I just learned from blogthings that... I'm 50% introvert, 50% extrovert. I suppose that means in 50% of social situations, I might be withdrawn, whilst in the other half of the time, I might engage someone comfortably.
Thank you blogspot.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
F-word, C-word
"I doubt if there are any rational people to whom the word fuck would be particularly diabolical, revolting or totally forbidden."
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Impacts and Effects of the Ideas of “Fake Estate.”
The Idea occurred to me on a ride home from Wal-mart. I was speaking to my Grandfather on the pros and cons of being in the Real Estate business. Then I realized something. The word estate can relate to many things, the definition being : estate – 1. One's entire property; a tract of land. 2. Property left after death. 3. Condition or State; social standing; rank or dignity. 4. A class or order of persons in a state.* Thus leading me to realize that all estate that isn't Real Estate that isn't must in fact be Fake Estate! Yet my revolutionary idea was met opposition. I have stated that wasn't real was fake, yet in fact, there was imaginary! I fell to the ground. Could it be possible that my idea was stopped so soon?
NO! In fact It wasn't!
I soon realized that the Idea of Imaginary estate could also be applied, by stating that estate that composes of Intellectual Property was Imaginary Estate! I was back up and running.
The idea of fake estate is that Jesus ensured to us that only the estate that was deemed “Real”
was holy enough to enter to glorious kingdom of heaven. Could John Calvin have understood this aspect long before I? No, for he was pw0n3d by mainstream protestantism.
Jesus, the almighty owner of the nubs, hath spoken to me in modern divine revelation and said
“Young Vohra of Powhatan, tho must go forth and preach, though tho may be mingled with those of a nature more subtle then tho, for ye must be meek, and take upon with ye the lycopene of the cooked ripened tomato, for tho must protect tho's most holy prostate, for ye is gangsta, and most of all, ye is the hacks0r and you must pwn those among ye with meek character and who cannot wield the most holy of instruments, the Rifle of Holy Accuracy.”
So from now on, I will preach, and yea verily............
I AM T3h h@(ks0R!!!!!!!!1
NO! In fact It wasn't!
I soon realized that the Idea of Imaginary estate could also be applied, by stating that estate that composes of Intellectual Property was Imaginary Estate! I was back up and running.
The idea of fake estate is that Jesus ensured to us that only the estate that was deemed “Real”
was holy enough to enter to glorious kingdom of heaven. Could John Calvin have understood this aspect long before I? No, for he was pw0n3d by mainstream protestantism.
Jesus, the almighty owner of the nubs, hath spoken to me in modern divine revelation and said
“Young Vohra of Powhatan, tho must go forth and preach, though tho may be mingled with those of a nature more subtle then tho, for ye must be meek, and take upon with ye the lycopene of the cooked ripened tomato, for tho must protect tho's most holy prostate, for ye is gangsta, and most of all, ye is the hacks0r and you must pwn those among ye with meek character and who cannot wield the most holy of instruments, the Rifle of Holy Accuracy.”
So from now on, I will preach, and yea verily............
I AM T3h h@(ks0R!!!!!!!!1
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Simple domination of a world that poses very little threat to the U.S. is completely mandatory. Flood the Middle East with young men in order to achieve impossible victory.
Oh and on a lighter note, women are cool.
-Lee's Paraphrasing of the State of the Union
I think it's odd that the state we have put the so called " leader of the free world" is one of a commander and chief of the worst militaristic campaigns of all time. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush is not a mean person.
He just doesn't know how to do foreign policy. Period
His legacy is What he is trying to save now, he doesn't want to be remembered as the neo-Nixon. (Whom he shares comparable approval ratings with.)
ohh and by the way, vohra is so right about the c.o.bodom thing,
that and i would like to add that if you do enjoy them, no one enjoys your company.
NO ONE.
Walk It out.
Oh and on a lighter note, women are cool.
-Lee's Paraphrasing of the State of the Union
I think it's odd that the state we have put the so called " leader of the free world" is one of a commander and chief of the worst militaristic campaigns of all time. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush is not a mean person.
He just doesn't know how to do foreign policy. Period
His legacy is What he is trying to save now, he doesn't want to be remembered as the neo-Nixon. (Whom he shares comparable approval ratings with.)
ohh and by the way, vohra is so right about the c.o.bodom thing,
that and i would like to add that if you do enjoy them, no one enjoys your company.
NO ONE.
Walk It out.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
We censor eachother.
People use the internet as an outlet for all the conflicting opinions they hold. They pick the ones that seem more acceptable for a social situation in public, or simply live out perfectly some stereotype they consider offensive. Then, they go online and flame people who have noticed a certain characteristic of a group of people, making them feel superior to other people. The internet gave us the feeling of anonymity, enabling the masses to suffer from a god-complex. Those who consider themselves in an elevated position of intellectuality will then move on to thinking they have an elevated morality.
A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to. - Granville Hicks
The above image sparked an example of the conflict I was talking about. It's a threadless.com shirt design loaded with stereotypes that have been associated with the two sexes.
"why is the male stereotype a soilder huh? what are they saying, woman arent fit to serve in the military? shame on you threadless. shame on you for printing such an obviously sexist and politically offensive shirt "
This where I stop blogging in equal distaste and disenterest in my topic and point out obliquely that no one really enjoys children of bodom.
No one.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
HeLacksImpositions
I wish I was frantic enough now to get my thoughts out. See, I need to have the sense of logically clear impending danger before I can nurse an idea into writing. That's a ridiculous impediment for a person composed of equal parts levity in its finer sense, and an incessesantly overbearing thought process. So here I sit. I realize that at this point, no one reads this. That's fine - my own fault. I need people to Join Me. Off to find some more like-minded individuals.
I hate overly sweet barbeque sauces. You should too.
In the mean time, consider something I wrote about Ol' Teddy boy.
(Yes I made the graphic.)
Net Neutrality (according to Ted Kennedy)
You might think that he's talking about how cable companies shouldn't restrict our internet access. Maybe it seems like he's saying everyone should be able to get on the internet. That might be a nice and happy concept, but why should the government step in? Senator Sununu said that any government impositions can do nothing but stifle innovation. The very name of the legislation he's pushing, Net Neutrality, conflicts with the agenda it contains. He's talking about how internet freedom should be unrestricted, specifically from corporations, and he implies the government..., while a quick search(1) describes net neutrality as a regulatory bill.
America was built on competetive behavior, Mr. Kennedy, why are you so quick to say we should be free from it? Attempting to grant equality is of Marxist politics. I am free of an agenda, Mr Kennedy, though you suggest the people each have their own, just like you. You say the internet lets you communicate with me, but your campaign through Youtube (should i say google) accomplishes the second definition of communicate in the dictionary,... to spread, as a disease. I'm 15 years old. I'm against Net Neutrality and any other form of subtle government information control. If the House and Senate or any local community passes Net Neutrality, God help us as the panapticon controls our thoughts. It's a given in this covert plan that the added control of the people only applies to internet users, so you must also get internet to everyone. The faster our internet, the faster subvergent evil dominates. As a demonoid user, a freethinking but modest soul, and an American... please don't support anyone who pushes the oxymoronic net neutrality. This just takes us towards the governmental misery in the U.K. and China(2). (Net Neutrality is already in effect there, homes)
I'd be fine with his speech if the Chinese flag were behind him. But see, it's the American flag he's sitting in front of.
To recap... by the way... FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOW REGULATE AND CONTROL THE INTERNET THROUGH YOUR PROVIDER.
I encourage whoever reads this to evaluate for themselves(3) the implications of the government's actions. Aren't we doing fine already? You have internet, don't you? Why would the government have to force every internet provider to transmit an annual report on:
1. Their ability to transmit any and all types of internet content to the end user over broadband. (How do you judge someone's ability to transmit? You look at what they've sent. This may mean the government could freely access data including any type of activity on the internet. This is that hateful big brother who moved out, except he could come back at any time with a wicked wedgie for you)
2. The abilities of their competitors to transmit conent
3. The prices and terms of sending information via broadband
4. The number of people who send and receive information via broadband connections
5. the "state of competition" among those people.
What is the state of competition? It's an open-ended phrase seruptitiously tacked to the end of the proposed Congress Bill. In closing, discern your own meaning for Net Neutrality. It's a pretty use of alliteration, yet a serious crime and hamper to innovation and prosperity, even if the privacy scares turn out to be unfounded. To me, it seems sad that so many are under the impression that net neutrality gives us more freedom.
(1)www.publicknowledge.org/
(2)http://youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=6UlCXXZTTh8&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D6UlCXXZTTh8%26mode%3Drelated%26search%3D
"i'm in china (temporarily) & i truly think that the general pop. here are limited in resources, w/the only 3 internet companies they have. the repercussion? they don't get all the facts. & what will happen to north america and the rest of the world if you start limiting access. limiting facts, separating the haves and have nots, etc.."
(3) http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/s2917-109.pdf
( bottom of page 8 and on)
You might think that he's talking about how cable companies shouldn't restrict our internet access. Maybe it seems like he's saying everyone should be able to get on the internet. That might be a nice and happy concept, but why should the government step in? Senator Sununu said that any government impositions can do nothing but stifle innovation. The very name of the legislation he's pushing, Net Neutrality, conflicts with the agenda it contains. He's talking about how internet freedom should be unrestricted, specifically from corporations, and he implies the government..., while a quick search(1) describes net neutrality as a regulatory bill.
America was built on competetive behavior, Mr. Kennedy, why are you so quick to say we should be free from it? Attempting to grant equality is of Marxist politics. I am free of an agenda, Mr Kennedy, though you suggest the people each have their own, just like you. You say the internet lets you communicate with me, but your campaign through Youtube (should i say google) accomplishes the second definition of communicate in the dictionary,... to spread, as a disease. I'm 15 years old. I'm against Net Neutrality and any other form of subtle government information control. If the House and Senate or any local community passes Net Neutrality, God help us as the panapticon controls our thoughts. It's a given in this covert plan that the added control of the people only applies to internet users, so you must also get internet to everyone. The faster our internet, the faster subvergent evil dominates. As a demonoid user, a freethinking but modest soul, and an American... please don't support anyone who pushes the oxymoronic net neutrality. This just takes us towards the governmental misery in the U.K. and China(2). (Net Neutrality is already in effect there, homes)
I'd be fine with his speech if the Chinese flag were behind him. But see, it's the American flag he's sitting in front of.
To recap... by the way... FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOW REGULATE AND CONTROL THE INTERNET THROUGH YOUR PROVIDER.
I encourage whoever reads this to evaluate for themselves(3) the implications of the government's actions. Aren't we doing fine already? You have internet, don't you? Why would the government have to force every internet provider to transmit an annual report on:
1. Their ability to transmit any and all types of internet content to the end user over broadband. (How do you judge someone's ability to transmit? You look at what they've sent. This may mean the government could freely access data including any type of activity on the internet. This is that hateful big brother who moved out, except he could come back at any time with a wicked wedgie for you)
2. The abilities of their competitors to transmit conent
3. The prices and terms of sending information via broadband
4. The number of people who send and receive information via broadband connections
5. the "state of competition" among those people.
What is the state of competition? It's an open-ended phrase seruptitiously tacked to the end of the proposed Congress Bill. In closing, discern your own meaning for Net Neutrality. It's a pretty use of alliteration, yet a serious crime and hamper to innovation and prosperity, even if the privacy scares turn out to be unfounded. To me, it seems sad that so many are under the impression that net neutrality gives us more freedom.
(1)www.publicknowledge.org/
(2)http://youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=6UlCXXZTTh8&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D6UlCXXZTTh8%26mode%3Drelated%26search%3D
"i'm in china (temporarily) & i truly think that the general pop. here are limited in resources, w/the only 3 internet companies they have. the repercussion? they don't get all the facts. & what will happen to north america and the rest of the world if you start limiting access. limiting facts, separating the haves and have nots, etc.."
(3) http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/s2917-109.pdf
( bottom of page 8 and on)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)