FA+
Shop
An update, and some ramblings
Posted 2 months agoGreetings,
In general, I try not to post much so that whoever is following me doesn't end up getting annoyed with me needlessly cluttering up their inbox here. I realize that it's been 4 years since my last journal. Not much has changed. I guess the biggest thing that is different is that I've become rather obsessed with a character in the Tekken franchise of games. Since I'm gay and a furry, anyone who knows the franchise can probably guess that the character is King. Oh yeah ... dreamboat city. Anywayyyyyyyy .....
When I first saw how he looks in the new game, I was floored. How had I not heard about him before. He's been around since the first game 30 years ago. But then I saw the way he looked in previous games, and he's nowhere near as gorgeous in those games. Now ... WOW. So, needless to say, I instantly became a fan. Then I saw people playing him, and I realized that he was likely going to be well beyond my abilities. I'm 54 years old. I've never been good at games anyway because my reactions are slow, uncoordinated and clumsy. I also can't think quickly on the fly. So I was thinking that I'd just enjoy watching good players. Then the game went on sale, so I thought I'd give it a shot and see if I could learn it.
Fast forward to today. I have put 80 hours into the game so far. I've done the story missions, and the character missions. I'm only now starting to get through the training for punishment. I am only now beginning to get some of the combo training finally accomplished. I've basically only won one online match in the whole time I've been playing. The embarrassing thing is that, the one guy I did beat in ranked matches, I sent him a friend request. He accepted. Today, I looked and he's now 11 ranks higher than I am ... I'm still down where I was when I beat him. That's ... very discouraging. At the rate I'm going, I'm probably gonna be the only guy on the planet who has 300 hours of play and still can't get out of the beginner ranks. Yay ... I'm special.
As most of you already know, I have zero self-esteem and absolutely no confidence. What the hell am I doing trying to learn arguably THE hardest fighting game known to man?
Is this where I have to try to put things in perspective, and start trying to learn positive self-reinforcement? I mean, if I want to try to focus on the things I'm doing well, I could go ahead and try to focus on things like this:
*** I made a goal to play 5 ranked matches a day. The first day, I did 5 matches. Lost each and every one, and I think only won 2 rounds in those 5 matches, but I did meet the goal.
*** I am starting to complete the training practice for my character in the combo training. Only a few months ago, I couldn't get past the third combo no matter how hard I tried. Today ... I failed at it repeatedly, moved on to the fourth one, did it and three others (after dozens of tries for each one), came back and actually completed the third one.
*** I practiced breaking throws from one of the opponents I struggle mightily against. It's on "easy" difficulty, so it prompts when to hit the button. This is nothing like it will be in the battle itself. And the problem with the throw training is that you focus on the writing instructions more than being able to watch the cues in battle, so how does that help??? It teaches me which button to push, but then I'll have to get it right, and the timing and which throw do I have to break is where I struggle anyway.
These are the positive feedback things. As you can see, I still can't help but keeping things real and bring up the failures. It's so hard to stop myself from saying "Fuck I'm so slow" or "damn, you're uncoordinated and can't hit the right buttons"
So as you can probably guess, I'm a total mess mentally and emotionally. Every time I get the slightest high from thinking that I'm making improvement, that completely falls apart with the very next failure.
Sorry for adding some needless clutter to your inboxes folks. I ... guess I just needed to vent a bit.
In general, I try not to post much so that whoever is following me doesn't end up getting annoyed with me needlessly cluttering up their inbox here. I realize that it's been 4 years since my last journal. Not much has changed. I guess the biggest thing that is different is that I've become rather obsessed with a character in the Tekken franchise of games. Since I'm gay and a furry, anyone who knows the franchise can probably guess that the character is King. Oh yeah ... dreamboat city. Anywayyyyyyyy .....
When I first saw how he looks in the new game, I was floored. How had I not heard about him before. He's been around since the first game 30 years ago. But then I saw the way he looked in previous games, and he's nowhere near as gorgeous in those games. Now ... WOW. So, needless to say, I instantly became a fan. Then I saw people playing him, and I realized that he was likely going to be well beyond my abilities. I'm 54 years old. I've never been good at games anyway because my reactions are slow, uncoordinated and clumsy. I also can't think quickly on the fly. So I was thinking that I'd just enjoy watching good players. Then the game went on sale, so I thought I'd give it a shot and see if I could learn it.
Fast forward to today. I have put 80 hours into the game so far. I've done the story missions, and the character missions. I'm only now starting to get through the training for punishment. I am only now beginning to get some of the combo training finally accomplished. I've basically only won one online match in the whole time I've been playing. The embarrassing thing is that, the one guy I did beat in ranked matches, I sent him a friend request. He accepted. Today, I looked and he's now 11 ranks higher than I am ... I'm still down where I was when I beat him. That's ... very discouraging. At the rate I'm going, I'm probably gonna be the only guy on the planet who has 300 hours of play and still can't get out of the beginner ranks. Yay ... I'm special.
As most of you already know, I have zero self-esteem and absolutely no confidence. What the hell am I doing trying to learn arguably THE hardest fighting game known to man?
Is this where I have to try to put things in perspective, and start trying to learn positive self-reinforcement? I mean, if I want to try to focus on the things I'm doing well, I could go ahead and try to focus on things like this:
*** I made a goal to play 5 ranked matches a day. The first day, I did 5 matches. Lost each and every one, and I think only won 2 rounds in those 5 matches, but I did meet the goal.
*** I am starting to complete the training practice for my character in the combo training. Only a few months ago, I couldn't get past the third combo no matter how hard I tried. Today ... I failed at it repeatedly, moved on to the fourth one, did it and three others (after dozens of tries for each one), came back and actually completed the third one.
*** I practiced breaking throws from one of the opponents I struggle mightily against. It's on "easy" difficulty, so it prompts when to hit the button. This is nothing like it will be in the battle itself. And the problem with the throw training is that you focus on the writing instructions more than being able to watch the cues in battle, so how does that help??? It teaches me which button to push, but then I'll have to get it right, and the timing and which throw do I have to break is where I struggle anyway.
These are the positive feedback things. As you can see, I still can't help but keeping things real and bring up the failures. It's so hard to stop myself from saying "Fuck I'm so slow" or "damn, you're uncoordinated and can't hit the right buttons"
So as you can probably guess, I'm a total mess mentally and emotionally. Every time I get the slightest high from thinking that I'm making improvement, that completely falls apart with the very next failure.
Sorry for adding some needless clutter to your inboxes folks. I ... guess I just needed to vent a bit.
Telegram update
Posted 4 years agoJust a little warning. If you have chatted to me on Telegram, I'm currently locked out of my account because the stupid app kept crashing. Can't get back in yet. I might have to make a new account, but I'm waiting to hear back from Telegram to see if I can get back in. If you've sent me a message on Telegram since like Friday of last week, that's why I haven't replied to you -- because I can't.
Will keep you updated as events unfold.
We now return you to regularly scheduled life.
Will keep you updated as events unfold.
We now return you to regularly scheduled life.
Seriously though ...
Posted 4 years agoSo I work midnight shifts, and it's kinda slow. I have time to watch things. I have time to think a bit about things, and question stuff. One night, my mind went meandering down a logical rabbit hole that relates to that theory that those big electronic advertising billboards detect signals from our phones as we approach them, and program the billboard ads just for us. Have you heard of that theory? This is one that I heard like at least a decade ago -- probably when the first smart phones were being launched. (That would make sense, since it was a NEW thing, and people are terrified of NEW. Unfortunately, the stupid phone has brought on the demise of human civilization through other methods, but this is not the time for that discussion.)
So I have one of those big electronic billboards within view of my work, and I watched it. It cycled through the same 5 ads for the entire night. It did the same thing the next night and the night after that. Then I watched as dozens of cars passed by -- presumably all with their own smart phones inside. Some cars had passengers -- each of whom probably had their own smart phones. Then I watched the billboard to see if there was any change in the routine. None. Then it occurred to me that there are thousands of people who actually LIVE within the range of the billboard sign. Most of them would likely have smart phones too.
So you have to now logically question this theory with some basic observational evidence. How would this smart billboard actually target ME, out of the thousands of other people that can see it? Why would an advertising agency even bother to use such technology even if it does exist or is possible? In large cities (and no, I'm not in a large city), the billboard would have to change lightning fast because along highways, there are tens of thousands of people approaching every hour. Each of their smart phones would likely have radically different search histories and show a huge variety of needs. So how does the billboard decide which ad to display for thousands of people at the same second? It's logically not feasible or even practical. If that doesn't help you dismiss the theory then maybe this next thought will. The billboard is owned by an ad agency, who takes money from their clients. The clients expect their ads to be shown, and pays the company to display the ads. If the company cannot guarantee that their ad will be shown for a certain length of time or frequency, how do they charge an appropriate ad fee? It's simply a screen that shows the ads that have been purchased by clients. That's all. There's no devious New World Order plot to control your mind. It's advertising -- which is trying to control your mind and affect your behaviour. And all these conspiracy theories that swirl around us every day have really done a number on people. They simply serve to distract the gullible from what is actually happening. Look at this shiny thing over here. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (who is feeding all these lunatic theories and nonsense).
I heard this theory years ago, and I just dismissed it as "oh well, so be it." How many other conspiracy theories can be so easily discarded with some simple logical thought to the situation? Why are these theories so persistent and so pervasive? It boggles the mind.
So I have one of those big electronic billboards within view of my work, and I watched it. It cycled through the same 5 ads for the entire night. It did the same thing the next night and the night after that. Then I watched as dozens of cars passed by -- presumably all with their own smart phones inside. Some cars had passengers -- each of whom probably had their own smart phones. Then I watched the billboard to see if there was any change in the routine. None. Then it occurred to me that there are thousands of people who actually LIVE within the range of the billboard sign. Most of them would likely have smart phones too.
So you have to now logically question this theory with some basic observational evidence. How would this smart billboard actually target ME, out of the thousands of other people that can see it? Why would an advertising agency even bother to use such technology even if it does exist or is possible? In large cities (and no, I'm not in a large city), the billboard would have to change lightning fast because along highways, there are tens of thousands of people approaching every hour. Each of their smart phones would likely have radically different search histories and show a huge variety of needs. So how does the billboard decide which ad to display for thousands of people at the same second? It's logically not feasible or even practical. If that doesn't help you dismiss the theory then maybe this next thought will. The billboard is owned by an ad agency, who takes money from their clients. The clients expect their ads to be shown, and pays the company to display the ads. If the company cannot guarantee that their ad will be shown for a certain length of time or frequency, how do they charge an appropriate ad fee? It's simply a screen that shows the ads that have been purchased by clients. That's all. There's no devious New World Order plot to control your mind. It's advertising -- which is trying to control your mind and affect your behaviour. And all these conspiracy theories that swirl around us every day have really done a number on people. They simply serve to distract the gullible from what is actually happening. Look at this shiny thing over here. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (who is feeding all these lunatic theories and nonsense).
I heard this theory years ago, and I just dismissed it as "oh well, so be it." How many other conspiracy theories can be so easily discarded with some simple logical thought to the situation? Why are these theories so persistent and so pervasive? It boggles the mind.
Meow
Posted 4 years agoI couldn't resist. This is just too cute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6TpsWhQMTQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6TpsWhQMTQ
A Fish Tale
Posted 5 years agoI think everyone has heard the old proverb "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he eats for a life time." The wording may change occasionally, but that's the basic gist of the story. I've heard so many conservative/republicans use that story to tout the merits of capitalism over socialism. I would imagine that most people would become numb to the argument, but if you truly look at the story AND if you truly understand socialist premises, you'll probably begin to see the story in a different light. Allow me to explain.
The traditional view of socialism is that people get things for free from the government. That makes them dependent on the government for their survival and well being. That's a very simplistic and overgeneralized viewpoint, but that's basically what capitalist supporters think of socialism. That being said, a more accurate understanding of socialism is that it's a system where the people's basic needs (education, healthcare) are taken care of and that no one should need to go on the verge of bankruptcy if an unexpected illness should befall them or their family. It does NOT mean that everyone can just wish or expect everything they want to be given just because they want it. That is nothing more than misinformation by capitalists who don't want their precious system to fall.
Now, if we understand that premise that socialists want to have the basic needs of healthcare and education taken care of for everyone, we can review the proverb and see it in a different light.
The socialist might offer the hungry man a fish to help him get through the day. The socialist, however, WOULD be the one who worked to teach the man how to fish. Education is important to socialists, and they strive to ensure that everyone has the education they need to be successful in whatever they want to pursue. The capitalist, on the other hand, would NOT be the one who would try to teach the man how to fish. The capitalist would see the man as competition. The capitalist would likely push the man in the water, and walk away with his fishing rod and tackle. It's a completely individualistic philosophy, so it's only "me" that matters and to hell with everyone else.
So the next time some high and mighty capitalist tries to use the teach a man to fish line, you can offer this more accurate interpretation and see how they like it.
The traditional view of socialism is that people get things for free from the government. That makes them dependent on the government for their survival and well being. That's a very simplistic and overgeneralized viewpoint, but that's basically what capitalist supporters think of socialism. That being said, a more accurate understanding of socialism is that it's a system where the people's basic needs (education, healthcare) are taken care of and that no one should need to go on the verge of bankruptcy if an unexpected illness should befall them or their family. It does NOT mean that everyone can just wish or expect everything they want to be given just because they want it. That is nothing more than misinformation by capitalists who don't want their precious system to fall.
Now, if we understand that premise that socialists want to have the basic needs of healthcare and education taken care of for everyone, we can review the proverb and see it in a different light.
The socialist might offer the hungry man a fish to help him get through the day. The socialist, however, WOULD be the one who worked to teach the man how to fish. Education is important to socialists, and they strive to ensure that everyone has the education they need to be successful in whatever they want to pursue. The capitalist, on the other hand, would NOT be the one who would try to teach the man how to fish. The capitalist would see the man as competition. The capitalist would likely push the man in the water, and walk away with his fishing rod and tackle. It's a completely individualistic philosophy, so it's only "me" that matters and to hell with everyone else.
So the next time some high and mighty capitalist tries to use the teach a man to fish line, you can offer this more accurate interpretation and see how they like it.
Just a thought
Posted 5 years agoI know that politics isn't everyone's cup of tea. I just watched this clip and it pretty much sums up my sentiments clearly. Give it a listen. Leave a comment if you wish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZMQ467p9Ug
*warm nuzzles*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZMQ467p9Ug
*warm nuzzles*
Blocked again
Posted 5 years agoHonestly, I'm crushed. NOT.
So it happened again. I read someone's political journal, and I replied to someone else's post to that journal. The person saw that I had the unmitigated gaul to dare share thoughts on the topic, and he blocked me, and removed the post. How mature is that? You know, for a 30-year old who thinks he knows everything about life, and maturity, it's rather cowardly, weak and completely unproductive. He says I bullied him. A bully is someone who is aggressive and tries to beat someone else down into submission to make themselves feel stronger. I suppose if you are unsure about why you believe something, you'd automatically see someone else's contradicting opinions as being hostile. However, if you truly are comfortable with your beliefs, and you understand why you have those beliefs, then being presented with or challenged by contradicting thoughts or even facts and evidence really should never seem like bullying. Rather, they should be taken as helpful knowledge that will only help you build your own understanding into a topic. I find it laughable that this person constantly chastised me for saying that I was trying to educate him on different thoughts. I have decades more experience in life, and also more formal education than he, so I was willing to share my experiences for his benefit. If he had ever once offered relevant counter evidence to one of my positions, I would have shown the maturity to consider it, and rationally assimilate it with my beliefs. If he happened to present a belief that actually proved to be stronger or more reasonable than mine, I would more than likely have adopted it. Instead, the only thing he would constantly do would be to shift the topic or resort to what-about-ism.
In the end, he once whined about being blocked for sharing his opinion on someone else's page, and claimed that he would never do that. Well, he's done it. I guess that just shows him to be a hypocrite. By the way, wagon -- I'm not blocking you. I'm not afraid of anything that you have to say.
EDIT: After I posted this journal, it seems that the person actually removed the comment that I replied to. That's next level pathetic echo-chamber stuff there. LOL
EDIT 2: Recently, this person's two accounts had been suspended. They have now both been deleted/banned. I have no idea why, nor do I really care. A more fitting conclusion couldn't have happened to such a deserving individual.
So it happened again. I read someone's political journal, and I replied to someone else's post to that journal. The person saw that I had the unmitigated gaul to dare share thoughts on the topic, and he blocked me, and removed the post. How mature is that? You know, for a 30-year old who thinks he knows everything about life, and maturity, it's rather cowardly, weak and completely unproductive. He says I bullied him. A bully is someone who is aggressive and tries to beat someone else down into submission to make themselves feel stronger. I suppose if you are unsure about why you believe something, you'd automatically see someone else's contradicting opinions as being hostile. However, if you truly are comfortable with your beliefs, and you understand why you have those beliefs, then being presented with or challenged by contradicting thoughts or even facts and evidence really should never seem like bullying. Rather, they should be taken as helpful knowledge that will only help you build your own understanding into a topic. I find it laughable that this person constantly chastised me for saying that I was trying to educate him on different thoughts. I have decades more experience in life, and also more formal education than he, so I was willing to share my experiences for his benefit. If he had ever once offered relevant counter evidence to one of my positions, I would have shown the maturity to consider it, and rationally assimilate it with my beliefs. If he happened to present a belief that actually proved to be stronger or more reasonable than mine, I would more than likely have adopted it. Instead, the only thing he would constantly do would be to shift the topic or resort to what-about-ism.
In the end, he once whined about being blocked for sharing his opinion on someone else's page, and claimed that he would never do that. Well, he's done it. I guess that just shows him to be a hypocrite. By the way, wagon -- I'm not blocking you. I'm not afraid of anything that you have to say.
EDIT: After I posted this journal, it seems that the person actually removed the comment that I replied to. That's next level pathetic echo-chamber stuff there. LOL
EDIT 2: Recently, this person's two accounts had been suspended. They have now both been deleted/banned. I have no idea why, nor do I really care. A more fitting conclusion couldn't have happened to such a deserving individual.
FAKE BREAD!!!
Posted 5 years agoWoke up today to find that "Ireland's Supreme Court had ruled that Subway bread doesn't qualify as bread for taxation purposes". There's too much sugar content apparently, and as such the court ruled that the sandwiches don't meet the threshold for 0 VAT.
I just had to laugh.
I just had to laugh.
Quick history lesson
Posted 5 years agoI learned some new history recently.
Did you know that the Great Pandemic (Spanish flu) happened in 1917?
<PSSST - It wasn't. It was 1918 - 1919>
Did you also know that it was probably the reason for the end of World War II because it killed all the soldiers?
< PSSST - LMAO. World War II was 1939 - 1945. Twenty years after the Spanish flu outbreak was contained.>
I suppose Hitler was responsible for the reunification of Germany after those Jewish and Muslim people collaborated and plotted to put up the Berlin Wall.
Does this give us enough insight into Trump's brain to understand how he can be president, but only when things are good. When things are not good, Obama's president. I guess all two-year-olds are stable geniuses.
Did you know that the Great Pandemic (Spanish flu) happened in 1917?
<PSSST - It wasn't. It was 1918 - 1919>
Did you also know that it was probably the reason for the end of World War II because it killed all the soldiers?
< PSSST - LMAO. World War II was 1939 - 1945. Twenty years after the Spanish flu outbreak was contained.>
I suppose Hitler was responsible for the reunification of Germany after those Jewish and Muslim people collaborated and plotted to put up the Berlin Wall.
Does this give us enough insight into Trump's brain to understand how he can be president, but only when things are good. When things are not good, Obama's president. I guess all two-year-olds are stable geniuses.
Q & A -- sort of
Posted 5 years agoAs many of you can tell, it's been a while since I've posted/written anything. In fact, I haven't been able to even think of anything for a long long time.
I did start writing a sequel to the Media Scrum story. The basic premise is that the reporter was so taken with what he'd seen at the media event that he wants to do a follow-up interview or expose on Chet.
This gives me the chance to see if any of you readers have any questions that you would want to ask Chet about bodybuilding or training or his diet and that kind of stuff. What kinds of interview questions do you think would make for an interesting article in a bodybuilding magazine about Chet? I would like to choose several of the questions if they make the grade and seem to fit into the story.
Let's see if anyone is curious anymore.
I did start writing a sequel to the Media Scrum story. The basic premise is that the reporter was so taken with what he'd seen at the media event that he wants to do a follow-up interview or expose on Chet.
This gives me the chance to see if any of you readers have any questions that you would want to ask Chet about bodybuilding or training or his diet and that kind of stuff. What kinds of interview questions do you think would make for an interesting article in a bodybuilding magazine about Chet? I would like to choose several of the questions if they make the grade and seem to fit into the story.
Let's see if anyone is curious anymore.
Toronto is in Canada
Posted 5 years agoSo I woke up today and checked on Twitter. To my surprise, "Toronto is in Canada" was trending. At first, I laughed "like ... duh", but then I clicked to find out what it was all about. Laura Ingraham, one of the well-known imbecile propagandists for Trump, had tweeted something to the effect that "Will Joe Biden protect your religious freedoms like Donald Trump has? I don't think so." Then she referenced a blog or article that mentioned the Toronto arch diocese had banned communion.
Needless to say, this woman was being battered for thinking that Toronto was in the US. It has led me to have a curious theory about right wingers. Do they read a headline and then make up their own stories? Is that how the process works? It seems to make a lot of sense. They read a headline about whatever the issue is. Then they turn the story into some kind of nonsense that fits in with their narrative, and completely neglect the facts of the situation. Just imagine how awesome things could be if we could harness that kind of creative imagination and make it serve everyone, instead of serving to coddle a 70+-year old spoiled brat.
Apparently if Ingraham had actually read into the Toronto situation, she would have (or should have) understood what really happened. Toronto's catholic leaders adapted the process of taking communion for its parishioners to go along with protocols that would make it safe during the COVID pandemic. Instead of taking communion on the tongue, the church will only deliver communion on the hand. Nothing about banning communion or religion or churches or any such nonsense. Of course, if Ingraham actually had a functioning brain she should have first understood that Joe Biden would have absolutely NOTHING to do with establishing policies in Toronto. At the very least, Joe Biden knows which side of the Bible is right-side up -- as opposed to Trump who held the Bible upside-down during his photo op.
Needless to say, this woman was being battered for thinking that Toronto was in the US. It has led me to have a curious theory about right wingers. Do they read a headline and then make up their own stories? Is that how the process works? It seems to make a lot of sense. They read a headline about whatever the issue is. Then they turn the story into some kind of nonsense that fits in with their narrative, and completely neglect the facts of the situation. Just imagine how awesome things could be if we could harness that kind of creative imagination and make it serve everyone, instead of serving to coddle a 70+-year old spoiled brat.
Apparently if Ingraham had actually read into the Toronto situation, she would have (or should have) understood what really happened. Toronto's catholic leaders adapted the process of taking communion for its parishioners to go along with protocols that would make it safe during the COVID pandemic. Instead of taking communion on the tongue, the church will only deliver communion on the hand. Nothing about banning communion or religion or churches or any such nonsense. Of course, if Ingraham actually had a functioning brain she should have first understood that Joe Biden would have absolutely NOTHING to do with establishing policies in Toronto. At the very least, Joe Biden knows which side of the Bible is right-side up -- as opposed to Trump who held the Bible upside-down during his photo op.
So #FloridaMorons
Posted 5 years ago... is currently trending on Twitter apparently. Out of sheer curiosity, I looked in on the thread. I don't think I could have expected the little clip I saw of Governor Ron DeSantis putting on his face mask. Seriously? It has two elastic straps. You only have one head (and apparently his is rather empty anyway). He stretched the one strap over and behind his head, while the other one (obviously meant for your ear) hung over his throat, unused. This is the man who allowed the other morons in the state to populate the public beaches, albeit for a limited amount of time. YAY. What more idiotic way to encourage public gatherings than to force them to do it at limited times.
This draws comparisons to when Trump looked up to see the sun during an eclipse (without dark glasses). Remember Dubya looking through the military binoculars while the lens caps were still on. These people are your leaders. Please have more sense than they do.
This draws comparisons to when Trump looked up to see the sun during an eclipse (without dark glasses). Remember Dubya looking through the military binoculars while the lens caps were still on. These people are your leaders. Please have more sense than they do.
I couldn't resist sharing this.
Posted 8 years agoIt's been a while since I've journaled, so to break the monotony, I'll share this rather hilarious little video. Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYSxkqL9l_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYSxkqL9l_8
Play time?
Posted 8 years agoGreetings,
Chet's been a hard-working horse lately, and hasn't had much time to play, so I thought I'd ask you all what you'd like to see Chet play with. Keep in mind that his idea of play is having fun with heavy things heh.
*warm nuzzles*
(P.S.: I hope this doesn't sound too silly. Of course you don't have to suggest anything, but it seems that people would probably rather just have a quick strength scene or something, rather than a full story, so this might be the best thing. Let's see what things (if any) people suggest)
Chet's been a hard-working horse lately, and hasn't had much time to play, so I thought I'd ask you all what you'd like to see Chet play with. Keep in mind that his idea of play is having fun with heavy things heh.
*warm nuzzles*
(P.S.: I hope this doesn't sound too silly. Of course you don't have to suggest anything, but it seems that people would probably rather just have a quick strength scene or something, rather than a full story, so this might be the best thing. Let's see what things (if any) people suggest)
Simple Question ...
Posted 8 years ago... What song do you think would make good posing music for a bodybuilding contest?
I would imagine that many of the watchers here are fans of bodybuilding, either in passing or quite seriously. With that in mind, and since I have occasionally thought about what music Chet would use in his contests (as infrequently as they may be), I thought I'd ask you all to get your thoughts.
Yes, I have my favourites which I may share with you, but I am more interested in finding out what other ideas there are. Your suggestions may be specifically for Chet's posing, or for your own character's posing, or for any bodybuilder to use to show off their condition on stage.
If you could possibly post a link to the song so that I can be sure I know which one you're talking about, that would be wonderful.
*warm nuzzles*
I would imagine that many of the watchers here are fans of bodybuilding, either in passing or quite seriously. With that in mind, and since I have occasionally thought about what music Chet would use in his contests (as infrequently as they may be), I thought I'd ask you all to get your thoughts.
Yes, I have my favourites which I may share with you, but I am more interested in finding out what other ideas there are. Your suggestions may be specifically for Chet's posing, or for your own character's posing, or for any bodybuilder to use to show off their condition on stage.
If you could possibly post a link to the song so that I can be sure I know which one you're talking about, that would be wonderful.
*warm nuzzles*
A Poem?
Posted 8 years agoI thought I'd give it a shot. This is for the Hatazz. You know who you are.
So fragile and frigid, frozen
Never able to rise
Over a simple sudden gust of fresh air
Whistling ever softly from above, defeated.
From the clouds they come
Like angelic wishes ... whispered
At the edge of damnation or salvation
Known for being unique, but
E'er branded as forgettable.
So fragile and frigid, frozen
Never able to rise
Over a simple sudden gust of fresh air
Whistling ever softly from above, defeated.
From the clouds they come
Like angelic wishes ... whispered
At the edge of damnation or salvation
Known for being unique, but
E'er branded as forgettable.
Autonomous Cars ...
Posted 8 years agoThe days of the 'self-driving' car are fast approaching.
To be honest, I'm quite taken with the new Audi A4. I love the virtual cockpit display and the functionality. I probably should be railing against it because it could be a huge distraction to driving. I know I'd be susceptible to being distracted by such a cool thing. And I do not text when driving. I also don't talk on the phone. Nevertheless, the technology is fascinating, and I love it, from a purely nerdy standpoint.
I'm geeky about the adaptive cruise control. I love the sign recognition technology. The side monitoring technology and the parking function are cool as well. But then I stop and think about this stuff, and I think, if the car does it all for me, then what am I? Where is the fun? Where is the challenge? Where is the responsibility?
I'm a car nut. I love driving. I love cars. I have only ever owned one automatic transmission vehicle in my entire life, and I've been driving (legally) since I was 16. That's 30 years of driving. I actually started driving my dad's vehicles when I was tall enough to reach the pedals at 7. And he only ever owned standard transmissions too. I love the connection between man and machine. It's not just a vehicle to go from A - to - B for me. Why would I want to have my car do all these things for me? Why am I so taken by the car I described above? Is the nerd in me winning out?
I love the prospect of having the technology. The fact that it's available if the need does arise is why I'm interested. The problem is that there will be people who will use the technology as an excuse. It will be just another way to shirk their own responsibility in driving. Even if your car CAN do things for you, doesn't mean that it is going to be responsible all the time.
Technology has taken way too much priority in people's lives these days. I see so many of my students who can't survive without their smart phones. They can't walk down the hall way without being glued to their phone screens. What has happened? This stuff is seriously an addiction and people have to get back in control of their lives.
*rant ... over?*
To be honest, I'm quite taken with the new Audi A4. I love the virtual cockpit display and the functionality. I probably should be railing against it because it could be a huge distraction to driving. I know I'd be susceptible to being distracted by such a cool thing. And I do not text when driving. I also don't talk on the phone. Nevertheless, the technology is fascinating, and I love it, from a purely nerdy standpoint.
I'm geeky about the adaptive cruise control. I love the sign recognition technology. The side monitoring technology and the parking function are cool as well. But then I stop and think about this stuff, and I think, if the car does it all for me, then what am I? Where is the fun? Where is the challenge? Where is the responsibility?
I'm a car nut. I love driving. I love cars. I have only ever owned one automatic transmission vehicle in my entire life, and I've been driving (legally) since I was 16. That's 30 years of driving. I actually started driving my dad's vehicles when I was tall enough to reach the pedals at 7. And he only ever owned standard transmissions too. I love the connection between man and machine. It's not just a vehicle to go from A - to - B for me. Why would I want to have my car do all these things for me? Why am I so taken by the car I described above? Is the nerd in me winning out?
I love the prospect of having the technology. The fact that it's available if the need does arise is why I'm interested. The problem is that there will be people who will use the technology as an excuse. It will be just another way to shirk their own responsibility in driving. Even if your car CAN do things for you, doesn't mean that it is going to be responsible all the time.
Technology has taken way too much priority in people's lives these days. I see so many of my students who can't survive without their smart phones. They can't walk down the hall way without being glued to their phone screens. What has happened? This stuff is seriously an addiction and people have to get back in control of their lives.
*rant ... over?*
TED Talks ... meet SARCASM
Posted 8 years agoD.I.M.
Posted 8 years agoThat's right campers, rise and shine. It's a gorgeous Monday, so I thought why make a DIM journal. It's kinda like TMI Tuesdays (well, it's exactly like that), but it's on Monday.
Dafuq, It's Monday = DIM
So, having said that, what's on your mind. Y'all can ask RL me or Chet. The challenge is -- try NOT to make him blush. That's hard to do. Give it a shot though.
*nuzzles*
Dafuq, It's Monday = DIM
So, having said that, what's on your mind. Y'all can ask RL me or Chet. The challenge is -- try NOT to make him blush. That's hard to do. Give it a shot though.
*nuzzles*
Ramble ramble
Posted 8 years agoFake News.
Since the primaries, there have been several new popularized phrases that I find really bothersome. Phrases like "triggered snowflake", "libtard" "Repugnican", "cuck" and all those other ones are thrown around all over the place by people who are too lazy to actually have an original thought. That's the sad thing. These people have voices, yet all they do is spout nonsense that they heard someone else say simply for the purpose of getting under someone else's skin. Heaven forbid they actually use an ounce of creative thought to come up with a point of discussion instead of a cheap attempt at insulting someone for their beliefs.
The other term that I hear bandied about constantly is "fake news". It has quickly deteriorated from what could have been a legitimate term to question the reliability or validity of a news story to an automatic dismissal of an entire organization or group of reporters simply because they are thought to be mainstream and thus controlled by the establishment or elite. Wow. That sounds like a great Hollywood movie. Unfortunately, these people make such claims without even a basic understanding of how media works now. It's only by understanding this process that someone can truly understand whether the "mainstream" media is fake news or not.
Let's start with the prevailing assumption that mainstream media is just a tool for the elite, and that they have this insidious agenda to control your minds and make you do their will. What is the "mainstream" media? How does the media become "mainstream"? Mainstream implies that something is widely accepted, correct? With that in mind, therefore, mainstream media would necessarily be "widely accepted media". How does this media become widely accepted? It must appeal to the majority of the audience. Here's where we have to examine the audience. Why does someone choose a particular news source repeatedly? Would I watch something that told me things I don't want to hear? I might watch at first, but over time, I'd probably seek out a different source. If enough people made that same decision, then that media will not be "mainstream" for very long. Their audience will disappear. If you follow this logic through, it becomes fairly hard to imagine that the news source would create story lines that pushed an agenda that THEY actually want to push. If people didn't want to hear those things in the first place, it still won't catch on. Keep in mind, the mainstream is "mainstream" because they appeal to the majority of their viewers. The media isn't pushing their agenda. In fact, their only agenda is to make money. They make money because they attract advertisers. Why would the advertisers choose a news program to advertise their product? Because the news reaches a large audience. The agenda itself is for profit, and the profit is based on how popular the program is. Where is there room to shove an agenda on people? They see that the majority of their audience represents this or that particular demographic. They'll slant their coverage and editorial to that side in order to maintain their audience. They're still not forcing fake stories on people for the purpose of promoting an invisible or evil agenda. Am I arguing that mainstream media doesn't have a bias? Absolutely not. But calling it "fake" and dismissing every piece is not productive at all. The bias is not a hidden agenda pushed on the audience. Rather, it is a result of the audience and the way the news companies perceive what their audience wants to hear. They're merely reflecting the bias that they think their audience already has. Sounds like "good business". Give the customer what they want, and they'll come back again.
A perfect example of this is what happened in the election. The mainstream media gave Trump so much coverage ... free advertising ... so that he was all anyone was talking about. It didn't matter that most of the things he said were utter nonsense, and it was nothing more than a constant barrage of the left-leaning media bashing and making fun of Trump as being a buffoon and having no chance because every time he opened his mouth, he'd stick his foot in there. To the left, they discounted his chances because they themselves didn't understand that he was playing them for fools. They fell for it ... hard. The right just had to point out how stupid the left were for focusing on the insignificant distractions. Of course, that's all there was for anyone to really focus on. Trump said virtually nothing of any substance for the entire election process. No clear strategies. No clear answers. No plans. And the shameful reporters let him get away with his evasion.
This is also a lesson in how easy the media actually is to manipulate and use to your own advantage. They are not even remotely the evil, manipulating, control-hungry power mad dictators that the conspiracy theorists claim they are (speaking about the "mainstream" media specifically). In fact, they are basically witless pawns. They passively survey the news landscape looking for the new lead story or <god forbid that HORRIBLE phrase> "breaking news". Then, like ravenous vultures, whose sole purpose is to compete with all the other news organizations and get the newest scoop before anyone else so they can take credit for "breaking the story" (which somehow is supposed to magically mean that your news is more credible and important than anyone else's), they descend on the story and blow everything out of proportion. Trump was brilliant enough to basically use his fame and celebrity influence, write up a bunch of insane tweets that he knew would make the 24-hour news networks basically devour for three days, until he gave them some new distraction that they'd focus on for the next few days. He kept his name in the news. He was almost always the top and in many cases the only story reported for days and weeks on end. How hard was it to do what he did? Twitter is free. He spent literally nothing. The media ... are pawns. They're not some great devious masterminds who sit in dark rooms plotting the next agenda that they want to foist on the public. Their sole motivation is to be able to claim that they broke every story first, and to make money. That's it.
The real danger in the term "fake news" however IS sinister. Trump and the alt-right have now managed to popularize this term. It's used as a blanket form of complete dismissal of a news organization. I've already shown that these organizations don't have some dastardly agenda. By automatically dismissing a source of information even before you actually listen to and process what it is saying, you are literally shutting down a side of reality from consideration. There has been some damn good reporting from these supposed "fake news" organizations since they wised up after having the egg thrown in their faces in November. They sure needed to wake up from their stupor. But the public also needs to start listening to information they hear. Don't just dismiss something that you've predetermined is garbage. Use some fucking common sense and question things you hear. If it doesn't even pass the stink test, then dig deeper and find out if something is wrong with it.
The media are pawns. If you keep that in mind when viewing mainstream media, maybe you'll be able to start sorting through the garbage, and start understanding what's going on.
Just in case you're wondering, there are of course media outlets with an actual agenda. Most of them will never have a chance of being mainstream though. They only appeal to a small segment of the population. They spread their own propaganda and misinformation to cloud their viewers' minds. They are the ones who purvey "fake" news. Fortunately, they will likely not become even remotely popular. Fox news is one of those that's perhaps an exception. They are the "main" conservative / Republican media dissemination source. They get the talking points from the republican party, and they force the stories to fit into that narrative. It's blatantly obvious most of the time. They are only popular because they are moderate enough most of the time to appear to be more reasonable. But don't fool yourselves, they are still promoting a political agenda. This might be changing now that Roger Ailes is gone. That still remains to be seen. They've definitely been harder on Trump, although I still see that most of their segments seem more disappointed that Trump is not winning, than they are being critical of him. Sean Hannity is just a complete tool. No credibility at all. Well, Trump does seem to believe every word Hannity says ... and that's sad.
Since the primaries, there have been several new popularized phrases that I find really bothersome. Phrases like "triggered snowflake", "libtard" "Repugnican", "cuck" and all those other ones are thrown around all over the place by people who are too lazy to actually have an original thought. That's the sad thing. These people have voices, yet all they do is spout nonsense that they heard someone else say simply for the purpose of getting under someone else's skin. Heaven forbid they actually use an ounce of creative thought to come up with a point of discussion instead of a cheap attempt at insulting someone for their beliefs.
The other term that I hear bandied about constantly is "fake news". It has quickly deteriorated from what could have been a legitimate term to question the reliability or validity of a news story to an automatic dismissal of an entire organization or group of reporters simply because they are thought to be mainstream and thus controlled by the establishment or elite. Wow. That sounds like a great Hollywood movie. Unfortunately, these people make such claims without even a basic understanding of how media works now. It's only by understanding this process that someone can truly understand whether the "mainstream" media is fake news or not.
Let's start with the prevailing assumption that mainstream media is just a tool for the elite, and that they have this insidious agenda to control your minds and make you do their will. What is the "mainstream" media? How does the media become "mainstream"? Mainstream implies that something is widely accepted, correct? With that in mind, therefore, mainstream media would necessarily be "widely accepted media". How does this media become widely accepted? It must appeal to the majority of the audience. Here's where we have to examine the audience. Why does someone choose a particular news source repeatedly? Would I watch something that told me things I don't want to hear? I might watch at first, but over time, I'd probably seek out a different source. If enough people made that same decision, then that media will not be "mainstream" for very long. Their audience will disappear. If you follow this logic through, it becomes fairly hard to imagine that the news source would create story lines that pushed an agenda that THEY actually want to push. If people didn't want to hear those things in the first place, it still won't catch on. Keep in mind, the mainstream is "mainstream" because they appeal to the majority of their viewers. The media isn't pushing their agenda. In fact, their only agenda is to make money. They make money because they attract advertisers. Why would the advertisers choose a news program to advertise their product? Because the news reaches a large audience. The agenda itself is for profit, and the profit is based on how popular the program is. Where is there room to shove an agenda on people? They see that the majority of their audience represents this or that particular demographic. They'll slant their coverage and editorial to that side in order to maintain their audience. They're still not forcing fake stories on people for the purpose of promoting an invisible or evil agenda. Am I arguing that mainstream media doesn't have a bias? Absolutely not. But calling it "fake" and dismissing every piece is not productive at all. The bias is not a hidden agenda pushed on the audience. Rather, it is a result of the audience and the way the news companies perceive what their audience wants to hear. They're merely reflecting the bias that they think their audience already has. Sounds like "good business". Give the customer what they want, and they'll come back again.
A perfect example of this is what happened in the election. The mainstream media gave Trump so much coverage ... free advertising ... so that he was all anyone was talking about. It didn't matter that most of the things he said were utter nonsense, and it was nothing more than a constant barrage of the left-leaning media bashing and making fun of Trump as being a buffoon and having no chance because every time he opened his mouth, he'd stick his foot in there. To the left, they discounted his chances because they themselves didn't understand that he was playing them for fools. They fell for it ... hard. The right just had to point out how stupid the left were for focusing on the insignificant distractions. Of course, that's all there was for anyone to really focus on. Trump said virtually nothing of any substance for the entire election process. No clear strategies. No clear answers. No plans. And the shameful reporters let him get away with his evasion.
This is also a lesson in how easy the media actually is to manipulate and use to your own advantage. They are not even remotely the evil, manipulating, control-hungry power mad dictators that the conspiracy theorists claim they are (speaking about the "mainstream" media specifically). In fact, they are basically witless pawns. They passively survey the news landscape looking for the new lead story or <god forbid that HORRIBLE phrase> "breaking news". Then, like ravenous vultures, whose sole purpose is to compete with all the other news organizations and get the newest scoop before anyone else so they can take credit for "breaking the story" (which somehow is supposed to magically mean that your news is more credible and important than anyone else's), they descend on the story and blow everything out of proportion. Trump was brilliant enough to basically use his fame and celebrity influence, write up a bunch of insane tweets that he knew would make the 24-hour news networks basically devour for three days, until he gave them some new distraction that they'd focus on for the next few days. He kept his name in the news. He was almost always the top and in many cases the only story reported for days and weeks on end. How hard was it to do what he did? Twitter is free. He spent literally nothing. The media ... are pawns. They're not some great devious masterminds who sit in dark rooms plotting the next agenda that they want to foist on the public. Their sole motivation is to be able to claim that they broke every story first, and to make money. That's it.
The real danger in the term "fake news" however IS sinister. Trump and the alt-right have now managed to popularize this term. It's used as a blanket form of complete dismissal of a news organization. I've already shown that these organizations don't have some dastardly agenda. By automatically dismissing a source of information even before you actually listen to and process what it is saying, you are literally shutting down a side of reality from consideration. There has been some damn good reporting from these supposed "fake news" organizations since they wised up after having the egg thrown in their faces in November. They sure needed to wake up from their stupor. But the public also needs to start listening to information they hear. Don't just dismiss something that you've predetermined is garbage. Use some fucking common sense and question things you hear. If it doesn't even pass the stink test, then dig deeper and find out if something is wrong with it.
The media are pawns. If you keep that in mind when viewing mainstream media, maybe you'll be able to start sorting through the garbage, and start understanding what's going on.
Just in case you're wondering, there are of course media outlets with an actual agenda. Most of them will never have a chance of being mainstream though. They only appeal to a small segment of the population. They spread their own propaganda and misinformation to cloud their viewers' minds. They are the ones who purvey "fake" news. Fortunately, they will likely not become even remotely popular. Fox news is one of those that's perhaps an exception. They are the "main" conservative / Republican media dissemination source. They get the talking points from the republican party, and they force the stories to fit into that narrative. It's blatantly obvious most of the time. They are only popular because they are moderate enough most of the time to appear to be more reasonable. But don't fool yourselves, they are still promoting a political agenda. This might be changing now that Roger Ailes is gone. That still remains to be seen. They've definitely been harder on Trump, although I still see that most of their segments seem more disappointed that Trump is not winning, than they are being critical of him. Sean Hannity is just a complete tool. No credibility at all. Well, Trump does seem to believe every word Hannity says ... and that's sad.
Old News
Posted 8 years agoHello folks.
Well, one surprising note to report is that I noticed there are now 400 watchers of my page. I honestly can't believe it. I'm flattered. I'm humbled. I also know that most of you are here to enjoy the occasional commission piece that I acquire, which is fine and dandy. They usually turn out quite spectacularly. I hope you all continue to enjoy the things that are posted here.
Another thing that I just wanted to share is a video from YouTube. This particular clip is really old, and I'm sure many people have seen it before. I can't get enough of it. It's hilarious. It's also quite sad because it is so true. Nevertheless, without any further delay, here you go. Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo
*nuzzles*
Well, one surprising note to report is that I noticed there are now 400 watchers of my page. I honestly can't believe it. I'm flattered. I'm humbled. I also know that most of you are here to enjoy the occasional commission piece that I acquire, which is fine and dandy. They usually turn out quite spectacularly. I hope you all continue to enjoy the things that are posted here.
Another thing that I just wanted to share is a video from YouTube. This particular clip is really old, and I'm sure many people have seen it before. I can't get enough of it. It's hilarious. It's also quite sad because it is so true. Nevertheless, without any further delay, here you go. Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo
*nuzzles*
It's not Tuesday, but who cares
Posted 8 years agoIt's time to open up the Friday floodgates of information overload. Ask away
A little levity perhaps?
Posted 9 years agoHey folks,
I was goofing around on Youtube and I remembered something I stumbled on a while ago. I'm sure that most of the fandom here are familiar with the original video for What Does the Fox Say? Well, I saw a very warped cover version of it.
Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M_adh_qmKw
Fox-ception!
Hot dog hot dog fish sticks
LOL
I was goofing around on Youtube and I remembered something I stumbled on a while ago. I'm sure that most of the fandom here are familiar with the original video for What Does the Fox Say? Well, I saw a very warped cover version of it.
Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M_adh_qmKw
Fox-ception!
Hot dog hot dog fish sticks
LOL
And it begins
Posted 9 years agoA quick survey of some of the recommended videos on my YouTube screen gave me the first glimpse of how things are starting out for the new US leader. For personal reasons, I will not refer to him as the "p" word. I will only call him Trump. I will try to resist the urge to call him names, but rest assured that if someone else uses those idiotic phrases like "Killary", or "libtard", the gloves are off.
So what is it that drew my attention? I avoided listening to the inauguration because quite frankly, I cannot tolerate listening to him for more than 30 seconds. You see, I break out in hives when I'm exposed to that much hot air and BS, so I tend to avoid it when I can. Be that as it may, I wasn't listening to the whole speech. I wasn't paying attention to the coverage either. I really can't watch CNN anymore because they are pretty much chasing their tails and don't have a clue how they can save their journalistic reputations in this "new reality". I don't blame them for not having ideas, but then again, they sure helped to create this new world. Time to suck it up and make it right again. I've got some ideas about that, but it's not quite relevant here.
In fact, what pissed me off is the video I watched of Sean Spicer, the new Press Secretary, coming out and chastising the media blatantly for being mean to Trump. The "press conference" was bullying in the extreme, unprofessional, and a clear reaction from the thin-skinned leader who can't handle when someone says something bad about him. Spicer laid out several specific "lies" that were featured in the coverage of the events of the inauguration. Everything from the comparison photos of the crowd sizes (or lack of), to the ridership of the DC Metro line, to the actually-corrected report about the bust of MLK. The only legitimate error that Spicer mentioned was the report about the bust of MLK, which was actually corrected before Spicer's press conference, so there was no false reporting there. Everything else he laid out was in fact a lie. It clearly shows that Trump gave a direct order for Spicer to go tell the nasty press to leave him alone, while Trump retreated to his happy place to suck his thumb, rock back and forth repeatedly telling himself that he's the greatest of all time ... at everything. Spicer further threatened that they were going to hold the press accountable. Now this shit is getting serious. When an administration starts picking a constant fight with the media and threatens them so directly and unabashedly, the free citizens of that nation should band together as a whole and watch you backs. I can't believe there are people still going batshit nuts supporting this guy for the way he's acting. It's mind-boggling.
What am I missing? I"m watching from the outside, and it looks sincerely terrifying.
So what is it that drew my attention? I avoided listening to the inauguration because quite frankly, I cannot tolerate listening to him for more than 30 seconds. You see, I break out in hives when I'm exposed to that much hot air and BS, so I tend to avoid it when I can. Be that as it may, I wasn't listening to the whole speech. I wasn't paying attention to the coverage either. I really can't watch CNN anymore because they are pretty much chasing their tails and don't have a clue how they can save their journalistic reputations in this "new reality". I don't blame them for not having ideas, but then again, they sure helped to create this new world. Time to suck it up and make it right again. I've got some ideas about that, but it's not quite relevant here.
In fact, what pissed me off is the video I watched of Sean Spicer, the new Press Secretary, coming out and chastising the media blatantly for being mean to Trump. The "press conference" was bullying in the extreme, unprofessional, and a clear reaction from the thin-skinned leader who can't handle when someone says something bad about him. Spicer laid out several specific "lies" that were featured in the coverage of the events of the inauguration. Everything from the comparison photos of the crowd sizes (or lack of), to the ridership of the DC Metro line, to the actually-corrected report about the bust of MLK. The only legitimate error that Spicer mentioned was the report about the bust of MLK, which was actually corrected before Spicer's press conference, so there was no false reporting there. Everything else he laid out was in fact a lie. It clearly shows that Trump gave a direct order for Spicer to go tell the nasty press to leave him alone, while Trump retreated to his happy place to suck his thumb, rock back and forth repeatedly telling himself that he's the greatest of all time ... at everything. Spicer further threatened that they were going to hold the press accountable. Now this shit is getting serious. When an administration starts picking a constant fight with the media and threatens them so directly and unabashedly, the free citizens of that nation should band together as a whole and watch you backs. I can't believe there are people still going batshit nuts supporting this guy for the way he's acting. It's mind-boggling.
What am I missing? I"m watching from the outside, and it looks sincerely terrifying.
@)!^ (2016 in "shift" mode) recap
Posted 9 years agoSo I guess many people would agree that 2016 was an utterly horrible year for many reasons. So many influential and monumental international talents left the world a little sadder. We're all still left here having to listen to Justin Beaver and Drake Drizzle Fo shizzle.
That being said, I want to reflect on perhaps the only positive thing that I experienced this past year. I managed to discover a whole bunch of really cool music out there. Allow me to share the bounty with you so that you may also go and check out the great crop of tunes. If you want some advice on which songs I tend to favour, by all means, ask away.
Dorje
Chase Holfelder
Spock's Beard
Transatlantic
O.S.I. (Office of Strategic Intelligence)
Frost*
The Aristocrats
Riverside
Puscifer
Kaleo
Empty Chair
Porcupine Tree
Gavin Harrison (my new god of drumming!)
the Struts
Black Collar Union
And I'm sure there are plenty of other ones out there. Many of us lament on how music is dying a slow lingering death at the hands of pop music and all that monotonous repetitive crap that clogs the airwaves. However, if you keep an open mind, and follow some of the other fringe elements, you might stumble on some gems and true diamonds in the rough. All of the bands or artists I listed have really captured my interest for a variety of reasons. Porcupine Tree has just completely addicted me for the last several months.
Those were the highlights of my 2016. Otherwise, it was pretty much one of the most forgettable years in my whole life. Thank god for music heh
That being said, I want to reflect on perhaps the only positive thing that I experienced this past year. I managed to discover a whole bunch of really cool music out there. Allow me to share the bounty with you so that you may also go and check out the great crop of tunes. If you want some advice on which songs I tend to favour, by all means, ask away.
Dorje
Chase Holfelder
Spock's Beard
Transatlantic
O.S.I. (Office of Strategic Intelligence)
Frost*
The Aristocrats
Riverside
Puscifer
Kaleo
Empty Chair
Porcupine Tree
Gavin Harrison (my new god of drumming!)
the Struts
Black Collar Union
And I'm sure there are plenty of other ones out there. Many of us lament on how music is dying a slow lingering death at the hands of pop music and all that monotonous repetitive crap that clogs the airwaves. However, if you keep an open mind, and follow some of the other fringe elements, you might stumble on some gems and true diamonds in the rough. All of the bands or artists I listed have really captured my interest for a variety of reasons. Porcupine Tree has just completely addicted me for the last several months.
Those were the highlights of my 2016. Otherwise, it was pretty much one of the most forgettable years in my whole life. Thank god for music heh
