That desk actually looks fairly new. And bad. And it's not a desk. Your entire title is a lie.

It's actually a reference to a 1967 song by Harry Nilsson, so it was not in fact referring to my desk. It was, however, referring to the desk in the song, which may or may not be similar to the desk displayed here. You see, in the song's lyrics, Nilsson sings:

"My old desk doesn't arabesque, in the morning when I first arrive.
It's a pleasure to see its waiting there for me
to keep my hopes alive.
Such a comfort to know its got no place to go,
It's always there.
It's the one thing I've got, a huge success,
My Good Old Desk."

These particular lyrics gave the aforementioned desk in the lyrics and the desk in my room a large resemblance. I am fairly sure my desk does not arabesque, it indeed is a pleasure to see and it comforts me that it is where I left it.
The later verses are not as accurate, they say such things as "It's always there to please me
from nine to five." or "I just open the drawer
of my favorite desk/And what do I see? But a picture of me". I happen to use my desk during the hours of 5 am to 11 pm, whenever I feel like it really, so the lyrics are inaccurate at this point. Indeed, my desk has no drawers, it is essentially a table with shelves and the ability to tilt. Also, if this desk of mine did in fact contain a shelf, I would not be so egotistic as to keep a picture of me inside.

Some have speculated that the song that the song's initials (G.O.D. for the illiterate) point a clue towards the actual subject matter of the song, God. Harry Nilsson himself claimed this on the television show Playboy After Dark, however Nilsson later stated he claimed it simply to humor the host, Hugh Hefner. Despite this, many believe the song is about God and I would like to clear up any mix-up now by saying that my usage of the song's title is in fact referring to the literal translation of the lyrics, and not some sort of underlying meaning implied by a secret code.

--
salsashark

Now that's fair enough, I can sort understand your intention to reference that popular piece of music. However, the intention was ill conceived because an educated individualm such as myself, was unable to to understand you were in fact making a clever reference and instead came accross as a blunt and brutal lie.

Now I can understand the title being a lie if this were, perhaps, a fictional piece of art. But this is clearly a real desk, from real life. One you would actually perhaps use to draw or write on and creating lies about it in this context just isn't appropriate at all.

I do understand "lying"was not intended and you attempted to make this a piece's title that of referential pop culture. But this attempt did no succeed and I guess that is the one major criticism you're going to have to accept. I imagine several others share my view so my only advice would be, not to alter this work, but to improve upon such mistakes in the future so futher embarrassment mirroring this one can be duly avoided!

This comment is a nightmare of punctuation, I am sorry for this. But I will set an example of noting my mistakes and moving on without trying to go back on them.

You appear to have things very mixed up in your head, old Alex. (I was fully intending on typing "young Alex" in this instance to seem like a mentor, a father figure, as If I'm holding your tiny toddler hand guiding you through this complex explanation. Unfortunately I soon realized I am in fact 2 years younger than you, so using "young Alex would be very silly of me and I'm sure you would've pointed it out had I typed it. Luckily I did not.) You see, no matter what my title was intending it does not matter whether you are offended by it or if you believe it to be a lie, because, as I stated in my first post, it is not. It is a clever pop culture reference that only the Nilsson elite will understand, and they will understand it to a point of awesomeness. So clearly it is not me who is at fault here. It is you, and anyone who objects to my clever title. In fact, I do not mind if certain people do not make the connection and realize I'm referring to a song written by the late Harry Nilsson (late in this instance meaning he's long dead, a tragic occurance to many of us Nilssonauts). If they do not realize it's a reference to a rather good song, they immediately believe it is a reference to the desk itself. And many people, may see the desk and end up looking much closer. They may look for the exact make and model of the desk from what company, read reviews of it, look up release dates, and check if it is in fact a desk. But many people, also, will not care as much as you.

Well, I regret to inform you that even if the title were literally a reference to the desk in the photograph, it is not immediately a lie.
The desk is actually described as a desk in it's instruction manual, and it perplexes me how you came to he conclusion that this was not a desk simply by looking at an image that does not even show the desk's body and legs.
While it may not seem old, the desk was acquired in the fifth grade, nearly four years ago. While some older people may claim this is not such a long time, I assure you, based off of the opinion of the average ninth grader here (which is "Oh, what? 'Who Let the Dogs Out'? That song is so old! Shrek? When did that movie come out, 2003? 2002? That movie is so OLD!") that my desk is not nearly as new as you say. (and while many say that ninth graders only act like this because they are wary of the mistakes they've made in the past and almost instantly are repelled by anything from the past, or possibly because they're stupid assholes, I must disagree with you there. While I do not believe in their odd aging system, I do respect them long enough to steal their anti-past agenda and spread it as the whipped cream on my Good Old Desk cake.)
Finally, it is indeterminate as to whether or not the desk is good because it's a matter of opinion. You could say I'm lying instead of using a Nilsson song to jump off of, which would be wrong, because even if I wasn't really referring to a Nilsson song, it would be an opinionated title, not a lying title. It is up to you if you want to classify my desk as bad, although I believe it is quite good. However, claiming my desk is new, or claiming that my desk is not a desk is simply uncalled for and a lie. I'm pretty sure YOU'RE the liar here! Hahahah!

--
salsashark

Oh, "young" William, be assured I am not denouncing you based on your age, I'm merely using the aforementioned mentor like tactic when addressing you to give myself a heightened sense of authority, is it really a mature instance to attempt to shift the blame of lie-ability to the next able bodied person you see. You know full well that I had no intentions of lying, so slamming me with slanderous names such as this do no such benefit to my self esteem and only serve to hinder my progress as a healthy, happy human being. Now your post may have really helped me to see and appreciate your point of view, and I now almost respect it. However you destroyed all merit the post may have had within the final sentence by proclaiming ME as the liar.

But now, let's look a little more clearly at the desks statistics. You claim my claim that this was not even a desk was absurd, but really it isn't. Websters dictionary defines a desk as a "Most usually brown device constructed of crude timber containing 2 or more draws and metal legs" Now I'm afraid when I look at your picture and description which highlights such features as "being white" and "no draws" I really have to reach the obvious conclusion that this is in fact a table and not a desk at all. Making the pop culture reference/claim of the desks oldness completely out of place ergo leading to my confused wonders as to just what you meant by this absurd title.

Now onto it's age, we all know that something is usually a decade or more before it becomes old, at best this desk is aged. Don't use your small life experience to try and claim differently, when creating a deviation title it's important to be assured people of all ages, race and gender will understand it for simple and effective advertising. When you make claims that really stretch this concern, it just doesn't work as a functioning deviation anymore and instead becomes something bizarre and out of place.

Now about "Good" being an opinion. Really, just look back at my last point. Your title's can't do such a thing, if people of all race, gender and opinion are to look at this you can't force some left wing view upon them. You've got to provide all the factual evidence and let them come to their own conclusions about the desks good-ability.

So all in all you see my claims are still as valid as the day I made them and you're really wearing your repeated and weak argument thin. You liar, you!

May I ask what Webster's Dictionary that was? The extremely retarded edition?
While I admit calling you a liar was way out of line and I shouldn't've gone that far, you're wrong there on the definition. An online dictionary I looked up stated the various meanings of desk:
1. A piece of furniture typically having a flat or sloping top for writing and often drawers or compartments.
2. A table, counter, or booth at which specified services or functions are performed: an information desk; a reception desk.
3. A department of a large organization in charge of a specified operation: a newspaper's city desk.
4. A lectern.
5. A music stand in an orchestra.

My desk fits spectacularly inside of numbers 1 and 2. 3 through 5, not so much. So your concerns about it's deskiness are unwarranted; it is quite clearly a desk.

Now onto your definition of age. I myself am 4 years over a decade old, am I an old man, sir? Are you a geriatric woman, crapping your pants every two hours and sitting, festering in your own feces until a nurse comes up and scoops your poo into a bedpan with her bare hands? I think not. How old is a drink of aged wine? Some like to keep their wine for centuries in the bizarre hope that it will for some reason taste better. Well, I happen to like my wine 2 days old so this clearly lays out my thought process on the subject of aging.
Now my opinions may be different than yours on aging and how good my desk is, but that's America.
In America, we have freedom of speech. Unlike Australia's totalitarian government, we have something called democracy here. Here we can spout off whatever opinions we have simply because we're good like that. And that's not opinion, that's fact, old Alex.
And since deviantART has many American members, it should be no problem for me to say my opinions freely here. I am completely free to state whatever I want on this glorious website (except for, you know, the prospect that deviantART isn't so glorious or that it's members might be steaming piles of poo, but that's neither here nor there.)
Indeed, you say your claims are as valid as the day you made them. Well, the day you made them (which was evidently today by your time) is not very valid, seeing as on that same day I was still in June 10th. This day, therefore, is not very valid, making your claim that your claims are as valid as the day even truer. Your lies fall flat when subjected to the cold touch of hard facts.

--
salsashark

The dictionary meaning I gave was a mere (yet surprisingly accurate) paraphrasing of the actual one, which you have collected here for me to see. And the point I made using that definition still remains, if you look at the definition there you will see several mentions of drawers or compartments. Perhaps the word "often" leads you to believe a desk doesn't need one, perhaps this is true in some extreme cases. But the fact is, if a desk lacked these features it wouldn't be a "good" desk, it would only ever reach the height of sub par. So really, even if this IS in fact a desk, which it may or may not be, it still doesn't retain the "good" that you speak of in the slanderously lying title.

Your arguments on age are weak and feeble as an old women stuck in her nursing home bed, constantly wetting herself until a nurse eventually finds her month old urine soaked carcass, suffocated on it's own oldness. Yes, being over a decade doesn't make you "old" in human years. But desks are not measured within human years, they're measured with desk years. So really, a desk being around a decade in age would most defiantly make it old, seeing as the average lifespan of a desk is made 20 years. That is, without artificial life extension by use of preserving and restoration techniques, but that doesn't count.

Freedom of speech has a limit William. It's one thing to express crazy views like yours, but that way you chose to express them pushes the limits as to just what free speech was intended to mean. I find it laughable you accuse MY country of lacking such a feature, when yours throws people in jail for simply being black. Hows that even freedom of colour? It's freedom nothing! Just like your arguments relating to the general characteristics of the desk we speak of.

Oh quit listening to your Kylie Minogue CDs on repeat and watching Crocodile Dundee while making a small memorial to Steve Irwin out of a deceased kangaroo's body and simultaneously licking a stamp that has an image of Johnny O'Keefe on it. Just because you're Australian does NOT give you the right to be an Asstralian (you see, this is a clever play on words. I have to include this sidenote in brackets to help you understand, however, since you have little grasp of spelling and grammar, as I can tell.)

You are severely missing the point of the definition. It clearly states that a desk may be a table as well. Therefore, even if it is not in fact a desk, it is in fact a desk. Also, as I have said before, my opinion of my desk is that it is "good". I am not including a disclaimer. It should be generally accepted among communities that certain adjectives are opinionated and should be treated as such. Michael Jackson is "Bad" by his song but does that really make him bad? What defines him as bad? HE defines HIMSELF as bad, although I'm sure his friends and family may disagree. In the same way, my desk is considered "Good". I consider it good, and clearly you do not, but just because one person (if I can even define you as such a thing) disagrees it's no grounds for changing the title (and the image the title immediately gives off upon viewing). And there are probably those who agree with you. But these people are not going to sway me either way, nor will you.

Your rambling about desk years is unreliable seeing as the last deskly calender was made in the year 1678, and no one has seen it since. Such predictions and calculations of yours, therefore, are most likely wrong and do not correspond to the correct lifespan of the desk. No one knows the lifespan of a desk, but 20 years is a fairly good estimate. Now, considering the average age of the human being (let's say, 80 years old) and how it corresponds to 20 years, by my calculations the desk is approximately 20 years old in desk years. Now, considering we both have not yet reached that age, we cannot say for sure whether we consider it old as we have not yet experienced it, although many consider 20 to be adulthood at best. So, while my desk is certainly not old, it is older than at least a million people in the world and can be classified as such; old.

And stop using your precious country to hide behind! It's not advancing your arguments at all, and besides, who can trust a person from the country where alien drug lords run rampant? For shame, Alex. For shame.

--
salsashark