Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood:
Whatever it is, I'm against it
And even when you've changed it or condensed it
I'm against it ...
A forest of things.
This Court acknowledges too, as I suppose, the validity of the law of GOD. I saw a book kissed, which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament, which teaches me that, "All things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them." It teaches me further, to "Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I have always freely admitted I have done, in behalf of his despised poor, I have done no wrong, but right.
"Hang care!" exclaimed he. "This is a delicious evening; the wine has a finer relish here than in the house, and the song is more exciting and melodious under the tranquil sky than in the close room, where the sound is stifled. Come, let us have a bacchanalian chant—let us, with old Sir Toby, make the welkin dance and rouse the night-owl with a catch! I am right merry. Pass the bottle, and tune your voices—a catch, a catch! The lights will be here anon."
Charles Ollier, from "The Haunted Manor-House of Paddington"
I got to know him and then got to know the band. And getting deeper into it, going to see them, I get it. I understand why people get all reverent about Rush.
For me art is a metaphor or a myth. I fear a lot of people think of art as just a physical outcome: a painting, a song, a poem. And after many discussions people will think of it as an emotion or how it makes them feel: beautiful, creative, fury, regret, envy. But this is my problem, if art can make you feel a unique specific emotion, why don't they call themselves a beautyist, furyist, and so on, because that describes the specific emotion.Abby