Premier Rock Forum

rushfan1 wrote:It's just exceeding complex language,

Yes it is.

but it really makes perfect sense.

You saw thisright?

Does an EMP count as external interference?

Once it's a part of the circuit, by definition it isn't external any more.

steve wrote:Once it's a part of the circuit, by definition it isn't external any more.

'External' refers to the act of 'interference' presumably.

The squirrel is not 'interference', the squirrel's act (jumping onto the lines) was interference. The Squirrel's act was external in origin - it was inspired by external factors and the squirrel did not originate from the power lines.

Probably.

rushfan1 wrote:Just so we're clear, the first interpretation is my own, personal interpretation. The second is my father's

Amazing.


welcome to the forum!

As for all the bastards who gave smart ass replies mocking me, laughing, etc, I thank you. Your replies have been truly enlightening.
Steve, I do see where you're coming at from Vital Signs. It is quite unclear as to the meaning of Peart's writing. May I present a different a different song, one more clear? I present Losing It:

The dancer slows her frantic pace
In pain and desperation
Her aching limbs and downcast face
Aglow with perspiration

Stiff as wire, her lungs on fire
With just the briefest pause
The flooding through her memory
The echoes of old applause

She limps across the floor
And closes her bedroom door...

The writer stare with glassy eyes
Defies the empty page
His beard is white, his face is lined
And streaked with tears of rage

Thirty years ago, how the words would flow
With passion and precision
But now his mind is dark and dulled
By sickness and indecision

And he stares out the kitchen door
Where the sun will rise no more...

Some are born to move the world
To live their fantasies
But most of us just dream about
The things we'd like to be
Sadder still to watch it die
Than never to have known it
For you, the blind who once could see
The bell tolls for thee...

Ok, so the first 3 stanzas are describing a dancer. She appears to be aged somewhat, as she is struggling with her dancing. It appears she was once a successful dancer ("The flooding through her memory/The echoes of old applause). In the third stanza, she just gives up her dancing.
The next 3 stanzas describe an old writer who was also once a great writer ("Thirty years ago, how the words would flow/With passion and precision"). He, however, has grown old and sick, and he can no longer write as he used to. This frustrates him. He too gives up, and the sixth stanza foreshadows his death ("And he stares out the kitchen door/Where the sun will rise no more").
Now, both these people had lived their dreams, had done what they wanted to. The last stanza addresses this. It says that people have dreams, but often they can't live them; their dreams just die. So the last two lines ("For you the blind who once could see/The bell tolls for thee"), the "blind who once could see" are those who lived their dreams, but are now unable to, due to old age and/or sickness. Or, it could be the people who once had dreams, but could never achieve them. "The bell tolls" is just like a tribute to those people.

You see, you can categorize something based on one piece of evidence. That's called stereotypes. You need to get a variety of sources and evidence in order to make a conclusion.

Ok, my friend gave me his explanation of Vital Signs. Basically, you have to vary yourself or fall victim to human problems.

Me neither. I'm gonna off to do some self-varying right about now.