Disqus - Latest Comments for Luka Yovetich

Re: New Look

Luka Yovetich — Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:18:52 -0000

This looks good!

Re: Crest, Colgate, Autonomy, Alienation, Not Voting, Etc.

Luka Yovetich — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:37:04 -0000

Nice post! I am just very recently (this week I suppose) going a bit crazy over the fact that the academics and actor-types that I run with think it's SO important that Bush gets ousted. I think it's fine to want Kerry to win (or Bush) but I just don't get the whole I'm-gonna-move-out-of-the-country-if-Bush-wins attitude that some people seem to have.

It drives me nuts.

Re: Intolerance for the Intolerable

Luka Yovetich — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:45:44 -0000

Rob,

KRLA does have Larry Elder on. That's makes up for some of the other stuff. But not TOO much of it. Elder isn't THAT good. But he's okay.

Re: Intolerance for the Intolerable

Luka Yovetich — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:05:03 -0000

Rob,

That's right. I just thought of that today. I turned on KABC and realized that Elder's on that one. I got confused for a second.

I guess that means that KRLA is worse than I was saying!

That's cool that you met him.

Re: Rich in Love

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:18:01 -0000

Is that porn actress Cherry Rain in the picture? If it is, I'm so glad that one of my favorite blogs is using a porn pic to complement blog entry. If it isn't, I'm so glad that one of my favorite blogs is using a porn pic to complement blog entry.

Keep up the good work!

Re: Rich in Love

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:26:00 -0000

Will,

I can explain how I know that that is Cherry Rain...I consume a lot of porn...

Re: Rich in Love

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:29:45 -0000

PS

For anyone that thinks Cherry is pretty and would like to see her having sex, look up the volumes of Ed Powers's Dirty Debutantes that she was in. She was in a bunch of them and she's very talented.

Re: Rich in Love

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:25:57 -0000

That's okay Marie. It's not that often that two Luca/Luka's post on the same English speaking site!

It's true. I have never even come close to having sex 973 times with the same person. (Haven't gotten a handle on the long-long-term relationships yet...)

But just so you know. It turns out that my porn comsumption doesn't go down too much when sex is happening in my life. A little. But not much...

Sex and porn can happily live together! What a wonderful world! :-)

Re: Rich in Love

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:28:46 -0000

One other thing. I'm going to guess that the closer one gets to having sex with the same person 973 times the more useful porn becomes to that relationship.

Just a guess.

Re: Human Nature and Guassian Morality

Luka Yovetich — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 20:09:16 -0000

Rob,

I don't know if Will's points are unoriginal or not. It's interesting if Spencer did say the same thing way back when. But is there really any need for the negative tone of your comment? Why not just point out that you think that someone else said the same thing at one point and leave it at that?

Re: First Letter to a Young Objectivist

Luka Yovetich — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:07:38 -0000

great entry! i LOVE the idea of this series. i think i'm going to really enjoy it.

i agree with everything except the claim about what free will amounts to. i think that's questionable. but i've already commented on that here before, i think. so i'll shut up!

Re: First Letter to a Young Objectivist

Luka Yovetich — Sun, 15 Aug 2004 10:18:06 -0000

will,

okay. i'll let you hedge in peace...in a second! :-)

in my defense, there's an implication that comes along with your use of "largely". It seems to commit you to something like "largely but not completely".

ok. your peace starts now.

Re: First Letter to a Young Objectivist

Luka Yovetich — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:21:48 -0000

Don,

I'm going to bet that you and Will can agree on a definition of "determinism" but not on one for "free will". His definitions of both terms are going to be consistent with eachoter. Yours are not. I'm guessing.

The most important issue here, in my opinion, is whether or not we need an Objectivist or libertarian type of free will in order for us to make choices or be responsible for our choices. Will seems to think that we don't.

Another important issue here is whether or not the Objectivist argument against determinism is sound. Now, I don't think that it matters which sense of "free will" you plug into the Objectivist argument. It doesn't defeat determinism.

Re: First Letter to a Young Objectivist

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:51:23 -0000

shulamite,

I believe that Will IS saying that the human will is free but everything might be determined. His point (or one of his points) is that freedom doesn't require indeterminism. There's nothing about our notion of free will that requires indeterminsm.

I think that a big part of the argument here is going to be sort of superficial (but not unimportant). What do we mean by "free will"? What do we mean by "free choice"? Will seems to want to argue that what we mean by these things is consistent with determinism.

If you disagree with his general position, then you probably disagree with him about the semantics of the relevant terms.

Re: First Letter to a Young Objectivist

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:00:12 -0000

shulamite,

Here's a possible difference between undetermined will and free will. If some has undetermined will, then their choices were not determined at the time of the Big Bang.

If someone has a free will (on the compatibilist reading) they are able to make choices based on their desires and what they take to be their reasons for action (or something like that).

Notice that, in this sense, a free will does not have to be undetermined. It might be or it might not be. What makes the will free, in this sense of "free", is that it is free to choose based upon its desires or perceived reasons for action (or whatever).

Now, you might not think that this is an interesting sense of "free will". Or you might think that this is not a relevant sense of "free will". Or you might think that it isn't a sense of "free will" at all.

Which is it for you, if any?

Re: Second Letter to a Young Objectivist: Human Sociality

Luka Yovetich — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:19:18 -0000

Will,

I think what would make Roark a good leftist is if he wanted to have the government force his taste on others.

I think it's perfectly okay to be disgusted by the tastes of others. Just don't force them to change their tastes!

Re: Second Letter to a Young Objectivist: Human Sociality

Luka Yovetich — Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:01:44 -0000

Hell yeah. Bill! Billy Boy. Bill-meister! I like it!

Re: Libertarian Hawks

Luka Yovetich — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:58:01 -0000

So Will,

Would you say that the Iraq invasion would have been justified on contractarian grounds if we had a worldwide coalition? If the costs were shared and there was no (or at least not nearly as much) possibility of free-riding?

Re: Hawk Logic

Luka Yovetich — Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:45:28 -0000

Micha,

I know this discussion has been had and had and had. But I don't think a person who supported going into Iraq to get the WMD would necessarily need to support going into Iran or North Korea, if that's what you're implying. I might be the case that Iraq was enough of a (potential) threat to justify going in but not enough of a threat to make it too dangerous to go in. And it's easy to believe that Iran and North Korea were/are too dangerous to attack.

Re: Hawk Logic

Luka Yovetich — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:19:46 -0000

McClain,

I think Will's point is that there are som imaginable situations where it would be better to not overthrow an evil dictator. Overthrowing a particular dictator is not of infinite value. If we can reasonably expect that taking him out will make matters worse, then we should not take him out.

If you think that Iraq was a situation where taking Saddam brought about more good than bad, then just say so. But don't act like it's always okay to take out any evil dictator NO MATTER WHAT. That's just silly.

Re: Hawk Logic

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:00:28 -0000

McClain,

It's not enough to be courageous in the face of evil. It's about being courageous in the face of evil when doing so can be expected to bring about more good than bad. Or something like that.

And no, people don't have to KNOW the future before they fight evil. But they should be thoughtful about the consequences of their actions and if it seems that fighting evil in a particular situation in a particular way will bring about more harm than good, then they should choose another course.

Re: The Saint Louis Hegelians, Adam-ondi-Ahman, and the Metaphysically Essential Center of the United States of America

Luka Yovetich — Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:22:41 -0000

Nice post! Very interesting theory. I'm going to have to disagree with something though. KC is the most greatest city in MO. If for no other reason than that it is a LOT closer to Lawrence, KS. And Lawrence is THE bomb.

Re: The Saint Louis Hegelians, Adam-ondi-Ahman, and the Metaphysically Essential Center of the United States of America

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:12:14 -0000

Craig,

Basically, part of it is in Kansas...Does that make you feel any better?

Re: My Suckitude

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:39:10 -0000

That would definitely make me happy! (Also, I'm looking forward to the rest of your Letters to a Young Objectivist.)

Re: Fodor on Analysis

Luka Yovetich — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:13:39 -0000

Will,

I don't know anything about the issue of privileged access to concepts. What's the idea in a nutshell? Because it seems like it might go against my intuitions.

It seems to me that conceptual analysis can be useful. We know the speaker-meaning of the terms that we use. And, if we are competent speakers, then the speaker-meaning of a given term should match the meaning of the term in our language. Therefore, conceptual analysis can help us understand the meaning of the terms in our language.

If this is right, then it seems to me that conceptual analysis might be good for figuring out what the contents our concepts are.

Can you help me unserstand why this is wrong? (Or am I completely off base with this comment?)

Re: Spoil Me Rotten!

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:20:43 -0000

Que?

Re: Spoil Me Rotten!

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:21:03 -0000

(That was for McClain.)

Re: The Sanctity of Democracy = Black People in Florida Able to Conveniently Vote for John Kerry

Luka Yovetich — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:21:01 -0000

I'm sitting around in the middle of the day on my laptop and watching tv (ah, the life of a grad student!) and a Michael Badnarik political ad comes on the tube! That was the first time I've seen one on television.

Now I'm pumped! I think the LP really has a chance this time...

Re: Confirmation Bias and Democratic Outrage

Luka Yovetich — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:16:51 -0000

Will,

Can you give us a link to some information about the Dems attempts to steal the vote. (And I don't mean the stuff with Nader. I mean the other stuff you mention.)

I have no trouble believing that that's happening but I just haven't come across any stories about that yet.

Thanks.

Re: Confirmation Bias and Democratic Outrage

Luka Yovetich — Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:23:54 -0000

Thanks Will!

Re: Jets to Canada

Luka Yovetich — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:29:23 -0000

Good luck!

Re: The Moral of the Story?

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:03:06 -0000

Rob,

Just wanted to say that I like the Johnson County and Lawrence plugs. Go Kansas!

Re: Taking Pluralism Seriously

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:48:13 -0000

Oh my God! I love how much play Kansas (the state I went to college in and where my parents grew up) is getting at the moment! Will, you mention Wichita in this post. I just saw Joe Scarborough mention Topeka, KS when he was talking about the red state v. blue state issue. And last but not least, the Jayhawks men's basketball team is ranked #1 in the preseason coaches poll. Nice. Very nice.

Also, I've been thinking over the last couple of days about what kind of country I'd rather live in, a socialist country where gays can get married, drug laws are more lenient, the culture is basically secular or a country where those things are illegal and the culture is pretty religious but the free market is allowed to operate in most other ways.

I can't decide at the moment. But right this second I'm leaning towards prefering the socialist situation...

Re: Taking Pluralism Seriously

Luka Yovetich — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:10:04 -0000

Rob,

Nice! I went to KU (if it wasn't obvious already). Rock Chalk Jayhawk!!

I'm not from there but my mom grew up in Wichita and my dad grew up in KCK. I still have a lot of friends in the KC area. (I live in LA now.)

Anyway, I'm not saying that I'd want to go back and live there or anything but it's nice to hear the state get a little play now and again. Even if much of it is for being a red state...

Re: Hello From Cato!

Luka Yovetich — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:08:03 -0000

Congratulations, Will! That's wonderful!

Re: New Letter on the Way

Luka Yovetich — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:32:59 -0000

Awesome! I can't wait!

Re: Ack

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:02:12 -0000

The posts look pretty long to me! Hope you feel better soon.

Re: The Freedom to Sleep Under Bridges

Luka Yovetich — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:13:33 -0000

First of all, Kansas is awesome. It is home to the best college men's basketball team in the universe, the Jayhawks.

Second, Will, it sounds to me like you might want to say that you don't think that a gov't sponsored safety net is best but that, since not enough people realize this, it's best to just concede that battle for the greater good.

But it sounds like you wouldn't be in favor of a safety net if nobody else was.

Right?

Re: Hey! Whatcha Chewin’ on There Buddy?

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:11:46 -0000

Am I the only one who got turned on by that picture?

Re: Not So Super?

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:44:30 -0000

Yikes! Sorry to hear about al of that. Hope you feel better soon! And when you do, maybe you can make it up to us by posting the next letter to a young Objectivist . . . :-)

Re: Philosophers Join the Fray

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:59:20 -0000

Thanks for the link, Will! I actually like the site. Even though I'm not a lefty it's nice to have a place to go to read probably the best commentary from that perspective available anywhere. (Although I see that Schmidtz from Arizona is part of the group. So they're obviously not all lefty.)

Re: Mary Warnock and the Culture of Life

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:12:41 -0000

Amen!

Re: Mary Warnock and the Culture of Life

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:26:04 -0000

Matt,

Can you explain why you think it's important to keep people alive when they are terminal, in great pain that can't be dealt with without making them unable to think, and want to die?

What's wrong will killing them that situation?

(It actually seems to me that it might be wrong not to kill them in that kind of situation.)

Re: Mary Warnock and the Culture of Life

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:07:07 -0000

Matt,

I see. Thanks for explaining your position. I guess I don't have a big problem with erring on the side of letting people who are not terminal but are living in undending misery consent to be killed. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. (I'm not even sure I'd call it 'erring.' Whatwould bother me are cases where people that are depressed but could get help are being killed (in accordance with their consent). (Or other cases relevantly similar to this kind.) But there are always going to be borderline cases with things like these.

And since I consider it to be worse for a terminally ill patient to be forced to live than I do for a severely depressed person to kill himself, I think that assisted suicide should be legal.

Re: Are Libertarians Cheerier?

Luka Yovetich — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:00:14 -0000

I think you might be right about libertarians being able to appreciate capitalism more than others. Surely, the liberals and the conservatives enjoy the fruits of capitalism. But I think there might be some extra happiness that libertarians get out of buying cool things off of the market that the other groups don't get.

Re: Social Security Crisis on Infinite Earths

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:15:46 -0000

What does everyong think was more sad? The death of the Flash or the death of Supergirl??

Personally, I was more moved by the death of Supergirl. That speech that Superman gave at the end of that issue as he was taking her body to its final resting place (I assume) was quite moving...

Re: Merry Christmas! And Festivus, for the Rest of Us!

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:49:57 -0000

Yeah KC!

Re: Self-Promotion

Luka Yovetich — Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:13:26 -0000

Congrats on the article, Will! Interesting one. And I'm glad to see it published.

Re: The Rocketeer and Me

Luka Yovetich — Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:38:43 -0000

JC is SO hot!

Re: PosnerBlogging: Take One

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:19:34 -0000

Will,

I think that some people want to call agnosticism a weak atheism.

A person that feels she has equal reason to believe in the existence of God and the non-existence of God can be said to not believe in God, in some sense. But this type of belief definitely seems relevantly different from the strong atheist's. The strong atheist, like me, thinks that he has more reason to believe that God does not exist than to believe that He does.

Don't you think that distinction is relevant?

Re: PosnerBlogging: Take One

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:15:43 -0000

Will,

I'm not sure that there isn't an interesting point in here somewhere that has to do with people's attitudes towards propositions. Insofar as we're talking about whether there are different kinds of atheism (in some sense) I think we should be talking about the different probabilities that people assign to the proposition that God exists. (Assigning a probablity to a proposition is an example of having an attitude towards one, right?)

The case that I'm imagining does not necessarily include a person who has never considered whether not there is a God. I'm thinking of two people. One who assigns a .9 probability to the proposition that God exists (p) and another who assigns a .5 to p. The first person is clearly an atheist b/c he is very confident in p. It's not quite so clear what to call the second. He thinks, after considering all of the major philosophical arguments, that it's just as likely that p as it is that not p.

I want to call this guy an atheist. He does not have a positive belief in God. He is without a belief in God. Yet we cannot say of him that he believes that God does not exist.

It seems fairly clear to me that if he's an atheist, he's a different kind of atheist than the guy who believes that God does not exist.

Now, I'm not sure I understand how or if your point about quantifying god-making properties is relevantly related to this point. But I stand firm in my position that there is an interesting distinction to be made here.

Re: PosnerBlogging: Take One

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:20:37 -0000

Julian,

I agree that many people who call themselves 'agnostic' merely think that it's logically possible that God exists and that since they can't prove that He doesn't exist they can't say that they believe that he doesn't. And that IS ridiculous.

But I think there are some people who say they are agnostic and truly think that it's just as likely that God exists as it is that He doesn't. And these people belong in a different (sub)category than the people mentioned above.

Re: PosnerBlogging: Take One

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:34 -0000

Maestro,

The point is that there are tons of things that we say we don't believe in even though it's logically possible that they exist. We (and probably most agnostics about God) say that we son't believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, elves, goblins, or purple dragons. But it's logically possible that all of these exist.

So if you're willing to say that you don't believe in them even though they are logically possible, then you should be willing to say that you don't believe in God even though it's logically possible that He exists. (That is, you shouldn't say that you're agnostic if the only positive thing you can say about God existing is that it's logically possible.

The life on other planets example isn't exactly analogous to the God one , I don't think. B/c I don't think that we have much reason to believe one way or the other that there is other life in the universe. We're not agnostic about it just because it's logically possible. We also don't have lots of reasons to think that it isn't the case. (Whereas with Santa Claus, goblins, etc. we do.)

Re: PosnerBlogging: Take One

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:08:16 -0000

monkyboy,

I think that to accept a theory is to think that it accounts for the facts in some important way.

Re: PosnerBlogging: Take One

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:25:07 -0000

By the by,

I agree with you Will that 'atheist' does not have two distinct meanings. Posner is wrong about that. It's just that I think that there are two kinds of atheists.

Re: Happy New Year’s!

Luka Yovetich — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:11:55 -0000

Hope you had a blast! Happy New Year!

Re: Happy New Year’s!

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:32:10 -0000

Ouch! Sorry about that Will. But how many times do I have to tell you to always wear condoms during sexual encounters with strangers at big New Year's Eve parties??

Hopefully this will have really taught you the lesson.

Re: Social Security Bleg: PRAs and Socio-political Transformation

Luka Yovetich — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:02:22 -0000

Sorry, I don't have anything to contribute here. But I would like to know what a bleg is. That's the second time I've seen that term used in the last couple days.

Re: Third Letter to a Young Objectivist: Ethics

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:41:07 -0000

Yes! Nice to see this post! Although I was a bit surprised to see that you didn't touch specifically on Rand's egoism and things that you think are wrong with it. (Of course, maybe you don't think that there is anything wrong with it...)

Anyway, interesting post. Thanks!

Re: Third Letter to a Young Objectivist: Ethics

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:11:05 -0000

Will,

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the thing that Glenn thinks you don't understand has something to do with A being A...

Re: Third Letter to a Young Objectivist: Ethics

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:27:07 -0000

By the way, just so it's clear, in terms of that last comment from me, I'm NOT trying to imply that ALL Objectivists probably have silly responses to Will's post. Only that Glenn probably does.

Re: Third Letter to a Young Objectivist: Ethics

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:36:47 -0000

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Re: Third Letter to a Young Objectivist: Ethics

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:47:59 -0000

Also, I think of it as a virtue of your post that you are holding Rand to her word. That is, she makes fairly bold claims like "you must do such-and-such to live" when what she probably means is something like "you have a better chance of living if you do such-and-such."

Many Objectivists, when pressed, will admit that that's all she really meant. But they will not hold her responsible for her inexact use of words. In fact, they, as likely as not, will say that you are doing something wrong when you point this out.

Re: Blackburn v. Rationalists

Luka Yovetich — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:40:51 -0000

Quite lovely. I don't know if I agree with Blackburn. But he's a wonderful philosopher.

I forget, are you a non-cognitivist, Will?

Re: Blackburn v. Rationalists

Luka Yovetich — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:30:22 -0000

Maybe? Interesting. I'll have to drag some more about that out of you at some point.

And thanks. The Jayhawks broke my heart last night. Such a disappointing season...Preseason #1. Start of 20-1. End up losing 6 of their last 9 games including their first 1st round NCAA tourney loss since 1978. Ugh.

God I wanted to see that matchup with Carolina in the Elite Eight...

Re: Coming to Boston

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:36:06 -0000

I *do* think that that's funny when Harvard people do that. (I'm sure there are people from other top schools that do this too.) They are almost unwilling to just say where they went to school. I sort of understand it. But this type of joke would be well worth doing!!

Re: Relatively Relativistic

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:22:47 -0000

Will,

I'm interested. Do you think that internalism about reasons is true? That is, do you think that there is some necessary connection between people having best reasop to do something and it being morally right?

The reasons that I ask is that you focus on what we have reason to do without explicitly talking very much about what's morally right (or wrong). So I'm thinking that you might think that if we have reason to do something (or best reason to do something, more likely), then that action is morally right.

Is that your view? Is it even close to your view?

Re: More Lucky Thoughts

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 24 May 2005 00:10:32 -0000

Will,

I'm pretty much with you on the first part of your post. But I do think that it we might be able to say that you were lucky to get *exactly* the genes that you did. I mean, is there not a possible world in which you got the gene for diabetes (assuming that you didn't)? And, all things equal, aren't you lucky that the actual world is one in which you didn't get that gene?

Also, I think I agree with Chris in that you *were* lucky that your mom raised you the way she did. And I don't think that the fact that she purposefully did so alters that fact.

Re: More Lucky Thoughts

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 24 May 2005 10:06:56 -0000

Hang on, Julian. I feel like I must be missing something subtle about your comment. Because it seems to me that you're saying that the property of not having diabetes is an essential property of Will's. And so, there is no possible world in which Will has diabetes.

That's not what you're saying, right?

Re: Comments Open

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:29:25 -0000

Jim and Gil,

I'm pretty sure that your disagreement is basically terminological.

Re: Behind the Veils

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:22:25 -0000

Will,

Can you (roughly) state what the test for a theory being utopian in the pejorative sense is? How can we most easily tell if our theory has that property?

Just curious.

Re: Behind the Veils

Luka Yovetich — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:36:00 -0000

Right. That sounds reasonable. Thanks!

Re: Utility Does Not Mean Utility

Luka Yovetich — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:56:55 -0000

The title should be this:

'Utility' Does Not Mean Utility

Right?

Re: Utility Does Not Mean Utility

Luka Yovetich — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:33:54 -0000

BTW, in case you're wondering, I do realize that I'm a jackass for making that last comment. I'm well aware...

Re: Beards

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:11:23 -0000

Will,

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I had a nice full mustache during the spring semester of last year all the way through the summer. I LOVED it. And actually, there's been a bit of a mustache trend amoung the hipsters out here in Los Angeles. That might be over by now. I'm always at least a step behind them...

My biggest disappointment, with repsect to the mustache, is that I booked a national Arby's commercial with the thing...and they never aired it. I was super-excited to get that thing out there to the American people...!

Oh well, next time. Until then, long live the stache!