quote:
It's a fair question. My opinion isn't grounded in hard data. It's more of an educated hunch. Europeans who have a much better grip on democracy than we have.
My response:
I'm leaning towards answering an original question with another question which is what merk does quite a bit no less. Otherwise, I'd agree that Europe has democracy down wholesale as well.
=======================
Sadie, why is it when I speak to you - or at least try to anyway - you say nothing as opposed to when I don't you say something. Hmmm? Hmmm?
=========================
Quote from: goonie on June 24, 2008, 09:55AM
No no, go for a BBQ at Becky and Mike's, she's a sweet cook.
Hey, i overlooked this part. No wonder mike is mr. happyhappy. Becky can cook!
=========================
Gawd. leave it to the canucks to pick up a leaf. the canucks suck hard.
==========================
because when you speak to me you're saying things like how you'd lick the bottom of a well to meet me or something, whereas your responses to other people are more reply-worthy.
Oh come now valentine. You are clearly purging my attempt at something more honorable with an excuse. The truth is: hap said "would you lick the bottom of the (most disgusting pool on earth)" because hap gets it. I on the other hand found it amusing he would. The point I made to you was you do things in jest just to respond to me, which leaves me no grounds to communicate with you. . . it's as if you're scared to show me yourself. I don't know what else to say.
=========================
they did not deserve to lose that game. . . very unfortunate. it's hard to watch germany beat these teams on such terms.
======================
^ give me a break. Such pity. Honestly, the worst 2 cnd. teams were by and large the Leafs/Canucks. Made for each other I tell you.
=====================
meh. I wouldn't watch it again, neither would I vacancy.
=======================
no. sadie has a lot to offer. it gets lost in translation that nobody else sees it, it takes someone special to show there's a turtle underneath the shell. how've u been?
=======================
So you made a thread about Vacancy not being such a bad movie and then completely 180'd on it?
She said she liked monster better. I didn't say that. . . I agreed with her position - being - that she liked monster better. How clearly can I put that for you????
========================
So in your "Toonces Talk" you're saying you're the prince charming who's going to save Sadie and show her true happiness because that's what you can provide her?
No. I'm saying no matter what anyone does, she'll be whatever she wants with whoever she wants. . . I on the other hand just think that apathy is not the root to happiness which is the point of my message. I believe I lead by example when addressing that as an issue. It's not my fault people confuse it as falsely interpreting that from it. Sadie is no different, I just wish she were more open on the board because she seems interesting enough, or I may be giving her or the other too much credit for even trying my best, thus, they can't change their habits. Again, not my fault.
========================
watch it. it's not bad. . . but you'll agree it could be better.
=======================
I ride 17km on the staionary in 1h:5min. Not bragging, just sayin.
=======================
not a chance.
=======================
*takes frantic note.
=======================
Quote from: Hap on Today at 02:54 PM
Go Germany!
Either the russians were revoked of some cocaine spree or they just didn't show up to play against spain. ridiculuous result on the field. This won't happen against germany.
=====================
houses in b.c. are like mortaging how long it'd take to reach the moon.
========================
our justice system's finest. Indeed.
==========================
This deserves an ingenious response; simply because our news media neglects to focus on the immoral validation of the war, since they've gone so far to support it, that it leaves the masses to wither in naive ignorance of the truth.
In my view: there is one short message that echos to this history of war in Iraq.
When you know in your heart there is something that should be said, but you don't know what else to say about it - it's probably a nightmare. On the other hand, if there's one thing you'd wish that could happen, it'd be that the perpetrators of such gluttony would come forward and state, "It's all been an accident, we realize what is better after we decided to unilaterally absolve our humanity, thus contribution to the war effort. As such we apologize and regret the actions accountable. Our addmission is that we are sorry and let this not happen in future time." Then we'd measure that sentiment with a statement of our own, that we're not going to punish anyone because we appreciate the solid confession is a step forward in the right direction, leaving us to believe that a new kind of thinking has been found - something we've been unconsciously waiting for yet suspicious it might someday be spontaneous we all agree to it.
Sadly, the reality is not this^. The reality we face is waging war against ourselves because that's what makes the world turn, with money to burn.
However, when you think about it, it's totally unselfish thinking (as in my example of it. . . ) that could save us so much trouble it's almost ridiculous to mention. Honestly, in my mind, the world is a shoestring attach to greatness as in my example suggests, yet - we are either totally completely blind to it as such, yet it's so fucking obvious. I mean honestly. ?Have you ever read anything so cut and dry it makes perfect sense, that the world is at your fingertips ^ that was it.
P.S. I've said from day 1 it was all about oil + CNN.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
the switch to purity
Well I find it hard to argue against anyone when I feel there is something sincere happening such as is this case. I trust you see nothing insincere about, in this instance, my comprehension skill.
Also, I leave it to chance that correct observation, such as my 'emo' being put out on this screen is delusion on my part. Therefore, vegas, ghengis etc. see an easy target. It's like they say nothing but I yet I continue har-har-har. The difference is if I have something to say I say it. I don't see how that can be funny, unless I have no idea what I'm providing the viewer. I've always believed people show their ignorance, by not responding accordingly thus I give them no credit. I've only shown I can be honest and worthy of real emo, not just jerking the chain with no purpose. That is why I respond in ways I do, to break that frustrating pattern of hi-jacking, and getting to focus on what really matters.
============================
oh yes. yes i do halfpine. I am well aware of what you guys are doing, . . . but never - I mean never underestimate my intelligence. That's a big no-no in my books.
You've been warned fairly, that's not a threat, it's that I know what you guys are doing. (Coming from a guy like you, who used to accuse me of not contributing anything over on the ewok-board.)
You see, the best actors are the ones that have nothing - absolutely nothing to lose. Those are few and far between. (Though vegas doesn't compare.) It speaks for a lot, have you been reading anything in this thread, you'd find the source of these reasons speak quite resoundingly well in fact. Otherwise, from our days at goanalog, I see nothing that's changed my opinion of you either. But don't underestimate my intelligence, that's when things go terribly wrong for everybody involved, but I speak with influence not ignorance which many forget.
I am simply sharing with you what context I have from my experience. I dare you to watch the movie as I've described it.
=============================
Quote from: Hap on Today at 03:44 AM
Real capitalism requires control by force because the poor inevitably outnumber the rich, and property rights are not inherent. Virtually all of the attempts in the past 30 years to radically deregulate capitalism have been accompanied by force. I can't think of any extreme capitalism makeovers that have come about democratically.
When we're talking about real capitalism is what we can control as individuals that co-exist among the absence of regulation. . . what I mean is a generational gap that exists. We're also talking about superficial people. I'm also talking about independence run amok. I'm referring to my personal beliefs that mock people from my generation (as I so see fit) that exploit others only in effect create (. . .if that's the actual word we should be using. . . ) there own means whereby increasing their material gains depends on each and every choice they make. It started out as, "I come from a house/home which my infancy was created." That was then, now. . . "Look at me, I've created my own opportunities, oh yeah, I remember you - you've changed - but look how much more I am and how better my things are than yours today." What I'm deducing is a selling out mentality that is contingent to the hipster profile. It's as if the evolution from infancy, leads to a ambivilant look of our own skin.
In all honesty, this may sound bias in thought, but it speaks of the over-competetive, condescending, and risk taking society we managed ourselves.
I can give you a hyper-sensitive example: this week I walk into a workplace establishment where a woman conducting her business is in the premesis. She looks at me with her pro-professional image as if to make a statement with a boastful 'hello' how are you today. I've never met this person before, until, you quickly realize it's just an illusion. . . the rest of the way the same person would not greet me or say another word to me the whole time she was there. It just makes you wonder; or at least - I know.
So, with that being said, I say there is no difference. People act for themselves as they see accordingly, and I should make the choices that go along with it, because as I mentioned already there has been in my generation those that talk the talk, as opposed to others like myself that walk the walk. Some have been "raised" into adulthood, movingat a frantic pace as they see fit, perhaps misguided in their becoming something of a materialist sense. Some like myself prefer to take the path less travelled, moving without a turtle shell in the hopes of achieving something far more revealing. Now I just refuse to acknowledge what judgments people may have or not, - not like there's anything wrong with that. I just keep quiet.
Quote
Real capitalism requires control by force because the poor inevitably outnumber the rich, and property rights are not inherent. Virtually all of the attempts in the past 30 years to radically deregulate capitalism have been accompanied by force. I can't think of any extreme capitalism makeovers that have come about democratically.
....and let's not forget that I do agree with hap here. ^
===============================
i know. . . it is pretty hilarious. especially seeing how difficult affleck was being on set, the entire scene i thought may have helped getting the dir. vision through though of course by accident it had to happen the way it did. i think i'll never forget it, believe me. a mimi-miracle of sorts. but not a word of a lie.
i find it peculiar that a guy like vegas who has no such acting experience can outmaneuver a camera on film. they just like being away from the camera i think is my guess.
Also, I leave it to chance that correct observation, such as my 'emo' being put out on this screen is delusion on my part. Therefore, vegas, ghengis etc. see an easy target. It's like they say nothing but I yet I continue har-har-har. The difference is if I have something to say I say it. I don't see how that can be funny, unless I have no idea what I'm providing the viewer. I've always believed people show their ignorance, by not responding accordingly thus I give them no credit. I've only shown I can be honest and worthy of real emo, not just jerking the chain with no purpose. That is why I respond in ways I do, to break that frustrating pattern of hi-jacking, and getting to focus on what really matters.
============================
oh yes. yes i do halfpine. I am well aware of what you guys are doing, . . . but never - I mean never underestimate my intelligence. That's a big no-no in my books.
You've been warned fairly, that's not a threat, it's that I know what you guys are doing. (Coming from a guy like you, who used to accuse me of not contributing anything over on the ewok-board.)
You see, the best actors are the ones that have nothing - absolutely nothing to lose. Those are few and far between. (Though vegas doesn't compare.) It speaks for a lot, have you been reading anything in this thread, you'd find the source of these reasons speak quite resoundingly well in fact. Otherwise, from our days at goanalog, I see nothing that's changed my opinion of you either. But don't underestimate my intelligence, that's when things go terribly wrong for everybody involved, but I speak with influence not ignorance which many forget.
I am simply sharing with you what context I have from my experience. I dare you to watch the movie as I've described it.
=============================
Quote from: Hap on Today at 03:44 AM
Real capitalism requires control by force because the poor inevitably outnumber the rich, and property rights are not inherent. Virtually all of the attempts in the past 30 years to radically deregulate capitalism have been accompanied by force. I can't think of any extreme capitalism makeovers that have come about democratically.
When we're talking about real capitalism is what we can control as individuals that co-exist among the absence of regulation. . . what I mean is a generational gap that exists. We're also talking about superficial people. I'm also talking about independence run amok. I'm referring to my personal beliefs that mock people from my generation (as I so see fit) that exploit others only in effect create (. . .if that's the actual word we should be using. . . ) there own means whereby increasing their material gains depends on each and every choice they make. It started out as, "I come from a house/home which my infancy was created." That was then, now. . . "Look at me, I've created my own opportunities, oh yeah, I remember you - you've changed - but look how much more I am and how better my things are than yours today." What I'm deducing is a selling out mentality that is contingent to the hipster profile. It's as if the evolution from infancy, leads to a ambivilant look of our own skin.
In all honesty, this may sound bias in thought, but it speaks of the over-competetive, condescending, and risk taking society we managed ourselves.
I can give you a hyper-sensitive example: this week I walk into a workplace establishment where a woman conducting her business is in the premesis. She looks at me with her pro-professional image as if to make a statement with a boastful 'hello' how are you today. I've never met this person before, until, you quickly realize it's just an illusion. . . the rest of the way the same person would not greet me or say another word to me the whole time she was there. It just makes you wonder; or at least - I know.
So, with that being said, I say there is no difference. People act for themselves as they see accordingly, and I should make the choices that go along with it, because as I mentioned already there has been in my generation those that talk the talk, as opposed to others like myself that walk the walk. Some have been "raised" into adulthood, movingat a frantic pace as they see fit, perhaps misguided in their becoming something of a materialist sense. Some like myself prefer to take the path less travelled, moving without a turtle shell in the hopes of achieving something far more revealing. Now I just refuse to acknowledge what judgments people may have or not, - not like there's anything wrong with that. I just keep quiet.
Quote
Real capitalism requires control by force because the poor inevitably outnumber the rich, and property rights are not inherent. Virtually all of the attempts in the past 30 years to radically deregulate capitalism have been accompanied by force. I can't think of any extreme capitalism makeovers that have come about democratically.
....and let's not forget that I do agree with hap here. ^
===============================
i know. . . it is pretty hilarious. especially seeing how difficult affleck was being on set, the entire scene i thought may have helped getting the dir. vision through though of course by accident it had to happen the way it did. i think i'll never forget it, believe me. a mimi-miracle of sorts. but not a word of a lie.
i find it peculiar that a guy like vegas who has no such acting experience can outmaneuver a camera on film. they just like being away from the camera i think is my guess.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
boxing without a title match
Sigh. Republican whitewashing tactics. Can we ask why you are employing hap to do your work/research for you?
============================
Okay, since none of you find it easy to respond, I'll dumb this down for you. (In the hopes of explaining better what I believe to be true.)
If you subscribe to the theory I hold re; the value of free speech, the right of free speech for the individual is two-fold. That is to say, in reviewing the case against Styne, Neil McDonald produced an impartial view that freedom of speech in Canada should be placed into a less broader context. However, does Styne not interfere with the subject that targets islam in a pro-US stance, that targets minorities as result of what the dialogue insinuates. It's a fair question to ask; that reveals how rights of the indiviudal as in freedom of speech are meant to be preserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Hap on Today at 05:25 AM
In Canada, the right to free speech is not absolute. It is balanced against other rights,in this case the right of identifiable minorities to not be subjected to hatred. I think we are too quick to restrict free speech in this country, and this case is an example of how wide the hate-speech net is cast. I also think Steyn is an idiot.
The bottom line, however, is that freedom of speech in Canada and the US boils down to economics. The corporate news media will fight to the death against government censorship, but they'll drop a writer or broadcaster like a hot potato when advertisers are offended.
============================
my response:
Yes, this acts as a good response. However, when is it acceptable when ANY form of unilateral means are deemed necessary to alienate others as if to commit suicide. Let me explain what this means: in terms of Steyn's use of freedom of speech Steyn is acting in a manner that he must feel what represents (in this case a group. . . ) infringing upon his natural right as an individual to express what he must also feel is a breech of trust from where he exists as a person of identifiable means. Does this not equal the fact we are justifying an end if we are preserving freedom of speech for all people? I say the answer is yes. It does not depend on the individual, in this case Steyn, who is using his freedom of speech in a manner of speaking, "Look at me, I'm commiting a false suicide, because I Feel threatened by a certain group against me - my personal beliefs - are in jeopardy. . . this is ME being threatened." Does Steyn not constitute as free speech. On those terms I must abide to the RIGHT as an individual to express myself, but not as Steyn has in my view. I cannot make it any simpler than that who says, "I am commiting a suicide, my freedom of speech acts on it." = Steyn. However, our RIGHTS as individuals (regardless of minority status) do not depend on the use of a false vicitim such as is Steyn bemusing us. It is the law of diminishing returns. . .
========================
The movie as it is could've been a far better movie without (in this case affleck. . . ) who's a b-list movie actor. The shot from the scene is fairly dramatic, whatever the (director) wasn't getting through to (affleck) it was a misdemeanor on afflecks dispersal of the scene. What broke affleck's bad habits must have caught the dir. attention, because by the 4'th take the entire film crew was earily quite on set, when I looked in the back from where you see me on screen, in between takes the film's crew which are usually aspiring actors but don't have the talent are all looking in my direction. By the time the dir. thought about accounting for affleck's distaste, he used the takes that caused it.
======================
^Does this mean none of you has seen the movie? The clip that i am in is an over the shoulder shot of Affleck. He was not acting, when you see me, affleck is looking straight at me and not in character. . . the director was having a field day with affleck's antics which is not even the half of it. Affleck blew up at the director, telling him to "Stop telling me what to do." -
=====================
============================
Okay, since none of you find it easy to respond, I'll dumb this down for you. (In the hopes of explaining better what I believe to be true.)
If you subscribe to the theory I hold re; the value of free speech, the right of free speech for the individual is two-fold. That is to say, in reviewing the case against Styne, Neil McDonald produced an impartial view that freedom of speech in Canada should be placed into a less broader context. However, does Styne not interfere with the subject that targets islam in a pro-US stance, that targets minorities as result of what the dialogue insinuates. It's a fair question to ask; that reveals how rights of the indiviudal as in freedom of speech are meant to be preserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Hap on Today at 05:25 AM
In Canada, the right to free speech is not absolute. It is balanced against other rights,in this case the right of identifiable minorities to not be subjected to hatred. I think we are too quick to restrict free speech in this country, and this case is an example of how wide the hate-speech net is cast. I also think Steyn is an idiot.
The bottom line, however, is that freedom of speech in Canada and the US boils down to economics. The corporate news media will fight to the death against government censorship, but they'll drop a writer or broadcaster like a hot potato when advertisers are offended.
============================
my response:
Yes, this acts as a good response. However, when is it acceptable when ANY form of unilateral means are deemed necessary to alienate others as if to commit suicide. Let me explain what this means: in terms of Steyn's use of freedom of speech Steyn is acting in a manner that he must feel what represents (in this case a group. . . ) infringing upon his natural right as an individual to express what he must also feel is a breech of trust from where he exists as a person of identifiable means. Does this not equal the fact we are justifying an end if we are preserving freedom of speech for all people? I say the answer is yes. It does not depend on the individual, in this case Steyn, who is using his freedom of speech in a manner of speaking, "Look at me, I'm commiting a false suicide, because I Feel threatened by a certain group against me - my personal beliefs - are in jeopardy. . . this is ME being threatened." Does Steyn not constitute as free speech. On those terms I must abide to the RIGHT as an individual to express myself, but not as Steyn has in my view. I cannot make it any simpler than that who says, "I am commiting a suicide, my freedom of speech acts on it." = Steyn. However, our RIGHTS as individuals (regardless of minority status) do not depend on the use of a false vicitim such as is Steyn bemusing us. It is the law of diminishing returns. . .
========================
The movie as it is could've been a far better movie without (in this case affleck. . . ) who's a b-list movie actor. The shot from the scene is fairly dramatic, whatever the (director) wasn't getting through to (affleck) it was a misdemeanor on afflecks dispersal of the scene. What broke affleck's bad habits must have caught the dir. attention, because by the 4'th take the entire film crew was earily quite on set, when I looked in the back from where you see me on screen, in between takes the film's crew which are usually aspiring actors but don't have the talent are all looking in my direction. By the time the dir. thought about accounting for affleck's distaste, he used the takes that caused it.
======================
^Does this mean none of you has seen the movie? The clip that i am in is an over the shoulder shot of Affleck. He was not acting, when you see me, affleck is looking straight at me and not in character. . . the director was having a field day with affleck's antics which is not even the half of it. Affleck blew up at the director, telling him to "Stop telling me what to do." -
=====================
building good will; the false imagination
As my girlfriend was mooching off of my generosity at the moxie's restaurant, there was this magnetic sense we were there for a reason that could only explain the nature of our encounter. As later on it would be discovered the perfect ending to the night would call upon my defense of her, as our night continued with an unexpected turn of events. At the nightclub in Winnipeg's exchange district, Alive had brought some uninvited guests who during that time this brief altercation had provoked my interest between I and my girlfriend. The fellow who got in the way of my fun filled adventure, thought it'd be a good idea to smack her bottom without being given the liberty or permission to do so. It is not in good taste to treat your victims of the opposite sex in this case female with unabiding freedom. So to put this character in his place, a confrontation ensued with a dear in headlights to which my girlfriend kicked me out of the bar. Successfully. In truth, there are more matters of the heart to fuel my desires, such as the Italian wannabe mafia archetypes that believe they can show up to manuever their chauvanist intensity to a new level of scum. That in such a manner they would be able to entice anything that stands in their way, but to no evail, the security cameras pick up all forms of Italian insecurities and inferiority complex, which reminded me of individuals that change the purpose through their lives to cause a false sense of materialist independence. As though their vigor exvaporates into thin air. Superficial minded that the light of someone who truly has human qualities, the laws of diminishing returns apply. May my view of this short period in history equivocate a lifetime of noble wealth and humble authority.
============================
Okay, since none of you find it easy to respond, I'll dumb this down for you. (In the hopes of explaining better what I believe to be true.)
If you subscribe to the theory I hold re; the value of free speech, the right of free speech for the individual is two-fold. That is to say, in reviewing the case against Styne, Neil McDonald produced an impartial view that freedom of speech in Canada should be placed into a less broader context. However, does Styne not interfere with the subject that targets islam in a pro-US stance, that targets minorities as result of what the dialogue insinuates. It's a fair question to ask; that reveals how rights of the indiviudal as in freedom of speech are meant to be preserved.
======================
I do not hate vegas, or ghengis or anyone else on this board. I just had to say what I neeed to reflect on, because of what sadie inferred.
-------------------------
I want to talk about keanu reeves as an actor, as it has something to do with what I wrote to vegas. Keanu reeves has put more bs-acting on screen than I care to admit to myself, it's like watching dog-poo-poo. But in the end, even though Keanu hasn't come within a nose hair for an Oscar nomination, the man must be doing something right, the Matrix trilogy alone must make him an action hero of all time. That takes some form of genius I would think.
If you want to watch a movie you'll see me in, and not believe it to be 'boring' to watch is the assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford.
Casey Affleck played a ruthless type of character, that didn't mix well with Brad Pitt playing Jesse James. Especially the scenes where the focus is on Affleck. If not for Pitt, Affleck glory hogged the entire movie from start to finish.
In the scene I was an extra, is a shot where Affleck is challenging the audience to provoke him. Affleck: "Do you want to test my courage, do you, do you. . ." At that precise moment, the camera shot is over his shoulder into the audience. There is a clear view of me seated in the audience, bracing myself due to Afflecks challenge. Why this is relevant, is the director did 4 different takes of that shot. Affleck became furious, because he felt I was upstaging him in his effort of the scene, which the director got word of Afflecks dissent, it moved around the theatre in a hurry. I was asked to move, quite candidly, by one of the films crew. I obliged. The director did another 3 takes of the shot, I suspect he had a total of 8-10 shots to play with for that scene. In the editting room, no doubt the director must have enjoyed what I did because they decided to keep my action in a critical part of the scene.
Before I left the theatre, I walked up to Affleck and complimented him on his work, that he graciously accepted. Sam Rockwell, who did a far better job acting, heard about Affleck's dislike of my performance in the audience, I also congratulated and he was reciprocal as well.
The whole time I walked of the Walker Theatre knowing that no one else knew what had happened.
============================
Okay, since none of you find it easy to respond, I'll dumb this down for you. (In the hopes of explaining better what I believe to be true.)
If you subscribe to the theory I hold re; the value of free speech, the right of free speech for the individual is two-fold. That is to say, in reviewing the case against Styne, Neil McDonald produced an impartial view that freedom of speech in Canada should be placed into a less broader context. However, does Styne not interfere with the subject that targets islam in a pro-US stance, that targets minorities as result of what the dialogue insinuates. It's a fair question to ask; that reveals how rights of the indiviudal as in freedom of speech are meant to be preserved.
======================
I do not hate vegas, or ghengis or anyone else on this board. I just had to say what I neeed to reflect on, because of what sadie inferred.
-------------------------
I want to talk about keanu reeves as an actor, as it has something to do with what I wrote to vegas. Keanu reeves has put more bs-acting on screen than I care to admit to myself, it's like watching dog-poo-poo. But in the end, even though Keanu hasn't come within a nose hair for an Oscar nomination, the man must be doing something right, the Matrix trilogy alone must make him an action hero of all time. That takes some form of genius I would think.
If you want to watch a movie you'll see me in, and not believe it to be 'boring' to watch is the assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford.
Casey Affleck played a ruthless type of character, that didn't mix well with Brad Pitt playing Jesse James. Especially the scenes where the focus is on Affleck. If not for Pitt, Affleck glory hogged the entire movie from start to finish.
In the scene I was an extra, is a shot where Affleck is challenging the audience to provoke him. Affleck: "Do you want to test my courage, do you, do you. . ." At that precise moment, the camera shot is over his shoulder into the audience. There is a clear view of me seated in the audience, bracing myself due to Afflecks challenge. Why this is relevant, is the director did 4 different takes of that shot. Affleck became furious, because he felt I was upstaging him in his effort of the scene, which the director got word of Afflecks dissent, it moved around the theatre in a hurry. I was asked to move, quite candidly, by one of the films crew. I obliged. The director did another 3 takes of the shot, I suspect he had a total of 8-10 shots to play with for that scene. In the editting room, no doubt the director must have enjoyed what I did because they decided to keep my action in a critical part of the scene.
Before I left the theatre, I walked up to Affleck and complimented him on his work, that he graciously accepted. Sam Rockwell, who did a far better job acting, heard about Affleck's dislike of my performance in the audience, I also congratulated and he was reciprocal as well.
The whole time I walked of the Walker Theatre knowing that no one else knew what had happened.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
False imagination in times of hostile waters
If last night is any indication of future events, then I look no further to it from where I began by thinking, what on earth did she mean when I sat there and listened to her telling me how so many of her former friends truly professed love for me at such a tender age, that right then and there a flood gate opened that expelled many secrets hidden beneath like as treasure from beyond the grave, where ht one true thing I should find is simply my heart in a casket but yet open like a wounded knee feels, and the potential for brilliance on the minds of many past teachers that knew of my ability at learning. Therefore, learning has impacted how I've changed over the past 10 years more, that life really is what you make of it, in the end everything turns 360 degrees geometrically and performs in a manner that only you choose, but this narrative could not possibly express just how profound the nature of ones conscience is given the nature of present events have influence. But I digress, the complication is not one of vice but of virtue, for this person who's nameless shall equate with the desire of what I used to have control of, without really being fully aware of the consequences that would commence afterward due in part to our fairly discreet encounter as if we were taken back into a a time warp, then to meet again last night against all odds only to instill the truth. She told me as if an oracle came to light that the exact nature of my whereabouts were how strong my character is, that it was in fact my skill to correctly imply who was vain and those that were not, failed as my friends in this escalade.
======================
How so. I mean, does seinfeld just randomly come up?
======================
It's the first thing to go on my plate when they're available.
======================
Quote from: Mercules on June 21, 2008, 02:56PM
You get that kind of action when you are the underdog team that outplays and defeats the favorite team
my response:
Well stated. You should wear that as a tattoo.
re; Holland v Russia
does anyone know what the final score was?
======================
if the theme is bbq, you take some pre-packed skewers shrimp or what have you and bring those ready hot. Otherwise, pick up a bbq entertaining cookbook and grab an idea from there.
======================
Quote from: beaf on June 21, 2008, 09:25AM
is bigc actually from portugal or is he like the rest of canada in that he has to pick a european side from the international scene in order to feel s/he has a horse in the race?
Honestly, I am skin, mind, body, purely portuguese blood line. We have history, are of romantic language and the country is amazing.
Quote
christ it's like trying to read one of Plato's dialogues
That is the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me; especially coming from someone like you who is unsuspecting and unbias with his honesty. I respect that wholeheartedly.
======================
Seriously think about this I wrote ^ it may be the most important post in this subject as it was drawn out in the thread.^ A concept is not a right. I would love to hear what some of you think. In factuality, the distinction is crucial.
Mike I am looking at you here, because I know in my heart you have to trust what I wrote means something. I know it does, but it takes intellect. I do not apologize for the knowledge I demonstrate whatsoever. There is substance between what is concept, and what is a right in terms of free speech. In Canada's charter speech(1), autonomy(2), thought(3) are all drafted as rights.
So based on social scientific thought, the rules of credence should only apply. I get it - that you don't 'get' satisfaction from my response. How convenient of you merk. Especially considering the fact, yes the fact I give you, yes you the benefit of the doubt. ?HHHmmmm?. I wonder if that makes so much sense to you as to continue responding to suit your taste? If I had poor habits before I conducted any knowable research, how might you consider any form of response. . . would it be narrow minded perhaps or does that only apply to who you make victim? Here's another question for you, since you have honed such skill and mastry combined with karate-like-express instincts of yours?
My better intuition would serve that the quote itself, (as I said both before and after you concluded. . . ) I gave you yes you the benefit of the doubt, WITHOUT calling out your disposition of failing to provide a reference. If you see that - that is - my response is a social science but with a narrative.
You cannot dismiss an interlocutor on the admission of guilt, as if to say, "No - you provide faulty evidence for lack of (whatever the hell you care to insert here is fine - because that's all you've accomplished so far merk.)" I am telling you I am not a stupid individual, do not test me here merk, I've had more university faculty members jealous of my approach contingent with course material, put them on their heels, and given my experience against superficial method of practice. As result, blaming my own credibility was their cop-out card, much the same way you do. I don't buy into it, because I practice what I preach.
Otherwise, I am willing to examine the true source of your quote:
Quote
Which I still have no clue how to respond to.
To quote you is about probably the same way the person you quoted took information for granted and thusly replied:
Quote
Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”
So I was quoting you, based on the source my friend.
Now for the proof of what I wrote, I hardly agree with most of what the article stated. Specifically based on the anti-Islamic sentiment, which is unjustified, yet you feel that you are standing up for 'free speech' not necessarily 'anti-islam'. Correct me merk. Was that not an intelligent enough response for you??
You see, I then proceeded to ensure my RIGHT as an individual, by stating YOU are reinforcing an illigit belief, not so much because it is false, but because it is moot. You refer to people in the sense you've described as anti-american, thus improperly portraying your 'american' held views of what free speech is. How is this for an intelligent response???
Now I also stated to you that because of an irregular view you mistook - the freedom an individual has to promote the cause of free speech = nothing can infringe (me, merk, myself, the 'I') from stating whatever I want when I choose to. It is my decision. Therefore, nothing can suppress me from the act to commit myself to it.
Read what the article said here:
Quote
I have read Holocaust denial material here and I remain convinced the Holocaust happened. I've read tracts demonizing homosexuality and don't consider gays a threat to anything. I've read accounts by reporters who laid bare national security secrets and I've watched other reporters interview jurors at the end of a criminal trial — all things that can be suppressed in Canada.
What it means in this case. . .
is that between concept and rights there is freedom of speech. That we can agree on. What people neglect is pure and simple logic of the material they're viewing, in essence, what defines an individual is not up to the state or the ideas we gather. I promptly advised you that concepts are not a model for free speech, only rights (as in laws) can be protected under strict positivist mentality. That is the difference we're suggesting is missing from the article. If you have a right to free speech, you're concepts aren't necessarily the same as what RIGHT protects individuals.
In Canada, pierre trudeau drafted free speech as a right. In the states, Americans has AMENDMENTS in their constitution. Think about that for a moment. You do not have free speech as an individual right so policy can protect your social demographic. That is a critical - crucial - distinction that connot be undetected. In other words, people that use freedom of speech in doing so - so not taking it for granted is the challenge. Neil McDonald has a right to promote his free speech, but I do not think the same way he does. Again, that is for you to decide because it is a RIGHT.
Therefore, your quote merk symbolized one thing; people do not have to act apologetic in Canada. They probably never will, that is about the same as Americans act, but only you deny it. The comfort zone here is complaining about people such as Mark Steyn, cannot breech our rights as individuals, Steyn is simply not aware of. I think that is what Pierre Trudeau had in mind, for all people.
In my case I've lived in Winnipeg all of my life, my parents came here from a fascist dictatorship back in the day. When I get used to living in Canada, (even today) I can say I still haven't been used to life here as I know. It seems sad, probably because it is. What this has to do with my freedom of speech you may never understand. My point being: if I had the truth on my side, then I'd be doing everything in my power to make this happen in my favor. However, I can only try, and in Canada as individuals living in this country I understand I cannot define individuals or be understated as one. That is not the course of history in American politics. God help you if you do not see the difference. Remember, I said 'if' and that is a monstrously huge IF you have the RIGHT to free speech, as to say in Canada Pierre Trudeau's ingenius vision whereas such Jimmy Carter would ask for his advice, mind you AMENDMENTS are not I repeat is not to be confused with as RIGHTS. In essence, you have widely held false beliefs of concepts, but nothing you say is protected as a RIGHT. You can speak anything you profess until the cows come home in the US, but in Canada you have to think before you speak. Pierre Trudeau had it right.
=============================
^ so on a side note apart from vegas. . . that is how you deal with toothless fucktards. Which a true professional such as the people I met with this week saw in me. Obviously it was a tip of the iceberg, they didn't have the need to feel "I wasn't ready emotionally. . ." but not as vegas put it.) We already knew that, they just wanted to help me through it, I wasn't short of being hailed as sir lawrence olivier. I can assure you, I was a far better person doing what I did this week. I am far happier when not dealing with ignorant individuals. End of story. Take this as you must. I'll be damned if I let some idiot fuck give me their misplaced judgment. I've learned so much, but vegas is being totally pathetic.
=============================
Listen man, get off it already, if you give yourself a reason for making cheap shots. . . I'm not the one giving you reason for it. I give reasons, before I accuse, yes accuse others of cheating in their responses. I am not on the attack for owning the thread, I simply stand against those that feel the need to antagonize others when they really have no idea what it is they're talking about, then, make shrewd observations as if it means something against me. That is how I have always been, yet, out of nowhere you appear with idiotic inferences. Get off your high horse and grab a clue of your own. I hope I made myself clear on this matter. And you are definitely not someone I care for, and I know what that means.
=============================
Eat my fuck for even suggesting it dickhole. Portugal played with quality, that is all I said. (How is that for a wipe off tattoo???) Do not pretend to be something you're not for giving them credit. What I said was respectful, and for a moment if anyone on this board can't read between the lines for the crap you or merk throw out are blind. I also stated if the portuguese weren't playing in a manner that wouldn't validate their performance kindly, I'd be the first to admit they deserved to lose. But we played like lions; yet you or merk being pricks justifies it wholeheratedly so. Fuck I wish England were in this thing to beat the snot out of your teams.
P.S. I'm glad becky and mike can see this stuff, because honestly I am sick and tired of it. . . go back to goanalog where the dimwits belong.
===========================
Maybe you're thinking too much. Btw- testing oneself is an art of sorts, knowing the difference is the beauty in what you have within you. Believe me when I tell you I am far and away miles ahead of people that I can no longer compare myself too. It's all about the unknown in place of my self awareness. If you for a moment think - what I'm telling you here isn't a gift to you from me, you're wrong, because people in my position that you can relate might have a common interest of the arts or vague idea of it wouldn't give you 2 cents worth of what I'm willing to bet against. I have done so, and I Will continue to do so, even if it means I'll never get a legitimate shot at something. Put that in your pipe and smoke it vegas. You don't know shit about me. Fucking shit about me, asshole.
Seriously, I've met guys like vegas on set that think they have master 'spy' techniques but couldn't blow a fish out of the water. This is not personal, I just don't want this guy following me around, as I stay far away from guys that show their true colors. This is no joke. I will back this up and I can. That's all I've ever done, so if the mods can follow me on this, I'm just responding with what this dude has done - but not because I'm shallow.
P.S. I'm fucking 30 years old, and I live in a country that I've grown up in during that time, but I know for a fact I will not tolerate this to use him as an example. If it continues, I will leave this board. You know I will.
======================
A good honest response. I can respect that, EVEN if I don't agree with it. . . to each there own, I say, you have a misconception. I can honestly tell you from my perspective, (according to what you saw ghen) that if we sat in the same room together watching that game, and we received exactly the same players on the pitch. . . Portugal did everything we possibly could. That is all I mean. I completely do not subscribe to the 'flashes of brilliance' or 'rolled over' because those are cliches easy to label the opposing teams loss. I think you can respect what those ideas represent. I am not trying to elicit bias, I simply want to state they played a great game, I swear if we didn't have the effort, then that would qualify, but portugal showed a lot of their stuff man. Believe me. The germans were happy not to lose that game. End of story.
========================
Quote from: Mercules on June 19, 2008, 08:39AM
Ok, so stop imagining you even know the context or meaning behind the statement. Stop injecting your line of reasoning where it has no place.
Signed,
Mr. Ethnocentrist
So this is the response I get after surfing through your inexplicable use of discussing profanity when used with discretion? (However, I do not blame hap for that because as I've defended him already I know exactly where he's coming from. You on the other hand. . .) How's this for you merk; bigot or moron, or do you have both going for you? I am sick of this non-sense you give me. First off you make a contradiction between social scientific evidence, by asking me where you got the quote from, then proceed to tell me I have no place in offering my response to it because I don't know where it supposedly came from? (Were it for you to supply the source as every good school boy should.) Therefore, you're entire theory is either moot, or you're a liar for saying everything you've presented or both. Just read what was written and save yourself.
=======================
If that's the attitude you take, I sure would hope not you.
==========================
Yeah, or really suck at winning. Pick your poison.
==========================
So you see what the truth really is, the portuguese out played the germans to a man, without shame in the way we played. If you know anything about football you'd know the germans were scared shitless about getting scored on to tie the game.
======================
you are so clever i could shoot myself.
==========================
Which is also why you seem so cynical. The Portuguese played above average, but. . . they still looked like champions going out in style.
============================
So earlier in the wekk I was shtting myself preparing for what turned out to be a nice time with the artisitic director of the Manitoba Theatre Center. I provided Hamlet's character in the exchange, and in return some bittersweet music to my ears. They liked me, they really lliked me!
============================
Quote from: Hap on June 19, 2008, 10:28AM
Would it be better if I said you annihilated "what was left of your neighbours?" Would it help if HZ said Americans annihilated "what was left of the Indians?" It was their intent to get rid of the Indians, so what if there was only 10% left to annihilate after germ warfare and natural causes thinned their ranks. They wiped out what was left of the Indians.
And for the record, it is a cold hard fact that in North America, the now defunct but once widely used adage to describe "third world" conditions exist right here in our own back yard.
=========================
Again, what is this fascination of american history without some form of noteriety. Admittedly, I take a chomskian style approach when putting a microscope down to reason against such full scale paradigms (in this case American ideology.) I have stated this from the beginning of our psudo-generalization of these entire entries from post-to-post-to-post. It becomes circular. Merk on the other hand has such a deep appreciation for the love of his realist ventures in New Jersey, we can speak of a head of cabbage with a smiley face drawn on it, and that'd be merk's caricature. . . then there's mike being totally canadian in his approach to reasoning with the vaguest of responses so not to let poor merk down from the treehouse built-in with a reality television show. But I digress, back to colins post. . .
If you want to speak of colonialization within the control of state senate, hitherto assimilation of aboriginals from which the European invasion became radically altered was a combination of resistence fighters and the bands of indian settlements that ranged throughout the country of Canada.
The most immediate parallel to any modern day rebellion which we have not seen since (Quebecois sovereigntists) ARE the Metis in Manitoba, to which Louis Riel was executed for treason against the government. When we are speaking of free speech, there are only political prisoners that seek to verify the potential pitfalls, it is very 'unethical' in terms of pursuing it. Merk on the otherhand, simply refuses to believe people should steer clear of misinformation, and take the chains that go along with it.
P.S. For the love of god, if merk says he doesn't understand a damn word from this, I have a newsflash for all of you, AMERICANS DON'T LIKE TO LOSE. Maybe that should wake you guys up to sit or stand up and fight against such misjudging inbreds we call cross border retardation.
=======================
Two words: holy_fuck (enter laughter) followed by a jesus_mary for the several backhands I've taken wits to by none other than merk himself.
If I could be friends with a guy like merk, there is no telling what I could do in this world.
(I am the second coming of an ambiguous flamingo.)
P.S. This is probably my funniest post ever, and only I understand it!! - LOL -
=========================
Quote from: Mercules on June 19, 2008, 03:08AM
Big C,
Where is the quote I used from?
I don't know where the quote is from or why you're even asking. My point being one in the same here: which is, my response was based on the subject matter originally. Therefore, the analogy between what is concept post ergo what is a 'right' depends on the context of freedom. Again merk, I stuck to my principle in question, that no matter which way you slice it one cannot refer to freedom as a concept. I made myself astutely clear on that.
I know where you are going with your question; but it has nothing to do with my answer, the choice I made is on par with the subject in this discussion. Honestly, not even you can turn the tables on me with that tactic. I am not a stupid individual.
======================
How so. I mean, does seinfeld just randomly come up?
======================
It's the first thing to go on my plate when they're available.
======================
Quote from: Mercules on June 21, 2008, 02:56PM
You get that kind of action when you are the underdog team that outplays and defeats the favorite team
my response:
Well stated. You should wear that as a tattoo.
re; Holland v Russia
does anyone know what the final score was?
======================
if the theme is bbq, you take some pre-packed skewers shrimp or what have you and bring those ready hot. Otherwise, pick up a bbq entertaining cookbook and grab an idea from there.
======================
Quote from: beaf on June 21, 2008, 09:25AM
is bigc actually from portugal or is he like the rest of canada in that he has to pick a european side from the international scene in order to feel s/he has a horse in the race?
Honestly, I am skin, mind, body, purely portuguese blood line. We have history, are of romantic language and the country is amazing.
Quote
christ it's like trying to read one of Plato's dialogues
That is the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me; especially coming from someone like you who is unsuspecting and unbias with his honesty. I respect that wholeheartedly.
======================
Seriously think about this I wrote ^ it may be the most important post in this subject as it was drawn out in the thread.^ A concept is not a right. I would love to hear what some of you think. In factuality, the distinction is crucial.
Mike I am looking at you here, because I know in my heart you have to trust what I wrote means something. I know it does, but it takes intellect. I do not apologize for the knowledge I demonstrate whatsoever. There is substance between what is concept, and what is a right in terms of free speech. In Canada's charter speech(1), autonomy(2), thought(3) are all drafted as rights.
So based on social scientific thought, the rules of credence should only apply. I get it - that you don't 'get' satisfaction from my response. How convenient of you merk. Especially considering the fact, yes the fact I give you, yes you the benefit of the doubt. ?HHHmmmm?. I wonder if that makes so much sense to you as to continue responding to suit your taste? If I had poor habits before I conducted any knowable research, how might you consider any form of response. . . would it be narrow minded perhaps or does that only apply to who you make victim? Here's another question for you, since you have honed such skill and mastry combined with karate-like-express instincts of yours?
My better intuition would serve that the quote itself, (as I said both before and after you concluded. . . ) I gave you yes you the benefit of the doubt, WITHOUT calling out your disposition of failing to provide a reference. If you see that - that is - my response is a social science but with a narrative.
You cannot dismiss an interlocutor on the admission of guilt, as if to say, "No - you provide faulty evidence for lack of (whatever the hell you care to insert here is fine - because that's all you've accomplished so far merk.)" I am telling you I am not a stupid individual, do not test me here merk, I've had more university faculty members jealous of my approach contingent with course material, put them on their heels, and given my experience against superficial method of practice. As result, blaming my own credibility was their cop-out card, much the same way you do. I don't buy into it, because I practice what I preach.
Otherwise, I am willing to examine the true source of your quote:
Quote
Which I still have no clue how to respond to.
To quote you is about probably the same way the person you quoted took information for granted and thusly replied:
Quote
Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”
So I was quoting you, based on the source my friend.
Now for the proof of what I wrote, I hardly agree with most of what the article stated. Specifically based on the anti-Islamic sentiment, which is unjustified, yet you feel that you are standing up for 'free speech' not necessarily 'anti-islam'. Correct me merk. Was that not an intelligent enough response for you??
You see, I then proceeded to ensure my RIGHT as an individual, by stating YOU are reinforcing an illigit belief, not so much because it is false, but because it is moot. You refer to people in the sense you've described as anti-american, thus improperly portraying your 'american' held views of what free speech is. How is this for an intelligent response???
Now I also stated to you that because of an irregular view you mistook - the freedom an individual has to promote the cause of free speech = nothing can infringe (me, merk, myself, the 'I') from stating whatever I want when I choose to. It is my decision. Therefore, nothing can suppress me from the act to commit myself to it.
Read what the article said here:
Quote
I have read Holocaust denial material here and I remain convinced the Holocaust happened. I've read tracts demonizing homosexuality and don't consider gays a threat to anything. I've read accounts by reporters who laid bare national security secrets and I've watched other reporters interview jurors at the end of a criminal trial — all things that can be suppressed in Canada.
What it means in this case. . .
is that between concept and rights there is freedom of speech. That we can agree on. What people neglect is pure and simple logic of the material they're viewing, in essence, what defines an individual is not up to the state or the ideas we gather. I promptly advised you that concepts are not a model for free speech, only rights (as in laws) can be protected under strict positivist mentality. That is the difference we're suggesting is missing from the article. If you have a right to free speech, you're concepts aren't necessarily the same as what RIGHT protects individuals.
In Canada, pierre trudeau drafted free speech as a right. In the states, Americans has AMENDMENTS in their constitution. Think about that for a moment. You do not have free speech as an individual right so policy can protect your social demographic. That is a critical - crucial - distinction that connot be undetected. In other words, people that use freedom of speech in doing so - so not taking it for granted is the challenge. Neil McDonald has a right to promote his free speech, but I do not think the same way he does. Again, that is for you to decide because it is a RIGHT.
Therefore, your quote merk symbolized one thing; people do not have to act apologetic in Canada. They probably never will, that is about the same as Americans act, but only you deny it. The comfort zone here is complaining about people such as Mark Steyn, cannot breech our rights as individuals, Steyn is simply not aware of. I think that is what Pierre Trudeau had in mind, for all people.
In my case I've lived in Winnipeg all of my life, my parents came here from a fascist dictatorship back in the day. When I get used to living in Canada, (even today) I can say I still haven't been used to life here as I know. It seems sad, probably because it is. What this has to do with my freedom of speech you may never understand. My point being: if I had the truth on my side, then I'd be doing everything in my power to make this happen in my favor. However, I can only try, and in Canada as individuals living in this country I understand I cannot define individuals or be understated as one. That is not the course of history in American politics. God help you if you do not see the difference. Remember, I said 'if' and that is a monstrously huge IF you have the RIGHT to free speech, as to say in Canada Pierre Trudeau's ingenius vision whereas such Jimmy Carter would ask for his advice, mind you AMENDMENTS are not I repeat is not to be confused with as RIGHTS. In essence, you have widely held false beliefs of concepts, but nothing you say is protected as a RIGHT. You can speak anything you profess until the cows come home in the US, but in Canada you have to think before you speak. Pierre Trudeau had it right.
=============================
^ so on a side note apart from vegas. . . that is how you deal with toothless fucktards. Which a true professional such as the people I met with this week saw in me. Obviously it was a tip of the iceberg, they didn't have the need to feel "I wasn't ready emotionally. . ." but not as vegas put it.) We already knew that, they just wanted to help me through it, I wasn't short of being hailed as sir lawrence olivier. I can assure you, I was a far better person doing what I did this week. I am far happier when not dealing with ignorant individuals. End of story. Take this as you must. I'll be damned if I let some idiot fuck give me their misplaced judgment. I've learned so much, but vegas is being totally pathetic.
=============================
Listen man, get off it already, if you give yourself a reason for making cheap shots. . . I'm not the one giving you reason for it. I give reasons, before I accuse, yes accuse others of cheating in their responses. I am not on the attack for owning the thread, I simply stand against those that feel the need to antagonize others when they really have no idea what it is they're talking about, then, make shrewd observations as if it means something against me. That is how I have always been, yet, out of nowhere you appear with idiotic inferences. Get off your high horse and grab a clue of your own. I hope I made myself clear on this matter. And you are definitely not someone I care for, and I know what that means.
=============================
Eat my fuck for even suggesting it dickhole. Portugal played with quality, that is all I said. (How is that for a wipe off tattoo???) Do not pretend to be something you're not for giving them credit. What I said was respectful, and for a moment if anyone on this board can't read between the lines for the crap you or merk throw out are blind. I also stated if the portuguese weren't playing in a manner that wouldn't validate their performance kindly, I'd be the first to admit they deserved to lose. But we played like lions; yet you or merk being pricks justifies it wholeheratedly so. Fuck I wish England were in this thing to beat the snot out of your teams.
P.S. I'm glad becky and mike can see this stuff, because honestly I am sick and tired of it. . . go back to goanalog where the dimwits belong.
===========================
Maybe you're thinking too much. Btw- testing oneself is an art of sorts, knowing the difference is the beauty in what you have within you. Believe me when I tell you I am far and away miles ahead of people that I can no longer compare myself too. It's all about the unknown in place of my self awareness. If you for a moment think - what I'm telling you here isn't a gift to you from me, you're wrong, because people in my position that you can relate might have a common interest of the arts or vague idea of it wouldn't give you 2 cents worth of what I'm willing to bet against. I have done so, and I Will continue to do so, even if it means I'll never get a legitimate shot at something. Put that in your pipe and smoke it vegas. You don't know shit about me. Fucking shit about me, asshole.
Seriously, I've met guys like vegas on set that think they have master 'spy' techniques but couldn't blow a fish out of the water. This is not personal, I just don't want this guy following me around, as I stay far away from guys that show their true colors. This is no joke. I will back this up and I can. That's all I've ever done, so if the mods can follow me on this, I'm just responding with what this dude has done - but not because I'm shallow.
P.S. I'm fucking 30 years old, and I live in a country that I've grown up in during that time, but I know for a fact I will not tolerate this to use him as an example. If it continues, I will leave this board. You know I will.
======================
A good honest response. I can respect that, EVEN if I don't agree with it. . . to each there own, I say, you have a misconception. I can honestly tell you from my perspective, (according to what you saw ghen) that if we sat in the same room together watching that game, and we received exactly the same players on the pitch. . . Portugal did everything we possibly could. That is all I mean. I completely do not subscribe to the 'flashes of brilliance' or 'rolled over' because those are cliches easy to label the opposing teams loss. I think you can respect what those ideas represent. I am not trying to elicit bias, I simply want to state they played a great game, I swear if we didn't have the effort, then that would qualify, but portugal showed a lot of their stuff man. Believe me. The germans were happy not to lose that game. End of story.
========================
Quote from: Mercules on June 19, 2008, 08:39AM
Ok, so stop imagining you even know the context or meaning behind the statement. Stop injecting your line of reasoning where it has no place.
Signed,
Mr. Ethnocentrist
So this is the response I get after surfing through your inexplicable use of discussing profanity when used with discretion? (However, I do not blame hap for that because as I've defended him already I know exactly where he's coming from. You on the other hand. . .) How's this for you merk; bigot or moron, or do you have both going for you? I am sick of this non-sense you give me. First off you make a contradiction between social scientific evidence, by asking me where you got the quote from, then proceed to tell me I have no place in offering my response to it because I don't know where it supposedly came from? (Were it for you to supply the source as every good school boy should.) Therefore, you're entire theory is either moot, or you're a liar for saying everything you've presented or both. Just read what was written and save yourself.
=======================
If that's the attitude you take, I sure would hope not you.
==========================
Yeah, or really suck at winning. Pick your poison.
==========================
So you see what the truth really is, the portuguese out played the germans to a man, without shame in the way we played. If you know anything about football you'd know the germans were scared shitless about getting scored on to tie the game.
======================
you are so clever i could shoot myself.
==========================
Which is also why you seem so cynical. The Portuguese played above average, but. . . they still looked like champions going out in style.
============================
So earlier in the wekk I was shtting myself preparing for what turned out to be a nice time with the artisitic director of the Manitoba Theatre Center. I provided Hamlet's character in the exchange, and in return some bittersweet music to my ears. They liked me, they really lliked me!
============================
Quote from: Hap on June 19, 2008, 10:28AM
Would it be better if I said you annihilated "what was left of your neighbours?" Would it help if HZ said Americans annihilated "what was left of the Indians?" It was their intent to get rid of the Indians, so what if there was only 10% left to annihilate after germ warfare and natural causes thinned their ranks. They wiped out what was left of the Indians.
And for the record, it is a cold hard fact that in North America, the now defunct but once widely used adage to describe "third world" conditions exist right here in our own back yard.
=========================
Again, what is this fascination of american history without some form of noteriety. Admittedly, I take a chomskian style approach when putting a microscope down to reason against such full scale paradigms (in this case American ideology.) I have stated this from the beginning of our psudo-generalization of these entire entries from post-to-post-to-post. It becomes circular. Merk on the other hand has such a deep appreciation for the love of his realist ventures in New Jersey, we can speak of a head of cabbage with a smiley face drawn on it, and that'd be merk's caricature. . . then there's mike being totally canadian in his approach to reasoning with the vaguest of responses so not to let poor merk down from the treehouse built-in with a reality television show. But I digress, back to colins post. . .
If you want to speak of colonialization within the control of state senate, hitherto assimilation of aboriginals from which the European invasion became radically altered was a combination of resistence fighters and the bands of indian settlements that ranged throughout the country of Canada.
The most immediate parallel to any modern day rebellion which we have not seen since (Quebecois sovereigntists) ARE the Metis in Manitoba, to which Louis Riel was executed for treason against the government. When we are speaking of free speech, there are only political prisoners that seek to verify the potential pitfalls, it is very 'unethical' in terms of pursuing it. Merk on the otherhand, simply refuses to believe people should steer clear of misinformation, and take the chains that go along with it.
P.S. For the love of god, if merk says he doesn't understand a damn word from this, I have a newsflash for all of you, AMERICANS DON'T LIKE TO LOSE. Maybe that should wake you guys up to sit or stand up and fight against such misjudging inbreds we call cross border retardation.
=======================
Two words: holy_fuck (enter laughter) followed by a jesus_mary for the several backhands I've taken wits to by none other than merk himself.
If I could be friends with a guy like merk, there is no telling what I could do in this world.
(I am the second coming of an ambiguous flamingo.)
P.S. This is probably my funniest post ever, and only I understand it!! - LOL -
=========================
Quote from: Mercules on June 19, 2008, 03:08AM
Big C,
Where is the quote I used from?
I don't know where the quote is from or why you're even asking. My point being one in the same here: which is, my response was based on the subject matter originally. Therefore, the analogy between what is concept post ergo what is a 'right' depends on the context of freedom. Again merk, I stuck to my principle in question, that no matter which way you slice it one cannot refer to freedom as a concept. I made myself astutely clear on that.
I know where you are going with your question; but it has nothing to do with my answer, the choice I made is on par with the subject in this discussion. Honestly, not even you can turn the tables on me with that tactic. I am not a stupid individual.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Fight the Power: encouraging
It does not take a genius to find, how the internet gathers many hidden alter egos to better a certain cause such as freedom/social justice/etc.
re; merks quote
It appears to me that much of "political (social) struggle" only tips the iceberg. The ideal form of this docu-drama is a History of Americanization, which would probably better suit the title. Again, we fail to see how glamorized American ideology has surfaced from its roots, into a popularized culture that repeats things that've happened in terms of world history from across the centuries as no different.
Honestly, what you all succumb to as Canadians on this board is quite astonishing, it speaks of how we pity ourselves to the ingnorance and plurality as wannabe Americans lacking our own identity. Open your eyes people!
I am not Chomskian by any stretch, (because I crave my own opinion), but take a huge step backward before buying into the shallow thoughts of American polarity in conscious.
====================
Please, let's not flatter ourselves here. I know where merk is coming from, and I am not speaking for him but for myself when looking in terms of American history as something interesting in and of itself. It's not that interesting if you ask me, but then that becomes a question of who you ask isn't it? The evolution of the world in terms of civilization-not-ergo-archeology per se... (speaking as in zinn's docu-drama) 'attitude towards history + history itself as a political act' = a massive pandora's box unopened. Once the p.box is opened, however, you must place emphasis on many aspects in 'why' things happened in a manner of epic proportions.
=====================
Let's look at some of the general positives that relate to Americana-mania if you will. . . as if you were American. That is if I were completely immersed into the values of the US, and completely sheltered from the outside world as we know it.
(1) The civil rights movement.
(2) War.
(3) Slavery.
(4) The industrialization of America.
If I Were to write an essay on any of the above topics, notice not one of them covers The oppression of blacks in America, in fact it starts with slavery then ends with status quo, or perhaps the continuing power struggle of every black person in America that still harbors both racial/radical profiling on a daily basis without any support from it's powerful government? But - that is getting too personal a focus on topic.
The industrialization of America that compensates for the purpose of exploiting resources without any remorse, which begins with foreign policy such as the Regan Administration did against the USSR otherwise known as the cold war.
The civil rights movement which we can equate to how each American has its birthright held to such high standards, it so created a nuclear program. The first of it's kind. Ever!
War, by the way, that has made the US military a force to be reckoned with the US single handedly pronounced any declaration of war to be permanently waged only if it makes a fair load of lucrative ends. Yes, a means to an end, but only as a MEANS.
Conclusion:
It is little wonder no one in their right mind would care to pay in excess of $200,000 to a major US college. The price you pay keeps any student from feeling guilty of the bullshit they have to spew out. Pump it up.
Anti-Americanization (translated into non fictional terms) = we've had enough, to put it nicely. . . you believe you've reinvented the wheel, but your training wheels are about to fall off.
=======================
quote:
“Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”
=====================
They used the word concept, instead double talked it as 'right'.
Proof:
They've expected the reader misuse the word concept, replacing it as 'right'. Therefore, moot. Easy enough fallacy to grab, unless your insolent of virtue or just performing multiple depository in your anus.
Honestly, I wonder sometimes what people have left in terms of intelligent value. I should choose to keep the faith. But when you read something of so little favor, it insults your intelligence, that it begs the question, it reminds me of where the time has gone.
=======================
Oh the irony!
Seriously, if we're not contingent on the actual meaning, there is a course of action you can take other than demeaning or degradation of sorts. Was anything done to you merk, dealing with the subject of the matter which I provided you?
The meaning was simple. . . I accuse the author of the source which you quoted with a questionable use of language. Proof: that if you (agree with me) . . .then for starters. . . we take the word 'right' then replace it with the word which the author used as 'concept'. What I imply by demonstrating this to you, is the author in question deliberately manipulated the reader with a false idea. That being - 'freedom of speech' - as refered to it was a 'concept'. My conjecture is that unless you see past what the author's intent truly is, is to manipulate the reader into thinking of something that cannot be true. It is a matter of principle. In my mind, you cannot prove freedom of speech as a concept to begin with. It is an inherent right of the individual.
====================
After reading some of the unintelligent forms of responses given by merk, and hap being humble, yet open, courteous and honest against belligerent proxy.
Honestly, merk, between you and I. . . you show little respect. However, my personal choices do not reflect the same type of typical American folklore that you've offered the discussion. It is not common for me, or a person of the 'least/lowest denominator' to stand up and fight for freedom.
What I am referring to is the type of response you repeatedly give to myself, in a manner of insulting my intelligence.
What I would also like for you to understand, is that the respecting opinions of others is by and large the number one issue here.
First of all, if you take a fatalist argument and then proceed to make a tangent about how blacks are better for the struggle they've endured, they've survived and should be proud. Wouldn't this also equate to how suffering was not only needless, but it has no place in historically reliving such peace of mind? The point you made as arbitrary as it is - is senseless contextually in the use of history, should not reflect the will of a people that were oppressed undeserving of it. What I found equally repulsive was your use of an explicitive to arrogantly displace the 'normal' stereotype of black's in america as 'horse shit' because they weren't given the freedom they had, they stuck around long enough to earn things.
If you seriously read my responses, I directly accuse you of ethnocentric american indulged exhibitionist type of rhetoric only to display your points.
Quote
you just can't sell as many books if the subject is not America.
Just, wow. Sheer brutal ignorance.
P.S. And that mike, is how one does things around here. Canada, eh.
re; merks quote
It appears to me that much of "political (social) struggle" only tips the iceberg. The ideal form of this docu-drama is a History of Americanization, which would probably better suit the title. Again, we fail to see how glamorized American ideology has surfaced from its roots, into a popularized culture that repeats things that've happened in terms of world history from across the centuries as no different.
Honestly, what you all succumb to as Canadians on this board is quite astonishing, it speaks of how we pity ourselves to the ingnorance and plurality as wannabe Americans lacking our own identity. Open your eyes people!
I am not Chomskian by any stretch, (because I crave my own opinion), but take a huge step backward before buying into the shallow thoughts of American polarity in conscious.
====================
Please, let's not flatter ourselves here. I know where merk is coming from, and I am not speaking for him but for myself when looking in terms of American history as something interesting in and of itself. It's not that interesting if you ask me, but then that becomes a question of who you ask isn't it? The evolution of the world in terms of civilization-not-ergo-archeology per se... (speaking as in zinn's docu-drama) 'attitude towards history + history itself as a political act' = a massive pandora's box unopened. Once the p.box is opened, however, you must place emphasis on many aspects in 'why' things happened in a manner of epic proportions.
=====================
Let's look at some of the general positives that relate to Americana-mania if you will. . . as if you were American. That is if I were completely immersed into the values of the US, and completely sheltered from the outside world as we know it.
(1) The civil rights movement.
(2) War.
(3) Slavery.
(4) The industrialization of America.
If I Were to write an essay on any of the above topics, notice not one of them covers The oppression of blacks in America, in fact it starts with slavery then ends with status quo, or perhaps the continuing power struggle of every black person in America that still harbors both racial/radical profiling on a daily basis without any support from it's powerful government? But - that is getting too personal a focus on topic.
The industrialization of America that compensates for the purpose of exploiting resources without any remorse, which begins with foreign policy such as the Regan Administration did against the USSR otherwise known as the cold war.
The civil rights movement which we can equate to how each American has its birthright held to such high standards, it so created a nuclear program. The first of it's kind. Ever!
War, by the way, that has made the US military a force to be reckoned with the US single handedly pronounced any declaration of war to be permanently waged only if it makes a fair load of lucrative ends. Yes, a means to an end, but only as a MEANS.
Conclusion:
It is little wonder no one in their right mind would care to pay in excess of $200,000 to a major US college. The price you pay keeps any student from feeling guilty of the bullshit they have to spew out. Pump it up.
Anti-Americanization (translated into non fictional terms) = we've had enough, to put it nicely. . . you believe you've reinvented the wheel, but your training wheels are about to fall off.
=======================
quote:
“Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”
=====================
They used the word concept, instead double talked it as 'right'.
Proof:
They've expected the reader misuse the word concept, replacing it as 'right'. Therefore, moot. Easy enough fallacy to grab, unless your insolent of virtue or just performing multiple depository in your anus.
Honestly, I wonder sometimes what people have left in terms of intelligent value. I should choose to keep the faith. But when you read something of so little favor, it insults your intelligence, that it begs the question, it reminds me of where the time has gone.
=======================
Oh the irony!
Seriously, if we're not contingent on the actual meaning, there is a course of action you can take other than demeaning or degradation of sorts. Was anything done to you merk, dealing with the subject of the matter which I provided you?
The meaning was simple. . . I accuse the author of the source which you quoted with a questionable use of language. Proof: that if you (agree with me) . . .then for starters. . . we take the word 'right' then replace it with the word which the author used as 'concept'. What I imply by demonstrating this to you, is the author in question deliberately manipulated the reader with a false idea. That being - 'freedom of speech' - as refered to it was a 'concept'. My conjecture is that unless you see past what the author's intent truly is, is to manipulate the reader into thinking of something that cannot be true. It is a matter of principle. In my mind, you cannot prove freedom of speech as a concept to begin with. It is an inherent right of the individual.
====================
After reading some of the unintelligent forms of responses given by merk, and hap being humble, yet open, courteous and honest against belligerent proxy.
Honestly, merk, between you and I. . . you show little respect. However, my personal choices do not reflect the same type of typical American folklore that you've offered the discussion. It is not common for me, or a person of the 'least/lowest denominator' to stand up and fight for freedom.
What I am referring to is the type of response you repeatedly give to myself, in a manner of insulting my intelligence.
What I would also like for you to understand, is that the respecting opinions of others is by and large the number one issue here.
First of all, if you take a fatalist argument and then proceed to make a tangent about how blacks are better for the struggle they've endured, they've survived and should be proud. Wouldn't this also equate to how suffering was not only needless, but it has no place in historically reliving such peace of mind? The point you made as arbitrary as it is - is senseless contextually in the use of history, should not reflect the will of a people that were oppressed undeserving of it. What I found equally repulsive was your use of an explicitive to arrogantly displace the 'normal' stereotype of black's in america as 'horse shit' because they weren't given the freedom they had, they stuck around long enough to earn things.
If you seriously read my responses, I directly accuse you of ethnocentric american indulged exhibitionist type of rhetoric only to display your points.
Quote
you just can't sell as many books if the subject is not America.
Just, wow. Sheer brutal ignorance.
P.S. And that mike, is how one does things around here. Canada, eh.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
comfort in the age of reason - pure intellect - & the virtue of social distortion
re; America's final solution
Let's repeat the obvious as if you thought about what the answer might be, but you've asked me anyway only to provoke thought shall we.
The "ulterior motive" to modern day warfare otherwise acting as a disguise, is a mask we do not see or hear, in other words, the fact present in a more rational sense is what would be the propaganda known as the 'American dream'. The American Dream is what I would define as in my opinion the final solution toward supposedly a collective, or in our review of what entails quasi-cohesive (group dynamic) which as is a process of this condition. In actuality it is a misnomer, offered as a belief of potential though replaced with a examination of how false beliefs end up in practice. (1) the condition of an american dream is that every participant recognizes . . . (2) recognizes. . . a construction of an increasing "wish fulfillment" no matter what the cost. This depends on how you think of why the 'american dream' is imagined. It's divided in manner no matter how ordinary or demoralizing (e.g. unilateral warfare) the cost. Therefore, there's a "all for one / one for all" mentality that if breeched meaning "it's okay if you do it - but not okay if it's done to us." - A typical fallacy that is common to the shallow minded kind of a group cohesion unless its used to benefit the one true element of the american dream. - That is to say what we are talking about is competition, which by most western standards translates into characterizing a false belief through satisfactory (i.e. 'final') solutions. It's in an essence of "you scratch my back / I'll scratch yours." However, let's dig up our confessions in the back beside the boneyard tree, because as history indicates a mans character interprets power though any means eventually leading to corruption of the individual self.
If you look at history, the nazis perfected napoleans system of war, a carbon copy if not exactly ripped off Napoleans conquering Europe for liberty, rather than world supremacy, but let us digress the murders are blood on the hands of slaves were not uncommon either.
The system of marxist proletariat thought, elevated into the industrial revolution, compared to the social desolation of church generating state privilege. This kind of society created a revolution, weakening the power of the poor widening a rich gap of the bourgeois. Therefore, the rain stopped so to speak. As The Nazis perfected a system only associated through an unabiding population for propaganda. The political trick, as we would view this revolution of propaganda was what drove history, to a Hitler Germany. Idolatry, on such a massive scale, yet in the present date over generations has been what American ideology has centered itself on, making itself a machine driven propaganda campaign of what everyone without cause, living, breathing, idealism of the American Dream. It is a prophecized mentality, through a hear no evil see no evil mentality, much the same as a Bible's proverb return to the promised land. All of the time, there is a loophole to be found, and evolution restarts itself with America's paradigm of our past-present-future idiom.
We do not register the fact that the American Dream is a isolated group of people simply carrying a torch of silver lining on every turn.
Let's repeat the obvious as if you thought about what the answer might be, but you've asked me anyway only to provoke thought shall we.
The "ulterior motive" to modern day warfare otherwise acting as a disguise, is a mask we do not see or hear, in other words, the fact present in a more rational sense is what would be the propaganda known as the 'American dream'. The American Dream is what I would define as in my opinion the final solution toward supposedly a collective, or in our review of what entails quasi-cohesive (group dynamic) which as is a process of this condition. In actuality it is a misnomer, offered as a belief of potential though replaced with a examination of how false beliefs end up in practice. (1) the condition of an american dream is that every participant recognizes . . . (2) recognizes. . . a construction of an increasing "wish fulfillment" no matter what the cost. This depends on how you think of why the 'american dream' is imagined. It's divided in manner no matter how ordinary or demoralizing (e.g. unilateral warfare) the cost. Therefore, there's a "all for one / one for all" mentality that if breeched meaning "it's okay if you do it - but not okay if it's done to us." - A typical fallacy that is common to the shallow minded kind of a group cohesion unless its used to benefit the one true element of the american dream. - That is to say what we are talking about is competition, which by most western standards translates into characterizing a false belief through satisfactory (i.e. 'final') solutions. It's in an essence of "you scratch my back / I'll scratch yours." However, let's dig up our confessions in the back beside the boneyard tree, because as history indicates a mans character interprets power though any means eventually leading to corruption of the individual self.
If you look at history, the nazis perfected napoleans system of war, a carbon copy if not exactly ripped off Napoleans conquering Europe for liberty, rather than world supremacy, but let us digress the murders are blood on the hands of slaves were not uncommon either.
The system of marxist proletariat thought, elevated into the industrial revolution, compared to the social desolation of church generating state privilege. This kind of society created a revolution, weakening the power of the poor widening a rich gap of the bourgeois. Therefore, the rain stopped so to speak. As The Nazis perfected a system only associated through an unabiding population for propaganda. The political trick, as we would view this revolution of propaganda was what drove history, to a Hitler Germany. Idolatry, on such a massive scale, yet in the present date over generations has been what American ideology has centered itself on, making itself a machine driven propaganda campaign of what everyone without cause, living, breathing, idealism of the American Dream. It is a prophecized mentality, through a hear no evil see no evil mentality, much the same as a Bible's proverb return to the promised land. All of the time, there is a loophole to be found, and evolution restarts itself with America's paradigm of our past-present-future idiom.
We do not register the fact that the American Dream is a isolated group of people simply carrying a torch of silver lining on every turn.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
in the way of catholic thought (...so truly legalizing)
A person of intelligence takes instruction; the person who is demanding and gives orders has no brains.
A person of intelligence gives instruction; a demanding person giving orders has no brains.
A person of intelligence gives instruction; provided that a person who gives orders has no brains.
======================
How does this: (It's sad that Canadians) + (have to be subjected to) + (modern day nazi-archetype warefare.)
Not make sense.
Honestly? You could have suggested replacing the "have to be" with the word "are" but that's it.
====================
maybe you could explain the nazi archetype warfare thing.
========================
that's what I was driving at...
its like saying it's a mega-enhanced Springfield vs Shelbyville confrontation, the war for the lemon tree
========================
only there's no lemon tree. not for us anyway.
========================
Alright then. I used 'archetype' thinking in terms that American ideology is a model of = therefore it is an archetype of what? If you classify something as an archetype it is to imply there is a connection to it, therefore, one might ask 'what' in modern terms (e.g. american ideology) is such-and-such an archtype of? I equated nazi-ism as a model that we can infer only as an archetype; remembering that an archetype can only be something in resemblance to (something else other.). Therefore, if you've followed the logic present: it is not a label, it is in fact a description of what one may imagine (if it were in fact true.) I honestly cannot put it any clearer than that.
warfare has everything to do with what the archetype denotes. warfare on a scale that contributes to the dehumanization of a civilization present in our modern age.
If that fails to allude the issue, god help you both.
===================
The load of bs coming from "the pm's office" is how 'irrelevant' the mistress is in this matter. Truth of the matter is she's acting far more credible than our own government is. It's great to see how she single-handedly made our government fall to it's knees.
===================
The only security risk in this whole affair was putting an incompetent hack in a top cabinet post
====================
Colin, if we're honestly referring to Couillard what she did took guts. I take nothing away from her. It's great to see Harper dressed in an XL clown suit, he's the closest thing to a closet-Hitler we'll ever come to see in this country.
=======================
What a joke the CBC is. The average canadian that fails to see how a public broadcasting corporation uses its media-image as propoganda is mind boggling to say the least.
What a fucking J-O-K-E. I hate these white collar hypocrites.
reply (quote):
What's amusing with CBC's broadcasting is it's push for more american made tv and not giving extra grants and funding to Canadian programming. What's American shows doing on this network anyways? I'd be curious to see how much they paid for shows like The Simpsons and Arrested Development to be aired
=======================
if this guy weren't such an asshat
. . .you have the terrible fortune of reading about him. This weekend, our mystery fellow started hitting on my woman. Needless to say, he's written a script about doing it in the past and Marco said enough. So, I told the guy exactly what i thought, and in typical machismo fashion he shoved his tail between his legs. You would say shit hit the proverbial fan.
A big fat - pumped up to the ceiling fan.
So my weekend turned out rather interesting, i also enjoyed having a good time. i see a lot of familiar acquaintances of the sort you don't have to deal with on a regular basis as time goes by.
The factor in all of this is simple, I make intelligent posts, you guys read and then carry on with how much less interesting things are going for you at the moment, then come back and be notified of real posts (like mine).
Genius, just genius.
Also, on another related arsefarting note: it is of curious measure merk has drifted. i took the time to look at this and figured some recourse on his part. He usually berates mike about being a hypocrite for living the good life at everyone else's expense. Then it dawned on me, how is it so convenient of a man to accuse another man of "doing the same thing" makes it right for (in this case merk) feel fully justified, goes into his withdrawal from the board, embarking on his journey of 'priceless freedom' only boomerangs the same redundant pattern. Truly absurd.
P.s. let's not free america.
A person of intelligence gives instruction; a demanding person giving orders has no brains.
A person of intelligence gives instruction; provided that a person who gives orders has no brains.
======================
How does this: (It's sad that Canadians) + (have to be subjected to) + (modern day nazi-archetype warefare.)
Not make sense.
Honestly? You could have suggested replacing the "have to be" with the word "are" but that's it.
====================
maybe you could explain the nazi archetype warfare thing.
========================
that's what I was driving at...
its like saying it's a mega-enhanced Springfield vs Shelbyville confrontation, the war for the lemon tree
========================
only there's no lemon tree. not for us anyway.
========================
Alright then. I used 'archetype' thinking in terms that American ideology is a model of = therefore it is an archetype of what? If you classify something as an archetype it is to imply there is a connection to it, therefore, one might ask 'what' in modern terms (e.g. american ideology) is such-and-such an archtype of? I equated nazi-ism as a model that we can infer only as an archetype; remembering that an archetype can only be something in resemblance to (something else other.). Therefore, if you've followed the logic present: it is not a label, it is in fact a description of what one may imagine (if it were in fact true.) I honestly cannot put it any clearer than that.
warfare has everything to do with what the archetype denotes. warfare on a scale that contributes to the dehumanization of a civilization present in our modern age.
If that fails to allude the issue, god help you both.
===================
The load of bs coming from "the pm's office" is how 'irrelevant' the mistress is in this matter. Truth of the matter is she's acting far more credible than our own government is. It's great to see how she single-handedly made our government fall to it's knees.
===================
The only security risk in this whole affair was putting an incompetent hack in a top cabinet post
====================
Colin, if we're honestly referring to Couillard what she did took guts. I take nothing away from her. It's great to see Harper dressed in an XL clown suit, he's the closest thing to a closet-Hitler we'll ever come to see in this country.
=======================
What a joke the CBC is. The average canadian that fails to see how a public broadcasting corporation uses its media-image as propoganda is mind boggling to say the least.
What a fucking J-O-K-E. I hate these white collar hypocrites.
reply (quote):
What's amusing with CBC's broadcasting is it's push for more american made tv and not giving extra grants and funding to Canadian programming. What's American shows doing on this network anyways? I'd be curious to see how much they paid for shows like The Simpsons and Arrested Development to be aired
=======================
if this guy weren't such an asshat
. . .you have the terrible fortune of reading about him. This weekend, our mystery fellow started hitting on my woman. Needless to say, he's written a script about doing it in the past and Marco said enough. So, I told the guy exactly what i thought, and in typical machismo fashion he shoved his tail between his legs. You would say shit hit the proverbial fan.
A big fat - pumped up to the ceiling fan.
So my weekend turned out rather interesting, i also enjoyed having a good time. i see a lot of familiar acquaintances of the sort you don't have to deal with on a regular basis as time goes by.
The factor in all of this is simple, I make intelligent posts, you guys read and then carry on with how much less interesting things are going for you at the moment, then come back and be notified of real posts (like mine).
Genius, just genius.
Also, on another related arsefarting note: it is of curious measure merk has drifted. i took the time to look at this and figured some recourse on his part. He usually berates mike about being a hypocrite for living the good life at everyone else's expense. Then it dawned on me, how is it so convenient of a man to accuse another man of "doing the same thing" makes it right for (in this case merk) feel fully justified, goes into his withdrawal from the board, embarking on his journey of 'priceless freedom' only boomerangs the same redundant pattern. Truly absurd.
P.s. let's not free america.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Not overly impressed with Euro 2008
The day portugal advanced into the euro 2008 championship, began yesterday in Geneva switzerland. Today, I am reminiscing about an important night I had after the portuguese national team won their first match of the opening day qualifier for european football supremacy. The game wore on leaving much little to be expected, the first goal came only in the second half by a solid effort from pepe. Not much to celebrate this early on in the tournament for any of the teams, let us remind our better intuitive behaviors, that we inform sometimes fate might be an enemy of the will we share before things actually happen for a reason. We've involved our senses to be trained in a manner that act toward conditional responses, or for that matter trivial yet uncompromising. Perhaps it is an illusion we think of, as if fantasy or creative instinct after the fact we performed this action with such and such delight, the truth never really revealed itself until then, that place in time we thought of it in a personal affliction, where scenarios emerge as if prophets were telling us something told in the room the same room from which we breath as if ghosts were whispering its conclusion from one tainted lie to the unfortunate recipient that tolerates such incongruencies. But I digress, the mind is a wandering eye, that at times like these such as a split decision due to lack of discretion or a paradox that unassuming yet unexpected becomes the latter of what interference might cause the brain to commit it into memory. However, such memories have a place. And this place, at this time exists to such a large degree the extent from which is real it has not identified concretely, but discreetly intimate with detail. Details that one cannot dial for over the telephone lines, where wires communicate in an intricate balance of methods and interception. But I digress, if the portuguese haven't already won euro 2008, there is inspiring alternatives that bring about change.
However, happiness is not a performance. It is a karma. At this moment in memory, perhaps the truth is a threat to such correspondence. Though throughout history, some grave battles haven't materialized, they've been struck, as if sunk into an abyss of temperamental thoughtful memory, without the actual truth being exhibited into a focus. There must be some form of memory without repeating it, due to repetition, or a class conscious that collects artifact after artifact as if some Deity mummified for lack of depth during civilization. History has a funny way of revealing itself. There is no demonstration for history or that favors the intellect, but we've arrived at a conclusion precisely due to convention or otherwise individual abnormalities.
We've made very true challenges that decipher fiction from the actual truth in times gone by, as children in corn fields of advancing the contenders from the pretenders. Through and through the time of a childhood, into memory, and back from the memory that very well may never end so to become a child born from stars in the heaven above which the earth looks as if to say it.
However, happiness is not a performance. It is a karma. At this moment in memory, perhaps the truth is a threat to such correspondence. Though throughout history, some grave battles haven't materialized, they've been struck, as if sunk into an abyss of temperamental thoughtful memory, without the actual truth being exhibited into a focus. There must be some form of memory without repeating it, due to repetition, or a class conscious that collects artifact after artifact as if some Deity mummified for lack of depth during civilization. History has a funny way of revealing itself. There is no demonstration for history or that favors the intellect, but we've arrived at a conclusion precisely due to convention or otherwise individual abnormalities.
We've made very true challenges that decipher fiction from the actual truth in times gone by, as children in corn fields of advancing the contenders from the pretenders. Through and through the time of a childhood, into memory, and back from the memory that very well may never end so to become a child born from stars in the heaven above which the earth looks as if to say it.
the learning curve of a scoundrel
At a stand still I am quite non-negotiable.
In times of greater good things;
my noble self takes notice.
I heed to such notes of honor:
my desire is quenched with the thrist.
I am not negotiating a pardon,
to see the woman's womb set up
on my shoulders.
As if some pornographic expose,
we dance in exhibitionist type behavior.
However, I am not a tentative individual,
for that I can see. . .
but cannot do without.
I cannot do without my tears,
found in a pool of pure warm blood
gushing through my veins.
This is the release I experience in real time.
A perfect kind of vision,
that sparks dynamite in ruin.
Which speaks of prisoners held victim,
to their own property.
I feel encouraged by such things.
So is my bravery in a dramatic fashion.
I take as long as I Want.
As I want it.
Black eyes,
blue eyed,
clues to my heart.
It aches,
it breaks,
for no fear of biting nails in finger,
after finger,
after. . .
finger.
Nibling the mouses teeth and spine.
Grow a spine, you fiendish mouskateer.
You've earned the help,
so well deserved.
I itch,
I scratch,
I bite,
I claw.
All to impress upon me,
the bribery with my gall.
In times of greater good things;
my noble self takes notice.
I heed to such notes of honor:
my desire is quenched with the thrist.
I am not negotiating a pardon,
to see the woman's womb set up
on my shoulders.
As if some pornographic expose,
we dance in exhibitionist type behavior.
However, I am not a tentative individual,
for that I can see. . .
but cannot do without.
I cannot do without my tears,
found in a pool of pure warm blood
gushing through my veins.
This is the release I experience in real time.
A perfect kind of vision,
that sparks dynamite in ruin.
Which speaks of prisoners held victim,
to their own property.
I feel encouraged by such things.
So is my bravery in a dramatic fashion.
I take as long as I Want.
As I want it.
Black eyes,
blue eyed,
clues to my heart.
It aches,
it breaks,
for no fear of biting nails in finger,
after finger,
after. . .
finger.
Nibling the mouses teeth and spine.
Grow a spine, you fiendish mouskateer.
You've earned the help,
so well deserved.
I itch,
I scratch,
I bite,
I claw.
All to impress upon me,
the bribery with my gall.
double duty on the fringe to nowhere
Well I think she should be happy such a nice person like her gets to work as unfortunate that may be. Seriously, becky. I don't have the misfortune of telling people what I actually think of half as highly as you. As individuals, I wish I could treat everyone this way, but the world isn't built on it the way we all should be.
====================
That's great! (It reminds me of why the artist wanted to keep my change.) He wanted a tip, as though expecting ME to offer him it. . . needless to say that I was happy to decline. (
On the other hand, if I put myself in the position of the "I want a tip for my art" bracket, I can be guilty of using it myself. I always thought of sadie as someone I wanted to meet in person instead of delusions over a computer screen. I only wish she understood what that meant, and I found it hard to accept. But, (due to my own stubborness) or lack of sensitivity thereof - I'd get mad at her. It's my own fault for not seeing myself through her shoes, though I can respect it now much differently than before.
In fact: the nicest truly open compliment I've recieved over the internet recently, was from a person I care about in real life, said she wishes we'd meet more in person. I suppose it means something, because the internet is a place we connect, but she showed me it really doesn't matter who we are on screen. We portray ourselves in every way we can think of. She even presents herself in a way I am used to sadie over the internet. But, we didn't force each other to do anything. This person is married and has a child, but I trust she sees passed the screen, it doesn't mean we have to. My only wish is that sadie realizes that's the kind of person I am as well, without so being defensive about herself, but at the same time we all have life besides the internet. I think everyone is guilty of our participating over internet, not as a right or a privilege.
====================
That's great! (It reminds me of why the artist wanted to keep my change.) He wanted a tip, as though expecting ME to offer him it. . . needless to say that I was happy to decline. (
On the other hand, if I put myself in the position of the "I want a tip for my art" bracket, I can be guilty of using it myself. I always thought of sadie as someone I wanted to meet in person instead of delusions over a computer screen. I only wish she understood what that meant, and I found it hard to accept. But, (due to my own stubborness) or lack of sensitivity thereof - I'd get mad at her. It's my own fault for not seeing myself through her shoes, though I can respect it now much differently than before.
In fact: the nicest truly open compliment I've recieved over the internet recently, was from a person I care about in real life, said she wishes we'd meet more in person. I suppose it means something, because the internet is a place we connect, but she showed me it really doesn't matter who we are on screen. We portray ourselves in every way we can think of. She even presents herself in a way I am used to sadie over the internet. But, we didn't force each other to do anything. This person is married and has a child, but I trust she sees passed the screen, it doesn't mean we have to. My only wish is that sadie realizes that's the kind of person I am as well, without so being defensive about herself, but at the same time we all have life besides the internet. I think everyone is guilty of our participating over internet, not as a right or a privilege.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
in my honest opinion
as a person that has grown, I've decided to become someone that prefers seeing how making a difference in life qualifies myself, Into a more well rounded idealist, And a better idea of over-rationalizing what ones expectations are in life as a question twice removed from absurdity.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Stealing without cheating
Here - you can take my advice. . . First off, you don't need to bother with a "list" of credentials based on how good you are. Just focus on a few (2-3) core ones and that should cover it. Also, never let your guard down in an interview, when I'm asked what bad things might others say about me? It's a trick question: the answer I give is not unusual. I'll without hesitation say 'nothing'. If they insist, usually the first thing that comes to mind so that it appears relevant yet somehow truthful at the same time will do. Think about your favorite politician so that it comes across open, honest, intellecutaly sound (. . . in a sarcatic manner of speaking.) Basically, the rule of thumb is true for everyone, what they don't know won't hurt them. In my opinion of myself, I will not sell myself out to any organization strictly based on principle. It is easy to get a job if you sort yourself out through the prototypical bs. My participation is based on creative freedom + control. It's a take it or leave it mentality. The rest is up to you.
Sometimes they don't even ask a stupid question, because they already know if they've hired you or not. It depends on the job or type of person you're presenting yourself to. Again - the most important thing to me in every potential case is I refuse serving status quo and I will not model myself under a slave mentality.
=============================
quote:
is it bad that i couldn't think of anything negative my co-workers would say about me?
=============================
As if there's even any doubt they'll take notice. That's what those dead-beats are doing, we're talking about the ones who get a job to shuffle through who gets the next interview, then, they look at what words make some impression on their ego so they can pretend to act smart with whomever is supposed to actually do the hiring. The person who consults the adminsitrations "decision" makes a brave effort to solidify the idiot rearing position within that mess. Yeah, one of the worst jobs in the world is in a bureaucracy. Tax money is evil. Remember?
Sometimes they don't even ask a stupid question, because they already know if they've hired you or not. It depends on the job or type of person you're presenting yourself to. Again - the most important thing to me in every potential case is I refuse serving status quo and I will not model myself under a slave mentality.
=============================
quote:
is it bad that i couldn't think of anything negative my co-workers would say about me?
=============================
As if there's even any doubt they'll take notice. That's what those dead-beats are doing, we're talking about the ones who get a job to shuffle through who gets the next interview, then, they look at what words make some impression on their ego so they can pretend to act smart with whomever is supposed to actually do the hiring. The person who consults the adminsitrations "decision" makes a brave effort to solidify the idiot rearing position within that mess. Yeah, one of the worst jobs in the world is in a bureaucracy. Tax money is evil. Remember?
The sleep that drives me. . . a law of luxury.
It takes a genius to know me. The fact of the matter is simply that I am an individual. I recognize in myself that I like being in control. A part of me that I will never part with. I have become the type of individual that admits to my failure, or concede a mistake. However, it is in my choices that reflect the most of who I am. I put in my best effort the cost of my self-improvment. I've always been a person that imagines himself, with a door open, to a workplace that if I cannot be open, or creative to it. . . then I will not hesitate to leave such an unfriendly environment. It is how I establish my own set of ideas. My desire to keep my options open.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)