Dim Bulbs

by Kieran Healy on June 25, 2006

Seems “the Brights”:http://www.the-brights.net/ is are back in the blogs. “Lindsay Beyerstein”:http://feeds.feedburner.com/Majikthise?m=51 provides an unconvincing defense. One of my first posts on CT was about The Brights and I’ve reproduced it below the fold. I don’t find it plausible that the “Bright” label should be offensive to religious believers, nor am I “uptight” (in Lindsay’s words) about it. Rather, while the term denotes a set of beliefs I’d broadly subscribe to, it connotes a bunch of dweebs in anoraks.

Via Kevin Drum and an Op-Ed piece by Daniel Dennett comes word of The Brights. A “Bright” is someone with a “naturalistic worldview … free of supernatural and mystical elements.” (E.g., consciousness.) You can meet them, learn about what it’s like to be them and even sign up. They have helpful tips on how to engage your Inner Bright (sorry, that sounds a little mystical). For instance:

bq. The most valuable contribution current Brights can make to the BrightS’ Movement is simply to “be the Brights they are” in their everyday interactions with others, keeping the most positive (Bright) shine they can on the endeavor.

This sounds like it’s being spoken by the bastard child of Buckminster Fuller and Norman Vincent Peale. It gets worse.

With the new noun, it’s rather easy to respond to queries as to your religion (“I am a Bright”) and also, as you may wish, to freely present yourself as a Bright in varied settings.

Scenario.  Suppose you are in a discussion with someone and the question of religion comes up. If someone inquires about your own religion, you can pop up with “Well, actually, I am a Bright.” The other person’s curiosity will probably take hold: “A Bright? What is that?”

If you ask me, the interaction is more likely to go like this:

Bright: Did you just ask me what my religion was?
Victim: No. I said “Do you have the correct time?”
Bright: Well, actually, I am a Bright.
Victim: You’re a pillock is what you are.

The Brights make excessive use of the word “meme” which also annoys me. But they are vaguely aware of some of the problems with their idea:

bq. A Hint.  For reasons we hope are obvious, we would in fact recommend to Brights a bit of caution when discussing worldviews to practice avoiding adjective uses that could be readily misconstrued as arrogance until such time as the term’s new meaning takes hold in mainstream society…20 years?

Never, mate. Nev. Ver.

Who is this reminding me of, anyway? There’s more:

bq. An Example.  Perhaps you’d like to think of the “constituency of Brights” as a community of fellow travelers in life. If so, then you will refer to us all together as a community.  How best to describe that community?  We suggest that, while “The Community of Brights” or “the Brights’ Community” are appropriate, “the Bright Community” is problematic.  In the last reference, “bright” is an adjective, and so it can have dual meaning.  The plural form helps to delineate the term as a noun.

I know. It’s the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons. “You may join my organization, but first you must answer me these questions three.” It’s almost as bad as the dreaded Mensa, the organization for highly intelligent people who are nevertheless not quite intelligent enough not to belong to it. I imagine the next Mensa convention will be filled with people itching to say “I’m a Bright!” over a game of three-dimensional scrabble and a cup of Ovaltine.



Aidan Kehoe 06.25.06 at 3:29 pm

It’s almost as bad as the dreaded Mensa, the organization for highly intelligent people who are nevertheless not quite intelligent enough not to belong to it.

Eh, I wouldn’t be that hard on Mensa. Reading and writing things online, it’s easy to get the feeling that the world is full of smart, smart people just an email away; but in a world before the internet, for people workout outside universities, it was a dull place, and Mensa did something to alleviate that.


Walt 06.25.06 at 3:37 pm

We have pictures of you in the anorak, Kieran. Start calling yourself a Bright, or we go public.


Rasselas 06.25.06 at 3:49 pm

Maybe people would take them more seriously if they wore nice blue blazers instead.


jakeb 06.25.06 at 3:53 pm

Hehheh. Nice, Kieran.

My father joined Mensa in the hope of meeting interesting and intelligent women (a reason for joining as close to immemorial custom as you can get re Mensa, I believe). He said that all the women he met there were primarily interested in talking about how intelligent they were. I’m grateful that he had enough taste not to find that appealing.


Steve LaBonne 06.25.06 at 5:17 pm

That “Bright” stuff makes me want to upchuck. Hey, people, I’m an atheist. An unbeliever. Or I’ll happily answer to “godless heathen” if anyone prefers that. ;)


Steve LaBonne 06.25.06 at 5:18 pm

P.S. Incidentally I was very surprised and disappointed to read on PZ’s blog that Dawkins has climbed aboard this stupid bandwagon after previously distancing himself from it.


Delicious pundit 06.25.06 at 5:43 pm

Another problem is that “the Brights” sound like that nice Connecticut couple who both golf, although Mr. Bright talks a little too much about the new alloy in the Callaways and Mrs. Bright is a little too bitter about Mr. Bright’s obsession.


Crystal 06.25.06 at 7:32 pm

I once knew someone whose surname was Bright. Too bad he wasn’t.

If you’re an atheist, an agnostic or a Deist, why not just call yourself that? “Bright” sounds like a resentful nerd who is trying too hard.


Elliot Reed 06.25.06 at 8:26 pm

I don’t find it plausible that the “Bright” label should be offensive to religious believers

Perhaps because they’re too sensible to take anyone who uses the term seriously? But get real: the word is obviously an attempt to brand non-religious people as smarter (“brighter”) than religious people, but without being willing to admit to the implication or defend it. I don’t see why that should be inoffensive to religious people.

FWIW, I’m an atheist.


Seth Edenbaum 06.25.06 at 8:40 pm

The problem with brights is not the silly name, it’s the ridiculousness of their attempt to ban the irrational by fiat.


Christopher Ball 06.25.06 at 8:52 pm

While the set might be rare, one can be an atheist but not a Bright if one denies the existence of God or gods but still believes in the supernatural. The Bright has a naturalistic worldview; the aetheist may not. One could believe that trees and rocks have a spirit but not believe in God.


Steve LaBonne 06.25.06 at 8:55 pm

I’m never shy about being offensive to religious people- religion is a form of mental illness and a scourge of the species. But if I’m going to be offensive I’m going to do it openly, not by hiding behind this nauseatingly twee term.


Crystal 06.25.06 at 10:08 pm

While the set might be rare, one can be an atheist but not a Bright if one denies the existence of God or gods but still believes in the supernatural.

I wouldn’t exactly call that rare: quite a few Taoists, Buddhists, and animists might fall under that category, since there are religions and beliefs that do not believe in a “God” or gods but are still religions.

Steve Labonne nailed it with calling “bright” a twee term. It is and that’s what makes my teeth itch.


anand sarwate 06.25.06 at 10:25 pm

What would happen in a post-Bright era? Would the next wave of dweebs in anoraks call themselves Brighter? Or does that sound too much like blighter?

Come to think of it, that could be a slogan : “The brights are a blight.”


rm 06.25.06 at 10:33 pm

Well, I _am_ religious, but I think we can all agree that this is dumb. For all the reasons enumerated. But especially because, as Elliot said, the name is a passive-aggressive insult. Even aggressively offensive people like Steve, above, don’t like the passive part, and neither do I. What if Christians renamed ourselves the Holier-Than-Yous? You may already be offended by that attitude, but at least it’s not the _name_ of the group. “Well, actually, I’m holier than you!” There’s enough offensive prejudice on all sides not to wave it around like a flag for extra jerkiness.


Adam Kotsko 06.25.06 at 10:42 pm

I’m not going to take the Brights seriously until they have their first couple dozen martyrs.


dave 06.25.06 at 10:44 pm

“until such time as the term’s new meaning takes hold in mainstream society…20 years?”

To be fair, this prediction sounds a lot better in the original Esperanto.


Benjamin Nelson 06.25.06 at 11:01 pm

All of the above holds true, PLUS the arrogance thing.


Daniel 06.26.06 at 1:44 am

I quite like the term “Bright”, because it gets people thinking. Specifically, it gets them thinking that Dawkins and Dennett are a pair of bollockheads on this issue, which is the first step along the road to beginning to realise that their attempt to rewrite all of sociology and philosophy as a series of footnotes to Darwin isn’t all that and a bag of chips either. “The Selfish Gene” is basically “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” for the 1990s.


bad Jim 06.26.06 at 1:57 am

One problem is that “atheist” and “agnostic” are untenable terms, so poorly defined that they invite argument, and so freighted with negative baggage that their very use clouds thought. Polls show that the American public is less willing to vote for an atheist than even a gay, though oddly it seems not to mind non-religious candidates.

Most of the alternatives on offer are nearly as problematic. P.Z. Meyers is certainly a naturalist, inasmuch as he’s a professor of biology. He’s less a humanist than a cephalopodist (We welcome our calamari overlords … to dinner!)

Though I remain fond of “freethinker”, it does appear that “not religious” is better at short-circuiting arguments and circumventing deep-seated prejudices.


minerva 06.26.06 at 2:12 am

What have you got against ovaltine?


yabonn 06.26.06 at 2:54 am

Well, actually, I am a Well Hung, but i would hate the term to be miscontrued as arrogance. I’ll just wait the term’s new meaning takes hold in mainstream society.


abb1 06.26.06 at 3:41 am

Bring on the good vibes, man, good positive vibes. Share good vibes! Good karma to you all.

Do you dig it, man?


gerry 06.26.06 at 4:08 am

surely we need a better term than “non-Bright”…


g 06.26.06 at 5:00 am

I think the people pushing the term “Bright” want to use “Super” for believers in the “supernatural”. I suppose maybe that’s better than “non-Bright”, just about.


Evan 06.26.06 at 5:16 am

This reminds me of the scene in the Life of Brian where Brian tells the crowd “You are all different!”, and, in unison, they repeat “Yes, we are all different!”

Let’s see: people claiming to be free and independent thinkers … band together to form a new tribe they can all conform to. Hmmm.


Doormat 06.26.06 at 5:38 am

daniel, Have you actually read “A selfish gene”, because I have, and it’s clearly not the book you’ve read. Dawkins is very explicit that he isn’t trying to apply evolution (please, not Darwinism: we’ve actually developed the theory a bit in the year since Darwin died) to humanity, and especially to human thought. He goes so far as to explicitly say that we are unique in being able to think, and hence rebel against our genes. This myth that “The selfish gene” is somehow a manifesto for gene determancy or something is planely nonsense, and yet it still gets trotted out…


Charles Davis 06.26.06 at 5:44 am

The term “bright” makes you think which I really like. This term is not meant for hurting anybody’s religion or sentiment. It’s just a plain simple word!


Rob G 06.26.06 at 8:14 am

Bugger the Brights. I’m joining the VHEM, and proposing we call ourselves “The Dead-Enders”. Who could possibly be offended by that?



john bragg 06.26.06 at 11:11 am

There are two issues here: the legitimacy of the Brights’ project, and the asninity of the chosen label. The project isn’t an entirely bad idea, to give a useful name to a naturalistic or materialistic worldview. Using the terms atheist or agnostic, and you’re defining the worldview only in the negative. It’s like describing your politics by saying “I’m an anti-Communist.” Say “I’m a naturalist” and people think you’re a gardener or maybe an environmentalist. Say “I’m a materialist” and people think you’re obsessed with money, XTC or both and spend your free time wearing power ties from the 1980s.

The problem is that if you say “I’m a Bright,” people think you’re a self-important prick.

How about “I’m a secularist”? Secular means distance from, or lack of, religion. Adding “ist” raises it from a personality quirk to a worldview rejecting the supernatural. Covers everyone the term should rightly cover, from Karl Marx to Richard Dawkins to Ayn Rand to the Brights. Overlaps well enough with political secularism.


abb1 06.26.06 at 11:30 am

You don’t need any special name or any special organization for a naturalistic and materialistic worldview; it’s just natural, like breathing.

A normal person doesn’t consciously try to remain naturalistic, materialistic, and atheistic – s/he just is. Special names, protocols and rituals give it a sectarian image, which is simply silly and counterproductive. Want to be naturalistic – just be naturalistic.


Benjamin Nelson 06.26.06 at 11:31 am

How about people stop running back and forth from labels like a Benny Hill skit and just explain what they are to people who care?


john bragg 06.26.06 at 11:32 am

OK, abb1, somehow you’ve gotten through life without having a discussion of metaphysics or religion that approximate labels would help.

Some of us live in milieus where we talk to interesting people who don’t already agree with everything we believe.


Tim McG 06.26.06 at 11:38 am

This has me thinking, “What about successful sect-names?” Where did they come from and what form do they take?

The closest analogy I can think of is the Friends. Kinda goofy name, right–or at least one to which many of the concerns about “Brights” apply? so we (the Enemies? the Casual Acquaintances?) call ’em the Quakers, and it’s caught on.

Methodism and most, I suppose, of the other ism appellations were, on the other hand, self-applied, and stuck. But that, I think, is because they’re specifying an adjustment in practice to Christianity, whereas the Friends and the Brights are trying to show that they’re rethinking the whole enchilada in the one case, and the whole restaurant in the other.


Steve LaBonne 06.26.06 at 11:55 am

I don’t mind at all the fact that “atheist” defines my wordview in the negative, because in fact I think the idea that there is some realm of the “supernatural” is highly unnecessary and highly unsupported yet, sadly, very highly prevalent. Hence, defining a naturalistic worldview negatively, as being against all that, seems unavoidable to me. The whole idea of the “supernatural”, including those bizarre alleged beings called “gods”, does need to be actively rejected, not just coyly evaded.

And sane people don’t, and shouldn’t need to, constitute a sect. They’re just sane people, who don’t necessarily have very much else in common.


an 06.26.06 at 1:19 pm

The arrogance, and pomposity, and bloody **cheek** of these people who run down anoraks just drives me wild.

Props to “dave” above for the esperanto line.


H. E. Baber 06.26.06 at 2:06 pm

“Atheist” is a perfectly intelligible term and when “Brights” eschew it they’re just acquiescing to the popular notion that there’s something naughty about being an athiest, i.e. one who does not believe that God or gods exist.

I’m a Christian but I don’t see anything naughty about being an atheist. Some people believe in Platonic universals (and have good reasons for it); others don’t believe in Platonic universals (and have good reasons for it). Some people believe in God or in gods; other’s don’t. That’s metaphysics for you–whatever ontology a person owns, its nothing to get upset about.

“Freethinker” as a surrogate for atheist-or-agnostic is offensive to me as a religious person–it suggests that my thinking is somehow unfree, that I don’t engage in critical reflection on religious questions–and that even if I discovered compelling reason to abandon religious belief I would dig in and keep believing anyway. “Secular” is misleading because surely religious people can, as I do, hold that the state should be a wholly secular institution and that secular science tells the whole story about the way in which the material world operates. To that extent, like a great many other Christians, I’m secular.

Americans have an unfavorable view of atheists but that’s unfortunate and something atheists should work to fix–by noting that they are atheists but don’t believe that ethics is all b.s., aren’t out to trash religion, etc.


Aidan Maconachy 06.26.06 at 2:08 pm

Brights sound a bit like iron deficient Scientologists with facial ticks.

Didn’t Ron Hubbard (who stole from OTO and Al Crowley by the way), coin the term “clear”? Being “clear” and being “bright” have a similar connotation.

What I get from Kieran’s insightful analysis are people burdened with cultural chic (of the progressive type) and philanthropic compulsions, who are likely to be very, very tidy … very, very organized … and doubtless …. very, very shiny.

They sound like exremely hygenic mega-nerds … highly informed and very earnest about everything.

Some Brighteestas, I would hazard are likely either to be vegetarian or micro-biotic and can be sent into a state of deep shock by people who jump out of dark corners and yell “McDONALDS!”

There is also a sort of pseudo-spirituality connoted by the term “bright”. It has a pantheistic ring to it as in “indwelling brightness” … which could equally easily translate as “aura”, “essense” or even “soul”.

There seems to be an attempt, conscious or otherwise, to appropriate spiritual terminology and place it in a naturalistic context.

“Why yes oh seeker of truth, you can be “bright” without believing in the Great Absurdity.”

I just know that if I was invited to a party and was told it would be a “Bright” affair, I would buy a good Chilean cab and head down to Victor’s.


Steve LaBonne 06.26.06 at 2:14 pm

aren’t out to trash religion

Depends what you mean by “trash”. Attempt to interfere with other peoples’ religious beliefs and observances? Never, as long as those are not designed to interfere with me. Make fun of religion mercilessly? You betcha.


Crystal 06.26.06 at 2:46 pm

Americans have an unfavorable view of atheists but that’s unfortunate and something atheists should work to fix—by noting that they are atheists but don’t believe that ethics is all b.s., aren’t out to trash religion, etc.

It seems to me that “atheist” has the same negative baggage as “feminist.” They’re both defined in public opinion by the most doctrinaire, shrill and unlikeable of their members (Andrea Dworkin, Madalyn O’Hair, Michael Newdow). Hence the attempt at spin with “Bright” which reminds me a lot of “I’m not a feminist, but…”

That’s why atheists (and feminists, and others who tend to be vilified in popular opinon) ought to stop spinning and “but”-ing and just say who they are. The more atheists who call themselves atheists, the more public opinion will change, as people see that “atheist” does not mean “amoral puppy-kicker.” Most people just want to live and let live.

My opinion is colored by the fact that I live in Northern California, where “out” atheists are thick on the ground and there is much diversity of religion. I can imagine it is much harder for atheists in smaller Southern towns, for instance.


KCinDC 06.26.06 at 4:21 pm

Tim McG, “Methodism” wasn’t originally self-applied:

The term “Methodist” was a pejorative college nickname that was given to a small society of students at Oxford, who met together between 1729 and 1735 for the purpose of mutual improvement.

Similarly with “Mormon” and “Shaker”.


Bill McNeill 06.26.06 at 5:25 pm

To the extent I don’t think this is a useless exercise in identity politics, I like “secular humanist”.

First because it’s used as a pejorative term by the U.S. right, and reclaming a pejorative term is like maybe trick #15 in the Book of the World’s Oldest Tricks. Besides which, it’s a reasonable description of my take on things. “Atheist” is a fine descriptive term, but (per John Gragg 30) I agree that it’s limiting to define yourself negatively. My own atheism arises out of a preference for non-anthropomorphic explanations for phenomena that don’t obviously involve people-like actors. H.E. Baber in (37) is correct to identify this as one philosophical position among many, and, for my money, a position in a pretty musty an uninteresting debate.

The “secular” part, then, is to capture this whole non-anthropomorphic business, and “humanist” is shorthand for a particular moral/political outlook that sees individual human beings as the ultimate source of and reason for moral authority. Granted the “secular” part here still falls into a bit of the same negative trap as “atheist”. A more accurate term would be “natural individualist”, but this puts me in the mind of a guy with a shotgun and a coonskin cap singing Aretha Franklin.


Bill McNeill 06.26.06 at 5:38 pm

I agree with H.E. Baber in 37 that “Freethinker” is a passive-agressive snipe. (And inaccurate: were militant athesists in Stalin’s secret police “freethinkers”?) I disagree about the connotations of “secular”, however. In a pedantic context like this one, I take it as a literal descriptive term shorn of political connotations. (Kinda like “atheist”.)

For example, I think it’s meaningful to use the term “secular Jews” to describe people who feel an ethnic/cultural connection to Judaism without believing in the Old Testament. This term implies the existence of a group of people who I guess you’d have to call “non-secular Jews”, but I don’t automatically assume that this latter group would be a bunch of theocrats.


H. E. Baber 06.26.06 at 6:15 pm

Right on “secular Jew,” which I take it means someone with the ethnic/cultural identification who doesn’t believe in God. But I’m not sure that, in general “secular [religion name]” works this way across the board. I’m not sure, e.g. whether “secular Muslim” refers only to cultural Muslims who are not religious believers or whether it means more generically cultural Muslims who, regardless of beliefs about the existence of God, don’t buy into the political agenda, don’t want shari’a law instituted, etc. But I’m actually curious about this–I don’t know what the phrase standardly means.

“Secular” literally means worldly, with the connotation of this-worldly–and, notoriously, lots of prominent religious figures–like renaissance popes–have been very worldly. Again, “secular” is used in a special sense to designate persons and institutions within religious contexts so, e.g. a “secular priest” in the RC Church I think is a diocesan priest, one who isn’t a member of a religious order.

So seems to me “secular” just invites confusion. Make it “atheist”–nothing wrong with that, and nothing particularly wrong with being “negative.” Most English-speakers don’t even recognize the word as negative–most don’t even know the word “theist” and many don’t recognize the “a-” prefix as negative.


luc 06.26.06 at 7:48 pm

Atheist, bright or freethinker, it still looks as a silly label for those that are determined to classifing things according to religion. No need for that at all. Just as there ain’t any asupermanists, asantaclausists and apipoists. It doesn’t mean a thing.

Atheism (and brightism) fails as a worldview because what it describes is so partial that it hardly unites those that are described as such. And if you do make it specific, hardly anyone would classify.

Locally, 42% aren’t affiliated to any religion at all. You wouldn’t be able to find a common worldview amongst them, so why dump a silly label on that group?

It doesn’t look as a coincidence to me then that of all the listed brights on their website there isn’t one from continental “old” europe.


Natalie Solent 06.27.06 at 3:46 am

h.e. barber and others,

I had understood that “freethinker” meant a person who rejects authority in matters of religion (or anything else, but mostly applied to religion).

Most freethinkers have also been atheists but one could have a theist freethinker.


Natalie Solent 06.27.06 at 4:01 am

I should have said, other than that point I agreed with h.e. barber’s comment, and I’m coming from roughly the same place he/she is. But it does seem to me both that the distinction between freethinker and atheist is worth maintaining and that “freethinker” has some claim to accurately describe a certain belief system – although I’m sure that those who coined it also thought it sounded good.


abb1 06.27.06 at 4:45 am

I agree with Luc: what’s the point of calling yourself an ‘atheist’? Well, unless you’re trying to make some kind of statement, of course. Atheism is not a state of mind, theism is.


Steve LaBonne 06.27.06 at 7:21 am

Well, really I agree completely with luc and abb1, but we in the US live in a culture that is obsessed with both religion and labels, and if I have to have one I surely prefer “atheist”, “secularist”, “humanist”, “godless heathen”, or what have you to (ick) “Bright”.


Sebastian Dangerfield 06.27.06 at 10:48 am

In addition to picking a term that resonantes unpleasantly with contemporary cultic monikers (e.g., “clear”), the [perhaps-not-so-]Brights have, without showing evidence of possessing a single ironic bone in their altogether evolved bodies, walked right into compairson to one of the more risible (except, perhaps to complete nutters) Enlightement-Era cults — the Bavarian Illuminati. Just the thing to get our neo-Birchers all excited. We need to sentence them to some re-education. I would suggest that they be forced to read and re-read, out loud, Hofstadter’s The Parnoid Style in American American Politics, while laboring in rice paddies, until such time as they have memorized the text and absorbed its lessons . . . 20 years?


C.J.Colucci 06.27.06 at 11:21 am

What did adherents to the ancient Greek religion call themselves?


Bill McNeill 06.27.06 at 3:07 pm

Re (44): I stacked the deck by saying “secular Jew” instead of “secular Muslim” or “secular Christian”. Among the three big monotheisms, Judaism is specifically tied to a particular ethnic group/cultural tradition and the main way to become a Jew is to be born one. Christianity and Islam, on the other hand, generally aspire to be transcultural ideologies that seek converts. An Indonesian Muslim is no less Muslim because they’re not ethnically Arab, and a French Catholic is no less Christian because they’re not…er, an ethnic Jew, I guess. So “secular Muslim” and “secular Christian” have a tinge of oxymoron that “secular Jew” do not.

Apart from that I think we just have different intuitions about the emotional valence of “secular” when it’s used independent of a particular context, which is pretty standard language variation and nothing surprising.


Michael 06.27.06 at 5:14 pm

Hey, they even have their own brand of Amstel beer! http://www.amstelbright.com. The whole thing (the Brights, not the beer) seems rather faddish to me. I understand that atheist has particularly negative connotations in the US, but I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it.

The Brights seem a little too preoccupied with sounding like a positive, forward-looking bunch. It’s really nothing more of a positive label on a blend of rationalism/atheism/agnosticism. It’s marketing, just like Amstel Bright Beer.


Michael Kremer 06.28.06 at 12:27 am

“What did adherents to the ancient Greek religion call themselves?”



brooksfoe 06.28.06 at 1:36 pm

When people ask me what my religion is, I lay out the basic tenets of Brooksfoeism (including the somewhat Manichaean concept of David Brooks as Satan). Then I ask them what their religion is. But usually they say they’re Christian, or Muslim, or what have you, which isn’t really their religion at all – they’ve just plagiarized it from someone else. I find this very dishonest and upsetting.


mike c. 06.30.06 at 3:30 pm

i’m with 54. the only true thing we can call ourselves is “human beings”. although i’ve done a few things that would disqualify me from using this label.


Gar Lipow 06.30.06 at 3:53 pm

I dunno. “Bright” has the advantage of concision. One word shorter than “Kick Me”.

Comments on this entry are closed.