Jump to content
Cameron H.

Pulp Fiction

Pulp Fiction  

16 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Does Pulp Fiction deserve to be on the list?

    • It’s one tasty burger.
      14
    • Naw man, it’s pretty f*ckin’ far from okay.
      2

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 08/02/19 at 07:00 AM

Recommended Posts

Paul and Amy boogie through 1994's Quentin Tarantino indie breakout Pulp Fiction! They revisit the moment Pulp Fiction won at Cannes, ask what this film did right that so many imitators did wrong, and try to figure out what's in the briefcase. Plus: Some of the couples you thought should star in a modern "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?"

What do you think Bringing Up Baby is about, if you haven't seen it? Call the Unspooled voicemail line at 747-666-5824 with your answer! Follow us on Twitter @Unspooled, get more info at unspooledpod.com and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts. Photo credit: Kim Troxall

This episode is brought to you by Sonos (www.sonos.com).

Share this post


Link to post

Amy said in the Podcast that she wanted to hear from someone born in the 90's, so as someone born in 1990: I have mixed feelings on Pulp Fiction. I'm with Amy for the most part. I do believe it belongs on the list because of how massive of an impact it has had on film making since it's debut. I have a respect for the film and I'm sure that a lot of films I absolutely love were influenced by Pulp Fiction. However, it's far from my favorite Tarantino movie, let alone any movie of all time. There are a lot of conversations that go on much too long without building any tension or advancing the story. The first time I watched it at 17, my friends and I were bored to tears and I honestly didn't get it, which is the opposite reaction I had to Reservoir Dogs on initial viewing. So in closing, as someone who grew up more with Tarantino's later work (Kill Bill, Inglourious Bastards, etc.), and then going back and discovering Pulp Fiction, I am not in love with the movie like the older generations but I respect it's place in film history.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I’ve never been a huge fan of Pulp Fiction (or Tarantino at all, really). I think before this re-watch I might have seen it once. However, on this viewing, I was pretty into it. It’s funny that they described Tarantino as a nerd as that was how I described the film in my Letterboxd review. It’s a nerdy guy’s vision of what cool is. However, that doesn’t make it bad. If anything, I think that artifice kind of heightens the movie.

I also agree that Vincent is not cool, but I don’t really think he’s meant to be. My read on him is he’s kind of a dork who is trying to seem cooler, smarter, and more important than he actually is. 

As for whether it belongs on the list. My initial thought was, yes, but I’m the low end. However as I started to weigh it against the other movies covered so far, I ended up ranking it pretty high. When all is said and done, it might be in my Top 50 - which is mind blowing to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I liked this in the 90s then fell off of it after that. I watched it maybe five years ago and think it's pretty good but maybe not as good as I thought in the 90s. I'd say just for its influence and change of the film industry, it belongs on the list (of course, this means I'd have to include Clerks which I'm not willing to do).

I have to disagree with Paul that Tarantino films get better on subsequent viewings. I find a second watch much less enjoyable than the first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious what other people think about the "revolutionary" label being applied to this film (which both Paul & Amy both mostly asserted).

i.e. Do you think it's revolutionary. If so, how?

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

I'm curious what other people think about the "revolutionary" label being applied to this film (which both Paul & Amy both mostly asserted).

i.e. Do you think it's revolutionary. If so, how?

I mean, the fact that badass action heroes now want to discuss pop-culture minutiae on the regular is definitely a debt owed to this film.

The influence has gotten more diffuse over the years, but in the 10 or so years after Pulp there were a LOT of indie movies clearly trying to copy the Tarantino template (only they just copied the wisecracking gangsters, not the discussions of moral issues).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

I mean, the fact that badass action heroes now want to discuss pop-culture minutiae on the regular is definitely a debt owed to this film.

The influence has gotten more diffuse over the years, but in the 10 or so years after Pulp there were a LOT of indie movies clearly trying to copy the Tarantino template (only they just copied the wisecracking gangsters, not the discussions of moral issues).

I'd also add that Pulp Fiction (and Kevin Smith) blew up independent and lower budget filmmakers. There had been independent film since film began. There had been "outsiders" (which I hesitate to use because he had directed a movie with Hollywood stars and sold multiple scripts before Pulp Fiction came out) before Tarantino. There was a huge look into more independent, outside voices directly because of Pulp Fiction (and Kevin Smith).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

I mean, the fact that badass action heroes now want to discuss pop-culture minutiae on the regular is definitely a debt owed to this film.

The influence has gotten more diffuse over the years, but in the 10 or so years after Pulp there were a LOT of indie movies clearly trying to copy the Tarantino template (only they just copied the wisecracking gangsters, not the discussions of moral issues).

I have to agree. Even if I don’t really care for his movies all that much, i have admit that there’s definitely a pre and post Pulp Fiction Hollywood.

Share this post


Link to post

Haven't seen this movie since its release. I remember thinking the last third of the movie was boring compared to the other two and I wished he'd just kept the story linear. I remember thinking there was too much filler dialogue (oof, that "Royale with cheese" bit doesn't deserve the attention it gets). And I'd seen enough 70s flicks prior to seeing PF that the whole enterprise came off like a guy robbing a grave. I had the same opinion of Jackie Brown and less-so Reservoir Dogs (the only other two Tarantino movies I've bothered to watch). I DO enjoy that 70s aesthetic though, so it was neat to see that come back (unironically, that is -- I'm Gonna Git You Sucka came out 6 years prior!). I didn't feel like I was seeing anything groundbreaking. But it was entertaining enough to see twice in the theater.

Share this post


Link to post

Anyway, I think this is a legit great film and would have it Top 20 at least, and on my personal list it's probably going to finish in the Top 10. For all the credit Tarantino gets for his writing (clever wisecracks, memorable lines, etc.), I don't think most people realize what a masterful visual director he is. He's precise on the level of a Spielberg or Hitchcock, filmmakers that people would normally think of as great visual storytellers before they think of their scripting. One of my favorite examples is the famous long conversation between Jules and Vincent that opens the film (after the pre-credit diner scene). For example, look at just the segment that takes place inside the car:

The dialogue is fun and all, but really they are just kind of bullshitting and talking about nothing. Yet to me the scene feels dramatic and propulsive. Why? Note that Tarantino changes the visual approach when the subject changes. First it's a two-shot with both actors in frame, Travolta closer to the camera. We stick with this for the entirety of the discussion about pot being legal in Amsterdam. Then notice what happens as the conversation shifts to beer and fast food: suddenly Tarantino is cutting between close-up shots of each actor's face, before pulling back to the two-shot just as this line of conversation peters out ("I didn't go into Burger King"). Then we get an angle looking up from inside the trunk at both actors as they've changed subject again, talking about what kind of guns they'll need. The visual language is telling you where the dramatic beats are. So many filmmakers that try to do this kind of chatty, hangout scene don't understand this, they just hold a single shot or just cut between faces. Tarantino has a strong sense of telling a STORY with every scene he directs, which makes a huge difference. (And yes, this strategy of changing the visual angle when the dramatic beat changes continues as they go into the building and up to Marvin's apartment.)

Pulp Fiction is loaded with stuff like this, the visual language telling you something that isn't in the dialogue. Another great example from early in the film is when Marcellus is explaining his plan for what Butch should do in the boxing match: Marcellus does all the talking, but the camera holds only on Butch's face. This primes the audience for the fact that Butch is going to be an important character later (something the dialogue doesn't do) and also keeps Marcellus shrouded in mystery as to what his face looks like, enhancing the menace everyone feels from this character. It's pretty brilliant. To me there's a reason the movies with Tarantino scripts but different directors don't quite reach these heights.

Finally, that speech from Jules at the end really ties the room together. I actually get emotional when he talks about "trying to be the shepherd," because the whole movie has been about that, people making moral choices to save other people's lives. Jules is the only one who does it without any obvious self-serving benefit (even Butch gets the benefit of Marcellus removing the price on his head), which is the central question in the movie: What does it mean to "be the shepherd?" I find new stuff to appreciate in this movie every time I watch it. I love a lot of Tarantino's work, but I'd still put this one on top both for its influence and its own merit.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

I mean, the fact that badass action heroes now want to discuss pop-culture minutiae on the regular is definitely a debt owed to this film.

The influence has gotten more diffuse over the years, but in the 10 or so years after Pulp there were a LOT of indie movies clearly trying to copy the Tarantino template (only they just copied the wisecracking gangsters, not the discussions of moral issues).

So I guess my question stems from the impression that for a lot of people (at least of a certain age) this was their first indie or art-house type of film.  And so it often sounds like to them, Tarantino innovated... a lot.  And despite being a younger teenager when Pulp Fiction came out, it never seemed like as big of a deal as people made it out to be (maybe I think I was less blown away by the fragmented narrative since it didn't seem that different than a lot of other movies and their use of flashbacks or other various media where the narrative was chronologically fragmented).  Now to be clear, I do enjoy his films (it sounds like more-so than Crummy Scrimage, as I've watched post-Jackie Brown movies.  Though I found waiting until the hype died down before doing so to be helpful).

And as we get older, I assume we also realize almost everything Tarantino does is taken or referenced from somewhere else (I think detractors overstate it by saying he's stealing and doesn't have a creative bone in his body.  I think the metaphor I go for in my brain is, he's at least exercising the creativity of a DJ mixing or sampling together other people's music - which might not be the same creativity as creating music, but there's a type of artistic creativity involved - and the ignores the actual skills necessary of still directing/managing the creation of a film)...  Just, yeah, culturally it was revolutionary in terms of how Hollywood interacted with independent films (at least, for a while), but that feels like more of a commentary on the financial success of the movie rather than films.  And I don't mean to diminish that, but it feels like when people say it's revolutionary, I get the impression they mean it was doing something new.  Which seems contradictory for a film that's a lot of homages.

Admittedly with culture, it is turtles all the way down.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

I'm curious what other people think about the "revolutionary" label being applied to this film (which both Paul & Amy both mostly asserted).

i.e. Do you think it's revolutionary. If so, how?

It's revolutionary in that it managed to be deemed groundbreaking without actually doing anything new. That's a pretty neat trick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

Admittedly with culture, it is turtles all the way down.

Yeah, that's just it with the Tarantino homages. I'm not sure who else was so obvious about how much he was drawing from previous sources before him. The way the characters all talk about other pop culture, the way it's constantly in the frame (whatever is on TV, the stuff in Maynard's store, everything about Jack Rabbit Slim's). I'm sure something like that had been done before Tarantino, but it really feels like him doing it kicked off a whole movement of pop-culture referencing in nominally "serious" movies (not parodies) that still hasn't left us.

You could argue that QT really began this with Reservoir Dogs, but Pulp was the popular hit that everyone saw and wanted to replicate.

Share this post


Link to post

I really enjoyed this episode of the podcast.  I thought Amy and Paul did a great job giving appropriate weight and consideration to both the pros and the cons of this movie, and as I said in my Letterboxd review, I was definitely feeling the cons a little bit more on this rewatch.

I did disagree with them about the relationships in this film.  I think that although the dialogue is incredible, I don't find much depth in the relationships, and when Amy or Paul mentioned that Tarantino had never had a girlfriend when he wrote True Romance, it made sense to me.  In hindsight, Butch and Fabienne's relationship comes off like it was written by a guy who understood the relationship as an outsider rather than as a participant.  That relationship isn't him, it's someone he knows or has observed.  As Paul pointed out, the best relationship in the film is between Jules and Vincent, and even then, I don't know much about the nature of their relationship.  Sure, they make easy conversation and they both know what they're doing, so they've probably worked together at least a half dozen times or so, but are they friends?  If Jules found out that Vincent was killed only a few weeks after he quit, how would he feel?  Would he feel guilty for leaving?  Would he even mourn Vincent at all?  And again, as Paul mentioned, there are no character arcs in this film except for Jules.  For better or worse, these are characters in stasis.

That said, I still really like this film, and I voted for its inclusion, even though it'll probably end up around 70 on my list (it's at 38 right now).  I find Tarantino's movies generally to be more fun than what I would categorize as good, but this has always been my favorite.  In my opinion, his films fall into three tiers, with Reservoir DogsPulp Fiction, and The Hateful Eight being his best films; Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds being less good but tons of fun; and Jackie BrownDeath Proof, and Django Unchained being the ones that didn't work for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bleary said:

As Paul pointed out, the best relationship in the film is between Jules and Vincent, and even then, I don't know much about the nature of their relationship.  Sure, they make easy conversation and they both know what they're doing, so they've probably worked together at least a half dozen times or so, but are they friends? 

Yes! I meant to bring this up as well!

Honestly, all we know about these guys is that they are hit men, that Vincent has been in Amsterdam for three years, and they work different areas of town. They don’t really come off to me as pen pals. To me, they came off more as co-workers.  You try to have an easy relationship with them because if you don’t, it just makes your work life harder. They might have sort of known each other from before Amsterdam, but you wouldn’t exactly call them friends. Even their conversations sounded more like things work acquaintances talk about to kill the time. For example, in my previous job, there were a couple of guys I used to hang out with whenever work was slow. We’d talk about everything - politics, religion, relationships, movies. We all looked out for each other. From the outside, we all seemed pretty close, but as soon as I quit, we all immediately lost touch. 

Vincent and Jules are the guys in the trenches. They respect each other, they like each other, but they’re not close. Vincent doesn’t know Jules doesn’t eat pork. Jules doesn’t seem to be into drugs - beyond maybe pot. Vincent doesn’t know Jules’ friends. They’re cordial with one another because the alternative is to have to work with someone you don’t really like. We tend to unconsciously force these relationships, which can involve real affection, to help keep our sanity in the face of vocational boredom. 

So, yeah, I think their relationship is done well, but not in the way described in the episode. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciated their conversation on the use of the N word and Quentin's explanation for why he felt ok to use it. I agree that it has not aged well, and wasn't ok at the time it came out. I was 19 when Pulp Fiction came out, and I am embarrassed to admit that quentin's use of it in the movie led to my using that word IRL (as a white dude). I did not and do not identify as racist (but who does? and saying you aren't racist as a white person in america is like saying you aren't a capitalist) and didn't intend it to be hateful or hurtful to black people. I saw it as a way to reclaim a hateful word and take the sting out of it. I was also consuming (but not actively living/participating in) a lot of black culture at the time and felt that my proximity to that culture plus the frequency certain people in that community use the term meant that it was totes ok for me, a white kid, to use it.  Thankfully i grew out of that stage. But all of this is just to say that tarantino's casual use of a hateful slur 100% led to clueless white kids thinking it was ok to casually use it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Reading the above comments, I started thinking that Pulp Fiction and Star Wars have a lot in common as to how they impacted film making and pop culture in general - though maybe PF on a smaller scale.

Both Lucas and Tarantino were drawing on past films, largely from movies most people hadn’t seen - me included. And both films clearly had a major impact on the way films were made and marketed afterwards.

I was in my early 30s when PF first came out and saw it twice in theaters on its initial run. What struck me most was how much fun it was and how funny it was, especially compared to most other movies at the time. I also remember feeling a little uncomfortable at what I was laughing at times. Kind of a should I really be laughing at this feeling.

A strong yes on this one being on the AFI list. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Yobismycopilot said:

I appreciated their conversation on the use of the N word and Quentin's explanation for why he felt ok to use it. I agree that it has not aged well, and wasn't ok at the time it came out. I was 19 when Pulp Fiction came out, and I am embarrassed to admit that quentin's use of it in the movie led to my using that word IRL (as a white dude). I did not and do not identify as racist (but who does? and saying you aren't racist as a white person in america is like saying you aren't a capitalist) and didn't intend it to be hateful or hurtful to black people. I saw it as a way to reclaim a hateful word and take the sting out of it. I was also consuming (but not actively living/participating in) a lot of black culture at the time and felt that my proximity to that culture plus the frequency certain people in that community use the term meant that it was totes ok for me, a white kid, to use it.  Thankfully i grew out of that stage. But all of this is just to say that tarantino's casual use of a hateful slur 100% led to clueless white kids thinking it was ok to casually use it. 

I can kind of defend how it's used in the film:

1. I don't really buy that Jimmy is supposed to be a "likable" character, He's basically an obstacle for Jules and Vincent to get around.

2. The movie has already established that it depicts a dark underworld in which people toss around insults and racial slurs freely, so Jimmy was ever part of that world then his language still fits.

That said, I doubt Tarantino would write the scene like that today. Attitudes really were different in the 90s, that word was thrown around a lot more frequently, and there was a more pervasive sense that we should just get all the bad stuff out in the open and deal with it. These things change; it's not acceptable today, largely for the reasons laid out above.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

I don't really buy that Jimmy is supposed to be a "likable" character, He's basically an obstacle for Jules and Vincent to get around.

100% I was kind of shocked that they suggested on the podcast that he was a "likable" character. I think he's there, as you said, as an obstacle and also as kind of a joke. Like, "Who is this dweeby, overcompensating, middle-class white dude that Jules is apparently such good enough friends with that he trusts him to help dispose of a body? Isn't it funny that they're friends and that tough guy Jules defers to him?" I think the whole thought process behind it was entirely, "Who could I have Jules call that would be last person the audience would expect?" I don't think it's much deeper than that. He was just trying to subvert expectations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/26/2019 at 10:46 AM, Cameron H. said:

100% I was kind of shocked that they suggested on the podcast that he was a "likable" character. I think he's there, as you said, as an obstacle and also as kind of a joke. Like, "Who is this dweeby, overcompensating, middle-class white dude that Jules is apparently such good enough friends with that he trusts him to help dispose of a body? Isn't it funny that they're friends and that tough guy Jules defers to him?" I think the whole thought process behind it was entirely, "Who could I have Jules call that would be last person the audience would expect?" I don't think it's much deeper than that. He was just trying to subvert expectations.

The fact that Steve Buscemi was originally intended for the role says a lot here. I love Buscemi as much as the next guy, but he's not an actor typically cast in "good guy" roles.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm torn on this film, but I ultimately decided it did deserve to be on the list. It's not my favorite QT film (that honor belongs to Jackie Brown, which is probably the best of the late 90s/early 00s Elmore Leonard adaptations and in my opinion QT's most mature film) but I don't think you can ignore it's undeniable influence on filmmaking and indie film culture in the 1990s. Sure, there was Soderberg and Linkletter and Rodriquez and Smith circling him at this time, and while others may be better filmmakers or better at combining the commercial and their indie sensibilities (Soderberg and Linkletter) or have leaned into their own weirdness and quirks (Rodriquez and Smith), none managed to become the household name that QT did.

Interestingly, I tried to show Pulp Fiction to my little brother (born in 89, 12 year age difference between us) about 9 years ago, and he was, like others have stated, kind of bored by it. I think if I showed it to him today, the expirence would be different, but as a 21, 22 year old, he wasn't interested, but he loved Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained.

Share this post


Link to post

A bit of trivia re: creepy cab driver.

The actress's name is Angela Jones who starred in a short written and directed by Reb Braddock entitled "Curdled" made in 1991. It was about a young girl who witnesses a death and is intrigued, even excited by it. The short was made into a feature in 1996 where Angela reprised her role alongside Billy Baldwin as a serial killer. The '96 feature was executive produced by Quentin Tarintino. QT must have seen the short and wanted to pay homage to the role and so hired Angela to play the cab driver.

Theory on what's inside the case:

I can't remember where I heard it but I did a bit of research and it is an interesting theory. One of the chakras is believed to located right at the base of the neck and some ancient Egyptian cultures believed that the soul could be accessed through this "gateway". We see a band-aid at the base of Marsellus's neck in multiple scenes. The theory I remember hearing is that Marsellus's soul was extracted from his body and now resides in the briefcase. Vincent and Jules are charged with the task of returning it to him. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/26/2019 at 12:11 AM, Cronopio said:

It's revolutionary in that it managed to be deemed groundbreaking without actually doing anything new. That's a pretty neat trick.

Yes, but was he the first person to pull this off?

On 7/26/2019 at 12:18 AM, sycasey 2.0 said:

Yeah, that's just it with the Tarantino homages. I'm not sure who else was so obvious about how much he was drawing from previous sources before him. The way the characters all talk about other pop culture, the way it's constantly in the frame (whatever is on TV, the stuff in Maynard's store, everything about Jack Rabbit Slim's). I'm sure something like that had been done before Tarantino, but it really feels like him doing it kicked off a whole movement of pop-culture referencing in nominally "serious" movies (not parodies) that still hasn't left us.

You could argue that QT really began this with Reservoir Dogs, but Pulp was the popular hit that everyone saw and wanted to replicate.

You mean, dedicate an entire film to doing this?  Outside of comedies like Mel Brooks' Silent Movie or say, Singin' in the Rain, which was a send-up of musicals/switching over to sound?  I guess Warhol's movies also fall into the comedy category (counting the Morissey ones he produced - Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula).

I think Star Wars and Indiana Jones both qualify since they're recreating old serials that Lucas and Spielberg saw as kids.

American Graffiti was Lucas being nothing but pop-culture nostalgic (which in turn inspired a 50's nostalgia craze.  And later, shark jumping).

Chinatown is consciously playing with, but subverting the conventions of noir.

Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai came after, though that's the most immediate comparison coming to mind at the moment.

Miller's Crossing was the Coens doing their take on The Third Man (both comical and nominally serious).

In terms of homages in specific scenes - off the top of my head:

In Taxi-Driver - there's a scene where he puts alka-seltzer in a glass of water and watches it bubble (indicating an inner self that's about to boil over) is supposed to be an homage to a scene in, I believe, Godard's 2-or-3 Things I Know about Her (which in turn is also an homage to something else - IDK if Scorsese is actually doing an homage to both - which was quite possible).

Quick-cutting which came from Godard's Breathless is in Taxi Driver.

Scorsese also had De Niro do the On the Waterfront bits in Raging Bull (I don't know if you can get more explicit than this).

2001 recreates to Da Vinci's The Birth of Adam (four times).  E.T. has an homage to 2001 doing The Birth of Adam.

De Palma recreates the baby carriage scene from Battleship Potemkin in, I believe, The Untouchables.

In Godard's Breathless, that whole lip thing Jean Seberg does is supposed to be doing an homage to Bogart (I never really understood this, myself).

Which as I type that out, I'm thinking you weren't thinking about explicit scenes.  However, I don't know what a film of a lot of film homages should add up to by virtue of being a lot of film homages (unrelated side comment, I weirdly remember coming out of Toy Story 2 back when it was in theaters.  I enjoyed it in the moment, but shortly started going, "but all the jokes were basically reference humor.  Recreating scenes from other movies.  At some point, you'd like a comedy to come up with new jokes and not try to get you to laugh just because you recognize something they're showing you."  This may or may not be relevant for my frame of reference in this discussion).  But I suspect I might have missed the point you were going for.

I just remember Chungking Express came out the same year as Pulp Fiction.  I don't remember people talking about his (WKW) movies being groundbreaking (but maybe they did - definitely never heard "revolutionary" used), but they did talk about them being stylized and how/if that style had any purpose (I'd say it did - though I'd prefer his next three films).  I'm now straying off on a tangent.  I associate "groundbreaking" and "revolutionary" with innovative or new, and I think for a number of people, Pulp Fiction being presented that way probably hurts it for them, because in many ways it isn't (I think your post breaking down the editing focuses on what the movie does well, rather than necessarily what is "new" about it - which behooves it); and part of the reason why I asked the original question was, is the association of "groundbreaking" and "revolutionary" with "new" or "innovative" flawed?  Like, if someone said, Pulp Fiction was a breath of fresh air, I don't think I'd have challenged that.  So I was wondering if I was misreading people if by revolutionary, it was more just changing the style of mainstream movies for a while.

Bleh, too many words.  Not enough cogency.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×