From James Dean’s Little Bastard: After three and a half years at the University, I have come to some conclusions that might help future CSCL majors tackle the discipline while still allowing them to retain their personhood:
1. Wear black every day. Wearing black signifies you as someone who is classy, stylish and probably originally from one of the coasts. It is also slimming and makes you seem more mysterious, in tune with philosophy, metaphysics and castration anxiety.
2. Smoke cigarettes. You should always be smoking. This is what is commonly known as the death drive, and really, none of us can fight it. Plus, smoking also allows you to have something to focus on while ignoring CSOM and IT students. And you can blow the smoke in their faces when they tell you you’ll never get a job. So you can fulfill THEIR death drive as well.
3. Be a gay man or a minority woman. This is crucial to entering the CSCL fold. Only gay men and minority women have the proper vantage point from which to view the culture-at-large. What ends up happening is that CSCL classes become mixers for gay men and support groups for minority women. But it’s all in good fun, right?
4. Disregard any concepts of a god. After spending years reading Freud, Foucault, Lacan and the like, you will finally come to the conclusion that all of this is full of meaningless meaning, and that no god could possibly have created the earth. Since man created language, the mother of all signifier-signified relationships, isn’t it logical that we also created ourselves within this system of meaning?
That is all. For now. Net: And somehow, we think we’ll get a reply. A deconstruction, perhaps?

From Pucking Upset: Is anyone else sick of the Clinton and Lewinsky ordeal? Net: No. The nation is at the edge of its seats, full of passion for fulfilling its civic duty. Wait — that’s the Super Bowl. Never mind. I don’t know how many times I have to switch on the TV or read a paper and see something that deals with the situation. Please! For the love of God, someone put an end to the charade. Who cares who blew whom and what dress needs extra detergent to get a stain out of … enough is enough!
I mean — I have nightmares Net: Don’t say that. You might be subpoenaed about this fiasco, and to be honest, it is bloody embarrassing to the country because of the media attention it still grabs. Net: Well, if Clinton hadn’t been grabbing in the first place … Will there ever be an end? Net: No. In today’s world, there will always be reruns and if not, send me to a place where there is no media to drag on a story because this Clinton/Lewinsky story is cashed!


From BOTT BOTT BOTT: Alone, Wednesday night before Thanksgiving. Those with families are with their families. We are not. Sitting with a few swallies, my compatriot and myself have engaged in an argument over honorary Ph.D.s Hunter S. Thompson and Bob Dylan. Net: Wow. We normally debate where “Party of Five” kicks ass over “Friends.” You guys gotta get a life.
Do they deserve these degrees? Personally, I contend that a Ph.D. is strictly an academic honor, put forth by years of effort in a designated field. A Ph.D., in my opinion, is earned through dedicated effort and a commitment to academic excellence; it is the result of years of laborious research and learning. This is my opinion.
But my friend says if you’ve got the smarts, which have been developed without a formal education, you deserve to be recognized as intellectually equivalent to those who chose the more academic route in their life. A Ph.D. should not be regarded as the result of hard work, but as the attainment of some valued knowledge. Net: So when Dr. Eve confronted Mr. Adam with the apple in the Garden of Eden, what we really were witnessing was the first degree ceremony in human history. Interesting … A person who moronically dedicates years of his/her life to validating the notion that, say, graham crackers suppress sexual desire (Victorian era, baby) Net: Hey! You’re treading on some valued CSCL ground here! does not deserve a Ph.D. simply because he/she dedicated years of hard work.
The work is not the point; What you’ve learned and you’re tuned ability to think is what justifies the honor of receiving a Ph.D. To resort to a fallacy in this otherwise flawless argument, let me ask you this: Who is the president of the United States? Yes, he is the commander in chief. Now, did Mr.(!!) Bill Clinton “earn” the title of commander in chief?? Net: No — but it sure sounded sweet when Monica whispered it in his ear. Did he suffer through years as a military cadet?
No!! Therefore, the achievement of a title is not dependent on effort but on smarts.
My rebuttal Net: What a schizophrenic entry!: Is the commander in chief a Ph.D.? No, he is not. We’ll leave it at this, we are drunk without family. K.J. Mork Net: There’s that name again can validate this, I’m sure. Drugs. Net: Alcohol. Loneliness. The credo of today’s student. Hang in there. Maybe we can get some discussion going there, and you won’t feel so out there. Then again, maybe you’ve just got too much time on your hands. Oh well. Thanks for joining our club. And have a nice day.