Category: Musings

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 130)

No bullsh1t, no exaggeration. This is my experience with ECT:

Not reading, not hearing, not “research”.

Experience. Reality.

*knock knock* Hear that? REALITY.

It helps and it hurts.

Calm and serenity are genuine positives to people who are intensely suffering. I know that.

The question is: how much are you suffering?

The second question is: how much are you willing to have your self (your personality, your beliefs, your CONVICTION) dulled in order to make your torment more bearable?

Real questions. My answers may not be yours. But those are the questions.

And they have to be your answers. On your terms, noone else’s.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 128)

Since the greatest example of the perfect LaVeyan Satanist is a parasite; a tick, or mosquito…

Is that what you want to emulate?

In all the vast recesses of your mind, is that really the best aspiration you can come up with?

And, the convenient thing is…since your philosophy STATES that your preservation is the highest law OF THE philosophy, any other aspect of the philosophy is – according to the philosophy itself – disposable if and when necessary.

In the following ending duel, there’s one good LaVeyan example and one HORRIBLE LaVeyan. See if you can pick them out.

Bridgewater State Hospital/Titicut Follies

Here’s the lowdown. Not from 1967, and not from someone PAID BY THE FACILITY. From someone there within the past five years.

I don’t see the big deal in trying to ban people from watching the 1967 film ‘Titicut Follies’.

Not because it wouldn’t be disturbing, but because (and if you don’t believe this, you could probably use a BSH evaluation) EVERYONE KNOWS that no matter WHAT it shows, the party line will be: “That was X years ago…things are much better now.”

And, since no movies have been made showing BSH life since ‘Titicut Follies’, almost 50 years ago, how exactly can that statement be either proved or disproved, at all, with any reliability?

Well…the only people who KNOW how things work there now (or, recently, at least) are:
1) Employees
2) Inmates…I MEAN “Patients”

Right? I mean, how can anyone deny the most incredibly BASE and SIMPLISTIC logic that makes that an inevitable fact?

So the only people that know how things work there now – and therefore the only people who have ANY credibility in saying “It’s better”, “It’s worse”, “It’s the same”, or anything else in that regard – are employees and inmates.

Since the employees are all part of the same fra(with a little ma)ternity, since the state PAYS THEIR SALARIES, since they all have a common interest in having BSH portrayed as “well-run” and “humane”…is it REALLY a stretch to say “Well…opinions from BSH employees would tend to be exaggeratedly positive, at best.”

You know…because that’s their JOBS they’re talking about. WTF do you expect?

“Yeah, this place is a sh1thole, we treat people horribly…so, where’s my next check?”

I mean, to believe you’re going to get anything CLOSE to an “objective” opinion from staff (who get paid by the state) and the state (who pays the staff…see the symbiosis?)…well, now THAT is insane.

It’s insulting any reasonable person’s intelligence to suggest that is the case, and/or to suggest they BELIEVE that is the case because “well, we told you to.”

So the QUESTION is…how do you get an accurate portrayal of the way things are, NOW (or at least, very recently), when staff has a vested incentive to make things seem better than reality and “patients” (admittedly, in the same not-insulting-your-intelligence way) a vested incentive to make things seem worse than reality?

Well, you find people that 1) USED to work there, and are willing to tell it like it really is (in their experience), and people that 2) USED to be “patients” there, are NO LONGER patients there, have been completely removed from the BSH “system”, have no great bias towards the system for exceptionally horrific personal treatment, have NO personal incentive to praise OR criticize the system, and who are willing to be honest and even-handed in their evaluation of a system they, IN FACT, experienced first-hand.

As for number 2: Hi. That would be me.

So here goes:

First, anything you see in ‘Titicut Follies’ is COMPLETELY irrelevant. That’s 1967. There is no intrinsic connection between that, and modern BSH. Don’t be upset about what happened there almost fifty years ago. Be upset over what MIGHT BE happening there NOW.

Second, any comments suggesting that BSH has “improved” or “advanced” from ‘Titicut Follies’ – made by people with a vested interest to say so – are just as COMPLETELY irrelevant. Of COURSE they’re going to say that. Doesn’t make it true or untrue…it’s the standard party line, and so such statements are utterly meaningless.

To put any weight in either as realistic evidence of “Today’s BSH” is sloppy, lazy, and ignorant at best. And, I happen to know from actually BEING THERE…just plain WRONG. IMPO, of course.

The fact is, BSH is both better and worse than shown in ‘Titicut Follies’.

Let’s look at the positives and negatives one by one:

Positives:

1) Obviously, available medications have improved. The amount of different medications, the skill at prescribing said medications, the effectiveness of said medications (since everyone isn’t just given the same tranquilizers and “hope for the best…”) is improved. I’ve seen that…it’s a fact. OVERALL, it’s a fact. Now, this – to me – is more indicative of the progress of medication therapy IN GENERAL than to any change in “philosophy” at BSH; they work with what they have, and now they have a lot more options. They would have to be colossally inept and/or malicious NOT to prescribe more effectively.

1b) In a thirty day period of observing medication prescription and dispersal, my AUTHENTIC observation was that – for the most part – patients were given at least arguably appropriate medications at at least arguably appropriate levels. Also, FOR THE MOST PART, patients’ concerns over medications were given at least SOMEWHAT of an audience and the patients’ own evaluations of their feelings were taken into SOME account.

So, from what *I* observed, as someone RIGHT THERE, this area (once you were out of ITU…see “Negatives” below) was handled fairly well, and fairly professionally.

2) Obviously, facilities visible to the casual visitor (the main grounds, the visiting room, anything of that sort) are relatively clean and well-kept. This is GOOD, I guess…but what does it really mean? Nothing. Unless you’re DUMB enough to think that “Well…the lawn looks nice, so…the cells must be nice too.” I mean…really? It’s appearance, it’s good for business since people that CAN COMPLAIN (visitors) see it; of course it looks decent. Nothing to do whatsoever with what goes on inside, for better or worse.

2b) OVERALL, in my observation, facilities were GENERALLY both in decent shape and available to MOST patients (See “ITU” below). There was space to exercise, there was space to go outside, there was a decent-sized library (good enough, at least), there was adequate space for patient size, and so on.

So, again from MY observation, facilities were adequate in terms of exercise, outside space, medical, library, etc.

There were even Church (well, large room with lots of chairs and a priest) services for those that wished to attend, and the occasional MOVIE.

All of these things: Medical, library, exercise, church services, etc… had one thing in common. They were provided by employees that were NOT guards. Make of that what you will. It seemed the general attitude of the guards (IN GENERAL…) towards all these things was indifferent tolerance. Sort of “Fine, whatever…go, don’t, whatever…just don’t fck with me and don’t fck up my schedule.”

Which, come to think of it, is a pretty reasonable attitude, given that they weren’t there to be your friend, they were there to guard you. Guard the non-guards from the patients, guard the patients from the other patients, etc…

3) Most of the “professional” staff (Doctors, Psychiatrists, and the like) behaved in a fairly professional manner.

4) SOME OF the guards behaved in a decent, professional, responsible manner. They did their jobs, and as long as you didn’t act like a pr1ck or intensely fck with them or their responsibilities, they returned the courtesy to you. Which, really, is all you could realistically ask.

Negatives:

1) Obviously, since people who end up LEAVING BSH (patients, that is) can speak freely about their OWN experiences, treatment toward those both a) EXPECTED to leave and b) EXPECTED to be coherent and at least somewhat literate would tend (IMPO) to be more civilized and less abusive. Make of that what you will.

1b) Example: I was in ITU at the same time as someone else who was extremely vocal. I HEARD what this person said, and what was said to them AND about them. I UNDERSTOOD how this person was viewed, in general, by the guards that I heard. This person was viewed as a) someone that could be safely mocked and/or ignored, b) someone whose complaints to anyone about such treatment would be ignored, c) someone that had noone on the outside advocating for them or keeping tabs on how they were treated. There was noone there that gave a sh1t, and even if there WAS, this person was too mentally ill to coherently complain, and even if they COULD it would be their word against 2+ guards. In other words, he was FCKED, and the guards knew it. And, you know, I’m sorry…I don’t like bullies. And the ones who picked on this guy…that’s all they were; bullies aren’t any better or worse with a uniform and a badge.

Now, *I* was much more coherent than this person. I was much more able to understand what was happening, to REMEMBER what was happening and repeat it to my lawyer when they eventually showed up. I was much more able to verbally defend myself from constant random insults; the only “treatment” you received in ITU was being treated to abuse. Quite frankly I didn’t give much of a sh1t what they were saying about ME, but I *DID* care that they were verbally and emotionally abusing someone who was obviously in SEVERE emotional pain and who was just as obviously UNABLE to defend themself from such abuse. So, I basically tried asking (reasonably) why they were abusing someone for no reason. And when they told me to go fck myself and kept laughing at him (and me), I just said random bullsh1t back to them whenever they said random bullsh1t to him. And, like the DUMBA$$ COWARDS they were (and most bullies are), when confronted with a non-helpless opponent, their balls shrunk and they shut the fck up. And FCK ’em. You see, I was much more able to respond coherently…I was also much more able to COMPLAIN coherently and REMEMBER to do so. So, for these reasons, I was not subject to anywhere near the amount of abuse as this other person.

2) From conversations overheard from MULTIPLE sources, including directly from people supposedly affected who seemed perfectly coherent and reasonable in their statements and explanations, the duration of one’s stay at BSH was – at least at times – not of primary concern to those in charge. All 30-Day Evaluations are equal, but some 30-Day Evaluations are more equal than others.

2b) From what I remember, and what I gathered, and what I heard, and what I pieced together from coherent information…there were some people who had been at BSH FAR longer than they should have been. Whose “evaluation” had ended, according to THE LAW in such matters, but who remained there regardless.

I’m not talking about 31 days instead of 30. I’m talking WEEKS, even MONTHS over the LEGALLY ASSIGNED time. And it seems to ME, that these people were those least able to advocate for themselves, and least able to have others advocate for them from outside BSH.

3) SOME of the “professional” staff behaved in a lazy and unprofessional manner.

4) A LOT of the guards (I can’t say what percentage, or “most”, or whatever…it’s too far back to be that precise) were just a$$holes, plain and simple. They obviously had fun making fun of/pushing around the patients, got off on their mini power trips, didn’t give a sh1t about what they were supposed to be doing, and cared a hell of a lot more about “So, what are you doing when your shift’s over?” than “So, what should I be doing now for, like…my job?”

5) This is very subjective, admittedly…and it does NOT apply to ALL “evaluators”…but consider this:

It is a FACT that MANY “patients” (myself for one) there had not been found guilty of *ANYTHING* in a court of law.

Because you are sent for an “evaluation” of your mental state does NOT (supposedly, at least) have ANYTHING to do with “guilt” or “innocence” of ANYTHING…it has to do with: “Is this person mentally competent to stand trial?”. That’s the key…STAND TRIAL. Trial. Where you go, being presumed innocent until proven guilty. You know…the criminal “justice” system.

However, let’s be real. If the case that will be brought against anyone “evaluated” will be (and I think it will) ‘State Of Massachusetts Vs. X’, do you think the State of Massachusetts wants ANYONE to be found innocent?

In other words, do you think the State of Massachusetts WANTS to bring a case against someone and LOSE? Of course not.

Now just think for yourself, but here are a few facts:

– The District Attorney/Assistant DA/Etc are State employees
– Everyone working at BSH is a State employee
– “Evaluations” that strengthen the State’s case and weaken the individual’s benefit: The State and injure: The Individual
– Generally, organizations that are on the same side tend to work together.

This has been a subjective analysis made by someone that was relatively lucky in that he wasn’t dumped there and forgotten. A lot of people with mental illness DO NOT have anyone noticing when they “vanish”, and it is therefore much easier to get away with poor treatment on such people…

Because, who the fck are they gonna complain to?

A mentally ill person, against an entire SYSTEM, with noone to help them? Complaining to…what…”internal affairs”?

Oh, yeah, that sounds really effective.

IN ALL FAIRNESS: There were many people I encountered at BSH who were NOT abusive; psychiatrists, officers, counselors, even patients who went out of their way to help those that obviously needed help.

Some. There were SOME of those people. And there were also PLENTY of people that gave exactly as much of a sh1t as they had to: namely, none.

Things are as they have been, and will be, in any place where power is curtailed only by those that wield it and where those that are subject to it have virtually no recourse.

Think about it: There most certainly ARE at least some sadistic SOB’s working there…do you really think, if one of them had a problem with a “patient” they would hesitate to toss them into ITU (solitary) until they were good and ready to let them out? Based on WHATEVER rationale they wanted to use?

Because, it would come down to this:

Noone in ITU (“patient”) sees anyone else in ITU. Therefore, each “patient” has only their word working for them…if they are even coherent enough to have THAT (therapy does NOT take place in ITU, and medications are sloppily prescribed AT BEST).

On the other hand, every guard has at least one other guard working with them.

So…if a patient says he was abused, beaten, degraded, etc…and a guard denies it, and has a partner to back their side up…who gets believed?

THINK ABOUT IT.

Now, does this mean all guards/authorities are sadists and all “patients” are poor, helpless victims? Of course not.

I saw instances where people in authority were acting perfectly reasonably and “patients” decided to insult/threaten/attack them.

But if you don’t think the opposite happens too, you’re just living in a fantasy world.

The fact is, you can be sent to ITU for the SLIGHTEST things, and once you’re there you DON’T GET OUT until they’re good and ready to let you out.

And the daily serenading of the “patients” with insults and laughter by (some of) the guards is of questionable treatment value, I think. And when “patients” get upset that they’re treated like rat sh1t? Well, they’re being uncooperative…another day in the hole.

If you get sent there, and noone outside BSH knows you were sent there (if you even have someone outside BSH that would care), you’re fcked.

THEY DON’T TELL PEOPLE. People outside have to DIRECTLY find out. Meaning they have to ASK if a person is there. And even then, from my recollection, “patients” in ITU are neither confirmed nor denied. So you can godd@mn ROT there, in some instances, if they feel like letting you.

No confirmation, no visitors, no therapy, and quite often no hope.

How, exactly, is this “Intensive Treatment”?

ITU – what a joke. There was NO therapy in ITU. ITU was BSH’s LTI-speak for “Solitary”. It consisted of being thrown into a CELL no larger (and probably smaller) than you imagine a jail cell being, with a lumpy beanbag “mattress” in the center that was relatively unstained if you were lucky. You received a threadbare “blanket” that covered maybe half your body. The lighting consisted of one bulb flickering overhead (the light from the hall was blocked by the very-reinforced door) and the occasional stream of light from the one heavily barred window VERY high in the cell. The toilet seemed to work all the time, but ODDLY the sink seemed to sometimes work, sometimes not. And noone would come in to adjust it…it simply did NOT work sometimes. Same mechanism, different result. So if you want to be really charitable you can say shoddy pipe system, and if not you can say wellllllll maybe some of the guards might have fcked with some of the inmates…PATIENTS. The food delivery system went thusly: “Here’s your *insert name of meal here*”…your responses available were “Ok/thank you/etc”, in which case the food was slid through a small horizontal hole briefly opened in the doorframe, or anything else (ranging from the extremely benign…”I just threw up I can’t look at food now” to the extremely malignant… “Fck you motherfcker!”) in which case you were marked as “Refusing Food”. That was a strike to getting out of ITU, so accepting it and then passing it right back 15 mins later was the way to go if you thought you might vomit. Otherwise, even the most polite, benign, REASONABLE response (“I just threw up, I can’t look at food, I’m sorry”) was taken EXACTLY the same way: “Patient Refused Food”.

I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what the “Guards” were there for – and they were there, always. I mean, the cell doors were THICK, REINFORCED doors…noone was “breaking out”. Basically all *I* heard the guards do was talk about their personal lives and make fun of the patients, some of whom were obviously in EXTREME mental and/or physical pain.

I’m not talking about me, either. I’m not whining because they were mean to me. I’ve been around mentally ill people. I can tell when someone is SEVERELY mentally ill – severely depressed, suicidal, etc…

I HEARD, for a FACT, at least one patient who was OBVIOUSLY, to even the most casual observer, in EXTREME pain and distress…and not only did they do NOTHING to help them AT ALL, they actually went OUT OF THEIR WAY to yell at and MAKE FUN OF them. They seemed to think it was funny.

And wow, that takes a lot of balls, huh? To have a weapon, be backed up by another guard with a weapon (at LEAST one other guard), be in a position of complete power, be separated by a reinforced, multi-locked door, and make fun of someone in the equivalent of rags, with no weapons and a supposedly compromised mentality.

I HEARD this happening. And the patient wasn’t yelling psychotic sh1t at the guards…they weren’t screaming threats, they weren’t acting like fcken psychos, they weren’t acting “dangerous”…they were screaming IN PAIN, they were asking for HELP. And the response was – from some at least – “Oh, shut up!…So, anyway, did you see the game-”

So basically, you have to bite your fcken tongue, accept the verbal abuse from the guards and the sh1t conditions, act reasonable even though you’re being treated UNREASONABLY, be very calm and pleasant…and then, maybe, you get out of ITU and into the main system.

Placement in/removal from ITU was seemingly based on the morning rounds doctor’s mood and how compliant you were.

I don’t mean he was reasonable and you screamed at him. I mean, he asked questions and if you didn’t give the proper answers (to his liking, IMPO) then they slid the little door shut and you waited til the next day for another chance at it.

Once in the main system, this is what I saw/experienced:

As in ITU, there was NO therapy. There was NO “treatment”. You were given the meds your outside psychiatrist had ALREADY prescribed for you (unless they reduced or cut them off), and that was it.

ITU “therapist” meetings were to decide: “Does he get out of ITU today or not?”. Nothing more.

Main system “therapist” meetings were extremely infrequent. You could ASK to see a therapist, but that was a request…it could very easily be denied.

And I think everyone KNEW that the therapists weren’t there to give “therapy”, because the vast majority of requests that *I* saw/heard about were about getting things done such as obtaining a form necessary to put numbers on for people you could call, getting paper to actually write on if you wanted to communicate with someone outside the facility, etc…

This whole Op-Ed piece is written pretty chaotically, but I think it gets the point(s) across.

IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE AT BSH, AND YOU CARE ABOUT THEM:

Make sure they’re being treated humanely.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 127)

I always asked myself, if I could choose to be “normal”…socially, emotionally, mentally…at the cost of becoming the same sort of a$$hole I’ve railed against for so long, would I? And my answer has always been no. An honest, genuine no. Because who I *am* – the things I believe in and the way I conduct myself – is what is worthwhile about me, what makes me ME. And I wouldn’t want any change – no matter how otherwise benign or effective – that would lessen that importance to me.

That’s a fact, Jack. I had mindless contentment right there in front of me and I told it to go fck itself.

A Tribute To The A$$hole Fans Out There – Part 1

Have fun with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60WR8dB0H-s

Book One: Home,

Chapter One:
Music music man greetings.
Door man man man man man Mynril?
Put bound Gods one hold no!
This door do chatter humanoid

Thou Cast Outwards Before

this. Come To things stops
This you head images he he.
third How pause do that’s nod. Just
door third both Mynril? give pause…

The Credibility Of ESPN – A Derogatorial

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!

Means

The valiant and heroic attempt to establish a peaceful, orderly society through vicious and violent repression and control:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVZe2qd6xPY

This applies exactly the same to all who pursue this noble cause, by any means. A tyrant is a tyrant: a tyrant of fear, a tyrant of pleasure, a tyrant of reason, a tyrant of tranquility.

Some people need to remember why, exactly, they’re complaining about certain things.

Here is the fictional achievement of said cause:

Ironic that the tyrant, Landru, – thought of as a “God” by the people – is actually a purely logical computer. Just as tyrannical, either way.

And ironic that Spock – quite logical himself – aids in Landru’s destruction.

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – I hold no rights to either clip, they are being used both as things to be criticized and forms of criticism.

What Is The Meaning

“Tsunetomo believed that becoming one with death in one’s thoughts, even in life, was the highest attainment of purity and focus. He felt that a resolution to die gives rise to a higher state of life, infused with beauty and grace beyond the reach of those concerned with self-preservation.” – Wikepedia on Yamamoto Tsunetomo

There’s nothing morbid about this; not when you understand what it really means.

We’re all going to die. Make sure that when you die, your life will have been one worth living.

Criticism Of Criticism – An Explanation

The idea is this…

Scour reviews (of books, movies, music, etc) for the BEST and WORST written reviews.

Not reviewing what they’re reviewing…not reviewing what they THINK of what they’re reviewing…

Reviewing the quality of the REVIEW itself.

THINK OF IT!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Quote Interpretation

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery – celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: ‘It’s not where you take things from – it’s where you take them to.'” – Jim Jarmusch

Analysis:

What Jarmusch is saying here is not “take other peoples work and pretend it’s yours.”

He’s saying that there is NO idea that is completely and totally original: that NOONE has ever thought of before. Even if only subconsciously, there are other influences besides just “…it just came to me and I worked everything out on my own”.

Maybe it came to you because you saw something, read something, watched something, felt something, heard something…

As I point out quite clearly in my semi-recent post on the subject, there’s a difference between “homage” (which is what Jarmusch is referring to) and NOT homage.

‘In The Mouth Of Madness’ DIRECTLY takes ideas from H.P. Lovecraft; even quotes his stories verbatim at times. But it EXPANDS on those ideas, it uses them as inspiration, as the origin of a much broader and greater (and authentic) work.

L.F. Dibley…does not.

Every comic has comedians that “influenced” them. So does every writer, every painter, every critic…

“…Comedians borrowed, stole stuff, and even bought bits from one another. Milton Berle and Robin Williams were famous for it. This was different…”

The thing is to BE inspired…to have that inspiration be AUTHENTIC; something that touches you, not something you think is “commercial” or anything else. To be open to that inspiration, to accept it, and to not be ashamed of it – since every artist, to one extent or another, consciously or subconsciously, is using at least one small part of one idea that someone else already thought of.

And then to TAKE that inspiration, and with it, and your own ideas, create something new that is worthwhile; that pleases you artistically and enhances the world in doing so.

Be inspired not greedy.

Be authentic; because you can’t be “original”.

To claim a SPECIFIC work as your own is fine.

To claim an IDEA as your own, that noone else can draw from, be inspired by…is against the very nature of art itself. It’s corporate…and quite frankly if artists get to the point where they’re like corporations (“You can’t use X phrase because I copyrighted it”), that will be a sad day for artists…and the world in general, since it will destroy creativity.

Don’t be fascist about freedom of expression.

What is “Homage”?

This is homage:

This is not:

Somewhere WAY in between there’s a fine line.

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – ‘In The Mouth Of Madness’ is a great homage to H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu mythos. L.F. Dibley’s ‘If’ is NOT a great homage to anything, it just sucks. Also, this is a really bad review (criticism), but it IS a review.

STUPID STUPID STUPID

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?”

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 120)

Very faintly related to ‘Film Imitates Hagakure – Part I-Don’t-Remember’.

Look through them all. *I* didn’t write them, they’re over 300 years old and they’re still relevant, in some ways.

“We may as individuals be rather fond of our own dialect. This should not make us think, though, that it is actually any better than any other dialect. Dialects are not good or bad, nice or nasty, right or wrong – they are just different from one another, and it is the mark of a civilised society that it tolerates different dialects just as it tolerates different races, religions and sexes.”

Eugenics – A Travesty Of Science

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”

The Importance Of Characters Having Character

If they don’t, Little Bill describes them pretty well:

“…but without any…character. Not even bad character…”

Meaning: They are so fake and cardboard-ish that they make suspension of disbelief IMPOSSIBLE.

Using redundancy, allow me to elucidate:

Now, what would a young James T. Kirk be like? Well…he probably wouldn’t be EXACTLY THE SAME as an adult James T. Kirk, who also probably wouldn’t be EXACTLY THE SAME as an older adult James T. Kirk.

How do I know this? It’s called “life”. Are you exactly the same person now that you were 20 years ago? If so, that’s kinda sad.

So as a writer, you consider: “What would Kirk be, with the same courage, stubbornness, intelligence…but WITHOUT the purpose, wisdom or self-control?”

And you get this:

And later, this:

Now, when all you do is look for an actor that physically resembles a younger version of a character, who has the same “basic” personality quirks but is really just a caricature, the equivalent of an actual cardboard cutout being placed on set and some guy doing a voiceover for it, you get a related video, “Kirk Meets Bones”.

Or Scotty. Or Chekov.

Blow up all the sh1t you want, that ain’t Bones, Spock ain’t that good, noone else really matters and your movie sucks.

Ah. A bit of inspiration.

Now if only someone would tell me how stupid my X, Y, and/or Z is, I could write some really good sh1t.

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good clips from a bad movie. (housekeeping)

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 118)

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

The Lost Works Of Anna Dalton – Part Eight

Without the beginning and ending, of course.

Though the ending is still one of the most touching and genuine displays of devotion – to one very easily abandoned, and for nothing in return – I’ve ever seen.

That’s true friendship.

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A short display of the best actor in a fairly cheezy movie.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 115)

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

Funeral For A Cause (Angst Lies Bleeding)

(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).

The 99 Percent: An Analysis Of Fatalism

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.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 113)

Hondjie, Qenush, Kucuk, Stene, Cadell, Agaru, Hvalp, Hundido, Kutsikas, Pentu, Chiot, Hundchen, Ti Chen, Kwikwiyo, Menyuam Dev, Kolyokkutya, Nwa Nkita, Anak Anjing, Cucciolo, Kirik, Catulus, Kucens, Suniukas, Alika, Valp, Szczeniak, Cachorro, Catelus, Lelinyane La Ntja, Stena, Kuzek, Tuta, Kopek Yavrusu, Kuchukcha, Cho Con, Ci Bach, Omo Aja, Umdlwane. Yip!

Forgotten Kingdoms – A Decent, Beautifully Coded Joke

With occasional good role-playing. And zombies.

All of the previous caveats still apply (search for “Forgotten Kingdoms”), with the following updates:

A short list of at-least-pretty-well-played characters to hope you run into should you play:
-Areia
-Andreas
-Zethanon
Some female Cyricist who was with Zethanon
-Demitrias
-Daerin
Some female Tymoran whose name begins with “A” and was with Daerin
Some male Kelemvorite whose name begins with “C”
And the rest from before, plus a few others probably that I can’t think of or never ran into (played both Evil and Good, so not that many).

So…definitely gotten better, as far as PLAYERS go, OVERALL: Some old ones coming back that are good, that female Tempusian hands-behind-back-er nowhere to be seen, Casamir and his “single-bent-talon/clipped voice” two-trick pony act almost never there, absolutely HORRID roleplay very difficult to find (to be fair, so is GREAT roleplay, as the mean is still “mediocre”, but still, an improvement).

However…on the apples front…

Here’s what happened to a recent character from an UNKNOWN player (that is, the Imms had no idea who was playing the character, since the connection was from TMC and had TMC’s IP address, the same as everyone else that logs in from TMC…therefore, it was basically a “new player” as far as they were concerned):

Constable in the Market Center suddenly, for no reason, takes a pair of red tights and puts them on, talking about how they make him look slimming.
BUT…
A character drinks like literally 15 bottles of hard liquor, is COMPLETELY wasted, throws up repeatedly, falls down in his own puke, gets back up again, walks around covered in puke, throws up a few more times, walks RIGHT BY at least two guards, one of whose JOB is to watch for “Drunks and Hooligans” whilst covered in puke and staggering, goes a bit down the street, throws up, and collapses in a pool of his own vomit.

Reaction by guard in tavern, guard “watching” for drunks, and Constable: Nothing.

Reaction by guard, in the same room, as character THROWS UP ALL OVER A SHOPKEEPER’S FLOOR: Nothing.

I mean, he could not have been more drunk, or more covered in vomit, or staggering more…he basically did as close as you can to walking up to a guard and saying drunkenly “I’m drunk you stupid fck arrest me!!!!!” and the reaction? Nothing.

So, come on…the way the Imm’s handle NPC animation, this is JV at the administrative level as well as the play level.

I mean if you like jokes you might like it…but “staying in character???” When that’s how the people that JUDGE ROLEPLAY roleplay the NPC’s? Come on….funny, and sad. Are you JOKING me? (C. Sheen from ‘Platoon’ again).

Priceless: I KNOW an Imm was online, and did nothing to make the NPC’s AT ALL realistic, because as my character was lying on the ground ON A MAIN STREET DURING THE DAY COVERED IN VOMIT, instead of doing anything useful they made some (I’m sure handy-dandy) changes and typed “OOC: Copyover in a sec.”…”OOC: Copyover incoming.” …after seeing a question on the “Ask” channel (because they see EVERYTHING on the “Ask” channel) that basically asked, in a really nice, polite way, after waiting about 15 IRL minutes “Hey, can you come and arrest me here?”.

Was my character “trying for attention?” No. Was I “testing the Imm’s?” No. I was playing a character that was intelligent, talented, somewhat charismatic, confident…but, for a very good reason, was STARTING as inspired by drunken, hitting-on-Uhura James T. Kirk from ‘Star Trek (2009)’.

Because, you know, a character should change slightly in 10-15 years. *AHEM*

So, the plan was, in-character, he’d START like that (with a pretty decent background I must say) and then – depending on circumstances – he’d change, one way or another. You know…like characters in movies do, unless they’re directed by Ed Wood or the guy that made ‘Manos’ on a bet.

Like, how Kirk at 20 and Kirk at 35 are NOT exactly the same. Kinda makes sense, to me.

Oh…as far as the “only one account” thing goes…come on. I KNOW for a fact that at least one player has made multiple accounts, and judging from the way players come, leave for months, years…come back…come on. You’re naive if you don’t think like J. Phoenix about this (“Nobody knows what nobody knows, you know what I mean?”)

In conclusion, what FK post would be complete without a Gwain analysis, so here’s one:

I was thinking…Gwain is sort of like to FK what George F. Will from that SNL skit was to baseball: Knows EVERY SINGLE THING about the game, a virtual encyclopedia of information…but not a CLUE as to how to use that information in ANY useful way.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/george-f-wills-sports-machine/n9910

11/15/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A great sketch displaying how sometimes people can be OVERLY intellectual.

Star Trek – Top Three All-Time Cr@p Plot Devices

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.

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 111)

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!

Siledif Repmes – But Surely That’s Not An Anagram, It’s A Spoonerism

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!

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 109)

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.

Why You Should Listen To My Online Radio Station (Seriously)

1) I have absolutely no interest in encouraging you to become a VIP, since the ads (while mostly stupid) are brief and IMPO quite tolerable.
2) I will freely encourage you to use AdBlock Plus to stop most of the annoying ad sh1t they put on my station page.
3) I really don’t care what you rate the songs…really. So you don’t have to worry about me pretending to give a fck. I play it if I think it’s good. That’s all.
4) You will never, ever, ever hear “Elderly Woman Behind The Counter In A Small Town”.
5) It doesn’t suck, because it’s already succeeded.
6) THERE IS NO REASON SIX

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 108)

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…”

 

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 106)

A very logical conclusion.

“Kirk: Evaluation of M-5 performance, it’ll be necessary for the log.
Spock: The ship reacted more rapidly than human control could have maneuvered her. Tactics, deployment of weapons, all indicate an immense sophistication in computer control.
Kirk: Machine over man, Spock? It was impressive. It might even be practical.
Spock: Practical, Captain? Perhaps. But not desirable. Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them.”

Blast From The Past

Hey Linda Cutts, remember this?

It’s even better in context.  You know, how you promised with tears in your eyes and emotion in your voice that you would NEVER EVER EVER let me go to prison?  How I was alone and lost and you begged me to trust you, and I asked you if I could because I was so desperate for ANY REASON to not feel ALONE, and you said yes, and I asked if you promised, and you said yes?  And how you said you would BE THERE, absolutely, no question, period, to make sure I NEVER went to prison?  When I was my most vulnerable, terrified and horrified, how you promised me that?  Remember?  I do.

Wanna know why I have horrific trust issues, or why I wake up flailing and screaming in the middle of the night at every replayal of what you did, then and before then?  Have a listen!

Record001