Plain box, grass in the background and a cobble path in front. Daytime, a very ordinary sky; a few happy clouds, pleasant, somewhat sedate.
Man standing on the right on the cobble path seeming fairly neutral, not doing anything, facing forward and slightly to HIS left in a manner indicating a calm, almost lackadaisical attitude.
Man is of average everything: height, weight, appearance. Quite generic, with just a few tiny touches to distinguish him from being completely clone-like.
Inspirations For Grimmsy:
The Grim Reaper (many forms)
Marvin The Martian
The Addams Family
Subeta’s “Twilight Harvester” Pet
Old Looney Tunes
Monty Python
Don Hertzfeldt
Old Comic Strips
“The Dirdy Birdy”
Ren And Stimpy
Curly Howard
Various Others In My Subconscious (I assume)
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”
Since everyone else seems to find the idea of drawing for my comic really…interesting, I’ve decided to present it in pure written form.
That’s right, each frame will consist only of the pure, undiluted description of what happens. This brings to you a higher degree of authenticity, and is only being done because I can’t find an artist.
And I assure you, I am the best comic writer in this room.
I shall make you a comic. I shall call it…”Grimmsy Grimmling, Escort Of Souls”.
*boppy music…*
*finished, pushes it to the edge of your Circle Of Protection: Little Death*
Like ‘Thinner’ (and ‘The Arrival’, and ‘The Rock’, and ‘The Puppet Masters’…) in that it isn’t all THAT good, but I have watched it several times and enjoyed it. Just somethin’ about it…I don’t know…
Basically it’s a satire on boxing, corruption, and racism.
It’s got an “ensemble cast” (the best way to describe a bunch of actors you know from when they WERE good and/or have always been B List) as well as Samuel L. Jackson (You’ll guess who he’s supposed to be in about 2 seconds), Jamie Foxx (who is quite good in a small role), Damon Wayans (who is kinda grumpy), and some guy named Peter Berg as the white heavyweight (who may have never appeared in a major movie before or since, but is actually good in this).
The show so far:
Yes, the, uh, show so far. Well…there’s two black boxers, and one of them wins. Then there’s a group that wants more money, and they want to get a white challenger. Then they get the white challenger, and white people love him. Then he becomes well-trained enough to give a sliver of hope (or fear, depending) he might win. Then they fight. Ding.
Grade: C
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)
Speaking from a somewhat neutral standpoint, I’ve learned that there is a limit to the power of positive thinking, but virtually no limit to the power of negative thinking.
185.129.148.203
88.80.196.2
“Yes…yes…thank you, thank you, yes…thank you for checking my xmlrpc defenses…” – As voiced by David Cross from ‘MIB’
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 importance of allowing oneself to grieve when appropriate:
“Tomorrow I’ll feel better; but tonight, I’m gonna feel bad, okay?” – Cheers
“…Is it tough to set up your own blog?”
*In the tone of Lilith answering Diane’s relationship question* No.
“…Is it tough to set up your own blog?”
*in the tone of Jack answering Wendy’s writing question* yes.
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.
Fair Use – Criticism:
One of the moments that make season three of TOS worthy of existence.
AKA “Why Anna Dalton Wouldn’t Compose The Music Of Either Era Nocturna Song”
She’s in mourning. She’s solemn, she’s sad, part of her is dead; she’s in pain even as she revels in memories of what was.
She’s not angry.
Shoulda been a hit, too.
Pretty sure the emotion is genuine. Justified? No idea.
But think of ‘Full Metal Jacket’:
“Private Joker’s silly and he’s ignorant, but he’s got guts, and guts is enough.”
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Oh what a beautiful mourning.
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Shoulda been a hit.
No? I didn’t think so.
10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good scene from a decent movie. (housekeeping)
Just the intro, extended; the calm before the storm.
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – The best scene, IMPO, in a pretty good if slightly bloated movie.
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – The music in this scene, to me, captures the feeling of what is happening; especially at the ending.
Altered slightly, of course. But the main emphasis would be the joyous refrain – so it would be “composed” well into her character development, and at least partly as a tribute.
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Uplifting music from a good – if slightly overrated – movie.
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A good (portion of a) soundtrack from a great movie.
A great quote that applies equally well, I think, to scientists:
“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”
WARNING: Do not let the initial promise of this film convince you to watch the rest. I can’t say it’s all set-up and then nothing, but it is a lot of set-up for a very disappointing, badly written ending.
It’s a cast of four on one set interacting. Fine, but if it’s character-driven it has to be better acted and if it’s plot-driven then there has to be more plot and the ending can’t suck.
Watched to completion only by people that don’t know they’re in for a “WTF???” at the end. Be my guest.
Grade: D-
Updated:
Donnie Darko
Without words, of course. If music can’t speak to you without words, you’re either dead or a zombie. But I digress…
Slight variations, adapting the piano into the violin playing, altering it to make it work but keeping the basic melody and structure.
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A very moving song; a far superior remake of the original, in a good movie.
A very low-budget-looking horror/comedy.
Nowhere near as ridiculously gory as ‘Dead Alive’, but almost as deadpan tasteless – and good for stupid cool catchphrases.
It’s also not very disturbing, since it’s so unbelievably unbelievable. Beyond the obvious movie reference, it reminded me of what ‘The Brain That Wouldn’t Die’ (a much more creepy, sinister film MST3K’Od) might have been like if they hadn’t tried.
Also makes me think of Queen. No, that’s not Freddie Mercury, though the premise of the movie suggests that it MIGHT be.
Inspirational Quote: “You want a sandwich?”
Grade: C
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Music that moves (appropriately) slowly, building powerfully to/with the climax of the scene it accompanies.
*eyes closed, silence*
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good music from a mostly unknown (good) movie; worthy of a watch.
Part one (boot camp) is a great, compelling, disturbing short film. R. Lee Ermey is brilliant, and Vincent D’Onofrio’s Private Pyle is a real character: you see him, flaws and all, trying his best but in way over his head. And you can tell from the beginning that there’s something slightly wrong with him…D’Onofrio portrays his descent well, up to and including the ending, which comes too soon.
Part two (off to Vietnam) is a collection of scenes and lines that seem thrown together to make the film long enough – like they came up with interesting individual bits of dialogue and then had to write actual scenes around them, which don’t feel connected. The fact that the characters don’t seem at all real anymore makes it a bit difficult to give a fck, too.
Same as I remembered it: two movies; one great, one ok.
Inspirational Quote: “I AM…in a world…of SH1T.”
Grade: B-
OkC Match Question: Would the world be a better place if people with low IQs were not allowed to reproduce?
My Answer: No
Explanation:
This is the longest explanation you will ever read.
Well, first, the basic and obvious reason: denial of free will over reproduction? A “better” place? Are you kidding me? Sounds pretty fascist to me.
For anyone that thinks only people with low IQ’s answer this “No”, I bet mine’s higher than yours. But, yes, you can reproduce. Unless this makes you consider yourself unworthy.
When asked his IQ: “I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers.” – Stephen Hawking
“Whose harmony? Yours? Plato wanted truth, and beauty. And above all, Justice.” – Spock
“Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people; turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humor?” – ‘Against Method’
“Khan…I’m LAUGHING at the ‘superior’ intellect.” – Kirk
(Thanks EJ, BT and DA).
“Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.”
Anti-theists are quick to point out the “logic” of their position by citing absurd examples and referring to debates between theists and Christopher Hitchens, Dick Dawk, and other CA/A’s.
This is intellectual cowardice (thanks DD).
It is intellectual cowardice because the question that must be answered to determine if anti-theism is valid or not is not “Does God exist?”, it is “Is the forbiddance of organized religion a morally good and acceptable goal?”.
My answer is no. I *understand* the anti-theist position (Thanks C and S). I simply do not agree with it.
It is a question of free will. Free will should only be limited if it causes harm, or intrudes on the free will of another being (thanks WR).
Anti-theists argue that religion causes harm. Logically, since they do NOT specify any particular religion, but rather religion as a whole, they argue that all religion is harmful.
This is an illogical conclusion, because it is simply a fact that there are religions that are inherently (thanks AGFTHFRO) peaceful and benevolent; and that many religious people are good, decent people.
Therefore, religion and good – peace, harmony, AND free will – are not incompatible.
Correlation does not equal Causality(thanks IDGAFIMW).
To oppose the causing of harm in the name of religion is humane and sensible.
To oppose the freedom of choice of all individuals regarding religious/spiritual beliefs is contrary to free will – on a subject that is not INHERENTLY harmful in any way – and is therefore improper and harmful to humanity as a whole.
Now, to take pleasure in the gaining of free will, in the shackled sense observed by Einstein, is understandable.
To use that free will to attempt to take free will from others is simply vindictive (thanks CD).
Do you seek to eliminate all religion because you believe the end result is good, or simply out of anger at the repression of your free will (thanks MAWA) and the free will of people in general for so long, before recent general acceptance of atheism?
I’m not nearly as intelligent as some of the other people that have objected to anti-theism on a moral – not religious – basis in the past. This is my admittedly crude but authentic (big thanks JJ) attempt to recreate parts of their arguments in my own words and with my own feelings.
Because, as we all know, human beings are thinking AND feeling creatures (thanks PG and MST3K). Not everything we do is logical. We are not perfect. If we were, we would not be human beings. We would be biological robots (thanks MAWA), and we would be incredibly boring.
I agree that there was a time (thanks JTK and G) when fervent atheism was necessary, in order to achieve general acceptance of the choice of atheism as completely valid. But that time has passed. It is acceptable; at least, as acceptable to those who would intensely dislike it as any other belief that was not in line with theirs.
And for a lot (not all, of course) of you, it’s rather obvious that the reason you feel so reluctant to let go of your anti-theist anger is because it took so long for you to be able to express your atheism. It is a form of venting, of retro-active defiance. In some cases it may be justified…but your motivation is not intellectual (as you strive so hard to make people believe). It is emotional; an attempt to gain revenge (thanks MBTDNAATEFORFA).
In any area where atheism would still get you persecuted and/or harmed, ANY belief not of the theism accepted in that area would get you persecuted and/or harmed. You’ve achieved equality in theory and in practice with all the rest of us humane humans (thanks DM).
Anti-theism is dead (thanks FN).
And everything in it is, of course, absolutely and indisputably true and correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
Researching fatalism, my first thought was that this is one of the “philosophies” of the nasty people of the world; an unreal “belief” system that is neither truly examined nor truly believed by the “philosopher”…a means by which the truly horrible and vicious can do whatever the fck it is they feel like doing, and then just chalk it up to X.
Basically, an intellectual keyword (that in reality means nothing to them) used by those that don’t believe in sh1t to present to everyone else – who can see they don’t believe in sh1t – so that instead of a generic a$$hole, they might appear to be a deep thinker, a “realist”, an honest evaluator of things, someone who “tells it like it is”, etc…
My actual, real-world experience with people like this, and people of similar “philosophies”, is that the VAST majority are just total a$$holes with enough intelligence to try putting a legitimizing word to it. Basically, 99 percent fakes and 1 percent philosophers. Not that even the real philosophers are RIGHT…but at least they BELIEVE in the horsesh1t they spew.
The following groups would fit under that analysis: Fatalists, Defeatists, Nihilists, Fascists, Sociopaths, Psychopaths, LaVeyan Satanists, Nietzscheans (although I must point out that Nietzsche himself was extremely intelligent…though I don’t agree with his philosophy; but in my experience there are VERY, VERY few actual believers, like every other example).
And of course endless variations/combinations of the above, typically in groups such as pseudo-goth scumbags, ‘Fight Club’ worshippers, serial killer groupies, people that cheer for the lunatic in movies like ‘Saw’…basically anyone that espouses harmful, selfish and/or uncaring behavior as a meaningful way of life.
Now, is the world all light and roses? Of course not. Noone is perfectly “good”, everyone has flaws…everyone has a “dark side”, vices, bad habits, faults…that’s obvious. No argument. But the difference is, people that AREN’T content to be users and abusers try to OVERCOME these things and behave in the fashion of a decent human being. They admit they are flawed, accept it, don’t feel “ashamed” of it since everyone is in one way or another…but then, with all that acknowledged, define themselves by their decency, by their positive and good beliefs, attributes, and actions.
That’s the point: It’s the INTENT, it’s the DESIRE, it’s the BELIEF that one SHOULD be a decent person…that’s what matters. That’s what separates decent people from scumbags. Then – taking that belief – trying to behave in a decent, moral, and civilized fashion.
Civilization is not dishonesty or repression of truth. Civilization is recognizing that, in order for the world to be at least somewhat harmonious, there must be certain generally accepted methods of behavior. Not to the extent of strict adherence in every aspect of life, not in an overly intrusive fashion, not in a way that undermines the differences that define us and make us HUMAN…individual, as opposed to a collective of non-thinking drones; just, simply, to behave in a decent manner. “An ye harm none, do as ye will” comes close to summing this up. Aleister Crowley’s “Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law” comes close as well, but this is often misunderstood to be something he absolutely was NOT saying: “Do whatever you feel like”.
He wasn’t saying that…in fact, that idea would probably be considered both simplistic and utterly ridiculous by him. He was saying, do what you truly believe is your will…your purpose. Don’t let other people tell you what to do, don’t sacrifice your principles and dreams, “to thine own self be true”. And I think, if people really THOUGHT about it…99 percent wouldn’t conclude “my purpose is to be a selfish a$$hole”.
Maybe 1 percent would. Maybe. If that.
“Why does there have to be Evil in the world?”
“…I think it has something to do with free will.”
I’ve talked to people, some quite intelligent, who have completely admitted to me that they don’t believe in ANYTHING…they just like doing fcked up sh1t. Period. And their attitude is: if people are stupid enough to take this for a philosophy, then they deserve to be treated like sh1t. And if they’re not…well, who cares…if they find them useful, interesting, and/or amusing then they’ll be somewhat courteous, if not they’ll be completely dismissive and rude, at best, and horrible at worst. The limits of even their “courtesy” to those they call “friends”, with the exception of a VERY few that they actually respect, are: as soon as this person loses the aspect that requires courtesy, the courtesy vanishes. They are no longer useful, amusing, interesting, etc…so they are discarded from the level of courtesy just as easily as a child discards an old toy in favor of a nice shiny new one – though unlike children and toys, they KNOW they’re doing wrong and that people aren’t toys…they just don’t CARE. Then there are the sociopaths that actually BELIEVE that the vast majority of people are simply toys, objects to be used, exploited, discarded…whatever their whim is at the time.
In conclusion: a quote, and what I believe is an appropriate clip.
“…didn’t believe in sh1t. None of ’em did.”
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – The above clip is a great example of telling one of the above-described types what they really are, and bravo Derek. Also, to criticize the clip itself, it’s a great scene. Also, if you try to get this removed you can go fck your mother.
Bat trees?
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!
Or, maybe just one if it’s a REALLY motivated VPNer:
1) 195.211.155.156
2) 121.204.196.237
3) 121.205.198.223
4) 110.82.171.189
5) 103.39.79.242
6) 103.30.41.1
7) 140.237.34.94
8) 192.199.250.181
9) 195.3.144.88
10) 54.200.226.219
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.
Great movie, great scene…
But pick out the line from the following clip that’s sorta like gold-plated diapers.
SPOILER: Answer below.
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – The clip above shows a great scene from ‘Platoon’. Charlie Sheen has never acted better, and Tom Berenger hasn’t either…Berenger hasn’t even come CLOSE. The rest are good enough to hold up the scene as realistic, but those two are the standouts.
0:36-0:40
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.
All the good parts from ‘Star Trek’ (2009):
10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – These are all the good parts from ‘Star Trek’. (housekeeping)
Unfortunately, due to the rising cost of broadcasting for small broadcasters, ‘Semper Puppy Mach 2.2.2.2’ will most likely end soon. The exact date is unknown, but very probably by the 31st of this month if not before. In the very unlikely scenario that this changes, I will post here.
If not, feel free to listen to it for as long as it is active, make sure you don’t pay for premium, and thanks for listening.
Forest Whitaker adds to remnants of ‘Semper Puppy’ with a brief bit of dialogue that would seem bland coming from almost anyone else’s mouth.
“I don’t know, brothers…but I’m hurtin real bad inside.”
“It hurts to care…”
“I hurt.”
What’s the deal with the Scandinavian Peninsula and trying to hack my site, 178.170.146.215?
I mean, I know the “Finnish him!” joke was bad, but come on.
Oh, and remember to vote Norwegian at your next election.
10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Ok clip from an ok episode. (housekeeping)
As of now, service provided by Live365 for ‘Semper Puppy’ will end after January 31st.
HOWEVER, a new service has been tentatively selected, and – barring future pupdates to the contrary – ‘Semper Puppy’ will CONTINUE TO BROADCAST (and yes, quite legally) after January 31st.
If you’re a fan of the station, stay tuned for more specific details as they become available. Actually, as soon as they become available and I then make them available. But I probably will make them available fairly quickly, since it’d be pretty stupid to keep broadcasting but not tell anyone how to listen.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
10/18/16: My radio station no longer exists. Not under my control, anyway. So if you find one you think is mine…it’s not. I don’t have one.
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!
Placeholder.
There may very well be other MUSH’s and the like that would qualify for my top ten. However, since many MUSH’s entail LONG creation time and LONG wait time and LONG…etc, I have not fully explored them to be able to say which those might be. This is because many of them (yes, I’ve gone through the LONG process) are NOT good roleplaying centers, despite the “rigorous” attention to creation, background, etc.
So the ones that ARE: Beyond ‘No Return’, I don’t know who you are, and if you’re desperate for good RP other MUSH’s *MIGHT* contain it. It’s a question of slogging through all the cr@p in that hope. There are – and I’d just like to be emphatic about this – NO other good roleplaying MUD’s out there, as of last complete scan of TMC. I’ve tried them all. No “possible” good ones. MUSH’s are your last recourse if you don’t like my list.
Also, on a somewhat surprising note, one change in my Top Ten: ‘Forgotten Kingdoms’ is up from a shaky 10th to a good, solid 9th; right behind N/A, N/A, and N/A, but now clearly ahead of N/A.
Signs of progress: Less study-hall chit-chat in the Market Center, elevation of overall play. Still not your first option, but there are DEFINITELY some (SOME) opportunities for decent roleplay.
Signs of no progress: Gwain is still there.
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.
“…deer have every single right to begin their organization, just not within my garden. Second, bash installing of top class-part solution-focused…”
See ‘My Reaction To Bill Belichick’s Overtime Strategy’.
