Friday, January 29, 2016

...and if your tooth falls out, put it under your pillow!

This explains the approach of Stephanie Slade at the Silent T.

Those Iowans "study up on" the candidates and really should be wearing white lab coats, they're so thorough and modern and scientific in their analysis.  Rest assured, they are Middle America + general high degree status per capita (even including a well-known Writers Workshop!) etc, so they reflect the whole nation within their caucus number's snapshot.  It may seem as though depending on the Iowa Caucus is like doing a scientific study with 100 subjects and extrapolating it to billions and true scientists would laugh at such misrepresentation-via-undersized-study-group, but when it comes to The Way Things Are In Government, a small caucus of Iowans will reflect America's best-informed thoughts on who should be crowned as Game-Changing POTUS© in January 2017.

Furthermore, and to explain further, without unnecessary diversion or misdirection, we have agreed collectively as a Silent T Hive-Mind that voting is how Government will be changed most effectively for the best of all, or at least all who had the wisdom to study engineering, software design, or image management/marketing/personal brand coaching and therefore have come to plug themselves into the battery known as the Silent T Hive-Mind.

Our editorial staff assures us that the perspective of an earnestly na├»ve college freshman is the best P.O.V. to offer when it comes to political analysis.  Government is good and fair except when it isn't and that almost never happens and whatever used to happen was fixed by the 1965 Civil Rights Act; cannabis should not be criminalized but tax-and-regulate makes good sense because of the jobs it creates for people who are in marketing and because grey and black market people are filthy criminals who are probably domestic terrorists.  Corporations have too much power but greed is the best value we can aspire toward collectively, and if you're not greedy there's something wrong with you, making you a cuck or, worst-of-worsts, not a Cosmotarian.  Political correctness we all agree is something that's gone too far, but gays-lesbians-bis-trannies-furries-crossdressers-pedophiles-bestials are easily hurt by words and we should watch what we say.  And condemn those who say the wrong things.  Government spending is out of control and military projection is spending us into an unsurmountable deficit, but Israel needs our help and those Muslims are insane and must be stopped.

--Paul Behrer, observer of your smug hypocrisy

Wednesday, January 27, 2016


Hey, Charlie Sponsel, Kevin Bazar, jackalope@ridemonkey, kidwoo@ridemonkey, kidwoo@TGR --

You're welcome!

Yes, indeed -- you're welcome, for this blog providing a template that you use for offers of your own "humor" which is little more than imitation of this blog's written observations.

This blog thanks you for the way you hide this copycatting theft behind defamatory statements alleging insanity, etc., on the part of the person you copy so boldly and shamelessly.

And to you, Wendell Stam, rideit@TGR, rideit@ridemonkey --

Thanks for being a complete bigot and ripoff artist who pretends he's the Real Insider on Everything.

And to whichever of you hides behind WAKIdesigns@pinkbike, ditto to all the foregoing.

Keep imitating others, while taking credit for being "funny" in an audience of 30-something & 40-something "industry" dudes whose mental age is 14 and naivete is in the red zone, and therefore don't know you're copying someone else.  Besides, you're copying someone who can be written off as a "reactionary" who is a misogynist, etc.  Just ask your pal Cory Blackwood @ Konabikes.  He, like Hugo Schwyzer, is an authority on the subject.

You win again.

Kudos, 'n' shit.

--Harold Caidagh, whom you'll blame for every problem you've suffered in your childish pseudo-adult life.

stop, you're embarrassing yourself

Chris Floyd, the non-entity who has convinced 2 or 3 actual people (meaning: not comments from sock puppets that the non-entity pens himself) that he exists, is a genius, and is a man named "Chris Floyd," well he has demonstrated now how ignorant he is with his entry about the Bundys and the OR situation.

In holographic expatriate's mind the only inquiry is whether these Bundy-affiliates in the standoff can be tarred with "redneck" or "reactionary."

The hologram hasn't ever lived in rural OR and doesn't know jack shittereeee about ranching.

Of course, like The Ding-Dong, our holographic genius hates anyone who has anything to do with carnivorous behavior -- from supplier of meats to eater of meats, the only carnivorous act acceptable to people like Ding-Dong or holographic expert is the sucking of the cock, and preferably it's Ding-Dong's cock being sucked, or holographic expert is noshing on another man's pork sword.

Other than that, meat-eating is reactionary misogynistic nonsense.  If you want to eat meat, you have to be a gay or bi man and the meat you eat has to be a penis.  You can't eat dead cow, dead pig, dead lamb, dead fish, dead chicken.  You have to limit your meat-eating to a gay sex act.

So naturally the Bundys are reactionary redneck fucktards.  Because they won't just sit back and let the FedGov manipulate the grazing in whimsical fashion, and because they have the homophobic misogynistic cis-het-patriarchist tendency to suggest people eat meat, rather than suck dick.


"Mr Behrer, why does your blog hate homosexuals so much?"

Yes, you want to ask that, don't you?

And you couldn't figure out the angles from reading the saga of the GRH v UNSF/Caidagh lawsuit, could you?

You, like every other idiot who can't think for him/herself, agree with the Hollywood angle.  Gays are indeed heroes, and heteros are either (A) people who need to die ASAP, or (B) closeted gays who will eventually become heroes when they admit their gay preferences.

Everyone must be gay, or else be put in line for the gas chamber/firing squad/electrocution chair/guillotine/hangman's noose.



If you don't know what it's like to try to graze your herd on lands, and to have the FedGov constantly fucking with your grazing areas, you really don't have any room to talk about how filthy, antisocial, misanthropic, etc. are the Bundys and/or anyone like them.

If you've never met the Bundys and are just taking a snapshot of their person while extrapolating a belief system and motivational drives that might not actually exist within the Bundys, what are you doing besides lying profusely about a situation you don't understand?

Oh, wait a moment.  Excuse me.  These observations are suitable only for someone who writes from a position of honest brokerage.

Clearly that's not the case with "Chris Floyd" or anyone else using the Bundy situation to peck away at, whittle down, chop off at the knees.

But it's sure to get a bunch of pooftahs wound up and eager to see Feds shoot the Bundys, isn't it?

--Paul Behrer, amazed at the tunnel vision of those who imagine themselves as tolerant and supporting diversity of opinion.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

it'll do

I appreciate how Mr Tweedy has grown in atmospheric landscape building.  This is a long way from the Beach Boys/Pet Sounds experimentation of Summerteeth.

I'm not sure about the album cover though.  Might be too much of the Hipster Praises Velvet Elvis Painting, Earns Irony Points for me.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

crowbars and labial gateways

A good while back, this blog used to entertain comments from a self-regarded Internet Sage who went by the nom-de-word-salad-building "Jack Crow."  One of the authors here called this clown "the Crowbar" because of the way Bozo used words (in salad form) when trying to lever false conclusions out of clear statements and concrete principles.

Now, nobody here would say that the Crowbar succeeded in his attempted prying and uncovering, but most everyone here would say he made dire, earnest efforts in that direction.  The labors he undertook were persistent, even if sorely misguided.

One of the key targets of the Crowbar's machinations was this blog's unified view about abortion and the living organisms involved in that surgical procedure.  Since the Crowbar was a process maven, the Crowbar concerned himself primarily with whether the surgery was a success.  What happened during the surgery was where Crowbar's numerous blind spots were revealed for all who cared to watch this e-homo habilis trying to lever falsity out of probity.

Without distortion in the bargain, we can distill Crowbar's argument neatly and concisely:  the discarded fetus at the end of the successful surgery was not human.  Rather, it was an inanimate blob of tissue, a tumor --if you will-- which was threatening the host's body.  And at most, Crowbar would admit utility in the tumor for only one particular purpose:  stem cell harvesting. Otherwise it was a foul mass of cells which needed excision and disposition in the Medical Waste bin.

If not for the homicide implicit in Crowbar's approval, we'd have laughed at his disconnect between biological truth, and preferred end result for the host which was being victimized by the ...uh... tumor.

From the moment of conception (egg + successful sperm conjunction) found within the fertilized egg, all cells within the ...uh... tumor are the foundation for the developing infant human which resides for an average of 9 months within the female human ("mother")'s uterus.  This point is one which the Crowbar could not repel or disprove, biologically speaking.  Thus he had to marshal what he considered "feminist" rhetoric which triangulated the subjects at issue, putting them outside the analysis and focusing instead on an external, third-party concept:  the "rights" of the woman who had chosen the abortion surgery.  This woman's "rights" were deemed (in Crowland, that is) paramount, and because they were paramount, the developing fetus wasn't human, and certainly couldn't have reflected a separate human life.  No, that would be impossible in Crowland, because the woman had chosen the abortion procedure, and that choice rendered the unfortunate fetus little more than a tumor.


Serendipity is a strange word and an even odder concept.  Is it really different from luck, happenstance, random occurrence?  I suppose we'll never know, and I guess it doesn't matter in the end.  What matters is the moment of synchronicity.

This morning I did my usual browse of the Silent T and found an article discussing Rand Paul.  The attention given to Paul the Younger seems a bit of a crumb tossed toward a begging starving street urchin.  Silent T has been working hard lately to push its audience of "libertarians" (read: progressives who are a bit more open about their greed and their condescension toward anyone not already wealthy) in the direction of Bernie Sanders.  Nick Gillespie and Robby Soave are eager to see Bernie as POTUS, mostly because Nick and Robbie are swishy progressives themselves, despite tenure at a "libertarian" outlet.

A skeptic may wonder why someone would be a progressive but hide behind a mask of "libertarian," and the answer may be easier to find than one might think on first review.



Regarding Rand Paul, the Silent T published this:

Paul also this week, and not for the first time, introduced a "Life at Conception Act" that would effectively federally ban abortion, an issue in which he differs with many libertarians (though it is not necessarily and obviously un-libertarian if you actually believe a fetus at any stage of development is a human life).

Whoa. Did you get that condescending, Crowbar-like snark there?

if you actually believe a fetus at any stage of development is a human life

So it's about "believing" that? So it's a matter of "faith"? In other words, Nigel West Dickens would use his vaunted "science" chops to show your "belief" is irrelevant because a white lab coat wearer can excise the tumor and discard it, saving the host woman from indignity?


I'm never surprised when someone who was ...errr, ahhh... "educated" by our "public school educators" fails biology when put in practice.  You could hold 2-hour interviews with every public school graduate in your region, seeking a recount of what was learned in biology, and very few if any would remember anything about biology, other than "if you screw unprotected, she might get pregnant."  Or, that we humans die eventually.

Otherwise nothing is retained, demonstrating quite conclusively that nothing was learned.


Notice the two tidbits retained.

Both are areas where our progressive geniuses of America show their hands.

And yes, "libertarians" at the Silent T are progressives.  Including Nigel West Dickens.


Progressives wish for "science" (a hazy construct bearing oblique tangential relation to the subjects falling under its heading, including biology and its subsets of genetics and developmental biology) to make their lives easier.  And by "easier" I mean "more convenient." 

Thus, as we have recounted before in these pages, "science" for progressives (again: this includes "libertarians" at the Silent T) means anything that produces ease of trinket accumulation. 

Beyond that, there's little understanding. 

Which suggests there's no understanding. 

Because really, science is not about comfort.  It's about studying what is.


Whether the pregnant woman finds the fetus "inconvenient" for any particular reason has no bearing on what the fetus is.

This, of course, is why the triangulation happens.

This, of course, is why the focus is shifted to the pregnant woman's "rights."  That stupid tumor can't speak for itself, so it must be a tumor.  As the Crowbar said, the tumor doesn't become human until it breaches the labial gateway at birth, becoming a "baby."  Prior to that?  Medical Waste.

So, remember:  Rand Paul is a reactionary misogynist.  He overrides the pregnant woman's rights, trampling them to preserve a tumor of Medical Waste.  What a sick, disgusting thing to do, right?  How dare he infringe on the pregnant woman's convenience!  He's trying to control her uterus!

Thursday, January 21, 2016


Did you notice the Arch-FUCKING-Druid selling Marxist "class analysis" under guise of retro-steampunk doomer perspective?

or the comparisons of salary "growth", which serve the same ends of distraction?

When you criticize salary "growth" you implicitly suggest two things:  (1) economies must "grow", and (2) this "growth" should be reflected in per-capita salary averages.

How does a retro-steampunk-doomer hold any integrity talking about the essential quality of "growth" in what hazily is called "the economy" and sometimes referenced more directly as "salary"?


If I had an IQ of, say, 36 on the S-B, I might fall for Archie's ruse.  Gosh, look at the rare words he employs with perspicacity!  And he tells us he makes royalties on his published works!  Naturally I assume that means his life of leisure is due to his fantastic insights and writing skills yielding 6-figure royalties, rather than a separate source of income gained back before he donned the costume of Archie, Lord High King of the Druids.  Surely I'm not looking into that prior source of income, because it may well run contrary, and emphatically so, to what he's pitching now!


The sock puppetry used by Archie remains obvious.  Since he doesn't have to work, and his word salad "essays" reflect no editing whatever, and are entered 1x/week, I'm inclined to ask what Archie does during the other 167 hours in his work-week.  Presumably he doesn't sleep 15 hrs/day, but even if he does that leaves 9 hrs/day for 6 days and 8 hrs/day for the other day, all for writing comments allegedly done by others.

This assumes his "essays" take 1hr to write.  Maybe Archie's not as wise as he pretends and they take him 4 hours to write.  So that would be still, 9 hrs/day for 6 days and 4 hrs/day for the essay-writing day, all as idle time in his work week.  That's not enough time to write all the bogus comments?


It's strangely similar to what Glenn Greenwald did to build his own hollow rep, and nearly identical to what "Tom Feeley" does at ICH, or what "Tarzie" does at one of his acidified-butter outlets.

But hey, let's ignore all that fakery.  Archie seems like a god, or wizard, or sorcerer -- of wisdom, mainly.  Doesn't he?

Kookiest of all is how much Archie resembles Sprytel J. Chimchim and Jack Crow in his writing.

I'm sure it's all genuine and sincere, though, and a product of diligent idea-hashing & reformulating in Cumberland, MD.

I mean, look at the beard on the PR photo.  Genuine as anything!  Rasputin and Marx are both envious!


There's no way this stuff is erector-set-built for goat-roping purposes.  None.

-- Karl Franz Ochstradt, amused at your gullibility and eagerness to engage in confirmation bias.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

unbelievably reactionary

Stuck in the past, never moving forward.  Sheesh.  Why can't he embrace the future?

Trains. Who needs trains when Elon Musk is around?  Muskology suggests that soon we'll just pull the essential motive energy from the air and float to our destination at light speed.  It was in a sci-fi so it must be true.

--Paul Behrer, looking backward and forward at once.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

why "silent T"?, you ask.

Jacob Sullum:

I currently live in Israel,....

Perfect residence for someone working for a website engineered to do disinfo/psyops on Americans.

And dovetails precisely --probably almost a perfect friction fit on all relevant sides-- with the Silent T's eternal apology for profit regardless of the social implications of and effects from the mechanisms chosen to obtain such profits.

Dig it, baby.  

You know what I'm saying here, right?  It's like Nigel West Dickens who constantly thinks "science" means "guys in white lab coats finding ways to make money for nothing" or "meritocrats in industries which deliver square tasteless tomatoes that save millions annually in preservation and transportation costs."

Or the entire website's (writers, editors, and commenters alike) collective attitude toward Little Glenn and Fast Eddie. 

Greed, as a value. Milken-Boesky, BAY-BEE!

If we're richer, then fuck anyone who says anything about how we got such riches.  They're jealous.  And probably afraid of progress.  They may even be anti-Semitic.

-- Karl Franz Ochstradt, wondering why working for Israel is exempt from the Christopher Boyce treatment.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

but it was in a magazine!

Missoula, Montana

As Bozeman booms with newfound tech wealth, Missoula remains true to its humble roots as a haunt for Forest Service employees, University of Montana undergrads, and wildland firefighters. Homes are affordable — a 1925 Craftsman in town goes for around $250,000 — and the vibe is decidedly down-home: Think dives like the Oxford Saloon, where chicken-fried steak is the breakfast special and a daily poker game has a $300 pot limit. "Pretentious people don't last long here," says Brent Ruby, co-founder of the energy bar company Omnibar.

Yes, that same craftsman house sold for $100k in 2005, when its cost was more in-line with average Missoula incomes. But 10 yrs later, incomes haven't really risen while that house goes for 2.5x more.

So it's "affordable" if you move here with a trust fund, nest egg, or other income-substitute to carry your mortgage.

Not all houses have seen the same cost spike. My own is only worth a couple thousand more than I paid for it in late 2003. Why would the exemplar craftsman house have gone up by 2.5x but not others? You'd have to ask the realtors, who set the prices by their willingness to work to sell a house. Realtors will not work to sell your house unless it's up to Modern Standards of Convenience as measured in major US metropolitan areas where people make several multiples higher in annual pay.

If your house is a typical Missoula house from the first half of the 1900s, and hasn't been renovated to make it from a 2 small bedrooms 1 bath into a 1 huge bedroom 1 small guest room and 2 baths, the realtor won't try to sell it for you. They'll happily list it, but they won't work on the sale. Why? They are catering not to Missoula residents working 9-5 jobs in Missoula, but rather to the readers of articles like the one quoted above. They are eager to sell your house if it resembles something from a chi-chi neighborhood in a hot-'n'-happenin' big city well outside Montana's borders (read: already primped and fancied up by a 5-year resident who bought, pumped up and flipped for profit then moved on to the next hipster valhalla), but otherwise they'll tell you your house isn't worth much other than as a raze-and-replace, which value the new "developer" would put at maybe 50% of your property tax assessment.

As to Brent Ruby's statement about pretentious people? Brent has to be caught in a memory timewarp, and has to be thinking of the Missoula of the early 1990s. Given the article's March 9 2015 date, it's baffling to read this from Brent. As of Spring 2015, Missoula was over-run by pretentious people.  The number of fancy-schmancy trinket seller boutiques, breweries, distilleries, yoga studios, and "lifestyle gyms" now well outclasses the down-home simple places.  You want a burger & beer?  Hope you have $25!

As to the Oxford?  Nobody goes there any more because the gentrifying yuppies have done their best to shut the place down, they've done everything but torch the place.  Oxford regulars are now hounded as "homeless panhandlers" and anyone who isn't wearing $1,000 in outdoor lifestyle wear is harrassed by Missoula Po-Po under suspicion of Ravalli County residence and/or vagrancy.

But hey, it's a hype mag. Don't fault it for hyping and hiding reality behind the hype.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

the instar needs on*star














--Harold Caidagh, wondering if Jeffy-Weffy Ding-Dong Popovich realizes how un-fucking-believably immature and unfunny and White Knighty and FagHaggy he is.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

goodness me, goodness me

If I'm to believe what the Silent T reports this AM, Glorious First Black President Obama promised in his State of the Onion that Neil Kinnock's Plagiarist is going to helm the good ship Cure Cancer.

That's an interesting one.


In the days of my lower higher education, I happened into the path of studying biology for a BS.  Quite some time ago, it was.  And even back then, The Cancer was a demon terrorizing humanity.

At least in most modern countries.

Some 30 years later it's got more variants.  Our boy Suderman gets a few things right, it's not monolithic.  There are many types.  There are cancers of all kinds of tissue.  There are blood cell cancers, bone cell cancers, skin cell cancers, nerve cell cancers.  You can almost say that if there's a differentiated kind of cell, it's seen a cancerous variant.

Also, The Cancer is not sole-causative-element in its etiology.  Multiple causative factors are theorized for even a single type of cancer.  And there's the whole generic etiology Q, why Cancer?  What biological purpose does it serve for cells to undertake that transformation to a cancerous cell type?

We're pretty much ignorami when it comes to these questions, so I can understand Barry's desire to repel the ignorance that is causing this reactionary disease to plague Americans.

I'm sure we can just educate the cells with a good public schooling program.  STEM seems to be the future in humanity's supra-organismal biofuture.  That's what the good stewards of progress tell us, anyway. 

And hey -- look at the parallels!  In biology, "stem cells" are pre-differentiated generic cells with all kinds of capacity for unique growth.


Like many of America's problems, this Big C issue has its roots in things Americans don't want to discuss.

Cancer is a disease of industrial origins.

Space Age = Cancer Age.

I'll predict that this is a safe bet prediction:  in the latter half of the 21st Century, the few disinterested (not prostituted) scientists studying cancer cell biology will determine that cancer arose in the human body in notable per capita doses mostly, but not exclusively, after industrialization.  Industrialization will be seen as the cause of cancer's spiking in prominences of type, frequency and severity.

Organic chemistry will be one prime driver.

(Asbestos product creation and use was one we've already recognized.  However reluctantly.)

People will maddeningly continue to use their Modern Faith in Technological Progress and will insist that despite industrialization's causative role, industrialization (technology) will save us.

--Karl Franz Ochstradt, who seems to remember more about biology after 30 years than people who have been using their BS in Bio every day, "professionally," during that same period

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

just bring it back and call it new

So, it's like that song above.


In Model Year 2015 (which actually began in 2014 calendar year) MTB riders were told by faithfully regurgitating MTB media personnel they needed to heed a brand new direction, a spanking shining technological development that would be a game-changer, sure to progress the sport. Those not heeding the direction were certain to be left cruelly behind, dinosaurs from a long-gone era when most humans still lived in caves, bludgeoned each other with rocks and sticks and animal bones, and spent most of their days trying to stay warm, not starve, and not be killed by marauders.

It was up to you, intrepid vanguard of the MTB community, to help cement this change of game.

You were to get wider rims.

This would ensure that when chatting at the trailhead, fueling up in the espresso cafe, sipping a small-batch artisanal vodka at the distillery, pestering your "friends" who own/work at the local bike shop, or most of all when projecting your celebrity self on the internet, you could claim partial responsibility for being involved in this game-changing movement that is progressing the sport and growing it in unforeseen ways.


It would probably be a good idea now for you to review the history of the sport of MTB.  You might discover that in the long 3 year history of your involvement with buying, taking home, digitally photographing in strategically-arranged couch-leaning** situation, and "sharing" your "experiences" regarding this triangulated, relatively-uninvolved attachment you have to your MTB on the internet, there were actually people riding MTBs before you ever saw one and decided to buy one yourself.

It probably doesn't matter to you what was going on in the late 1990s or early 2000s with MTBs.  In your fantasy world, everything's always progressing thanks to game-changing technology.  It's just physics!

So naturally, what was sold as game-changing 10, 15 or 20 years ago in MTB would not have any precedential value when assessing the brand-spankin'-new GAME-CHANGER technological development sure to progress the sport as of 2015 or, as it now stands, 2016.

As I was saying -- this never happened before.  Nobody ever sold gigantic tires on gigantic rims before in the history of MTB.

Nobody who theoretically could have tried such rims & wheels hypothetically might have found them enjoyable or even tolerable to pedal for any time over 15 mins (on average).

Unless flat or downhill.

But it's gonna change your game!

--Paul Behrer, whose view of long-term is a bit lengthier than a 15 minutes from now prognostication.


** Alternatively, and perhaps far superior, is the garage shot of MTB adjacent to 2-3 KTM motorcycles, a Porsche Boxster, and a Range Rover.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

the flapping hands, the loafers barely worn

Have you seen my new twitter profile?  Twice the rancidness!

How do I manage to win so much and so often?  WIN WIN WIN!

I just can't stop rubbing my pecker 'til it bleeds -- online.  ONE MAN ORGY!

I'm swingin' from my hero's nutsack all day tomorrow!  SCHWING-a-DING-DONG, baby!

Once upon a time I made art for silver, but it turned out to be chromed plastic.

images public domain
text by Harold Caidagh ©2016

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

you is me and I am not you so where does that leave us?

One of the worst PR developments of my adult life is the insistence on interviewees (or reviewers of creative endeavors) saying, for example,

"you find yourself _____"


"you feel _____"


"you just want to _____"

and apparently this was strategized as anticipatory surgical strike against the audience perception of

"what an ego on that ______!"

But if you're telling me how things went for you, or how a book-movie-song-album struck you, then you should be using the first-person ego-projection.

Unless you imagine yourself spokes-person for all humanity, but I think that's what solipsism is, and why it's such a drag -- like leaving your e-brake on when pulling out of the driveway and into the road. 

Tell me how it struck you, not what you think The Universal Audience Member Would Feel.

Don't tell me how I'm supposed to feel.

Tell me how you felt.

I can work out the difference between our perspectives using my own brain, thank you very little.


People who call something "epic" right after it's been experienced, what exactly is their perspective?  It's "epic" in what context?  All the things you've ever done or seen yourself?

What if someone else has been doing that thing forever?

Or read that kind of fiction hundreds of times before?

Or heard that sort of music for many hours of listening?

Would any of them call it "epic"?

Or is it just epic for you?

That's epic to me. 1999 it happened, still fresh and punchy in 2016.

How many days later is that? I gave it a day, I gave it many days.