Category: Musings

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 151)

It’s absurd…I mean, there are people that will refuse to watch/listen to BRILLIANT works of art SIMPLY BECAUSE they have religious references/connotations. Come on, man…

A short list of songs we’d never hear again if extreme antitheism won:

“Dream On”
“Stairway To Heaven”
“Hotel California”
“Sweet Home Alabama”
“Baba O’Riley”
“Won’t Get Fooled Again”
“Like A Rolling Stone”
“Gimme Shelter”
“House Of The Rising Sun”
“My Sweet Lord”

Three quotes to end:

“I mean I really don’t give a fck whether it’s about religion or not. I don’t give a fck what their belief is, or is not. All I care about is: is this something I enjoy listening to, for musical and/or lyrical reasons? As for the rest…who gives a fck? If your hatred of religion is so extreme and invasive that you can’t enjoy GREAT music because of it, that’s your loss; and you’re an idiot if you can’t see that.” – Me

“Here’s the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don’t find it anywhere else. Songs like ‘Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain’ or ‘I Saw the Light’ – that’s my religion. I don’t adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I’ve learned more from the songs than I’ve learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs.” – Bob Dylan

“Rock ‘n’ roll is everybody’s f—-n’ music…I think that’s where God and the devil shake hands – right there.” – Neil Young

As DDOS Turns – Part Eleven

Less than two hours left!!!

Now’s the time for you at home to play along!

WILL they break 10,000 hits today??!!

Stay tuned for riveting, heart-pounding DDOS excitement!

10:16 – And DOWN the stretch they come!!! My GOD this is thrilling!
10:18 – 8921
10:19 – 8988
10:24 – 9098
10:28 – 9240
10:35 – 9326
10:43 – 9402
10:55 – 9522

LESS THAN AN HOUR LEFT! Oh Sweet Jesus this is exciting!!!

11:04 – 9644
11:13 – 9831
11:18 – 9958

YES! YES! It’s so close I can almost TASTE it!

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Official Time: 11:21 PM EST
Official Count: 10,087

I’d like to thank everyone who made this possible…words can’t describe how I feel about you. Really, they can’t.

As DDOS Turns – Part Eight

“Houston, United States

IP: 73.32.148.162

c-73-32-148-162.hsd1.tx.comcast.net

Firefox version 0.0 running on Win7

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:40.0)

Gecko/20100101 Firefox/40.1”

That’s kinda scary, I mean, as if Texas didn’t already have ENOUGH problems…

I mean, “Houston, we have a…” and all that. But people outside of Texas sometimes forget the enormous problem ALREADY in Texas.

Vis:

4:30-4:36.9

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A good, sharp-mocking MST short.

As DDOS Turns – Part Seven

This is getting boring (see previous clips) and monotonous! (see Curly from the Stooges) so here’s an idea…I’m gonna see if the DDOS attack – designed to prevent people from accessing my site – generates over 10,000 hits today.

My point in doing this would be to display the logic of Crusading Antitheism. Because, OF COURSE, the point of this DDOS attack is purely logical.

They simply want to achieve a desired result.

There is NO emotion behind it whatsoever. It is an utterly and completely logical, emotionless tactical maneuver.

Total Hits: 8,850 (My GOD this is gonna be close!!!)

Again, to emphasize…ABSOLUTELY no emotion or illogic…ABSOLUTELY none…and when I say “none”, well…see as follows:

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Shiver me timbers, this is a good clip!

No, No, I SWEAR! This is NOT orchestrated to get hits! There REALLY ARE people trying to DDOS my site! You can’t blame me for their incompetence.

Quick Note: Now, *I* cannot claim the same purity of logic as the DDOS attackers. You see, they are purely logical, unemotional beings…whereas *I* am laughing my a$$ off. My weakness, I admit.

Last Updated: 10:08 PM EST

As DDOS Turns – Part Four

Ok, so, I’d just like to say hello to all the completely logical, unemotional CA/A’s who couldn’t care less about my views…and, I want to say something else…and I don’t want you to take this the wrong way…but you’re not very GOOD DDOS attackers, are you?

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Really good clip. I’ve always wondered why T. Jones has an egg on his head in the sketch “program” intro.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 150)

Ok, now as an amateur critic I feel it’s only appropriate to give criticism where criticism is due…HOWEVER, I feel it’s also proper to give praise where praise is due.

So, major kudos to GoDaddy and WordPress for holding up aces under this recent/current/possible future DDOS attack.

I’ll be giving a play-by-play analysis for those interested in the exact goings-on, but let me make my first comment – as I am wont to do – via quote:

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – The furthest (well, maybe) I’ve ever seen bullets move someone across an open space in film history.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 149)

If you’re gonna try to talk to me – and I don’t know you – allow me to display how *I* feel about BS and propaganda.

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Very good scene from a great movie. Displays what I consider an admirable attitude toward BS.

Message: If you have something to say, say it. If you BS/prop, it’s not gonna have ANY better chance of a positive outcome for you; at best, it will have no influence whatsoever so you’re just being a colossal moron by wasting your time (and mine).

“Mr. Ambassador, you have nearly a hundred naval vessels operating in the North Atlantic right now. Your aircraft has dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet. Now, shall we dispense with the bull?”

“Good, honest…hatred. Very refreshing.”

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 147)

If the BEST that climate change deniers can do is to point out in
“See??? Nyah nyah nyah!” fashion that 97 percent is not the PRECISE number for scientists that (insert level of belief in climate change, man’s role in climate change, available proof of man’s role in climate change, etc…) believe…please – you’re giving me deja vu to the days when cigarettes weren’t “absolutely proven” to be bad for you.

We – along with scientists and cigarette companies – knew cigarettes were bad for you LONG BEFORE it was “proven”. Come on…gimme a break.

The only thing the “proof” delay proved is that scientists are humans, and like getting huge piles of cash from X to say/not say something.

AND:

One of my favorite bits of antitheist nonsense is the antitheist’s version of the religious refrain that “the only people who are truly saved are X” where X = a specific religion, as supplied by resident antitheist truth-teller (well, sort of) Penn Jillette:

“The only people with true morality are us, the atheists.”

What you mean “us”, illusionist?

As for 97 percent not being the precise number for “scientists who believe climate change is happening and is significantly influenced by man”, perhaps…

But that’s only because some scientists:
– Haven’t stated such a belief and/or
– Are the same “See, it’s fine!” minority (and no matter WHAT stats you look at, they ARE in FACT a minority) that cigarette companies were able to pay enough to get away with poisoning peoples’ lungs DECADES after they KNEW they were doing so.

ALSO:

Why do these new Durex dancing tights go baggy at the…errr…nevermind.

BUT:

Here’s a good question: So, anything mentioning or referencing Nazi Germany in any way is automatically a logical fallacy…ummm…righhhtttt…

Here’s the thing: The reason mentioning Nazi Germany during an argument or debate, EVEN IF the reference is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND PRECISE, is a logical fallacy (supposedly) is:

It sheds an unfair or inappropriate light on X or Y, where X and Y are two sides to a debate or argument.

So, basically, this is saying “You cannot use propaganda to influence the outcome of a debate/discussion/etc.”

Which is a nice, cute little thought.

But think about it. Give it THE SLIGHTEST amount of thought.

A reference to Nazi Germany/Hitler/etc is an INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS prop move – even if it’s not meant that way.

So…you CANNOT use incredibly obvious propaganda, or it’s a logical fallacy (even if your point is, in fact, true)…BUT…

If you’re smart/manipulative enough to use NON-obvious propaganda to influence thought/outcome/etc…that’s fine?

Propaganda is propaganda. The “best” (that is to say, most effective) propaganda is NOT RECOGNIZABLE AS PROPAGANDA. It comes across as “fair” when it is, in fact, simply well-disguised propaganda.

So, it’s ok to use propaganda when it’s done subtly? If you can get away with a prop argument, it’s fine?

Bullsh1t. Write down all the “logical fallacy” descriptions, roll them up, throw them away, and just TALK…person to person, real to real.

Instead of making up all these rules, just stick with one, as paraphrased from Jim Carrey in ‘Liar Liar’:

(Exchange “breaking the law” with “trying to bullsh1t people”):

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A good example of loud honesty.

Thank you.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 145)

First, let me apologize in advance for these ad nauseum DPT’s.

I’ve finally figured it out.

When quasi-intellectuals insert obligatory Latin and/or obligatory semi-“scientific” terminology into their otherwise normal English speech (verbal or written), it’s done for three reasons.

1 – It allows them to retain an aura of superiority, whether anything they say has any validity or not. The second has no intrinsic connection to the first, of course.

2 – They’ve studied certain programmed, computerized responses to certain specific things to such a point where they have in fact BECOME “computerized” to an extent; in much the same way that Diane Chambers (and I love Diane Chambers, but it is what it is) inserts random French words and phrases into her speech for no adequately explored reason other than she feels superior and is “demonstrating” her superiority by showing her advanced intellect; in fact, while certain very common words and phrases are actually part of normal English vernacular for most people, *most* of her “improvements” are both amusing and actively counter-productive…often noone else has the slightest idea what she’s talking about, and so in terms of communication, she is behaving in a most illogical fashion. If her point is to display superiority for no other reason than to say “ha ha I’m smarter than you are”, she succeeds. Else she fails, since to intentionally use phrasing that you know will INHIBIT communication is DAMAGING to the act of communication, serving no useful purpose other than the ego-padding of the speaker.

5) Dick Dawk is a c@ck. I would say the same about Chris Hitchens, but at this point he’s probably more accurately described as a pile of decaying organic matter in some state of decomposition that cannot be PRECISELY defined, but which probably has lost the complete set of twigs and berries.

Anna Dalton – She Is Violinist Hear Her Emote (Character Explanation)

Anna never started off “writing” a song…she would play, and let it take her where it did.  She would make notes, she would play repeatedly, slowly, every note touching her and judging each as just right/or not.  These were the only two categories because all must eventually become the first, and she was in no hurry to do so.

And after playing it MANY, MANY times, she would take permanent “notes”…but these wouldn’t have (musical) notes in them, they would consist of indications, moods, instructions, echoes, pieces of her soul and herself.  This would grow and be unreadable as music, silly and useless to anyone else.  Scribblings.  But that wouldn’t matter, because it didn’t have to mean anything to anyone else, ever.

All it ever had to do was mean something to her.  To be a piece of her husband, of herself, of the spirit and love that connected the two and always would, of that which she could not and would not ever want to define – beyond and above words, more than a definition.

And every aspect, every hint of every piece of music she played and felt, in this way, was beyond description, a version in beauty of Cane/Cthulhu’s indescribable horror…things that exist that can not be adequately described, for the words do not exist. Beyond, above, past them.  More than them.

Only in her music, it was love and devotion, not horror and insanity. And in this she was shrouded forever; comfortable and happy, content, in any circumstance…untouchable to the minor annoyances of the world outside of this place of magic.  And in this haven, how could she possibly be sad?

Semper Fidelis.

Coach Of The Year My A$$

He somehow found a way to coach the winningest team in NBA history to a Finals LOSS.

*I* could coach a team with Curry/Green/Thompson on it and have a winning season. Just ask Steph who he thought the rotation should be, nod, and then sit on the bench and watch.

I mean, if it’s gonna be “Coach Of The Team With The Winningest Record”, fine, but it should be properly named.

Kerr’s job is about as hard as K.C. Jones’ was. I mean, come on…it’s a fcken joke.

It’d be nice if more sportswriters actually had the guts to vote for who they REALLY thought COACHED the best…but that would require a lot more effort and analysis.

I mean, really, what did Kerr do? He put the best players in and made the occasional substitution.

I can’t remember the number of times an analyst (some pro-Celtics, some neutral) SPECIFICALLY commented on a great COACHING move that Brad Stevens was making/had made/etc…

Seriously, to all the voters, unless you’re getting paid to go with the flow, what’s the rationale here?

The equivalent logic would be:

The Baltimore Ravens won the Super Bowl in 2000. Therefore, Trent Dilfer was the best quarterback in 2000.

I mean, the Ravens DIDN’T RE-SIGN HIM AFTER HE WON THE SUPER BOWL. But, oh yeah, he was great.

“Game Manager” = Not very good, realizes and accepts that, and doesn’t try to do too much.

I guess if his team hadn’t LOST in the Finals, Steve Kerr would be a really really good “Series Manager”.

Come to think of it, I’m a pretty good “Cliche Manager”.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 144)

I think, for the purposes of truth-telling and in the spirit of defining “reality”, every video featuring the rotting pile of inanimate matter formerly known as “Christopher Hitchens” (hey, just keepin’ it real) should henceforth be retitled as part of a lengthy sequence…sort of like this one!

Christopher Hitchens Acts Like An A$$hole (Part X)

Huh? Someone should work on that.

Because being wrong or right, as the case may or may not be, has no intrinsic connection with being or not being an a$$hole.

Do you know one of the things that’s great about having your own website? You can post *JOKE*s like this one, knowing that some CA/A’s will see it, knowing that deep down inside they’ll be at least a LITTLE pissed (whether they admit it or not), and knowing there’s absolutely nothing they can do about it.

I mean, in order to do something about it they’d have to expend energy; be it responding somewhere else, trying to illegally hack into my website (naughty naughty!), or, *somehow* taking and using moments of their life reacting to something they supposedly care nothing about (me/my opinions/my website/etc).

That’s the part I really love. Just sort of gets me right here…

Recognizing And Dealing With A Trend – NBA 2016-2017

I was going to title this post “How To Beat The Golden State Warriors”.

But I figured that was way too propagandic, especially since I don’t have the SLIGHTEST idea what the fck I’m talking about. So, with that in mind…

How to beat the Golden State Warriors:

When you have a new innovation, in any sport, there’s generally one player and/or team that starts that trend.

Logically, that team MUST be extremely good at that innovation, whatever it is, because if they weren’t, they wouldn’t introduce and use it.

There are examples in every sport – one team starts to play a certain, specific way…approach, personnel, innovation, etc…

In baseball: Dramatic shifts for every player with a strong tendency to hit to a specific field – it started, it WORKED, and so eventually team after team has adopted it, to some extent.

In football: The no-huddle offense. They didn’t just say one day, during a game, “Ok…let’s stop huddling, see if it works”. You get an innovation, and you PRACTICE it before you deploy it, so YOU are by default the best at it. EVERY team in the NFL now has a version of the “two minute offense”, the no-huddle. Why? Because it’s been proven to work, so it’s been universally adopted. But the team that tries it FIRST, the one that practices it for WEEKS before unveiling it, has a HUGE advantage over all other teams, until other teams have enough time to catch up.

So, in basketball: The “small-ball” lineup. The traditional center is a useful accessory, at best.

Example: Golden State’s “Death Lineup”. By tailoring the flow and strategy of the game to suit THEIR personnel – personnel that have been chosen to be proficient in that flow and strategy – they instantly gain an advantage over every other team. It’s a fact that the “Death Lineup” works. Other teams, faced with it, often find themselves overmatched because THEIR personnel weren’t made to play that specific strategy. The traditional center, who stays inside, blocks shots, operates on the box, never takes a three…becomes virtually useless. Because if the other team has five players on the court that can ALL shoot the three pointer, that team can have those five players in a “spread offense”…maximizing spacing to get three point shots off. They do it well because they KNOW it’s what they’re going to do, they’re PRACTICED doing it, and they have the SKILL to make it work.

So the question everyone should be asking is: how do you counter that?

The easy, most obvious answer is “go small yourself”. But if your team isn’t BUILT for that, you’re almost certainly not as GOOD at it, from a personnel standpoint, a practice standpoint, and a skill standpoint.

Golden State, with the signing of Kevin Durant, now has the ultimate “Death Lineup”: Durant, Draymond Green, Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, and…well, the fifth doesn’t matter much, all they have to be is competent at the strategy (read: Harrison Barnes) and they simply CANNOT be matched at this type of basketball. Other teams can TRY…but no other team has the personnel, the SKILL in this way, to beat the Warriors at their own game.

So, if you can’t beat them at their own game, what do you do?

You come up with a strategy, an innovation, a technique SPECIFICALLY designed to combat EXACTLY that strategy.

Example: The Boston Celtics showed a blueprint for how to beat the Warriors last season – a win AT Golden State, and a double-overtime loss in Boston. Why?

It wasn’t coincidence. They used (and fortunately had, to use) relentless, smothering perimeter defense to not allow the Warriors to get off open threes, or at the very least to make them work a LOT harder than they wanted to to get an open shot.

You overcome superior talent in two ways: strategy and hustle.

That’s why the Celtics went 1-1 against GS, ALMOST handing them their first loss of the season (they lost the next night), and beating them in Golden State, their first home loss of the season.

It just seems logical: if they’re hitting over 40 percent of their three-point shots, and they’re taking a three a lot more than a 2, and you’re taking a 2 a lot more than a three…basic mathematics says you’re gonna lose.

UNLESS you can work SPECIFICALLY to combat their skill set.

MAKE your team, PLAN your team, BUILD your team, PRACTICE your team, etc, etc…with that ONE goal in mind.

Then practice STOPPING as much as they practice DOING.

This will give you a reasonable chance of victory. They’re extremely talented, and hustle and planning can only go so far…so you still might lose. But – like the Celtics – you might be able to fight them tooth-and-nail and have a reasonable chance of victory.

And, there’s no reason to worry about the Warriors adapting to your adaptation. AS LONG AS you work, plan, and practice as hard as they do.

They are NOT going to switch from Curry/Thompson and gang taking a ton of threes. You know that. Why? Because that’s what they’re best at.

As Bill Belichick does: TAKE AWAY what they’re best at. Maybe you can’t STOP them, but you can harrass them. You can limit the effectiveness of their strategy with one specifically designed to counter it.

Suggested perfect anti-“Death Lineup” lineup:

One great shot blocker/rebounder with skill and quickness
Three lock-down perimeter defenders: Two to start, one off the bench to keep the pressure on when one needs a rest. The two lock-down defenders on, of course, Curry and Thompson.
Three tough/strong/quick/agile forwards: Again, two to start, one to spell. These go on Durant and Green.
Other reserves to back up these duties…maybe a big and a small. Or two mediums. Versatility is the key.

That’s nine. The vast majority of the time, play them.

WHEN the “Death Lineup” rests (and it has to, eventually), a pure scorer or two off the bench to light up their reserves. Their reserves – if you plan your team properly – could not possibly be good enough to beat you if your main goal is accomplished, especially when so much is tied into the “Big Four”.

So you get a good coach (Hello, Brad Stevens).
You get hard-nosed, strong, relentless, AND skilled players (Hello, Avery Bradley and Jae Crowder, etc.).
You make your philosophy as ingrained as GS’s is. (Hello, Celtics).

You don’t try to out-three point the Warriors. If you do, you lose.

Don’t play their game…SHUT DOWN their game, and ATTACK their weaknesses.

I watch games, and I hear all the time “when (so and so) goes to this, it takes (so and so) out of their game.”

WHY? You have to KNOW going in that, IF/WHEN going to (so and so) takes one of your good players out of their game, they’re GOING TO DO IT. Every time. Why wouldn’t they?

You don’t plan on stopping them during the game.

You anticipate EVERYTHING they could do, you devise a countermeasure, you PRACTICE all of them, you get players that can PLAY them…and maybe you win.

Or, maybe that’s all really stupid. Too close to call, really.

Curly Howard, Philosopher

Curly Howard, unknown to many, makes a stunningly perceptive argument/statement/question in the Three Stooges short ‘An Ache In Every Stake’.

Now, Curly cleverly disguises this as a discussion about warmth in various conditions, but the analogy to the argument over the existence/non-existence of God is quite apparent when you consider all the hidden nuances littered throughout the short.

Here is the actual verbatim statement:

“Tell me…is it as warm in the summer as it is in the country? Or vice versa? Or who cares? *nyuk nyuk nyuk*”

When you put this incredibly challenging statement together with all the other elements, the clarity is DEVASTATING.

But where is the ambiguity? It’s over there, in a box.

Careful study reveals that the “nyuk” repeated at the end of the statement, while APPARENTLY a form of laughter at a simple joke, could very well be much more. Oh, SO much more…

I can’t even begin to appreciate fully the majesty and yet brilliantly simple meanings at play here…

But like the question “If God exists, and is omnipotent, can God create a boulder so heavy that even He cannot lift it?”

I’ve read ‘Hagakure’, and as with it, some statements take long, long periods of intense thought to even BEGIN to comprehend.

Such is the case here. We may never know, in our lifetimes, the true meaning of Curly’s words. But it is a fitting challenge for the greatest minds of today.

We must, I would suppose, be satisfied in being able to at least comprehend another brilliantly allegorical piece:

Ecce Homo, Ergo Elk. La Fontaine knew his sister and knew her bloody well.

Fair Use: Criticism – GREAT clip.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 143)

Sometimes – very, very rarely – you have a moment, a series of moments where you “feel” something, something incredible and special.

And, while you’re feeling it, it seems hard to think it could ever go away…but when it fades, when your emotions return to normal, you wish so badly you had cherished it more…however much you DID cherish it.

And you hope for it to happen again, and you feel – at least – a small feeling of comfort, knowledge that it is possible, that you will feel that way again.

You just have to wait…

And you have to be here in order to wait.

And it’s worth it.

(“…you will not fail, however he may assail you. There is also love in the world.

…Be true.” – White Gold Wielder)

I Hurt – I Wouldn’t Have It Any Other Way

‘The Legend Of Huma’
‘White Gold Wielder’
Parts of ‘Dragonlance’
Others I don’t recall, it’s been so long.

“…It was one of those days, when it’s a minute away from snowing. And there was this electricity in the air. You could almost hear it. And this bag was just … dancing … with me. Like a little kid, begging me to play with it. For fifteen minutes. That was the day when I realized that there was this … entire life … behind things. And this incredibly benevolent force who wanted me to know that there was no reason to be afraid. Ever.

Sometimes there is so much … beauty … in the world. It’s like I can’t take it. And my heart is just going to cave in.”

“…I guess I could be pretty pissed off about what happened to me. But it’s hard to stay mad when there’s so much beauty in the world. Sometimes I feel like I’m seeing it all at once and it’s too much. My heart fills up like a balloon that’s about to burst. And then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold on to it. And then it flows through me, like rain. And I can’t feel anything but gratitude.”

The Jealousy Delusion

So I read that Danny Ainge made a “lowball” offer for Jimmy Butler, consisting of two first round draft picks and Jae Crowder.

Obviously, this article was written by a non Celtics fan.

Because – if it was written by anyone who WASN’T at least slightly jealous of the C’s 17 titles as opposed to their (fill in the blank with a smaller number) – this is basically saying that Ainge did his job (try to make the Celtics better) and implying there’s somehow something wrong with that.

I mean, Red Auerbach is praised/recognized for his ability to rip off inferior basketball minds. So should Ainge be.

Is Danny supposed to tell every team he deals with “OK…now, you probably shouldn’t accept this offer, BUT…”?

When did being the GM of a professional basketball team come with training wheels?

Should Ainge have told the Brooklyn Nets “OK…now, I know you want to win now, but this is probably way too much to give up for these aging players…”?

Maybe not snatched Jae Crowder and Isaiah Thomas from their respective teams before said teams realized how good they were?

Maybe Ainge should call them now and say “Yeah…I know you didn’t realize Thomas/Crowder would be this good…so, tell you what…why don’t I give you one of those Nets picks.”

Is Ainge trying to make the Celtics as good as possible while not giving a fck about any other team?

OF COURSE HE IS. THAT’S HIS JOB.

If he were your GM, you’d be TOTALLY cool with it.

Just because your GM isn’t that smart, don’t hate on Danny.

Unless, of course, you would – if given the chance – prefer your GM to make only those trade offers that were “good for both teams” and were not in any way “lowball” offers.

…Even if they knew the lowball offer would be accepted.

…And your team would lose three again veterans that had little chance of bringing another title to ANY team.

…And your team would gain…4, was it? 5? First round draft picks from a team your GM thought would stink.

Poor every-other-GM-not-Danny-Ainge! They need to be protected against Danny’s horrible lowball offers. Maybe there should be a system in place where the NBA itself takes a…

oops…nevermind.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 138)

Per ‘Against Method’, the ridiculous idea that the “Scientific Method” must ALWAYS be followed and can NEVER be deviated from is simply a crutch for weak, unimaginative minds.

It’s like asking a math savant what X times Y times Z is, and then insisting that they show their work, every step of the way, even though that is more time-consuming than just SAYING the answer, produces no (necessarily) better result, and can in fact stifle the “savant”-ness of that individual (as dogmatic method-insistence stifles creativity).

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 136)

Somewhat common CA/A refrain: “If God exists, may they strike me down RIGHT NOW!”

Ooooo. Shock value. You’d make a great LaVeyan, just send away for your membership card.

Assuming you’re talking about the concept of God as described in the Bible (omniscient and omnipotent)…

You really think you can OUTSMART God??? “Command” God???

Like, you’re Loki/Bartleby and you’ve found a “loophole”?

Are you HIGH?

And ask yourself this:

Suppose…just suppose…that just ONCE, someone uttered the phrase “If God exists, may He strike me down right NOW!” and then was instantly struck by a bolt of lightning and killed.

Now, LOGIC states that the two have nothing to do with the other. The statement simply HAPPENED to coincide, in that instance, with the bolt of lightning.

But 100 bucks says AT LEAST half the people that use *the phrase* now would stop using it.

I mean…you gotta hedge your bets, right?

It’s Like This…

Here’s what I’m looking for, for my comic:

An artist who:
1) Can draw well
2) Can create accurate drawings from words
3) Has at least the *TINIEST* interest in my comic
4) Isn’t in it for the money.

I mean I know it’s cool and hipster to say you’re not in it for the money, but some people actually MEAN it. Don Hertzfeldt, for example. Just watch ‘Rejected’.

Not that artists shouldn’t get paid…of course they should.

But if you’re drawing FOR the money, not the craft, then you’re not an artist.

You’re a mercenary.

I haven’t been put in a position where I could prove this, true…but if by some MIRACLE my website got amazingly popular, and people started saying “Hey…I’ll give you X dollars if you give me a good review”, I’d tell them to go fck themselves.

If you don’t believe me, well let me paraphrase a favorite paraphrase:

“You know what? I don’t fcken give a sh1t.”

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 135)

I think this is the only time anyone’s ever succeeded in walking where the ocean meets the sky.

Your life is trillions of moments. This is an example of why you always have to be ready for each one, because it may have slightly more meaning than others.

CLIP BELOW: FAIR USE: CRITICISM

That was the deep part.

AND NOW:

A comment on the video suggests what – if it HAD been done – would indisputably be the greatest anti-climax in the history of film. One that would have dwarfed ‘The Black Eagle’ and left even the semi-divine Pythons in awe and rolling on the floor in laughter. Right before the tv explodes.

“Imagine when He Leaves trough that door, suddenly a Window pops out saying: ,,congrats, you’ve reached level 2″” – Blackshark

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 134)

Check out my post ‘How To Respond Decisively To A Request’. It has been updated to explain the purposes of FAIR USE: CRITICISM.

I will NEVER get tired of amending posts with the proper terms for FAIR USE. You see, there truly is something amazing about the power of just defiance…it gives one an energy beyond what is otherwise possible.

OurY’e Na Tidoi.

Us

“It is this intuitive grasp of the irrational side of

totalitarianism–human sacrifice, cruelty as an end in itself,

the worship of a Leader who is credited with divine

attributes–that makes Zamyatin’s book superior to Huxley’s.

It is easy to see why the book was refused publication. The

following conversation (I abridge it slightly) between D-503 and

I-330 would have been quite enough to set the blue pencils

working:

“Do you realise that what you are suggesting is

revolution?”

“Of course, it’s revolution. Why not?”

“Because there can’t be a revolution. Our revolution was

the last and there can never be another. Everybody knows that.”

“My dear, you’re a mathematician: tell me, which is the

last number?”

“But that’s absurd. Numbers are infinite. There can’t be a

last one.”

“Then why do you talk about the last revolution?””

– from George Orwell’s review of ‘We’ by E.I. Zamyatin

—
“They are waiting for me below… do you want these minutes,

which are our last?” I-330

“How can I explain what this ancient, ridiculous, miraculous

rite does to me, when her lips touch mine? What formula could

express this whirlwind that clears my soul of everything except

her? Yes, my soul, yes…laugh if you want to.” D-503

Interesting. Really.

http://www.shmoop.com/we/

Good stuff. Thank you shmoop!

A small excerpt re: ‘We’ –

“George Orwell actively cited it as influencing his novel ‘1984’, and even chided Huxley for not doing the same.”

– On ‘We’…and right on. Orwell was at least authentic in the Jarmuschian sense. And he was a hell of a lot more talented, but that’s neither here nor there.

I give it a solid 6.9.

Wrapped In Security/Movie Re-View, 5/18/16

“The point is I would gladly step in front of traffic for you…”

“…and the last thing, I would ever do…is lie to you.”

Hey, remember when I opined about which was worse, fascism or anarchism? I do.

“Cue the Sun.”

Well, this is “gentle, benign, loving” fascism. Sweeter than Landru and as adaptable as any other brave new world.

People in general are selfish, self-centered a$$holes. So don’t give me that lunacy about people “being able to govern themselves”.

But, given the controls necessary to protect decent people from scumbags (that would be agreed upon by anyone except a lunatic)…the former is just so much worse than the latter; so much more inhuman, more wrong.

Orwell overestimated people. Most of us don’t need fear to keep us in line, just enough personal comfort to pretend everything else is ok.

It’s only a matter of time before something approaching ‘Brave’ is available, and most people say “yes, please!” to carefully monitored, administered, benign and loving control.

Check out a great horror film.

Updated: The Truman Show

How “Aching” Applies To Beauty As Well As Sadness

Unlike some people, I’m GLAD I have strong emotions.

I wouldn’t have it any other way.

If one of these doesn’t make you cry – or want to cry – I feel very sorry for you, and for the world that contains so many of you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjyL7_DROTs

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – These clips are all of emotional scenes that are worthy of being watched in the context of their original (complete) format. To review their quality, it is very good-to-great.

Re: ‘A Gentle Reminder’ Post

Hmmmm…well, let’s dispense with the BS about why people post here. Deep down inside, you all know THIS is why:

Come on…you know you want to…

(An Antitheist) I was going to think of something smart to say… but I think “awww, aren’t you the cutest little special snowflake” will have to suffice for now.

Come on, X. Who’s living in the real world, and who’s living in a fantasy kingdom now? What you mean to say is “Go fck yourself you stupid fcken fck!” So just SAY it, for God’s sake. (that was unintentional, I neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities).

“Well, that’s mere cocktail-party psychology Sam. Believe it or not, it is possible to have hostile feelings towards someone, WITHOUT being in love with them.” – Frasier Crane

(AA) You seem rather desperate for attention there, dude.

Be that as it may, I’m the one telling the truth, and you’re the one in denial. You know it’s true. I’d have a LITTLE respect for you if you’d just have the guts to admit it. You know…the truth? What you’re supposed to love?

(AA) “I’d have a little respect for you, if you only admitted that I am the ultimate holder of the truth and I know you better than you know yourself”.
Nah. You know what? I don’t think I need your respect.

You’re saying you have absolutely no interest in seeing a theist get ripped to shreds (metaphorically speaking) by Hitchens or Dawkins? I mean…really?

(AA) Not really. I occasionally like what Hitchens has to say, but it’s just as interesting if he isn’t “ripping a theist to shreds”.

Come on. We can’t have a real discussion if you’re going to cling to these fairy tales.

(AA) I’m kinda wondering why you need me to talk anyway, if you already know me better than I know myself. You could just fill in my part of the “discussion” for me, right?

No…the only thing I know is that you’re lying about your motivation. Apart from that, I don’t have the slightest idea who you are or what you think, or why, nor do I care.

Here’s a similar reaction (I love quotes): “Mr. Ambassador, you have nearly a hundred naval vessels operating in the North Atlantic right now. Your aircraft has dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet. Now, shall we dispense with the bull? ”

(AA) Sadly, I think the only thing you know, is also wrong. At least that means you have something in common with the one Game of Thrones character.

Que?

5/18/16: *Mills* “…you’re no different, you’re no better.” *Somerset* “I didn’t say I was different or better…”

*Somerset* “Ernest Hemingway once wrote, ‘The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.’ I agree with the second part.”

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Interesting clips. (housekeeping)

A Gentle Reminder

There’s intellectual cowardice, sure.

There’s also intellectual bullying.

Lest you forget, ye of little bulk, the not-so-long-ago days when people were MADE FUN OF for being smart?

You know…dumb people would physically abuse smart people? Because they were easy targets? Because the dumb people wanted to feel better about themselves, and beating up nerds did that for them?

Remember that? I do.

Which is exactly why I’m not a bully.

To pick on someone and attack them (intellectually) because they’re an easy target…because you want to feel better about yourself, and (mentally) beating up people not as smart as you are does that for you?

It’s like…to yell and scream (literally or figuratively) for your right to be an atheist and against the a$$holes that demand you fall in line with their theism…

And then to demand that everyone fall in line with your atheism, and if they don’t to mercilessly attack them.

You become what you hate.

And you can try that “educating them” bullsh1t all day…

Everyone KNOWS (including you) that you’re NOT demanding theists become atheist because it’s logical…because you believe in educating…because you want to raise overall awareness…or ANY of the “intellectual” reasons ANYONE gives.

Everyone KNOWS, deep down inside, that – while there may be secondary factors involved, and while you may be EXACTLY RIGHT IN EVERYTHING YOU SAY (where applicable…) – the REASON…the REASON you’re calling out theists, and going to rallies, and coining the term “Hitch-slap”, and inviting “debates”, and…

The REASON you’re doing that is the same reason D. Vinyard discovered:

It’s just cuz you’re pissed off.

You’re pissed that your logic has been repressed, and so you’re lashing out.

I mean, I’m not saying in every case I BLAME you…

But that’s what you’re doing. And you KNOW it. So, stop pretending you give a fck about educating theists. Stop pretending you actually believe worldwide atheism would solve all the world’s problems.

You get off on mocking theists. PERIOD.

The same way I LOVE IT whenever I watch Tyson-Douglas and see Douglas DROP that scumbag…that’s you. I mean…it’s as base as that.

It’s the intellectual’s version of watching a hockey fight, or a prize fight, or slowing down to look at a car wreck.

Some dark, angry, primal part of you GETS OFF on it.

You KNOW it’s true. So just admit it, and stop lying when you supposedly believe all about “spreading the truth”.

You CAN’T believe in truth when you LIE about why you’re spreading it.

Now, here’s my version of you watching Hitchens or Dawkins drop an outmatched theist opponent (metaphorically speaking):

*Link Taken Down, Probably Out Of CA/A Angst*

So just go to Youtube and search for “Mike Tyson Buster Douglas”.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 131)

This isn’t meant for people that think they’re Napoleon or the moon is made of green cheese. And if you’re a fcken scumbag (as defined by me previously) then you shouldn’t be reading this anyways.

But for every other reasonable point on the subjectivity spectrum – and subjective evaluation of events is all life really is (A little bit Hicks, a little bit Tsunetomo) – I think this is important.