DVR 2.0

I guess I'm what one would call an idea man. Don't get me wrong, I love the action every now and again but just... well I usually find my wall in acquiring the necessary resources. Whether it be the funds or something as simple as bodies (people willing to take part), there always seem to be some hold up or another. Given the circumstances I've decided to dispense with the hording of many of these thoughts and put them out into the ether. You see, it was never about being known for them but merely giving them life. Whether they're my babies or someone else's, I just can't wait for the next innovations to break.

With that said, I present 'DVR 2.0.' Simple idea. It came about when I noticed on my cable bill that I was being charged a renter's fee for my DVR (and modem for that matter). Was it a big deal? Not really, though it shortly became one when I found the inherent issues of competitive television afoot. I don't watch a lot of t.v. Why would I? I have the internet. But, then when I do watch the "boob tube" I'd at least like to enjoy what I'm watching. And even if I'm not enjoying it, I'm somewhat of a completionist so I'll see it through regardless. Now all that's fine and dandy until this "season" when I found myself bogged down by favorites all airing on essentially two nights with the rest of the week left pretty bare.

As I've stated, I have a DVR (East Coast so "Tivo" doesn't get thrown around as casually). But there was the issue. Only two programs can be recorded at a time. And while two programs are being recorded if one were to want to watch something it'd have to be one of those two or something else that had been recorded previously. But, like I mentioned earlier, everything this season seems to find home on TWO of the SEVEN nights of the week. So what am I looking at exactly?

It's not my cable provider's fault. And the broadcasting companies strive on competition. So should I shake a fist at capitalism like so many others for the woes of American society? Meh. There lies the path that brought me to DVR 2.0. Two simple technologies that seemingly run parallel to the path of technology anyway. A system I'd call something like "Cloud" Procurement.

Simply put. Instead of having to record media to a HDD why not have a set-top box set a market for the scheduled program and then upon a consumer's desire to view said program they can just do so via the content streamed to screens. Pretty much it's just taking a page out of Netflix's playbook. I'd much rather pay a fee for that type of optionality monthly over a damn renter's fee when I don't even have access to the content I want limited to two different programs if they come on at the same time on the same day. And it'd just be much more enjoyable then dealing with the "genius" introduction of seven or eight day delays for content from the day it's aired that can be found on streaming sites like Hulu or the broadcasters direct sites. And then there's no question in why I'm even bothering paying for cable AND internet access in the first place (long story).

So there it is. What I think would make for a nice evolution of cable provider tech practices that have started to fall behind a bit. Just an idea anyway.


Listening to:  Name & Number by Harvard Blue


Been Slacking

So I was having a nice chat with someone and it hit me that a lot of newer black super heroes (male) have either been in the armed forces or been a cop. It was such an odd realization. To be honest I could probably scour the depths of that thought and pull forth all kinds of subtext but that'd be making it into more than it is to me. More than just a simple observation. So with that I leave off with a list of some of the heroes in question.

Jon Stewart (Green Lantern/DC)

James "Rhodey" Rhodes (War Machine/Marvel)

Michael Lane (Azrael/DC)

Mark Richards (Tattooed Man/DC)


My Holiday Cards Are Just As Crappy Now As They Were In Grade School

Pushing onto hour 16 and I'm really starting to feel it. Need to get back on a standard sleep schedule if I'm going to make this work so, I guess I'll just have to push through the delusions.

Long morning. Made Christmas/Holiday Cards. (See title) Was a bit nippy out. Kind of liked it.

I hate the subway here. NYC has a subway. This place? This place has an underground trolley. Though there's one thing that never seems to disappoint. It's this moment when a song makes it's way through shuffle and its beat seems to just perfectly sync up with the movement of the other passengers heads as we're all swayed by the steel on steel revolutions. It's a smile-bringer. Like being at a concert and everyone's really 'feeling' your favorite 'jam'.

Next time I'm in NY I have to see if I can get the same outcome.


Listening to:  No I In Threesome by Interpol


Squirrel Triumvirate

There's something disconcerting about the life I've chosen to live. I've stated on numerous occasion that I am a liar and a fake but still find myself faced with irritation when people are faced with such deceit firsthand.  It's a bit laughable the lengths I go to destroy relationships though. If anything, it more than likely stems from the overwhelming desire to be free.

Confinement. Hatred. Two words that are synonymous currently. Whenever possible, I avoid walking on sidewalks. There's nothing more appreciativethan the space granted by the middle of the road. That's just how it started  however. Eventually of course my endeavors for the elusive dared develop into something much more, dare I say, sinister?

I've long resigned my communicative fate as being one of a Skype nature. It's cheaper to maintain and there's something alluring about knowing at any moment I can just pick up and disappear with no one essentially the wiser. No place to call home sure, but then again, no reason for such a matter at this stage in the game anyway. People will believe anything they want to believe and who am I not to facilitate such perceptions even if they already are true to begin with?

However, I don't think I'll ever be far enough away to truly be free.


I've Got Friends (Postitutes Preface)

So I titled a post "Prostitutes I" and ended it with a question along the lines of, 'do you get why it was named such and such now?' A comment was left in response stating quite clearly, "No." Since this place doesn't exactly get the most traffic to begin with, I figure I should at least take the time to elaborate on anything left by anyone kind enough to visit. So, I guess, it has all to do with the title of this particular post as well.

"I've Got Friends" just so happens to be the name of a song by the Manchester Orchestra. I just so happened to be listening to it and figure, now's as good a time as any to address the aforementioned inquiry. I've left a link in case anyone's interested in making comparisons.

ANYway, this is a dotcom. I pay to keep this site running. And, for my money I'm given the keys to a medium in which I can express myself in a way or ways I don't have the ability to as regularly, if at all. Sort of like having a friend you pay for. But no one's so gullible to believe a friend is really a friend if you're paying them right? So. there that is. The essence of "Prostitutes." Because due to circumstances that have long gone past the point of avoidance, there just isn't any other alternative.

And there it is. Thanks for the read and obviously the visit.


Listening to:  Propane Nightmares by Pendulum


Old Farts

Hate. Hate is a strong word. That statement however is based on perspective. Some people have professed the insignificance of words as they can only be given power by one's willingness to let them affect their person. But with that rationale, isn't the only way to alleviate such an issue be by calling for mankind to reach the next plateau of consciousness? To reach an emotional level of development that would allow all to shake the connotations, associations, and simply sheer baggage of grammar. The fabled ideal world where logic reigns supreme regardless of the sacrifices of individuality. For some 'strange' reason I don't see that happening any time soon.

The focus is North America, specifically The U.S. of A. Back as a teen, the desire to strike out and be unique was laughable. Laughable because everyone essentially wanted to be uniquely one thing of a set number of things. The formation of cliques developed from that. Those that wanted to be the smartest, the best at sports, the best artist, and even those who wanted to be uniquely, 'unique.' The push for acceptance while rebuking anyone who couldn't 'deal' was enormous. But 'then' and 'now' are eons apart. After the events of 9/11 a new age of censorship began in the U.S.. Whether it was by the government or just self-imposed out of fear, things had started changing. Hate began to take on a new form. One, more deceptive than ever before. Not for terrorism, or some faceless evil, but for free thought.

A war has been brewing against free thought for a long time. It's nothing new. When two people with differing beliefs meet, they tend to collide at some point or other. The collision is actually the good thing. Grabbing ankle only leads to deep seated anger towards the object of one's discontent. The collision can birth something new, something better, a sense of true acceptance as opposed to the tolerance that's being pushed forward. So where does this new breed of hate come in? The fight for speech. Rights are one thing. But the attacks on people's feelings is something else entirely.

People being held accountable for their remarks isn't anything new. Condemning people in hopes for that ideal utopian global community which accommodates every individual's ideals, beliefs, cultures, and even opinions is ridiculous. For one, short of a purely logical emotionally stagnated world, it's not feasibly possible. And, for two, that world already existed. It was called the internet. HOWEVER, bringing real world jurisdictions and 'law' into it have perverted it into a shell of the potential it once was. One of the few refugees for one to really express themselves has been slowly decaying into a corporate gloryhole. So where can one be themselves without sinking into the luxurious existence of a recluse?

I know a black man. I specifically state him as a 'black' man because he does not identify with the term 'African-American.' He holds no animosity towards it but from his perspective he doesn't understand how it applies to him. He is a natural born citizen of the U.S.A. birthed from parents also born and raised in the U.S.. Now after years of association with that man I've come to comprehend quite a bit about the nature of individuality. But were I to voice such understandings in an open forum I would find myself open to attack on the basis of being politically incorrect. Just as this post is open to the same attacks the level of security granted by anonymity makes continuing possible. Needless to say, life has changed.

Life is generally defined as being alive, living, not dead. But what kind of existence can one have when they pass through mute, weary of the newest growing obsession of being 'politically correct' in a world where people of differing ethnicities will show pride or aggression toward a word? Where people of differing sexualities can emote rage or even use casually, terms that generally refer negatively to those of their sexual preference? The uprising of people who share a common desire to be treated fairly is a righteous happening but, where is the line?

When the 'enlightened' jump on the bandwagon and start verbally assaulting anyone with a conflicting viewpoint, how can such a just cause not turn to the very thing it was started for? Therein lies a future. Obsessions with accommodation instead of acceptance. Tolerance instead of true resolution. Perhaps my generation has finally just gotten to the point where we start becoming our parents/grandparents, using terminology commonplace to an era that we're the only ones still living in.

Sh*t, never saw it coming.


Listening to:  Why Can't We Be Friends


Prostitutes II


Well now that I've finally got that out I think I'll be okay. So yeah. The end of the OCT arc is finally up and I'm thanking goodness! In all sincerity, I  HATED the writing style on that arc. Don't get me wrong. The story still comes across essentially as it was plotted out but just the style in which it was written...for the love of mercy! It was so draining. I really had to rack the crap out of my brain just to pull out all the vocab nuggets that I generally have no use for in common conversation. I guess that is also revealing that I probably should look into smarter friends but that's another story for another time.

ANYway, it's finally done and now on to the NOV arc. It's so weird to think that almost a full year has past since I began this crazy little adventure. 20XII. About one year of prep and one year of actually putting it out. Well technically some of the characters have been being developed even longer than that though, that's not important. Too bad I no longer have the resources to produce the final character-driven arc like I originally planned but well stories are living right? Gotta just roll with it sometimes.

So, well, till next update.


Listening to:  Suddenly Last Summer by The Motels


I Swear She's Over 18!

So I watching Glee and well what can I say. It hits me. There's this nice little cheerleader song and dance and I'm thinking, 'wow'. It's not the routine, it's not the singing, and it's not the fact that most of those ladies look like they're in their mid 20s (granted they probably are). It's the fact that they're playing 16/17 year olds.

So I'm postulating, just where the hell is the line?! Is it wrong to be attracted? They're attractive. Skimpy skirts and hell, even in the football gear, it was still kinda hot. Heck I swear a couple of them even had six packs but in the hot way not the, 'dude she's totally on steroids' way. And given that they're more than likely (I'm gonna say with at least 90 - 95% surety) all over 18 can this be wrong?

How, wrong, you may ask? Because they're portraying the role of high school student. Regardless of how old they really are, their characters have yet to reach the legal requirement and as time will show physical maturity is far from a deciding factor in being right and being arrested.  And given that whole drive for the protection of the rights (as in real, as in the same as the kind people that exist in i.e. democratic nations have) of fictional (as in the figment of someone's imagination i.e. due to sheer creativity or drugged influenced inspiration) women that some feminist groups have been trying to push on a global scale, being overcautious is not a bad thing. That and the fact that one can only find the "character" appealing since the person who plays them is unknown on a personal level to all those outside of that particular person's personal life.

So well, just where the hell is the line?! Is this wrong? I mean I'm pretty positive without a reasonable doubt that I'd find them as attractive if the characters they were playing were the same as they are but still, the fact is, they aren't. So now what?


Listening to:  Kids by MGMT


Ideal v. Reality

This is just an observation I've made but it really gets me going, "what the f*ck" whenever I see it. Pretty much it's dorm bathrooms on t.v..

In just about every sitcom/drama/series I've ever seen where the setting was college the bathrooms always undoubtedly seem to be coed. Now it's not like that's a big deal except for the fact that I can't help but wonder where all these fabled bathrooms are. When I was dorming for college they sure as hell weren't in existence. And hell I remember seeing stuff like that as early as when "Boy Meets World" was still on the air (before syndication).

So I ask again, where are these bathrooms? It's like they're the flying cars of my generation. Or maybe it's just another aspect of life many of us will have to learn to accept as a wasted expectation. Like the first year you don't get anything for Christmas or the first time a girl tells you she can't date people outside of her race/ethnicity.

The only rule of the real world is that there are no rules. Anything  can happen and to hold on to expectations too long can very well lead to one's downfall.


So Sick...

So I'm on my first day at a new job and I'm suffering from the same anxious/nervous cocktail that plagues anyone on their first day. Tossing around worries of being fired on the first day by doing something so terribly wrong that they realize there is precedent for claiming someone as a natural disaster. Am I that clumsy? No, but still, new place, new responsibilities, and your mind jumps to worst case till things become familiar.

Any way, so I'm on a break and stop by the bathroom since quite frankly I'm pretty vain. But really it'd just been a while and I need to urinate. Moving on, it's one heck of a site, this bathroom. The only thing that needs to be touched is the handle to open the door on the way in and the paper towels. Everything's automated down to the soap. THE F*CKING SOAP! Now sure it's snazzy and all but that brings me to the point of this little writeup.

Automated soap. Sure it's great in theory but as I placed my hand under the nozzle just so a predeterminant amount of a thick white liquid could squirt into my hand I couldn't help but feel awkward. At first it was a nice thrill since it's that next cog in technological advancement. But then after a week or so of it, well, it just kind of gets to you. Not so much just the act but the sound it makes when it happens as well as what's going on. YES, it makes a sound as soap is released from it.

Needless to say I had my first moment of contemplation of the evils of continued developments. My first in a while actually. Giving sight to a blind woman with one of her teeth, making cats glow in the dark, etc. All that stuff and I didn't even think twice. But this? This just made me feel strange. Like I was being violated. I really started to debate whether it was worth it to be spared a couple germs being spread which quite frankly would be washed off by the soap in the first place. I never thought I'd be saying this but I'll be damned, I miss manual soap dispensers. Though I guess if they just dispensed foam like some of the manual ones have then I guess that could eleviate things as well, go figure.


African v. Black v. American

First I'd like to start off by acknowledging my lack of experience and sheer understanding in such a, perceived, hostile topic. However, professional or not, I have chosen to dive in and on an off chance, perhaps receive some answers. Again, I state that I am perhaps the least qualified for this kind of "pondery" but such is far from reason to not explore it at all.

African-American. African. American. It's a hyphenated term that has been used to describe people of a certain skin pigmentation. African derived of course from Africa while American derived from America. One a country while the other is a continent. Throughout the years another term has developed and begun to circulate. The term Black which stands, by many perceptions, as a more literal categorizing term for people with a certain skin color. Personally I would imagine that such  a label would be greatly preferred as it is far more general and stands to be more accurate. And, is that not what we could all hope for? A state of being accurate. I would like to then dissect the meanings of both terms to see just which is more so.

 African-American is a termed defined as, "an American having ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; black American." With a definition like that. One could come to believe that there were absolutely no difference between African-American and Black as categories. And such is conceivable except when placed into comparison with other American ethnic groups titles such as Asian-American, European-American/Caucasian, and etc.. Once put into grouping like that it becomes something different entirely. It could be said that it in fact serves to segregate people from perhaps the one true home they've ever known. Not to mention the fact that primarily the use of such specific ethnic categories only seem to occur when addressing topics involving or related to all but Caucasians in America.  So it brings up the question, where is the line drawn? When does someone stop being American and start being African-American?

The line is drawn the moment one sees the color of one's skin. Instead of generalities such as white or black, people have decided upon more specific terms. Terms that are far less general and serve to associate a sense of dissociation with a world they believe themselves to be a part of.  Asking the question, when does a person born and raised in America stop being simply American and start being [insert continent here]-American is something one must ask themselves. When does it become natural to associate one with a continent that their facial features or pigment may resemble even if they were not born upon said continent or even taught the culture from said continent? And when should it ever become natural for a "natural born citizen" to be labeled as more than a citizen of the country they and their parents were born in? Those questions are asked because the purpose seems to be twofold. On one hand it's just a way to specify a particular group of people. Although on the other hand it serves a sinister purpose. It serves to drive home the belief that one of a different pigment or one with differing facial features can not and is not simply American.

To be American but not at the same time is an interesting conundrum. It's not impossible as people have left their countries to start new lives in other countries for centuries.  So instead of when, just why has it come down to a distinction defining the potential origin of a group of people become so politically correct? Were someone from Africa and migrated to America could the term African-American stand true? Of course. But if a person migrated (disregarding circumstances) to America and began a family, should those descendants after generations of generations still be considered African-American? Especially if anything their original descendants may have brought in the name of culture has been lost to them? And, therein lies the fallacy of using such highly specific terms to categorize a group of people.

There aren't many ways shy of DNA testing and inspection of the lives and lives of their parents for traces of a cultural differences, to be able to with absolute certainty declare a group of people African-American. So why has it become so natural? Why do it at all? Obviously semantics have always been an issue and it's just easier to please the majority of people than to attempt to get 100% of people to agree but, then, if nothing else, shouldn't that be a call for innovation. Could that not be the spark to find that illustrious common ground?

In a world of color, is there really much need to associate places with pigments and in turn pigments of people of a places with places that have a majority of the same pigment? Perhaps for now, but hopefully, not forever.



So much has happened as of late. Really. So many celebrities passing. Chris Brown on CNN. Discrepancies with the death of Michael Jackson. It just seems like the year is winding down quite hard. Now I'm nowhere near qualified to speak on behalf of any number of those topics so I'll just keep this simple.

If you have someone you truly care about, why not give them a call just to say hello. Not to imply that things could end at any moment but just to remind someone that hey, 'there's someone who cares.' Who knows, maybe if a chain reaction begins we might be able to change something for the better before this year leaves us.


Seeing Double Standing

The world we live in today is a very different world than the one we as humans existed in twenty and even ten years ago. Some things have changed for the better and through certain perspectives, some, yet for the worse. The shocking truth being that there are many different worlds in our world and unfortunately such a concept is hard to comprehend unless one were to leave their "safe places" and move to broaden if not enlighten themselves.

As an American citizen I've found through my life that discrimination is as rampant as it could ever be. Have I seen as violent amounts of racial discrimination as could be seen as early as fifteen years ago? No. Though have I seen emotional turmoil that could rival such experiences? Of course! I went to high school after all. Needless to say, though the times have changed, the only thing that's really changed with the "game", are the players. The game of course being the musical chairs-esque game of charades where we try to find "common" ground by forcing someone to "sit out" while an ideal "picture" is formed by the removal of certain "players". Players of course that represent certain ideals and beliefs. All in effort to gather that next clue towards a perceived perfect world that for all intents and purposes is as far from attainable as it has ever been.

Is it an extreme prediction stating that the world could end for global peace is acquired? Of course! Although would such an accusation be so far from the minds of the people if it were made with the alteration of the time of such an apocalypse? That is to say, would it be so hard to imagine an Armageddon that would take place after global "peace" is achieved? Perhaps not, but such just as all else is subjective. Perspectives exist on so many different levels and can change in so many different ways. Really, any particular outcome could be practical.

Speaking of practical or even just logical. We move into the state of the current world. As an American I'm aware of many of the liberties and freedoms I have. But that isn't to say I wear my coke-bottled colored lens with pride shunning the turning of my head. I'm willing to become aware of the other worlds that co-exist with mine. But I'm far from willing to dictate that a whole world - read culture- is inferior or just plan wrong in comparison to my own. In fact, as news spreads of some of the cultural differences spread through the internet, such influxes in knowledge usually only make me more aware of how much I can be thankful for. There are a lot of terrible things that happen outside my world but it is far from accurate to declare that such atrocities never take place within my own or to do worse and accuse another world for sparking such extravagant exercises in perceived depravity. And there in I believe lies an issue that could very well led to the end of this world of worlds.

The world can end in so many ways. The most troubling to many would be through a global conflict. Now the nature of many struggles and wars through history have seemingly spawned from the desire to impose upon someone else the personal views of another. That being said, leaps in bound may have been made to promote equality amongst the different ethnicities but lobbying for cultural changes to be forced upon a nation can't be the next logical "right" step. Telling the world that we are "all one race. a human race" but then to in essence gang up upon a culture to tell them that they are wrong and then to go to such lengths as to pushing economic sanctions in effort to alter their culture in ways the one, as an outsider, sees fit seems to mark the next stage in development of discrimination. Which brings us to CEDAW. I realize that by mentioning the organization I've killed off a percentage of the few readers who've reached this point already. But this must be completed. And so it shall.

I've never thought of myself as a true sexist. In fact through my life I've never actually had much true experience with sexism. Out of the myriad of employment opportunities I've taken, I've never once found myself to make MORE money than any of my female co-workers. I've never found myself to be treated BETTER than any of my female co-workers. And I've never found to hold resentment towards a co-worker of the opposite sex for reasons outside of them having screwed me over (i.e. dumping extra work on me or not doing their required workload leading to everyone else having to pick up the slack). I would like to point out that there were many co-workers of the same sex who've done the same but just that for the sake of this particular section, the focus is on the differences I've observed between different sexes. All that aside, that brings me to the understanding that CEDAW has taken up the goal of proving that fictional female characters should have the same rights as non fictional females.  Now I am in no way purporting that discriminations or assaults against women aren't significant but merely voicing my fear of where such action will lead to. Censorship of entertainment media of course would be first. Comic books, cartoons, video games, The less perceived abundant forms. Then movies eventually since the audience is so enormous. And of course down to books and eventually the internet as a whole for all the content that fits into the broad charter of ending discrimination in all forms against women. All forms including fictional. Censorship of fiction to regulate fact.

It begins with the guise of censorship of fiction to regulate fact but then how does that affect us as individuals? Isn't this the same as the old proverb of speaking, seeing, or hearing evil. If you cover your ears, eyes, and mouth, then there's no evil? Does making "discrimination" against women inexcusable to all but the most savvy enthusiasts make the "discrimination" less rampant. Does it lead to such actions becoming infallible nonexistent? If history tells us anything with slavery, prohibition, book burning, illegalities of low-risk narcotics, and ect, such actions only tend to make such active endeavors more extravagant and desired. SO where are we going if not towards a point where censorship becomes so rampant that police states and rebellions start to knock. If statistics have shown us anything, it's that regions with the highest level of censorship tend to have the highest amounts of crimes of immoral nature. It should be of note that Japan is the target (read first) of this crusade for the rights of fictional women. So where does it end?

Endings. I used to believe in the stigma of double standards until just recently.  I'd even wrote about possibilities of such but now in retrospect I realize I was merely foolish. The obvious answer was of course the best. There is no double standard. It's about perspective. It's a cliche, women wondering why men who sleep around are considered "cool" while women who sleep around are considered "sluts". But who ever asks why women who sleep around are supposed to be considered okay and men who sleep around are supposed to be considered bad? As a man I don't believe a guy who sleeps around in a "G". I may jokingly make such a remark but I'd never look at a guy who did such a thing as awesome just as I don't consider a girl who sleeps around a slut. But I'd be damned if I were to state I believed her to be a saint. It's about perspective. Out of all the guys I know the general consensus has been a sense of wonder at why it matters at all. Whereas just about every girl I've known has seemingly focused on said semantics. And such is the way of things.

The only truth on the male perspective that I can gleam is that such titles are irrelevant unless they pertain specifically to the one pondering them.  Unless a man is being declared a "slut" there is little interest or concern with such a term. Of course there are the circumstances when a personal acquaintance, family or close friend is dealing with such a label and significance is found but that is to be expected since there does seem to be a correlation between appreciating friendships with friends that have similar or equal standing. It's always about perspective is what it comes down to.

Perspective is what separates us all. And it is the grouping of mass perspectives that can make such a plethora of worlds within one. So attack a collected perspective in the name of a righteousness that's only found consensus in your collective is quite a dangerous road. Be it the escalation or rather the evolution of discrimination, one thing is clear. Unity and subjugation have never been so synonymous.



So yeah, you ever feel like destroying something? I can honestly say that this would be one of those months for me. I've lost so much sh*t that it's kind of funny. Sad thing is though that this is the only outlet for such news.

Get the title now?


Exploding Guts



Check previous MTsT post for updates.


Lucas re"Baise-d"

To be honest I just didn't like the way March ended so I'm going to be retooling the last story there. Figured I'd share since it'll also come tethered to updates across the board.

1) New Background image (working on it!!)

2) New Homepage Buttons (finally an MTsT button!)

3) A new site banner (sadly enough I did actually make one and it will be up soon)

and finally

4) The next [last] thrilling tale of Shiny Suit Man! (Benjamin Davis) [completed]




07 13 09 - ( ) [ ]


Sh*tting Bricks.

So yeah I've been neglecting this section for a bit of a while and figured what the hell, why not right? So yeah as the title states, this little piece'll be about sh*tting. Those with weak constitutions should probably stop reading here.

So yeah, the other day I'm sitting on the can evicting some "tenants" from the ole anal slums and I swear it was like finding that one occupant who doesn't want to leave. Like having that one person who for whatever reason, whether it be because of supreme obesity or just insanity, will not get out of the premises. Needless to say, after that little episode I began to wonder...

Anyone else ever drop a deuce so hard that it made your knees and everything below them go numb? Just wondering...


Convos over Porn

So I posted up a pic (pornographic) on a shared space (online) for a friend of mine and here is the madness that ensued: (edited to help coherentness)

DERRICK ROSE wrote: all dat yellow makes me feel weird. Maybe I'm a Green Lantern

Mar. 26

MORRIBB TYLER LEHRER wrote: ...yeah… you don't have the qualifications to be a Green Lantern.

Mar. 26

DR: yeah, I’m not fictional

Mar. 27

MtL: Matter of perspective really.

Mar. 27

DR: oh fuck up with your tripped out head games shit. You’re real, I'm real, Obama's real, and so on and so forth. I ain't sum trick u can bamboozle bro! I wnet 2 collage!

Mar. 27

MtL: What determines what or who is real? If not actions. And what actions separate us from imagination and bring us to be factual beings? Just because you think you're real doesn't mean you are. There have been countless books/stories/pieces about characters who thought they were real. Example, the Matrix. Neo thought he was real. He thought his world was real. Turns out, things weren't as they appeared. His world was fabrication and so were the majority of his interactions. So the question is posed back to actions. If he never left the Matrix would he have been real? If he never experienced life; living and dying in that pod, would he truly have existed?

Now same question for you. Are you absolutely positive that you are real? That any of this is real? Not just based on faith but on concrete evidence? Can you prove your existence?

Mar. 27

DR: I'm not about to get into Nietzsche and Existentialism, and I’m aware of all the ‘I’M REAL’ fiction out there but honestly, yes, we're real. How do we prove it? ‘Cogito ergo sum’,. I think therefore I am. Fictional things can't think. They can only do. At least that's what I remember from PHY class.

Mar. 29

MtL: But cells don't think. Therefore then are cells real? If we are made up of cells then how can we be real? Our thought processes are mere artifact. Excess that is a product of the millions of cells that have converged upon one another to make a living system of living systems. Of course though how can they be living if what the systems are composed of don't think right? As you know as well as I do, cells just do.

Mar. 30

DR: I think Descartes was talking more about the consciousness. If you're doubting you exist that means something has to be thinking about not existing which means that thing exists. I believe that's what he meant.

I think you're arguing that our thoughts are only biologic responses. I remember an article "What is it like to be a bat" that argued that we know how a bat sees but we don't what it's like to see like a bat which means there's a consciousness that exists in a creature beyond that of pure biology. If that's the case then I think these people were discussing the mind is real. If you're talking about the body not being real because the parts that make up its sum only communicate through signals and do not possess an actual consciousness, then maybe it's possible that it serves as a "vehicle" for the consciousness in this level of "reality or not reality". IIRC I remember providing the example of the tv, cable box and cable signal. They work together to give you an image of something. If you sever the cable line no image, but if there's no image does that mean the cable signal doesn't exist? Something like that, my argument had some more substance but that was my main point. He gave me a B though. Asshole.

What? I’m off topic. There's a difference between existing and living. You said cells don't think which means a living system cannot be considered living. But science dictates that something living has to go about certain biologic processes and have the elements CHON in its composition. Something dead still exists even though it's not living. Cells don't think but even today scientists' don't know everything about the communication which causes them to do what they do. How do we not know there's not a consciousness that's influencing these things the same way the tv is not reliant on the signal?

tl;dr I don't know bro

Mar. 31

MtL: Thoughts ARE only biological responses. As far as tv's and cable signals versus the brain and body, that point is sorely moot since televisions don't think therefore they, by Descartes, don't exist. Now they do know how cells work. The brain system however, not so much. But single celled organisms have been quite well documented. Documented to the point where its been stated they work as would a computer. Each cell has a set of instructions and follow along a set of rules. You know this. So there is no thinking, just doing, as far as existing and living. Being what you've just stated then clearly there's a difference. So the assumption becomes living without existing or existing without living. By Descartes' words, the body does not exist. The mind however does. Since the bi-product of the conjoining systems is thought right? That being said the query of what thought or rather thinking is comes into question. If involuntary thought as a result of a biological response does occur then can it truly be considered thinking?

If not, then obviously, we don't exist. If so, then we still don't exist but merely our thoughts do. Like a river, thought exists, which means perception exists. So then back to the original question, how can anyone prove they exist? It is very possible that all of this is just a perception. A delusion even. That there is one mind that accounts for it all. Like as you said with the t.v. and signal. If there is no picture then does the signal not exist? Only in this case, if thought can’t perceive it than can it exist?

Apr. 1

DR: How can you determine that thoughts are only biological responses? If you have someone who is handicapped and can’t communicate due to brain trauma, how do you know there thoughts exist but have no way to be presented to the rest of us? Similar to the tv and the cable or a tree falling in the woods alone. Just cause I cut the cable and the tv isn’t showing an image doesn’t mean the signal isn’t transmitting. Consciousness can work in a similar manner possibly; at least this is what some people talk about when discussing dualism. The mind/body problem. Descartes lived in a time where science and microbiology weren’t as developed as they were now but as someone who debated that God existed I doubt he was under the assumption that thoughts = biology. Stating that thoughts=biology is affirming the notion that the tangible world is the only thing that exists hence no metaphysical world. It’s clear that he believed in higher forces and believed in abstract things like the soul.

They do not know everything about eukaryotic cells. Single celled organisms are prokaryotes and are not what compose things like animals, people, plants, etc. Another reason why consciousness is a problem.

For something to be a delusion, then there has to be something to be deluded. If this something is being deluded to think of all the things in this universe that means it’s existing outside of our concept of reality meaning its situation is different from ours. If determining what is “real” depends on said situation than that means one here cannot judge if this world is indeed “fake or real” since you can only see things from this side.

Apr. 1

MtL: Therein lies the river of consciousness. Every thought of ever thing that thinks flowing together, separated solely by tangibility. Then again there's the 'what' you spoke of in your last paragraph that I addressed briefly earlier. But I'll get to that later.

To say that the belief that thoughts are biological responses connotes denying a higher power is far from evident. In the past it was dictated that science and religion couldn't mix but the incongruities that continue to be found and formed only point to some amalgam of the two. A lot of the old arguments aren't valid anymore because so much has changed due to perceptions and translations and what we are told are facts. Truth be told there constantly is a flux of information being found that either disproves a level of science or proves a level of divinity. And because of this balance both (thoughts as biological and divine creations) can co-exist.

Granted. So, lets dive even further into the gene pool. What makes up cells? And do those things that make up cells think? Yes, I'm talking about atoms.

It's funny that you've come to the conclusion I've been at so entirely. I was never implying that WE were fictional/not real but rather that the possibility exists that YOU aren't real. That this could all be some delusion of mine. Or just some delusion of yours. Or something else entirely. Think for a minute about the prospect that there isn’t a tangible world. That we all exist as one in the metaphysical plane and that this is merely a recreation of that same plane given shape, sound, and color. Not to even impose on you some sort of "Big O-esc" experience with androids living out a program in a fake city apart of a fake country apart of a fake world. But just that these or rather those gaps in our own dimensional space identified through string theory are in essence, the river. Co-consciousness of millions that create all that happens and exists or will ever exist.

So yeah as I stated in "Old Philosophy" the meaning of life is meaningless. And it is such because there is no way a single mind could perceive it as it is the co-consciousness of the world that has spawned such meaning. Now as far as why I use a river as the medium is because I now ask you to think even bigger at the meaning of a co-consciousness amongst billions of existences. And what that "consciousness" could really be.

And just to make note as what you stated is true. One can't know if their world is fake or true since they can only grasp one side which is why it becomes a matter of perspective since there are just too many possibilities.

Apr. 2

DR: Thoughts = biology is popular notion amongst physicalism philosophy. Again from what I remember from philosophy classes these people believed that there was nothing beyond what is experienced in life. That the mind is a result of chemicals and signals.

Do atoms think? No I don't think so but who knows with all that quantum physics crap. Also if you're saying old/past arguments don't matter anymore, should the whole criteria of thinking means you're real even matter since Descartes said that?

I don't understand this co-consciousness. Are you saying there's a pool of conscious minds that think up the world as we know it?

Yes I think one of the biggest most acceptable answers to this whole question is that it's too big to answer and thus it does not matter, is impossible to answer, or something else.

Apr. 2

MtL: So wait are you just mentioning that to mention that or is their some relevance to something else?

Technically no. Everything matters. Even things that are disproven or left for dead matter in the grand scheme. But primarily it's all important because it leads to development/progress.

What I'm saying is what if that's what the Lord is. The collective consciousness of all existence existing in tandem with one another yet remaining separate? And that yes, it is the combining of that existence's experience that fabricates the physical plane. Just a thought.

Schweet. Then care to explore the previous section I just wrote?

Apr. 3

DR: You said "To say that the belief that thoughts are biological responses connotes denying a higher power is far from evident." and I'm saying that the popular belief amongst physicalism philosophers suggests otherwise. They believe that because everything is biological that means no God, no soul, etc. And have their own reasoning as to why. The article I mentioned before by Nagel. To be a bat was in response to a popular physicalism philosopher to go suggest consciousness goes higher than the pure biological. If you have some sort of reasoning to support what you said then fine.

It maybe important to you but it's a matter of perspective. The same thing you were chirping about earlier. There's a reason why philosophy isn't mandated like math and science. Most of society does not feel the same way about it as they do other topics because it doesn't help them with everyday life. To determine what's important in the grand scheme of things is also hard to pinpoint. We don't even know what the grand scheme is. Also In the grand scheme of what? The universe? Let us not be so bold to presume that our species' existence is vital to whatever. If we were all wiped out, life would continue to exist. And keep in mind this is something that's been and being debated by older, smarter guys then us and they still don't agree. Not to be a party pooper but I think it'll be quite hard for two dudes to come up with a final answer about what is real in comments box for a picture of a yellow bitch with her pussy out. In the end though I think to some it does not matter in the slightest.

It is quite possible that the Lord is some sort of collective consciousness of all the living things of the universe. It's a theory that's had some play in fiction though it’s usually referred to as a mass of souls but honestly I think it's a similar idea.


Wait which previous section I thought I touched on everything?

Apr. 3

MtL: Ah I see what you mean now. But as far as reasoning to support what I've been saying I don't think it's necessary since they're two sides of the coin and I don't think we need to go into a creationism vs. evolution type argument since I'd imagine I know where you stand.

You're looking at intelligence in terms of relativity to schooling/education but there's more to it than that. Occam's razor shows us that sometimes, knowing more only impedes the development of the truth. As far as things not mattering, is that just a throwaway sentence? I mean stating that fact doesn't really amount to anything in regard to this. Not that it isn't true but that it's true about anything and everything in all aspects of life that there will be someone or even masses of people that could care less.

The section about collective consciousness being the Lord. That being said what are your thoughts then on it since you've seen the idea, in essence, presented before?

Apr. 4

MtL: Oh and yeah maybe the great answers to the universe won't be answered here but at least this exists if nothing else but as proof that we're not just a bunch of sick perverts.

Apr. 4

DR: I understand where people who say it doesn't matter come from. They see the question itself as a sort of unanswerable question kinda like a paradox (but not really) they realize that whatever the answer is they will never be able to find it and/or if they do what will change about their life? So they forget about it.

It's a possibility. I've thought about it too. A mass of consciousness and all that. I mean there's not really much more I can say about that.

Dude, we could be curing cancer, saving puppies, and drinking tea with Jesus and we'd STILL be sick perverts

Apr. 6

MtL: You say you understand that perspective but then do you also BELIEVE it yourself?

Why is that all you "can" say about that? What's preventing you from diving further?

And I'm appalled by the accusation. But no seriously, I'm not trying to imply that the gravity in which this conversation has taken completely absolves us from perverse excursions. This development is far from some sort of pardon for crimes of the perverse nature, past or present. It more stands as a pivotal example of how sexual gratification isn't solely what makes up our psychological skill sets.

Apr. 8

DR: Depends on my mood. But just because we understand something doesn't mean we have to believe it (contrary to what **** is always saying).

Because there's nothing else I have to add. You presented the idea and I said oh yeah I've heard of that, kinda, and thought about that myself. The end.

Uh yeah I didn't need an online version of armchair philosophy to prove that busting a nut wasn't the only thing going on in my brain and if you were talking about yourself and/or people in general I didn't know there was an epidemic of nymphos and failed Sexaholic Anonymous members! Fucking CNN doesn't talk about anything but Obama!

Apr. 8

MtL: I think you have that backwards. As 'Fatass' seems to be of the school of reasoning that if you don't understand it, you don't have to believe it. i.e. homosexuality.

That's pretty anticlimactic.

It's not for you or me. But for the records. An account of the set of values and substance beyond mere perversion for the masses were this ever to be stumbled upon by the uninitiated.

Apr. 9

DR: ‘Fatass’ is stupid.

Whatever, it is what it is. Not everything has to be some big epic shit fest

Yeah ok keep telling yourself that. Last time I checked all of this was just for shits and giggles. If you wanna give it some depth, go ahead. I mean, why not, people write scholarly essays on the inner thinkings of Sesame street characters.

Apr. 16


MARch Madness20XII

Location: New Zealand

Monastery Head: The Great Master

Monastery Directive:  Orphanage/pursuit of the way of the blade

Monastery Members: 137

Most Notable Students: Lucas Toussaint Baise (custom blade), Mathus Hueghs (twin scimitar with concealed daggers in shealths), Marcus Meair (kunai with chain), Johnas Arthur Peinth (katana), Brea Zuerker (halberd)

Survivors: One (Baise)

Unaccounted: One (Zuerker)



"I think therefore I am."

Do cells think? Do cells then exist? Then by argument, how can we?