The Fillet Skillet: My Writing (Many Genres)

Wandering Minstrel

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:12:19 GMT

I’ve decided, in light of the fact that uni assignments are no fun, that I am called to be a wandering minstrel. I don’t know what I will play because, besides the rudimentary knowledge fragments from my piano and keyboard lessons of old, I do not play an instrument.

I think I need to go and find some musical master who drinks rice wine and lives on a mountain somewhere to teach me how to DJ. Then I could wander the countryside freely, with nothing but my gear in the back of a VW van and a laptop next to me so that I can blog about my experiences and accrue a following on MySpace.

Of course I’ll steal other people’s unsecured wireless networks.

Oh what a life that would be; at all my sets I would wear a Gypsy’s hat and instead of calling myself ‘DJ Fillet’ (rhyming or no) I would call myself ‘Fillet The Wandering Minstrel.’ Upon being announced as such the dancers would cheer and begin to dance in an eerily sexual sort of way to my remixes of old Nintendo music.

And if I were ever short on ideas I would invite some other guy to MC for me, and together we’d be known as the ‘SupeRockHard Minstrelii’ and we would be known throughout the land as the superest, most rockingest, hardest Minstrelii anywhere ever. In fact, that will be the name of our first vinyl collection of beats: Superest, Most Rockingest, Hardest Minstrelii Anywhere, Ever. Our songs would be loved more than that one about loving Detroit.

So yes, I’ve decided to quit uni and find the rice wine guy. Does anyone know on which mountain he lives?

ULTIMATE REALITY IN GOD AND NIRVANA

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 05:53:08 GMT

Here is the essay that I somehow got a high distinction for. I do not like this essay and I do not know how I got this high distinction. But I got it somehow. I don't know, you guys can decide if I'm just being overly critical of my own work or whether my tutor is deluded as I think he is. But whatever the case, it was good for my GPA.

Karen Armstrong

Compare and contrast in analytic terms a Theistic versus a non-Theistic approach to ultimate reality using Karen Armstrong’s work as well as other relevant analysts of the Divine or Wisdom, ultimate reality, or the One.

In all human civilizations there has been a place for gods. Karen Armstrong, in her book A History of God, has claimed that the role of God or gods has become less important in our lives and, as such we are left with a ‘God-shaped hole’ (1994 p10). This god shaped hole is the result of us losing something fundamentally important to the history of human ideas which we have come to rely on. The ‘hole’ however, is not necessarily God-shaped. It can be seen in Eastern, non-Theistic religions, such as Buddhism, that the concept of Nirvana fills exactly the same role - the role of ‘ultimate reality.’ This essay will compare and contrast Nirvana with God and will demonstrate how each constitutes ultimate reality within each belief system.

In relation to Buddhism, Edward Conze (as quoted in Armstrong, 1994, p43) described ultimate reality as something that is “permanent, stable, imperishable, immoveable, ageless, deathless, unborn, and unbecome….” For the purposes of this essay, this will be the definition of ultimate reality and the yardstick to which both religions are compared.

In the West, ultimate reality has generally been thought to come in the form of a deity. The three largest traditions holding this view are the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These religions promote a monotheistic God who is transcendent of both time and space. This essay will be examining a transcendent model of God rather than a Pantheistic or Panentheistic model.

According to Leftow, there are four things that make God, God:

1. “Nothing made God; anything that was made is not God
2. God is the source or ground of all that is not God
3. God rules all that is not God
4. God is the most perfect being” (1998, p94)

In this way, it can be seen that God fulfils the idea of ultimate reality because all things have their origin in him. God is God because he created the universe including time and space. According to this definition, if time and space existed before God, they would be ‘not made’ and so would in fact be God. So if God transcends time, this makes him imperishable, ageless, deathless, unborn and unbecome. If God also transcends space, this makes him permanent, stable and immovable. This basic idea of God is present in all three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Up until recently, it was these three religions which had the most influence in the West.

Classical Theism – especially that of the Catholic Church – goes further in cementing God as the ultimate reality, making the conclusions derived from the above mentioned four points into official church doctrine. Classical Theism is built on the above mentioned four points on what makes God, God. It maintains that God is independent of all else (Leftow, 1998, p98) and that God is wholly simple (Vardy & Arliss, 2003, p21). God is not in space and time and so has no place inside the universe. Unlike human beings who “lose their pasts and lack their futures” (Leftow, 1998, p99) God has no past or future and exists equally in every moment because time does not constrain him, almost like an infinite present (Lewis, 2002, p168).

As a result of being outside time, God is said to lack the capacity to change. According to Classical Theology, God is Fully Actual; he is completely whatever it is to be God and cannot be anything other than this (Vardy & Arliss, 2003, p24). God cannot be changed by anything else, nor does he change himself because the capacity to change relies on the flow of time. If God is in an infinite present, time does not flow and so change does not affect him. This view supports God as ultimate reality because an ultimate reality must be ageless and immovable.

In contrast to this, in the East, gods were much less important in attaining transcendence and finding the ultimate reality. According to Armstrong, the Budda considered theological beliefs to be unimportant in relation to ultimate reality (2006, p34). Ultimate reality transcended the gods, although they did exist. To the Budda, the gods were just another part of the cycle of birth and rebirth presented in reincarnation and so would not be permanent or stable because they could easily be born into another form should they die. Also, the gods were not imperishable or deathless, nor were they ageless or unborn. A man could die and be reborn as a god and, equally, a god could die and be reborn as some other being. So while they could have a role in influencing events around them, just like a person can, the gods were not a way to find ultimate reality (Armstrong, 1994, p42).

Instead, ultimate reality existed in the form of Nirvana, a state of enlightenment to which every being should strive to attain. The Budda who founded what is recognised as Buddhism in 538BC (Armstrong, 1994, p41) was one of a number of people who achieved the state of Nirvana. According to Cousins, Nirvana is described as ‘freedom’, ‘awakening’, ‘peace’ or ‘bliss’ and “In each case the implication is that it is this in the ultimate possible degree” (1998). Also, the Kathavatthu (as quoted in Cousins, 1998) describes Nirvana as “permanent, constant, eternal, not subject to change.”

Nirvana fits in with the Buddhist belief in reincarnation, as if a torch were lighting another torch which in turn went on to light another. Nirvana is achieved when the fuel from the torch is taken away and the flame goes out (Smart, 1967, p517). In this analogy, the fuel in the torch is human desire, and the torch can be starved of fuel by living a good life and treading the Noble Eightfold Path. In keeping with the idea that Nirvana is not a deity, Cousins says it is to be viewed “not as an entity existing somewhere else [but] rather a transformation of normal experience” (1998). Nirvana is seen as the only permanent state a soul can achieve, all others will eventually die and be reborn (Smart, 1967, p517). However, because this state is not a physical or psychological one, the individual disappears into the permanent state and can no longer be identified.

The ultimacy of Nirvana can be seen in these teachings about it, Nirvana is a state of permanence in an otherwise constantly fluctuating cycle. In this way, Nirvana can be ascribed the attributes of permanency, stability and immovability. Also, Nirvana is a state higher than the gods. It is outside of their influence and the influence of the cycle of rebirth, thus outside of the influence of time, so it can also be described as ageless, deathless, imperishable and unbecome.

It is interesting to note that both the Budda and Christian theologians have found it inherently difficult to talk about their ultimate realities through the use of language. Vardy & Arliss put it well in the Christian perspective, “If God was literally outside of space and time, outside the Universe…how could God be talked about or known?” (2003, p23). The Budda also could not easily talk about Nirvana and always refused to answer questions about it because he deemed such questions to be ‘improper’ or ‘inappropriate.’ “We could not define nirvana because our words and concepts are tied to the world of sense and flux” (Armstrong, 1994, p44). One would know that nirvana existed because the practice of a good life would allow one to glimpse it. This is similar to the problem faced by Christians attempting to describe God because “Neither the univocal nor the equivocal use of language seems to allow us to speak [in the positive sense] about God” (Stewart, 1998, p175). Instead, the Christian speaker must either say what God is not rather than what he is, or resort to analogy and metaphor.

The Theistic view of ultimate reality as seen by Christianity and the non-Theistic view by Buddhism both fulfil the definition for this essay, yet through different ways. While God is ageless because he created time and space, Buddhism does not seek, at least in the context of ultimate reality, to explain the origins of the universe. Instead, Nirvana is ageless because it is a state outside the normal cycle of rebirth. Also, while God is immovable and unchangeable because he is fully actual in all moments of time, Nirvana is immovable because it is out and beyond the grasp of anyone who has not attained it. However, because of the differences between the two religions, they cannot be both ultimate reality at the same time, within the context of Nirvana, ultimate reality can be found through a change in the self. However, within the context of God, ultimate reality is a being who thinks and is to be believed in. This should not, however, prevent the study of both to find out the fundamental aspects of ultimate reality and how it is differentiated from everyday life.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Armstrong, Karen, “In the Beginning…” in A History of God: From Abraham to the Present (London: Mandarin, 1994).

Armstrong, Karen, “What’s God got to do with it?” in New Statesman; Apr 10, 2006; 19, 906, p34.

Cousins, L, “Nirvana” in Edward Craig (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London: Routledge, 1998, electronic resource).

Leftow, Brian, “God, Concepts Of” in Edward Craig (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London: Routledge, 1998).

Lewis, Clive, Mere Christianity (London: HarperCollins, 2002).

Smart, Ninian, “Nirvana” in Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1967).

Stewart, David, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion (Ohio: Prentice-Hall, 1998).

Vardy, Peter. Arliss, Julie, The Thinker’s Guide to God (Hants: John Hunt Publishing, 2003).

Haha, Philosophy Late is Funny Funny

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:27:33 GMT

Here is an example of a scentence that I wrote just then. It is so long I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to say in the first place. I'm pretty sure that there's a complete thought in there but it might have been lost. Considering that's not really what I'm talking about anyway, and considering that Catholic theology doesn't allow for secondary things to create other things (for I think that's what I'm trying to say here) it is needless to say that this scentence will not make the final cut:

Although this definition of God doesn’t specify that he made all things, it has to be assumed that if anything that God made in turn created something else, God would also be God to that second created thing on virtue that he was God of the first thing… that he created. Yes.

So yes people. This is the last piece of assesment left for this semester. After this I just have exams. So you could say I want it over. OVER! So why am I writing this? That's a good question. I guess it's 'cause I like you guys so much that I'd share my long reject scentences with you.

(Oh, and by the way, Dad and I have decided that Toilet Spider must die. We've each tried to catch him a number of times and he just won't be caught. Cue Spider Story III please)

Fillet

P.S. I just cut/pasted the quote in just then... you can see where I realised it was starting to get rediculous.

ASSIGNMENT PLAN

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:48:18 GMT

This is my plan for my philosophy assignment. I don't know why you would be interested in this apart from the fact that I plan to post up this essay a few weeks after I submit it (so that I'm not mistakenly accused of ripping it off the web when I was actually the one who put it up there). So yes, enjoy.

PLAN (OR, HOW WE ARE GOING TO BRING DOWN THIS MONSTER. MONSTER!)

Intro: What is Ultimate Reality? How is this found in Theism? How is it found in non-Theistic models?

Point 1: Theistic versions of ultimate reality: Judeo-Christianity

~ Karen Armstrong

~ Other relevant analysts

~ Try to only focus on the Catholic view of God

~ Try not to talk about the Trinity – it is too complicated!

~ The attributes of God (how he constitutes Ultimate Reality)

Point 2: Non-Theistic versions of ultimate reality: Buddhism

~ Karen Armstrong (if applicable)

~ Other relevant analysts

~ Gods in Buddhism vs Nirvana

~ The attributes of Nirvana (how it constitutes Ultimate Reality)

Point 3: Contrast the two views

~ Nirvana compared to God

Conclusion

So as you can see, it's essentially a 'God vs Nirvana' essay. But that's fine, my tutor said I could do it however I wanted. If you look at it from the different points of view, they both constitute Ultimate Reality. Although, essentially, if one is true the other has to be false because the belief in Nirvana means that Ultimate Reality trancends God. It's all very confusing. I've learned two things this semester:

1. I am not a journalist

2. I am not really a philosopher

Fillet

I've been published again!

Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:47:25 GMT

Just a quick one, I've been published again! I wrote a personal account of my time as an intern for the New South Wales Uniting Church magazine Insights. Find the web-version of the article HERE. I'm also credited as helping with this series of articles although I didn't actually write any of them and none of my photos where used on the site. Some of my photos did get used in Journey Magazine (QLD Uniting Church) though, here is a PDF of that edition. There are two of them, under the heading about something about 'exceptional elves'. I also got some photos in Insights in actual print too.

Hell, just click here. It's a vanity search on Google using my name. I didn't know that I was so all over the web! My old school is using my name alot in their web publications... I didn't know that being self-proclaimed captain of the debating team meant that I would get my name thrown all over the place like it is.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Also, I've just had an influx of Costa Ricans viewing my photo albums on this site. What I'd like to know is, who are you? You obviously like my photography but you haven't left any comments... but then perhaps you don't speak English. You are using the Spanish version of MSN after all... heh heh. Yeah, I know all that stuff. I know man. I know.

Fillet

The Lavender Lady

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:49:21 GMT

I know, nothing could be as good as my spider story but I wrote this one for an assessment piece which would explain the general lack of spelling errors. I'll add the title when I think of it

The Lavender Lady

Word was that Mum was on the way out.

I came from my busy yet comfortable life in the city to visit her one last time. It was a strange feeling because I hadn’t been back to the old town for years. Most of its inhabitants still recognised me but unfortunately Mum didn’t.

Don’t get me wrong, she was happy enough. She lived in Hushed Estates, the retirement village run by Dr Smallbone, the local GP-come-physiotherapist. It was a very clinical institution, a reflection of the personality of the doctor. It didn’t seem to faze Mum though. She decorated it as best she could and scented her room with lavender to block out the tang of disinfectant. When I visited her the first time she was organising her own funeral in a dreamy sort of way with the town’s only minister. Apparently even though she couldn’t remember her son’s face she knew she didn’t have long. She had the soundtrack to Singin’ in the Rain playing softly in the background and occasionally she would break off the disjointed conversation to hum a few bars. The minister recognised me from one of the pictures on the bedside table and quickly moved on to his next visitation.

I took Mum out to the main street of the town to the café-newsagent. It was a pleasant little place, one of Mum’s old haunts. Over cappuccinos I explained to her that I would be staying in the town for a while. She told me I was a well-mannered young man and that she hoped I could stay for her funeral. She winked at me then like we were in on the same joke. She told me it would be lots of fun.

Despite Mum’s conviction that she had the whole thing planned I decided that I should call in on the minister. When I did, he told me that it was mostly under control. Mum had been planning this for a while now and had left meticulous notes for us all to follow. She had always been very thorough. When I asked him what she’d organised he told me that it was very purple and there was something strange about where the afternoon tea was to be held. I told him not to worry, Mum had always liked to do things differently.

Since I was going to be there for a while I had another look around the town that I grew up in. It was quite small, consisting of a few shops, a pub, a chapel, a post office and the café-newsagent. There was also an old, single-screen cinema that tried to be quaint by having mismatching lounge chairs instead of normal cinema seats. Most of these where in various states of disrepair but the whole experience proved popular with any passers-by the town had. The cinema had only one owner in its long history, a good friend of Mum’s who would let her watch her favourite movies for free. Most of the seats were donated to the cinema by Mum when she decided she couldn’t look after herself anymore so now the whole place had a slight fragrance of lavender about it. She was an important part of the community; most of the town’s landmarks were a part of her history.

I stopped off at the pub where I was staying. It was very old fashioned with a room for rent up the top. Mum and Dad had their wedding reception at that pub. There was a sepia toned picture of the event hanging on one of the walls. One of the windows looked into the main street, where a plaque in the town square commemorated the ANZACs. It was erected by Mum and a few others when she sat for the council. There was also a tree planted there by Dad after he came back from the war, by now enormous in size. After Mum retired the council had planned on cutting it down but Mum saved it, stepping up to the plate to argue why it should stay as it is. Although she didn’t have any official authority she commanded enough respect for people to listen to her when she spoke.

Even though she became a feeble woman she was still shrewd enough to organise things. I must admit, I wasn’t surprised to hear that she had the funeral all planned out already. I wondered what the problem with the afternoon tea could be but judging by how vague the minister had been he was obviously sworn to secrecy.

Over the next couple of months she steadily declined. Every time I saw her she asked who I was and every time she would invite me to the funeral, wink and tell me it would be ‘lots of fun’. It was sad to see her fade that way but she seemed to be rather accustomed to the idea of death so at least she wasn’t worried about it. She became sicker and eventually she was bedridden. At this point everybody began to visit her bedside, saying goodbye.

One day not long after, the doctor stopped by the pub to let me know she had passed on during the night. I got the chapel ready the next day in preparation for the funeral the day after that. Like the minister said, it was very purple and everything smelled of lavender. There were pictures of her and Dad in the pub, planting the tree, sipping coffee in the café, among others. It was a real celebration of her life, purple streamers hung from the ceiling and purple balloons littered the floor. Like I expected, what seemed like the entire town showed up for her funeral and the little chapel was standing room only. After she was laid to rest beside Dad in the church graveyard the minister got up and ushered everyone to, of all places, the cinema.

So as I sit here in one of Mum’s old chairs, watching Singin’ in the Rain with all her old friends I breathe in the scent of lavender and remember her. She was a woman who had achieved what few could hope for, she had given herself freely to this community and it had grown around her. Now that she is gone I know it will miss her. I look around at the townspeople who embraced her and wonder if the city would miss me if I left. Should return to my busy life there? I might stay for a few more days and then I’ll go home. Maybe.

An article I wrote about AGMF

Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:38:00 GMT

Just a short one tonight, I'm supposed to be starting an essay. I wrote a short article for Journey magazine (the Uniting Church monthly newspaper) about my experience of AGMF. I didn't make the pages due to space constrictions but my article is online. Keep in mind it's my first one for any sort of publication.

Find it here http://www.journeyonline.com.au/showArticle.php?categoryId=1&articleId=444

It's the really short one at the bottom of the page after the longer one written by Catherine Mullan. Hey, mabie next time I'll make the pages and be in print!

The Song of a Thousand Mules

Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:07:29 GMT

In the course of participating in the most nerdy thing I have ever done I wrote this song. No wait, I didn't write this song, a man named Alastor did. I wrote him first though. Words in brackets are to be sung by the audience (whoever that may be).

Song of a Thousand Mules

Roscoe's dream

A thousand mules

A thousand mules for hiding

Cover! He says

A thousand mules for hiding

Hey-ho a thousand mules

(A thousand mules!)

A thousand mules for cover

Can a halfling hide in a thousand mules?

Hide from what?

A fireball!

A thousand flaming mules afire!

Hey-ho a thousand mules

(A thousand mules!)

Burning mules

(A thousand mules!)

Roscoe's caught in a thousand mules

How do you put out a thousand mules?

A waterfall!

A thousand wet mules a-falling

Hey-ho a thousand mules

(A thousand mules!)

Wet mules

(A thousand mules!)

Roscoe's wet and falling

How do you stop a thousand mules falling?

YOU CANT!

Roscoe's wet and falling and crushed

By a thousand mules

(A thousand mules!)

Roscoe's crushed by a thousand mules!

Hey-ho a thousand mules

(A thousand mules!)

A thousand mules

Never hide in a thousand mules

A thousand mules for cover.

Six Basic Steps to Randomimity

Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:58:06 GMT

In addition to my 'theory' I've decided to give a short 'How To' on 'how to' be 'random'. This, I feel, besides overuse of punctuation, requires an introduction. (...) (And whatever other gramatical and/or punctuational errors I make in these blogs).

I get alot of people emailing, messengering or just coming up to me and talking normally and telling me how 'random' I am. Now I may be giving away many of my secrects here but I don't really mind. I've been doing most of these unconsiously for a long time but I've been paying more attention to my quirks ever since I made that mocumentry about that guy who's obsessed with Lord of the Rings. Thus, I have compiled the Six Basic Steps to Randomimity.

Now I used to use the word 'random' all the time until those damn tweensters ruined it by using it as another word for 'cool'. That is, popular people uese it all the time to describe things that are not truely random.

Dictionary.com defines 'random' thusly: "Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically."

For example, the average teenager would now describe that funny clown in Cirque du Soleil as 'random' because he does funy things. The truth is that he is not random. He is a clown. He is in a circus. Thus he is in an environment where he belongs and this is not a random thing. It obviously has a governing design, method and puropse.

Additionaly, truely random things do not occur in diametrically opposed situations. For example: the same clown at a funeral. Because the clown, by all rights shouldn't be there, there is more of a chance that he will be there and even though it's 'wrong' it's half expected. This situation still has a method (the clown is in the wrong place) and a purpose (to shock the audience). Sure it's funny but it's not random.

A truely random thing would be the clown in a travel agent. Totally unexpected. No governing design, no method (why a travel agent? Why not a butchery or a sawmill?) and no purpose (Does he want to travel somewhere? Why would a clown want to travel somewhere?).

The good news is that all you have to do to be called 'random' by somebody else is to act a little bit strangely. Sure, I will know that you're not actually being random (at least, according to my rules) but nobody else will know so it doesn't matter.

So. Here are the basics of what I have gleaned by acting like a weirdo (but not too weird because then people just call you 'weird', which is not as endearing as 'random').

1. Talk about things without giving an explanation for why or what you are talking about. Even the most mundane event in your childhood can seem completely out of place and random if you deny the audience the reasons for that occuring. The same goes for turns of speech. For example: the title of this entire blog. The Fillet Skillet. To any firsttime visitor, or Skillet-Virgin, that name is completely incongruous. The thing is, is that it makes perfect sense if you actually know who I am. I am Rohan, through a long and complicated process I was bestowed the nickname 'Fillet' and where do fillets belong? In a skillet (a skillet is like a frying pan). See? Perfect sense.

2. "The sound which rescues the pitiful person the sweet my way how splendid elegance. I was lost one time, but now the blind person it is and/or, but now when is it sees."

I betcha didn't expect that did you? This point has to be applied to the first. A random thing is all the better if the person you are talking to (or the audience of the blog) is not expecting such a thing but it is somehow relevant in some oblique way to the conversation (one or two sided) at hand. Granted, the verse above really has nothing to do with with what we are 'talking' about (apart from the fact that it's sort of random) but that can also be halarious too.

3. When questioned about your random action or comment, provide an explanation but make sure that it creates more questions than it actually answeres. For example, the above verse which came totally unexpectadly, is the first verse of the old hymn Amazing Grace.

4. Use unfamiliar language to describe something. I do this all the time but mostly can't help it as most of you know. This whole essay-thing is an example of this. Who uses such formal language to describe such an informal thing? I often use formal language to describe things without meaning to but I have found this adds to the effect when I'm actually trying to be 'random'.

5. Create complex psycological, ethical or philisophical quandaries (debates) over really very simple things. The following lines are a good example: Should 'randomness' actually be subjected to such scrutiny? Can 'randomness' actually be subjected to such scrutiny? etc etc. A better example is of my blog entry the night before I got my OP results. 'Should I post my results on my blog? Will this make me look arrogant?' etc etc. If you are a longtime reader you should know the one. If not, it will be in the November or December archives of 2005.

6. Be random. I know this sounds obvious but it's a little deeper that what you are thinking. Read books such as Captain Bluebear's 13 and-a-half lives. Watch films made by crazy French directors. Listen to experimental music that never hits the charts. You must give yourself material to draw from that normal people have never been exposed to. This way it is easier to come up with random unrelated things because you are actually thinking random unrelated thoughts. Be careful not to pollute your mind with rude or unsavoury things though because otherwise when you go to say something random it could actually be vulgar. If you do this you can simply speak your mind at any point in time and without any forethought you can say something completely out of the box. This way your Randomimity is natural and after a while you don't actually know that you're doing it. This makes it even funnier when people draw your attention to it and you haven't realised what you were doing. The deadpan expression makes it more believeable (that's because it's actually real).

These are as many things that I noticed myself doing to people as I have actually noticed. Please know that I didn't come up with these and go "MWAHAHAHAHA! I'm going to confuse as many people as possible with these six steps! And I don't care who gets hurt in the process! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". These actually were things I didn't know I was doing until I gave it some actual thought and self-observance and noticed them. To be frank, actual thought spoils randomness so it couldn't have worked that way anyway.

So there you go. Quite long but that's your crash course in randomness by Rohan aka Fillet of the Fillet Skillet.

Goodbye.

My dog is snoring (a poem)

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:00:45 GMT

My dog is snoring and I have the flu

I don't know what to do

I don't know what to do.

My nose is all runny and I don't know how to drive

To get places I must strive

To get places I must strive.

My phone is nearly flat and I need to go to bed

Good night sleepy head

Good night sleepy head.

I should start a children's group singing this song

But that won't last for very long

But that won't last for very long.

My dog has now stopped snoring but his tounge is hanging out

I've run out of stuff to ryme about

I've run out of stuff to ryme about.

I think I spelled ryme wrongly

But that won't affect very strongly

My reputation as a poet

Because I never was a poet (?)

And this poem really shows it!

I don't know what to do

No I don't know what to do...