Who defines it? What constructs it? Where does its standard lie?

To the beholder perhaps.
To the one who sees it. If such, then the labeling of the character would be so very, subjective. So very inconsistent. So damned... irrelevant.

If so, the logic behind an accused soul concerns lostness, ponderment, timeless arguement... the soul differentiates to be a victim. A helpless. A tyrant. A moron.

What does arrogance consist of? What does it tell youabout? Who spawns its endless boundaries of actions?Who makes its tidal waves of destruction? Who summons its fires of contreversy?

Someone can say something, not wanting attention, unintending to gain glory, yet the calling is sparked off. Deserved? Questionable. Tolerated? Few will.

The concept behind this nothingness towers behind a forcefield that demands its engines to be renewed and empowered... but not changed.

The beholder agrees only with himself.. with his reasons.

But reasons don't tell you about truth.

---

_Past

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

---