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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment