Category: I Am Puppy Hear Me Degrade

ESPN – A Derogatorial, V 1.1

Since my internet connection MYSTERIOUSLY, SUDDENLY, and COMPLETELY froze – even though I was running nothing else that would POSSIBLY make that happen – while I was trying to make this post about the selective allowing/”editing”/removal/etc of information (aka “Propaganda”…great Wikipedia article, check it out) the first time, I’ll try again, and this time I’ll make sure to use A LOT MORE words.

Basically, ESPN edited out Curt Schilling’s “bloody sock” game from its “Four Days In October” special (which I’ve seen several times).

Now, I don’t know much about Curt Schilling. But from what I GATHER (could be wrong) he’s very conservative. So would I like HIM, the person? Probably not. Would I agree with most of his views? Probably not.

But (in this context) I don’t give a fck if he’s, hypothetically speaking, the most terrible person in the history of the world IN THAT: for the purposes of that program, it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

“Four Days In October” is not a political commentary. It’s not a moral commentary. It’s not expressing ANY opinion (Unless you consider “I like the Sox” and/or “I like/hate the Yankees” and/or “I like watching exciting baseball plays” to be highly debatable, complex opinions).

It’s a FCKEN SPORTS DOCUMENTARY. And the opinions, WHATEVER they are, of ANYONE involved in said documentary about SPORTS – OUTSIDE OF SPORTS – have exactly NOTHING to do with the documentary, and hence absolutely NOTHING to do with whether they should be included or not.

What should be included in a documentary about the near-miraculous and first-ever-in-MLB-history postseason comeback from a 3-0 series deficit to win that series…hmmmmm…I mean, I’m not a qualified sportsologist, but I’d have to go with “things involved in the comeback from 3-0 to the series win”. So like…ummm…maybe, game 4? And then, I’d follow that…PROBABLY…with…hmmm…game 5, I think. And well, I’d probably include game six…and WTF, I guess I’d include game 7 too. And…I dunno, maybe get some commentary from the people involved on the most interesting parts. And I guess I’d have to not show EVERYTHING because, it being a one hour program and four baseball games taking say 12 hours or so, or whatever. So I’d have to edit out some stuff. And based on the exciting blueprint established above, I think I’d edit out the boring stuff and leave in the exciting, memorable, thrilling, series-altering, history-in-the-making-revisited stuff. Maybe, I dunno.

So for games 4-7, in terms of the info I’d include, I’d PROBABLY lean towards showing said exciting, thrilling, near-miraculous stuff as opposed to the relatively boring, unexciting, mundane stuff. So like, if I had to choose between showing the Dave Roberts stolen base that kept the entire series alive by the margin of maybe an inch (or just a TINY stumble), and showing footage of and commentary on a weak grounder to first or a shallow fly to center in the early innings, it’d be a tough choice, but I THINK I’d go with the Roberts stolen base. But hey…I don’t work at ESPN, what do I know.

A few things:

1) You have to separate the ARTIST from the ART.

– Ty Cobb was a vicious, disgusting, racist slimeball that TRIED TO injure people by bringing his (very real and quite sharp) spikes into their legs as he slid into second.

Should he be removed from the “Greatest Hitters Ever” discussion? Should his numbers be removed from Baseball History? Better yet, hey…since he was so nasty, why not LOWER his numbers, so he was a HORRIBLE hitter? I mean, he was a slimeball, so he didn’t DESERVE those high batting averages. So let’s just…hmmmm…there we go. Now he hit .237 – PERFECT. Now, excuse me while I go out and campaign against deception in political campaign ads.

*SATIRE…SATIRE…SATIRE*

(You see, I HATE propaganda as much as the next person, but the way to show you HATE propaganda is to POINT IT OUT and CRITICIZE it, not to USE IT YOURSELF!!! WTF is wrong with you people???)

I mean, these MORONS who HATE Curt Schilling for his POLITICS but then USE PROPAGANDA POLITICS as an excuse to edit something entirely a-political. I’m not saying they’re morons for hating Curt Schilling. I’m saying, that’s the equivalent of being so against violence that you’d just KILL anyone for even contemplating war. Or ABSOLUTELY DESPISING people that have any hate for anything. Or being ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that an absolute is NEVER correct.

– If you removed every classic rock band from radio rotation and played based on how nice they were as opposed to how TALENTED they were, rock radio would be pretty FCKEN dull. (See “Hicks, Bill” on his music preferences).

– Never met Stanley Kubrick. Don’t know him, didn’t know him. But if a million people came up to me and told me he was a horrible person, I would not suddenly remove ‘The Shining’ and ‘A Clockwork Orange’ from my “A List”.

1a) HERE’S WHY: Propaganda is propaganda…there is no “good” propaganda.

Propaganda is the selective “bending” (or breaking) of information and/or truth to achieve a desired result.

‘1984’ is about a society controlled by propaganda, where The State decides everything that is true, “always has been” true, and will be true and totally controls every aspect of everyone’s life.

Now, they happen to be vicious, cruel, and evil about it…

However, it’s not any more “ok” when they’re relatively “nice” about it (‘Brave New World’) or less TOTALLY controlling about it (‘Gattaca’) or it works REALLY well and it’s not COMPLETELY controlling…(‘The Return Of The Archons’).

Propaganda is propaganda. Either (PREFERABLY) don’t use it, or get off your fcken moral high horse when other people do. Idiots.

It’s LAUGHABLE that ESPN – which routinely criticizes “excuses” for things by professional athletes that are quite obviously…ummm, well, nudge nudge wink wink grin grin snap snap SAY NO MORE! – edits out UNARGUABLY (unless you’re insane or you enjoy tedium) one of the MOST memorable parts of the series and then pretends they did so for “logistics” or “time constraint” reasons.

I mean, talk about hypocritical. It’s your d@mn documentary, so edit it if you want. Hey, even change the outcome if you want, to get Yankee fans! Have TWO versions!!! Make a SERIES out of it!

But if you’re GOING to edit it because you don’t LIKE Curt Schilling, have the GUTS to say “Yeah, well, we don’t really like Curt Schilling so we cut his bit out” or have a brief graphic at the beginning like “There Now Follows A Documentary Edited By People That Don’t Like Curt Schilling”.

NOTE: This is a post containing SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS. Your subjective opinions may or may not be the same or similar. Everything you read should be subjected to something called “thought” and given something called “consideration”, if you even care about it, which of course you don’t have to. Individual results may vary. Verify all “facts” before accepting them as so. Shake well before serving. Does not include certain models. On the bottom of the box after Monosodium Glutamate. Eat at Joe’s. In small print so as not to affect the sales. Close cover before striking. This post may be a fire hazard if you light on fire the thing you’re looking at it with. Hot coffee may be hot. You love it. HOTSEX MUCH better than ‘Cats’. HOTSEX You’re going to read it again and again. HOTSEX.

5/3/16: “Whose harmony? Yours? Plato wanted Truth, and Beauty; and above all, Justice.”

If propaganda is a tool of nasty, horrible people, what does that make someone who uses propaganda to exaggerate actual facts about how someone else used propaganda? (“Hmm…this is HORRIBLE…but in order to get people involved we NEED to show it’s even MORE horrible…so, here…ok. Now, all references to the North Korean leader’s ex-girlfriend actually still being alive are gone. Minitru!)

Nasty, horrible people don’t require propaganda to attack.

I can say “Kim Jong-Un is an incredibly dorky evil scumbag” without having to remove any actual facts that diminish HOW MUCH of an incredibly dorky evil scumbag he is. Like, the fact that, since his ex-girlfriend is ALIVE (according to several articles I’ve read, check for yourself), he PROBABLY didn’t have her executed by firing squad, as had been reported.

10/16/16: Hey, someone actually read this. Which made me look for how high I was in the search results (not very). BUT, it also made me read other articles related.

So when you get past all the BS on all sides, it comes down to two things:

– Are you stupid enough to believe that, given a number of less important parts, ESPN edited this out for “time constraints”, AND

– As I said, it’s a sports documentary. Sports has nothing to do with politics. Or opinions (outside sports). So a SPORTS network should probably do its best to show SPORTS programming, as best it can. I mean, I know that it would be a great tragedy not to be able to see the quarterfinals of the All-Essex Badminton Championship, but game six of the ALCS is PROBABLY more important…and more interesting. It doesn’t MATTER who Curt Schilling is outside of baseball. Not on a SPORTS network.

The other argument I read is that people are only upset because they’re Red Sox fans, and also the same people are upset about ESPN’s reporting vis Tom Brady.

May I direct you to the MANY other posts I’ve made pointing out bullsh1t and denouncing propaganda. I don’t think Tom Brady is a choir boy, nor do I think that God himself reaches his omnipotent hands toward Gillette Stadium on Sundays to guarantee a Pats victory, cuz he’s a fan.

How important is cutting Schilling’s part in the grand scheme of the universe? Not very. But NOTHING on ESPN is vital to the grand scheme of the universe. It’s SPORTS. They’re GAMES. If you’re going to make a network that’s dedicated to being the “Worldwide Leader In Games-People-Get-Paid-Huge-Amounts-Of-Money-For”, you should PROBABLY show the most important (and most important parts, given time constraints) of such games. Which would be the most popular, and the most “significant” in regard to such games and the history of such games in general.

Phew…now, to get ready for the game. Om… *Divine Light* GO PATS!

Ah, finally worthy of note.

“Well frankly it was getting on my nerves.

I mean, the thing kept coming back.

Finally I said to myself, ‘it’s for a worthy cause…put the d@mn thing out of its misery.'”

Someone found this amusing, so I thought I’d share:

OkC Question (or very close to it)

“In the line ‘Wherefore art thou, Romeo?’ what does “wherefore” mean?”

My Answer:

“Who Cares/WTF”

My Explanation:

Billy Shakespeare: Wherefore art thou overrated?

How I Feel About “Fate”:

“Machine empty. Order more fortunes today.”

Ok, ok…that’s it.

Enough with the STUPID beyond ABSURD vehicle commercials with some guy talking to people about really boring cr@p, and then he asks them a stupid, boring question and they pretend to care.

And they don’t. And…you know why. Because it’s stupid. And noone would care.

But the latest is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen.

The guy is talking to a bunch of kids, and asks who wants to play a video game. They all want to, but only one can! OH NO!

What to do? Well…

What if he told them that if they talked EACH of their parents into spending 30K on a car, they could ALL play a video game, TOGETHER!

Suggested realistic response by the kids, collectively:

“What are you, a moron?”

Nazi Germany is the extreme example, but it makes the point: given the ability to interfere in any way with the reproductive process, even the slightest inroads to controlling what kind of people are born and what kind are not, ANY government with the wrong person or persons in power (which could occur in any government in the world) could – legally or illegally, hidden or visible, publicly condemned or publicly endorsed – wield enormous power over the “type” of people that they want…and do NOT want…born.

To suggest it’s not highly possible, and plausible, that this would eventually happen to some degree is naive. Science creates, it does NOT control. Power controls, government controls; and what is made to be benevolent can and always will have the potential to be used – by those with no interest in benevolence – to its worst possible extent. There are many examples in history of initially benevolent discoveries warped and twisted to be extremely malevolent.

It’s like the saying goes…

“First they came for…”

Even starting out with only the SLIGHTEST interference has very real potential to lead to, eventually, total control.

If you believe that any government, given the ability to in any way control reproduction in terms of filtering out “undesirable” elements…or to have any say in what “types” of people are born…would not potentially misuse this ability, you are either incredibly naive or you have a faith in the essential “Good” of humanity that is well-intentioned but false.

Thoughts that came so easily after a recent re…viewing of Star Trek:TOS ‘Space Seed’…

A suggested slogan: “Eugenics – For When You Want Your Accomplishments Created In A Test Tube”.

Really that’s all it is…nothing a “superman” has as ability is earned or worked for in any way, merely given. No accomplishment, no hardship, no effort…pride over how they happened, by pure chance, to be created.

Now that’s just sad.

Khan is pretty much the equivalent of Mr. Dingle, The Strong…except more dangerous. Given amazing ability (by pure chance), using that ability on petty, selfish, completely NON-“superior” actions and pursuits.

The brilliant idea of the eugenically enhanced super-mind:

Conquer the world.

Wow…noone’s ever thought of that before.

In fact, anyone that believes that by virtue of an enhanced ability to learn/improve/comprehend that they did NOTHING to acquire that they are in ANY way “superior” to others is actively INFERIOR…a completely illogical, self-deluded, LaVeyan-like idiot who would fail John Cleese’s school in the first year; worthy of pity if they weren’t dangerous by their inherent boorish, arrogant, petty “goals”.

Eugenics is a vicious, brutal, disgusting, totalitarian, fascist and complete violation of individuality and the rights, dignities, and worths of the individual.

Unless you stand to gain from this (wanting only the best, strongest, most intelligent genetically engineered I-hesitate-to-call-them-humans to make up your workforce) or unless you have absolutely no regard for individuality, liberty, or the concept of personal identity as sacred, I fail to see how any “intelligent” person cannot understand this. Assuming, of course, they have the basic morals of a non-sociopath.

People are born the way they are, and everything they do (assuming they aren’t in the .1 percent) requires at least SOME effort…an active desire to learn or improve, not an egotistical vegetable-like state of soaking in things because you can’t help it, like some sort of sponge or a parasitical being that required no apparatus.

In FACT, people born eugenically “perfect” would be an active detriment to the human race: perfection would become the norm, destroying individuality…among other things. Since only the most desirable traits are necessary, selective filtering would make mankind smarter, stronger, healthier…more homogenous, with fewer and fewer variations, closer and closer to simply clones of the one “perfect” example.

You can only make people perfect by taking away their humanity.

Knowledge or power gained without effort lacks wisdom.

Is the slow devolution of humanity into more perfect, more machine-like, more egotistical – the slow transformation from diversity to a more Borg or Landru inspired society something positive?

Let’s not make this statement accurate:

“This is a soulless society, Captain. It has no spirit, no spark. All is indeed peace and tranquility; the peace of the factory, the tranquility of the machine. All parts working in unison.”

HOW I WROTE THIS:

I think
I went to school
I’ve read books
I’ve read articles
I’ve undergone hardships
I’ve actively analyzed with the possibility of my premise being incorrect
I’ve expended effort
I have morals
I am not an elitist
And lastly and leastly, I was born with a certain degree of intelligence

Inspirational Quote: “Khan…I’m LAUGHING at the ‘superior’ intellect.”

And, of course, the “superior” intellect responds with arrogance and stupidity.

No surprize.

Also see:
‘Space Seed’
‘The Return Of The Archons’
‘Gattaca’
‘Brave New World’ (imagine it’s better written)
‘1984’
‘Minority Report’
‘The Hangman’
“Foot-In-The-Door Technique”
“Creeping Normality”

Speaking from a somewhat neutral standpoint, I’ve learned that there is a limit to the power of positive thinking, but virtually no limit to the power of negative thinking.

To those that object to my arguing “against intellect”, that’s not really accurate. I’m arguing against intellect as morality…I’m arguing against intellectual bullying (as opposed to “cowardice”)…I’m arguing against the violent change from an undesirable society that demeans intelligence and glorifies anything “common” to an undesirable society that demeans athletics, slang – anything “common” – and glorifies intelligence and pure scientific methodology as the defining virtues of the best of society.

I’m arguing that the best of society are neither smart nor dumb, neither athletic nor geeky, neither formal nor informal, neither abstract nor concrete, neither demeanors of intellect nor kneeling worshippers of it, neither atheists nor theists, neither male nor female, neither any race vs. any other race, neither rich nor poor…

The best of society are good and decent vs. sorely lacking in morality. And that is all.

Besides…if the people you’re talking to are so stupid, and you’re so smart, why do you need to use (and I quote) “an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined”?

If you’re so smart, can’t you win your argument on any level? With or without formal adherence to logical fallacy policy?

Can’t you be smart enough to understand – and out-argue – a dumb person on any level they choose? Can’t you drop your rigid, programmed, computerized comments and responses for something a bit more emotional (i.e. human)?

Better put:

“…My intellectual work forms only an insignificant part…love and personal understanding are much more important. Leading intellectuals with their zeal for objectivity kill these personal elements…”

“…Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient, or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge…”

– Paul Feyerabend

A great quote that applies equally well, I think, to scientists:

“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”

OkC Match Question: Would the world be a better place if people with low IQs were not allowed to reproduce?

My Answer: No

Explanation:

This is the longest explanation you will ever read.

Well, first, the basic and obvious reason: denial of free will over reproduction? A “better” place? Are you kidding me? Sounds pretty fascist to me.

For anyone that thinks only people with low IQ’s answer this “No”, I bet mine’s higher than yours. But, yes, you can reproduce. Unless this makes you consider yourself unworthy.

When asked his IQ: “I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers.” – Stephen Hawking

“Whose harmony? Yours? Plato wanted truth, and beauty. And above all, Justice.” – Spock

“Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people; turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humor?” – ‘Against Method’

“Khan…I’m LAUGHING at the ‘superior’ intellect.” – Kirk

(Thanks EJ, BT and DA).

“Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.”

Anti-theists are quick to point out the “logic” of their position by citing absurd examples and referring to debates between theists and Christopher Hitchens, Dick Dawk, and other CA/A’s.

This is intellectual cowardice (thanks DD).

It is intellectual cowardice because the question that must be answered to determine if anti-theism is valid or not is not “Does God exist?”, it is “Is the forbiddance of organized religion a morally good and acceptable goal?”.

My answer is no. I *understand* the anti-theist position (Thanks C and S). I simply do not agree with it.

It is a question of free will. Free will should only be limited if it causes harm, or intrudes on the free will of another being (thanks WR).

Anti-theists argue that religion causes harm. Logically, since they do NOT specify any particular religion, but rather religion as a whole, they argue that all religion is harmful.

This is an illogical conclusion, because it is simply a fact that there are religions that are inherently (thanks AGFTHFRO) peaceful and benevolent; and that many religious people are good, decent people.

Therefore, religion and good – peace, harmony, AND free will – are not incompatible.

Correlation does not equal Causality(thanks IDGAFIMW).

To oppose the causing of harm in the name of religion is humane and sensible.

To oppose the freedom of choice of all individuals regarding religious/spiritual beliefs is contrary to free will – on a subject that is not INHERENTLY harmful in any way – and is therefore improper and harmful to humanity as a whole.

Now, to take pleasure in the gaining of free will, in the shackled sense observed by Einstein, is understandable.

To use that free will to attempt to take free will from others is simply vindictive (thanks CD).

Do you seek to eliminate all religion because you believe the end result is good, or simply out of anger at the repression of your free will (thanks MAWA) and the free will of people in general for so long, before recent general acceptance of atheism?

I’m not nearly as intelligent as some of the other people that have objected to anti-theism on a moral – not religious – basis in the past. This is my admittedly crude but authentic (big thanks JJ) attempt to recreate parts of their arguments in my own words and with my own feelings.

Because, as we all know, human beings are thinking AND feeling creatures (thanks PG and MST3K). Not everything we do is logical. We are not perfect. If we were, we would not be human beings. We would be biological robots (thanks MAWA), and we would be incredibly boring.

I agree that there was a time (thanks JTK and G) when fervent atheism was necessary, in order to achieve general acceptance of the choice of atheism as completely valid. But that time has passed. It is acceptable; at least, as acceptable to those who would intensely dislike it as any other belief that was not in line with theirs.

And for a lot (not all, of course) of you, it’s rather obvious that the reason you feel so reluctant to let go of your anti-theist anger is because it took so long for you to be able to express your atheism. It is a form of venting, of retro-active defiance. In some cases it may be justified…but your motivation is not intellectual (as you strive so hard to make people believe). It is emotional; an attempt to gain revenge (thanks MBTDNAATEFORFA).

In any area where atheism would still get you persecuted and/or harmed, ANY belief not of the theism accepted in that area would get you persecuted and/or harmed. You’ve achieved equality in theory and in practice with all the rest of us humane humans (thanks DM).

Anti-theism is dead (thanks FN).

Researching fatalism, my first thought was that this is one of the “philosophies” of the nasty people of the world; an unreal “belief” system that is neither truly examined nor truly believed by the “philosopher”…a means by which the truly horrible and vicious can do whatever the fck it is they feel like doing, and then just chalk it up to X.

Basically, an intellectual keyword (that in reality means nothing to them) used by those that don’t believe in sh1t to present to everyone else – who can see they don’t believe in sh1t – so that instead of a generic a$$hole, they might appear to be a deep thinker, a “realist”, an honest evaluator of things, someone who “tells it like it is”, etc…

My actual, real-world experience with people like this, and people of similar “philosophies”, is that the VAST majority are just total a$$holes with enough intelligence to try putting a legitimizing word to it. Basically, 99 percent fakes and 1 percent philosophers. Not that even the real philosophers are RIGHT…but at least they BELIEVE in the horsesh1t they spew.

The following groups would fit under that analysis: Fatalists, Defeatists, Nihilists, Fascists, Sociopaths, Psychopaths, LaVeyan Satanists, Nietzscheans (although I must point out that Nietzsche himself was extremely intelligent…though I don’t agree with his philosophy; but in my experience there are VERY, VERY few actual believers, like every other example).

And of course endless variations/combinations of the above, typically in groups such as pseudo-goth scumbags, ‘Fight Club’ worshippers, serial killer groupies, people that cheer for the lunatic in movies like ‘Saw’…basically anyone that espouses harmful, selfish and/or uncaring behavior as a meaningful way of life.

Now, is the world all light and roses? Of course not. Noone is perfectly “good”, everyone has flaws…everyone has a “dark side”, vices, bad habits, faults…that’s obvious. No argument. But the difference is, people that AREN’T content to be users and abusers try to OVERCOME these things and behave in the fashion of a decent human being. They admit they are flawed, accept it, don’t feel “ashamed” of it since everyone is in one way or another…but then, with all that acknowledged, define themselves by their decency, by their positive and good beliefs, attributes, and actions.

That’s the point: It’s the INTENT, it’s the DESIRE, it’s the BELIEF that one SHOULD be a decent person…that’s what matters. That’s what separates decent people from scumbags. Then – taking that belief – trying to behave in a decent, moral, and civilized fashion.

Civilization is not dishonesty or repression of truth. Civilization is recognizing that, in order for the world to be at least somewhat harmonious, there must be certain generally accepted methods of behavior. Not to the extent of strict adherence in every aspect of life, not in an overly intrusive fashion, not in a way that undermines the differences that define us and make us HUMAN…individual, as opposed to a collective of non-thinking drones; just, simply, to behave in a decent manner. “An ye harm none, do as ye will” comes close to summing this up. Aleister Crowley’s “Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law” comes close as well, but this is often misunderstood to be something he absolutely was NOT saying: “Do whatever you feel like”.

He wasn’t saying that…in fact, that idea would probably be considered both simplistic and utterly ridiculous by him. He was saying, do what you truly believe is your will…your purpose. Don’t let other people tell you what to do, don’t sacrifice your principles and dreams, “to thine own self be true”. And I think, if people really THOUGHT about it…99 percent wouldn’t conclude “my purpose is to be a selfish a$$hole”.

Maybe 1 percent would. Maybe. If that.

“Why does there have to be Evil in the world?”
“…I think it has something to do with free will.”

I’ve talked to people, some quite intelligent, who have completely admitted to me that they don’t believe in ANYTHING…they just like doing fcked up sh1t. Period. And their attitude is: if people are stupid enough to take this for a philosophy, then they deserve to be treated like sh1t. And if they’re not…well, who cares…if they find them useful, interesting, and/or amusing then they’ll be somewhat courteous, if not they’ll be completely dismissive and rude, at best, and horrible at worst. The limits of even their “courtesy” to those they call “friends”, with the exception of a VERY few that they actually respect, are: as soon as this person loses the aspect that requires courtesy, the courtesy vanishes. They are no longer useful, amusing, interesting, etc…so they are discarded from the level of courtesy just as easily as a child discards an old toy in favor of a nice shiny new one – though unlike children and toys, they KNOW they’re doing wrong and that people aren’t toys…they just don’t CARE. Then there are the sociopaths that actually BELIEVE that the vast majority of people are simply toys, objects to be used, exploited, discarded…whatever their whim is at the time.

In conclusion: a quote, and what I believe is an appropriate clip.

“…didn’t believe in sh1t. None of ’em did.”

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – The above clip is a great example of telling one of the above-described types what they really are, and bravo Derek. Also, to criticize the clip itself, it’s a great scene. Also, if you try to get this removed you can go fck your mother.

Bat trees?

3) “Blow-to-the-head” cr@p
2) “Inconsistent-and-overly-used-time-travel” cr@p
1) “Motherfcken-lazy-alternate-timeline” cr@p

“Alternate timeline”? Are you JOKING me? (Sheen from ‘Platoon’ voice)

Alternate timeline allows for a COMPLETELY new/different story.

Why not just write a completely new story, and call it that?

Oh yeah…money.

What’s the deal with the Scandinavian Peninsula and trying to hack my site, 178.170.146.215?

I mean, I know the “Finnish him!” joke was bad, but come on.

Oh, and remember to vote Norwegian at your next election.

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Ok clip from an ok episode. (housekeeping)

The hypothesis (or at least hidden, shadow belief <— IRONY) of a lot of nasty horrible vicious little Gits (trust me, I’ve talked to some of them) is that human beings are all selfish and evil at the core, it’s just a matter of how far you have to push them to get there. This brings up a number of questions:

Why would you want to do that? What makes you so miserable that you need (seek) to prove that everyone else is just living a facade; that everyone else is as horrible as you are, you’re just being “honest”?

How do you explain that, for most people, it takes a great degree of pushing for this to happen (See ‘Saw’…and all its sh1t remakes/facsimiles), whereas the same people do truly good things (altruistic, generous, compassionate, caring, loving) with little or no “prodding”? I mean, Hell, I bet with enough prodding even some Gits would react with some level of basic decency. By your logic, that would make humanity essentially good, would it not? Since it requires far less prodding? Get the fck over it: you’re not honest examples of humanity, you’re scumbags looking for company. No thanks. To the one in ten thousand of you that are Nietzschean philosophers…sorry for lumping you in.

I mean, I’m sure if you treated any animal horribly enough and put it in a horrible enough situation, you would achieve the desired reaction. But that’s cruelty, you see. Meaningless sadism…not “science”, “philosophy”, “honesty”, or any of the other words you mistakenly apply to yourself and who/what you are/believe. How is it any different when the animal is a human being?

Answer: It’s not. Your self-delusion merely allows you to live with the fact that you’re a scumbag by telling yourself “Well, everyone is…” when that’s simply not the case.

Happy New Year!

From: 98.20.216.44:

“Everyone says they like Amelie because that was the accepted film for pseudo-/forming intellectuals to cite to prove they had “foreign film” interest…”

I don’t like ‘Amelie’. At all. I think it’s boring and I don’t see the charm in it, only the annoyance of wasting the time it takes to watch it.

However, I also realize that – like many things – taste in movies is subjective.

To say that “everyone” that likes ‘Amelie’ does so because of X is just wrong, objectively. Perhaps – perhaps not, but perhaps – you’re correct about a lot of the people that like it…and certainly you’re correct about AT LEAST a few.

But I’m not arrogant or self-centered enough to believe that my subjective view on any film can define everyone that disagrees with that view.

Noone’s that perceptive. Or empathic.

And if you’re who I think you are (think…don’t know): Stay the FCK away from my friends. BTW…this is a great movie…ever see it?

(linkdead)

4/22/16: Hmmmm…must have been a silent film.

Also on my A List:

“Pride, pride, pride…has lost more cases than lousy evidence, idiot witnesses and a hanging judge all put together. There is absolutely no place in a courtroom for pride.”

And, of course, this:

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A great clip from a great movie. Norton is absolutely compelling throughout.

Some people consider friends to be family.

• Yppup >.< Piy!

1:34-1:38, 2:34-2:38

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good clip. From a movie. (housekeeping)

When I was an eensy meensy teensy little…schmeensy, and I heard the song that has a chorus “Every time you go away, you take a piece of me with you…” I thought they were actually saying “Every time you go away, you take a piece of Ming with you…”

I was curious why someone would take a vase every time they left, and also why someone would write a song about it and not seem at least a little bit irritated.

Oh well, I guess Bingo Jed had a light on.

When they play “More Than A Feeling” (again) during a Patriots game, does it seem a little like you’re David Cross in MIB and they’re ringing the bell? Or you’re you and you’re listening to DC’s antitheist rant? Or my pointing out of an antitheist’s antitheist rants?

“Ok, yes..yes, yes, good, thank you for repeating that…thank you…”

 

Please, you win.  No more TLH.

“Mind games…forever…”

“Insinuation really makes it happen…”

“Like it?? Are you kidding me?  I fcken LOVE it!”