The girls and I at work have decided on our dissertation topics:
Colon: The Hidden Ecology of the Cock
Cock, Cock, Cock, and More Cock: A Liberal Arts Perspective
The Epistemology of Cock: Hegemony, Dominance, and Ludic Space
You'll notice all our colons are in order. We're set for a takeover of the Ivory Tower.
Posted by Gus at April 20, 2004 12:19 PM | TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.twistedmatrix.com/~gus.twistd/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/126
I found the fourth cock in the second title gratuitous and just a little obscene. Greed is good only if you're Gordon Gecko.
A closet anti-colonite, I actually am coming out here and suggesting that you free yourselves from the burdensome punctuation altogether. There's nothing wrong with a simple, straightforward title, and the New York Cock School (School of Cock?) could be trailblazers in this regard.
Please. Do it for the children.
Posted by: jason at April 20, 2004 3:23 PM
I think we should not only hang on to all the cox we can get (right girls?) but that we should christen ourselves the New School of TCC (guess what the second C stands for... anyone? anyone?)
As far as punctuation goes, I have long been trying to free myself from a troublesome period (that's what you get, Jason, when you send something like that out there...)
Posted by: Dana Cammack at April 20, 2004 4:55 PM
Free the Cammack Two! (ovaries, that is... or the Cammack One? Womb? mind you this is not a One to which the Property of Ones applies -- http://homestarrunner.com/sbemail39.html )
Posted by: gus at April 20, 2004 5:59 PM
Damn, I forgot about the Andrews Two! Perhaps they deserve their own post, although it would be a bit wierd for me to post about your breasts, Gus. As for the Cammack Two, I think perhaps they add up to one, collectively. Let's hear it for the little...ummm, people? No, that doesn't sound right...btw, I love ellipses...
Posted by: Dana at April 20, 2004 6:58 PM
I beg to differ, Jason. There is nothing gratuitous about four cocks, particularly when examined through the lens of the liberal arts perspective, which encourages the student of cock to push past the boundaries of what is known in order to come to one's own understanding of the world of cock. Just goes to show how much you know about cock.
I agree with you on the punctuation, though. Revised title suggestion: Four Cocks and the Liberal Arts
(no cocks were harmed in the making of this title)
Posted by: Sarah at April 21, 2004 5:22 PM
Maybe my original comment was a little cocky, and perhaps I jumped the gun there. Call it a cock-jerk reaction, but at first glance, it just looked like a lot of cock. However, when I locate the liberal arts more centrally in the picture, I realize that you could easily oust the old, four-fold Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy) and replace it with a newfangled, post-modern, four-fold model of cock. I concur and stand corrected. You really do need that fourth cock.
Posted by: jason at April 21, 2004 10:05 PM
Gus just said "crock of cock." heh heh (said in beavis voice).
Posted by: Dana Cammack at April 22, 2004 12:43 PM
Does positioning of the study as a "Liberal Arts Perspective" imply that you intend to do a "soft" study of the cock, instead of the more traditional hard cock approach?
Posted by: kellan at April 22, 2004 11:13 PM
Oh, please. Denigrating liberal arts as a "soft cock" approach posits "scientific" inquiry as the only rigorous, potent methodology. bollocks to that.
Posted by: gus at April 23, 2004 1:04 AM
Oh, we're too late -- someone has already published on this, as my friend Rob pointed out:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0142002593/qid=1082678111/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/002-0759324-5825619?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
However, I should clarify that there is room for clitique, as most of the titles (see "Customers Who Bought This Book Also Bought") don't seem to have a postmodern or Marxist perspective.
Oops. I mean "critique."
Posted by: gus at April 23, 2004 10:04 AM