>>127057895alright, this thread can't get anymore retarded, so i might as well throw in my two cents.
suppose, for the sake of argument, that a man spied a piece of gum n the ground, chewed-up and spitted-out by someone else. upon seeing that piece of gum, he was inspired to make some great piece of art commemorating it, a work of such brilliance that you could only call it a masterpiece. but, because the gum was not his own that was chewed-up and spitted-out, that makes him a hack? what an idiotic line of reasoning, made even more ridiculous by the fact that you're applying it to the works of a man's own subconscious. Is any man who is inspired, then, by the contents of his very own mind a hack on account of his inability to assert complete control of it? Are all of his works made-out to be trash because of this, though they might be objects of admiration otherwise? And may God spare those who draw inspiration from other sources, such as nature or history, and all those other objects outside of himself, for they did not author them, and would be guilty of plagiarism. regardless of the skill or effort they put in to any work, it would be the work of a hack if OP is to be taken seriously. as always, OP has exposed himself for the aggressive and insatiable homosexual that he is.
