epistemological category that's not propositional is the reason why they can't understand the emerging generation. But trust me, I wholeheartedly believe in the Apostles Creed. I believe it the same way that all evangelicals do, and I would use all the words the same way that all evangelicals would. The difference between my worldview and the worldview of my evangelical brethren? I can admit and articulate my confusion, and go on believing what I believe, since confusion about how the system works together, doesn't change what I think about the system's conclusions. It's like I'm going to Philadelphia and I'm on I-81, and the entire time I am wondering if taking 476 would've been easier, and I'm spending my entire trip doing calculations, and probability problems, factoring in stops, and traffic, ne'er trusting Google. But eventually I arrive at Philadelphia. And you took 476 because that's what Google told you. And you don't make calculations, you get there one half hour before me. I'm not saying all roads lead to God. I'm saying, just because the road's different, doesn't mean the destinations different. If I tell you, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, fully God and fully man, that God is the creator of everything, that He exist in three persons, distinct and co-equal in power and essence. That Jesus died to pay the penalty for my sins, and rose again." Can you care about the road that led me to that knowledge?
Jesus did say that He is THE way THE truth and THE life. I suppose that what I would say to that. Jesus is the way I have found to the Father. I guess I'm not talking about that road, but the road I took to Jesus. For me I just believed. I still do.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
It's ironic.
Facebook is what they call a networking site. In large parts it is just that, and when its used that way its a beautiful thing. Facebook is also a good place to find lost friends of the past. But what I have found to be the main use of facebook is self-aggrandizing, and self promotion. People write about "themselves", their favorite songs, movies, and books. They write notes, and make witty and/or interesting statuses. Think about how easy it is to make yourself look at least 6 times cooler than you really are on facebook. The presentation of oneself that is put on facebook, may be the grossest exaggeration of that human being in the history of the world. Most of my friends are flawed, dirty, humans; regular people. But on facebook, I'm actually proud they're my friends! I am not exempt from the propensity to promote yours truly on facebook. It's too easy. It's ironic. It's sadly ironic. Because the point of facebook is to network and meet people, and make things happen in our world. But chances are the person you see on facebook is a cooler version of the actual person, and therefore not really the person. Therefore you may have 2,000 "friends" and none of their pages represent them truly. Of course, we never befriend people we don't already know, so this eases the phoniness a bit. But the irony remains. Facebook sadly has not lived up to it's potential. We can curb this trend though, by simply refusing to view facebook as an opportunity to push #1, but by seeing it as an opportunity to make a global impact in some sort of creative/positive way.
I don't know. It's still going to be difficult to not have the coolest statuses. I actually use facebook for this as much as anything myself. And you have to admit friends, I have a way with words.
Facebook is what they call a networking site. In large parts it is just that, and when its used that way its a beautiful thing. Facebook is also a good place to find lost friends of the past. But what I have found to be the main use of facebook is self-aggrandizing, and self promotion. People write about "themselves", their favorite songs, movies, and books. They write notes, and make witty and/or interesting statuses. Think about how easy it is to make yourself look at least 6 times cooler than you really are on facebook. The presentation of oneself that is put on facebook, may be the grossest exaggeration of that human being in the history of the world. Most of my friends are flawed, dirty, humans; regular people. But on facebook, I'm actually proud they're my friends! I am not exempt from the propensity to promote yours truly on facebook. It's too easy. It's ironic. It's sadly ironic. Because the point of facebook is to network and meet people, and make things happen in our world. But chances are the person you see on facebook is a cooler version of the actual person, and therefore not really the person. Therefore you may have 2,000 "friends" and none of their pages represent them truly. Of course, we never befriend people we don't already know, so this eases the phoniness a bit. But the irony remains. Facebook sadly has not lived up to it's potential. We can curb this trend though, by simply refusing to view facebook as an opportunity to push #1, but by seeing it as an opportunity to make a global impact in some sort of creative/positive way.
I don't know. It's still going to be difficult to not have the coolest statuses. I actually use facebook for this as much as anything myself. And you have to admit friends, I have a way with words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
