Tribute to VT Massacre

If you cannot view this just listen to the words of this:

Another Rappelz Video

My Favourite Football Vids

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=-6063478215160948442&hl=en-CA
Amazing Football

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=607923718473126509&hl=en-CA
More Amazing Football

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=-3735197879544915727&hl=en-CA
Dedicated to becks, thanks for the memories.
We wont forget you!

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=-3109030278556963788&hl=en-CA
This is Maradona's
(the second best player ever, and my fav)
goal of the 21st century.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=260044204306901786&hl=en-CA
Amazing Goalkeeper Save

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=4223508147770186067&hl=en-CA
Best Football Players of all time,
well some of them.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=-7934341621583577444&hl=en-CA
Ronaldo, who is the current best player.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=-6929277165700686790&hl=en-CA
More Ronaldo

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=-5879759145636232499&hl=en-CA
Funny own goals! HAHAHA

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=-6013125093686873495&hl=en-CA
HEHE you must see this.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=6555017865717455935&hl=en-CA
Who says football does not hav tricks?

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=5642299644828093290&hl=en-CA
Maradona's infamous hand of God goal.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=-7431737623342319459&hl=en-CA
Beckhams goal from half line.

http://www.youtube.com/v/iaV53Yig140
Zidane a legend. I'd have to admit that
last goal of his was harsh.
I'm British :(

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/
134299/zidane_zidane/
No one can match this skill.

Favourite Quotes

It is a great ability to be able to conceal one's ability.
Ability will never catch up with the demand for it.
All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire.
The superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions.
Words without actions are the assassins of idealism.
Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it.
Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn't.
The surprising thing about young fools is how many survive to become old fools.
You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop laughing.
The young have aspirations that never come to pass, the old have reminiscences of what never happened.
We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us.
The thing that impresses me the most about America is the way parents obey their children.
America is a country that doesn't know where it is going but is determined to set a speed record getting there.
Americans are benevolently ignorant about Canada, while Canadians are malevolently well informed about the United States.
Behind every argument is someone's ignorance.
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.
God loved the birds and invented trees. Man loved the birds and invented cages.
Women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place.
Never judge a book by its movie.
The capacity of human beings to bore one another seems to be vastly greater than that of any other animal.
Drive thy business or it will drive thee.
A celebrity is a person who works hard all his life to become well known, then wears dark glasses to avoid being recognized.
A celebrity is one who is known to many persons he is glad he doesn't know.
Charm is a way of getting the answer yes without asking a clear question.
Ask your child what he wants for dinner only if he's buying.
Never have children, only grandchildren.
The reason grandparents and grandchildren get along so well is that they have a common enemy.
You can't say that civilization don't advance, however, for in every war they kill you in a new way.
Committee--a group of men who individually can do nothing but as a group decide that nothing can be done.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

On Zidane's Headbutt

Please refer to the text below if you are English speaking.

http://www.youtube.com/v/d5CYhNP8Fzs

The tv man asks Zidane if he had any dispute before the match with any of the players.

Zidane: No, never.

tv man: Lets see the video, and ask zidane to talk about the words exchanged. Zidane: Materazzi holds my t-shirt, I've asked him to stop it, in a gentle way.
But he started to say really bad words against my mother and my sister and my family too.

Zidane: I've tried not to hear it, once, twice and I've even decided to go, as you can see (i've started running to go) but he continued and say it for the third time! - I've reacted, It was too hard in my heart, in my mind. I would rather prefered to be hurt physically, but not that way.

tv man: Did you lose your head, your mind?

Zidane: It could be interpreted like this, but no, I didnt lose my head, I've just reacted to a very hard provocation.

tv man: Can you say the words? exactly?

Zidane: I would prefer no to repeat those words, here.
It is not nice to hear them.
I understand, that my act is not excusable, and I am not looking to be excused. However I want it to say "LOUD AND CLEAR", I ask to every child in the world to forgive me, this is not an act to do, I also ask parents, to teach your children to not to act like this. On the other hand I want to ask to the football word to take this situation as an example to stop punishing the REACTION ONLY. Because, the PROVOCATION must be also punished. REMEMBER: THERE IS NOT REACTION WITHOUT PROVOCATION.

Anybody who made all those stupid videos of Zidane doing that are simple-minded fools who would do anything to get or give attention. Also if you are Italian and are doing this that is worse. They or you if that is the case, should go join the media. Not to mention when this happened Zidane's mother was in hospital. Besides, Materrazzi could never be as great as Zidane. Good thing he got pwned by Zidane :)

World's 10 Worst Dictators

1. Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Age 61. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 7A colossal humanitarian tragedy in western Sudan’s Darfur region has uprooted 2 million people and killed 70,000, mostly through the activities of government-supported militias. This is nothing new in Sudan, where Omar al-Bashir, its dictator, has engaged in ethnic and religious persecution since seizing power in a military coup. Sudan has 6 million internally displaced persons—more than any other nation. In southern Sudan, where Christianity and traditional religions are practiced, Bashir tried to impose Islamic law in a campaign that included aerial bombing of villages and enslavement of women and children. His forces met with armed resistance, escalating to what some called a civil war between Muslims and Christians. (In Darfur, meanwhile, he has been killing Muslims.) Last month, Bashir signed a cease-fire with rebels in the south. It allows government troops to remain in southern Sudan and prohibits southerners from voting for independence for six years.
2. Kim Jong Il, North Korea. Age 62. In power since 1994. Last year’s rank: 1Kim Jong Il slipped from first place, but not for want of trying. North Korea still ranks last in Reporters Without Borders’ international index of press freedom, and it earned Freedom House’s worst score for political rights and civil liberties for the 33rd straight year (a world record). The Ministry of People’s Security places spies in workplaces and neighborhoods to inform on anyone who criticizes the regime, even at home. All radios and TV sets are fixed to receive only government stations. Disloyalty to Kim Jong Il and his late father, Kim Il Sung, is a punishable crime: Offenses include allowing pictures of either leader to gather dust or be torn or folded. The population is divided into “loyalty groups.” One-third belong to the “hostile class.” These people receive the worst jobs and housing and may not live in the capital, Pyongyang. Below the hostiles are the estimated 250,000 held in prison camps, some for crimes allegedly committed by relatives. Executions often are performed in public.
3. Than Shwe, Burma. Age 72. In power since 1992. Last year’s rank: 2In response to world opinion, Gen. Than Shwe freed 9000 prisoners, but hopes for a new liberalism faded when only 40 were political detainees (among more than 1000 still being held). The rest were common criminals. Than Shwe extended the house arrest of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party won 80% of the vote in the last open election (1990). The arrest of opposition members resumed. Freedom of expression is not allowed; unlicensed possession of a fax machine or modem is punishable by 15 years in prison. To relocate ethnic minorities, the army destroyed 3000 villages and drove 1.2 million Burmese from their homes. In a landmark case, Unocal Corp. of California agreed to pay damages to Burmese villagers who said the military used torture, rape or murder to force them to work on the company’s pipeline.
4. Hu Jintao, China. Age 62. In power since 2002. Last year’s rank: 3Despite China’s economic liberalization, President Hu Jintao’s government remains one of the most repressive. Some 250,000 Chinese are serving sentences in “re-education and labor camps.” China executes more people than all other nations combined, often for nonviolent crimes. The death penalty can be given for burglary, embezzlement, counterfeiting, bribery or killing a panda. Hu’s government controls all media and Internet use. Defense lawyers who argue too vigorously for clients’ rights may be disbarred or imprisoned. And if minorities (such as Tibetans) speak out for autonomy, they’re labeled “terrorists,” imprisoned and tortured.
5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. Age 81. In power since 1995. Last year’s rank: 5 Bending under strong international pressure, Crown Prince Abdullah and his family, who have absolute power, are holding Saudi Arabia’s first elections in 40 years—municipal elections, that is. Women may not vote or run for office, owing to “technical difficulties”: Most Saudi women don’t have the photo IDs needed to register; there aren’t enough female officials to register those who do; and men may not register women, because the sexes are forbidden to mingle in public. Worldwide, the royal family promotes an extreme form of Islam called Wahhabism, which considers all followers of other religions—even other Muslims—“infidels.” In 2004, the U.S. State Department added Saudi Arabia to its list of nations in which religious liberty is severely violated.
6. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya. Age 62. In power since 1969.Last year’s rank: Dishonorable mentionIncreasingly annoyed by other Arab leaders, Qaddafi—once considered a supporter of terrorism —has gone to great lengths to re-establish links with the West. He turned over a perpetrator of the 1988 terrorist bombing of an American commercial flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and made substantial payments to families of the victims of both the Lockerbie bombing and that of a French plane. He gave up his nuclear weapons program and is opening his nation’s economy to foreign investment. Yet at home he continues to run a brutal dictatorship, maintaining total control over all aspects of Libyan life. Freedom of speech, assembly and religion are harshly restricted. Entire families, tribes and even towns can be punished for “collective guilt.” Political opposition and damaging public or private property are considered “crimes against the state.”
7. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan. Age 61. In power since 1999. Last year’s rank: Not mentionedTwo years after seizing power in a military coup that overthrew an elected government, Gen. Pervez Musharraf appointed himself president of Pakistan. He recently agreed to step down as head of the military, then reversed his decision, claiming that he was best suited to unite Pakistan’s contentious political and military elements. “The country is more important than democracy,” he said. Pakistan has endangered the world by spreading nuclear technology. Last year, it was discovered that Abdul Qadeer Khan, head of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, had been selling nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. As for civil liberties in Pakistan, a woman who has been raped may present her case only if she can produce four Muslim men who witnessed the attack.
8. Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan. Age 64. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 8Niyazov has developed an overbearing personality cult that crushes dissent and invades all aspects of life in Turkmenistan, no matter how trivial. He controls his one-party state with torture, disappearances, detentions, house demolitions, forced labor and exile. He muzzles all media, and it is illegal to criticize any of his policies. Statues of Niyazov appear everywhere, and his picture is on all denominations of money. His “moral guide,” Rukhnama (Book of the Soul), is required reading for students, married couples and even applicants for a driver’s license. Female newscasters may not wear makeup, nor may young men wear beards, long hair or gold teeth.
9. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe. Age 80. In power since 1980. Last year’s rank: 4After leading an anti-colonial war of liberation, Mugabe was elected Zimbabwe’s first prime minister, raising hopes for a new era of democracy. But he has turned increasingly dictatorial and run his country into the ground. Average life expectancy in Zimbabwe is 33 years—among the lowest in the world. One of Mugabe’s many repressive laws deems it a crime “to make an abusive, indecent or obscene statement” about him. He continues to hold elections, but opposition is discouraged. Looking toward a vote in March, the parliament passed a law banning from Zimbabwe any human-rights or civil-liberties group that receives money from abroad. In other words, independent election monitors will not be allowed.
10. Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea. Age 62. In power since 1979. Last year’s rank: 6Since major oil reserves were discovered there in 1995, U.S. oil companies have poured $5 billion into this tiny West African nation. Most of the oil income goes to President Obiang and his family, while the majority of the people live on less than $1 a day. Some American oil companies are being investigated for improprieties involving Obiang. The U.S. State Department has accused Obiang’s government of committing torture. In November, 20 people—including 11 foreign nationals —were sentenced to prison for an alleged coup attempt. The only evidence against them, says Amnesty International, were confessions extracted through torture.

An Effort to Slow The Future, Why You Shouldn't buy a Computer

An essay by Wendell Berry

Like almost everybody else, I am hooked to the energy corporations, which I do not admire. I hope to become less hooked to them. In my work, I try to be as little hooked to them as possible. As a farmer, I do almost all of my work with horses. As a writer, I work with a pencil or a pen and a piece of paper.
My wife types my work on a Royal standard typewriter bought new in 1956 and as good now as it was then. As she types, she sees things that are wrong and marks them with small checks in the margins. She is my best critic because she is the one most familiar with my habitual errors and weaknesses. She also understands, sometimes better than I do, what ought to be said. We have, I think, a literary cottage industry that works well and pleasantly. I do not see anything wrong with it.
A number of people, by now, have told me that I could greatly improve things by buying a computer. My answer is that I am not going to do it. I have several reasons, and they are good ones.
The first is the one I mentioned at the beginning. I would hate to think that my work as a writer could not be done without a direct dependence on strip-mined coal. How could I write conscientiously against the rape of nature if I were, in the act of writing, Implicated in the rape ? For the same reason, it matters to me that my writing is done in the daytime, without electric light.
I do not admire the computer manufacturers a great deal more than I admire the energy industries. I have seen their advertisements. attempting to seduce struggling or failing farmers into the belief that they can solve their problems by buying yet another piece of expensive equipment. I am familiar with their propaganda campaigns that have put computers into public schools in need of books. That computers are expected to become as common as TV sets in "the future" does not impress me or matter to me. I do not own a TV set. I do not see that computers are bringing us one step nearer to anything that does matter to me: peace, economic justice, ecological health, political honesty, family and community stability, good work.
What would a computer cost me? More money, for one thing, than I can afford, and more than I wish to pay to people whom I do not admire. But the cost would not be just monetary. It is well understood that technological innovation always requires the discarding of the "old model"—the "old model" in this case being not just our old Royal standard. but my wife, my critic, closest reader, my fellow worker. Thus (and I think this is typical of present-day technological innovation). what would be superseded would be not only something, but somebody. In order to be technologically up-to-date as a writer, I would have to sacrifice an association that I am dependent upon and that I treasure.
My final and perhaps my best reason for not owning a computer is that I do not wish to fool myself. I disbelieve, and therefore strongly resent, the assertion that I or anybody else could write better or more easily with a computer than with a pencil. I do not see why I should not be as scientific about this as the next fellow: when somebody has used a computer to write work that is demonstrably better than Dante's, and when this better is demonstrably attributable to the use of a computer, then I will speak of computer with a more respectful tone of voice, though I still will not buy one.
To make myself as plain as I can, I should give my standards for technological innovation in my own work. They are as follows:-
1. The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.2. It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.3. It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.4. It should use less energy than the one it replaces.5. If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body.6. It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence, provided that he or she has the necessary tools.7. It should be purchasable and repairable as near to home as possible.8. It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that will take it back for maintenance and repair.9. It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships.
1987
After the foregoing essay, first published in the New England Review and Bread Loaf Quarterly, was reprinted in Harper's, the Harper's editors published the following letters in response and permitted me a reply. W.B.
LETTERS Mr. Berry provides writers enslaved by the computer with a handy alternative: Wife-a handy low-tech energy-saving device. Drop a pile of handwritten notes on Wife and you get back a finished manuscript, edited while it was typed. What computer can do that? Wife meets all of Berry's uncompromising standards for technological innovation: she's cheap, repairable near home, and good for the family structure.Best of all, Wife is politically correct because she breaks a writer's "direct dependence on strip-mined coal." History teaches us that Wife can also be used to beat rugs and wash clothes by hand, thus eliminating the need for the vacuum cleaner and washing machine, two more nasty machines that threaten the act of writing.
Gordon Inkeles Miranda, Calif.
I have no quarrel with Berry because he prefers to write with pencil and paper; that is his choice. But he implies that I and others are somehow impure because we choose to write on a computer. I do not admire the energy corporations, either. Their shortcoming is not that they produce electricity but how they go about it. They are poorly managed because they are blind to long-term consequences. To solve this problem, wouldn't it make more sense to correct the precise error they are making rather than simply ignore their product ? I would be happy to join Berry in a protest against strip mining, but I intend to keep plugging this computer into the wall with a clear conscience.
James Rhoads Batttle Creek, Mich.
I enjoyed reading Berry's declaration of intent never to buy a personal computer in the same way that I enjoy reading about the belief systems of unfamiliar tribal cultures. I tried to imagine a tool that would meet Berry's criteria for superiority To his old manual typewriter. The clear winner is the quill pen. It is cheaper, smaller, more energy-efficient, human-powered, easily repaired, and non-disruptive of existing relationships.Berry also requires that this tool must be "clearly and demonstrably better" than the one it replaces. But surely we all recognize by now that "better" is in the mind of the beholder. To the quill pen aficionado, the benefits obtained from elegant calligraphy might well outweigh all others.I have no particular desire to see Berry use a word processor; or he doesn't like computers, that's fine with me. However, I do object to his portrayal of this reluctance as a moral virtue. Many of us have found that computers can be an invaluable tool in the fight to protect our environment. In addition to helping me write, my personal computer gives me access to up-to-the-minute reports on the workings of the EPA and the nuclear industry. I participate in electronic bulletin boards on which environmental activists discuss strategy and warn each other about urgent legislative issues. Perhaps Berry feels that the Sierra Club should eschew modern printing technology which is highly wasteful of energy, in favor of having its members hand copy the club's magazines and other mailings each month ?
Nathaniel S. Borenstein Pittsburgh, Pa.
The value of a computer to a writer is that it is a tool not for generating ideas but for typing and editing words. It is cheaper than a secretary (or a wife!) and arguably more fuel-efficient. And it enables spouses who are not inclined to provide free labor more time to concentrate on their own work.We should support alternatives both to coal-generated electricity and to IBM-style technocracy. But I am reluctant to entertain alternatives that presuppose the traditional subservience of one class to another. Let the PCs come and the wives and servants go seek more meaningful work.
Toby Koosman Knoxville, Tenn.
Berry asks how he could write conscientiously against the rape of nature if in the act of writing on a computer he was implicated in the rape. I find it ironic that a writer who sees the underlying connectness of things would allow his diatribe against computers to be published in a magazine that carries ads for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Marlboro, Phillips Petroleum, McDonnell Douglas, and yes, even Smith-Corona. If Berry rests comfortably at night, he must be using sleeping pills.
Bradley C. Johnson Grand Forks, N.D.
WENDELL BERRY REPLIES:The foregoing letters surprised me with the intensity of the feelings they expressed. According to the writers' testimony, there is nothing wrong with their computers; they are utterly satisfied with them and all that they stand for. My correspondents are certain that I am wrong and that I am, moreover, on the losing side, a side already relegated to the dustbin of history. And yet they grow huffy and condescending over my tiny dissent. What are they so anxious about?
I can only conclude that I have scratched the skin of a technological fundamentalism that, like other fundamentalisms, wishes to monopolize a whole society and, therefore, cannot tolerate the smallest difference of opinion. At the slightest hint of a threat to their complacency, they repeat, like a chorus of toads, the notes sounded by their leaders in industry. The past was gloomy, drudgery-ridden, servile, meaningless, and slow. The present, thanks only to purchasable products, is meaningful, bright, lively, centralized, and fast. The future, thanks only to more purchasable products, is going to be even better. Thus consumers become salesmen, and the world is made safer for corporations.
I am also surprised by the meanness with which two of these writers refer to my wife. In order to imply that I am a tyrant, they suggest by both direct statement and innuendo that she is subservient, characterless, and stupid—a mere "device" easily forced to provide meaningless "free labor." I understand that it is impossible to make an adequate public defense of one's private life, and so l will only point out that there are a number of kinder possibilities that my critics have disdained to imagine: that my wife may do this work because she wants to and likes to; that she may find some use and some meaning in it; that she may not work for nothing. These gentlemen obviously think themselves feminists of the most correct and principled sort, and yet they do not hesitate to stereotype and insult, on the basis of one fact, a woman they do not know. They are audacious and irresponsible gossips .
In his letter, Bradley C. Johnson rushes past the possibility of sense in what I said in my essay by implying that I am or ought to be a fanatic. That I am a person of this century and am implicated in many practices that I regret is fully acknowledged at the beginning of my essay. I did not say that I proposed to end forthwith all my involvement in harmful technology, for I do not know how to do that. I said merely that I want to limit such involvement, and to a certain extent I do know how to do that. If some technology does damage to the world—as two of the above letters seem to agree that it does—then why is it not reasonable, and indeed moral, to try to limit one's use of that technology? Of course, I think that I am right to do this.
I would not think so, obviously, if I agreed with Nathaniel S. Borenstein that " 'better' is in the mind of the beholder." But if he truly believes this, I do not see why he bothers with his personal computer's "up-to-the-minute reports on the workings of the EPA and the nuclear industry" or why he wishes to be warned about "urgent legislative issues." According to his system, the "better" in a bureaucratic, industrial, or legislative mind is as good as the "better" in his. His mind apparently is being subverted by an objective standard of some sort, and he had better look out.
Borenstein does not say what he does after his computer has drummed him awake. I assume from his letter that he must send donations to conservation organizations and letters to officials. Like James Rhoads, at any rate, he has a clear conscience. But this is what is wrong with the conservation movement. It has a clear conscience. The guilty are always other people, and the wrong is always somewhere else. That is why Borenstein finds his "electronic bulletin board" so handy. To the conservation movement, it is only production that causes environmental degradation; the consumption that supports the production is rarely acknowledged to be at fault. The ideal of the run-of-the-mill conservationist is to impose restraints upon production without limiting consumption or burdening the consciences of consumers.
But virtually all of our consumption now is extravagant, and virtually all of it consumes the world. It is not beside the point that most electrical power comes from strip-mined coal . The history of the exploitation of the Appalachian coal fields is long, and it is available to readers. I do not see how anyone can read it and plug in any appliance with a clear conscience. If Rhoads can do so, that does not mean that his conscience is clear; it means that his conscience is not working.
To the extent that we consume, in our present circumstances, we are guilty. To the extent that we guilty consumers are conservationists, we are absurd. But what can we do ? Must we go on writing letters to politicians and donating to conservation organizations until the majority of our fellow citizens agree with us? Or can we do something directly to solve our share of the problem?
I am a conservationist. I believe wholeheartedly in putting pressure on the politicians and in maintaining the conservation organizations. But I wrote my little essay partly in distrust of centralisation. I don't think that the government and the conservation organizations alone will ever make us a conserving society. Why do I need a centralized computer system to alert me to environmental crises ? That I live every hour of every day in an environmental crisis I know from all my senses. Why then is not my first duty to reduce, so far as I can, my own consumption?
Finally, it seems to me that none of my correspondents recognises the innovativeness of my essay. If the use of a computer is a new idea, then a newer idea is not to use one.

Need Something To Read? The Top 100

1. "Ulysses," James Joyce
2. "The Great Gatsby," F. Scott Fitzgerald
3. "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man," James Joyce
4. "Lolita," Vladimir Nabokov
5. "Brave New World," Aldous Huxley
6. "The Sound and the Fury," William Faulkner
7. "Catch-22," Joseph Heller
8. "Darkness at Noon," Arthur Koestler
9. "Sons and Lovers," D. H. Lawrence
10. "The Grapes of Wrath," John Steinbeck
11. "Under the Volcano," Malcolm Lowry
12. "The Way of All Flesh," Samuel Butler
13. "1984," George Orwell
14. "I, Claudius," Robert Graves
15. "To the Lighthouse," Virginia Woolf
16. "An American Tragedy," Theodore Dreiser
17. "The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter," Carson McCullers
18. "Slaughterhouse Five," Kurt Vonnegut
19. "Invisible Man," Ralph Ellison
20. "Native Son," Richard Wright
21. "Henderson the Rain King," Saul Bellow
22. "Appointment in Samarra," John O' Hara
23. "U.S.A." (trilogy), John Dos Passos
24. "Winesburg, Ohio," Sherwood Anderson
25. "A Passage to India," E. M. Forster
26. "The Wings of the Dove," Henry James
27. "The Ambassadors," Henry James
28. "Tender Is the Night," F. Scott Fitzgerald
29. "The Studs Lonigan Trilogy," James T. Farrell
30. "The Good Soldier," Ford Madox Ford
31. "Animal Farm," George Orwell
32. "The Golden Bowl," Henry James
33. "Sister Carrie," Theodore Dreiser
34. "A Handful of Dust," Evelyn Waugh
35. "As I Lay Dying," William Faulkner
36. "All the King's Men," Robert Penn Warren
37. "The Bridge of San Luis Rey," Thornton Wilder
38. "Howards End," E. M. Forster
39. "Go Tell It on the Mountain," James Baldwin
40. "The Heart of the Matter," Graham Greene
41. "Lord of the Flies," William Golding
42. "Deliverance," James Dickey
43. "A Dance to the Music of Time" (series), Anthony Powell
44. "Point Counter Point," Aldous Huxley
45. "The Sun Also Rises," Ernest Hemingway
46. "The Secret Agent," Joseph Conrad
47. "Nostromo," Joseph Conrad
48. "The Rainbow," D. H. Lawrence
49. "Women in Love," D. H. Lawrence
50. "Tropic of Cancer," Henry Miller
51. "The Naked and the Dead," Norman Mailer
52. "Portnoy's Complaint," Philip Roth
53. "Pale Fire," Vladimir Nabokov
54. "Light in August," William Faulkner
55. "On the Road," Jack Kerouac
56. "The Maltese Falcon," Dashiell Hammett
57. "Parade's End," Ford Madox Ford
58. "The Age of Innocence," Edith Wharton
59. "Zuleika Dobson," Max Beerbohm
60. "The Moviegoer," Walker Percy
61. "Death Comes to the Archbishop," Willa Cather
62. "From Here to Eternity," James Jones
63. "The Wapshot Chronicles," John Cheever
64. "The Catcher in the Rye," J. D. Salinger
65. "A Clockwork Orange," Anthony Burgess
66. "Of Human Bondage," W. Somerset Maugham
67. "Heart of Darkness," Joseph Conrad
68. "Main Street," Sinclair Lewis
69. "The House of Mirth," Edith Wharton
70. "The Alexandria Quartet," Lawrence Durrell
71. "A High Wind in Jamaica," Richard Hughes
72. "A House for Ms. Biswas," V. S. Naipaul
73. "The Day of the Locust," Nathaniel West
74. "A Farewell to Arms," Ernest Hemingway
75. "Scoop," Evelyn Waugh
76. "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie," Muriel Spark
77. "Finnegans Wake," James Joyce
78. "Kim," Rudyard Kipling
79. "A Room With a View," E. M. Forster
80. "Brideshead Revisited," Evelyn Waugh
81. "The Adventures of Augie March," Saul Bellow
82. "Angle of Repose," Wallace Stegner
83. "A Bend in the River," V. S. Naipaul
84. "The Death of the Heart," Elizabeth Bowen
85. "Lord Jim," Joseph Conrad
86. "Ragtime," E. L. Doctorow
87. "The Old Wives' Tale," Arnold Bennett
88. "The Call of the Wild," Jack London
89. "Loving," Henry Green
90. "Midnight's Children," Salman Rushdie
91. "Tobacco Road," Erskine Caldwell
92. "Ironweed," William Kennedy
93. "The Magus," John Fowles
94. "Wide Sargasso Sea," Jean Rhys
95. "Under the Net," Iris Murdoch
96. "Sophie's Choice," William Styron
97. "The Sheltering Sky," Paul Bowles
98. "The Postman Always Rings Twice," James M. Cain
99. "The Ginger Man," J. P. Donleavy
100. "The Magnificent Ambersons," Booth Tarkington

Fav Song

What I am playing right now =) (http://rappelz.gpotato.com/)